HandsomeDead

Well okay, it's just people who play these games do it for gameplay stuff, like buffs, unique abilities, just high armour, or even figuring out a combo of defence and abilities that tackles a certain troublesome boss. But, heck, I hope it does have cool unlockable cosmetics. I'm just not holding my breath. They usually have some but are worse than the paid stuff. But I really need to trust that this game will have legs, or I may just have to go back to Destiny.

As someone who plays Monster Hunter hiding my extremely high gear because I look better due to my stylistic use of layered armour I disagree @Nag

To be fair, the long term appeal to these games is builds. A good gameplay loop helps a lot (in fact it's essential to respectable persistent games) but another big factor is builds, and the economy of how you dish it out. I love being rewarded with something that allows me to do some cool maths to help my next run. Warframe is really good at that for example. But I wonder if an Avengers game, because of the mainstream license, will it have cool maths? probably not, but given time and care they could appeal to their base. But that takes time. I dunno if any of you play Hearthstone, but that's a pretty mainstream thing in a global sense and that shit is weird now. I feel like you gotta have a PHD to git gud. TLDR: Don't treat your players as idiots Actually, I'm saying open with a simpler game, but because of Disney being involved who could pull the plug any time, can Square-Enix keep them involved long enough for it to become the multiplayer action RPG? I would like to support a game like this, a high budget persistent action RPG. But all this bullshit gives me cold feet.

I could totally see me enjoying the core gameplay loop, but it's about everything else around it. TBH Square-Enix don't have the worst track record due to Final Fantasy XIV. When it wasn't going well at the start they went back and rebuilt it into something players generally like. But I dunno, I can't tell if this will get the same kind of work put into it long term, especially with Disney involved. Unless it's successful from the start.

I had as many games on Wii U as the PS4 🤷

You all slept on the Wii U. I kinda feel great because I don't have to keep up with Switch games so much because I've played them already. Yes I know Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze is probably the best 2D platformer in recent years. I fully finished it already. I don't care if you're bored of New Super Mario Bros. like uncool people are, the Luigi DLC is technically peak 2D Mario. That's the thing. The Wii U was Nintendo really focusing on design. Maybe they were as baffled as everyone else by the console so some of their purest shit came out of it. It's why so many people want the games on the Switch. And I am waiting for Star Fox Zero to become a cult classic. They can't port that game. It rules (not always but shut up, no cult classic always rules) so I'm waiting for gaming culture to catch up.

I'm just on Switch and PS4 But yeah, that new Phantasy Star looks legit

Well the loop hole is money, influence and how much it matters to them. We've seen Spider-Man on other formats and in multi-format games on Xbox so it's interesting they decided to hold him back with this game. Hard not to come to the conclusion it's absolutely cynical here. I give a shit because I'm currently looking for a game like this. I'm having an extended break from Warframe, Monster Hunter is going too for 'people who actually have friends' and I guess I don't feel Destiny 2 right now. I'll definitely try the beta of this, but all this going on is a downer. I know persistent games will never be cool to all but why do they always go out of their way to make them seem worse?

Ok, @DisturbedSwan of course you can say what you want but these excuses you keep replicating aren't related to what is being discussed. You mention some other gamers and strawman people in the thread. Also, using capitalism as a defence is also a bad arguement because man is there decades of literature saying why that's not a good reason. And you might wanna look outside because, not to be to real, but it's making people homeless (amongst other things). I honestly never want to hear that as a defence again because it's disgustingly ignorant. I mean you can, if you want to be that person.

But on top of that this isn't strictly a Sony character like the Starfox example. Spider-Man wasn't exclusive to Sony in recent releases of Marvel vs. Capcom. This is a very specific decision that will compromise the game to give a perceived sense of exclusivity. And it's good to be aware of it and call it what it is.

@DisturbedSwan will you please stop kissing the arse of companies. The arguement here isn't entitlement, it's that this is another example of corporate meddling making a game worse. Try taking in what is actually being said before you go on your stock rant. Just know, it's likely those with ”their pitchforks out" give more of a shit about games than you do. You might be okay accepting business but read the room, not just in gaming but generally, people are getting more and more frustrated at the business excuse and not accepting it. I'm so fed up of this kind of thing.

Even going forward, like if they have a yearly story quest that includes characters post launch Spider-Man can't be part of it. Such a waste. He'll just be used in endgame style content. Edit:. I just remembered: Total bullshit.

I don't care how much it makes sense, it makes for a compromised game which is what we're pointing out.

Laaaaame. This will totally make Spidey a character that won't be integrated into the game in as a meaningful way as he could (maybe should) be.

@OCH it looks like an update, not a new game. But I never finished it either because I guess I got distracted. Good excuse to go back.