Probably. Modern dev studios love them some toxic positivity. "We believe in our vision. Our team is thrilled about what we accomplished. Etc. Etc."I expect them to still be in denial.
Probably. Modern dev studios love them some toxic positivity. "We believe in our vision. Our team is thrilled about what we accomplished. Etc. Etc."
It wasn't a beta though.Betas like these are also marketing events. No dev studio - past and present - was ever going to go "our upcoming game was shit" ahead of release.
This one was not intended as a marketing event, it was supposed to be a true closed alpha under NDABetas like these are also marketing events. No dev studio - past and present - was ever going to go "our upcoming game was shit" ahead of release.
Supposedly they got a bit nervous after the mixed reaction to the reveal and people complaining about the NDA.This one was not intended as a marketing event, it was supposed to be a true closed alpha under NDA
Not sure why they ditched the NDA unless its been mentioned and I just missed it
They probably opened it up because they needed as many gamers playing it.This one was not intended as a marketing event, it was supposed to be a true closed alpha under NDA
Not sure why they ditched the NDA unless its been mentioned and I just missed it
They didn't open it up. Where do people come up with these weird takes?They probably opened it up because they needed as many gamers playing it.
This one was not intended as a marketing event, it was supposed to be a true closed alpha under NDA
Not sure why they ditched the NDA unless its been mentioned and I just missed it
They didn't open it up. Where do people come up with these weird takes?
All that happened was Bungie lifting the NDA so participants of the closed alpha were allowed to stream and upload gameplay footage and discuss the closed alpha in public.
Very true in the end it didn't matter since they let streamers play it live which felt like a knee jerk reactionDoesn't matter, does it? As long as media was made public, streams were allowed to be broadcast and the game in general was viewable by the public, it became a marketing event, as well as the tech test, of course.
And as such, they'll have to put a positive spin on any public facing commentary they release about the alpha.
Excuse me sir, the politically correct term is "vaulting".It's been delayed because they can't decide which one of the 3 maps they are going to sunset 6 months after you have bought it.
Exactly.Doesn't matter, does it? As long as media was made public, streams were allowed to be broadcast and the game in general was viewable by the public, it became a marketing event, as well as the tech test, of course.
And as such, they'll have to put a positive spin on any public facing commentary they release about the alpha.
It's been delayed because they can't decide which one of the 3 maps they are going to sunset 6 months after you have bought it.
In general, I think the main points I've seen about the game from people are:At this point I'm just really curious to see what their next move is. The game itself, from everything I've seen, just doesn't interest me at all. Which says a lot, because honestly, it really should, and it's beyond clear that I'm not alone in that. I still can't believe that they launched a test and people dropped off of that when they should be wanting the opposite. Eeeeeesh.
Yeah, and honestly that's the thing I've seen, heard, and read the most. It's just "boring" or has a "been there done that" feel, like it brings nothing new to the table that isn't and hasn't been out there for awhile. That is pretty damning. Things could certainly change in due time, but if they don't delay it and they launch it this year I fear it will not work out for them at all.In general, I think the main points I've seen about the game from people are:
Good
- Gun play
- Net code
- Seems pretty polished
Bad
- Graphics. Doesnt look anything like those fancy promo pics. And the backgrounds have a low res hazy look to it
- Boring
- UI or inventory screens looks cheap
- AI bots too hard
- No prox chat
- No solo queue lobbies
- Already done before in other extraction games. Looks different with sci-fi, but samey gameplay
All the bad points can be fixed with some tweaks except the "boring" part which would require overhauling the objectives and/or AI and human enemy encounters
I'm not an extraction gamer, but if I had a to play one I'd choose Hunt or ARC because the atmosphere is more gritty. That's part of the allure of the extraction genre. One part shooter, explorer and suspense all wrapped up in one package.Yeah, and honestly that's the thing I've seen, heard, and read the most. It's just "boring" or has a "been there done that" feel, like it brings nothing new to the table that isn't and hasn't been out there for awhile. That is pretty damning. Things could certainly change in due time, but if they don't delay it and they launch it this year I fear it will not work out for them at all.
