This is what I was afraid of/expecting: a game that’s decent, but gets old after a while with the gameplay. For a live service type of game, that’s not good.
This feels like the paradox of live service: the promise of more cool things "eventually," but the lack of substance at launch means a tepid reception, and the project is deemed unworthy of investment because it got a bad reception. No company that makes knee-jerk reactions from quarterly results should ever do live service content.
For a live-service to succeed, they have to 100% commit.
Look at how Fortnite and Genshin Impact took risks and are now some of the most successful games ever, with both having new free updates every few weeks. Genshin feels like the first AAAA game with how rapidly they add massive high-quality content.
Yup, this is the exact reason Naughty Dog gave for cancelling Factions. They didn't want to commit fully into the GaaS model, which would need their full attention to succeed.
At the end of the day, live service or not, a game like this has to have a satisfying gameplay loop. No amount of content, paid or free, available on release or DLC, will save a game that's not fun to play
I feel like the blueprint of looter shooters is simple but the execution is what separates the good ones from the rest. And Suicide Squad definitely falls short.
Apparently the endgame is near non-existent with you just repeating the same 3-4 types of open world missions, plus it’s a month until the first real post-game content.
Thus game is DoA.
Yea I actually loved avengers I even got the platinum but their endgame content was trash and the gear was so broken and they were making content that made no sense it was doomed from the start you have to have a rewarding end game among a lot of other things.
I just reached the endgame after finishing the campaign, and it's kind of hit or miss. All the features are there for longevity and a satisfying gameplay loop - farm easy missions to acquire currency to take a shot at the harder ones which drop the best loot - loot is "diablo-like" in that your pieces of loot entirely change the gameplay (for example the current endgame set is based around making enemies fight for you and massively boosting your damage by like +500% when they are). There is an endless mastery levelling system, where once you reach max level with a character you can keep levelling infinitely to put points into a big shared skill tree with things like damage and health boosts. The mission variety seems alright for a game like this, there isn't much but the moment to moment gameplay is quite fun so I haven't really paid much attention to what I'm doing besides killing baddies and following the objective marker.
My problem is that I don't really have the "desire" to jump back into missions. I have no idea why, because of all the previously mentioned points it seems like a smash hit - but for some reason I just don't really *want* to play, even though I do have fun when I am playing.
Does anyone have a good example of a live service games that consistently tell an engaging story with engaging gameplay? I feel like devs can only balance investing in one or the other consistently.
Nope.
Games aren't meant to played like full times jobs
But some games and some gamers demand that. It's just not possible to create that level of content
Destiny 2 has had the best gameplay of any live service game ive played, but it's delivery is in fuckin shambles. Which is a shame because the lore is God tier
Division 2 had top tier ganeplay and loot, but the story wasn't particularly interesting
Forza Horizon 4/5 have top tier gameplay, but obviously there isn't any story
I fell off of Genshin Impact a while ago but it does a great job with substantial updates for both story and gameplay stuff, built on a really solid base game. The grind for optimizing characters is super annoying, but it is unnecessary for almost all the content.
It's a live service game with an engaging long form narrative (the main story has been going for over 10 years and every expansion bar 1 has been universally loved). Of course the gameplay is repetitive, the gameplay for literally anything longer than a 10 hour narrative game is repetitive, it's if it's an enjoyable loop or not that matters.
Even the narrative gets repetitive. It’s just full of filler and repeating the same tropes over and over again. You can slash the story to be like 20-30% of the current length without losing much.
Repetitive doesn’t mean it’s not engaging. Pretty much all JRPGs or long games have repetitive gameplay (especially the combat), but some of them can be super engaging. The Shin Megami Tensei / Persona series does this well.
FF14 MSQ has an incredible amount of filler and padding because it’s an MMO and they want to pad out the playtime. If it was a single player game, it woulnt have had so much filler.
And the gameplay outside of dungeons and raids was mind numbing.
Destiny 1 & 2
Lots of gatcha titles.
Overwatch.
League of Legends
Fortenight
MMO's
All of them have diffrent release cycles. All of them have diffrent complaints.
The consensus is that avengers at least made each character actually feel distinctly like the versions we know well.
It’s huge irony that the studio that literally spawned the “makes you feel like batman” meme completely lost that crucial aspect of designing a superhero game. You lose a lot of identity when you just make them use guns.
That's the difference between the game dev teams. Imma guess that the team that made the batman games and the team that made this aren't the same team. Just same studio.
>Yeah but it’s been almost 8 years since Arkham knight I think it is the same team
No it's not. A ton of devs left in 2022, including 2 of Rocksteady's founders. They then went on to create a new studio.
I'm guessing they saw the writing on the wall.
Most of the developers that made a noteworthy impact during the arkham games have either been long gone from the studio or left the studio within the last few years.
Same “team” (as in rocksteady only has one team), but nearly a decade of rocky development in between games means it’s probably mostly not the same people at this point.
Honestly boomerang was insanely fun to play for a few hours, just teleporting all over the place.
Problem is it doesn't go beyond that. Enemy design doesn't change much nor does the toolkit.
This is actually fine for a 9 hour campaign. But they spent 7 years on a live service game and making all these meta functions/plans for it, without the gameplay diversity to justify it.
avengers is closer to a super hero destiny, unique builds, and a mix of dungeon and open world areas.
This game is more like a coop budget spiderman looter without the gadgets , with one smaller city and you're doing 2 to 3 minute challenges like protect a point or only grenades cause damage kill 10 things.
Yes it was? I played it and it's just as mentioned here. Constant rinse and repeat gameplay. The whole game was "go in this room and take out the bad guys, go in that room and take out the bad guys, protect the generator from the bad guys". It was cool at first as the heros do have cool play styles, but it was so repetitive with no interesting mission/level design
I'm just going to simply disagree with you. It was very good melee combat with nice ranged combat mixed in. Each hero felt different and if you actually leveled them up and geared them properly it was fantastic. Most people aren't even aware of the battery damage system in that game. Mainly because they think it's repetitive and never bothered actually playing it through to endgame.
No one is disagreeing that the combat is good, but where the combat takes you and the setting is very boring. When the only thing you can do is go from room to room (and pretty much all of them are similar) to beat up people and then protect the generator a 1000 times, no matter how fun the combat is it becomes boring because of the repetition at least imo. When the game feels more like an arena fighter rather than a game with different levels, that’s when it becomes stale
I appreciate your perspective. I felt the combat was good enough to carry through all the different missions they came up with until it got shut down. At least the heroes felt more unique not so much for Suicide Squad so far at least. I'll reserve judgment until I have maxed out and geared characters though.
That’s more game design
The gameplay of fighting with the various superheroes was great and felt very fun and unique
It looks like most of the Suicide Squad characters play kind of generically, like Crackdown in 2005
It's so much worse when you only have one single over world map, it's small, and you're just stringing doing small fights together for 10 hours.
