As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Welcome to the [Marvel's The Avengers] Thread, hope you survive the experience!

1565759616264

Posts

  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Yeah, the game is way past dead. Even if Wakanda is amazing and is the single greatest piece of DLC ever created by man, it won't save the game. People have moved on. And Wakanda will not solve the other underlying problems of the game, that being that the day-to-day game loop is exceptionally boring and grindy, loot feels unrewarding and dull, and characters are bad for the first 25 levels, and really only get interesting once you fill in most or all of their talent trees.

    The entire game needs a rework from the ground up. A new campaign with a few new enemy types is basically the metaphorical equivalent of putting a bandaid on a corpse.

    urahonkyVoodooV
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    I played the free trial a week back. My takeaway was: It's interesting, but not so interesting I was going to shotgun the campaign in a weekend. Were it a PS+ game and "free", I'd keep playing. But no interest in spending $20+ for that privilege.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
    taoofshinsei
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    If so, they should spitefully deliver Spider-Man last.

  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    I have a feeling that

    A) They know they can never live up to anything even remotely close to Insomniac's Spider-Man, and anything they release will be an extreme disappointment, so they're dragging their feet on releasing it because everybody is destined to be indifferent to it in a best-case scenario, or outright hate it in a worst-case scenario. Why release something they know is gonna bomb hard?

    B) They know the game is bad and releasing exclusive content to PS4/5 will only serve as bad press and drive away their few remaining loyal customers on Steam and XBox. Releasing Spider-Man could potentially outright drive two platforms to a concurrent user number approaching 0.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    take the bag of money and put it on gamepass already

    not that it matters to me, i played for an hour or two free on steam and was grousing that i had to play as millicent manhands and couldn't play No Name still-a-dick Tony Stark

    urahonky
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Sorry, what I meant was as a vision for the game and potential sequel. The game, Marvel's Avengers, is dead. But I think this expansion is being worked by Crystal Dynamics as a show of "this is what we wanted to make." And if it does well, I think it's positive for a sequel going forward. If it still does poorly, I think the potential franchise is dead.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    edited August 2021
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Sorry, what I meant was as a vision for the game and potential sequel. The game, Marvel's Avengers, is dead. But I think this expansion is being worked by Crystal Dynamics as a show of "this is what we wanted to make." And if it does well, I think it's positive for a sequel going forward. If it still does poorly, I think the potential franchise is dead.

    Sadly, no.

    https://screenrant.com/avengers-game-sales-no-profit-60-million-loss-square-enix/
    Screenrant wrote:
    According to Square Enix, Marvel's Avengers has still failed to make a profit since it launched earlier this year. In a detailed financial report, the company revealed that the game not made enough revenue to pay for the development costs incurred during the title's production. In total, Marvel's Avengers is currently operating at a $67 million loss. Square Enix president Yosuke Matsude told investors that "sales of Marvel’s Avengers were lower than we had expected and unable to completely offset the amortization of the game’s development costs." The report indicates that this loss is partly a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing Square Enix to spend more money on marketing after delaying the release of the title due to resulting development complications.
    Granted, that was in November, but that's a huge loss....it's dead. Buyer beware.

    Bizazedo on
    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    COVID would have been a gigantic boon to their sales if they had made a game worth playing. Reference: all the games that made bank during this same period.

    Local H JayurahonkyBurnageThegreatcowPreacherMagellJoolanderDizzenButtersBobble
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Sorry, what I meant was as a vision for the game and potential sequel. The game, Marvel's Avengers, is dead. But I think this expansion is being worked by Crystal Dynamics as a show of "this is what we wanted to make." And if it does well, I think it's positive for a sequel going forward. If it still does poorly, I think the potential franchise is dead.

    Sadly, no.

    https://screenrant.com/avengers-game-sales-no-profit-60-million-loss-square-enix/
    Screenrant wrote:
    According to Square Enix, Marvel's Avengers has still failed to make a profit since it launched earlier this year. In a detailed financial report, the company revealed that the game not made enough revenue to pay for the development costs incurred during the title's production. In total, Marvel's Avengers is currently operating at a $67 million loss. Square Enix president Yosuke Matsude told investors that "sales of Marvel’s Avengers were lower than we had expected and unable to completely offset the amortization of the game’s development costs." The report indicates that this loss is partly a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing Square Enix to spend more money on marketing after delaying the release of the title due to resulting development complications.
    Granted, that was in November, but that's a huge loss....it's dead. Buyer beware.

