Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Lots of people have said the gameplay is good, but it's nothing about the game that's pulling me in.

I don't even think the vanilla gameplay (gunplay) is good.

In Valorant, 99.999% of your kills and deaths are predictable and understandable. Every bullet you fire hits or misses in an instantly recognizable way. It's very easy to develop a sixth sense in Valorant for when you're in danger from certain angles.

In Concord, 20% of my deaths happen after I've dodged around a corner and I swear to God I should have been safe. The shooting has strange hitboxes where you're not sure if your clip is hitting or not. There's weird geometry and invisible walls issues happening in Concord.

That feels crazy in a 2024 PvP shooter.

 

[Danjin44]

In 1941, the Japanese fighter plane known as the Zero was one of the best air to air fighters on earth. By 1945, they were tin cans, easily bested by more modern fighters.

What is this has to do with Concord’s reception exactly?

 

[balls of snow]

All valid points op. They really thought they can crowbar and duct tape in some of that deep marvel esque story in what is literally an arena shooter with character abilities. They really went through all the dev cycles and said yep, thats what the players want. We can charge em 40 bucks for it too. Tragic miscalculation.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

What is this has to do with Concord’s reception exactly?

America developed planes that were superior to the Zero in a few short years during WWII. They didn't make a crappier version of the Zero.

Firewalk needed to make a superior 5v5 shooter. They had the time and resources to do it but whiffed big.

 

[Fbh]

This may be a crazy thought - hell it is one- but I wonder if at some point this game was supposed to be something else before getting converted to the live service hero shooter we have now. The (heavy) emphasis on cut scenes, nicely done facial animations, crew system, and even the the environments just feels like something they'd have left over from trying to make their own linear Mass Effect kind of game.

Seems by design to me.
They knew they needed something not only to stand out in a crowded genre, but to justify charging $40 while most of their competitors are F2P. And it seems like the solution they came up with is higher production values and a bigger focus on story. I can see the idea being pitched as making a hero shooter "The Playstation style" since high production values and a focus on story has basically been a staple of Sony first party games for over a decade now.

It's just that, like Men_in_Boxes was saying, I don't think the average PVP player cares about getting weekly cutscenes. And even if they did, or there was an untapped niche of players that do want a story heavy PVP shooter, you are going to need something more compelling than bootleg Guardians of the Galaxy with terrible character design and DEI sprinkled all over it to get people on board

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

All valid points op. They really thought they can crowbar and duct tape in some of that deep marvel esque story in what is literally an arena shooter with character abilities. They really went through all the dev cycles and said yep, thats what the players want. We can charge em 40 bucks for it too. Tragic miscalculation.

It's really eye opening to me to see a large, well resourced company miss this big. Kind of like with Halo Infinite...or any number of big flops. The hyper conservative design decisions feel like everyone wants to keep their job rather than make something genuinely interesting.

Again, Cuffbust...made by one kid, less than 3 years development, and it's going to do way better than Concord because that kid just wants to make something cool.

 

[tommib]

Nice effortpost MIB. I've been too lazy to even download the beta. I think I've seen and heard enough to not care about this game at all.

I downloaded it, played for 2 minutes, whispered “cool graphics” and deleted it. I’m sure your story will be the same.

 

[nikos]

1. Concord's characters lack the charm and personality of Overwatch's. OW's characters, the interactions between them and their lore are among the best IMO.
2. If you're maining a single character in Overwatch, you're playing the game wrong.
3. This game's modes, at least in the beta, are the same ones we've been playing for decades. Overwatch has several modes as well as limited time modes/events. I'm sure we'll see more in this game in the future.
4. From what I've played of Concord, there's absolutely no sense of team work. I'm sure this will change as people learn the game, especially at higher levels, but I haven't experienced that yet.

I've had some fun moments in Concord so far, but it'll never take the place of Overwatch for me. The same could be said about many team based shooters though.

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

The hilarious irony is these people love to make a bunch of noise about DEI, tell you how it’s all about having people with different opinions, different backgrounds, different perspectives, help you see your blind spots, makes the team stronger blah blah blah.

