Former Concord developer speaks on the failure of Concord, asks people to give Marathon a chance

DirtInUrEye said:
I don't really understand the Concord comparisons anyway. Marathon looks more like a Roblox shooter to me.
Click to expand...
Both are big budget online-shooters, that is not F2P, and also both have non-mainstream aesthetic design. This one is more quirky than ugly, but still, non-mainstream appeal.
Obvious there are differences, but the similarities are there as well.
 
I dont play games for pitty. No one needs to ask me to give a game a chance, If the game is good, word of mouth will do the work. Im not giving Marathon a chance cuz i dont care about multiplayer extraction shooters.

I think the game looks ok and shoud do relativelly well as Bungie games usualy feel good to play.
 
The Bungie gunplay it's solid, i think that if the gameplay loop is good enough the game is gonna find it's audience. The aesthetic is colorful and i can't get behind the character desing. I'm going to wait for the impressions after the people play it before lauch
 
I get the comparison between the two games, even if it's loose.

They both have very tryhard character art that looks bad to me (Concord moreso), neither look to be innovating anything, and are trend-following a sub-genre of shooter.

Hopefully the gunplay is well done, but what a complete downgrade in style vs Destiny.
 
Last edited:
Paulie Walnuts Mafia GIF by HBO
 
I was hoping he would have something to say about Marathon that makes it redeemable but… well sorry ya wasted time on a shit game bud but I don't praise games out of pity.
 
So some chick who helped waste Sony's money on the Concord team is asking people to ignore the flaws of Marathon. "Just make yourself like it so the team doesn't feel bad".
 
rkofan87 said:
to me it was not the woke stuff that killed concord it was we have overwatch at home lets not forget overwatch is somewhat woke as well and its still doing ok.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pin its failure on that personally either. To me it was just kinda derivative and uninspired with an art-style that was a gaudy as it was unappealing. Add to the fact that it was entering a highly competitive segment and honestly I'm not surprised it got off to weak start.

That being said, I think what spooked Sony was the visceral negativity it received from the "based" camp of the internet gaming commentariat, and I highly suspect the sheer amount of cash they had earmarked for it as a live service made them think twice.

In my opinion there are only two conceivable reasons as to why Sony would kill it so fast. The first and most obvious choice being to stop reputational "bleed", in the sense that a poorly received high-profile GAAS offer could tarnish their brand in an area that they had a high level of motivation to succeed in. In simple terms they wanted to minimize the damage to the Sony brand going forwards that would result from propping up an unpopular live-service franchise.

The second reason being that with a Live Service, the spend doesn't stop at launch. The product needs continuous investment in terms of money and manpower over the long term - essentially the thing that scuppered TLOU: Factions 2.

I've never bought into the idea that Sony spent so much on the project when it (1) wasn't that big in terms of scope, and (2) they only had the property for a couple of years. I can imagine the spend may have reached the alleged amount after x seasons of operation, however by cutting it dead when they did their minds were clearly on minimizing further expenditure. Long story short I do not believe they spent the amounts suggested in some reports because if their "ante" truly was that big, they'd be doing anything and everything in their power to recoup at least a proportion of it. Giving it the "old yeller" treatment says to me that they were saving a shit-ton of money by simply cutting their losses.

Either way, "biggest flop in gaming history" I highly doubt - in any dimension. Especially when a huge part of the reported reason for people's dislike could have been at least partially mitigated by adding in more appealing characters and other assets. To be honest based on the speed of the decision I highly doubt they were especially confidant in its prospects day #1.

Where this dovetails with my complaints as raised previously in the thread, is that frankly the way Concord is being treated as this mega-disaster is coming exclusively from people in the internet gaming community with specific agendas of their own to serve, and ideologies to push.

"Normie" gamers will mostly have forgottten about it by now, because it never was that big of a deal in the first place! I mean the plain fact of the matter is that the game simply was not massively hyped by Sony in the lead-up to launch. It was never the centre-piece of promotion in the same way that, for instance MS/Xbox kept interest in Hellblade 2 up for literally years ahead of it coming to market.

It was just a new IP, from a new Team, that fell on its face out of the gate, and was quickly terminated.

Anyone who acts like its the gaming franchise equivalent of Voldemort is just demonstrating how it somehow got turned into a totem for he worst aspects of woke gaming by a small but highly vocal number of activists and social media grifters.

On the facts, its undeniable that Concord's failure is mostly a media creation. Actual gamers never cared that much, which was why it failed!
 