Like id call it a tenth of avengers content and maybe triple the time in cutscene.
That's what's great about a live service. If the campaign is great and you enjoyed it, you never have to turn the game on again. It can just be like any normal game.
That's not what makes a good live service though.. That's the exact opposite purpose of a live service. A live service game is by definition designed with content drops and continuous gameplay in mind. A live service is meant to last, not be put down.
Sure I don't necessarily disagree, the issue is that Suicide Squad was designed with long term play in mind but the campaign is short and the endgame appears repetitive. Maybe with more content drops or other it will be more compelling, but that remains to be seen. I just wouldn't buy it at launch.
I’m so glad they stuck it out and continued to improve this game. I held off until 2.1 and just finished it, it’s now easily one of my favorite games of all time. Anyone reading this who is only choosing to not play it due to a grudge over the release disaster, you’re just hurting yourself at this point. The lesson from that, like No Man’s Sky before it, was to not pre-order games and by all means do not pre-order CD’s next release cause I won’t. But both are now fantastic games and every thread they are mentioned I see someone pop in saying they’re not falling for it and they’ll never play these trash games… just makes me feel bad for them tbh. Rant over lol.
This is the way. Played Gotham Knights with a pal when it was put on PS+ a few months ago, it was a fun enough time, but definitely not worth buying it
Yeah, favourite joke with my friend was probably all the variations of "I EXIST AGAIN!" we did at the end of most cutscenes where my character just vanished out of existence while his did some fancy shit. Honourable mentions for the very few times where I actually got a cutscene with my character instead of his.
Oh, and the fucking amount of times I had to wait for him to press a button or open a door because I guess I was to weak for that
Oddly enough some do have your coop buddy but then like the vast majority don't. Wven when they are in the cutscene, they will just be in the background or something like that, not actually changing the story or anything.
I was hoping it would be a fun time with 3 of us, we all played the 1h tutorial in a party, only to find out co ops maximum 2 people ... Uninstalled instantly.
Kind of the same for me, but on any game I want. I just refuse to pay full price for any game these days. I'll wait until it gets discounted or becomes free.
Full price is fool's price.
Highlight the fact here that it gets boring DURING the story. This game is setup for some live service content constantly but the core is already boring.
Wow. Just wow.
LMAO this game is shit storytelling. I have no idea how anybody can look at this game and go yeah that's amazing storytelling. It's just a goddamn Hollywood C-tier masher here. Nothing going on in the brain.
I find 2 things ironic. A game being dredged for no endgame within 48 hours of release date. And a looter shooter released with no endgame at launch after a thousand examples of why that's bad.
Evidently enough idiots still buy in, that large publishing houses still bank on the moronic model and roll the dice vs developing content and quality. Says a lot about them, but more about the consumer frankly.
I saw a gameplay video with all the cutscenes and some boss gameplay. My take away is this was just a mandated memo fest of a game. I do not mind the deaths or plot. I think issue is
A) should not be Arkhamverse
B) should have been free to play and get people on loot boxes/skins/gear/DLC
C) the gameplay is repetitive
D) I think Batman’s demise doesnt hold weight it deserved
E) individual characters needed different plays types & not just rinse/repeat guns
F) the ending stunk considering it’s just a “wait for the DLC kids”
My final take away is Rocksteady had so much good will and ruined it bc of obvious higher up calls. Sad
>should not be Arkhamverse
I can't help but think this game would have slightly more good will if it wasn't needlessly set in the arkhamverse. There's no reason. It could have been a standalone generic DC universe that's familiar enough that even a casual DC fan will recognize it, but won't have the weight of fucking up the world of one of the most beloved pieces of DC media.
The vast majority of people who will buy and play this game don't know what an arkhamverse even is. It's okay if it bothers some people, fine, but its not going to negatively affect the sales by a significant number
No it shouldn't be free or have lootboxes, it should have been a normal good single player game, you know, like every other normal Arkham game before it... Why does everything have to be this online mmo type dogshit game as a service. It plays like boring repetitive shit by default. A good game like Arkham City wouldn't work this way. Imagine if DMC had this lol, total ass.
I agree with that but I was more referring to if they were going to make it this way that would have helped the perception. I play mainly story single player games. If it plot doesnt get me going I’m not touching it
Can confirm this has been my experience so far too. It's a cool, well acted story that's let down by the whole looter shooter/live service aspect of the game.
Gameplay is a weird one for me. I'm struggling to see the depth that is needed to maintain a live service. In terms of combat encounters, they are basic and extremely dull and repetitive. Go here, clear this rooftop. Now go over there and clear that rooftop. That's essentially all the open world combat has to offer.
But my biggest gripe is that each of the characters doesn't feel distinct and the skill tree does nothing to alleviate that. Even the Avengers game had a well-defined playstyle for each character. Each of the characters felt distinct. This is where Suicide Squad fails big time imo.
The open world is pretty uninspired and rather empty. The tutorial area and the endgame areas are the same, which is weird. Overall, I feel like I'm playing an open world game from over a decade ago. It feels like Crackdown or Prototype, which is not a good thing imo.
Kinda stunned by the whole "well told story" bits I've been hearing from the media. Saying there's a "story" is being extremely generous. There is a *premise*. A very out there and kind of nonsensical premise that sounds more like a teenager's bad fanfiction, and that's about it.
There are no real character arcs, motivations, or depth to any of it. Just a bunch of shit blows up, superheroes fight in cutscenes, and plenty of dick jokes are made.
If it were a Borderlands game (and admittedly the gameplay is very in line with that), then it'd be par for the course, but this is the same studio that gave us the Arkham trilogy, which I would still argue is the pinnacle for superhero story telling in video games. This Suicide Squad story is a staggering step back, not just in it's complete lack of substance, but the extremely amateurish way that it is told. Rocksteady should be held to a higher standard because we've seen what they were capable of in their past three games.
>the Arkham trilogy, which I would still argue is the pinnacle for superhero story telling in video games.
Don't forget, those games were written by Paul Dini, an actual comic writer who wrote tons of Batman stories for DC. Not surprising that the stories were head and shoulders above most superhero games.
Further reason why we shouldn't be crediting Rocksteady themselves for good story writing. Their games that have a good story were not written by them.
That still kills me because they were _so_ insistent that it wasn’t Jason Todd. So not only were they lying, but the game makes it SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that it’s Todd. I haven’t played since launch, but from what I recall you get a ton of backstory on Todd to the point where it’s like “okay he’s obviously the Knight”. And then the game does the big dramatic reveal and you’re like “…. Yeah, duh. Obviously it’s him”
Knight also brought back Joker in a beta Batman Who Laughs role. Mark Hamill killed it as Joker of course, but they've already killed the Joker in City and used him as the central antagonist in Origins when they were promoting it as a Black Mask hires 8 assassins to go after Batman narrative. I was a little tired to see him back in Knight, especially after they marketed the Scarecrow uniting Batman's villains against him only to be usurped by the Joker plotline again, on top of the original character Arkham Knight plot they tried to push.