Yet the only way this turd got made was by having a bunch of yes men (err… yes people) afraid to speak their minds and challenge the woke orthodoxy.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

4. From what I've played of Concord, there's absolutely no sense of team work. I'm sure this will change as people learn the game, especially at higher levels, but I haven't experienced that yet.

So I gravitate towards the "strategy type" heroes like Lark, Oprah, Daw, and Cam Newton. I've played those characters a lot, and there doesn't seem to be much strategy with them because the maps are so simple.

You put your spores, heal pads, and domes in the exact same spots because there's really only 2 or 3 choke points on all the maps. That's fun figuring out initially but the more you play the more you're like "I have to put it here because everywhere else is not as effective"...which is lame strategy.

 

[Varteras]

What the fuck is this

A suicide note. Keep an eye on him.

 

[Punished Miku]

In 1941, the Japanese fighter plane known as the Zero was one of the best air to air fighters on earth. By 1945, they were ...

... and I'm out.

 

[simpatico]

The fact they really thought CGI cut scene updates was going to be a selling point shows that Sony's consulting department needs to be nuked from orbit.

 

[Tell’em Keb]

I liked what I played. I’m in. If it fails, so be it. I’ll move on and try something else.

 

[apocaliptic]

What is my crime?

You know very well what you did

 

[STARSBarry]

... and I'm out.

If you keep reading I'm sure he will no doubt link the fighters name with the active player numbers for Concord.

 

[Crayon]

I put $1,000 on Men_in_Boxes

Spoiler

James Sawyer Ford

Listen to me good.

If you were ever going to make it, you would have made it before now.

In the fifth, your ass goes down.

The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride. Fuckin with you.

Fuck pride.

 

[consoul]

Was waiting for Concorde becoming the first commercial supersonic airliner in 1976.

A missed opportunity.

 

[digital_ghost]

A suicide note. Keep an eye on him.

I got a therapist for him on speedial.

 

[digital_ghost]

Here I stand in light of beta
Let the meme's rage on

Concord is a shitty game anway.

 

[TerribleAtThisGame]

This game is so fucking AI levels of generic 2024 looking, you'd have to pay me at least $20 to make the energy investment of having to navigate to the download page worth it. Then it'd be another $40 to play this shit for an hour and subsequently trash it on GAF.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

America developed planes that were superior to the Zero in a few short years during WWII. They didn't make a crappier version of the Zero.

Firewalk needed to make a superior 5v5 shooter. They had the time and resources to do it but whiffed big.

Their competitors are GAAS titles. You cannot catch up to them on day 1 release.

I think dumb looking characters that generate memes without even trying is gonna hurt potential for this game.

 

[LimanimaPT]

How is it possible that this is not F2P? How can someone at Sony or the studio think that people will pay to play this when the most successful titles of this type are all free?
This is gonna bomb so hard...

 

[Hudo]

You should also review Deadlock, when it comes out.

 

[SimTourist]

Halo Infinite killer for sure

 

[mrqs]

Concord has good gunplay but it feels like a game that would be releasing in 2016. I can't understand how Sony paid them to make THIS.

 

[Games of Today]

Playing a few more matches this morning. The game is just alright. It SEVERELY needs to go free to play if it wants to have any shot of doing well. Why would anyone pay $40 for this. You could get Helldivers with elaborate maps and unpredictable PvE or you could have this on static maps that look great texture wise but are bland in design and have predictable gameplay.

 

[Fafalada]

#5. Dumb. Roblox, Minecraft, Fortnite, Valorant, League of Legends, CSGO are eating everyone's lunch and you want to win some "best graphics in a multiplayer game" award? Coffee is for closers.

This is missing the point - on both sides - majority of developers don't understand what visuals do for GaaS, and majority of reviewers don't get how it matters either.

Good-graphics are an acquisition method - ie. another marketing tool. That's the beginning and the end of it. Best in class visuals gets people to look at your product - or even try it out.
But they won't keep them playing, or engage them further, in fact it does basically nothing to retain a user after acquiring them.

