Based on the roadmap, not a chance this is discontinued until 2022 at the earliest and that's if the Black Panther/Wakanda expansion is a complete dud.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Avengers: The PS5/XSX version is out. A new character released. It's Saturday night. It has 600 viewers on Twitch.
- Thread starter ZeoVGM
- Start date
That one was abandoned soon after launch. This one is coming half a year after launch, and they already knew how unpopular the game is when coming up with it. I don't know if the two are entirely comparable. Even if they've been slow so far, Square has stuck with this game and is still currently updating it to make it better. That's more than anyone could say about Anthem at the same point in its life, at least from what I remember.
Yeah not even comparable at this point. Avengers has done more post launch than Anthem in its entire lifetime.
It shouldn't have been a service game. It should have been more like, say, Borderlands or what Outriders claims to be. You'd have your main story, your side missions, your optional co-op and some end game "raid bosses" to kill that require teamwork. Throw in a few paid expansions, each with a new playable character and new enemies and locations and maybe an increased level cap with some fancy "raid boss" at the end but that should really have been it. Then they could move on and focus on Avengers 2 with a mix of old and new heroes to play as.
Literally me.
The gameplay just looks awful. No weight to anything. I just fact-checked myself (in case it maybe got better) and I watched a Hulk section. The random robots he's fighting are just not engaging at all. It's a pretty game to look at, but the gameplay could be an early PS360 era title.
That's a problem with the enemies that are tougher or have what's essentially an overshield. Outside of them there's plenty of weight in the game...
Literally just watched a full section of gameplay and none of those enemies looked like they were sub-bosses or whatever.
It just looks super bland. Like a whole game in the Overwatch training zone
Combat has always been as much as you put into it. I think each character is pretty great.
I feel like only Iron Man's combos are good in this game because seeing other dudes that are clearly meant to stay on the ground juggle shit awkwardly in mid air for 20 seconds gets old really fast.
Wonder if SE is gauging response from Outriders on GP and seeing if that hits big then Avengers will go on GP as well. They need much higher engagement for this game.
Nah. I main Cap and his combos are still really fun, just don't end up spending as much time in air obviously. But nailing a shield throw headshot on someone you're juggling feels great.
man something about the movement looks so off about this game. it's as if the entire game is underwater
you compare it to stuff like DMC5, FF7 remake, and FFXV and it looks sluggish in comparison
Well... Lol. Eastern developers tend to make some better looking action combat than Western. Not sure what else there is to say there, you're not going to get DMC action combat from Crystal Dynamics. This is their first attempt anyway. Even funnier that you're citing the fifth, seventh (and a remake at that), and 15th entries in series as comparisons for this not being up to par.
Last edited:
I had a good time with the campaign (and thought it was a great choice to anchor the story around Kamala Khan rather than the 'big name' Avengers from the movies), but after finishing that up, I didn't feel much motivation in engaging with the 'endgame' content for more than an hour or so. I enjoyed the game's combat, and felt most of the characters were decently fun to play as, but there was just something about doing missions to collect for loot which didn't appeal to me much.
It's interesting to some degree, as I feel if the game primarily focused on the single player campaign, I suspect it would have been better received at launch. But with the decision to make this a live service game, the focus of course shifts into 'endgame' content and active players bases after launch.
I'm not sure if live service necessarily is the wrong choice for a game like this in and of itself. The Marvel Universe certainly has enough heroes, villains, and lore to support a continuously updating story and associated content. To me, it's more an issue of execution. I feel live service games require a fairly steady content drip to stay relevant and compete with other live service games. There are so many games to play these days, and if a live service game is going long stretches of time without releasing significant content, it's easy to see how it starts getting forgotten (even being powered with a big property like Marvel and The Avengers). Especially so if they had trouble building much momentum at launch, which feels like the case for this game. There certainly are examples of exceptions to this with games getting a revival or rennaisance years after initial release, but it's undoubtedly an uphill battle, and one that many games struggle to overcome.
Stuff like the Wakanda expansion sound promising at the very least, but IMO, it does feel like a lot of this stuff probably should have been pretty deep into development by the time the game launched, to minimize that gap in time between substantial content drops for this game. And that's unfair to some extent as we still have a Pandemic raging on, and all game development has had to deal with slowdowns related to that unfortunately. But ultimately that is the tough challenge of deciding to release a live service game at this time.
It's interesting to some degree, as I feel if the game primarily focused on the single player campaign, I suspect it would have been better received at launch. But with the decision to make this a live service game, the focus of course shifts into 'endgame' content and active players bases after launch.
