this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
223 points (98.7% liked)

Games

32664 readers
1336 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:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hypna@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 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"

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 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.

[–] hypna@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month 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.
[–] superguestboi@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)