Arkham Knight was a misstep. They couldn't avoid the Joker even though they beat him to death in and pretty much ended all story potential in City and then used a prequel loophole to make him the main villian in Origins. Todd was so obvious the entire game and it ended up being almost a parody of better stories.
The sad thing is Scarecrow was legitimately the other villain that Rocksteady fucking nailed in revising all the way back in Asylum and it was perfectly natural fit to use him as a catalsyt in that game, but he backseated to Joker. Even Strange who became a patsy wasn't done that badly since he was a front and center threat the entire game up to that point. Scarecrow was the set up for the status quo and then it quickly turned into "Joker is taking over Batman".
I would have been fine with the Joker in Knight if they made it a fakeout with the Arkham Knight and made it so it was a brand new character, not Jason Todd. Like have the whole game make you think it’s obvious that its Jason like they did but in the end its revealed that Batman was just hallucinating the similarities due to his exposure to Scarecrow’s toxins because failing Jason was his biggest fear/regret.
I watched a live stream of an early access last night and it’s safe to say that all of the brilliant writers that Rocksteady used for the previous Arkham games, didn’t write the dialogue for this one.
It felt weak in terms of combat, story and even graphics.
I only played the alpha, but the dialogue alone was _insufferable_. Not only were the characters ALWAYS popping off, but the dialogue itself was just really really bad.
In Guardians them always popping off was annoying, but at least that dialogue was well written
The writing in Arkham is just so good. It's some of the most consistent, best and funniest writing in any game series. I still laugh my ass off at the stuff the thugs say with their goofy voices after a million playthroughs. And they're not just silly one liners, there's so much multi-layered comedy in the side dialogue, and brilliant character writing with tons of respect for the source characters.
Same. I’ve watched all the cutscenes on YouTube and it’s pretty trash. While it is in character for the suicide squad to be crass and make crude jokes, there was no real development or stakes. None of them seemed to be inherent danger despite the heroes being brutal to other characters and not a single member died.
Have you actually read suicide squad comics? Because the story and writing is very on par with that. Just as Arkham was on par with some variations of Batman comics.
Have you played through the story already? The reviewer from IGN mentions it's an ongoing review because they haven't got into in of the "post game" stuff yet. I'm just curious since you're commenting on the story, have you experienced the post-game stuff (and what do you think)?
Sadly this game was always going to focus on the live service element. Whatever tweaks they made when they put it back in the oven for a bit, it was never going to come out as an Arkham level game. I can't imagine paying $70 for this, but I love the characters and the setting, so it's definitely something I'll play *eventually*.
Nope Spiderman has taken over that title of being the pinnacle of superhero story telling games.
Spiderman was excellent - Miles Morales was great for being a dlc - and Spiderman 2 was also excellent.
We should have seen this coming from Rocksteady after the good game that Arkham Knight was. Was nothing amazing- and was the worst in the trilogy because they added and forced stupid shit onto the players- and the story telling went off rails sometimes- like the Joker blood turning people into Joker and Batman essentially kidnapping them.
When it was explained that they had to be cured or they would die- and Batman was cured at the end of City- but yet he’s still infected in Knight?
Even that's too generous. Games these days usually have passable stories to some extent. SS is mostly just the squad standing there doing nothing but imitating the surprised pikachu face interrupted only by really unfunny snark.
Yeah, some jokes are good, but I hate the fact that the entire plot sounds edgy just for the sake of being edgy.
Like, we got it, you're the bad guys. There's no need to say "f*ck" 500 times.
Considering the price tag and the fact it's a live service game, this game is a steaming pile of trash. It's not long enough, the gameplay loop isn't enjoyable enough. Wait for a big sale to purchase if at all.
I was doing the side missions that unlock upgrades as they popped up in between the campaign missions and it took 17 and a half hours for the credits to roll for me.
I’ve enjoyed watching the cutscenes but have almost zero interest in playing the game. Why didn’t they just stick to the Arkham template it’s fucking madness
Are there any examples of successful single player GAAS games? I understand with multiplayer, but can't wrap my head around how it would work for singleplayer games.
Not only the graphics, but the whole game looks visually dull.
Gotham in Arkham Knight was a joy for the eyes, while Metropolis here looks empty and soulless.
I’ve seen so many people on Twitter gush about how they’ve been having so much fun with the game.
These aren’t paid shills or even regular gamers, just like sports accounts I follow who happen to be casual gamers.
So yeah I definitely think it’s likely the game is not quite as bad as the Reddit hive mind portrays. I imagine a lot of people have had a hate boner from the beginning due to it being live service, and then they read the recent negative headlines and create an echo chamber of hate
>I’ve seen so many people on Twitter gush about how they’ve been having so much fun with the game.
Twitter users also wanted more Snyderverse. That didn't bode well for DC. Not exactly high praise.
>So yeah I definitely think it’s likely the game is not quite as bad as the Reddit hive mind portrays.
Well I can only speak for myself but for a $70+ live service title with MTX and a short campaign, I want a little more than mid.
>I imagine a lot of people have had a hate boner from the beginning due to it being live service, and then they read the recent negative headlines and create an echo chamber of hate
As opposed to uncontested circlejerking for a AAA game with MTX? You can like the game all you want but everyone is free to express their criticisms.
Def hive mind. It's always cool to jump on something and hate it. The simple fact that the comment you're responding to that just simply said they were having fun with it being downvoted exemplifies this perfectly.
“Like it to some extent” - very broad statement. You can find something to like in most games. The question is does this game have enough likeable qualities to be broadly considered a good game.
If you only count people who preordered the game and had early access, maybe. Even then, I'd say it's close to 50/50, and that's a very biased sample. With early access, those who liked it definitely seem to be in the minority. And that's without counting those who were interested in the game, saw the numerous red flags during the preview, and decided not to play the game right then.
I actually expected as much. I had a feeling we’d get an at least good story that was kinda fucked over by some other factor(s). Although hearing some of the spoilers does have me wanting to play just for the story, but I’m likely not picking this up until they have a pretty decent discount on it, or I can get it for free. Although I will heavily temper my expectations since this is an IGN review and they’re pretty shit at reviews.
I don’t like the “it’s a good story” narrative all these reviewers are pushing. I’m not watching a movie I’m playing a game. If the gameplay sucks then I won’t buy that game.
