It seems to be resonating pretty damn well for them. In fact, the competitive multiplayer has been praised for its simplicity and feeling a lot like the kind of multiplayer that we used to get so much of back in the 360 era.
It was also famous for having multiplayer modes that were just fun and didn’t ask you to commit your life to them. Some of those multiplayer modes were really cool.
Who praised them? But I don’t know what measure we’d use to determine the general reception of this particular feature. Particularly given that almost all video game journalism is mere marketing. So that’s probably not a fruitful point to argue over.
Instead I’ll offer the things that I think earn the competitive multiplayer a poor rating.
No skill or even experience based match making. Too many games are blowouts because all of the level 1 players were put on one team.
Teams are static once a match lobby has formed. If the teams are poorly balanced they will continue to be forever. Players can’t even switch voluntarily. The only remedy is to bail on the lobby and hop into a different random one.
Classes and weapons are poorly balanced. The Bulwark is a key example of a too strong and not fun design. The Assault class, and melee in general is in a pretty poor state (unless you have an infinite defense shield that lets you walk up to people). Many of the weapon options for the classes are almost unusably weak, so class loadouts tend to be very samey. Grenades are spammy and the shock grenade blind duration is not fun.
Players are randomly assigned Imperial or Chaos marines. But there is basically no character customization for the Chaos marines, while the Imperial marines have 5 or 6 different sets. Either the enemy team should always appear to be Chaos with their NPC style, or they should have included equivalent Chaos customization.
Players have minimal control over which game modes they play. It’s either 100% random or selecting a single mode. A configurable selection is a common multiplayer feature.
Map design is bland. This is perhaps a more personal preference, but I find the symmetrical, arcade arenas with no narrative character boring.
I watch and listen to a lot of Giant Bomb and SkillUp, and both had praise for the multiplayer modes, warts and all. I can’t agree with all games media just being marketing, otherwise you’d never see bad reviews for the likes of those publishers spending all that money on marketing. It may not have worked for you, but doing all of those modes has done very well for the game.
So you have valid points and I do think it needs to be better, I however love the damn game. I would disagree that the assault class is weak, I’ve play plenty of matches where a good assault player is very key to the teams success. Melee is really strong when used correctly. I also think only a few of the weapons are weak, but I’ve still found their place in a teams composition.
I do think they should of launched with more maps and modes, according to them though they are coming and I’m willing to be a bit patient. The first patch was good and another operation is coming this month. Which is good stuff.
Reminds me of many “The reason why Call of Duty sucks” arguments I heard as a kid.
Like, my own tastes agree with you. But you don’t bring that argument into game industry discussion because fact is, the game is doing very well financially and obviously many players disagree with you. So you have to take that data, and work back to decide what the logical conclusion is.
If the argument is that SM2 is successful because it limited it’s scope to execute a smaller number of features well, I don’t think that holds up. It took on three different types of games and (imho) executed merely okay. What more could they have added? Open world? MMO?
I think the more plausible explanation for the sales is that it’s Warhammer, it’s pretty, and SM1 was good.
It made fairly big waves when it was released— mostly covered by cod influencers and the like. Their big selling point was “no sbmm”. I’ve thought about giving it a shot, since it can run on Linux under proton.
It’s alright, I played for a little bit after it released cause I was bored.
At the time, the queue times were fairly long and the game length was either very quick or a reasonable match length, no in between. It seemed like most people liked one character and anyone playing anyone else was new. At the time, it was very fast paced, but very floaty. There was also not a lot of impact on some of the guns, no real feeling of recoil on the sniper or the SMG.
I’m sure that has changed in the few weeks-~month since I haven’t played. It’s a fun point and clicker, but with the length of the queue times I’d rather play something else.
Between this and weighing in on what defines Final Fantasy (in the original interview), Sakaguchi sure didn’t shy away from the controversial topics in the fandom.
“I understand and know that this is a very widely debated topic, but I really think it has turned into something that has a different meaning for everyone,” says Sakaguchi. “If I had to give some kind of core ingredient, I would say it’s the story and world. These two are a must for any Final Fantasy and the common denominator across all of them. The world setting needs to contain some kind of thematic element that is loosely tied to current events. I think the world itself needs to have some kind of thematic backbone or message that gives a different perspective, or a thought-provoking prompt for players.”
As a gamer for over 40 years, I don’t play games on my phone. I find it boring, monotonous, and repetitive, along with the ads, gatcha mechanics, and whatever trash they’re pushing. If I want to play a game, I’ll use my desktop or Switch.
Weird coincidence, I’m in the middle of this rn. Haven’t played Starfield but this is one of my favorite Bethesda titles outside of Doom and Wolfenstein
I originally answered “definitely not the original ones!” ør something tø that effect, but found that it might be needlessly combative, so I changed it to just TIL 😁
which is why most folks are probably not talking about the old games when they say they like wolfenstein and doom
I wouldn’t be so sure about that, what with the “It runs Doom” meme and the fact that most people on Lemmy seem to be old fucks like me who played them when they originally came out 😄
Yeah like when we say RoboCop we think of the 2014 movie because it made a lot more at box office, and nobody thinks of the iconic and hugely influential original movie unless you say RoboCop (1987)
the difference is that discussions about robocop are exclusively about the original
if youre convinced the wolfenstein and doom reboots have the same impact and relevance as robocop (2014) youre entirely allowed to stay that way, im not gonna try and shake you out of it
I mean, if someone says “Doom and Wolfenstein” without specifying “Doom Eternal” and “Wolfenstein: Youngblood” (which I had to look up, BTW), I’m thinking of Id.
I mean, if someone says “Doom and Wolfenstein” without specifying “Doom Eternal” and “Wolfenstein: Youngblood” (which I had to look up, BTW), I’m thinking of Id.
that makes sense, especially since Doom eternal is in fact still developed by id
Wolfenstein and Doom have both reached significantly more people since they got adopted by zenimax though, so most folks who actually played the games will have probably gotten introduced to them as Bethesda published games
“Wolfenstein: Youngblood” (which I had to look up, BTW),
the reboot is still probably most fans entry point to the franchise and frame of reference for discussing it, especially during a discussion about Bethesda
that is not any kind of dig at the older games, the quality of them is entirely irrelevant to the point i was making
you dont need to come to the defense of them, especially by venting about games that i also do not care about
The reboots, they’ve owned the rights (or maybe ZeniMax technically?) of both for over a decade. I think id was bought out. So the Doom 2016 and Wolfenstein 2014 games and newer games are Bethesda published.
Edit: ZeniMax bought id in 2009, so Doom and Doom Eternal, as well as Wolfenstein New Order, New Colossus and the two spinoffs (Youngblood, Old Blood) are Bethesda-published.
You’re a bit mixed up. Don’t nod the original creators made life is strange 2. Deck nine made a prequel to the original and a new entry with a returning character in it called true colours. True colours isn’t a direct sequel and neither is 2.
Night Dive should've been given some of these old Lucas Arts SW games. These were my childhood, and I've watched as Aspyr has been assigned game after game of my childhood to be released on modern platforms, and time and time again they either don't give enough of a shit to do anything more than get them running (sometimes barely that, Republic Commando runs worse on a switch than an original Xbox), or they're not given the proper time or financial budget to pull it off.
I keep watching clips of Helldivers 2 and it looks fun but I don’t understand why I would play it over Deep Rock Galactic, especially when the original Helldivers actually has splitscreen co-op.
So what does this game’s combat bring over Deep Rock Galactic? It seems a lot flatter and less tense.
I really want to see a good YouTube reviewer critically compare them.
I’ve played both games and tbh I wouldn’t really compare them, I like them both individually. Helldivers 2 is a lot more focused on combat and fighting overwhelming hoards of enemies. On higher difficulties sometimes stealth or just running away is the best solution because of how absurd the number of enemies are. Its honestly really fun just trying (sometimes in vain) to thin out enemy numbers while protecting an objective. That being said, everyone gets access to cool down based, very powerful orbital abilities that do everything from calling down powerful support weapons to dropping a 500kg bomb on a bunch of enemies. At the moment there are 2 different enemy factions that require pretty different playstyles to overcome as well. Honestly pretty dope game, check out SkillUp on YouTube for a good review of the game.
Helldivers 2 is a lot more focused on combat and fighting overwhelming hoards of enemies.
I confused, Deep Rock Galactic is almost entirely focused on fighting overwhelming hoards of enemies. Stealth isn’t an option since they aggro at you which seems like a significant difference though.
Having played both games, I gotta say while DRG does have hordes, they’re not on the same level as HD2. HD2 is the first game in a while that truly has made me feel overwhelmed by the amount of enemies thrown at me and I love it. In HD2 I even find myself doing stealth a lot to sneak past patrols.
Overall though I don’t think it’s worth it trying to compare DRG to HD2. They might look similar in some aspects. But they are vastly different in gameplay, experience, and mechanics. It’s apples to tomatoes, sure they’re both technically red fruits, but that’s where the similarity ends.
I love all three, but they are quite different in their gameplay. In DRG you choose a class upfront so your role is more defined by this choice, the challenge is mainly about getting your bearings and traversing the terrain, and the mission objectives are (IMO) more involved. In HD2, the challenge is more about surviving against hordes of enemies without killing each other. In DRG, if you shoot somebody you hear a funny voice line, but I don’t think I’ve ever killed a teammate by shooting them. In HD2, this happens all the time.
I don’t understand why I would play it over Deep Rock Galactic, especially when the original Helldivers actually has splitscreen co-op.
I don’t see the logical connection here, but you do you. Perhaps worth pointing out, the original Helldivers doesn’t have splitscreen but rather shared screen coop – meaning you can’t get separated from your teammates, which is both a feature and a pretty big limitation.
I have played both DRG and HD2. I think you simply have to play HD2 to answer that question. It might not be for you, but having played both games “a lot flatter and less tense” is how I feel about DRG.
ign.com
Ważne