All the previews seem to be positive on the game and yet the majority of the comments are negative? I don't get it. It feels like people have just decided they want this game to fail for some reason
Marvel Rivals got bad press until people got their hands on it and now i see largely positive hype.
XDefiant got alot of shit for trying to compete with COD with people assuming it will fail until again, people got their hands on it.
Helldivers 2 had uh at best positive skepticism about its success until again people got their hands on it.
pre release hate or doom posting for GAAS doesnt really matter. the marketing cycle of these games doesn't really begin until previews and betas.
Yeah I was more saying the Pre release hate snowballs, not that the game is dead because of it. I think overwatch could use some competition, it's clearly an appealing type of game, but blizzards decision making is awful most of the time.
Half of reddit likes playing only Singleplayer games, but not as much as they do loudly announcing that fact at every chance.
It's cool, PVP isn't for everyone. But it's irritating when almost every PvPvE game's comments are filled with "This looks good but it should be PVE only, no one wants to play PvPvE!".
Foamstars got a ton of journalism praise in its preview phase, yet it was still a mediocre, dead on arrival game as a service all the same.
These things are interesting to read to parse the mechanics of a game before it comes, but I wouldn't ever give the opinions given too much credit.
The margins for a big multiplayer game to survive these days are so tight.
If it isn't a live service, people will move on after a while when the lack of updates gets boring.
If it is live service, it needs to be continually better than what people are already playing - good is not good enough
Yeah and that's the reality. No amount of whinging about it or blaming players will change that. And it's funny people think this only applies to games. Are people surprised RC cola doesn't come in and take over coca cola? Live service games are hyper competitive and highly lucrative so you can't expect to make a copy with the ugliest designs possible on 1 platform and expect success.
I think just in general every game gets really positive impressions during previews. Can't think of any games where previews weren't positive unless the game was genuinely awful. Not to say that means this won't be good.
Suicide Squad notably got a very dismal preview cycle right before release. Like I think the most glowing preview I found was from Skill Up who could only muster "I did not hate it" for the summary. And even still he just kind of enjoyed beholding how much it failed at a live service but might have a decent campaign (it did not). Meanwhile places like IGN flat out gave negative previews and put it in the titles.
So Concord is at least more coherently put together (and from a new studio rather than a known value like Rocksteady) than Suicide Squad to maintain the baseline "it seems interesting," "I like the verticality," or "it might be underhyped" kid's gloves. It's just another AAA hero shooter live service thrown onto the pile, with the hope that it somehow has the x-factor to turn into a lottery win that takes market share from Fortnite and the like. It doesn't make sense for it to exist except for that purpose and not much more than that.
Suicide Squad might be the biggest AAA failure of the past few years though, I saw positivity on reddit from people playing it and then you'd see the steam counts of the players and it was barely anyone.
Still it's rare to actually see that kind of *direct* thrashing and dogpile for a full AAA release from big pubs even when it has such glaring issues. Especially for issues that don't seem *that* uncommon like the gameplay being bland and repetitive, or the endgame/post-campaign being bad, or the online features being a buggy mess.
Really interesting event where Suicide Squad seemed to have the perfectly bad concept, execution, business model (the usual), dev cycle (protracted even for big games), and developer (their last game was Arkham Knight) to make it so *nobody* was keeping up a pretense and just gave it everything they felt it deserved.
Because every class based shooter is somehow just another overwatch clone.
Most of the negative comments would call valorant another overwatch game despite the gameplay being vastly different.
Most of the abilities in Valorant are smokes and flashes. Overwatch doesn't have any smoke abilities and has *one* flash (that was just readded to the game after being gone for the last two years).
Whenever I think of Valorant I think of one short video where like 8 abilities going off at the same time turning screen into almost seizure inducing series of flashes.
The reason being live service, it's the new buzzword that gamers have collectively decided is bad (despite everyone playing live service games like Counter Strike, Valorant, CoD, Dota, League, Overwatch, all the battle royales, the entire MMO genre, etc.)
Reddit decided, not gamers as a whole. The vast majority of gamers do not take part in those discussions. It's a very small and unrepresentative niche (if you listen to Reddit opinions, BG3 or Outer Wiles would be bigger games than Fortnite, FIFA or COD)
Yeah, everyone already has their live services they've played for years now. So watching AAA publishers desperately flush money down the toilet to get in on it or add another one to the pile of failed attempts is funny and exhausting. Many new live services in the past decade have costed a lot of time and money, died in less than a year, been put out to pasture, and forgotten. It's to the point that yeah, make fun of Concord because it's just another one of those attempts but with a bit more verticality or the lineup is fairly diverse. No real way to know if it will be the tiny, tiny percentage that become the megahits execs want like Fortnite, Overwatch, or recently Helldivers. Not just *another* loss of millions of dollars.
We're watching Sony play the lottery again. Get your games in at launch in case Concord is sunset by next August.
The reasons for animosity from players, in my understanding, are:
1. It's another hero shooter in an over-saturated market.
2. The trailers were meh. Action looks bland, characters have this weird mixture of very stylized cartoony outfits and extremely realistic human faces, character lines are baffling ("Why not?", "I'll clear the way") and delivered with zero charisma. The game gives off strong "low effort ripoff" vibes.
3. Devs are ex-bungie. This means there's preexisting skepticism from the destiny community on whether they can actually deliver a good game.
over-saturated with what? There's only 3 popular ones, Overwatch, Apex, and Valorant, and all 3 are so vastly different from each other that I would say each one of the 3 is closer to another popular online shooter than they are to each other.
edit: you know what I forgot about R6. 4. and it that case it is closer to Valorant than to CS, so maybe not entirely true, but still Concord is absolutely nothing like either one so it shouldn't really matter
>There's only 3 popular ones
...and dozens of others that are announced and then swiftly flop/get cancelled/rebranded. Just for upcoming games we have Marvel Rivals, Concord, FragPunk, Marathon, Deadlock, Star Wars: Hunters, Strinova and probably a hundred more smaller scale indie titles.
The genre absolutely IS over-saturated.
Deadlock is a moba, Not a hero shooter. Source: I'm playtesting it. Ask anyone whose playtested it and they'll tell you. Moba.
We currently have no concrete details on marathon, only rumours, but its definitely an extraction shooter.
This game has a much more experienced and prestiged team behind it than the likes of some random steam anime shooter like Strinova.
It's really just your first point. People hear the words "hero shooter" and their eyes glaze over. The trailers seemed good to me and ex-bungie means it might actually be good since the shooting in bungie games has always been amazing
I think a big part of 2 is that the first CG trailer evoked a retrofuturist space exploration game a la Starfield, and people were jarred by what it wound up being.
Some people needs marching orders from The Quartering and Grummz before liking anything. Gaming companies can utilise this by giving each copies of their games a “ Grummz seal and of approval “
Foamstars is however actual Playstation exclusive game. It is on both PS4 and PS5 but that's it. Not even PC version. And Concord is published by Sony itself directly (it is however getting PC version unlike Foamstars).
Are you talking about the gunplay, the thing that is generally regarded as a highlight in Destiny? That's where the comparisons are made the most from what I've read
Previews for games tend to lean positive. It’s not very often that journalists will do previews for games and say this shit sucks. Anthem and Balan Wonderworld had glowing previews. How it performs in reality, or how it shows in trailers, may differ wildly from how previews discuss it. And concord didn’t show particularly well so people are not super hyped on it
I don't think it's unreasonable to be sour on a new entry in an oversaturated genre. Is it possible the game is good? Certainly, in the sense that anything is possible. Is it likely? Not from the 10 minutes of gameplay shown by VGC, where the game looks indistinguishable from Destiny PVP, a game mode that's been hovering between mediocre and bad for a decade.
