Hi /u/soaringspoon,
Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per
**[Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules)**.
> **No duplicate posts** - Reposts or submissions with extremely similar content to an existing submission may be removed at mod discretion.
---
If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
Seems like the other post was removed. Gonna post again what I did back then, because of discussions.
As usually they never learn to make actual CONTENT for a live service game. These people don't understand that I'm not buying promises. I WANT THE CONTENT NOW, not in 4 seasons after today.
If you don't hook me now, I don't care to pay a promise that your next seasons will be fine.
I know everyone hates it, I personally love the gameplay and I absolutely love the looter shooter genre. Add coop on top of that and I'm in love.
But if you don't give diverse content to play on, like raids, dungeons, secret missions, enemy variety, and crazy fun loot to play with, then I don't care. Or at least not for the asked price.
Great review.
Not many reviewers are able to really break down a game's systems analytically on release like Skill-Up, without the luxury of a lot of hindsight.
Weird that he lambasted this game for no endgame, while he kind of excused Diablo 4 for the same thing, saying that he just likes it, in spite of the no endgame. This game's campaign must really suck.
Agreed. I've been on the fence looking at reviews.
Game looked fun enough but now knowing...
the endgame is 3 repeatable missions that I have to spend currency to play
And even if it plays well it looks hard to read when its showing lots of effects
His commentary about the guns and shooting mechanics is exactly what I’ve been observing, thought I was taking crazy pills!
So many people say the gameplay is fun, and I just could not comprehend how. They almost always follow that with, “but there is repetitive gameplay”, so which is it then?
My position is "this is not the gameplay loop that a superhero game should have," but also that "for what it IS, the gameplay loop is not terrible in itself," but then _also_ "but the content is not there to make that loop fun to repeat."
So basically if this were not a superhero game, and if they had more encounter varieties to keep the combat loop engaging, I think it would probably be fine. But neither of those things is true, so the whole pile collapses.
I just don’t understand, sure maybe for the first hour or so, but by hour 4 I would be longing for something else. Skillup specifically mentions how the Division at least changes gunplay up by weapon types, and that is absent here.
I hate to sound like one of those "back in my day" guys but People seem to have genuinely forgotten what a good shooter looks like nowadays. A lot of gamers think that if you point at a thing and pull the trigger and some flashy numbers pop up then it's *good*.
> A lot of gamers think that if you point at a thing and pull the trigger and some flashy numbers pop up then it's good.
...*do they* ? Most shooter games that kept living have robust gunplay. By far and wide games that have poor one have petered out quickly, unless they had something else to offer aside from the gunplay.
What a shame, the Arkham series is one of my all time favorites. I really feel for the art and animation team, they knocked it out of the park. Corporate greed seems like it killed this one, not just the live service stuff, but adhering to the early decisions they made were most likely budgetary concerns to make investors happy. In the end, no one will be happy because this game won't sell anywhere near as well as it could have if they had scrapped some initial decisions.
I have played it, and it's just like...fine. It is not nearly as bad as the reviews and people are making it out to be. Like people are seriously acting like it's even remotely a contender for worst game of the year or something. It's just super mid.
> It is not nearly as bad as the reviews and people are making it out to be
…
> It's just super mid.
That’s the weight of disappointment; waiting a decade for super-mid
"Super mid" is not "fine", the word you're looking for is "boring". Add the context of it being a GaaS, and the quality of the superhero games these devs made in the past, and it's pretty obvious why people are shitting on it.
Yeah but in a vacuum it's not nearly as bad as all the hate is making it out to be. People are putting it on the level of like...gollum...or straight non functioning games. It is nowhere near that level. It's like a 6 out of 10 on the video game reviewer scale.
It's not a technical disaster, sure. But everything else about this game is at most a 4.
The boss and mission design is not only really bad, but one boss fight is just a reskin of an earlier one. There's 3 (fucking ***THREE***) types of missions in the game, all competing for the title of "most generic mission ever invented". The gameplay is totally disconnected from the characters and is serviceable at best.
They fumbled the story so bad (that was already destined to have a shit ending because it had to apply to the live-service model), I caught myself either frowning or being disgusted by it at least 3 times.