At this point I'm just really curious to see what their next move is. The game itself, from everything I've seen, just doesn't interest me at all. Which says a lot, because honestly, it really should, and it's beyond clear that I'm not alone in that. I still can't believe that they launched a test and people dropped off of that when they should be wanting the opposite. Eeeeeesh.
Men_in_Boxes appreciates your contribution.
I'm not an extraction gamer, but if I had a to play one I'd choose Hunt or ARC because the atmosphere is more gritty. That's part of the allure of the extraction genre. One part shooter, explorer and suspense all wrapped up in one package.
Let's face it. With neon coloured walls in a very clean looking sci-fi setting, right away a lot of that danger feeling is gone. The game actually looks closer to Mirrors Edge than a typical shooter.
From there, it'll be a slog convincing the masses an extraction genre game is big enough to try it, and convincing the hardcore extraction gamers to try it out though it's been heavily casualized and safe with no random prox chat trolling. Oh, I forgot about the heavy aim assist too that was a bad point. So thats another casualized thing they added (but I believe they retracted it).
We all know what Bungie is trying to do. Make a different game than Destiny, and in order to get tons of gamers you got to make it casual. The more hardcore, the fewer gamers. But they are doing it in a genre whose core audience is pretty hardcore already. So Bungie thinks there is a big untapped market if they break away from Hunt and ARC.
I think they need to take a totally different approach with the art direction. And they should consider what makes this Marathon in the first place in that decision.
They decided to make a Marathon game that isn't a Marathon game. I defended that decision with Until Dawn the movie, but this is really different. There have been 3 Marathon games. It has an aesthetic.
And it's a stretch, but if they take 12 more months, they should also try to put together a short campaign based on the original game's story.
A trilogy of games that quickly came and went in the mid 90s. Dear lord who gives a fuck about that? I understand not liking current art style, it's also weird to use the same IP. But NOBODY can care about those two points really.
Also lol at wanting a campaign. Get with the times gramps!
That's like saying who cares about Top Gun, why make Top Gun Maverick.
If they care enough to use the name, they should care enough to stay consistent with the franchise.
Campaigns bring people in who otherwise wouldn't buy it. Not saying it shouldn't be a live service game, but I think selling this as a premium live service game with no campaign is a recipe for disaster.
And Halo is basically just an extension of Marathon. It's like saying Halo games shouldn't get campaigns anymore.
It's not because millions of people know, love and still play halo. Comparing Marathan to Halo as an IP is just insane lol.
I don't think you realise how niche those games are these days. Like why are you comparing a massively popular film to Marathon? Do you live in a weird echochamber where everyone still goes back and plays marathon and loves marathon? I said I agree it's weird they chose to re-use the IP - but I can only assume it was to help get the project greenlit in the first place because everyone is so scared of new IP.
Arcraiders isn't F2P and people are really high on that game. I think people over estimate how necessary F2P is for a game. HD2 already showed us not everything has to be F2P if it's a good game and fun people will buy it especially to play with their friends.If this isn't f2p it's gonna be a huge flop.
Arcraiders isn't F2P and people are really high on that game. I think people over estimate how necessary F2P is for a game. HD2 already showed us not everything has to be F2P if it's a good game and fun people will buy it especially to play with their friends.
Agreed. Plus it's only $40 so it's not like a full priced game. I think $40 is fine to charge people and IMO it makes people give the game an actual chance instead of just dumping it in the first 10 mins if they aren't immediately captivated. Which can happen in a extraction shooter where you might not run into people even run.Honestly for an extraction shooter - it's quite appealing it's not F2P. I think it's better for the health of the game because the developers shouldn't feel forced to implement pay to win mechanics as much.