    I'd agree with you if it wasn't The Avengers, the biggest franchise in the world right now. Square would be stupid to let that die.

    .....Ah shit, they're gonna let that die.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    The weird idea that they would try to keep this thing on life support just because the MCU is such a big deal has always been absolutely delusional

    Square Enix isn't going to dump big bags of money into a burning trashcan unless it's for Final Fantasy

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    FencingsaxshoeboxjeddyEtiowsaDark Raven X
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    To be clear, I don't think they're going to keep this game alive. But I do think it would be very stupid for them to just give up on the franchise instead of letting Crystal Dynamics make an actual normal single player game like people actually want.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    don't forget, they're making the super good looking guardians game next

    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    I think it's obvious to everyone that a single player action game would have worked better over a live service grindfest for worthless loot you can't even see on your character

    They made a huge fucking stink before the game launched about how all the content was free, just paid skins... Lmao that alone set the game down a bad path. It was never as fun or engaging as a Fortnite or Apex, the kind of game people dump open their wallets for skins.

    In a perfect world, they'd get that "Avengers 2.0" chance to reboot the game and change everything, something Destiny has done multiple times. Hitting the reset button and doing a fundamental overhaul could have saved the game, if anyone behind the wheel actually cared to try. It doesn't appear they are trying so they'll do what's obligated of them and tossing the game into the ocean

    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
    urahonkyProhassshoeboxjeddy
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    don't forget, they're making the super good looking guardians game next

    Oof that looks bad

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    HardtargetPreacherGenji-Gloves
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    edited August 2021
    That beta/demo whatever they did for Avengers probably didn't do the game any favors in terms of sales, honestly

    I mean I'm not exactly advocating for dropping a turd sight unseen and hoping people buy it before word of mouth gets around, but it probably would have been better for them

    Maddoc on
    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
  • urahonkyurahonky Dayton, OHRegistered User regular
    I think the game would have been way more fun if it weren't realistic looking. Go with something akin to Marvel Ultimate Alliance. That way the characters themselves wouldn't be so jarring to look at.

    SyphonBlueFencingsax
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    I think the game would have been way more fun if it weren't realistic looking. Go with something akin to Marvel Ultimate Alliance. That way the characters themselves wouldn't be so jarring to look at.

    Definitely anything would have been better than Generic MCU ripoffs. They also got an absolute incredible voice cast and did diddly squat with them

    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
    FencingsaxurahonkyBobble
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    don't forget, they're making the super good looking guardians game next

    *They* being Crystal Dynamics are not. *They* being the publishers Square Enix are. Big difference. The team who are making the Guardians game are Eidos-Montreal. They're the team responsible for Deus Ex and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

    We actually do not know what Crystal Dynamics are working on right now. The whole team is definitely not working on Wakanda or the upkeep of the live service aspect of the game.

  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited August 2021
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    don't forget, they're making the super good looking guardians game next

    *They* being Crystal Dynamics are not. *They* being the publishers Square Enix are. Big difference. The team who are making the Guardians game are Eidos-Montreal. They're the team responsible for Deus Ex and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

    We actually do not know what Crystal Dynamics are working on right now. The whole team is definitely not working on Wakanda or the upkeep of the live service aspect of the game.

    there's no different in this context, we are talking about contracts etc with Squeenix and Marvel

    also remember Eidos-Montreal and Crystal D are wholly owned Squeenix studios, they make what they are told to.

    Hardtarget on
    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    I think the game would have been way more fun if it weren't realistic looking. Go with something akin to Marvel Ultimate Alliance. That way the characters themselves wouldn't be so jarring to look at.

    I don't love the look, but that's pretty far down on the list of problems with the game.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    MaddocBobble
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    I think the game would have been way more fun if it weren't realistic looking. Go with something akin to Marvel Ultimate Alliance. That way the characters themselves wouldn't be so jarring to look at.

    I don't love the look, but that's pretty far down on the list of problems with the game.

    I think it contributes to overall vibe of the game being just bland, it was some of the first reactions in this very thread was about how generic the characters looked.