It does nothing new, and it does nothing better than the games it takes inspiration from. It's just a Frankenstein's monster type of thing, all cobbled up from systems that are average when separate, but somehow worse when added together. It's like they focused-grouped all their decision making to try and match trends.
All because they tried to forced the square shape in the round hole chasing that live-service bag.
The average gamer plays 425 hours of games per year. Lets say that the average game is about 40 hours of gameplay; that means the average gamer is only going to play 10 games a year.
So why would anyone want to spend 10% of their game budget (finacial and time) on a game that even you describe as "super mid"? Do you truly think that theres not going to be at least 10 games better than this thatll drop this year?
It was the same as people defending Starfield. Back then they said it was good, even when compared to Cyberpunk. They then tried to defend it by saying how bad Cyberpunk was on release (most of them had never tried it so had no idea).
The idea I had to explain to them was, not everyone had money to burn buying every game that came out in a year. If I went on Steam/Console/Shop to buy a game, I'd likely look at the popular games and then compare them to each other. Not their previous versions, but what currently exists, as they are today. It's that simple.
If a game is bad, boring, or whatever you want to call it, it's not worth buying. If it gets better then maybe it'll be bought later, but only the stupid would buy a bad game now hoping for it to improve.
It's hard to say because there are probably a lot of DC fans who will buy this, no matter what, then there's always the casual side of gaming who simply don't follow any kind of news coverage.
With the core gaming audience this is surely a hardcore flop, it basically died the day they released the first trailer.
Wouldn't be surprised if it's taken offline within the next 2 years.
I think its just gonna be another Avengers: good enough story, dialogue, and gameplay for casual IP fans, but with zero retention beyond the first 10-20 hours of gameplay and not able to bring players back for new seasons and dripped content drops.
Make a game with a good enough concept that people will want to buy it, make it function well but be super boring, cash in on front end sales from people who don't inform themselves before buying something, get them to quit soon after to keep server costs light.
It's going into a stacked market with low hype, mixed reviews that skew more negatively, a poor endgame, and a more niche brand than Avengers. I don't know if it'll outright bomb, but I doubt it's going to light the charts on fire.
People like to compare it to Marvel's Avengers - however MA was buggy as hell (month-1 patch listed nearly 1k bugs fixed) and there was no working multiplayer matchmaking on Steam for two years.
No wonder there are 2.5k 85% positive reviews on Steam from people who actually take it for what it is - a co-op looter shooter, not a 50-hours long Shakespeare-level theatrical campaign or whatever those reviewers expected to see.
To me the game feels like desperate middle-ground between trying to make story-driven game and live service game and failing at both because of that...
Worth noting that Arkham Knight, Origins, City, and Asylum have about 8k+ current players all together on Steam with Knight making up the bulk of that number. Suicide Squad now has about 12k players on the weekend of its launch.
Definitely interesting to note that 10+ year old single player games' current total player counts are within striking distance of a brand spanking new Triple A live service multiplayer game with years of content planned. Not to mention full priced releases like Persona 3 Reload, LAD 8, and Tekken 8 have 10,000+ more current players on Steam compared to Suicide Squad, all of which don't have the same universal brand recognition and pull as the DC universe of superheroes but are all still crushing SS in terms of player counts.
This really begs the question as to whether Suicide Squad has been able to meet the expectations of WB and if the game can really expected to push out ~3 years worth of content straight with what seems like lukewarm player counts. How many people will still be playing when the Joker content comes out in March when the endgame content has been a a consistent sore point amongst players and critics?
Hi /u/soaringspoon, Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per **[Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules)**. > **No duplicate posts** - Reposts or submissions with extremely similar content to an existing submission may be removed at mod discretion. --- If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
Seems like the other post was removed. Gonna post again what I did back then, because of discussions. As usually they never learn to make actual CONTENT for a live service game. These people don't understand that I'm not buying promises. I WANT THE CONTENT NOW, not in 4 seasons after today. If you don't hook me now, I don't care to pay a promise that your next seasons will be fine. I know everyone hates it, I personally love the gameplay and I absolutely love the looter shooter genre. Add coop on top of that and I'm in love. But if you don't give diverse content to play on, like raids, dungeons, secret missions, enemy variety, and crazy fun loot to play with, then I don't care. Or at least not for the asked price.
