All Channels
Popular
270°

Is it still possible to save Marvel's Avengers?

Xfire writes: "Marvel's Avengers did not turn out to be as big as Square Enix expected, but it's not a massive failure either."

rbailey1677d ago (Edited 1677d ago )

For now, I would say it is too late. Avengers was so poorly received it made many doubt that Marvel Guardians of the Galaxy was actually good. First impressions matter and as a result of that this game will continue to be viewed negatively despite everything they do to try and get fans interested again.

EvertonFC1677d ago

There are so many games to choose from now it's easy to move onto the nxt game. That's why it's so important to get the game right at launch from the get go.
Unfortunatly devs and pubs still can't fathom that 😔🙄

glennhkboy1677d ago

Yeah, this is the difference between GaaS/ multiplayer focus game vs single player game. For GaaS, there is only one chance to succeed at the 1st month after launch. If a multiplayer game does not get traction at the 1st month, that game is basically done. SP game, on the other hand, can be sold year after years, with refinements, remake, remaster, etc. ACIII & AC Unity are 2 games that were a mess at launch. But these 2 games are kept on selling (in reduce price) even today.

ABizzel11676d ago

The only way to save it is to go free to play, and dumpy consistent and good content into the game. The game has been bargain bin prices and has not sold. It has been on PSNow and went nowhere. It's on GamePass and still only saw a minor bump the first month and back down to nothing.

It needs to setup a plan to go Free to Play, and find a way to profit off of that. I can't believe I'm saying this, but they need to take a more Destiny style approach and offer team-based raid battles with puzzles and missions within the raid itself, iconic missions / modes based on Comics / Saturday morning cartoons, MORE CHARACTERS, make characters more class based (Skill: Hawkeye and Widow / Power: Hulk and Thor / Well Rounded: Cap and B Panther), that way each character has a better niche within the roster and their skills can be better used for beating raids.

There's a lot they can do, but the question is are they willing to poor millions back into this game, in the for a chance that people will come back and play it, or are they better off letting it just die off next-year.

LordoftheCritics1676d ago

I thought The Avengers saved others?

v_eno_m1676d ago

agree 200% - Like what Shigeru Miyamoto said, still rings very true today
"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad."

NeoGamer2321676d ago

Agreed. I played the game for a few hours from GamePass recently and really it is garbage. You would think the studio behind Tomb Raider could do a lot better then that. The team there should be embarrassed on this game. It is extremely uninspired and generic. Nothing special to game there.

Pyrofire951677d ago

I think the odds are against them.
The main Kamala story it launched with is so poorly written that I just can't bring myself to play it despite me liking lots of the gameplay.

SDuck1677d ago

Just curious about it, is the online elements optional or a requirement? I mean those multiplayer dungeons

Pyrofire951677d ago

You could just play the single player, there's just a lot more in the MP mode. That can be played solo with bots as well.

Pyrofire951677d ago

I don't hate the idea of a live service, especially with Marvel, I think it can be good but following the trends on making them I think is a poor move.
They're currently all loot based and long periods between updates.
I think the scale should have been moved back in favor for a strong and quicker workflow.
As there are now the scale is so big that it's to heavy to move. The launch had so much put on the single player that was just weakly written that the tremendous amount of work every other team put gets brought down. I'm not as in tune with how the MP part of the game works but I hear it's progression system has been controversial and gotten worse. Chances are low, and that just feels like a shame.

TheColbertinator1677d ago (Edited 1677d ago )

Too late. Go home.

Inverno1677d ago

I don't think Square is as stubborn as Ubi and most likely will not make the sequel another multi. If Guardians proves more successful they'll make Avengers an SP game, and leave the milking to moving games

swifty11677d ago

Maybe it’s just me and I need to play more but so far it feels like square is trying to add gameplay elements that line up with Spider-Man and miles morales, ala insomniac method

FinalFantasyFanatic1677d ago

Idk, it's not like Square hasn't done dumb things before, it depends on how much they think they can milk it (look at the state of FF15).

neutralgamer19921676d ago

Inverno

They did relaunch FF14 online after the initial disaster. But I agree with marvel being a licensed game they may just simply move on

Show all comments (48)
60°

It's Not Too Late For Suicide Squad To Learn From Marvel's Avengers

TheGamer writes, "It feels like live service history repeating itself right now, but it's not too late to change that."

