Options

Rocksteady's [Suicide Squad] and WB Montreal's [Gotham Knights]

1272830323336

Posts

  • Options
    cooljammer00cooljammer00 Hey Small Christmas-Man!Registered User regular
    But he's playing it with his family

    You know that cliche about how any game is better with co-op with friends? I'd imagine that even more so with a game you can play with your family.

    His kids and wife prob aren't playing Suicide Squad.

    steam_sig.png

    3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
    Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
  • Options
    Brainiac 8Brainiac 8 Don't call me Shirley... Registered User regular
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Much like the aforementioned Anthem was Bioware's idea, I fully have the capacity to believe that developers can make bad games even without being forced to by a publisher.

    Hell, they already did it once with Arkham Knight, and it probably wasn't a publisher forcing them to fill the game with dogshit tank segments.

    Not that I'm looking to defend WB here, who will probably shitcan or sell their video game development arm before long here, but it always feels a little desperate and naive.

    I would agree if not for the report that Jason Schreier put out about the troubled development this game went through, which included a huge amount of corporate meddling, including handing Suicide Squad to Rocksteady and telling them to make this instead of what they were working on. I'm sure there are plenty of bad ideas in this game that came directly from Rocksteady, but plenty of the bad ideas surely came from corporate as well.

    3DS Friend Code - 1032-1293-2997
    Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
    PSN - Brainiac_8
    Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
    Add me!
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Much like the aforementioned Anthem was Bioware's idea, I fully have the capacity to believe that developers can make bad games even without being forced to by a publisher.

    Hell, they already did it once with Arkham Knight, and it probably wasn't a publisher forcing them to fill the game with dogshit tank segments.

    Not that I'm looking to defend WB here, who will probably shitcan or sell their video game development arm before long here, but it always feels a little desperate and naive.

    I would agree if not for the report that Jason Schreier put out about the troubled development this game went through, which included a huge amount of corporate meddling, including handing Suicide Squad to Rocksteady and telling them to make this instead of what they were working on. I'm sure there are plenty of bad ideas in this game that came directly from Rocksteady, but plenty of the bad ideas surely came from corporate as well.

    And just five days ago David Zaslav (yes, the same idiot who cancelled Batgirl) said that live service games are awesome.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    Ign has their review in progress up It's more positive than I expected, but echoes what i've been seeing in streams and hoped wasn't really the case in that enemies are sparse, uninspiring and spread much too far apart.

    steam xbox - adeptpenguin
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    I saw this clip floating around and it breaks my heart because it means at least one person in Rocksteady understood or read a comic without irony or apathy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezMm5ZlliE

    Having watched the story clips, it just feels depressing and boring and the most emo of stories, not even the 90's comics people shit on were this bad. Even Garth Ennis would be going "oi, wut're youse fookin' gits doing, innit?" And Wonder Woman looks more like Big Barda than Diana. And while I know Debra Wilson is contractually obligated to be in every game now, and I do love her from MadTV, could she at least look different in every game, can we have fat Waller back like when she was playing Oprah on MadTV instead of just being Debra Wilson in every game?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtQ4BFP1Ig

  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    I hate this trend of making video game characters just look like the celebrity who's voicing them.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    It makes sense, because people do tend to suit their voice.
    And if you're casting someone and need to use an actor for facial capture and so on, it's probably easier to use the same person for both.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    For me it depends on what you’re trying to do with the game. Something like Death Stranding? It works. This game? I don’t think it’s worth it.

  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    Look, it takes a special kind of developer to understand the IP enough to release a game that itself is compromised of hated parts and has a high chance of failure.

    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    I saw a cutscene from Suicide Squad and it was genuinely great.
    Superman vs. Wonder Woman.

    The fight looks great, there is emotion when she dies and the Suicide Squad are actually likeable for a moment when they try to help..

    It's going to be a game that I'll pick up for 20 dollars for sure (or hopefully ended up on Gamepass).

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    I'm very much looking forward to watching all the cutscenes from this on YouTube.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I'm very much looking forward to watching all the cutscenes from this on YouTube.

    They are now all up on YouTube for most part.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    MgcwMgcw Registered User regular
    12 hours into the game since early access and I think it has really fun game play. I do not agree with "enemies are spread top far apart" assessment whatsoever. Not even between missions when you're just doing stuff around the map, and especially not inside of missions themselves. There's also, so far, been a decent variety of different mission types and objectives.

    I keep seeing comparisons to Redfall and this game is absolutely nothing like that. I played Redfall day 1 because it was on game pass and I was curious. The gameplay was very boring and there were bugs everywhere, the enemy AI seemed literally non-functional, vampires would literally mill around and do nothing after you shot them. I haven't encountered a single bug or glitch in this yet.