So - no it's not dumb for a new entrant to use that to help them acquire the userbase, they need all the attention they can get. It ostensibly costs less to develop best in class PvP visuals, than it does to successfully market a new shooter in the current market.
But also yes - it will have nothing to do with their longterm success (or lack of thereof).

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

before reading. is OP shitposting or is he making good points?

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

People pick Limp Bizkit songs mine Rollin’ . . . and I’m like, not Stuck or Counterfeit?

 

[Neff]

I love big tits. You don’t see me write articles about it.

Embrace your dreams.

 

[Fabieter]

You should also review Deadlock, when it comes out.

Valve really has a crush on blizzard it's insane.

 

[bender]

What the fuck is this

 

[nial]

and body positivity activists from Tumblr

it's all twitter now

 

[Senua]

Apt gif

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

it's all twitter now

Keep in mind this game has been in development since 2018

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

What is my crime?

Fiercest wit on NeoGaf, of course.

Noobs can't contest you. So they gotta fight you.

 

[nial]

Keep in mind this game has been in development since 2018

Around the time they all started to move to Twitter.

Tumblr to ban all pornographic content from 17 December

From 17 December, posts with "real-life human genitals or female-presenting nipples" will be banned.

www.bbc.com

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

This is missing the point - on both sides - majority of developers don't understand what visuals do for GaaS, and majority of reviewers don't get how it matters either.

Good-graphics are an acquisition method - ie. another marketing tool. That's the beginning and the end of it. Best in class visuals gets people to look at your product - or even try it out.
But they won't keep them playing, or engage them further, in fact it does basically nothing to retain a user after acquiring them.

So - no it's not dumb for a new entrant to use that to help them acquire the userbase, they need all the attention they can get. It ostensibly costs less to develop best in class PvP visuals, than it does to successfully market a new shooter in the current market.
But also yes - it will have nothing to do with their longterm success (or lack of thereof).

Agree to a point.

1. I suspect there's a difference in the degree of appeal high end graphics have on PvP players vs SP gamers. I would bet strongly that SP gamers are more moth to a flame with good graphics.

2. I also think rapid iteration is more important in GAAS. The character models and animations in Concord are really good and feel 20 years ahead of a game like Valorant. The high end aspect certainly slows down iteration from Firewalk. Even the levels themselves look nice. I don't think the tradeoff is near worth it.

Hopefully this teaches Sony that there's a difference between attracting PvP players and SP gamers.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

What the fuck is this

He's auditioning for Kotaku.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

before reading. is OP shitposting or is he making good points?

Good points. I've nominated OP for best high effort poster of 2024.

 

[Fafalada]

1. I suspect there's a difference in the degree of appeal high end graphics have on PvP players vs SP gamers. I would bet strongly that SP gamers are more moth to a flame with good graphics.

That's a ball of yarn that frankly doesn't have any simple answers. Demographics, geographies, and a host of other things come into play. I would disagree MP vs SP actually has a statistically significant impact(also noteworthy that many big GaaS title offer single player and coop modes in addition to MP, so non-competitive - and I know of several 'BIG' titles where the split was 50:50 between competitive MP vs. SP/coop players - same game attracted both audiences evenly). But also treating MP audience as a monolith doesn't really work. Even looking at the hardcore competitive players - those that engage(and spend) primarily with F2P vs. those that shell out 60$ on yearly COD iteration tend to be quite different.
So I guess the answer would be - it depends.

2. I also think rapid iteration is more important in GAAS.

100% true - I've seen concrete examples of titles where the technically more advanced competitor failed rather quickly because they were outpaced by the simpler game 10:1 in terms of content/engagement updates (and the games weren't meaningfully different in terms of how they played). But to be fair - this is again a more complex topic than simply 'assets take more time to produce' - there's a pipeline of things and when you're building GaaS you need to think end 2 end. It's possible to be well setup even for high-fidelity pipeline - but you need to be forward thinking about it. Very few of big publisher backed projects are (pressure is always elsewhere - AAA is notoriously bad at this).