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
130°

I’m so ready for Suicide Squad to fill the Avengers void in my life

Marvel’s Avengers didn’t soar properly on PS5 and Xbox, but Kill the Justice League looks like it will improve on it in every way.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
poppatron862d ago

I can’t work out if this guy is just being sarcastic

Leeroyw862d ago

This website pumps out one shill article after the other. Does not qualify as journalism.

ShwaaMan862d ago

Said the guy who just got a big check from WB.

YourMommySpoils862d ago

Does that mean it will have a thousand pointless costumes like Avengers did, not related to the game or source?

coolbeans862d ago

"Guy who's excited for Suicide Squad to fill the void left by The Avengers' closure."

Traecy862d ago

I'll be checking it out on day one of release.

Show all comments (12)
180°

Why Have Many of the Online Multiplayer Games of the Past Five Years Failed?

Here's a look at why so many online-multiplayer games from the past five years have struggled to retain players and their attention.

ChasterMies964d ago

Or put another way, why don’t people want to invest in an on-line storefront?

sparky77964d ago

It's simply FOMO.

Gamers always go back to their staples like COD or Fortnite. Those games have constant content and leaving them for another game means getting left behind. Why start a new game and be behind when you can stay with a game you already excel at.

ZycoFox964d ago (Edited 964d ago )

COD is replaced every year or almost every year, it has no time to hold a player base. 3-4 years is a good timeline for a sequel IMO if the game has enough content to begin with, maybe add a couple of free content updates a bit later after release if needed, and job done until the next game.

Soldier of Fortune 2 was one of my first few online FPS games apart from RTCW and a couple of others, and that had a couple of free patches which added in new weapons, maps and a new game mode in just a year or so. I hope the series makes a comeback, I heard MS owns it now and it has been dormant for a while.

The only sequel that came fast (just 1 year later) that impressed me with extra content over the original was L4D2, makes me wonder what happened with Valve. If they can do that in one year then what have they been doing since..

-Foxtrot964d ago (Edited 964d ago )

Because it's not about putting out a fully completed game packed with content and something that actually works

It's about putting something out broken and barebones, slowly drip feed content with a roadmap and offering tons of MTs which they hope people will buy.

I miss when you'd just get games like Killzone or Halo and they'd get a couple of DLC packs then the developers would move onto the next game. Problem is they started to be influenced by COD where future games had to have gimmicks, weapon mods, loadouts, killstreaks and other shit which just become about what you had unlocked rather than skill.

The last multiplayer game I really enjoyed was Uncharted 2s, it was literally just two boosters and everyone started with the same weapons. It was great and felt like it was more about skill but then we got Uncharted 3 and 4 where the COD influence creeped in thinking that everything had to be bigger rather than sticking to the fanbase they had.

Nitrowolf2964d ago

i agree. i used to love MP games for these titles, and be excited about the map packs and such. now it's we will release one mode and one map, and see how people take to the game. Flops? cool move on.

isarai964d ago

Even before the PS3 generation ended, I was already longing for a return to simplistic MP without all the XP, booster, perks, and ridiculous custom loadouts full of op exploitation. Like there's definitely a huge audience for that, but there's NO classic style simple MP modes anymore, I'm just asking for some

ZeekQuattro964d ago

Most people don't have the time to invest into playing multiple GAAS and stick to just one. It also doesn't help that so many games in that field only have a roadmap laid out for the first month or so. Hard to keep people invested when you don't give them a reason to stick around after the initial launch month.

excaliburps963d ago

Yep. I know what you mean. I can't play more than 1-2 live service games at a time (this includes shooters) since it's just so overwhelming.

shinoff2183964d ago (Edited 964d ago )

My theory , well online gaming just sucks, so many online games recently that if done the right way could've been dope ass single player games. One that comes to mind evil dead. What a waste of the title

Show all comments (15)