Highguard - Concord 2.0?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Disc said:
It actually worked to great effect for Apex Legends. For a free-to-play game, shadowdropping with a big marketing bomb means that by the time players hear about it, they can just go and try it for themselves.

The problem is that the Highguard devs gave up on it, but only halfway.
Click to expand...
No, the problem is that Apex actually seems kinda cool but Hughguard doesn't. It's not that deep.
 
BlankSpaceBaby said:
While the concepts of the Warden aren't bad, if cliched, what gets me is how lazily they just slap guns onto everyone. Here's a space knight with electric spear... which he only uses for skills, and most of the time he is just pew pew pew with something he seems to have borrowed from Soldier:76. Here's an Assassin's Creed/Prince of Persia like female assassin... but she only uses her daggers in her skills while pew-pew-pew at other times.

As a result, the aesthetic of the character can clash badly with the weapon they are holding.

Overwatch, at least, lets their heroes use weapons that match their aesthetic, such as Genji with shurikens, Moira with her orbs, etc.

Why does all this matter? Because in a saturated genre where people already have their ride-or-die favorite games, first impressions count a lot to even get these folks to take time out from their faves to try the new game.
Click to expand...
It worked for valorant and apex, you even see some of the abilities that got copied from those games in highguard, there's no reason the choice to choose your weapon is a bad thing for this game. The most baffling thing about the game is the looting mechanic and the lack of enemy ai to populate the giant map.
 
its over.png

highguard more like byeguard
 
What I can't understand is why so many in the gaming press are glazing this piece of shit, despite it being as bland as cardboard and not featuring a nigger lesbian with vitiligo in a wheelchair.

Is there someone, or several someones, on the dev team that are their buttbuddies?

Would this also explain why the Dorito Pope was sucking their dicks this hard?
 
regalterry said:
What I can't understand is why so many in the gaming press are glazing this piece of shit
Click to expand...
Journos need to write about something in order to keep their ad money. This has been an issue ever since newspapers started featuring ads.
 
regalterry said:
What I can't understand is why so many in the gaming press are glazing this piece of shit, despite it being as bland as cardboard and not featuring a nigger lesbian with vitiligo in a wheelchair.

Is there someone, or several someones, on the dev team that are their buttbuddies?

Would this also explain why the Dorito Pope was sucking their dicks this hard?
Click to expand...
Because they can "fight the gamer chuds". They pulled this same shit with Concord, some of the journos glazing this game are even the same ones who wrote damn near the same articles for Concord. They don't care about gaming, it's entirely about their various stupid agendas. On top of that, you're always going to have some sycophantic behavior from game journos because they treasure their access. Early access to get review and preview articles out. Paid vacations from publishers to visit studios. Promo crap from publishers mailed to them.

And they're all doing it for shitty pay. No one who could actually write worth a crap, game worth a crap, or has a personality that anyone finds interesting would bother to work for these outlets. They've either long since switched to youtube or twitch, or were never part of "game journalism" in the first place. Why do they do it for shit pay? Because any day now the NYT will see how they covered the plight of some marginalized bullshit in gaming and hire them from whatever game journo site they've been slumming it at. Otherwise they'd have to go to mcdonalds where their lazy bullshit wouldn't be permitted, they wouldn't have access to anything special, and their name wouldn't be associated with any cause or whatever.
 
Doggy Dog World said:
Some (I'm assuming) dev named Lorn has been replying to every other post on the steam discussion page and it's mildly amusing.

View attachment 8485855View attachment 8485856View attachment 8485857
Click to expand...
I had to google what a "Kyber crystal" is and surprise surprise
>muh heckin' star warsarino crystals!

moocow said:
I don't understand how the industry can keep fucking this up with games like EVE Online sustaining tens of thousands of simultaneous in-world players and even same-genre (FPS) 100-player free-for-alls like Fortnite and COD Warzone showing it can be done even on shitty consoles. Fortnite proves UE5 can do it, TF2 proves Source can do it, and Rust & Fall Guys both show Unity can handle 50+ as well). Fucking Minecraft (Java) and Minecraft BE (C++/C#) can both do it, FFS.

This is a "solved problem" in CS. A hundred real-time human-controlled network actors in a constrained and fixed environment interacting with each other in near-real-time isn't "trivial" but is unquestionably achievable, and has been done repeatedly by multiple separate parties.

Fucking it up at this point requires Not Invented Here syndrome and both deliberately ignoring existing software libraries and assigning your least-competent junior engineers to write the netcode.
Click to expand...
Excuse me but this has mount physics, sub-tick movement inputs and is a custom-built architecture, chud. That's why they need secure boot.

But seriously welcome to the DEI/competency crisis. Enjoy your stay. Eve online could do over one thousand people in one system in like 2008. It's almost hard to think about now but back then multi-socket servers would have like 16 cores and a couple dozen gb of ddr2 max. A modern desktop is more powerful. Yet these devs can't get 3v3 working well with our monster servers that have hundreds of cores, hundreds of megabytes of CPU cache, and terabytes of memory (all of which are way faster besides).