The character models and animations in Concord are really good and feel 20 years ahead of a game like Valorant. The high end aspect certainly slows down iteration from Firewalk. Even the levels themselves look nice. I don't think the tradeoff is near worth it.

I mean - we'll see once this is live for awhile. Maybe they did prepare for it.

Hopefully this teaches Sony that there's a difference between attracting PvP players and SP gamers.

Well they have one big success this year - hopefully they can compare and contrast and learn the right lessons from what worked on one and not the other - but I'm not optimistic. 'Corporations' have even worse short-term memory retention than internet audiences do.

 

[mdkirby]

Appreciate this.

Always interested in hearing from the small but sane community on GAF. The crazies are easy to ignore.

I tend to agree.

I was randomly over on a rare trip over to “the other place”, and there was discussion over just how we ended up in a position where this did not get the axe, but last of us did.

Last of us was a known entity, with a big fan base, a tv show, a previous well loved multiplayer mode to build off; most my friends and myself who rarely play multiplayer were all excited by it, but they chose to kill it, whilst keeping concord…

there HAD to be a pitch that was impressive to Sony (hell it at one point had to be so impressive they excitedly bought the studio). Yet, now we see the game, and people have been able to play it, and we can see there is nothing obviously apparent that is able to justify its existence (aside from extremely competent character animations)

It presents an interesting thought exercise as to just what Sony saw in it and what crazy spell they were able to cast in their pitches…because it makes no sense

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

I tend to agree.

I was randomly over on a rare trip over to “the other place”, and there was discussion over just how we ended up in a position where this did not get the axe, but last of us did.

Last of us was a known entity, with a big fan base, a tv show, a previous well loved multiplayer mode to build off; most my friends and myself who rarely play multiplayer were all excited by it, but they chose to kill it, whilst keeping concord…

there HAD to be a pitch that was impressive to Sony (hell it at one point had to be so impressive they excitedly bought the studio). Yet, now we see the game, and people have been able to play it, and we can see there is nothing obviously apparent that is able to justify its existence (aside from extremely competent character animations)

It presents an interesting thought exercise as to just what Sony saw in it and what crazy spell they were able to cast in their pitches…because it makes no sense

Heck considering they started development in 2018, I bet their pitch was “let’s have a first party answer to Overwatch ready for PS5 launch window”

 

[Represent.]

Could’ve told you it was trash based off the first 10 seconds of the CGI reveal trailer

 

[havoc00]

Anyone try the new mode

 

[Yamisan]

Was waiting for Concorde becoming the first commercial supersonic airliner in 1976.

A missed opportunity.

That Concorde outsold this one.

 

[nial]

I was randomly over on a rare trip over to “the other place”, and there was discussion over just how we ended up in a position where this did not get the axe, but last of us did.

Naughty Dog was aiming for more than what they could ultimately achieve, and ended up deciding to not go down the live service road. It was GAAS versus SP going forward for them.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I tend to agree.

I was randomly over on a rare trip over to “the other place”, and there was discussion over just how we ended up in a position where this did not get the axe, but last of us did.

Last of us was a known entity, with a big fan base, a tv show, a previous well loved multiplayer mode to build off; most my friends and myself who rarely play multiplayer were all excited by it, but they chose to kill it, whilst keeping concord…

there HAD to be a pitch that was impressive to Sony (hell it at one point had to be so impressive they excitedly bought the studio). Yet, now we see the game, and people have been able to play it, and we can see there is nothing obviously apparent that is able to justify its existence (aside from extremely competent character animations)

It presents an interesting thought exercise as to just what Sony saw in it and what crazy spell they were able to cast in their pitches…because it makes no sense

I did read a post somewhere explaining that PlayStation purchased Firewalk based on a 10 year outline, not necessarily Concord. It's possible PlayStation expected minimal performance out of Concord but were interested in games #2/#3 from them.

I always go back to The Finals, which was made by ~75 employees. The gameplay portion of Concord feels very much in the weight class of that game. If the cinematic team isn't that large, it's feasible that a 2nd game is coming sooner from Firewalk (150 employees) than the public realizes.