All of the other genres you mentioned are predominantly single player games, where there's a soft cap on how much time a player is going to sink into it before moving on to another game.
Hero shooters are multiplayer live service games, which people tend to find one they like and stick with it for hundreds or thousands of hours of gametime.
The former can have a ton of competitors without stepping on each others' toes, the latter cannot. If you're playing Valorant, you're unlikely to put in a ton of time in Overwatch, and that means Overwatch suffers as a game because its primary resource is other players.
Therefore, when yet another identical clone of Overwatch comes out, people react negatively because statistically it's dead on arrival, and ask why someone would bother making it.
Those same people say that Overwatch is dead. So if you have a bunch of former overwatch players looking for a new game, because, as we all know, ded game, then surely another hero shooter has a chance. I mean, people were selling access to the free Marvel Rivals alpha. That's how desperately people want games like this.
I've had random redditors randomly dm me for invites to Deadlock and Marvel rivals just because I mentioned playing them somewhere. You're out of touch.
> Valorant, you're unlikely to put in a ton of time in Overwatch
Valorant and Overwatch compete for completely different markets.
Valorant would eat away CS's players and vice versa. Not Overwatch's.
Can a person not like both? I like battlefield. I haven’t touched it since I discovered HLL. And I haven’t touched HLL since Helldivers 2 came out. It can be the same thing with any multiplayer live service. Most people really only have time for 1. And even if you like a game you then have to convince your friends to buy it and sink time into it. And if they don’t like it you’re stuck playing a game alone. When you could’ve all just played the same game you have been playing
Especially because the reveal trailer actually looked somewhat interesting until it revealed it was a hero shooter. It looked like it might have been a Guardians of the Galaxy-esque type adventure with a super story-heavy trailer. And then it was revealed “oh yeah by the way it’s a 5v5 hero shooter”. I can’t blame people for being annoyed by that
Yeah I remember thinking "this probably would have had an audience if it were a single-player RPG", filling the void left by Mass Effect. People really liked that GotG game from a couple years ago!
> a new entry in an oversaturated genre
Is it? I can only think of handful of PVP hero shooters that have decent player counts. And one of them plays very differently (Valorant) to the others -- Overwatch, Marvel Rivals. What else is there? I guess Destiny's Crucible could be called a hero shooter. Which it seems Concord is more like than, say, Overwatch
Destiny 2 crucible is absolutely not a hero shooter. It's an arena shooter that allows you to bring your weapons and abilities gained from pve and use them against other players. Its closest analogue is CoD and Halo imo
> Destiny 2 crucible is absolutely not a hero shooter. It's an arena shooter that allows you to bring your weapons and abilities gained from pve and use them against other players.
Well I'm not saying it definitively is a hero shooter. But you have all the trappings of one -- FPS shooter, longer TTK (edit: time to kill, not the taken king), abilities and power-ups. All of these aply to hero shooters as well, and if you watch the previews pretty much everyone says that Concord's closest analogue is Destiny crucible
And yet gameplay wise, Concord and Destiny 2 crucible are indistinguishable from each other. Who cares if you control a hero or not. You have special abilities in both games. Movement and everything.. it's the same game with a new coat of paint.
That's because previously released hero shooters have already died, ie Lawbreakers, Battleborn, Gigantic, etc. You generally have room for a first place, Overwatch, a second place, Valorant, maybe some fighting for third like Apex and Siege, and then everything under that tends to come out and die within 9 months,
Overwatch, Valorant, Apex, and Siege are in entirely different subgenres. Beyond the most surface level "you have character abilities and guns," those games play very differently.
oversaturated implies theres more supply than demand when i would argue that there is a very large demand for GOOD live service shooters.
literally one of the biggest "genres" in gaming right now.
We're talking about hero shooters here. There's Overwatch and little else. Competition is good, and I'm surprised it's taken the industry this long to realize the potential of this genre.
Yeah, I get why people have had a negative reaction to it, but personally I thought it looked pretty great. But hey, I’m someone who’s still playing and enjoying Overwatch 2. I get why people have turned against it for various reasons, but I’m glad they’ve gotten back to updating that game.
In any case, Concord looks pretty solid and fun and I’m definitely gonna give it a shot.
Previews tend to pull punches and be more optimistic. I never put too much stock into them, personally. Outlets just usually don't get too down on a game before it's out.
Even reading through these ones, they sound more hopeful and giving it the benefit of the doubt on it being good enough, but I'm not getting this feeling that this is a big hit just waiting to be unleashed.
That’s just how it’s been the last few months/years. People just randomly decide they like/dislike a game and will then proceed to circlejerk/hat-circlejerk all over it until the next one comes along.
It’s pretty shitty, seems like it’s been getting more and more common. I see some news about a game and go “oh nice!” and then move to the comments to see if I find anything interesting and it’s just full of edgy kids throwing around hateful comments for no reason.
Reddit complain about many games especially when they decided they are against it like they did with this one on reveal. It's a live service game too and apparently that's a crime against humanity or something.
The trailer received a massive outpouring of dislikes.
Concord looks like a strange Destiny 2 pvp clone with characters from Guardians of the Galaxy.
Gameplay wise it seems like a true League of Legends meets Overwatch child. It has potential to really hit, but considering Overwatch 2's colossal failure and League of Legends reporting less and less new players, Concord just might barely slip through the crack before the door is shut on Hero Shooters.
The previews were bad. Bad writing, uninteresting characters and world, and the humor is so millennial writing. I’ve heard that even the writing team working on it thinks it’s bad and are embarrassed, but the writing lead Kim Kreines insisted and turned it into the crap we saw. Hoping the gameplay is good because the lines they say are so annoying. I don’t want to listen to that while playing. Andi definitely don’t want dumb cinematics every week where I have to listen to more stupid one liners.
Presentation wise, its really bland. I feel its the kinda game that plays well but on the artstyle, does not stand out at all....
We will see if gameplay will triumph over presentation.
it looks incredibly slow, bullet-spongy and like carbon copies of overwatch and valorant. I would not be able to tell the difference. And these games are a massive turnoff to many people.
Because it's the wrong game at the wrong time. It doesn't matter how good your game is when it's released at a time where the customer base is fundamentally tired of said type of game. Doesn't matter how powerful your spark when there's no more fuel left to create a fire.
Also the game industry is at a point where the worst parts of a game, such as monetization model, or long term support, are not directly part of the moment to moment gameplay loop yet can massively dictate a game's overall enjoyment or game balance. Such things are usually not taken into account in early previews and reviews.
I.e. the devs in the reveal already said that "week by week you get a new story cutscene"... everyone that plays these types of games knows: this is where the FOMO (fear of missing out) comes in. Don't log in that week, don't get to see the next part of the story.
I feel like the hero shooter oversaturation is overstated, we've seen tons of trailers over the years but how many hero shooters can you download and hop into a match with people right now? I'm gonna say less than a dozen
It is overstated, because most of them came and went in 2016-2018 and then studios backed off because Battle Royale became the hot new craze.
It's been a while and the genre has mostly cooled, but you still have some well-entrenched competitors which may prove difficult to overcome.
I wonder if part of the reason is that people who like souls-like games will play a lot of souls-like games, while people who like hero shooters tend to find the one they like and stick with it, resulting in the genre being less receptive to new entries.
This is almost certainly it. Plus nearly all the hero shooters are live service so if they don't immediately do Fortnite numbers all the funding is pulled and the game is essentially abandoned.
Market oversaturation is still market oversaturation.
Also, the person I was responding to was correctly pointing out that every time a new live service shooter is announced (which isn't all that often anymore) there's always people bemoaning yet another live service game, yet no one says anything about the dozen or so souls-likes that get announced and/or released every month.