    I also do not agree that the writing is as bad as everyone is saying. Maybe the overarching plot is not good in the end, I'm not far enough into the game to say. However, the little character moments and dialogue between the Squad members are genuinely fun & good in my eyes. People also said Midnight Suns had bad writing, I disagreed with that too and thought for a video game it had good writing, and for a Marvel thing it had GREAT writing. I also felt that game was way unfairly maligned at launch and had genuinely first-class and novel, new, interesting gameplay for the genre it was in.

    I should add that I have not seen a Marvel movie since Iron Man 3 or a DC movie since Dark Knight Rises so I'm not coming to these things as some sort of mark for comic book crap.

    Deadshot is a genuine joy to play and he plays very differently than other characters in any "looter shooter" I've played, learning how to move around with him has been very cool.

    I really don't even think the boogeyman "live service" elements are bad at all. There's literally nothing you can spend money on except a couple of skins right now. Maybe my opinion on that will change in a couple of months, but they've already shown that the 4 season "chapters" or whatever they're calling them are all coming with a new character, which is free, and new content, which is also free. Seemingly the only thing you can pay for in them is a battle pass which unlocks cosmetic stuff. I'm also a person that has literally never spent a penny on a battle pass or an in-game skin in my life and I don't plan on starting.

    4 new characters on top of what's already there seems like a pretty big deal, the characters actually play quite differently from one another even though they all use guns. Everyone moves around very differently and their talent trees make them stronger at different kinds of things.

    I really honestly think this has very fun gameplay and I'm really not a shooter person at all. I came to this as an Arkham fan, I bought Asylum day 1 of release. I really do think this feels like a Rocksteady game.

    The level of polish and small details everywhere is genuinely impressive to me.

    I really just don't understand the massive vitriol this is getting.

  • Options
    ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited February 2
    I just wish it wasn’t coop and stats based. It just means the combat doesn’t feel as connected and tactile as in an Arkham style game, or a single player shooter. That’s the issue for me with the gaas stuff, that it structures the gameplay differently, it’s all overt hp bars and damage calculations, which I admit is a seperate issue from what most people are concerned with when they say they hate gaas games

    It’s just not going to feel as good to play as a spiderman or Arkham game, and for me that’s enough to make every positive aspect less exciting. I’ll definitely play it when it’s 20 bucks in 6 months, and I’ll likely find stuff to enjoy, but it will never not be a missed opportunity to put all that talent and effort into a genre I would’ve enjoyed way more

    Prohass on
  • Options
    MgcwMgcw Registered User regular
    I've actually grown weary of "number go up" stuff over the years and I can't exactly explain how because I've not gotten deep enough into the systems yet but this avoids that somehow. I have been using the same gun I found that I like through most of the game, it hasn't suddenly started hitting for nothing as I've progressed and forced me to change to something else. It still works just as well as when I picked it up. I've still been able to use it the whole time. The 2nd gun I have been swapping around to try out different things throughout.

    For some comparison off the top of my head, I tried out Assassin's Creed Origins despite not liking/playing that series before because people said it had more Arkham-like gameplay and really disliked the loot system in that.

    I agree that SSKTJL does not feel as good as an Arkham-style game, I love all the Arkham clones like Spider-Man and the Shadow of... LOTR games, this isn't that.

    But... for a 3rd person shooter it does have genuinely novel systems and buttons, gameplay and ways to interact with enemies and the environment in a way that shows it was trying to do what the Arkham combat does, except in a different genre. It doesn't match the "wow" factor of playing Asylum for the first time for me but I'm genuinely having fun getting better and better at the combat, just like I did playing all the Arkham games.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    Weapons scale in the game, so if you picked something up in hour one, it isn't magically obsolete hour ten; what changes is your character build and figuring out if the weapon you've loved still fits in with that. I did hilariously have to replace a gun for a fight because it's signature ability (which was great against mooks) was getting me killed during a JLA fight (shotgun that uses more shield energy, but gives massive shields on kill).

    Definitely disagree with the enemy density: there needs to be more. D4 had this issue in it's dungeons at launch: you'd fight an enemy group and then it was over just when it was getting frantic and fun - which every combat encounter in this game is. My guess is they wanted the actual mission encounters to feel sufficiently overwhelming (and they do) and not just feel like another random encounter. Same with the enemy variety, though so far it doesn't feel any less varied than previous games (this is live service though so there's some expectation of variety).

    . . . agree with everything else said though. The negativity thrown this games way for the sin of being "not-Batman" and "GaaS" has been silly (in the level it has reached and for what the game actually offers).

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    KrathoonKrathoon Registered User regular
    I am waiting for the damn game to unlock on Steam.

    Of course Steam does not say when it unlocks. I assume around 1pm Central.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    Krathoon wrote: »
    I am waiting for the damn game to unlock on Steam.

    Of course Steam does not say when it unlocks. I assume around 1pm Central.

    It should tell you in the timer on the actual store page (not your library) when the game unlocks. I believe it is around 12 or 1EST.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    MgcwMgcw Registered User regular
    I believe steam is 10AM Pacific for most everything.

  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Just one guy's opinion (having not played the game, and waiting for a sale).

    I generally don't replay games. Just in general. There are too many good games out there to replay them. Even the good ones. Games that I do replay usually have so much time in between each playthrough that a lot of the details have been forgotten and only the broad, major beats are all I remember.

    Because of this, I am much less likely to want to spend $70+ on a game that I have heard is only 9-12 hours long. I'll wait for a sale, because I'm only likely to ever play this game once, and it will be for the singleplayer campaign only.

    Time is a factor. I don't hate GaaS as a concept. But what I do hate is trend chasing and over-saturation. There's just not enough time in the day to maintain multiple GaaS type games. I'm a WoW player and I've been a WoW player for 20 years. That's my GaaS. And so if I'm going to invest time in a grind and in a perpetual, never-ending game, I'm going to go with the game I'm already invested in. The same is true for any new GaaS. I liked the campaign in Marvel's Avengers, but I wasn't even remotely interested in pursuing a perpetual grind in that game before they pulled the plug. One campaign playthrough was good enough for me.

    When it comes to studios, I'm of a mixed mind. I appreciate the idea of trying new things, expanding into new genres, and not getting pigeon-holed into making the same series for 30 years. I 100% understand and sympathize with that viewpoint. So if Rocksteady wanted to try something new, and not become "the Batman studio" for the next 30 years, I applaud them for that. Likewise with Crystal Dynamics. I love Tomb Raider, and all three of the modern Tomb Raider games are fantastic. But I can appreciate them wanting to try something new and different.

    But at the same time, there's a definite pattern emerging here, in which a studio that is well known for making good singleplayer games tries to branch into the multiplayer space and it blows up in their faces in the most spectacular way possible. It happened to Bioware with Anthem. It happened to Crystal Dynamics with Avengers. It happened to Arkane Studios with Redfall. And it looks like it's happening in real time right now to Rocksteady.

    So while I'm definitely in support of studios trying new things, there is definitely a cautionary tale here that maybe people who excel at narrative driven singleplayer campaigns should not immediately jump into the GaaS arena. Maybe this is the sort of transition that will take several games, building up new core skillsets, and is something they can get to eventually. But not right away. It's a pretty proven fact that you can't jump from Mass Effect to Anthem. Or Tomb Raider to Avengers. Or Dishonored to Redfall. It's a proven pattern and a proven historical record that the failure rate of going from narrative singleplayer game to always-online game as a service is a recipe for disaster.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    Mgcw wrote: »
    I believe steam is 10AM Pacific for most everything.

    Yup. Out now for anyone curious but didn't want to pony up for the early access. Hopefully RS keeps their head down and - like Hello Games did with NMS - sifts through the noise to find the real critiques of the game and adjusts accordingly.

    . . .still, it'll be Season 1 that really shows whether they've got the long-term juice to squeeze out of this game (though I honestly don't see this being a thing for more than two years at most; but hey, stranger things have happened and TD2 - which I thought wasn't long for this world despite loving it at launch - is still going strong).

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    KrathoonKrathoon Registered User regular
    This game does the thing where the enemies have slow bullets.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    Krathoon wrote: »
    This game does the thing where the enemies have slow bullets.

    If you're in tutorial or early hour. . .it gets more gonzo. Sometimes frustratingly so.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    KrathoonKrathoon Registered User regular
    ED! wrote: »
    Krathoon wrote: »
    This game does the thing where the enemies have slow bullets.

    If you're in tutorial or early hour. . .it gets more gonzo. Sometimes frustratingly so.

    Yeah. I only played Deadshot's part at the beginning. Now, I am on King Shark.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    Krathoon wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »
    Krathoon wrote: »
    This game does the thing where the enemies have slow bullets.

    If you're in tutorial or early hour. . .it gets more gonzo. Sometimes frustratingly so.

    Yeah. I only played Deadshot's part at the beginning. Now, I am on King Shark.

    Ah. Yeah I remember the part you're talking about (like the slow moving glowing purple coming at you) and had the same thought: "This can't be combat." It isn't, but the tutorial does not do a good job - at all - of setting you up for what is actually going to be expected of you.

    . . .thankfully it is relatively short and once you get an hour or so into the game and unlock Talents the game starts to show just what kind of bonkers madness the combat-loop is.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 3
    To nobodies surprise, it gets a whopping 5/10 from IGN.

    Metacritic is around 61. Sad for Rocksteady and I hope some suits stupid decisions isn't the end of them.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    Still funny that they delayed the game to avoud this fate, and nothing changed. Granted the game would have been delayed waaaaaay longer to rebuild as anything beyond a soulless service game.

    I guess they took out the mist objectionable shit like lootboxes and made them more palatable. And they still ate shit in the reviews

    YL9WnCY.png
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Now that it's out, I am enjoying watching streamers react to Flash's death. More specifically, the cutscene for defeating him. I didn't realize it would make so many people mad.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    Sterica wrote: »
    Still funny that they delayed the game to avoud this fate, and nothing changed. Granted the game would have been delayed waaaaaay longer to rebuild as anything beyond a soulless service game.

    I guess they took out the mist objectionable shit like lootboxes and made them more palatable. And they still ate shit in the reviews

    There's only so much you can change a completed game in 6 months.

    I don't think anyone actually expected anything significant to change.

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 3
    I think they polished what they could, but they couldn't fix the core issues that were evident back then.

    I almost bet a bunch of their time was removing direct live service aspects like microtransactions for loot boxes or rare materials.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    To nobodies surprise, it gets a whopping 5/10 from IGN.

    Metacritic is around 61. Sad for Rocksteady and I hope some suits stupid decisions isn't the end of them.

    . . .and is getting a "Very Positive" from consumers on PC, SONY and MS storefronts.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 3
    ED! wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    To nobodies surprise, it gets a whopping 5/10 from IGN.

    Metacritic is around 61. Sad for Rocksteady and I hope some suits stupid decisions isn't the end of them.

    . . .and is getting a "Very Positive" from consumers on PC, SONY and MS storefronts.

    Honestly I am not sure if that will hold over time as the main reviews will be from people paying $100 for it, which I imagine will self select for the people most interested in the game.

    Also it has such riveting positive reviews on Steam such as "Not worth $70", "Wait for a discount" and "Not bad, but not really good either". So actually looking at the positive reviews they arent exactly "positive". This would fit with what a lot of the reviews have stated, which is there was a semi decent 10ish hour campaign in there and then the end game grind is just not worthwhile.

    Edit: Screenshotted an example

    apn269lin52v.jpg

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    ED! wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    To nobodies surprise, it gets a whopping 5/10 from IGN.

    Metacritic is around 61. Sad for Rocksteady and I hope some suits stupid decisions isn't the end of them.

    . . .and is getting a "Very Positive" from consumers on PC, SONY and MS storefronts.

    At some point it's probably just selection bias. Everyone saw what this game was. The only people who still bought it are people already into GaaS games. It only topped out at 12,000 active players on Steam. On launch day. That's pretty abysmal. Avengers, for reference, hit 66,000.

    I'm glad you're liking it, though. It's just that, for most people, we saw what kind of game it was going to be, and avoided it.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 3
    Also only 13k peak and ~7k CCUs right now on Steam for a game that's supposed to be a long term live service platform is an extremely bad indication for Rocksteady.

    By way of comparison, Marvel's Avengers that was also a live service game and didn't make it had a 31k peak.

    But I'm actually unsure if the game is formally out for everyone or not.

    Edit: For those wondering why my number is different to Syphons, I an looking at the Avengers re-release in the Definitive Edition.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    It is. It released in full yesterday.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    urahonkyurahonky Cynical Old Man Registered User regular
    I absolutely trust user reviews less than I do review sites. Especially for a super hero game and especially for one like suicide squad.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    I'm only bring up the user response to the game so far (which isn't all Early Access users gaslighting themselves about their purchase) as a counter to the ruthless levels of negativity that have been directed towards this game. Like, we can't handwave all the positive user comments as "post-purchase-justification" (and lets be real, this game was never going to break numbers given the headwinds - much self-inflicted - it was releasing against).

    . . .and I absolutely can buy that that a lot of the Steam reviews are a (biased) response to that level of negativity, particularly from the gaming press (some of whom believe the game to be only marginally better than the recent GOLLUM game based on review scores) and the scores are likely to drop once the full shape of the live-service part of this game has actually gone live.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    I don't think the Steam reviews are gaslighting. I think they're self-selecting.

    I've got the game coming in from gamefly, though, so I'll be able to see for myself soon. I hope I at least like the story enough to play through it. It's just the shooting and mission design from what I've seen does not look great.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    To nobodies surprise, it gets a whopping 5/10 from IGN.

    Metacritic is around 61. Sad for Rocksteady and I hope some suits stupid decisions isn't the end of them.

    I'm was watching reaction videos comparing this and Arkham Knight and realized I had never bought that game and it looks just as amazing as the first 2. Definitely going to pick it up once I'm done with palworld.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Critic and user reviews only matter if they already match my preconceived opinions.

    And as worthlessly reductive as that obviously is... it's also pretty much exactly how people operate. Either the people have spoken (if you're in agreement), sheeple who don't know any better (if you hate but they like), or reviewbombing clickbait haters (if you like but they hate).

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Sign In or Register to comment.