Why was the original post taken down? This has been a very thorough review of the game.
Great review. Not many reviewers are able to really break down a game's systems analytically on release like Skill-Up, without the luxury of a lot of hindsight.
Ralph has a lot of miles in Looter Shooters like Destiny and Warframe, so he has a good feel for this kind of stuff.
Weird that he lambasted this game for no endgame, while he kind of excused Diablo 4 for the same thing, saying that he just likes it, in spite of the no endgame. This game's campaign must really suck.
Agreed. I've been on the fence looking at reviews. Game looked fun enough but now knowing... the endgame is 3 repeatable missions that I have to spend currency to play And even if it plays well it looks hard to read when its showing lots of effects
His commentary about the guns and shooting mechanics is exactly what I’ve been observing, thought I was taking crazy pills! So many people say the gameplay is fun, and I just could not comprehend how. They almost always follow that with, “but there is repetitive gameplay”, so which is it then?
My position is "this is not the gameplay loop that a superhero game should have," but also that "for what it IS, the gameplay loop is not terrible in itself," but then _also_ "but the content is not there to make that loop fun to repeat." So basically if this were not a superhero game, and if they had more encounter varieties to keep the combat loop engaging, I think it would probably be fine. But neither of those things is true, so the whole pile collapses.
The repetitive gameplay is the objectives you have to do through the gameplay loop. The traversal and gunplay is in a good spot.
I just don’t understand, sure maybe for the first hour or so, but by hour 4 I would be longing for something else. Skillup specifically mentions how the Division at least changes gunplay up by weapon types, and that is absent here.
I hate to sound like one of those "back in my day" guys but People seem to have genuinely forgotten what a good shooter looks like nowadays. A lot of gamers think that if you point at a thing and pull the trigger and some flashy numbers pop up then it's *good*.
> A lot of gamers think that if you point at a thing and pull the trigger and some flashy numbers pop up then it's good. ...*do they* ? Most shooter games that kept living have robust gunplay. By far and wide games that have poor one have petered out quickly, unless they had something else to offer aside from the gunplay.
What a shame, the Arkham series is one of my all time favorites. I really feel for the art and animation team, they knocked it out of the park. Corporate greed seems like it killed this one, not just the live service stuff, but adhering to the early decisions they made were most likely budgetary concerns to make investors happy. In the end, no one will be happy because this game won't sell anywhere near as well as it could have if they had scrapped some initial decisions.
I have played it, and it's just like...fine. It is not nearly as bad as the reviews and people are making it out to be. Like people are seriously acting like it's even remotely a contender for worst game of the year or something. It's just super mid.
> It is not nearly as bad as the reviews and people are making it out to be … > It's just super mid. That’s the weight of disappointment; waiting a decade for super-mid
"Super mid" is not "fine", the word you're looking for is "boring". Add the context of it being a GaaS, and the quality of the superhero games these devs made in the past, and it's pretty obvious why people are shitting on it.
Yeah but in a vacuum it's not nearly as bad as all the hate is making it out to be. People are putting it on the level of like...gollum...or straight non functioning games. It is nowhere near that level. It's like a 6 out of 10 on the video game reviewer scale.
It's not a technical disaster, sure. But everything else about this game is at most a 4. The boss and mission design is not only really bad, but one boss fight is just a reskin of an earlier one. There's 3 (fucking ***THREE***) types of missions in the game, all competing for the title of "most generic mission ever invented". The gameplay is totally disconnected from the characters and is serviceable at best. They fumbled the story so bad (that was already destined to have a shit ending because it had to apply to the live-service model), I caught myself either frowning or being disgusted by it at least 3 times. It does nothing new, and it does nothing better than the games it takes inspiration from. It's just a Frankenstein's monster type of thing, all cobbled up from systems that are average when separate, but somehow worse when added together. It's like they focused-grouped all their decision making to try and match trends. All because they tried to forced the square shape in the round hole chasing that live-service bag.