The fact that a dev commented about it validates the ConcordxMarathon comparison as a widespread talking point. NOICE.

And as my very good friend Kim Baliar would say:

They should be terrified with possibility of what's going to happen if they don´t give gamers what they want, and if they don't, the internet army will be there to instill fear.
 
Sebastian1295 said:
Idk why people are comparing concord and marathon at all to begin with considering they're both completely different in terms of what they were. Concord was a hero shooter and failed while marathon is an extraction shooter with a massive budget which is insanely rare nowadays with how few of them there actually are. The gameplay and overall design is also completely different as well. I feel like the people crapping on marathon were the same people who never had an interest in it anyway.
Click to expand...
Nothing shown so far indicates this has a massive budget in fact from what we've seen the opposite looks more likely.
 
ZehDon said:
Can't imagine that's morale boosting for the devs; pulling the curtain back after all these years, their huge expensive reveal, ready to show the world their next billion dollar franchise... and it landed with a wet thud and is being dubbed "Concord 2.0". Gamers don't pull their punches, son. Best of luck to the Bungie team on this one.
Click to expand...
They could maybe have, I don't know, make a game people want to play?

While 98 percent of people probably don't know the original franchise since it was an exclusive to macintosh, it really has nothing to do with its roots. Marathon was a typical 90s shooter, and this ain't it.

Could at least have rolled with a new name instead of this. It was like when the Prey game got rebooted to... Prey.

Still won't forgive them for that.
 
When people feels that a game is garbage it means it's actually garbage , and this has been proven so many times.
 
Durin said:
I get the comparison between the two games, even if it's loose.

They both have very tryhard character art that looks bad to me (Concord moreso), neither look to be innovating anything, and are trend-following a sub-genre of shooter.

Hopefully the gunplay is well done, but what a complete downgrade in style vs Destiny.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Just give me this gameplay using Destiny or even Halo artstyle and more appealing characters. Because I don't want to control any of those androids.

The gameplay loop looks solid, but everything else is repulsive to me. Videogames should look attractive! From colors, to artstyle to character's design.
 
GymWolf said:
The 3 maps at launch, the meh graphic and cheap ass neon lego aesthetic doesn't scream high budget to you?

Crazy talk.
Click to expand...
3 maps at launch for an extraction shooter is unheard of, even Tarkov had only 2, Hunt showdown only 2, frontiers only 1, those are huge maps with tons of submaps all the times.

For the rest I totally agree.

I fail to understand how a player can hide or avoid getting killed if everything is so brilliant and colorful, how do you hide, how do you play it tactically, how long is the kill time?

I'll take Hunt as an example, players have 150 hp, 1 hit on the chest with a rifle goes for 120 to 149 damage, so it is 2 hits death (there are "no" automatic weapons) and 1 hit on the head regardless of the distance.

How does this game work?
 
thief183 said:
3 maps at launch for an extraction shooter is unheard of, even Tarkov had only 2, Hunt showdown only 2, frontiers only 1, those are huge maps with tons of submaps all the times.

For the rest I totally agree.

I fail to understand how a player can hide or avoid getting killed if everything is so brilliant and colorful, how do you hide, how do you play it tactically, how long is the kill time?

I'll take Hunt as an example, players have 150 hp, 1 hit on the chest with a rifle goes for 120 to 149 damage, so it is 2 hits death (there are "no" automatic weapons) and 1 hit on the head regardless of the distance.

How does this game work?
Click to expand...

Kill times are apparently about on par with Halo. So not super quick.

The maps are also supposedly kind of small.
 
Negotiator101 said:
Nothing shown so far indicates this has a massive budget in fact from what we've seen the opposite looks more likely.
Click to expand...
300 devs (today) and a major rework starting 2 years ago suggests this will be a bigger budget multiplayer game.

Will it be Battlefield 6 expensive? Probably not but it's in that tier.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
300 devs (today) and a major rework starting 2 years ago suggests this will be a bigger budget multiplayer game.

Will it be Battlefield 6 expensive? Probably not but it's in that tier.
Click to expand...
You can look at what's been wasted in it's development so far and factor that in I suppose but looking at this purely on what's been shown it's not exactly screaming big budget, obviously the end result is all anyone cares about and it's looking pretty bare bones so far.
 