I'm not sure if live service necessarily is the wrong choice for a game like this in and of itself. The Marvel Universe certainly has enough heroes, villains, and lore to support a continuously updating story and associated content. To me, it's more an issue of execution. I feel live service games require a fairly steady content drip to stay relevant and compete with other live service games. There are so many games to play these days, and if a live service game is going long stretches of time without releasing significant content, it's easy to see how it starts getting forgotten (even being powered with a big property like Marvel and The Avengers). Especially so if they had trouble building much momentum at launch, which feels like the case for this game. There certainly are examples of exceptions to this with games getting a revival or rennaisance years after initial release, but it's undoubtedly an uphill battle, and one that many games struggle to overcome.
Stuff like the Wakanda expansion sound promising at the very least, but IMO, it does feel like a lot of this stuff probably should have been pretty deep into development by the time the game launched, to minimize that gap in time between substantial content drops for this game. And that's unfair to some extent as we still have a Pandemic raging on, and all game development has had to deal with slowdowns related to that unfortunately. But ultimately that is the tough challenge of deciding to release a live service game at this time.
Last edited:
I skipped this primarily because I knew I wouldn't get to use Spider-Man on PC even if I invested the time to still be playing it. Looks like that exclusive saved me from wasting my money.
Dude, we can all agree the movies are just mindless entertainment, but this is wrong on so many levels.
I'm citing the ones that do have action combat since the rest are turn based and the XV team have about similar action experience as crystal dynamics. the FF7 team worked on KH 2 so they obviously have more experience and western games like god of war (all games) have pretty slick melee combat.
OP
OP
Really curious to see how Gotham Knights + Suicide Squad do compared to this - I'm expecting both games to be easily better bar some really big fuckup.
Honestly, more contained stories within the MCU could be amazing games and I hope this doesn't deter devs from trying it.
Honestly, more contained stories within the MCU could be amazing games and I hope this doesn't deter devs from trying it.
I mean, FF7R and FFXV are made by different teams and have fairly different combat systems from their previous iterations, their systems weren't built out over 6 and 14 iterations like your comment implies. Also if they wanted to be compared to games from 2001 maybe they should have released it back in or around 2001, unfortunately for them they released it in 2020 and therefore their game will be compared to games released up to and around 2020.
To be fair, Endgame was really shitty :)
Liked/loved the other Avengers movies though. But a bad finally can sour the whole experience.
They're not going to bring this game back. SE has to cut their losses like EA did with Anthem and move on.
Loot games need a hook of progression and unlocks to keep players on board. That's why so many continue to stick with Destiny despite the mediocre content.
Avengers does not have that. The character specific season passes were way too slow to level up and saving up currently to buy suits at the shop is not satisfying.
Loot games need a hook of progression and unlocks to keep players on board. That's why so many continue to stick with Destiny despite the mediocre content.
Avengers does not have that. The character specific season passes were way too slow to level up and saving up currently to buy suits at the shop is not satisfying.
Yes, since release there has been two character packs released. You get Hawkeye and Bishop along with a couple of story missions for each of them. I just went through them both yesterday and took around 3-4 hours to complete them.
In an alternate universe, gamers who bump into each other at midnight release events are asking each other, "What do y'all play? Call o' Duty? Anthem? 'Vengers?"
What's kind of ironic about this game is that it was directed by Shaun Escayg, previously of Naughty Dog. He directed the absolutely wonderful Uncharted Lost Legacy. Unfortunately people from Naughty Dog like Shaun and Amy Hennig seem to be cursed when it comes to releasing a sucuessful AAA game on their own outside of the Dog Pound.
I just think we've hit peak hyperbole and ridiculous hate boner if we're complaining that the combat doesn't look as slick or polished as Devil May Cry or FFVII Remake. It looks fine for a studio's first attempt at an action brawler that also combines playstyles from a roster of different superheroes with varying powers/weapons. Regardless of when some of the FF titles went action they already built up a very clear idea of how each character should function, outline of animations etc.
OP
OP
To be fair, you knew exactly what you were getting with this thread.
OP
OP
... I knew it would bring people into the thread to say the movies are bad?
What?
Seemed obvious the negative intent would result in ridiculous takes on both the topic at hand and anything related.
OP
OP
honestly, the near insurmountable task of developing all those playstyles was probably the biggest problem with the game. Although it's commendable and it could have been way worse, it must have been a goddamn pain to develop. I wish they went the route of the film series and developed individual games first, so that the inevitable team up game would be easier to develop
for comparison, the FFXV team (who had similar action experience to the avengers devs) only made 4 different gameplay styles. Though, I hope that the avengers devs didn't face the problems that XV did (needing to write a script out of a bunch of old trailers, making an engine alongside the game and with a rushed deadline)
I wish Avengers had as many unique enemies and bosses that XV did
Just throwing this out there...this game has a fantastic campaign. It's really only half a live service game, half single player story game. Reviews pretty universally praised the campaign, too, so I'm not sure why it's considered a "really bad game". There's value in here other than the multiplayer.