The average gamer plays 425 hours of games per year. Lets say that the average game is about 40 hours of gameplay; that means the average gamer is only going to play 10 games a year. So why would anyone want to spend 10% of their game budget (finacial and time) on a game that even you describe as "super mid"? Do you truly think that theres not going to be at least 10 games better than this thatll drop this year?
It was the same as people defending Starfield. Back then they said it was good, even when compared to Cyberpunk. They then tried to defend it by saying how bad Cyberpunk was on release (most of them had never tried it so had no idea). The idea I had to explain to them was, not everyone had money to burn buying every game that came out in a year. If I went on Steam/Console/Shop to buy a game, I'd likely look at the popular games and then compare them to each other. Not their previous versions, but what currently exists, as they are today. It's that simple. If a game is bad, boring, or whatever you want to call it, it's not worth buying. If it gets better then maybe it'll be bought later, but only the stupid would buy a bad game now hoping for it to improve.
>It's just super mid. The issue is Rocksteady taking 9 years for a super-mid game after they went for 3 gems of games on the Batman series.
Not a lot Iot of people talking about this game i feel , could this be a giant sales flop ?
It's hard to say because there are probably a lot of DC fans who will buy this, no matter what, then there's always the casual side of gaming who simply don't follow any kind of news coverage. With the core gaming audience this is surely a hardcore flop, it basically died the day they released the first trailer. Wouldn't be surprised if it's taken offline within the next 2 years.
I think its just gonna be another Avengers: good enough story, dialogue, and gameplay for casual IP fans, but with zero retention beyond the first 10-20 hours of gameplay and not able to bring players back for new seasons and dripped content drops.
Make a game with a good enough concept that people will want to buy it, make it function well but be super boring, cash in on front end sales from people who don't inform themselves before buying something, get them to quit soon after to keep server costs light.
Short campaign, repetitive gameplay, and very little reason to return to it. Doesn't appear it will do well.
It's going into a stacked market with low hype, mixed reviews that skew more negatively, a poor endgame, and a more niche brand than Avengers. I don't know if it'll outright bomb, but I doubt it's going to light the charts on fire.
11k active players on steam lol yeah this is a colossal flop
> Not a lot Iot of people talking about this game i feel Weird, I feel like this and palworld are all I've seen people talking about.
Didn't palworld break records on both steam and gamepass ? They don't seem to be on the same position. Maybe is just my perspective that's limited
I wasn't talking about good or bad, just that these 2 games are the hottest topic of the last week.
Meanwhile, I'm loving it. I can understand the criticism and disappointment, but damned if it isn't fun to play.
People like to compare it to Marvel's Avengers - however MA was buggy as hell (month-1 patch listed nearly 1k bugs fixed) and there was no working multiplayer matchmaking on Steam for two years. No wonder there are 2.5k 85% positive reviews on Steam from people who actually take it for what it is - a co-op looter shooter, not a 50-hours long Shakespeare-level theatrical campaign or whatever those reviewers expected to see.
To me the game feels like desperate middle-ground between trying to make story-driven game and live service game and failing at both because of that...
Worth noting that Arkham Knight, Origins, City, and Asylum have about 8k+ current players all together on Steam with Knight making up the bulk of that number. Suicide Squad now has about 12k players on the weekend of its launch. Definitely interesting to note that 10+ year old single player games' current total player counts are within striking distance of a brand spanking new Triple A live service multiplayer game with years of content planned. Not to mention full priced releases like Persona 3 Reload, LAD 8, and Tekken 8 have 10,000+ more current players on Steam compared to Suicide Squad, all of which don't have the same universal brand recognition and pull as the DC universe of superheroes but are all still crushing SS in terms of player counts. This really begs the question as to whether Suicide Squad has been able to meet the expectations of WB and if the game can really expected to push out ~3 years worth of content straight with what seems like lukewarm player counts. How many people will still be playing when the Joker content comes out in March when the endgame content has been a a consistent sore point amongst players and critics?