Marvel Rivals dev on why Rivals succeeded and Concord failed - "it didn't bring any unique value"
Marvel Rivals dev on why Rivals succeeded and Concord failed - "it didn't bring any unique value"
Marvel Rivals game director Thaddeus Sasser explains why PlayStation exclusive Concord failed upon release.
You're viewing a single thread.
All CEO's are going to take from this is they need to use popular IP's to make their low effort trash.
I was going to say "Marvel License".
If it were just 33 generic characters, or 33 comic book characters nobody ever heard of (Astro City anyone? Anyone?) it would have tanked just like Concord.
But, at the same time, it CAN'T JUST be the license. It's also free to play.
Look at Marvel Midnight Suns, which wasn't F2P, had the license, from what I'm TOLD was a decent game, but didn't go anywhere:
A far better comparison is the Avengers game before that, which is a genre that the average person is more likely to play in the first place. Customers will avoid a game that they don't want, even if hundreds of millions of dollars was spent on it.
from what I’m TOLD was a decent game, but didn’t go anywhere:
It's an amazing game.
The cards were a great way to handle combat, it was just a lot of new ideas, and the story parts slowed it down. If running around the abbey was something that could be turned off as an option and everything handled on a menu splash screen it would have done even better.
A decent core game with huge amounts of annoying crap wrapped around it.
I really liked midnight suns. I enjoyed picking what cards to use. I enjoyed the gameplay where you can use your cards, environment, and movement to win effectively. I even liked the socializing parts. Yes, I want to play videogames with Spiderman and hang out with Captain marvel.
The cards were unique, but not at all what I wanted. Rivals abilities are what I was looking for in that game, but I know it's just a different genre.
See, I'm just not a deckbuilder. The last time I tried was on an IP I had otherwise spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours on... and hated every minute of the card system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantasy_Star_Online_Episode_III:_C.A.R.D._Revolution
If Midnight Suns had been in the style of the old Diablo-ish Marvel games, I would have been there day 1.
Eh, it's not really a "deck builder" like people think.
Like, it sounds weird because there's literally cards and you select a deck for each player...
But just move past the cards/deck and think of it as a loadout and selecting what abilities you want each character to have. And the upgrade system really lets you fine tune what abilities you can use.
It's a small piece of the gameplay, but the randomness it forces rather than just always using OP moves gives it a lot of replayability.
So, I don't think the card mechanic was a problem other than turning people off before they tried it. I think it went free on PSN a while ago, and I was really hoping it would make it take off.
It's a small piece of the gameplay, but the randomness it forces rather than just always using OP moves gives it a lot of replayability.
This was basically the reason for me to never play it again (with the dreadfully poorly made "socializing" part a close second). I absolutely hate when my strategy has to be based on randomness and I need to hope for a good card to do the thing I want.
It's absolutely a deckbuilding game, just not a roguelite deckbuilder.
A lot of good games can be based on randomness. Being in control of the deck building means that your choices shape the odds. I used to have a similar viewpoint as you, but learned to really embrace randomness and the design challenges it presents.
I say this as a Magic player, where even the greatest players in the world can get screwed or flooded on mana. The possibility of screw/flood increases the importance of card draw/card selection, makes the playability of low-mana cards more important, and makes heavy color pip investment, multiple colors, and higher mana costs a very serious concern.
I agree that's it's a valid game mechanic. It's just one I don't like.
Not much to say about the wider conversation here, but I just want to chime in to support your position. I read that article you posted, and I was kinda chuckling to myself at the author, who seems to be at least a casual fan of deckbuilder type games, arguing that the devs are wrong, and that the cards were not a barrier to entry. Meanwhile, I'm sitting over here, looking at the copy I have in my steam library which has never been touched, specifically because I heard it was a deckbuilder and immediately lost all interest. This despite the otherwise fairly positive reception the game got, and the hundreds of hours I've spent in Firaxis style tactical strategy games.
Sometimes I wish I knew why I have such a mental block about deckbuilding. I think the layers of strategy become too abstract for me to visualize what I'm trying to pull off, and it feels artificial in a way that rubs me the wrong way. Even if a 3 turn cool down on an ability is no less artificial, it doesn't irk me in the same way.
And for the record, I didn't buy the game just to never play it, its a family library copy! I'm not that wasteful.
I saw the trailer and was interested and when I found out it was card based went "Nope!"
I just see all card games like this:
Nah, Midnight Suns was not good. They had some good ideas in the actual game play, but the other 80% of it dragged everything down.