    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
    Fencingsaxurahonky
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    I thought the characters looked bad because the hair was really stiff and did not look like 2020 video game hair. It looked like PS3 era video game hair. The way they look in terms of character design honestly doesn't bother me. Comic book characters have been drawn and interpreted in hundreds of different ways anyway. Depending on the artist on any given book, they can vary wildly in their appearance. So that doesn't bug me too much. I was always more turned off by the graphics quality, rather than the designs themselves.

  • BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    don't forget, they're making the super good looking guardians game next

    *They* being Crystal Dynamics are not. *They* being the publishers Square Enix are. Big difference. The team who are making the Guardians game are Eidos-Montreal. They're the team responsible for Deus Ex and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

    We actually do not know what Crystal Dynamics are working on right now. The whole team is definitely not working on Wakanda or the upkeep of the live service aspect of the game.

    For the last fifteen years Crystal Dynamics have exclusively released Tomb Raider games and this. After Avengers flopped so badly I don't think it's a particularly risky bet to make about what they might have returned to working on.

  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    edited August 2021
    If Marvel's Avengers had just been a single player game not named AVENGERS, it probably would've been great. I am not a fan of Ms. Marvel (I hate stretchy characters, I hate that powerset), but I actually didn't mind her here. They did a good job going to bat for her.

    ....but she's not really who comes to mind when I think AVENGERS.

    Conspiracy Biz wonders if Marvel demanded she be front and center, much like how they demanded certain characters in Capcom's MVC3 which turned out to be hints / preludes to upcoming movies.

    Bizazedo on
    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    She's pretty much the highlight of the game for most folks so, that's likely why she was so prominent. Give it a couple years and Ms Marvel will be heavily associated with Avengers stuff for the general public.

    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
    Dark Raven XFencingsaxShadowfireMagellBobblevegeta_666
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    She's pretty much the highlight of the game for most folks so, that's likely why she was so prominent. Give it a couple years and Ms Marvel will be heavily associated with Avengers stuff for the general public.

    Possibly. I'm pretty sure that's what Marvel itself is pushing for, anyways. What I'm saying, though, is that as you go through the single player game (which isn't bad, it's pretty good), Ms. Marvel is most definitely the focus and the highlight as you said...not the Avengers. The single player is also the best part of the game which makes it feel that the game didn't originally start as a GaaS.

    It just feels like a disjointed game overall.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    Burnage wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    don't forget, they're making the super good looking guardians game next

    *They* being Crystal Dynamics are not. *They* being the publishers Square Enix are. Big difference. The team who are making the Guardians game are Eidos-Montreal. They're the team responsible for Deus Ex and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

    We actually do not know what Crystal Dynamics are working on right now. The whole team is definitely not working on Wakanda or the upkeep of the live service aspect of the game.

    For the last fifteen years Crystal Dynamics have exclusively released Tomb Raider games and this. After Avengers flopped so badly I don't think it's a particularly risky bet to make about what they might have returned to working on.

    With Shadow underperforming (yes I know not their work, still the same franchise) I wouldn't take that bet.

    Unless they think they can reboot the reboot.

    Wait, didn't that work for Doom?

  • KyanilisKyanilis Registered User regular
    edited August 2021
    I mean the game is about to release its largest piece of content since launch and going into it it's also currently in the best state its been both gameplay-wise and playerbase since shortly after launch. We also don't really know how it's doing financially right now. We have the report that showed initial sales weren't what they hoped for which resulted in their games division losing money. Reports since show that they're back to operating like normal and seeing increases, heck their 2021 Q4 (through March of this year) had record operating income for them, so it's possible it's not bleeding money. There's no way it's making them a ton of money, but the point is we don't really know where SE draws a line, maybe they're content with keeping the license if it's at least very slowly recouping costs and not a continual cash sink.

    There's still a ton of problems, which they're working on, but nothing about what they've been doing hints that it's in some sort of maintenance mode, which is usually what you'd expect from a failing game. Half the speculation here is based on "Well I didn't like it" which is completely oblivious to the fact that there's thousands of people playing this game right now, this very moment.

    Maybe the game won't survive past Wakanda, there's definitely a chance of that too, I certainly wouldn't bet against that especially if Wakanda fails to attract enough attention. "Enough" of course is defined by SE but I'm skeptical it'll hit a new high or anything which is probably what it needs. But a few people just posted "hey I'm enjoying this game" and the response is "game is dead" from the same group of people who have been calling for its death since before its release. I get it, you don't like this game, that's fine, it's got a ton of flaws and the model/loop certainly isn't for everyone. Y'all don't have any topics about games you actually care about?