Also cheating is a solved problem as long as you're not trusting the client to report anything about game state. And as I've sperged out about before secure boot is just a slow moving plan to effectively get rid of computer ownership.

@Asian tech support
1770021566239.png
fucking roasted holy shit lol

Forklift Certified said:
I think you 2 perfectly represent what i ment under "ceo brained retards" uGH GamE LaUnCHEd -> nO 6gORIllOn nIggEr CatLe tO PlAY & BuY SeASOn PaSs SlOP -> Rrrrrreeeee StUdIo NoT MAkInG MONEEY!!!!!!!!

Its not making money because the game is not genuine, it has no established lore, no flushed out character backstories, no in word stakes why the hell even need to do anything, no nothing. Its feels like blackrock kekies trying to recreate slopnight level of money but they drew the wrong conclusions from concord's flop and they though the only thing between them and infinitum amount of live service money is sightly more fuckable character design.

ceo brained retards first thing to ask when a new game is drafted is "how to make money?"
ture game devs first thing to ask when a new game drafted is "what is the reason for the players to buy our game in the first place?"

Many of you thinking those thing are the same fucking thing but the difference is first led to a collection of market research check boxes the other one a flushed out well crafted game.

TL;DR
The game is not bad because not generating money, the game is bad because it has no genuinity / no leg to stand, therefor not making money ! IMO Mocking it to not making money is pointless, mock it because its an empty shell of a game.
Click to expand...
>CEO steps on rake
>we laugh at CEO
>you're acting like a CEO! you're a CEO brained retard!
Guess you wanna fuck spiders, huh?
 
p1138 said:
They pulled this same shit with Concord
Click to expand...
Concord I can understand though - big budget Sony turd, very vocal woke devs, looks like Marvelslop, features all the androgynous and ugly black women you could ask for, actively repels the male gaze.

Buth Highguard? It just looks so generic, the devs are literal whos that didn't stir up any (?) drama until launch.

Or it is as you say, jurnos just whiteknighting for faggot devs because the chuds were mocking them and their shit game relentlessly?
 
SCV said:
But seriously welcome to the DEI/competency crisis. Enjoy your stay. Eve online could do over one thousand people in one system in like 2008. It's almost hard to think about now but back then multi-socket servers would have like 16 cores and a couple dozen gb of ddr2 max. A modern desktop is more powerful. Yet these devs can't get 3v3 working well with our monster servers that have hundreds of cores, hundreds of megabytes of CPU cache, and terabytes of memory (all of which are way faster besides).
Click to expand...
I’ve seen this come up so I’ll give the devil’s advocate answer. Eve is a much simpler game computationally. There’s not much in the way of physics simulation, which is a big drain on server resources (particularly since it’s often a bad idea to make physics computation concurrent, usually you need a single ‘master’ thread to maintain consistency). Server resources for player interactions also grow in O(n^2) with the number of players since each player is able to interact with every other player.

That said this game should still be able to run fine with probably around 32 players, it does seem to just be poorly optimized. But for other games it gets a little more complicated when it comes to why player counts haven’t increased proportionally with server performance (short answer, they have it’s just not a linear relationship).
 
regalterry said:
Concord I can understand though - big budget Sony turd, very vocal woke devs, looks like Marvelslop, features all the androgynous and ugly black women you could ask for, actively repels the male gaze.

Buth Highguard? It just looks so generic, the devs are literal whos that didn't stir up any (?) drama until launch.

Or it is as you say, jurnos just whiteknighting for faggot devs because the chuds were mocking them and their shit game relentlessly?
Click to expand...
You're right, it didn't have the same shit as Concord at launch with the fat characters and crap. But like I said, game journos have to glaze publishers to keep their precious access otherwise they're no different than random youtube people at that point. And even some youtube and twitch personalities get access like they do, and they fucking hate it because those channels make more money with wider audiences. It's the access that has always been the most important though. If a game journo publication can't get early review copies of games, because a publisher thinks they'll shit on the game, then they won't have material to write before the launch of a game. And this has happened a couple of times over the decades(it's so rare I can't even recall a specific instance off the top of my head, but it's happened). Also even though game journos won't admit it and you and I likely wouldn't ever notice browsing their sites due to using ad blockers, but ad campaigns by publishers are another aspect of this. I'm sure you remember seeing or hearing about IGN running full banner and skyscraper ads to the point of theming an entire site for fucking tomb raider or whatever. There was that mechabreak game that was half page video ads on almost all of the game journo sites for a couple weeks when it came out not too long ago. This is all money in the pockets of the company, to pay game journos with.

Game journos are required to suck publisher cock to keep their access and perceived relevance
Game journos hate games and gamers

That's all there is to it. Why do you think everything is a 7/10? They don't bother reviewing an obvious 2/10 game because they know the publisher would never send them review copies again, or it's some bullshit game no one has any interest in to begin with so it's not worth reviewing in the first place.
 
Since I can only watch the game (I use Arch btw), I've come to the conclusion that there's bones of something potentially great but they somehow did everything in their power to make it all not matter.

