Square Enix's Avengers

[Sithborg]

I would argue in a game like this, roster should have been the #1 focus of the game. You start out with 15 characters off the bat, you have extra play time between expansions, to level up and try other characters. The lack of roster is a deadly blow, especially when you are not allowed to double up heroes in multiplayer.

Hell, roster was the killing blow on MvC: Infinite and SFV release version.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I would argue in a game like this, roster should have been the #1 focus of the game. You start out with 15 characters off the bat, you have extra play time between expansions, to level up and try other characters. The lack of roster is a deadly blow, especially when you are not allowed to double up heroes in multiplayer.

Hell, roster was the killing blow on MvC: Infinite and SFV release version.

I disagree. Like I said before, you could have any amount of Avengers, it doesn't matter if what you are asked to do with them isn't fun. All these Destiny wannabes suffer exactly from what Destiny suffered from, from the start. A lack of things to do. Destiny fixed that through adding hours upon hours of gameplay, not adding new guardians.

Unique missions to play here, would make it much better. Actual bosses would make it much better. Proper raids would make it much better. Unique maps would help tremendously. The problem is they can't do that with the Avengers being wildly different, which is why we get stuck with these bland shoot'em up kill boxes, trying to earn nothing of substance. Adding a bunch of Avengers wouldn't help that, if anything it might make it worse as the core gameplay loop is fundamentally flawed.

As to the two fighting games you mentioned, while the rosters didn't help, that was far from their biggest issues imo. All these series have the big issue that when you release a new one, the rosters is going to be reduced back down, and missing characters, but that doesn't turn the entire community off. MvC: Infinite suffered an aesthetic issue. It look like crap and that was the first thing people saw and it stuck, even as it is actually a rather good fighter, even as it was too much X Tekken. Street Fighter V followed up the best game in the series, by messing up the meta, and turning it into a bland game, where everything was monetized. Both also suffered from being actual fighting games unlike something like Mortal Kombat. Which is a game for casual fans, and thus focuses on single player aspects, as opposed to competitive play.

 

[Web-Head]

I enjoyed this game at first for what it was and even enjoyed the campaign a fair amount. After that though it just became extremely repetitive. I haven't played in 2-3 weeks and have no desire to play again soon.

 

[BoredGuy]

Sup yall, been a while

sith and darth, i think youre both correct. This game absolutely needs more variety and better end game activities. But I think some more characters could help that.
My thought was, what if there was 16 Avengers in four classes (striker, blaster, tank, support... the basics) This way, players would have some options of who to play and not be stuck, and it would also help matchmaking by not spreading it so thin. Some missions could be open to all, allowing a lot of freedom, while other missions could have specific requirements which allow the missions to be more unique. There could be an infiltration mission which requires strikers only, or a area defense mission for the tanks. I guess its kind of bringing in a bit of overwatch to the game. But idk, think that could solve various issues people have.

Add to that some loot that people actually give a s**t about, and some non-hideous non-paywalled costumes and were in business

so basically, redo the whole game, lol

 

[B]

Out of curiosity, is anyone that bought the game at launch & completed the campaign, still playing this & grinding gear/collectables?

 

[B]

Sup yall, been a while

sith and darth, i think youre both correct. This game absolutely needs more variety and better end game activities. But I think some more characters could help that.
My thought was, what if there was 16 Avengers in four classes (striker, blaster, tank, support... the basics) This way, players would have some options of who to play and not be stuck, and it would also help matchmaking by not spreading it so thin. Some missions could be open to all, allowing a lot of freedom, while other missions could have specific requirements which allow the missions to be more unique. There could be an infiltration mission which requires strikers only, or a area defense mission for the tanks. I guess its kind of bringing in a bit of overwatch to the game. But idk, think that could solve various issues people have.

Add to that some loot that people actually give a s**t about, and some non-hideous non-paywalled costumes and were in business

so basically, redo the whole game, lol

Former City of Heroes player are we?

 

[TheVileOne]

I did get that Anthem feeling when I tried this out. (and we all know how Anthem did)

Even when I saw the disappointing preview at E3, the devs were non-responsive on how the game was supposed to work and weren't clear.

 

[TheVileOne]

The style of game is flawed, especially for a casuals game. I side eyed this game from the start, and they never changed my mind. The "beta" was an awful idea. It revealed just how shallow the game is.

The biggest problem here is seems to be the publisher. Instead of a big single player game, that could have been stellar, they forced the developer to split the baby, leading it a good but underserved SP, and a completely crap MP. They could add another 50 Avengers, and it won't change that the gameplay loop is bad. Fighting a bunch of drones in slightly different boxes for blah loot is not a game people are going to stick with.

Same thing with Anthem. The worst modern AAA game release of all time.

 

[The Caped Knight]

State of the Game Address announcements (Kate Bishop is delayed)
Marvel’s Avengers: State of the Game Update

 

[Gee]

New content and next-gen upgrade both delayed?

 

[psylockolussus]

Oh Lord. A mess.

 

[Iceman]

It’s a real shame that we’re finally getting a big Avengers game and now I’m not all that excited.

 

[Sithborg]

And I forgot you couldn't replay the campaign.

JFC...