    Kyanilis on
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    I get it, you don't like this game, that's fine, it's got a ton of flaws and the model/loop certainly isn't for everyone. Y'all don't have any topics about games you actually care about?

    I don't understand how you can have this outlook when the game has been on life support for a year. Don't get mad at people pointing out the reality of the game, get mad at the piss poor management behind the title itself. I've said it like 20 times this thread, the game was aimed at people like me, and that they fucked it up this bad is on them, 100% and full stop. Being critical of something doesn't mean I wanted the game to fail, if they actually put the money up to fix it I might actually be playing it. Destiny 1 and destiny 2 launched busted and terrible, were only saved because they spent big bucks to save the franchise.

    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
    shoeboxjeddyurahonky
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Burnage wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    don't forget, they're making the super good looking guardians game next

    *They* being Crystal Dynamics are not. *They* being the publishers Square Enix are. Big difference. The team who are making the Guardians game are Eidos-Montreal. They're the team responsible for Deus Ex and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

    We actually do not know what Crystal Dynamics are working on right now. The whole team is definitely not working on Wakanda or the upkeep of the live service aspect of the game.

    For the last fifteen years Crystal Dynamics have exclusively released Tomb Raider games and this. After Avengers flopped so badly I don't think it's a particularly risky bet to make about what they might have returned to working on.

    With Shadow underperforming (yes I know not their work, still the same franchise) I wouldn't take that bet.

    Unless they think they can reboot the reboot.

    Wait, didn't that work for Doom?

    Shadow wasn't made by Crystal Dynamics. It was made by Eidos Montreal. You know, the people doing that awesome looking Guardians of the Galaxy game!

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • GeddoeGeddoe Registered User regular
    Maddoc wrote: »
    That beta/demo whatever they did for Avengers probably didn't do the game any favors in terms of sales, honestly

    I mean I'm not exactly advocating for dropping a turd sight unseen and hoping people buy it before word of mouth gets around, but it probably would have been better for them

    The trailer basically told us the game would be a turd. I was thinking, "An Avengers game could be cool." Then I see the trailer and Thor is hitting random gunmen multiple times with his hammer to put them down. Is he really Thor at that point?
    I get it, you don't like this game, that's fine, it's got a ton of flaws and the model/loop certainly isn't for everyone. Y'all don't have any topics about games you actually care about?

    I don't understand how you can have this outlook when the game has been on life support for a year. Don't get mad at people pointing out the reality of the game, get mad at the piss poor management behind the title itself. I've said it like 20 times this thread, the game was aimed at people like me, and that they fucked it up this bad is on them, 100% and full stop. Being critical of something doesn't mean I wanted the game to fail, if they actually put the money up to fix it I might actually be playing it. Destiny 1 and destiny 2 launched busted and terrible, were only saved because they spent big bucks to save the franchise.

    Spending the money to fix the game makes no sense, financially. The game has already died. Spending a fortune to fix it is not going to be worth it to investors.

  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Geddoe wrote: »
    *snip* Spending the money to fix the game makes no sense, financially. The game has already died. Spending a fortune to fix it is not going to be worth it to investors.

    To add on to this point, I would also say that their proposed business model for a continual flow of post-release income also failed super hard. They based their entire business model on selling cosmetics, salute animations, and title tags. And the community largely has rejected all of those things, saying a lot of different things. Here are some critiques I have seen.

    Note: My own opinions are pretty much in line with these, but these opinions were definitely not put forth by only me. These opinions about the state of the MTX of Avengers can be found anywhere you look.

    1) The skins are all bad.
    2) They're just expensive recolors
    3) The unique ones aren't interesting
    4) Where are the comic-book inspired skins?
    5) Why aren't these skins rewards for playing the game? Especially ones like the Red Room set, that are literal recolors, that launched with an event, but were sold separately from the event itself.


    The point I'm making here is that even if SquareEnix/Crystal Dynamics were to invest a shitload of money into fixing the game and rebuilding it from the ground up, there's still no proof that the monetization strategy even works. They could fix the game, and the community could still look at all those skins, titles, and salute animations, and be like "nah".

    ThegreatcowFencingsax
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited August 2021
    I get it, you don't like this game, that's fine, it's got a ton of flaws and the model/loop certainly isn't for everyone. Y'all don't have any topics about games you actually care about?