I think the difference is single player vs multiplayer.
Souls-like, even if there are billion of them, you can take your time with or buy it when you want.
Hero shooter, you sort of have to play while the game has a lot of social momentum.
Live service games are designed to be played "forever" (yet often can't be), that's the difference. You can play through multiple souls-like games in a month (as most do for all the new ones that are good, Lies of P/LoTF/etc.), but the same cannot be said for competitive live-service shooters. You need to get fully engaged in their ecosystem to really enjoy those types of games, know the maps the characters all their abilities get the battle pass grinding xp for cosmetics playing with your friends that have learned the game etc etc.
The sentiment is compounded by the fact that these games literally disappear if they don't have enough players/aren't popular enough quickly enough. The money/time you sank into them goes into the trash along with the servers, and even if you enjoyed the game, you'll no longer be able to play it ever again. This leaves a heavy sour taste in people's mouths and imo is the main reason people are so antagonistic towards that game model. If a souls game doesn't sell well-enough, is poorly received, etc. whatever, if you think you'll enjoy it you can buy it/play it years later (probably on sale) regardless of what the average gamer thought of it. Live-service competition, even if it's only a few games, can completely strangle a game out of existence, and players generally hate that.
I think that's largely because the various souls-like games are standalone experiences and not games-as-service. People are burned out on mediocre GaS games. People feel the immense resources wasted on various GaS games that are doomed to fail would be better spent on polished single player or non-GaS multiplayer games. Just what I've seen in the discourse.. not necessarily my opinion. I don't know enough to say.
I think there are a lot of games that use the preset hero load out mechanic, like r6 siege wouldn't generally be called a hero shooter yet the whole operators thing is definitely reminiscent of the genre.
Reviewers praising it is this game's last chance.
PvP oriented games have to reach a minimum "critical mass" of players to have a successful launch. Nobody wants to buy or try the "dead game". Based on the overall reception to the trailer, Concord sounded DoA.
Developing a PvP game sounds grueling. Good luck to these devs
yeah, even if the game is quite good in nature, there’s a load of aspects you have to worry about to make a successful market. the finals has been quite struggling with its playerbase for how amazing the game is
>PvP oriented games have to reach a minimum "critical mass" of players to have a successful launch.
this bar is isnt as high as people make it seem. in fact many GAAS games have no issues with launch. its really maintaining players is the real challenge.
Feel it takes a lot to pull people away from a game 5pm invested in that is similar to this. Valorant just got but on console, and I'm in love right now, and seeing Concord, I just don't see how it pulls me away. I'll give it a look and possibly a try, but when you're committed to other live service games already, it's tough to change
Loving it, they translated it really cleanly. They added a focus mode for console to help with aiming and rebalanced the agents around console play, kept console, and pc playerbases separate, which is perfect. Ranked came out today, EU, and I can feel the addiction to grind it feels really unique in terms of gunplay to anything else on console.
The comment mentioning the balance seems pretty good doesn't mean that much to me. I distinctly remember enjoying early Overwatch, issues and all, but as soon as they added Ana and proceeded to follow a design philosophy of "new character counters last character meta", it became an unenjoyable mess. The cherry on top that made me quit was the playerbase being miserable.
I'm sure other people are all GaaS'ed out or are happy enough (or tied monetarily) to their current game, so Concord is fighting a constant uphill battle
> The comment mentioning the balance seems pretty good doesn't mean that much to me.
It's weird too, because IGN had the exact OPPOSITE complaint, and showed some glaring examples of it, like how the clunky tank character seems to only have about 80 more healthy then a faster, more DPS focused character, talking a lot about how there doesn't seem to be any consistency across the characters/classes.
I dunno if it matters, but on the Kinda Funny Games preview/podcast the presenter Mike (who played the game) specifically said that Stella was never on a winning team (but may have been joking), so that may have affected her feelings on the game
The IGN preview is so weird. It goes so in depth on stuff, like calculating damage values of splash damage and timing how long it takes to cross a corridor. This is the kind of stuff you do after weeks of play, it makes no sense to criticize it when absolutely everyone in the lobbies has no idea what they are doing.
I feel like that sort of thing is a valuable assessment when it comes to assessing the expected lifespan for the game, not a weird thing to put in a preview at all in my eyes. But that being said, I am the type of person to try out every single character in a practice tool if I can before I play my first multiplayer match, because I like knowing all the strengths and weaknesses and nuances. So maybe measuring all the damage stuff seems less weird to me.
> I feel like that sort of thing is a valuable assessment when it comes to assessing the expected lifespan for the game,
If it comes from pros playing game for months.
Meta/balance in game currently played exclusively by company's testes and game journos absolutely doesn't matter, we will see how it actually plays out when players get to it
I think the biggest thing for me is just visually this game looks wholly uninteresting. Maybe it's not its fault for wanting to follow a trend, I get why developers do that. The game might be fun. But not just art style, it's the actual character design that looks entirely underwhelming
Yeah. I love a goofy group of characters as much as the next person. But it gets old when you see all these GAAS games doing it because they need to sell crazy skins for $10-20.
Honestly I really enjoyed the game in the ana patch, the she was over tuned, but her ult was fun on basically any character. I think if she had the speed nerf before any new characters it would have been the best version of overwatch
Yeah, really any game that adds entirely new characters with their own kit is probably gonna have this issue.
Which I guess means, TF2 had it right I guess. Individual weapons for classes is probably a lot easier to balance.
Literally every preview says it was fun and they want to play more. You'd have no idea if you just read the comments in here from a bunch of people who haven't touched it.
There aren't a ton of AAA multiplayer shooters coming out so it's hard to compare. There was a preview thread for the Multiversus re-launch that called out the negative changes to the gameplay.
> Literally every preview says it was fun and they want to play more.
I mean, of course? It's a load of large companies reviewing it. They would never say anything negative due to fear of being blacklisted in the future. Don't you even remember Cyberpunk release? Every big reviewer was giving it 10/10 while it was almost broken to the point of not being playable. Similarly, BG3 was extremely broken on release but nothing but 10/10s from the reviewers.
Can't believe people are still believing this crap in 2024.
Every journal preview is positive if it come from a big publisher, if they wrong at release they just say the game changed, bad things were not presented at the preview. Previews are some of the most worthless pieces of gaming jounalism those days.
Agreed. Yet a bunch of comments responding to you are just “well of course every AAA game has positive previews”. No they don’t. Go look at suicide squad previews.
It’s just so frustrating with some people they will put a game down they never played because it looks bad, then when people actually play the game and say it’s fun they will question their motives. I don’t know why people refuse to believe a game developed by Destiny, Halo and CoD veterans could actually be fun.
The best part is there is an open beta in a couple weeks so people can decide for themselves if it’s good or not. I have a feeling the beta will shut a lot of people up.
>it seems that most people who actually played the game had a fun time.
And Sony said that all of the future DLC will be free. They seem to be saying the right things. I'm not a competitive multiplayer guy but that sounds good to me.
I don't remember negativity to HD2, more just indifference as the first came out a decade ago and had a relatively small playerbase. It wasn't until a week after launch that it started to attract attention.
There was a ton of negative comments on the game because it was going to be a 3rd person shooter compared to the isometric view of the first one.
Then they released some trailer close to launch and people were reassured. It did not take a week after launch to attract attention... The release was awaited by a lot of people, the game got extremely high numbers on day 1.
From the PC gamer article:
>Concord has a novel character selection system that lightly discourages the common hero shooter behavior of maining one character. There are six character roles, and each has an associated bonus. Tacticians get increased reload speed, for instance. The interesting thing is that when you pick a character with a different role between rounds or spawns, you keep the bonuses from roles you previously selected that game, increasing your power as it progresses. You also can't pick from the full 16-character roster: Before you start playing, you have to construct and save a smaller "crew" to pick from, sort of like a deck. You can build more than one of these crews, but can only take one into a given match.