 

[Spider-Fan]

Did they give us a time table for the Kate Bishop DLC?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Same thing with Anthem. The worst modern AAA game release of all time.

Anthem has never, not once come up in this thread.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Did they give us a time table for the Kate Bishop DLC?

There was talk of late October that was confirmed no longer to be the case. Considering the news about the delay of the next gen version, I am going to guess we don't see Kate before December, if at all in 2020.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And I forgot you couldn't replay the campaign.

JFC...

I was thinking of why this was, and it has to be to add to the grind right? They don't want you leveling up playing the campaign. Or are those separate in that regard?

 

[Spider-Fan]

There was talk of late October that was confirmed no longer to be the case. Considering the news about the delay of the next gen version, I am going to guess we don't see Kate before December, if at all in 2020.

I knew it was due in October. Lame they didn't even give us a new time frame. Sigh

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I knew it was due in October. Lame they didn't even give us a new time frame. Sigh

Sorry man. I know that for those who already bought it, the draw is the chance to play new Avengers, and now having them cast off into the distance with no new content in sight has to be a real drag.

This release might be an all timer, and not in a good way. I hope Crystal Dynamics survives this.

 

[DKDetective]

Sorry man. I know that for those who already bought it, the draw is the chance to play new Avengers, and now having them cast off into the distance with no new content in sight has to be a real drag.

This release might be an all timer, and not in a good way. I hope Crystal Dynamics survives this.

Do we know what caused this game's development to so go off the rails?

I mean Crystal Dynamics just made two wonderful single-player Tomb Raider reboot games... I assume it was publisher interference right? I mean I can't see them willingly giving over the conclusion of their Tomb Raider reboot trilogy to another studio.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Do we know what caused this game's development to so go off the rails?

I mean Crystal Dynamics just made two wonderful single-player Tomb Raider reboot games... I assume it was publisher interference right? I mean I can't see them willingly giving over the conclusion of their Tomb Raider reboot trilogy to another studio.

This is totally on Square Enix. It's all over the final product. The game as a service element is always a publisher mandate, which is even why the multi player and loot elements exist here. Everything about the game and it's structure points to a game that was being made in the mold of Spider-Man. An attempt to make a really strong Avengers game, but the publisher wanted sustainable income, probably down to how much they paid for the license. So what we ended up with is a game where the main single player campaign which shows a lot of potential, got it's legs cut off, while they were forced to strap MP to final product. This was also all clearly rushed out the door, which explains the incredibly sad state the game is in.

 

[Sithborg]

Do we know what caused this game's development to so go off the rails?

I mean Crystal Dynamics just made two wonderful single-player Tomb Raider reboot games... I assume it was publisher interference right? I mean I can't see them willingly giving over the conclusion of their Tomb Raider reboot trilogy to another studio.

I think a combination of attempting something out of their wheelhouse while simultaneously being forced to released this quarter. The sheer bug list and size of the day one patch indicates a rushed product.

 

[DKDetective]

This is totally on Square Enix. It's all over the final product. The game as a service element is always a publisher mandate, which is even why the multi player and loot elements exist here. Everything about the game and it's structure points to a game that was being made in the mold of Spider-Man. An attempt to make a really strong Avengers game, but the publisher wanted sustainable income, probably down to how much they paid for the license. So what we ended up with is a game where the main single player campaign which shows a lot of potential, got it's legs cut off, while they were forced to strap MP to final product. This was also all clearly rushed out the door, which explains the incredibly sad state the game is in.

Honestly, I wonder if part of this is on Disney and their licensing deals. Although EA was stupid enough as it was at the time they got the Star Wars licence, they also approached that licence in the same way - rushing out online game as a service model products with limited content in order to recoup on their investment right away. Disney did the same thing after they bought Lucasfilm and we all know how that turned out for the Star Wars films. Disney needs to start thinking more long term about their properties. If this game was good, people would be screaming for a sequel. Instead, a rushed out product will likely negatively effect the franchise as a whole. Disney should start structuring their licensing deals to put less pressure on the game publishers up front.

I'm starting to wonder if the only reason why the MCU turned out so well was because Feige was already in charge at the time of the Disney purchase and already laid the groundwork and built up the franchise.

 

[The Infernal]

Keep in mind they delayed this from a previously announced release date snd before that the "Avengers Project" went dark for years after its initial announcement. Things happened in that dark period and I wonder just how different this game may be from what they first intended.

 

[Mani-Man]

Do we know what caused this game's development to so go off the rails?

I mean Crystal Dynamics just made two wonderful single-player Tomb Raider reboot games... I assume it was publisher interference right? I mean I can't see them willingly giving over the conclusion of their Tomb Raider reboot trilogy to another studio.

Its not 100% sure, but considering the comments etc that have been made by former peopler who worked with SE, its likely that any trouble during development...is on Square Enix.
They have allegedly quite the history in meddling with developers work to get it into a direction they feel is better.
And a GAAS game is more often than not the way it is because of the publisher.

If Disney also interfered is unclear, but this smells like Square Enix knocking it off the rails.
TR2013 was quite a bit differently planned until SE interfered, Shadow of the Tomb Raider was noticeably rushed and the way SE promoted the game, was different than the game actually was.