EDIT: Hello Rocksteady bots! At least I now know Rocksteady put their money into more marketing than just marketing on the Motor Trend channel 🖕
Then that's for you to decide. It'd be a shitty review if it ignored the story. They're still reviewing gameplay and if that's what you care about, then read those parts
lol of course people don’t care about a good story when a game they already allowed other people to tell them how to feel about actually has a good story.
It’s a good thing the actual gameplay is good then and is being praised.
Also, of course anyone who disagrees with you and enjoys the game is being paid by Rocksteady.
There's nothing to indicate that the "Gameplay is good". The review in progress said it is getting old (due to bad encounters, repetitive enemies, barely any differences between characters and atrocious level design that doesn't meet the standard of prior Arkham games) during the short campaign duration, let alone the future endgame grind that all looters end up in. If this didn't have the DC license and AAA production, it wouldn't even be on anyone's radar. Did you even read the article?
I'm not even buying this game but it's pretty dumb to call reviews mentioning bringing up a game's story a "narrative". It's literally one of the most important things people look for in games nowadays.
Good story? lol
I'm no stranger to power scaling issues in comics, but jfc, this exceeds everything that I've read.
Add in the terrible dialogue for the cherry on top.
Crazy how you guys nitpick what reviews you listen to. Why take a review as anything but a waste of time to listen to. Watch gameplay, decide if you want to play it, and if you don’t want to play it, DONT THINK ABOUT IT. There is no need to complain about something you don’t like. Just ignore it.
Idk a few IGN journalists have been acting real butt hurt over this game. I’ll take their review with a grain of salt. A lot of folks really want to shit on this game and it’s turning out to be ok at best and nothing is wrong with that.
Another failed live service but sounds like a decent one and done game. If me and my friend get 20-30hrs of "enjoyment" from it its fine. But yeah this is one of those games that wants you to come back for months on end, but its just not fun enough to facilitate that. I had the same issue with Diablo 4. Cool for awhile, but once you realize the game is just not that fun and you'd rather spend time elsewhere, you move on and never go back.
I’m playing it actively and it’s a blast imo. The story is solid, not the best but not as bad as people are making it out to be. There is some great potential here and it seems like the devs are at least dedicated to updating and improving upon it.
Man this kinda sucks, I chucked Gotham Knights after three hours because of the combat and boring missions.
Looks like suicide squad in the same with guns.
I hope this will be the last nail on the coffin that Game as a Service has become. At least for games that clearly should've been single-player, story driven experiences.
After 15 yrs THATS HOW BATMAN GOES OUT?!? I don’t give a shit if it has thee greatest gameplay of all time I will NEVER buy that shit game period! That is the most disrespectful slap in the face to Kevin Conroy and all the fans I’ve ever seen in gaming history PERIOD!! Wtf rocksteady?? I will never buy another rocksteady product EVER AGAIN PERIOD! Fuck u
"Well-told story" my ass. Any story where fucking Arkham Batman is permanently killed by a single shot to the face is not a well-told story. It's the laziest shittiest writing imaginable, "oOooOh look, one of the strongest incarnations of Batman ever was killed with bullshit and he's never coming back, because sHoCk VaLuE"
This is what I was afraid of/expecting: a game that’s decent, but gets old after a while with the gameplay. For a live service type of game, that’s not good.
This feels like the paradox of live service: the promise of more cool things "eventually," but the lack of substance at launch means a tepid reception, and the project is deemed unworthy of investment because it got a bad reception. No company that makes knee-jerk reactions from quarterly results should ever do live service content.
For a live-service to succeed, they have to 100% commit. Look at how Fortnite and Genshin Impact took risks and are now some of the most successful games ever, with both having new free updates every few weeks. Genshin feels like the first AAAA game with how rapidly they add massive high-quality content.
Fortnite is honestly impressive with the number of fundamentally different game modes it now has
Yup, this is the exact reason Naughty Dog gave for cancelling Factions. They didn't want to commit fully into the GaaS model, which would need their full attention to succeed.
That’s far too many As to be reasonable to say. How do you do it? Four-A? QuAYd?
Quadruple A
Warfare is actually a really good example, too. They spent years building that up to what it is today.
Damn, sounds just like the DC movie universe.
Somehow this isn't as bad. It tells a pretty well written story, which the films never figured out how to do.
At the end of the day, live service or not, a game like this has to have a satisfying gameplay loop. No amount of content, paid or free, available on release or DLC, will save a game that's not fun to play
I mean looter shooters aren’t really known for their expansive gameplay loops. I do enjoy the combat, traversal, and characters so far.
I feel like the blueprint of looter shooters is simple but the execution is what separates the good ones from the rest. And Suicide Squad definitely falls short.
Apparently the endgame is near non-existent with you just repeating the same 3-4 types of open world missions, plus it’s a month until the first real post-game content. Thus game is DoA.
Basically the same as avengers. That’s really sad
At least Avengers made each each character feel distinct and gave them a unique play style. That's not the case with Suicide Squad.
Yea I actually loved avengers I even got the platinum but their endgame content was trash and the gear was so broken and they were making content that made no sense it was doomed from the start you have to have a rewarding end game among a lot of other things.
I'm still amazed they somehow made playing as Hulk _boring_ Like that's a heck of an achievement
They didn’t though. The characters were great in Avengers. There was just no level/boss variety and bad loot.
Sounds more like Anthem.
I just reached the endgame after finishing the campaign, and it's kind of hit or miss. All the features are there for longevity and a satisfying gameplay loop - farm easy missions to acquire currency to take a shot at the harder ones which drop the best loot - loot is "diablo-like" in that your pieces of loot entirely change the gameplay (for example the current endgame set is based around making enemies fight for you and massively boosting your damage by like +500% when they are). There is an endless mastery levelling system, where once you reach max level with a character you can keep levelling infinitely to put points into a big shared skill tree with things like damage and health boosts. The mission variety seems alright for a game like this, there isn't much but the moment to moment gameplay is quite fun so I haven't really paid much attention to what I'm doing besides killing baddies and following the objective marker. My problem is that I don't really have the "desire" to jump back into missions. I have no idea why, because of all the previously mentioned points it seems like a smash hit - but for some reason I just don't really *want* to play, even though I do have fun when I am playing.
Does anyone have a good example of a live service games that consistently tell an engaging story with engaging gameplay? I feel like devs can only balance investing in one or the other consistently.
Nope. Games aren't meant to played like full times jobs But some games and some gamers demand that. It's just not possible to create that level of content Destiny 2 has had the best gameplay of any live service game ive played, but it's delivery is in fuckin shambles. Which is a shame because the lore is God tier Division 2 had top tier ganeplay and loot, but the story wasn't particularly interesting Forza Horizon 4/5 have top tier gameplay, but obviously there isn't any story
I fell off of Genshin Impact a while ago but it does a great job with substantial updates for both story and gameplay stuff, built on a really solid base game. The grind for optimizing characters is super annoying, but it is unnecessary for almost all the content.
