Games

32947 readers

895 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

222

Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 Dev Says Big Budget Games Are Failing in Part Because Teams Are Over-Scoping Their Projects (www.ign.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

95 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Space marine 2 seems like a good example of this.

Single player campaign: mediocre

CoOp missions: mediocre

Competitive multiplayer: poor

Seems like dropping one of those might have allowed the remaining two to earn a "pretty good"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

It seems to be resonating pretty damn well for them. In fact, the competitive multiplayer has been praised for its simplicity and feeling a lot like the kind of multiplayer that we used to get so much of back in the 360 era.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

back in the 360 era.

An era famous for its' tacked-on multiplayer modes.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

It was also famous for having multiplayer modes that were just fun and didn't ask you to commit your life to them. Some of those multiplayer modes were really cool.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Who praised them? But I don't know what measure we'd use to determine the general reception of this particular feature. Particularly given that almost all video game journalism is mere marketing. So that's probably not a fruitful point to argue over.

Instead I'll offer the things that I think earn the competitive multiplayer a poor rating.

No skill or even experience based match making. Too many games are blowouts because all of the level 1 players were put on one team.
Teams are static once a match lobby has formed. If the teams are poorly balanced they will continue to be forever. Players can't even switch voluntarily. The only remedy is to bail on the lobby and hop into a different random one.
Classes and weapons are poorly balanced. The Bulwark is a key example of a too strong and not fun design. The Assault class, and melee in general is in a pretty poor state (unless you have an infinite defense shield that lets you walk up to people). Many of the weapon options for the classes are almost unusably weak, so class loadouts tend to be very samey. Grenades are spammy and the shock grenade blind duration is not fun.
Players are randomly assigned Imperial or Chaos marines. But there is basically no character customization for the Chaos marines, while the Imperial marines have 5 or 6 different sets. Either the enemy team should always appear to be Chaos with their NPC style, or they should have included equivalent Chaos customization.
Players have minimal control over which game modes they play. It's either 100% random or selecting a single mode. A configurable selection is a common multiplayer feature.
Map design is bland. This is perhaps a more personal preference, but I find the symmetrical, arcade arenas with no narrative character boring.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I watch and listen to a lot of Giant Bomb and SkillUp, and both had praise for the multiplayer modes, warts and all. I can't agree with all games media just being marketing, otherwise you'd never see bad reviews for the likes of those publishers spending all that money on marketing. It may not have worked for you, but doing all of those modes has done very well for the game.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

So you have valid points and I do think it needs to be better, I however love the damn game. I would disagree that the assault class is weak, I've play plenty of matches where a good assault player is very key to the teams success. Melee is really strong when used correctly. I also think only a few of the weapons are weak, but I've still found their place in a teams composition.

I do think they should of launched with more maps and modes, according to them though they are coming and I'm willing to be a bit patient. The first patch was good and another operation is coming this month. Which is good stuff.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Reminds me of many “The reason why Call of Duty sucks” arguments I heard as a kid.

Like, my own tastes agree with you. But you don’t bring that argument into game industry discussion because fact is, the game is doing very well financially and obviously many players disagree with you. So you have to take that data, and work back to decide what the logical conclusion is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If the argument is that SM2 is successful because it limited it's scope to execute a smaller number of features well, I don't think that holds up. It took on three different types of games and (imho) executed merely okay. What more could they have added? Open world? MMO?

I think the more plausible explanation for the sales is that it's Warhammer, it's pretty, and SM1 was good.