-Cylindrical yellow robot (arguably this is the most original and interesting design) -Woman with puffy sleeves -Woman with box on head -Man with goggles and winter jacket -Old Woman -Woman with pauldrons -Generic Woman -Green woman with ears -Man with hat -Pink robot -Mushroom -Green man with shit on arms -Woman with sphere on head -Blue and Red man -Generic Man -Generic Woman 2
Like, I’ve hardly played overwatch but at least I can tell from afar what most of the characters do from looking at them. Clearly, in overwatch, Giant knight with hammer is a melee tank, clearly the ninja guy with the sword is mobile and and has some melee ability, clearly the lady with the sniper rifle is a sniper, clearly the angel is a healer, clearly, the lady with the jetpack can fly and is support, etc.
Applying this logic to concord, the BEST I can guess is that Woman with pauldrons is a tank, otherwise the design is so ass, I really can’t even tell.
Get a design department and/or let them do their job Sony.
I agree. Someone said some time ago that players should be able to recognize characters by their silhouette alone. That’s definitely not the case here.
You know how E3 and other game expos used to have these people dressed up as game characters that company stands would hire to promote their games? All these characters look like that.
I played the beta and was kinda excited to see it released. It wasn’t the best game in the world and felt very generic in some aspects. But less than 700 concurrent players is just ridiculous. That’s less players than most of the half baked, asset swapped, copy cat games that release into early access on steam and get abandoned in less than a year. I know Concord isn’t the next big thing and has a lot of problems. But if you can tell me why games like Vigor, The Front, and Deadpoly (All on steam) have higher player counts I’d be dying to know. I know Concord got hit with the hate train, but this is just confusing. I’d rather play a generic new hero shooter over another generic early access survival crafting game.
I think people just expect hero shooters to be F2P these days. At the same time $40 may be expensive but that would only get you 1 or 2 skins in a game like Overwatch. Not only that but Overwatch used to cost about $40 and nobody gave a shit back then because you could potentially get all the skins in the game for free if you grinded enough. Nowadays if you want all the Overwatch skins in the game you’d have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get them all.
Well the fact that it doesn’t even have the name of the game on it and the fact that it looks cool would be a pretty good selling point. You wouldn’t even need to know or care what the game even was.
I’m not that old but my parents loved that movie. Definitely gives off similar vibes. Other movies I’d have listed would be the original Tron and Wargames (I think that’s what it was called). Honestly that whole era in the 80’s would fit pretty well. I wasn’t alive in the 80’s but they had a lot of bangers when it comes to movies.
Well if you can give me any recommendations besides games like Overwatch, Valorant, Apex Legends, and Paladins I’d be dying to know. Because I’m honestly sick of all of them. I’m genuinely curious because I’m exhausted with all the current hero shooters I’ve played. Kinda the reason I was bummed when this game was pretty mid and flopped. Everyone always talks about the market being saturated when everyone that plays these hero shooters is pissed at the developers of said shooters almost on a daily basis. I don’t think Concord was the next big thing. I’m just so sick of all the games currently out to the point I’m willing to try anything.
Deadlock seems pretty sick though. That’s honestly the one I’m waiting for.
It’s less about exhaustion with the genre and more about being exhausted with the f2p model. Especially with games like Overwatch where this is a new thing. The core gameplay mechanics of Overwatch are fine, minus the constant changes to larger mechanics like team composition and role changes. But as a FPS game there is nothing objectively wrong with the game from a gameplay standpoint. It’s fluid, easy to learn, and responsive. Same with games like Apex. There’s nothing objectively wrong with the gameplay. But they sacrifice server stability and game breaking issues that have been present since the game was released in favor of adding more ways to spend money. If anything these issues have gotten worse while the shop looks more complicated and predatory than Fortnite’s in its hay day.
I know Concord isn’t the next big thing, but I think it’s worth a try. $40 is not even that much when you consider how much f2p games are charging for their skins. And I’d much rather pay $40 for a game and have minimal microtransactions than play a game for free but have to spend even more money than the game is worth just to customize the huge roster of characters these games have. And the argument “it’s just cosmetics” is such a lazy excuse when customizing your character is one of the only ways to express yourself in a game. It’s the reason why there are so many jokes about people saying the first 10 hours of a new game they bought is spent customizing their character.
Sorry, I went on a bit of a rant and didn’t mean to. Got a little carried away. I’m not trying to say your point is wrong, just that that’s not the reason I’m exhausted with hero shooters.
I played the MGS3 on nintendo 3DS. It is quite laggy but still playable (and still I’m impressed by the graphic despite of 3DS’s limited power), and I enjoyed it a lot. I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of Hideo Kojima, but I refuse to support Konami in any way and will never buy this.
Agreed. I loved MGS3 on the PS2 and would love to play this remake, but Konami can go fuck themselves if they think I’m going to support them after dropping Kojima and so many other developers like dead wright.
Blimey, and they say IGN only does 9/10 reviews nowadays! Fascinating article, very keen to hear if it develops any further.
What was this guy’s motivation? Playing the long game to get rich selling his kick-started ventures? Just for the glory of everyone telling him how great he is? Real altruism in a really weird way? Did he actually help improve accessibility enough in games for the ends to justify the means?
Hard to really say, but I would venture that the best way to tell was from what he did with the attention.
I doubt it’s as simple as ‘He did it for the money’ or ‘He did it for the clicks’ etc. I’m guessing he did it for all the attention/money/influence it got him. I think as we confront a world where AI can be used to fabricate people with incredible ease, the lesson is that people need to occasionally meet in person if we want to guarantee that they have a physical personhood.
Wow that was a great piece of journalism. Seeing it all aggregated like that I don’t think there can be any doubt that this guy was full of shit, even if what he was doing could be argued to be positive. He used marginalized communities to enrich himself, even if what he made had value, and that is just such a sad and horrible way to get there.
Why did he even feel the need to do so if he had something valuable to give back? This whole thing honestly makes me think of some catfish episodes over the years. The ones where people create such a complex web of fake profiles and don’t know how to stop.
Wild fucking read. Was thinking maybe his first girlfriend was using a pseudonym (Turkish-born named Susan Banks?), but conveniently no one has met all 3 of his activist girlfriends. The last bit about the guy deleting all his social media posts AND his last “girlfriend” doing the same after IGN reached out is glaringly suspicious.
This story is just wild. This man killed off three supposed women in a close knit community and disappeared a third and nobody thought to look into it? Seems like the people who hired the PI should have at least reported him for fraud. Interesting that his name is Craven.
Anything accessibility related is merely glanced over at best to drum up good press for these corporations. They love to put it in promo material and act like they’re at the spearfront, but almost every step to make games more accessible are first taken by indenpendent developers, modders and hobby engineers.
Simply put, it’s not as important to them as they claim it is.
Jesus Christ what a wild story. Is it possible that Craven simply wanted to do good, but “as a white, abled man” wasn’t opening doors so they felt they had to pretend to be someone else? From what it sounds like, a lot of what they and their “”“partners”“” did was legitimately helpful. The thing that leaves me confused is that they probably could have fleeced people for significantly more money but didn’t. They didn’t have to put the amount of effort into it as they did. Is it possible they were trying to do the right thing but were going about it the wrong way?
ign.com
Gorące