From what I read on Steam: Three servers, 64 players max each. Embarrassingly miniscule for one of the best selling, best received Star Wars games of its time, if not of all time. You’d expect more than 192 people would buy your game on launch, especially something this big.
Dude, imagine you buy a brand new car for a 5 person family and then as you arrive to drive it off the lot you find out its only got the two front seats… Launches like this are completely unacceptable.
…but not before launch? The game launched and they weren’t there? So they released a game and there were only three servers available? Hours later they added a bunch of servers? AFTER LAUNCH? Is there another way I can phrase this so you realise how stupid it is that you’re defending it?
Game has online problems for the first few hours after launch. This has never happened before in the history of video games. 🙄
Wasn’t Helldivers 2 almost impossible to play for the first month? Yet there wasn’t much anger about that. This has a problem for a few hours and it’s the worst thing that has ever happened. 😂
I recall there being plenty of talk about Helldivers servers. About a month’s worth. Meanwhile I haven’t seen a single person say this is the worst thing that’s ever happened or that it’s never happened before with other games, just that releasing a multiplayer game and only having three servers available is absurd. That and the apparently poor port at least on Switch detailed in another comment.
Believe it or not, shit happening before doesn’t change anything. Shit’s still shit. And we all already know the only actual obstacle to ensuring a smooth multiplayer launch (assuming a competently made game, of course) is paying for enough servers to handle the initial surge. They just prefer not to spend that money and present a poor experience to customers who buy the game at launch instead, because fuck them right.
I don’t own the game. It’s not a problem for me at all. It’s a principle, and a reflection of a publisher’s greed and disrespect towards its customers.
Do you know that people bought the game, downloaded it, installed it, sat to play it, and couldn’t because the publisher didn’t want to pay for the required servers for their most loyal customers to do so?
Sure, it’s good that there are servers now, but that’s the minimum I expect and I expect them there at launch. You know, so people who have paid money to play their game actually can. Far be it for me to think an online multiplayer game should have servers to play online multiplayer in when it’s available to buy.
Believe it or not it’s possible to gather information about things without directly experiencing it and I tend to do this with new games. I also already have the originals on steam.
Yes and it’s a multiplayer classic that they couldn’t play multiplayer in. It doesn’t ruin the game, it didn’t destroy the experience permanently, it’s not the end of the world, but it’s shit and only happened because of the publisher’s greed. No clue why you feel the need to defend it really.
[Edit] I also haven’t said a single word that even implies I’m an expert on it. I mentioned bugginess that I said I saw in a comment and talked about servers being unavailable. What level of star wars battlefront expert do you think I need to be to discuss specific star wars battlefront things like…bugs and servers?
But all people have said is that it’s buggy on switch (with screenshot proof) and that there weren’t enough servers for hours after launch. Is it you that’s overblowing it?
Not *A * multiplayer game. A multiplayer STAR WARS game. And not just any multiplayer Star Wars game - no, the single best received Star Wars game of its kind in the last two decades, coupled with its prequel… And they estimated around 200 people to play it at launch.
As someone who actually didn’t really enjoy the combat in FF7R, they have done at least one thing in this demo to make it feel a lot better to me: Cloud is faster.
In the first game, Cloud to me felt slow, and it felt like every other moment he was being hit and knocked to the ground. And he took five hundred years to stand back up.
In the demo so far as I’ve played, that’s not the case any more. He does get hit and knocked about, but he recovers a lot faster. And switching modes seems faster. Even his slower mode of attack feels faster. I feel like in the first game I didn’t make him switch his attack modes as often as I probably should because he took so long to switch he’d be open to attack, and when he got attacked he’d just fall down all the time. It remains to be seen how the full game is, but in this demo all of that garbage feels better. And I’m happy about that.
Its a nice flashback to pretty much every mechanic of the original, from traffic blocks to rhythm blocks, keys and jump pads. Every major character is there as well, no Mr. Oshiro though, he’s probably still fixing the Hotel.
The last Pokemon game I played was Y. It was largely the same game as Blue and Gold. This expands on the concept in fun, crazy ways, and it's got me intrigued.
The creature designs are similar to Pokémon but that's where it begins and ends. Palworld is a survival sandbox with creature collecting, it doesn't even have turn-based battles. It's far more similar to Ark or Rust than Pokémon.
If anyone wanted a game that "is but isn't Pokémon" they should look into TemTem or Cassette Beasts.
Different degrees of shaking up the formula. This is Pokemon-but-survival, and I've got another game in my backlog already that's Pokemon-but-metroidvania.
Yeah, but I would say that already makes it more markedly different, even compared to, say, Monster Hunter Stories. Sure, there's cutesy creatures which gives it some similar aesthetics but the gameplay experience is not even remotely similar.
Compared to Lies of P which looks and plays like Bloodborne, it's not really that close.
Heh, maybe I'm splitting hairs, but if you want a game "like Pokemon", they've been making exactly that game for 30 years, but there's only a handful of games in the ballpark of Bloodborne. If you want the fantasy of roaming a world, catching creatures, and battling with them, there are lots of ways to skin that cat that GameFreak and Nintendo haven't been doing that aren't at odds with preserving those core pieces. Likewise, I don't enjoy Monster Hunter, but some of its core pieces are present in the likes of Horizon and Mercenary Kings, and I love those games for taking the high level parts of Monster Hunter that do work for me.
I get it, but part of my point is that there are games that are very much like Pokémon for someone who wants 90% of that with a little bit of a different twist. Meanwhile I'm seeing some people looking into Palworld and going "Wait is this Minecraft? I wanted Pokémon with guns."
To be fair, those were so simple that they were barely a challenge when I was 9 years old. When I played Y as an adult, they probably wouldn't have even felt like puzzles.
Bit sad they aren’t exploring removing the - IMO unnecessary - broadness of the item + skill-up system for something like the talents HotS had (or even better some sort of small branching talent tree), just to keep evolving the genre.
But I can also understand it, since well, they have an established playerbase and this is probably more a refresh than a “true” successor.
Yeah I wouldn’t expect them to reinvent the wheel at this point. I think the only major difference that should reasonably be expected is in the change to the newer Unreal Engine. Better graphics, better optimization in the codebase(hopefully), and better performance. Otherwise I expect everything to be similar, but it’s too early to say anything for certain I suppose.
ign.com
Ważne