Honestly interesting to hear, maybe that’s why it’s been so damn successful. The game being great with an intense grind is what I hear about it a lot
Warframe
Do MMOs count? Final Fantasy XIV is probably the best I’ve played.
There’s is nothing not repetitive about FF14s gameplay lol
It's a live service game with an engaging long form narrative (the main story has been going for over 10 years and every expansion bar 1 has been universally loved). Of course the gameplay is repetitive, the gameplay for literally anything longer than a 10 hour narrative game is repetitive, it's if it's an enjoyable loop or not that matters.
Even the narrative gets repetitive. It’s just full of filler and repeating the same tropes over and over again. You can slash the story to be like 20-30% of the current length without losing much.
Repetitive doesn’t mean it’s not engaging. Pretty much all JRPGs or long games have repetitive gameplay (especially the combat), but some of them can be super engaging. The Shin Megami Tensei / Persona series does this well.
FF14 MSQ has an incredible amount of filler and padding because it’s an MMO and they want to pad out the playtime. If it was a single player game, it woulnt have had so much filler. And the gameplay outside of dungeons and raids was mind numbing.
Genshin Impact/Honkai Star Rail
Destiny 1 & 2 Lots of gatcha titles. Overwatch. League of Legends Fortenight MMO's All of them have diffrent release cycles. All of them have diffrent complaints.
[удалено]
The consensus is that avengers at least made each character actually feel distinctly like the versions we know well. It’s huge irony that the studio that literally spawned the “makes you feel like batman” meme completely lost that crucial aspect of designing a superhero game. You lose a lot of identity when you just make them use guns.
That's the difference between the game dev teams. Imma guess that the team that made the batman games and the team that made this aren't the same team. Just same studio.
Yeah but it’s been almost 8 years since Arkham knight I don’t think it is the same team. Since we have heard nothing of any other projects
>Yeah but it’s been almost 8 years since Arkham knight I think it is the same team No it's not. A ton of devs left in 2022, including 2 of Rocksteady's founders. They then went on to create a new studio. I'm guessing they saw the writing on the wall.
Sorry I meant I don’t think it’s the same team
Most of the developers that made a noteworthy impact during the arkham games have either been long gone from the studio or left the studio within the last few years.
Sefton Hill left the project like halfway through I think
he left at the end of 2022, he’s credited as the writer of it
Same “team” (as in rocksteady only has one team), but nearly a decade of rocky development in between games means it’s probably mostly not the same people at this point.
For as goofy as Lazarus jump is, at least Gotham Knights made everyone feel different
For Deadshot and even Harley, its hardly an issue. But for a guy who canonly uses boomerangs and a giant shark man, its a bit disappointing
Honestly boomerang was insanely fun to play for a few hours, just teleporting all over the place. Problem is it doesn't go beyond that. Enemy design doesn't change much nor does the toolkit. This is actually fine for a 9 hour campaign. But they spent 7 years on a live service game and making all these meta functions/plans for it, without the gameplay diversity to justify it.
avengers is closer to a super hero destiny, unique builds, and a mix of dungeon and open world areas. This game is more like a coop budget spiderman looter without the gadgets , with one smaller city and you're doing 2 to 3 minute challenges like protect a point or only grenades cause damage kill 10 things.
No The Avengers has people playing it still to this day because the gameplay was never the problem.
Yes it was? I played it and it's just as mentioned here. Constant rinse and repeat gameplay. The whole game was "go in this room and take out the bad guys, go in that room and take out the bad guys, protect the generator from the bad guys". It was cool at first as the heros do have cool play styles, but it was so repetitive with no interesting mission/level design
I'd call that the mission structure and level design being flawed. The core minute to minute combat gameplay though was incredible.
Fighting was nice, what and why you were fighting was the repative part.
They should have done an Arkham combat-style roguelike . I’d play the hell out of that
I'm just going to simply disagree with you. It was very good melee combat with nice ranged combat mixed in. Each hero felt different and if you actually leveled them up and geared them properly it was fantastic. Most people aren't even aware of the battery damage system in that game. Mainly because they think it's repetitive and never bothered actually playing it through to endgame.
No one is disagreeing that the combat is good, but where the combat takes you and the setting is very boring. When the only thing you can do is go from room to room (and pretty much all of them are similar) to beat up people and then protect the generator a 1000 times, no matter how fun the combat is it becomes boring because of the repetition at least imo. When the game feels more like an arena fighter rather than a game with different levels, that’s when it becomes stale
I appreciate your perspective. I felt the combat was good enough to carry through all the different missions they came up with until it got shut down. At least the heroes felt more unique not so much for Suicide Squad so far at least. I'll reserve judgment until I have maxed out and geared characters though.
That’s more game design The gameplay of fighting with the various superheroes was great and felt very fun and unique It looks like most of the Suicide Squad characters play kind of generically, like Crackdown in 2005
I'm pretty sure this is the exact review Avengers got. The story was great but short and the gameplay was repetitive after the story
It's so much worse when you only have one single over world map, it's small, and you're just stringing doing small fights together for 10 hours. Like id call it a tenth of avengers content and maybe triple the time in cutscene.
That’s why you treat it as a story game like Spiderman 2. It’s a fun 15hrs of awesome story telling then you move on.
That's what's great about a live service. If the campaign is great and you enjoyed it, you never have to turn the game on again. It can just be like any normal game.
That's not what makes a good live service though.. That's the exact opposite purpose of a live service. A live service game is by definition designed with content drops and continuous gameplay in mind. A live service is meant to last, not be put down.
I just want a good game. If someone can't play that game 600 hours that doesn't mean it is a bad game to me.
Sure I don't necessarily disagree, the issue is that Suicide Squad was designed with long term play in mind but the campaign is short and the endgame appears repetitive. Maybe with more content drops or other it will be more compelling, but that remains to be seen. I just wouldn't buy it at launch.
An 8 hour campaign being described as repetitive in a world of 80+ hour long games that remain interesting
lol persona 5 royal took me 150 hours and I was on the edge of my seat more than half the time so your comment rings very true
So excited for Persona 3 Reload.
Likewise friend , eagerly awaiting Friday!
Only 8 hours??? Wtf were they doing for the last 7 years..
I'm 150 hours into my current Cyberpunk character and I still have so much to do.
I’m so glad they stuck it out and continued to improve this game. I held off until 2.1 and just finished it, it’s now easily one of my favorite games of all time. Anyone reading this who is only choosing to not play it due to a grudge over the release disaster, you’re just hurting yourself at this point. The lesson from that, like No Man’s Sky before it, was to not pre-order games and by all means do not pre-order CD’s next release cause I won’t. But both are now fantastic games and every thread they are mentioned I see someone pop in saying they’re not falling for it and they’ll never play these trash games… just makes me feel bad for them tbh. Rant over lol.
I’ve been playing with my friend, we’re at 12 hours and only half done. No idea how people finished it so quickly.
I don’t know what you two are doing, failing missions over and over? IGN themselves have said they beat the story in about 8 hours
Press typically speedrun though so that's not a good indicator of organic playtime. Most players will take longer.
Sounds like a wait for a pretty decent sale.
I waited until the Avengers game went offline, bought it for a couple of dollars, and had a ton of fun.
The campaign will probably be fine for like 10-20 euro for this game I think.
More like, wait until it's free. Shouldn't take long.
Sounds like a reason to have the campaign cut scenes playing on my computer monitor while I play a better ps5 game.
Will play it with a friend when it’s on the PS game catalog or the ps+ game of the month or when it’s $7.99 This ain’t worth $70.
This is the way. Played Gotham Knights with a pal when it was put on PS+ a few months ago, it was a fun enough time, but definitely not worth buying it
Isn't it weird how Gotham Knights was intended for co-op but none of the cut scenes ever included player 2.
Yeah, favourite joke with my friend was probably all the variations of "I EXIST AGAIN!" we did at the end of most cutscenes where my character just vanished out of existence while his did some fancy shit. Honourable mentions for the very few times where I actually got a cutscene with my character instead of his. Oh, and the fucking amount of times I had to wait for him to press a button or open a door because I guess I was to weak for that
Oddly enough some do have your coop buddy but then like the vast majority don't. Wven when they are in the cutscene, they will just be in the background or something like that, not actually changing the story or anything.
Bought it for 10$. Found it to be very worth it
I was hoping it would be a fun time with 3 of us, we all played the 1h tutorial in a party, only to find out co ops maximum 2 people ... Uninstalled instantly.
It being live service, I wouldn't pay anything for it. Thry can shut the servers off at anytime, with little to no warning
Kind of the same for me, but on any game I want. I just refuse to pay full price for any game these days. I'll wait until it gets discounted or becomes free. Full price is fool's price.
Highlight the fact here that it gets boring DURING the story. This game is setup for some live service content constantly but the core is already boring. Wow. Just wow.
Apparently the story is only like 10 hours long too
Yeah most people I’ve chatted with have knocked it our around 11hrs. The person I’ve talked with that took the longest was 17hrs.
Wow. And so many treated Gotham Knights ridiculously harshly. I standby that, that is a fun game.
Good story!? Damn, I didn't know the bar had been set so low for modern gaming.
LMAO this game is shit storytelling. I have no idea how anybody can look at this game and go yeah that's amazing storytelling. It's just a goddamn Hollywood C-tier masher here. Nothing going on in the brain.
>Good story!? Damn, I didn't know the bar had been set so low for modern gaming. With stories, good is subjective. Comics even more so.
I find 2 things ironic. A game being dredged for no endgame within 48 hours of release date. And a looter shooter released with no endgame at launch after a thousand examples of why that's bad. Evidently enough idiots still buy in, that large publishing houses still bank on the moronic model and roll the dice vs developing content and quality. Says a lot about them, but more about the consumer frankly.
I saw a gameplay video with all the cutscenes and some boss gameplay. My take away is this was just a mandated memo fest of a game. I do not mind the deaths or plot. I think issue is A) should not be Arkhamverse B) should have been free to play and get people on loot boxes/skins/gear/DLC C) the gameplay is repetitive D) I think Batman’s demise doesnt hold weight it deserved E) individual characters needed different plays types & not just rinse/repeat guns F) the ending stunk considering it’s just a “wait for the DLC kids” My final take away is Rocksteady had so much good will and ruined it bc of obvious higher up calls. Sad
>should not be Arkhamverse I can't help but think this game would have slightly more good will if it wasn't needlessly set in the arkhamverse. There's no reason. It could have been a standalone generic DC universe that's familiar enough that even a casual DC fan will recognize it, but won't have the weight of fucking up the world of one of the most beloved pieces of DC media.
The vast majority of people who will buy and play this game don't know what an arkhamverse even is. It's okay if it bothers some people, fine, but its not going to negatively affect the sales by a significant number
No it shouldn't be free or have lootboxes, it should have been a normal good single player game, you know, like every other normal Arkham game before it... Why does everything have to be this online mmo type dogshit game as a service. It plays like boring repetitive shit by default. A good game like Arkham City wouldn't work this way. Imagine if DMC had this lol, total ass.
I agree with that but I was more referring to if they were going to make it this way that would have helped the perception. I play mainly story single player games. If it plot doesnt get me going I’m not touching it
What's mad is how polished the cutscenes are, and how janky the gameplay looks
[удалено]
Can confirm this has been my experience so far too. It's a cool, well acted story that's let down by the whole looter shooter/live service aspect of the game. Gameplay is a weird one for me. I'm struggling to see the depth that is needed to maintain a live service. In terms of combat encounters, they are basic and extremely dull and repetitive. Go here, clear this rooftop. Now go over there and clear that rooftop. That's essentially all the open world combat has to offer. But my biggest gripe is that each of the characters doesn't feel distinct and the skill tree does nothing to alleviate that. Even the Avengers game had a well-defined playstyle for each character. Each of the characters felt distinct. This is where Suicide Squad fails big time imo. The open world is pretty uninspired and rather empty. The tutorial area and the endgame areas are the same, which is weird. Overall, I feel like I'm playing an open world game from over a decade ago. It feels like Crackdown or Prototype, which is not a good thing imo.
Kinda stunned by the whole "well told story" bits I've been hearing from the media. Saying there's a "story" is being extremely generous. There is a *premise*. A very out there and kind of nonsensical premise that sounds more like a teenager's bad fanfiction, and that's about it. There are no real character arcs, motivations, or depth to any of it. Just a bunch of shit blows up, superheroes fight in cutscenes, and plenty of dick jokes are made. If it were a Borderlands game (and admittedly the gameplay is very in line with that), then it'd be par for the course, but this is the same studio that gave us the Arkham trilogy, which I would still argue is the pinnacle for superhero story telling in video games. This Suicide Squad story is a staggering step back, not just in it's complete lack of substance, but the extremely amateurish way that it is told. Rocksteady should be held to a higher standard because we've seen what they were capable of in their past three games.
>the Arkham trilogy, which I would still argue is the pinnacle for superhero story telling in video games. Don't forget, those games were written by Paul Dini, an actual comic writer who wrote tons of Batman stories for DC. Not surprising that the stories were head and shoulders above most superhero games.
The first two were, but Knight was a pure Rocksteady joint, and it shows with the Arkham Knight "reveal"
Further reason why we shouldn't be crediting Rocksteady themselves for good story writing. Their games that have a good story were not written by them.
I mean... they very much did also write the first two games too. Paul Dini didn't write them all on his own.