>farm crystals to upgrade base
Walls can be destroyed with an item everyone has so there's zero point.
>loot guns
All guns are equal in terms of rarity every round so there's no point past the first gun
>charge the base
No point because you can timeout the shield breaker and hit their base for free as long as you're closer to theirs than yours
>plant the bomb
Doesn't matter because as long as you keep winning the shield breaker phase they'll mathematically lose first.

It's rare that someone fumbles literally every selling point.
 
Tbh this game was less of a Concord 2.0 and more of a Lawbreakers type of flop. A generic hero shooter in a saturated market that no one wanted, but it didn’t have the same gigantic budget and massive bet from a major publisher Concord had. The game being f2p might keep its player base active for longer than Lawbreakers though.
 
There's also a pining for lost power built into it, I think.

The oldest game journos remember a time when they were kingmakers. If it wasn't a big publisher, it was they who decided who'd become famous and who'd fade into obscurity. If something they didn't like wanted to make it big, they'd just give it the bare minimum amount of air, or drum up a hit piece and strike it down.

Back then, the internet didn't really exist for many kids, not as a space where games could be discussed. For a time, gaming magazines were the sole deciders of what the popular opinions in gaming were supposed to be, and you and your three friends (who were totally kids your age and not two pedos and an FBI agent) on the Gamin' Kidz Forums couldn't out-argue them.

So all the gaming news outlets had to compete with was each other. And with no way to judge their respective quality, what mattered most was speed and efficiency. Reviewers had to make sure their review was on store shelves the same week a game came out, no matter what. If they failed to get their opinion out, by the next cycle they'd be old news. Didn't matter how much they were actually a good fit for the games, either.

The advent of internet videos caused new voices to rise. The change was slow, at first. Some pasty-skinned, bespectacled nerd uploaded a video on castlevania 2. It was blurry as shit, his voice was flat and boring, half his complaints would get laughed out today, and it was decades out of date... but it was done all by himself. A one-man band, at least at first, and it was up and public where anyone could see it. He'd follow it up with different games, week after week, and slowly, people would turn their eyes to him.

Others would see what he was doing on his own, and try their own hand at it. They'd review anything that sat on their shelves, whether that be Rascal Racers or Daikatana, or they'd make a top ten list of Creepy video game characters or revolvers or weird zelda characters. Slowly, by reviewing these things, people would come to understand their perspectives, and they'd grow fanbases, building up steam.

They weren't all, either. As technology improved, other types threw their hats in the ring. Videos went from being restricted to reviews by bandwidth, to being full let's plays showing games from start to finish. People would upload videos of them beating dark souls with ridiculous builds, or without equipment, or with or on donkey kong bongo controls. Comics and animations would point out the absurdity of even the most minor mechanics. One guy would describe that weird mechanic you'd always wondered about, then other guys would take that knowledge and use it to break a game in half and get from start to credits in minutes.

All of a sudden, one thing became clear: the success of mainstream journalists was almost arbitrary, based on qualities entirely divorced from what gamers wanted. the ability to sound like they knew what they were talking about or stroke the right egos, rather than a deep understanding of and skill at the games they reviewed. In fact, as they stumbled after the jontrons and caddicaruses and markipliers into the digital space, it became clear they were often shockingly amateurish. The indies could play better, play longer, play deeper - they weren't constrained by the limits of deadlines yet could even get videos out faster. And while they weren't above having biases, it had become clear that the mainstream could be bought and sold just as easily - especially bought in bulk. Those with the integrity to look someone in the eyes and tell them that their game sucks were swiftly given the boot at a corporation, but hailed as heroes in the indie space. Plus, if you didn't like a given guy's tastes, you'd just find someone more agreeable instead.

As we came up to gamergate, it was already becoming clear that Gaming journalism as a formal instituion was deeply flawed. And gamergate itself revealed two things with crystal clarity: not only were many institutions deeply corrupt, they were all willing to circle the wagons for each other. For many it was the straw that broke the camel's back, the moment they went from "they're flawed but they're my usual haunt" to "fuck these assholes with a rusty crowbar".

They've thrown their weight around plenty of times since on the industry side, but it's only become more clear over time that the subtle powers they once enjoyed over the customers is long gone. They've lost the ability to play kingmaker, to shape gaming opinions, to surface and drown games as they see fit. Nobody, nobody trusts them anymore. And when they try to spark a boycott, they prove completely, utterly powerless.

They've had a longer tail with their industry internal sway, but the only reason they had that is because they were supposed to have the hearts and minds of customers. And every time they fail to swing a game's success - every Veilguard or Where the Water tastes like wine that flops, every hogwarts or wukong that succeeds despite their ire - they prove that trusting their sense of the market is a simple death wish.

This is why you'll always find them fixating on the figurehead youtubers of general rejections. Those are the ones who stole their positions. Those are the ones who might genuinely be able to bury someone with a smear campaign. Any journalist would kill to get something like Markiplier's Iron Lung off the ground, to be that successful and beloved. They'd raid, rob and rape for the power of Josh from Let's Game it out. They'll forever pine for the power they lost... but that power is there's no longer.
 
My cousin is a huge shooter guy and willing to try any slop and he told me the few times he tried to load the cosmetics shop to check it out it gave him an error and wouldn't load.

That's how you know not even the devs give a solitary shit about this game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom