Concord

[Cardboardtubeknight Cardboardtubeknight]

I saw a video of a guy advertising this game saying it's the best thing in the world saying it's the best thing in the world saying it's very good but he was paid not to say

Did he emphasize how he was paid not to say it because that sounds like he was paid to say it

 

[Lod 10]

Did he emphasize how he was paid not to say it because that sounds like he was paid to say it

I understand, oh, just to say, I'm more tired, I'm going to rest a little and I'll be back later, bye.

 

[Ezri_Muldoon]

400 million and eight years of development.
Staff weren't allowed to criticise during development under fear of loosing their jobs.
Was a pet project of Sony America's executives who pushed it to exclusively be the future of Sony as a brand entity.
The game constantly received additional funding through private ESG schemes & international government DEI grants on top of private investment.
The thing perpetuated as a financial blank cheque FOR EIGHT YEARS!
No one was held accountable or funding refunded. The staff who worked on Concord kept every cent they made throughout those eight years.

Concord wasn't a game.

It was the end result of a money laundering scheme.

 

[Lod 10]

400 million and eight years of development.
Staff weren't allowed to criticise during development under fear of loosing their jobs.
Was a pet project of Sony America's executives who pushed it to exclusively be the future of Sony as a brand entity.
The game constantly received additional funding through private ESG schemes & international government DEI grants on top of private investment.
The thing perpetuated as a financial blank cheque FOR EIGHT YEARS!
No one was held accountable or funding refunded. The staff who worked on Concord kept every cent they made throughout those eight years.

Concord wasn't a game.

It was the end result of a money laundering scheme.

I didn't know it was money laundering at that level

 

[Ezri_Muldoon]

I didn't know it was money laundering at that level

Let's put it another way.
Because I believe its objectively correct to hate Concord and to forever use it as a use it as an example to prevent future industry corruption.

It continuously collected funding for EIGHT years

The PlayStation 2 launched in 2000, the PlayStation 3 in 2006 - that's only SIX Years
Metal Gear launched in 1998.
Picture everything that released between Metal Gear Solid (psx) and come 2006 - Dead Rising, Gears of War, Zelda Twilight Princess & Sonic 06.
That's how long Concord & its staff collected cheques & sat comfortably.
If Concord was pitched earlier, it would have completely skipped a console generation and then some.

Then the whole thing was shut down in less than two weeks after only managing a peak concurrent international player count of 697 players.
And people to this day will downplay it as an industry "woopsie". No accountability, some journalists dare claim it was the victim of harassment or some gamergate conspiracy.

Then there's the worst response, the people who claim it deserves a second chance.
No consideration as to HOW it was made, just that it briefly existed and that's enough to make it eternally available.
My honest reaction to any Concord defender:

 

[MasterEn]

. Answer a question, was this game so bad that I saw people saying it was really bad?

i posted a video in a earlier post that covered it a bit, but in case you didn't watch it.
no, the game isn't that bad.
the gameplay is solid; which makes sense since it is copying overwatch from back when it first came out. one of the problems is that when this game started development, overwatch was new, as was the hero shooter genre. this is about 10 years later, and quite a bit has changed. barring the character designs and set up for them, the game doesn't incorporate any new features, improvements or anything else that has been introduced since then.
but that's just a minor problem, or even just a mild annoyance. like i said, the gameplay is quite solid. it's fast, responsive, pretty stable when running. all of the stuff that overwatch 1 has going for it.
everyone's main complaints about it is primarily the characters, and the setting, or seemingly lack of setting. it looks like whoever did the set up for the character archetypes had just watched guardians of the galaxy and thought that was the coolest shit ever. the first movie, in case you are wondering. this game was in development for a decade; with most of the actual game being made during the last couple of years before release.
the characters are the best nominee for "worst designs ever."
one of the 2 most important things to keep in mind when designing characters is that the viewer should be able to gleam some information from just looking at the character. whether it is just a basic personality trait, or, what their role in the group would be.
the members of team fortress 2 are the best example of this. you can tell with a glance, which role each character has. the guy with the machine gun is the heavy hitter, the slender guy is quick and fast, the guy with the lab coat is a medic. you might not quite know their personalities but you can easily guess their roles during gameplay.
in concord, there is a character named daw. he is a big guy, with bulky armor and a machine gun. do you know what is role is?
medic.
i had to be told that in a video that i watched because i would never have guessed that was his role. he looks like a tank type character. slow, high def, and just as high atk.
another problem that people have with the characters is that they are either bland, or uninteresting to look at. bland, muted colors, haphazardly slapped onto the clothes and armor. the outfits look like some cosplayers had 5 bucks, 2 paper clips and a half a month old medium sized pizza from pizza hut to work with. 400 million dollars, nearly 10 years of work, and this is what we get: cold, mediocre, uninspired slop half assedly poured into a cracked plastic bootlegged bowl to eat out of.
sorry for the wall of text. there's a lot to talk about just with the designs of the characters alone.