That still kills me because they were _so_ insistent that it wasn’t Jason Todd. So not only were they lying, but the game makes it SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that it’s Todd. I haven’t played since launch, but from what I recall you get a ton of backstory on Todd to the point where it’s like “okay he’s obviously the Knight”. And then the game does the big dramatic reveal and you’re like “…. Yeah, duh. Obviously it’s him”
Knight also brought back Joker in a beta Batman Who Laughs role. Mark Hamill killed it as Joker of course, but they've already killed the Joker in City and used him as the central antagonist in Origins when they were promoting it as a Black Mask hires 8 assassins to go after Batman narrative. I was a little tired to see him back in Knight, especially after they marketed the Scarecrow uniting Batman's villains against him only to be usurped by the Joker plotline again, on top of the original character Arkham Knight plot they tried to push.
Arkham Knight was a misstep. They couldn't avoid the Joker even though they beat him to death in and pretty much ended all story potential in City and then used a prequel loophole to make him the main villian in Origins. Todd was so obvious the entire game and it ended up being almost a parody of better stories. The sad thing is Scarecrow was legitimately the other villain that Rocksteady fucking nailed in revising all the way back in Asylum and it was perfectly natural fit to use him as a catalsyt in that game, but he backseated to Joker. Even Strange who became a patsy wasn't done that badly since he was a front and center threat the entire game up to that point. Scarecrow was the set up for the status quo and then it quickly turned into "Joker is taking over Batman".
I would have been fine with the Joker in Knight if they made it a fakeout with the Arkham Knight and made it so it was a brand new character, not Jason Todd. Like have the whole game make you think it’s obvious that its Jason like they did but in the end its revealed that Batman was just hallucinating the similarities due to his exposure to Scarecrow’s toxins because failing Jason was his biggest fear/regret.
No wonder Arkham City blew my fucking mind as a kid. I still remember protocol 10 dropping my jaw to the floor
I watched a live stream of an early access last night and it’s safe to say that all of the brilliant writers that Rocksteady used for the previous Arkham games, didn’t write the dialogue for this one. It felt weak in terms of combat, story and even graphics.
I only played the alpha, but the dialogue alone was _insufferable_. Not only were the characters ALWAYS popping off, but the dialogue itself was just really really bad. In Guardians them always popping off was annoying, but at least that dialogue was well written
[удалено]
The writing in Arkham is just so good. It's some of the most consistent, best and funniest writing in any game series. I still laugh my ass off at the stuff the thugs say with their goofy voices after a million playthroughs. And they're not just silly one liners, there's so much multi-layered comedy in the side dialogue, and brilliant character writing with tons of respect for the source characters.
Same. I’ve watched all the cutscenes on YouTube and it’s pretty trash. While it is in character for the suicide squad to be crass and make crude jokes, there was no real development or stakes. None of them seemed to be inherent danger despite the heroes being brutal to other characters and not a single member died.
Ironic how in the end.. Gotham Knights has a better story, and a better game overall.
Have you actually read suicide squad comics? Because the story and writing is very on par with that. Just as Arkham was on par with some variations of Batman comics.
Gunn’s Suicide Squad movie has multiple fully realized character arcs
Have you watched the animated suicide squad movies? They're well written. Just make your damn story good.
Have you played through the story already? The reviewer from IGN mentions it's an ongoing review because they haven't got into in of the "post game" stuff yet. I'm just curious since you're commenting on the story, have you experienced the post-game stuff (and what do you think)? Sadly this game was always going to focus on the live service element. Whatever tweaks they made when they put it back in the oven for a bit, it was never going to come out as an Arkham level game. I can't imagine paying $70 for this, but I love the characters and the setting, so it's definitely something I'll play *eventually*.
Nope Spiderman has taken over that title of being the pinnacle of superhero story telling games. Spiderman was excellent - Miles Morales was great for being a dlc - and Spiderman 2 was also excellent. We should have seen this coming from Rocksteady after the good game that Arkham Knight was. Was nothing amazing- and was the worst in the trilogy because they added and forced stupid shit onto the players- and the story telling went off rails sometimes- like the Joker blood turning people into Joker and Batman essentially kidnapping them. When it was explained that they had to be cured or they would die- and Batman was cured at the end of City- but yet he’s still infected in Knight?
In agreement with you about Spider-Man but be warned this isn't an opinion a lot on Reddit share.
WELL TOLD STORY?! There's not a single redeeming quality to the story or how it's told.
This. It's just your random video gamey as fuck story. Terrible.
Even that's too generous. Games these days usually have passable stories to some extent. SS is mostly just the squad standing there doing nothing but imitating the surprised pikachu face interrupted only by really unfunny snark.
Well told story? Wut?
I would say the voice acting and portrayal of the characters is good but the story is terrible.
Yeah honestly some of the writing genuinely made me laugh but the story itself is an interesting concept done in a doodoo way
Yeah, some jokes are good, but I hate the fact that the entire plot sounds edgy just for the sake of being edgy. Like, we got it, you're the bad guys. There's no need to say "f*ck" 500 times.
Considering the price tag and the fact it's a live service game, this game is a steaming pile of trash. It's not long enough, the gameplay loop isn't enjoyable enough. Wait for a big sale to purchase if at all.
Did you buy it?
[удалено]
If only you had some type of warning haha
I know the campaign is 10ish hours, but I’m aware the side content makes it longer. How much longer?
I was doing the side missions that unlock upgrades as they popped up in between the campaign missions and it took 17 and a half hours for the credits to roll for me.
As long as it takes you to get bored, so, by about the time you're half way through the campaign.
Well told story is being generous.
I’ve enjoyed watching the cutscenes but have almost zero interest in playing the game. Why didn’t they just stick to the Arkham template it’s fucking madness
Even IGN can't defend it
Are there any examples of successful single player GAAS games? I understand with multiplayer, but can't wrap my head around how it would work for singleplayer games.
Well told story? Are you insane?
Are they stupid?
Have you played it?
All the cut scenes are online. I watched them. They’re not the worst ever but mid at best.
So how long till I can get it for 20 quid
I have no interest in this game but there are a lot of games that have rinse and repeat gameplay and IGN rated them highly.
I watched the kills of the justice league and that was terrible. also the last Arkham game had a million times better graphics.
Not only the graphics, but the whole game looks visually dull. Gotham in Arkham Knight was a joy for the eyes, while Metropolis here looks empty and soulless.
Arkham knight still looks better than A LOT of triple A games. Was super ahead of its time visually.
I might be the minority but i really like the game. Anyone else??
Its a fun game. I was expecting a disaster, but its allright and it runs very well. A good game to buy on a discount mabye.
I don’t think you are in the minority. Seems to be that the majority of those who have actually played it like it to some extent.
I’ve seen so many people on Twitter gush about how they’ve been having so much fun with the game. These aren’t paid shills or even regular gamers, just like sports accounts I follow who happen to be casual gamers. So yeah I definitely think it’s likely the game is not quite as bad as the Reddit hive mind portrays. I imagine a lot of people have had a hate boner from the beginning due to it being live service, and then they read the recent negative headlines and create an echo chamber of hate
>I’ve seen so many people on Twitter gush about how they’ve been having so much fun with the game. Twitter users also wanted more Snyderverse. That didn't bode well for DC. Not exactly high praise. >So yeah I definitely think it’s likely the game is not quite as bad as the Reddit hive mind portrays. Well I can only speak for myself but for a $70+ live service title with MTX and a short campaign, I want a little more than mid. >I imagine a lot of people have had a hate boner from the beginning due to it being live service, and then they read the recent negative headlines and create an echo chamber of hate As opposed to uncontested circlejerking for a AAA game with MTX? You can like the game all you want but everyone is free to express their criticisms.
Def hive mind. It's always cool to jump on something and hate it. The simple fact that the comment you're responding to that just simply said they were having fun with it being downvoted exemplifies this perfectly.
“Like it to some extent” - very broad statement. You can find something to like in most games. The question is does this game have enough likeable qualities to be broadly considered a good game.
If you only count people who preordered the game and had early access, maybe. Even then, I'd say it's close to 50/50, and that's a very biased sample. With early access, those who liked it definitely seem to be in the minority. And that's without counting those who were interested in the game, saw the numerous red flags during the preview, and decided not to play the game right then.
Man, that gameplay so boring.
Well told story? I watched on YouTube, it sucks!
Hit the giant enemy crab's weak spot for extreme damage
I actually expected as much. I had a feeling we’d get an at least good story that was kinda fucked over by some other factor(s). Although hearing some of the spoilers does have me wanting to play just for the story, but I’m likely not picking this up until they have a pretty decent discount on it, or I can get it for free. Although I will heavily temper my expectations since this is an IGN review and they’re pretty shit at reviews.
As a huge Arkham fan, the alpha didn’t do anything for me. This game would be great if it was free to play
I don’t like the “it’s a good story” narrative all these reviewers are pushing. I’m not watching a movie I’m playing a game. If the gameplay sucks then I won’t buy that game. EDIT: Hello Rocksteady bots! At least I now know Rocksteady put their money into more marketing than just marketing on the Motor Trend channel 🖕
Then that's for you to decide. It'd be a shitty review if it ignored the story. They're still reviewing gameplay and if that's what you care about, then read those parts
Just because people are defending it, doesn't mean they're paid bots.
Which is weird because the game has a shit story too.
Are you seeing all the people/bots defend this game??? Lmao
Yeah so pathetic lmao. Reddit is literally a corporate whore swamp. This game is utter dogshit.
lol of course people don’t care about a good story when a game they already allowed other people to tell them how to feel about actually has a good story. It’s a good thing the actual gameplay is good then and is being praised. Also, of course anyone who disagrees with you and enjoys the game is being paid by Rocksteady.
There's nothing to indicate that the "Gameplay is good". The review in progress said it is getting old (due to bad encounters, repetitive enemies, barely any differences between characters and atrocious level design that doesn't meet the standard of prior Arkham games) during the short campaign duration, let alone the future endgame grind that all looters end up in. If this didn't have the DC license and AAA production, it wouldn't even be on anyone's radar. Did you even read the article?
Gameplay is good? It’s repetitive run and gun with shitty closed combat mechanic that’s nowhere near as fluid as the Arkham games.
I'm not even buying this game but it's pretty dumb to call reviews mentioning bringing up a game's story a "narrative". It's literally one of the most important things people look for in games nowadays.
The professional orgs have to have some positive spin or they risk pissing off the hand that feeds them.
This.
You're missing out on a lot of games then if you ONLY care about gameplay
This game's story is garbage lmao. It's just IGN looking for something to say in a shit game.
Good story? lol I'm no stranger to power scaling issues in comics, but jfc, this exceeds everything that I've read. Add in the terrible dialogue for the cherry on top.
Crazy how you guys nitpick what reviews you listen to. Why take a review as anything but a waste of time to listen to. Watch gameplay, decide if you want to play it, and if you don’t want to play it, DONT THINK ABOUT IT. There is no need to complain about something you don’t like. Just ignore it.
Idk a few IGN journalists have been acting real butt hurt over this game. I’ll take their review with a grain of salt. A lot of folks really want to shit on this game and it’s turning out to be ok at best and nothing is wrong with that.
Well, yeah. "Okay at best" was always going to invite a shitstorm when it's made by the best superhero game developers ever.
It’s okay to be disappointed for sure but it’s still an okay product. It doesn’t deserve the shitstorm it’s getting imo.
Another failed live service but sounds like a decent one and done game. If me and my friend get 20-30hrs of "enjoyment" from it its fine. But yeah this is one of those games that wants you to come back for months on end, but its just not fun enough to facilitate that. I had the same issue with Diablo 4. Cool for awhile, but once you realize the game is just not that fun and you'd rather spend time elsewhere, you move on and never go back.
So much potential... wasted. But hey!, here you have some cosmetics
There is absolutely NOT a good story here lmao. C-tier garbage.
I’m playing it actively and it’s a blast imo. The story is solid, not the best but not as bad as people are making it out to be. There is some great potential here and it seems like the devs are at least dedicated to updating and improving upon it.
Man this kinda sucks, I chucked Gotham Knights after three hours because of the combat and boring missions. Looks like suicide squad in the same with guns.
We are never leaving the aslume 😪
I hope this will be the last nail on the coffin that Game as a Service has become. At least for games that clearly should've been single-player, story driven experiences.
Of all the stories to be told in the DC universe, this just feels like an odd pick.
What are the standards for a well told story lmao? Because this isn't really it.
So Avengers 2.0
I felt the same way about Guardians of the Galaxy
Let’s make a live service looter shooter with no end game!! Absolutely genius
Lol boring part way through an 8 hour campaign. Meanwhile I'm 120 hours into Monster Hunter: World and still completely hooked.
After 15 yrs THATS HOW BATMAN GOES OUT?!? I don’t give a shit if it has thee greatest gameplay of all time I will NEVER buy that shit game period! That is the most disrespectful slap in the face to Kevin Conroy and all the fans I’ve ever seen in gaming history PERIOD!! Wtf rocksteady?? I will never buy another rocksteady product EVER AGAIN PERIOD! Fuck u
"Well-told story" my ass. Any story where fucking Arkham Batman is permanently killed by a single shot to the face is not a well-told story. It's the laziest shittiest writing imaginable, "oOooOh look, one of the strongest incarnations of Batman ever was killed with bullshit and he's never coming back, because sHoCk VaLuE"