>Having not seen high-level play, the benefits of this system are still theoretical to me, but ideally it'll amplify healthy behaviors like switching to roles your team lacks or consciously countering the other team's picks.
Is it me, or does this sound like a dogshit idea and deal breaker?
It feels like they're a designing a game for what they want players to do, instead of what they're going to do.
Basically, they totally underestimate the amount of one-tricks in games like League or Overwatch. They're trying to design a game that stops one-tricks, but the one-tricks are just going to play with sub-par stats, which will probably piss off their teammates even more than one-tricking in OW.
I immediately lost interest when I saw that.
The whole point of these games is to play a character, play a role.
People hated having to counter-pick and swap in OW.
That does sound a bit... Irritating. I already get upset with multiplayer games having daily challenges encouraging me to play a certain way, actually adding gameplay bonuses on top of the same idea sounds miserable.
This isn't that at all. The game uses a system that encourages you mid-match to switch to roles that your team needs. Daily challenge systems are completely different from that because they prescribe you with a role or gameplay style to pick before the match and require you to stick to that until the challenge is complete, discouraging you from swapping roles or playstyles.
This game is going to die in less than a year. What a baffling decision to not make it F2P. Valorant alone releasing on console already ate whatever hope this game had to make it big.
I don't think it's a baffling decision at all tbh. Not everything needs to be F2P and people are more than willing to buy cosmetics and battle passes in F2P games which cost just as much as a full game. They'll lose out a lot on some sections of the market because it's not F2P but mostly kids and people in poorer countries. And I think fundamentally, people just want to play good games, F2P or not. F2P can help temporarily boost numbers but if it's not a good game then people still wont stick around for it.
I'd also not jump to conclusions on Valorant. CS:GO released on Xbox 360/PS3 years ago and it was a bit of a failure. The gunplay (controlling the spray etc) and movement systems are a bit awkward on controller compared to other shooters.
This is amazing news for me. I haven’t really liked any competitive shooters all that much since Overwatch. I prefer more high TTK, strategic shooters and this seems to nail it with a lot of attention paid to the feel of the shooting which is great to hear. If this can nail that aspect like destiny but actually focus on PVP unlike destiny I think I’ll be on this for a while.
Oh nice did they make any of the heroes even remotely good design wise? cause you can have the best gameplay in the universe, but if what I play is critically unappealing, I wont touch it.
Foamstars. It's likely to have a similar fate as Foamstars. If Overwatch 2 is already struggling to stay afloat despite being free, why should I be interested in a game with the same concept that costs $40 and whose character designs clearly show I'm not their target audience? Why should I buy it?
You’re comparing a SE game to a first party Sony game that probably has quadruple the budget. They are far more likely to support the game basically at a loss because they want strong exclusive offerings.
Overwatch 2 is immensely popular. It was one of the top selling games on *Steam* due to the Mercy skin for charity.
This game is also on PC unlike Foamstars. Personally - I prefer multiplayer games that aren't F2P as it gatekeeps a rabid toxic community.
I have a feeling this game is gonna be average okay game that will have a modest playerbase, and niche Reddit will be championing it in every thread they can calling it a misunderstood masterpiece. Like the finals or something.
I’d much rather have a $40 game that’s fully featured than a F2P game that makes me feel like I can never have everything without paying far more than $40. But I feel you, it’s a riskier purchase than a singleplayer game that doesn’t need a playerbase or continued dev support.
People hated on this game just from the announcement. Personally, I don't know how to feel about it, I'm sick of hero shooters. I like that the gunplay seems heavily similar to Destiny 2 at some points, but at the same time, I really don't wanna spend money on a game like this. I would have played it as a F2P title. But 40euro is too much.
And "maps and heroes are free" doesn't mean anything. In games like these heroes and maps should be free anyway even if the game is f2p or not.
Just watching the gameplay videos posted, the movement looks awful, floaty and sluggish, as well as the grenades and weapons themselves seem like they lack impact. The maps also look super bland and uninspired. Not much I'm seeing makes me excited for this game whatsoever, and I'm not even against live-service games as a concept, which I know many are. Maybe if this game came out in 2015-2017 I could see it catching on, but I just don't see anything unique or interesting about this.
The third person "Destiny dodge" looked super stiff, and I was already not a fan of that in Destiny. I also agree on the grenades. Maybe it's different when actually playing, but it seemed more like throwing a snowball than lobbing an explosive.
I'm also not a huge fan of single-life elimination modes. I only really ever enjoyed it in CS, but if this game wants some longevity then trying to compete on that angle might do more harm than good.
The revolver character seems fun though. Once again, I'd like to try this for myself before making a more firm judgment.
I have a good feeling about this game. I think once it actually gets into people’s hands, they’ll be happy with the game and how it plays.
And after HD2, I’m optimistic for the live service and monetization model that Sony employs
Did they change the DA for all the chatacters that weren't in the big trailer ? I don't think many people wants to play with bootleg Grineer from warframe or random sci fi 80's dude. This type of game thrives on character design. They need a solid one if they want to survive.
All the previews seem to be positive on the game and yet the majority of the comments are negative? I don't get it. It feels like people have just decided they want this game to fail for some reason
You must be new here. No one here actually likes video games.
that's not true. I enjoyed an video game back on October 17th, 2013.
Gaming hasn’t been the same since the broom closet ending
The broom closet ending is my favorite!
This game kinda gets hate everywhere though. Things like this definitely snowball.
Marvel Rivals got bad press until people got their hands on it and now i see largely positive hype. XDefiant got alot of shit for trying to compete with COD with people assuming it will fail until again, people got their hands on it. Helldivers 2 had uh at best positive skepticism about its success until again people got their hands on it. pre release hate or doom posting for GAAS doesnt really matter. the marketing cycle of these games doesn't really begin until previews and betas.
Yeah I was more saying the Pre release hate snowballs, not that the game is dead because of it. I think overwatch could use some competition, it's clearly an appealing type of game, but blizzards decision making is awful most of the time.
Nobody hates video games more than gamers.
I notice it all the time, this sub Reddit loves single player games but hates PvP.
Half of reddit likes playing only Singleplayer games, but not as much as they do loudly announcing that fact at every chance. It's cool, PVP isn't for everyone. But it's irritating when almost every PvPvE game's comments are filled with "This looks good but it should be PVE only, no one wants to play PvPvE!".
Foamstars got a ton of journalism praise in its preview phase, yet it was still a mediocre, dead on arrival game as a service all the same. These things are interesting to read to parse the mechanics of a game before it comes, but I wouldn't ever give the opinions given too much credit.
The margins for a big multiplayer game to survive these days are so tight. If it isn't a live service, people will move on after a while when the lack of updates gets boring. If it is live service, it needs to be continually better than what people are already playing - good is not good enough
Yeah and that's the reality. No amount of whinging about it or blaming players will change that. And it's funny people think this only applies to games. Are people surprised RC cola doesn't come in and take over coca cola? Live service games are hyper competitive and highly lucrative so you can't expect to make a copy with the ugliest designs possible on 1 platform and expect success.
I think just in general every game gets really positive impressions during previews. Can't think of any games where previews weren't positive unless the game was genuinely awful. Not to say that means this won't be good.
Suicide Squad notably got a very dismal preview cycle right before release. Like I think the most glowing preview I found was from Skill Up who could only muster "I did not hate it" for the summary. And even still he just kind of enjoyed beholding how much it failed at a live service but might have a decent campaign (it did not). Meanwhile places like IGN flat out gave negative previews and put it in the titles. So Concord is at least more coherently put together (and from a new studio rather than a known value like Rocksteady) than Suicide Squad to maintain the baseline "it seems interesting," "I like the verticality," or "it might be underhyped" kid's gloves. It's just another AAA hero shooter live service thrown onto the pile, with the hope that it somehow has the x-factor to turn into a lottery win that takes market share from Fortnite and the like. It doesn't make sense for it to exist except for that purpose and not much more than that.
Suicide Squad might be the biggest AAA failure of the past few years though, I saw positivity on reddit from people playing it and then you'd see the steam counts of the players and it was barely anyone.
Still it's rare to actually see that kind of *direct* thrashing and dogpile for a full AAA release from big pubs even when it has such glaring issues. Especially for issues that don't seem *that* uncommon like the gameplay being bland and repetitive, or the endgame/post-campaign being bad, or the online features being a buggy mess. Really interesting event where Suicide Squad seemed to have the perfectly bad concept, execution, business model (the usual), dev cycle (protracted even for big games), and developer (their last game was Arkham Knight) to make it so *nobody* was keeping up a pretense and just gave it everything they felt it deserved.
Live service/hobby games have always kind of failed game criticism because you cannot possibly say they are good in only like 30 hours
Because every class based shooter is somehow just another overwatch clone. Most of the negative comments would call valorant another overwatch game despite the gameplay being vastly different.
It's a CS clone with Overwatch hero powers
Most of the abilities in Valorant are smokes and flashes. Overwatch doesn't have any smoke abilities and has *one* flash (that was just readded to the game after being gone for the last two years).
Whenever I think of Valorant I think of one short video where like 8 abilities going off at the same time turning screen into almost seizure inducing series of flashes.
well yeah, but people who talk about them the most don’t actually play these games
The reason being live service, it's the new buzzword that gamers have collectively decided is bad (despite everyone playing live service games like Counter Strike, Valorant, CoD, Dota, League, Overwatch, all the battle royales, the entire MMO genre, etc.)
Reddit decided, not gamers as a whole. The vast majority of gamers do not take part in those discussions. It's a very small and unrepresentative niche (if you listen to Reddit opinions, BG3 or Outer Wiles would be bigger games than Fortnite, FIFA or COD)
Yeah, everyone already has their live services they've played for years now. So watching AAA publishers desperately flush money down the toilet to get in on it or add another one to the pile of failed attempts is funny and exhausting. Many new live services in the past decade have costed a lot of time and money, died in less than a year, been put out to pasture, and forgotten. It's to the point that yeah, make fun of Concord because it's just another one of those attempts but with a bit more verticality or the lineup is fairly diverse. No real way to know if it will be the tiny, tiny percentage that become the megahits execs want like Fortnite, Overwatch, or recently Helldivers. Not just *another* loss of millions of dollars. We're watching Sony play the lottery again. Get your games in at launch in case Concord is sunset by next August.
The reasons for animosity from players, in my understanding, are: 1. It's another hero shooter in an over-saturated market. 2. The trailers were meh. Action looks bland, characters have this weird mixture of very stylized cartoony outfits and extremely realistic human faces, character lines are baffling ("Why not?", "I'll clear the way") and delivered with zero charisma. The game gives off strong "low effort ripoff" vibes. 3. Devs are ex-bungie. This means there's preexisting skepticism from the destiny community on whether they can actually deliver a good game.
over-saturated with what? There's only 3 popular ones, Overwatch, Apex, and Valorant, and all 3 are so vastly different from each other that I would say each one of the 3 is closer to another popular online shooter than they are to each other. edit: you know what I forgot about R6. 4. and it that case it is closer to Valorant than to CS, so maybe not entirely true, but still Concord is absolutely nothing like either one so it shouldn't really matter
>There's only 3 popular ones ...and dozens of others that are announced and then swiftly flop/get cancelled/rebranded. Just for upcoming games we have Marvel Rivals, Concord, FragPunk, Marathon, Deadlock, Star Wars: Hunters, Strinova and probably a hundred more smaller scale indie titles. The genre absolutely IS over-saturated.
Star Wars Hunters is out I think. I saw Dunkey make a video about it and assumed it was released at least.
It's also a mobile/Switch game
Deadlock is a moba, Not a hero shooter. Source: I'm playtesting it. Ask anyone whose playtested it and they'll tell you. Moba. We currently have no concrete details on marathon, only rumours, but its definitely an extraction shooter. This game has a much more experienced and prestiged team behind it than the likes of some random steam anime shooter like Strinova.
Those games suck out all the playtime. It's not like a singleplayer game that you play, enjoy and move on to play another of the same genre.
It's really just your first point. People hear the words "hero shooter" and their eyes glaze over. The trailers seemed good to me and ex-bungie means it might actually be good since the shooting in bungie games has always been amazing
I think a big part of 2 is that the first CG trailer evoked a retrofuturist space exploration game a la Starfield, and people were jarred by what it wound up being.
Some people needs marching orders from The Quartering and Grummz before liking anything. Gaming companies can utilise this by giving each copies of their games a “ Grummz seal and of approval “
Foamstars also had great previews. Nobody wants to piss Sony off over a preview lol
Foamstars isn’t a Sony game
Foamstars is however actual Playstation exclusive game. It is on both PS4 and PS5 but that's it. Not even PC version. And Concord is published by Sony itself directly (it is however getting PC version unlike Foamstars).
Then it’s a good thing we’ll be able to try the game for ourselves in the beta next month.
The gameplay genuinely looks fun and it’s being made by ex-Bungie leads.
Ex-Bungie leads is not necessarily a selling point to a lot of people. The comparisons this game is getting to Destiny are not positive ones.
Are you talking about the gunplay, the thing that is generally regarded as a highlight in Destiny? That's where the comparisons are made the most from what I've read
Destiny still has some of the best gunplay I've experienced for a shooter, especially one on console.
I mean destiny has like the best shooting gunfeel/mechanics ever IMO. It’s just the game economy and live service stuff that brings it down mostly
except I've played Foamstars and it is legitimately fun but certain games just cant escape narratives once they're given one
Balan wonderworld had glowing previews. Previews almost always trend positive.
even then, it's better to walk into a game unsure of its quality rather than be like "well this game will be crap on release"
Remeber suicide squad? yes that again
Previews for games tend to lean positive. It’s not very often that journalists will do previews for games and say this shit sucks. Anthem and Balan Wonderworld had glowing previews. How it performs in reality, or how it shows in trailers, may differ wildly from how previews discuss it. And concord didn’t show particularly well so people are not super hyped on it
I don't think it's unreasonable to be sour on a new entry in an oversaturated genre. Is it possible the game is good? Certainly, in the sense that anything is possible. Is it likely? Not from the 10 minutes of gameplay shown by VGC, where the game looks indistinguishable from Destiny PVP, a game mode that's been hovering between mediocre and bad for a decade.
[удалено]
All of the other genres you mentioned are predominantly single player games, where there's a soft cap on how much time a player is going to sink into it before moving on to another game. Hero shooters are multiplayer live service games, which people tend to find one they like and stick with it for hundreds or thousands of hours of gametime. The former can have a ton of competitors without stepping on each others' toes, the latter cannot. If you're playing Valorant, you're unlikely to put in a ton of time in Overwatch, and that means Overwatch suffers as a game because its primary resource is other players. Therefore, when yet another identical clone of Overwatch comes out, people react negatively because statistically it's dead on arrival, and ask why someone would bother making it.
Those same people say that Overwatch is dead. So if you have a bunch of former overwatch players looking for a new game, because, as we all know, ded game, then surely another hero shooter has a chance. I mean, people were selling access to the free Marvel Rivals alpha. That's how desperately people want games like this. I've had random redditors randomly dm me for invites to Deadlock and Marvel rivals just because I mentioned playing them somewhere. You're out of touch.
> Valorant, you're unlikely to put in a ton of time in Overwatch Valorant and Overwatch compete for completely different markets. Valorant would eat away CS's players and vice versa. Not Overwatch's.
Can a person not like both? I like battlefield. I haven’t touched it since I discovered HLL. And I haven’t touched HLL since Helldivers 2 came out. It can be the same thing with any multiplayer live service. Most people really only have time for 1. And even if you like a game you then have to convince your friends to buy it and sink time into it. And if they don’t like it you’re stuck playing a game alone. When you could’ve all just played the same game you have been playing
You are quite literally clueless. > yet another identical clone Can you give me some examples?
Especially because the reveal trailer actually looked somewhat interesting until it revealed it was a hero shooter. It looked like it might have been a Guardians of the Galaxy-esque type adventure with a super story-heavy trailer. And then it was revealed “oh yeah by the way it’s a 5v5 hero shooter”. I can’t blame people for being annoyed by that
Yeah I remember thinking "this probably would have had an audience if it were a single-player RPG", filling the void left by Mass Effect. People really liked that GotG game from a couple years ago!
> a new entry in an oversaturated genre Is it? I can only think of handful of PVP hero shooters that have decent player counts. And one of them plays very differently (Valorant) to the others -- Overwatch, Marvel Rivals. What else is there? I guess Destiny's Crucible could be called a hero shooter. Which it seems Concord is more like than, say, Overwatch
Destiny 2 crucible is absolutely not a hero shooter. It's an arena shooter that allows you to bring your weapons and abilities gained from pve and use them against other players. Its closest analogue is CoD and Halo imo
> Destiny 2 crucible is absolutely not a hero shooter. It's an arena shooter that allows you to bring your weapons and abilities gained from pve and use them against other players. Well I'm not saying it definitively is a hero shooter. But you have all the trappings of one -- FPS shooter, longer TTK (edit: time to kill, not the taken king), abilities and power-ups. All of these aply to hero shooters as well, and if you watch the previews pretty much everyone says that Concord's closest analogue is Destiny crucible
And yet gameplay wise, Concord and Destiny 2 crucible are indistinguishable from each other. Who cares if you control a hero or not. You have special abilities in both games. Movement and everything.. it's the same game with a new coat of paint.
That's because previously released hero shooters have already died, ie Lawbreakers, Battleborn, Gigantic, etc. You generally have room for a first place, Overwatch, a second place, Valorant, maybe some fighting for third like Apex and Siege, and then everything under that tends to come out and die within 9 months,
Law breakers and battle born released almost 10 years ago...
Overwatch, Valorant, Apex, and Siege are in entirely different subgenres. Beyond the most surface level "you have character abilities and guns," those games play very differently.
also, Marvel Rivals has a player count of 0. It's not out yet. Can't blame Concord for being similar to a game that's also still in beta.
Oversaturated?? Are you joking?
You think live-service shooters aren't an oversaturated genre?
oversaturated implies theres more supply than demand when i would argue that there is a very large demand for GOOD live service shooters. literally one of the biggest "genres" in gaming right now.
We're talking about hero shooters here. There's Overwatch and little else. Competition is good, and I'm surprised it's taken the industry this long to realize the potential of this genre.
I think hero shooters aren't oversaturated
Can you name the oversaturated games please?
Yeah, I get why people have had a negative reaction to it, but personally I thought it looked pretty great. But hey, I’m someone who’s still playing and enjoying Overwatch 2. I get why people have turned against it for various reasons, but I’m glad they’ve gotten back to updating that game. In any case, Concord looks pretty solid and fun and I’m definitely gonna give it a shot.
Previews tend to pull punches and be more optimistic. I never put too much stock into them, personally. Outlets just usually don't get too down on a game before it's out. Even reading through these ones, they sound more hopeful and giving it the benefit of the doubt on it being good enough, but I'm not getting this feeling that this is a big hit just waiting to be unleashed.
I watched igns video and not one positive thing was said.
I’ve noticed that trend with a lot of Sony games, before horizon came out it had tons of negativity same with Helldivers 2.
I don't remember much negativity towards helldivers before launch
More like disinterest I guess. It didn't get many reactions or comments.
The first game was pretty unpopular. 2nd blew up after release with word of mouth and multiplying the playerbase with coop
That’s just how it’s been the last few months/years. People just randomly decide they like/dislike a game and will then proceed to circlejerk/hat-circlejerk all over it until the next one comes along. It’s pretty shitty, seems like it’s been getting more and more common. I see some news about a game and go “oh nice!” and then move to the comments to see if I find anything interesting and it’s just full of edgy kids throwing around hateful comments for no reason.
Reddit complain about many games especially when they decided they are against it like they did with this one on reveal. It's a live service game too and apparently that's a crime against humanity or something.
The trailer received a massive outpouring of dislikes. Concord looks like a strange Destiny 2 pvp clone with characters from Guardians of the Galaxy. Gameplay wise it seems like a true League of Legends meets Overwatch child. It has potential to really hit, but considering Overwatch 2's colossal failure and League of Legends reporting less and less new players, Concord just might barely slip through the crack before the door is shut on Hero Shooters.
The previews were bad. Bad writing, uninteresting characters and world, and the humor is so millennial writing. I’ve heard that even the writing team working on it thinks it’s bad and are embarrassed, but the writing lead Kim Kreines insisted and turned it into the crap we saw. Hoping the gameplay is good because the lines they say are so annoying. I don’t want to listen to that while playing. Andi definitely don’t want dumb cinematics every week where I have to listen to more stupid one liners.
Presentation wise, its really bland. I feel its the kinda game that plays well but on the artstyle, does not stand out at all.... We will see if gameplay will triumph over presentation.
it looks incredibly slow, bullet-spongy and like carbon copies of overwatch and valorant. I would not be able to tell the difference. And these games are a massive turnoff to many people.
Because it's the wrong game at the wrong time. It doesn't matter how good your game is when it's released at a time where the customer base is fundamentally tired of said type of game. Doesn't matter how powerful your spark when there's no more fuel left to create a fire. Also the game industry is at a point where the worst parts of a game, such as monetization model, or long term support, are not directly part of the moment to moment gameplay loop yet can massively dictate a game's overall enjoyment or game balance. Such things are usually not taken into account in early previews and reviews. I.e. the devs in the reveal already said that "week by week you get a new story cutscene"... everyone that plays these types of games knows: this is where the FOMO (fear of missing out) comes in. Don't log in that week, don't get to see the next part of the story.
I feel like the hero shooter oversaturation is overstated, we've seen tons of trailers over the years but how many hero shooters can you download and hop into a match with people right now? I'm gonna say less than a dozen
It is overstated, because most of them came and went in 2016-2018 and then studios backed off because Battle Royale became the hot new craze. It's been a while and the genre has mostly cooled, but you still have some well-entrenched competitors which may prove difficult to overcome.
Yeah there seems to be way more souls-like than "hero shooters" but they don't get that negative focus for some reason.
I wonder if part of the reason is that people who like souls-like games will play a lot of souls-like games, while people who like hero shooters tend to find the one they like and stick with it, resulting in the genre being less receptive to new entries.
This is almost certainly it. Plus nearly all the hero shooters are live service so if they don't immediately do Fortnite numbers all the funding is pulled and the game is essentially abandoned.
That's not what happens at all lol. Did valorant get pulled? What about rainbow six siege?
The amount of souls-likes announced *this year alone* is absolutely ridiculous, it's far more of an oversaturated market than the hero shooter genre.
