Support NeoGAF

[ChuckeRearmed]

It flops brilliantly.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It amazes me that no one saw the lack of progression as a serious problem

People don’t play games just to play them, without progression of some sort you’re done with it in a weekend

100%

Least satisfying victory condition in anything I’ve played in a long time. Playing gives you essentially nothing new.

 

[SHA]

Yes yes, Concord is bad. We get it.

We have to elevate discussion to game design concepts or we'll remain cavemen for eternity. Cheerleading for Ws and Ls has been a dead horse for far too long. Let's level up.

 

[N30RYU]

Yes yes, Concord is bad. We get it.

We have to elevate discussion to game design concepts or we'll remain cavemen for eternity. Cheerleading for Ws and Ls has been a dead horse for far too long. Let's level up.

Firesprite can discuss game design concept ~internally~ externally once they are shut down

 

[Nydius]

None of the points mentioned in OP are new or exclusive to Concord, pretty much everything you see in its game design is copy and paste. It might be polished mechanically, but that doesn't make it brilliant. Get a grip.

Quoting this because I was about to type the exact same thing. Nothing he wrote is new to Concord and other games have done it in the past.

And defending the game because it has huge hit boxes? C'mon.

Boxes' novel of an OP and subsequent defensive responses (like the one about arguing W's and L's) is just a guy struggling to change the narrative on a massive flop of a game that brought absolutely nothing new to gaming. Not even sure why he's so gung-ho about defending it. Judging by the fact he's changed his avatar to a Marathon logo, he's probably gearing up to start pushing a narrative for that game.

 

[havoc00]

Almost 4d chess like.

 

[SHA]

Pretty hard to have SBMM algorithms when there's only 100 people playing at any given time.

Who's the stranger here? I don't get It.

 

[SHA]

You don’t like the guy? He turned to maverick!

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Huge hit boxes and low skill ceiling are positives now?

 

[rodrigolfp]

1. The hit boxes in Concord are unbelievably generous. If your cursor is anywhere close to the opponent, you're hitting them. This was a conscious design choice.

2. Concord provides players with a number of low skill floor heroes. Lark, Daw, Jabali, Emari, and Kyps can be played relatively effectively by players who can't aim.

3. The game doesn't punish teams for losing. You rank up and unlock cosmetics at exactly the same rate whether you win or lose. This means high skill players don't feel held back by their low skill teammates to the same degree.

4. The game leans heavily on Rock, Paper, Scissors design philosophy. That means low skill scissors players can beat high skill paper players when they bump into them in a 1v1.

Opinion - Trailer - AndyPants Gaming: The Pussification of Videogames

There ya go, that's my position on the whole DEI thing. Can it be good in shepherding different voices? yes. Can it be cringe and incredibly tone deaf? also yes. It's not healthy to pin all the problems of modern game development on one thing and see it as a inherently bad thing. Things are...

www.neogaf.com

Yep.

 

[N30RYU]

The only thing Concord does brilliantly is exposing how twisted and fucked is the woke movement in the videogame industry.

Lets hope all the devs learn a lesson from the reception this game had.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Quoting this because I was about to type the exact same thing. Nothing he wrote is new to Concord and other games have done it in the past.

Concord also makes healing difficult. This means that when a high skill player runs into a low skill player and the high skill player wins with 70% of his health remaining, the high skill player has to make a choice. Remove themselves from the game for 20 seconds by running to a health pad, or pursue action with only 70% of his/her health left. Both options prevent high skill players from dominating as much as they otherwise would.

And defending the game because it has huge hit boxes? C'mon.

I've long thought that choice based victories are more satisfying than thumb and reflex based victories. I've never been impressed with games that allow high skill players to cover up bad positioning because they have superior reflexes than their opponents. Concords combat isn't anything to write home about but the philosophy is sound imo.

Boxes' novel of an OP and subsequent defensive responses (like the one about arguing W's and L's) is just a guy struggling to change the narrative on a massive flop of a game that brought absolutely nothing new to gaming. Not even sure why he's so gung-ho about defending it. Judging by the fact he's changed his avatar to a Marathon logo, he's probably gearing up to start pushing a narrative for that game.

Imagine doing the autopsy on Concord with PlayStation brass. You have someone like me, who is able to parse the strengths from the weaknesses in a failed product and someone like you who just repeats "Stop defending Concord" like a child over and over again. Who do you think is a more valuable observer of game design?

That being said, you did make an astute observation about Marathon. I'll give you that.

 

[ViciousAgenda]

Quoting this because I was about to type the exact same thing. Nothing he wrote is new to Concord and other games have done it in the past.

And defending the game because it has huge hit boxes? C'mon.

Boxes' novel of an OP and subsequent defensive responses (like the one about arguing W's and L's) is just a guy struggling to change the narrative on a massive flop of a game that brought absolutely nothing new to gaming. Not even sure why he's so gung-ho about defending it. Judging by the fact he's changed his avatar to a Marathon logo, he's probably gearing up to start pushing a narrative for that game.

That's if the game ever releases.

 

[kevboard]

1. The hit boxes in Concord are unbelievably generous. If your cursor is anywhere close to the opponent, you're hitting them. This was a conscious design choice

I see Sony knows their audience