LimanimaPT
Member
Concord threads are never enough.
1. The hit boxes in Concord are unbelievably generous. If your cursor is anywhere close to the opponent, you're hitting them. This was a conscious design choice.
2. Concord provides players with a number of low skill floor heroes. Lark, Daw, Jabali, Emari, and Kyps can be played relatively effectively by players who can't aim.
3. The game doesn't punish teams for losing. You rank up and unlock cosmetics at exactly the same rate whether you win or lose. This means high skill players don't feel held back by their low skill teammates to the same degree.
4. The game leans heavily on Rock, Paper, Scissors design philosophy. That means low skill scissors players can beat high skill paper players when they bump into them in a 1v1.
Concord might be a commercial flop but this particular design philosopher should not go by unnoticed. SBMM is a poor solution to a very real problem and it's awesome that Firewalk attempted to address it with Concord. I hope we see more games tackle the issue going forward.
Concord threads are never enough.
He just can't take the L.None of the points mentioned in OP are new or exclusive to Concord, pretty much everything you see in its game design is copy and paste. It might be polished mechanically, but that doesn't make it brilliant. Get a grip.
Every time he makes a Concord thread and waits for it to implode:He just can't take the L.
3. The game doesn't punish teams for losing. You rank up and unlock cosmetics at exactly the same rate whether you win or lose. This means high skill players don't feel held back by their low skill teammates to the same degree.
Addressed in the OP.How us all of this good in a competitive shooter? Apart from point 4 the others are exactly why I only play Hunt Showdown those days.
There is a huge problem in multiplayer gaming that very few (no one?) talks about...
PROBLEM: Great multiplayer games are horrendous at keeping friend groups together.
If you have 3 friends that play a certain multiplayer game on the regular, it is essentially a certainty that this group splits up due to the skill level of the group shredding. I have experienced this phenomenon in literally every MP game I've ever enjoyed. There's always one or two players that advance in skill level to such a degree that it causes friction with the low skill friends. Either the low skill players don't want to play with the high skill players because going 2 - 14 (KD) isn't fun for 2 hours, or the high skill players find other high skill friends to group up with, leaving their real friends behind.
Concord doesn't have SBMM because Concord was designed specifically to keep friend groups intact. Consider the following four points...
1. The hit boxes in Concord are unbelievably generous. If your cursor is anywhere close to the opponent, you're hitting them. This was a conscious design choice.
2. Concord provides players with a number of low skill floor heroes. Lark, Daw, Jabali, Emari, and Kyps can be played relatively effectively by players who can't aim.
3. The game doesn't punish teams for losing. You rank up and unlock cosmetics at exactly the same rate whether you win or lose. This means high skill players don't feel held back by their low skill teammates to the same degree.
4. The game leans heavily on Rock, Paper, Scissors design philosophy. That means low skill scissors players can beat high skill paper players when they bump into them in a 1v1.
Concord might be a commercial flop but this particular design philosopher should not go by unnoticed. SBMM is a poor solution to a very real problem and it's awesome that Firewalk attempted to address it with Concord. I hope we see more games tackle the issue going forward.
Sadly yes.Is this guy for real?
Sometimes evolution fucks up but I cant see his dna spreading if gaas games continues to exist... I think we are safe.Is this guy for real?
Concord does something brilliant that I've heard exactly 0 people mention...
That played a part, though likely a significantly smaller part than the discourse would have you believe.You are sending a message telling us that Concord bombs because of horrible, ugly, uninspiring, corporate mandate, woke driven, DEI approved, modern audience pleasing character designs alone.
I absolutely agree with you on that.
I disagree with the idea that these aspects are necessarily positives. High skill players will not be interested in a game that designs around a hard rock paper scissors philosophy as the skill ceiling is too flat.Concord doesn't have SBMM because Concord was designed specifically to keep friend groups intact. Consider the following four points...
4. The game leans heavily on Rock, Paper, Scissors design philosophy. That means low skill scissors players can beat high skill paper players when they bump into them in a 1v1.
Bullshit. this is something you just made up because you have no friendsThere is a huge problem in multiplayer gaming that very few (no one?) talks about...
PROBLEM: Great multiplayer games are horrendous at keeping friend groups together.
A bad game is a bad game forever, but a bad game with a Flak Cannon just cannot be a bad game anymore.I just think the game needed to make a few design changes to be better received. Namely, they should have gotten rid of the hero shooter concept and focused on variations on deathmatch, added weapons like a cannon that shoots shrapnel (flak, if you will), had better map designs with names like "Deck 17" or "Facing Worlds", and renamed it Unreal Tournament 2k4.