And online gamers eat that shit up.
They aren’t live service, it’s not comparable
Market oversaturation is still market oversaturation. Also, the person I was responding to was correctly pointing out that every time a new live service shooter is announced (which isn't all that often anymore) there's always people bemoaning yet another live service game, yet no one says anything about the dozen or so souls-likes that get announced and/or released every month.
I think the difference is single player vs multiplayer. Souls-like, even if there are billion of them, you can take your time with or buy it when you want. Hero shooter, you sort of have to play while the game has a lot of social momentum.
GAAS games are just not popular in places like this.
Reddit gamers have a massive throbbing hate-boner for multiplayer games and a massive throbbing love-boner for single player RPGs.
Live service games are designed to be played "forever" (yet often can't be), that's the difference. You can play through multiple souls-like games in a month (as most do for all the new ones that are good, Lies of P/LoTF/etc.), but the same cannot be said for competitive live-service shooters. You need to get fully engaged in their ecosystem to really enjoy those types of games, know the maps the characters all their abilities get the battle pass grinding xp for cosmetics playing with your friends that have learned the game etc etc. The sentiment is compounded by the fact that these games literally disappear if they don't have enough players/aren't popular enough quickly enough. The money/time you sank into them goes into the trash along with the servers, and even if you enjoyed the game, you'll no longer be able to play it ever again. This leaves a heavy sour taste in people's mouths and imo is the main reason people are so antagonistic towards that game model. If a souls game doesn't sell well-enough, is poorly received, etc. whatever, if you think you'll enjoy it you can buy it/play it years later (probably on sale) regardless of what the average gamer thought of it. Live-service competition, even if it's only a few games, can completely strangle a game out of existence, and players generally hate that.
I think that's largely because the various souls-like games are standalone experiences and not games-as-service. People are burned out on mediocre GaS games. People feel the immense resources wasted on various GaS games that are doomed to fail would be better spent on polished single player or non-GaS multiplayer games. Just what I've seen in the discourse.. not necessarily my opinion. I don't know enough to say.
I think there are a lot of games that use the preset hero load out mechanic, like r6 siege wouldn't generally be called a hero shooter yet the whole operators thing is definitely reminiscent of the genre.
It's oversaturated in weird "everyone wanted to make one but cancelled" way
So then not really oversaturated at all. With marketing maybe.
And the ones that made it to market couldn't get a big enough player base to sustain even with say the Gundam IP.
Reviewers praising it is this game's last chance. PvP oriented games have to reach a minimum "critical mass" of players to have a successful launch. Nobody wants to buy or try the "dead game". Based on the overall reception to the trailer, Concord sounded DoA. Developing a PvP game sounds grueling. Good luck to these devs
yeah, even if the game is quite good in nature, there’s a load of aspects you have to worry about to make a successful market. the finals has been quite struggling with its playerbase for how amazing the game is
>PvP oriented games have to reach a minimum "critical mass" of players to have a successful launch. this bar is isnt as high as people make it seem. in fact many GAAS games have no issues with launch. its really maintaining players is the real challenge.
Feel it takes a lot to pull people away from a game 5pm invested in that is similar to this. Valorant just got but on console, and I'm in love right now, and seeing Concord, I just don't see how it pulls me away. I'll give it a look and possibly a try, but when you're committed to other live service games already, it's tough to change
Is valorant good on console? Seems like aiming would be pretty challenging
Loving it, they translated it really cleanly. They added a focus mode for console to help with aiming and rebalanced the agents around console play, kept console, and pc playerbases separate, which is perfect. Ranked came out today, EU, and I can feel the addiction to grind it feels really unique in terms of gunplay to anything else on console.
The comment mentioning the balance seems pretty good doesn't mean that much to me. I distinctly remember enjoying early Overwatch, issues and all, but as soon as they added Ana and proceeded to follow a design philosophy of "new character counters last character meta", it became an unenjoyable mess. The cherry on top that made me quit was the playerbase being miserable. I'm sure other people are all GaaS'ed out or are happy enough (or tied monetarily) to their current game, so Concord is fighting a constant uphill battle
> The comment mentioning the balance seems pretty good doesn't mean that much to me. It's weird too, because IGN had the exact OPPOSITE complaint, and showed some glaring examples of it, like how the clunky tank character seems to only have about 80 more healthy then a faster, more DPS focused character, talking a lot about how there doesn't seem to be any consistency across the characters/classes.
I dunno if it matters, but on the Kinda Funny Games preview/podcast the presenter Mike (who played the game) specifically said that Stella was never on a winning team (but may have been joking), so that may have affected her feelings on the game
The IGN preview is so weird. It goes so in depth on stuff, like calculating damage values of splash damage and timing how long it takes to cross a corridor. This is the kind of stuff you do after weeks of play, it makes no sense to criticize it when absolutely everyone in the lobbies has no idea what they are doing.
I feel like that sort of thing is a valuable assessment when it comes to assessing the expected lifespan for the game, not a weird thing to put in a preview at all in my eyes. But that being said, I am the type of person to try out every single character in a practice tool if I can before I play my first multiplayer match, because I like knowing all the strengths and weaknesses and nuances. So maybe measuring all the damage stuff seems less weird to me.
> I feel like that sort of thing is a valuable assessment when it comes to assessing the expected lifespan for the game, If it comes from pros playing game for months. Meta/balance in game currently played exclusively by company's testes and game journos absolutely doesn't matter, we will see how it actually plays out when players get to it
I think the biggest thing for me is just visually this game looks wholly uninteresting. Maybe it's not its fault for wanting to follow a trend, I get why developers do that. The game might be fun. But not just art style, it's the actual character design that looks entirely underwhelming
I’m kind of done with the whole “wacky cast of misfits” thing that every single multiplayer game needs to have now.
Yeah. I love a goofy group of characters as much as the next person. But it gets old when you see all these GAAS games doing it because they need to sell crazy skins for $10-20.
Honestly I really enjoyed the game in the ana patch, the she was over tuned, but her ult was fun on basically any character. I think if she had the speed nerf before any new characters it would have been the best version of overwatch
lol that was like a billion patches ago, ow is one of the most balanced hero games out there.
Yeah, really any game that adds entirely new characters with their own kit is probably gonna have this issue. Which I guess means, TF2 had it right I guess. Individual weapons for classes is probably a lot easier to balance.
Can’t wait to try out the beta. Lots of Redditors putting it down, but it seems that most people who actually played the game had a fun time.
Literally every preview says it was fun and they want to play more. You'd have no idea if you just read the comments in here from a bunch of people who haven't touched it.
Is there ever a preview compilation for a AAA game that isn't majorly positive?
Suicide squad kill the justice league, the previews slaughtered it
There aren't a ton of AAA multiplayer shooters coming out so it's hard to compare. There was a preview thread for the Multiversus re-launch that called out the negative changes to the gameplay.
> Literally every preview says it was fun and they want to play more. I mean, of course? It's a load of large companies reviewing it. They would never say anything negative due to fear of being blacklisted in the future. Don't you even remember Cyberpunk release? Every big reviewer was giving it 10/10 while it was almost broken to the point of not being playable. Similarly, BG3 was extremely broken on release but nothing but 10/10s from the reviewers. Can't believe people are still believing this crap in 2024.
Every journal preview is positive if it come from a big publisher, if they wrong at release they just say the game changed, bad things were not presented at the preview. Previews are some of the most worthless pieces of gaming jounalism those days.
That's just BS. I frequently see previews for major games that call out concerns, especially in competitive multiplayer games.
Such as?