Negotiator101 said:
You can look at what's been wasted in it's development so far and factor that in I suppose but looking at this purely on what's been shown it's not exactly screaming big budget, obviously the end result is all anyone cares about and it's looking pretty bare bones so far.
Click to expand...
You could use the same logic to reach a poor conclusion with Battlefield 6.

"You can look at what's been wasted in BF6 development so far and factor that in."

We won't know what has been wasteful and what has been an effective use of resources until after launch.

3/4 maps MIGHT be too small for the launch of this type of game.

3/4 maps MIGHT be a good amount for the launch of this type of game.

Can't review a title based on it's first gameplay reveal.
 
Negotiator101 said:
You can look at what's been wasted in it's development so far and factor that in I suppose but looking at this purely on what's been shown it's not exactly screaming big budget, obviously the end result is all anyone cares about and it's looking pretty bare bones so far.
Click to expand...


This is no less than 100M budget. Bungie's staff isn't precisely cheap. Add marketing and addiotional costs and you can reach that figure easily.
 
Well, I won't be playing it anyway. It's a fucking online multiplayer game. I tend to value offline multiplayer (emphasis on offline) more. Shooters aren't my favorite genre either. I do play some story driven offline shooters like Uncharted or even Doom, but I tend not to anticipate those titles very much.
 
Marathon looks fun, Bungie gunplay and weapons will shine. Characters dont look obnoxious
I think they are on a good path compared to Concord.
 
Killjoy-NL said:
Most people complaining are singleplayer/PvE focused, so they will dislike a PvP-focused game by default.
Click to expand...
I usually don't care. TF2 and CoD4 are practically the only MP games I played for a while and I have no idea what an actual MP only game, without a campaign or the Orange Box attached to it, would need to offer to interest me. Imho Concord looked alright from what I saw. Better than Avengers at least. I also would say, it is more in line with my taste than whatever Marathon or Marvel Rival's or Faigame$ does. Even with the kinda terrible characters on which they did not focus in the trailer.
 
thief183 said:
3 maps at launch for an extraction shooter is unheard of, even Tarkov had only 2, Hunt showdown only 2, frontiers only 1, those are huge maps with tons of submaps all the times.

For the rest I totally agree.

I fail to understand how a player can hide or avoid getting killed if everything is so brilliant and colorful, how do you hide, how do you play it tactically, how long is the kill time?

I'll take Hunt as an example, players have 150 hp, 1 hit on the chest with a rifle goes for 120 to 149 damage, so it is 2 hits death (there are "no" automatic weapons) and 1 hit on the head regardless of the distance.

How does this game work?
Click to expand...
I heard the maps are not so big as you would expect...
 
Bond007 said:
Marathon looks fun, Bungie gunplay and weapons will shine. Characters dont look obnoxious
I think they are on a good path compared to Concord.
Click to expand...
Compared to Concord? That's not exactly a high bar is it? And in comparison to their older games this looks underwhelming to say the least.
 
MayauMiao said:


Click to expand...

ChorizoPicozo said:
They should be terrified with possibility of what's going to happen if they don´t give gamers what they want, and if they don't, the internet army will be there to instill fear.
Click to expand...

If You Say So Shrug GIF


It's funny to see the dumb Paul Tassi in his video, all mentally disturbed, trying not to talk about the elephant in the room. Every time these people ignore, dismiss, or try to gaslight everyone (including themselves) into thinking the woke agenda isn't real, isn't counterproductive, or isn't being used as an antagonistic tool against gamers, there's always going to be a force exposing it.
 
I'll give it a chance, if they give it to me for free.

Also willing to give chances for very high scores that show they innovated on the base genre by fixing the worst parts (EverQuest to WoW levels of evolution).

The problem seems to be they want to throw their hat in the ring, hoping you like them or their coat of paint. That doesn't seem enough.
 
There is at least one thread a month about how nobody takes risks with big budgets in gaming.

This is something different and many shit on it while the game is not even out.

This is why nobody dares to risk 200 million on a game out of the norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

“Anthem”, “Crucible”, “Concord”, “Marathon”…see a pattern yet?
2
86
784
poppabk replied
GVMERS: The $400,000,000 Disaster of Concord
2 3 4
154
473
ArtHands replied
  • Poll
What is the fate of Concord developer Firewalk Studios?
2 3
104
5K
ByWatterson replied
Concord 2
2
77
4K
BennyBlanco replied
The staggering failure of Concord must have big budget studios shivering
2
82
5K
Warablo replied
Top Bottom