No, to me it plays a significant role especially when many of the reviewers are saying Concord has a solid gameplay. What else could it be?That played a part, though likely a significantly smaller part than the discourse would have you believe.
The gameplay is solid, but it’s solid at $40 in a market filled with solid to great F2P competitors.No, to me it plays a significant role especially when many of the reviewers are saying Concord has a solid gameplay. What else could it be?
It’s not a “hard RPS philosophy”. Obviously bad scissors will still lose out to good paper, but it leans in that direction to increase variety and alleviate high skill dominance.I disagree with the idea that these aspects are necessarily positives. High skill players will not be interested in a game that designs around a hard rock paper scissors philosophy as the skill ceiling is too flat.
I actually think SBMM is a crude way to drive engagement as it splits friend groups apart. It was simply the first workable solution to a real problem. I don’t think it’s the long term answer though.SBMM is a very sophisticated way to drive engagement and works. The only people that don’t like SBMM are people who like to pub stomp and those that have been brainwashed by the streamers who can no longer get quality videos because every second game they are getting their ass handed to them; which is the experience most people have.
Games fail all the time. If you look at the first 30FPS games ever made, the vast majority did nothing on the market. Industries often need to iterate many times on a problem before it’s solved.The rapid fall off of Xdefiant should be a warning to those who do not put some form of SBMM in their game.
XDefiant is 'struggling' claims source as player numbers reportedly plummet
Ubisoft shooter XDefiant might result in more layoffs at the company, as sources claim that player numbers are in significant decline.metro.co.uk
The gameplay is solid, but it’s solid at $40 in a market filled with solid to great F2P competitors.
The sense of progression is by far the worst in the genre. We can see the player drop off rate over the last week has been abysmal because there’s not much new to see after 10 hours of gameplay.
It’s just a very lukewarm (not bad) game that is priced way too high for what you get.
Depends on the gamer.It amazes me that no one saw the lack of progression as a serious problem
People don’t play games just to play them, without progression of some sort you’re done with it in a weekend
reelasing this terrible game at this terrible price is a 4D chess move by sony, releasing a massive GAAS flop to serve as a warning for all future devs, don't be like us, don't waste millions on a game that 12 people will play. If Men in boxes is the only person on a forum promoting your game, you've done something wrong.Thank god concord has a $40 paywall, don’t want to risk getting exposed to that shit for free
Bingoreelasing this terrible game at this terrible price is a 4D chess move by sony, releasing a massive GAAS flop to serve as a warning for all future devs, don't be like us, don't waste millions on a game that 12 people will play. If Men in boxes is the only person on a forum promoting your game, you've done something wrong.
Depends on the gamer.
When I played COD a lot back in the day with buddies, all we cared about was winning. Prestiging and trying to unlock every knick knack or max out gun levels was the last thing we cared about. Most of us just had fun with a handful of class set ups and thats it. In most CODs I have just two class set ups with the same gear and loadout. Except one has stun grenades and the other has smoke bomb.
In every COD game I've played, I've never prestiged. I prefer just being max level 50 or 60 with all things unlocked so I dont have to relevel up to get back my fav gear.
Agree with OP I really like the game but I also suck at COD and therefore hate it. More games should launch with F2P and a $40 all in price tag as an option I fucking hate the loot box gambling shit. If this goes F2P it should be with a free roster of rotating characters and keep the $40 for the base content: ie the Killer Instinct biz model.I like the idea of just paying $40 up front to get it all for a MP only game. I just hope the pricing model doesn’t die with this dead game.
The gameplay is solid, but it’s solid at $40 in a market filled with solid to great F2P competitors.
The sense of progression is by far the worst in the genre. We can see the player drop off rate over the last week has been abysmal because there’s not much new to see after 10 hours of gameplay.
It’s just a very lukewarm (not bad) game that is priced way too high for what you get.
Exactly.People didn't even gave it a chance with the free beta weekend, so how was $40 to blame? They simply see the ugly characters, and immediately gave it the finger.
men in boxes' takes are as bad as always but genuine
That played a part, though likely a significantly smaller part than the discourse would have you believe.
It didn’t look or play differently enough to justify the time investment.People didn't even gave it a chance with the free beta weekend, so how was $40 to blame? They simply see the ugly characters, and immediately gave it the finger.
If this is true, shouldn't you already have learned something about your threads consistently backfiring in an epic fashion?We learn more from failure than we do from success.