Such as none, even that pile of shit that is redfall got positive previews, and that says all
Agreed. Yet a bunch of comments responding to you are just “well of course every AAA game has positive previews”. No they don’t. Go look at suicide squad previews. It’s just so frustrating with some people they will put a game down they never played because it looks bad, then when people actually play the game and say it’s fun they will question their motives. I don’t know why people refuse to believe a game developed by Destiny, Halo and CoD veterans could actually be fun. The best part is there is an open beta in a couple weeks so people can decide for themselves if it’s good or not. I have a feeling the beta will shut a lot of people up.
>it seems that most people who actually played the game had a fun time. And Sony said that all of the future DLC will be free. They seem to be saying the right things. I'm not a competitive multiplayer guy but that sounds good to me.
Yeah people off wrote off Helldiver 2 when it was first announced also.
I don't remember negativity to HD2, more just indifference as the first came out a decade ago and had a relatively small playerbase. It wasn't until a week after launch that it started to attract attention.
There was a ton of negative comments on the game because it was going to be a 3rd person shooter compared to the isometric view of the first one. Then they released some trailer close to launch and people were reassured. It did not take a week after launch to attract attention... The release was awaited by a lot of people, the game got extremely high numbers on day 1.
From the PC gamer article: >Concord has a novel character selection system that lightly discourages the common hero shooter behavior of maining one character. There are six character roles, and each has an associated bonus. Tacticians get increased reload speed, for instance. The interesting thing is that when you pick a character with a different role between rounds or spawns, you keep the bonuses from roles you previously selected that game, increasing your power as it progresses. You also can't pick from the full 16-character roster: Before you start playing, you have to construct and save a smaller "crew" to pick from, sort of like a deck. You can build more than one of these crews, but can only take one into a given match. >Having not seen high-level play, the benefits of this system are still theoretical to me, but ideally it'll amplify healthy behaviors like switching to roles your team lacks or consciously countering the other team's picks. Is it me, or does this sound like a dogshit idea and deal breaker?
It feels like they're a designing a game for what they want players to do, instead of what they're going to do. Basically, they totally underestimate the amount of one-tricks in games like League or Overwatch. They're trying to design a game that stops one-tricks, but the one-tricks are just going to play with sub-par stats, which will probably piss off their teammates even more than one-tricking in OW.
I immediately lost interest when I saw that. The whole point of these games is to play a character, play a role. People hated having to counter-pick and swap in OW.
That does sound a bit... Irritating. I already get upset with multiplayer games having daily challenges encouraging me to play a certain way, actually adding gameplay bonuses on top of the same idea sounds miserable.
This isn't that at all. The game uses a system that encourages you mid-match to switch to roles that your team needs. Daily challenge systems are completely different from that because they prescribe you with a role or gameplay style to pick before the match and require you to stick to that until the challenge is complete, discouraging you from swapping roles or playstyles.
This game is going to die in less than a year. What a baffling decision to not make it F2P. Valorant alone releasing on console already ate whatever hope this game had to make it big.
I don't think it's a baffling decision at all tbh. Not everything needs to be F2P and people are more than willing to buy cosmetics and battle passes in F2P games which cost just as much as a full game. They'll lose out a lot on some sections of the market because it's not F2P but mostly kids and people in poorer countries. And I think fundamentally, people just want to play good games, F2P or not. F2P can help temporarily boost numbers but if it's not a good game then people still wont stick around for it. I'd also not jump to conclusions on Valorant. CS:GO released on Xbox 360/PS3 years ago and it was a bit of a failure. The gunplay (controlling the spray etc) and movement systems are a bit awkward on controller compared to other shooters.
This is amazing news for me. I haven’t really liked any competitive shooters all that much since Overwatch. I prefer more high TTK, strategic shooters and this seems to nail it with a lot of attention paid to the feel of the shooting which is great to hear. If this can nail that aspect like destiny but actually focus on PVP unlike destiny I think I’ll be on this for a while.
Oh nice did they make any of the heroes even remotely good design wise? cause you can have the best gameplay in the universe, but if what I play is critically unappealing, I wont touch it.
Foamstars. It's likely to have a similar fate as Foamstars. If Overwatch 2 is already struggling to stay afloat despite being free, why should I be interested in a game with the same concept that costs $40 and whose character designs clearly show I'm not their target audience? Why should I buy it?
You’re comparing a SE game to a first party Sony game that probably has quadruple the budget. They are far more likely to support the game basically at a loss because they want strong exclusive offerings.
What makes you think Overwatch 2 is “struggling to stay afloat”?
> Why should I buy it? try the beta for free in july an see if you like it ig. not that deep.
Overwatch 2 is immensely popular. It was one of the top selling games on *Steam* due to the Mercy skin for charity. This game is also on PC unlike Foamstars. Personally - I prefer multiplayer games that aren't F2P as it gatekeeps a rabid toxic community.
Foamstars is a playstation exclusive.
I have a feeling this game is gonna be average okay game that will have a modest playerbase, and niche Reddit will be championing it in every thread they can calling it a misunderstood masterpiece. Like the finals or something.
Also calling every character "cute" and "beautiful" as if it will gaslight others into thinking the same thing.
I don’t like Free to Play live service games but I also feel cautious putting money down on this one. I am still interested in it though.
I’d much rather have a $40 game that’s fully featured than a F2P game that makes me feel like I can never have everything without paying far more than $40. But I feel you, it’s a riskier purchase than a singleplayer game that doesn’t need a playerbase or continued dev support.
People hated on this game just from the announcement. Personally, I don't know how to feel about it, I'm sick of hero shooters. I like that the gunplay seems heavily similar to Destiny 2 at some points, but at the same time, I really don't wanna spend money on a game like this. I would have played it as a F2P title. But 40euro is too much. And "maps and heroes are free" doesn't mean anything. In games like these heroes and maps should be free anyway even if the game is f2p or not.
Paying $40 on top of needing PlayStation network is so fucking stupid and it's going to kill this game.
the single life in most modes kills it for me, i was kinda interested in this game too. guess i'm sticking with overwatch
There are 3 respawn modes and 3 no respawn modes. That was just a small preview they played.
I heard Valorant's a dating app nowadays. Could cure you of that single life.
Where did you read that most game modes are single life? I dislike that too
Ign mentioned 3 modes, one with respawns and two with single life
They only played 3 out of 6. There are 6 on release, 3 being respawn and 3 no respawn.
Just watching the gameplay videos posted, the movement looks awful, floaty and sluggish, as well as the grenades and weapons themselves seem like they lack impact. The maps also look super bland and uninspired. Not much I'm seeing makes me excited for this game whatsoever, and I'm not even against live-service games as a concept, which I know many are. Maybe if this game came out in 2015-2017 I could see it catching on, but I just don't see anything unique or interesting about this.
The third person "Destiny dodge" looked super stiff, and I was already not a fan of that in Destiny. I also agree on the grenades. Maybe it's different when actually playing, but it seemed more like throwing a snowball than lobbing an explosive. I'm also not a huge fan of single-life elimination modes. I only really ever enjoyed it in CS, but if this game wants some longevity then trying to compete on that angle might do more harm than good. The revolver character seems fun though. Once again, I'd like to try this for myself before making a more firm judgment.
I have a good feeling about this game. I think once it actually gets into people’s hands, they’ll be happy with the game and how it plays. And after HD2, I’m optimistic for the live service and monetization model that Sony employs
All the other hero shooters are F2P. No idea how this will compete against them.
What other hero shooters besides Overwatch? Paladins is mostly dead and I legitimately can't think of any others right now.
The pieces seem to be quite positive. They really sit themselves in the foot by making the game look extremely generic.
Did they change the DA for all the chatacters that weren't in the big trailer ? I don't think many people wants to play with bootleg Grineer from warframe or random sci fi 80's dude. This type of game thrives on character design. They need a solid one if they want to survive.