    I don't understand how you can have this outlook when the game has been on life support for a year. Don't get mad at people pointing out the reality of the game, get mad at the piss poor management behind the title itself. I've said it like 20 times this thread, the game was aimed at people like me, and that they fucked it up this bad is on them, 100% and full stop. Being critical of something doesn't mean I wanted the game to fail, if they actually put the money up to fix it I might actually be playing it. Destiny 1 and destiny 2 launched busted and terrible, were only saved because they spent big bucks to save the franchise.

    Yeah, I'm with you on this. I'm critical because I want it to succeed, not because I want to hate on it. Obviously there's very little probability that Crystal Dynamics devs have read this thread and taken our criticism to heart. But that doesn't mean I'm posting out of hate, or out of a desire to see it fail. Mostly I'm posting out of a place of disappointment, and a place of wanting to point out the flaws in the hopes that somehow, magically, that feedback reaches the ears of someone who can do something about it, whether it can be to fix this game, or to prevent future similar mistakes from being made.

    I'm a giant super hero fan. I will likely play nearly every super hero game that comes out. They had me at "we're making an Avengers video game." That's literally all it took to sell me on it.

    Being able to play a game with my friends is a perk, but I wouldn't say it's a requirement.

    GAAS certainly isn't. In fact, GAAS is a giant red flag in my book. To me, GAAS represents corporate greed, trend chasing, and everything that's wrong with the games industry.

    That's not to say there aren't elements of GAAS that I don't find appealing. I'm a big fan of persistence. I'm a big fan of post-release support. I'm a big fan of games keeping the content flowing past the original launch of the game. Sadly most of those things I just listed are strongly associated with MMOs, GAASs, and games that follow an extremely monetized and predatory business model.

    Lucascraft on
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    The GAAS stuff in the game makes it clear the game was designed and developed in one direction and then someone game along and forced all the GAAS stuff into it. Turns out that's not a good way to design a good GAAS feedback loop, who knew? (the developers and designers who had to deal with some know-nothing exec forcing them to implement features against their will probably knew)

    urahonky
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2021
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Burnage wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I mean it's probably not up to them because I doubt Square Enix has a video game license that is just gonna let them make whatever games they want to make

    They'd probably have to go back to the table and go "Hey can we make another game, for an example of our work, here is the last time we licensed your IP, it has fifteen concurrent players"

    True, but we don't know what kind of license deal they have. For all we know, it could be only one game or it could be 5 games or it could be 10 years

    don't forget, they're making the super good looking guardians game next

    *They* being Crystal Dynamics are not. *They* being the publishers Square Enix are. Big difference. The team who are making the Guardians game are Eidos-Montreal. They're the team responsible for Deus Ex and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

    We actually do not know what Crystal Dynamics are working on right now. The whole team is definitely not working on Wakanda or the upkeep of the live service aspect of the game.

    For the last fifteen years Crystal Dynamics have exclusively released Tomb Raider games and this. After Avengers flopped so badly I don't think it's a particularly risky bet to make about what they might have returned to working on.

    With Shadow underperforming (yes I know not their work, still the same franchise) I wouldn't take that bet.

    Unless they think they can reboot the reboot.

    Wait, didn't that work for Doom?

    Shadow wasn't made by Crystal Dynamics. It was made by Eidos Montreal. You know, the people doing that awesome looking Guardians of the Galaxy game!

    I tried desperately to signal knowing that, yes. It doesn't change much. I doubt squeenix' takeway from Shadow was "well those Monteral guys suck, better get Dynamics back on it." It's "Return didn't even do that amazing so we are handing off the trilogy to the B team. Oh and look Shadow did worse so time to ice the franchise for a while. Maybe some small team can make a digital side game if we're feeling generous."

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    Sorry, but GAAS?

    Generally accepted auditing standards?

    Or does the acronym mean something different here; because I'm confused how it would relate to what is being said here if it doesn't.

    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    Games As A Service, a model where the game is supported with content over years designed to be played every day, week or whatever. Usually but not always free in some way, supported by a cash shop. Fortnite is a Gaas, as is Destiny, Apex, etc

    Xbox - Local H Jay
    PS - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    Oh, derp, yeah I should have figured that out. Brain isn't working right I guess. :lol:

    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

Sign In or Register to comment.