Get a glimpse of the vibrant sci-fi universe of Concord launching in 2024.
Sung Lee: PlayStation's newest multiplayer live-service shooter Concord was met with as much acclaim as a wet fart in the wind.
I could not believe they want you to pay for it when other ones like valoriant are coming to console for free.
Last i checked it was still free to play online on ps5 if the game was free therefor concord with cost you each month to play but the other ones will not. To my knowledge even overwatch 2 is still free on console and soon rivals will be on there for free.
The 5v5 hero shooter genre has been milked dry by gaming studios, and it's high time we agree to put an end to it.
I miss the 8v8 matches we had on 56k modems. What is up with 5v5? And as an aside, why don’t games come with a peer to peer hosting option? TF2 is still kicking on Xbox, due to a Peer to peer option. Modern internet is plenty strong.
I miss the 20 vs 20 (R1). 30 vs 30 (R2). 12 vs 12 (kz2). 16 vs 16 (kz3). 128 vs 128 (MAG). Those were the days. Now we have these crap 5 vs 5 and 6 vs 6with small maps.
32 player and 64 player matches are a lot of fun. Big enough that you feel like there is a lot going on and the "front lines" ebb and flow organically, but small enough where you feel like you are actually having an impact on the game when you are playing well.
Remember planetside breaking records massive maps/battles been over 14 years sense we had 1k vs 1k and or 2k vs 2k battles.
Then you got mag on the playstation 3 like rynxie said
I am fully guilty of this too, so I'm not trying to call people out, but it is interesting how in modern gaming (for purposes of this issue, roughly the last 10 years), the gaming community thinks there should only be 1-2 games in a particular subgenre, even if they come out multiple years apart from one another. This is particularly true with multiplayer; often when I see a game announcement I think "oh my gosh, ANOTHER one of these," but if I really sit and think about it, there are only one or two good, established games in that subgenre, and usually they have been around for awhile. Not saying it's wrong, and I'm probably not going to change, but in 2007 I never would have seen a game announcement and thought "oh my gosh I'm so burnt out on this type of game, I played one in 2002 and then there was another successful one in 2004."
Yeah it's pretty bad way to think in my opinion, not sure why certain genres should be immune from attempts at innovation just because a few games rose to the top. My favorite MP shooters are hero shooters. I want the next best thing after Overwatch, not to crown it the irreplaceable king of hero shooters.
Yeah, like I said, I'm not even sure why I have that reaction; I'm not saying it's good, I'm just noting it's there and I'm clearly not the only one who has that reaction.
I do think it mainly stems from the tedious nature of multiplayer gaming now. People use the terms "live service" and "games as a service" to describe basically all multiplayer games now, but there was a time where there were just multiplayer games (or games with multiplayer components) where every game didn't have a tedious grind just to unlock the ability to play the game (I largely blame COD and Destiny for the digression of nearly all multiplayer games into pseudo RPGs, but that's another story). In 2005 when I heard about a new multiplayer game in a genre I liked, I felt like I could play it and get what I wanted out of it without commiting a huge chunk of my life to it. But now with any multiplayer game I guess I have a built in assumption that I'm not going to really enjoy it until I have invested dozens of hours so the bar is set higher.
I mean, I don’t like them, but I’m not going to say it needs to be stopped by or not be “normalized.” Like what does that mean, not be a standard genre?
Here’s the thing, if people like them and they’re selling, more power to them. Just don’t forget about traditional single player games. The day the industry moves away from that is the day I hang up the towel on the hobby.
This is all centered around Concord and a desire to sideline the game before anyone has a chance to play it. How narrow-minded can these media types be? There was a lot of effort put into making this game and I presume the devs are looking forward to people trying it out and deciding whether they want to buy it. This article is an attempt by media to force their views on gamers as to whether or not they should give a new game a try. It's toxic and is consistent with alot of the outrage campaigns that hit this space often. I have never played Overwatch or any online games really since the ps3, so the "we hate/ are tired of hero shooters" talk means nothing to me. Am I not allowed to try it out and have an opinion of my own?
If the game fails to attract an audience then so be it, nothing ventured nothing gained. But unreserved critcism of a game you have not played by so called journalists is problematic.
While you aren't wrong that there is a more targeted effort against Concord than you would normally expect, I don't think this reaction is entirely limited to journalists. I think a lot of gamers react this way to new games in an established subgenre, particularly multiplayer games. When I saw Concord, my eyes glazed over and I thought "we don't need another one of these," as if I'm super burned out games like this. But that makes no logical sense, because Overwatch is like 8 years old (I know there was a sequel more recently but for multiplayer purposes it seems to have effectively been an update to the original game), I barely played it at all, and I haven't played any other similar games that released since. Yet I feel exhausted by the prospect of another one (and it seems many others do too). My guess is it has a lot to do with just how tedious and job-like multiplayer games have become. In 2005 it didn't seem like a bad thing to see a new multiplayer game in a genre you liked, because you felt like you could bounce back and forth. Now that essentially every multiplayer game seems to require a ton of tedious grinding at the outset, the "cost" of starting a new one feels much higher.
@JEECE, I understand, I'm not a multi-player guy at all myself. But I'm not a fan of the not so subtle effort to dictate what games are allowed to be created and what games aren't. Nobody has to force themselves to be interested in a particular game but the group think/hive mind reaction to this one comes off as propaganda.
Shaz from GL: "There was a time where every great multiplayer shooter came with a memorable single-player campaign; such a thing, unfortunately, no longer exists."
Concord's Trailer makes me worried, what were Sony thinking. Single player for all the glory. This screams profit loss.
multiplayer games are the highest grosing ones, I don't think this one will make the list though.
Sony almost exclusively has single player games, nothing wrong to get some mp games in there, although I wished the gameplay looked more appealing
The characters and story look like a Suicide Squad clone, from Haley Quinn to King Shark to Boomerang, all I see is copy and paste stereotypes.
At least its live service Done right: Charge for the game, then provide regular free updates
compared to: Make game free, then gouge micro transactions that are basically a necessity to win because al the best stuff has a small cost, then its basically who ever pays most, wins, at least with this everyones on the same playbook.
The game is story based though, it's going to have free story updates many will probably coincide with new character additions.
While I do love when devs make a complete experience with a sp and mp like Gears, Halo and cod, that wasn't always the case. There were mp only games like quake and unreal. But I do really hate when these devs blueball us with cool characters and lore only to limit them to a 2 minute cutscene every 3 months if we're lucky. Apex and overwatch would make for an interesting campaign.
at least with Quake & Unreal, the games that started those franchises included a campaign (Quake & Unreal + Return to Na Pali). Then some later installments would be multi-player only (and some others would still include campaigns). But with games like Overwatch or Concord where the franchise starts as multi-player only, for those players that think the setting/characters/etc are interesting but don't play multi-player, there is no content available to get them invested in the franchise.
I didn't know that about unreal and quake, thanks for letting me know. But yeah I hope if the devs find that people love these universes that maybe in the next installment that they include a story mode for those not interested in grinding hours a day to "get good"
What even was this announcement?
Some CG and a title ...
PVP jank
Why even show a PvP title without gameplay? A single player game, you can get a gist for the story, the tone, things of that nature. That's what this felt like it was trying to do. But for PvP? It's almost worse than nothing. Truly confusing.