 

[Lod 10]

i posted a video in a earlier post that covered it a bit, but in case you didn't watch it.
no, the game isn't that bad.
the gameplay is solid; which makes sense since it is copying overwatch from back when it first came out. one of the problems is that when this game started development, overwatch was new, as was the hero shooter genre. this is about 10 years later, and quite a bit has changed. barring the character designs and set up for them, the game doesn't incorporate any new features, improvements or anything else that has been introduced since then.
but that's just a minor problem, or even just a mild annoyance. like i said, the gameplay is quite solid. it's fast, responsive, pretty stable when running. all of the stuff that overwatch 1 has going for it.
everyone's main complaints about it is primarily the characters, and the setting, or seemingly lack of setting. it looks like whoever did the set up for the character archetypes had just watched guardians of the galaxy and thought that was the coolest shit ever. the first movie, in case you are wondering. this game was in development for a decade; with most of the actual game being made during the last couple of years before release.
the characters are the best nominee for "worst designs ever."
one of the 2 most important things to keep in mind when designing characters is that the viewer should be able to gleam some information from just looking at the character. whether it is just a basic personality trait, or, what their role in the group would be.
the members of team fortress 2 are the best example of this. you can tell with a glance, which role each character has. the guy with the machine gun is the heavy hitter, the slender guy is quick and fast, the guy with the lab coat is a medic. you might not quite know their personalities but you can easily guess their roles during gameplay.
in concord, there is a character named daw. he is a big guy, with bulky armor and a machine gun. do you know what is role is?
medic.
i had to be told that in a video that i watched because i would never have guessed that was his role. he looks like a tank type character. slow, high def, and just as high atk.
another problem that people have with the characters is that they are either bland, or uninteresting to look at. bland, muted colors, haphazardly slapped onto the clothes and armor. the outfits look like some cosplayers had 5 bucks, 2 paper clips and a half a month old medium sized pizza from pizza hut to work with. 400 million dollars, nearly 10 years of work, and this is what we get: cold, mediocre, uninspired slop half assedly poured into a cracked plastic bootlegged bowl to eat out of.
sorry for the wall of text. there's a lot to talk about just with the designs of the characters alone.

Every thousand years the gaming community gets screwed

 

[qw90700]

i posted a video in a earlier post that covered it a bit, but in case you didn't watch it.
no, the game isn't that bad.
the gameplay is solid; which makes sense since it is copying overwatch from back when it first came out. one of the problems is that when this game started development, overwatch was new, as was the hero shooter genre. this is about 10 years later, and quite a bit has changed. barring the character designs and set up for them, the game doesn't incorporate any new features, improvements or anything else that has been introduced since then.
but that's just a minor problem, or even just a mild annoyance. like i said, the gameplay is quite solid. it's fast, responsive, pretty stable when running. all of the stuff that overwatch 1 has going for it.
everyone's main complaints about it is primarily the characters, and the setting, or seemingly lack of setting. it looks like whoever did the set up for the character archetypes had just watched guardians of the galaxy and thought that was the coolest shit ever. the first movie, in case you are wondering. this game was in development for a decade; with most of the actual game being made during the last couple of years before release.
the characters are the best nominee for "worst designs ever."
one of the 2 most important things to keep in mind when designing characters is that the viewer should be able to gleam some information from just looking at the character. whether it is just a basic personality trait, or, what their role in the group would be.
the members of team fortress 2 are the best example of this. you can tell with a glance, which role each character has. the guy with the machine gun is the heavy hitter, the slender guy is quick and fast, the guy with the lab coat is a medic. you might not quite know their personalities but you can easily guess their roles during gameplay.
in concord, there is a character named daw. he is a big guy, with bulky armor and a machine gun. do you know what is role is?
medic.
i had to be told that in a video that i watched because i would never have guessed that was his role. he looks like a tank type character. slow, high def, and just as high atk.
another problem that people have with the characters is that they are either bland, or uninteresting to look at. bland, muted colors, haphazardly slapped onto the clothes and armor. the outfits look like some cosplayers had 5 bucks, 2 paper clips and a half a month old medium sized pizza from pizza hut to work with. 400 million dollars, nearly 10 years of work, and this is what we get: cold, mediocre, uninspired slop half assedly poured into a cracked plastic bootlegged bowl to eat out of.
sorry for the wall of text. there's a lot to talk about just with the designs of the characters alone.

Yep. $ony seemed like found some random dev team who somehow convinced them the future is in Team Fortress like games and they can do better job than Overwatch, however honestly they had an idea for such a gameplay yet they had no idea how to develop a video game and how to develop it for likely target audiance.

Video games are not just made of gameplay, it gotta be visually and auditorily pleasing to your sensory organs but Concord could not deliver on that department.

Concord could not become a game any kind of human type would wanna play. They didn't care to make it for general audiance or particularly specificly targetting an age group. Probably even 6 years old kids wouldn't wanna play it, but like it would be what a 4 years old kid would wanna play but get bored in 5 minutes.

So gamepad may be "ok", yet anything else is repulsive that how hard it failed proves it. A game perhaps cannot satisfy your sensory organs but this rubbish make your brain wanna suicide. It's like developed by aliens came from Andromeda the fuck is this shit? lolol

I understand that $ony wanna support game devs and leave them in relatively relaxed state and don't pressure them on what kind of game they wanna develop, but dude they should be able to at least give advice yo. It's like they left them wild and they dragged the development not to lose a job. They can't justify a decade development with that type of shit game unless they learned how to even write "Hello World" via a programming language to a screen lol. IDK if dev team turned into a mafia organization that counter-attacking $ony when $ony wanted to guide them to a proper direction, or if they literally beat people who expressed obvious negative aspect of the game and there was a dictatorship in their management going on. IDK shit is weird but despite all these unknown according to what we know about the game it should be a subject of a prime example on "How not to develop a video game 101" education lolol.

 

[Vardalis]

I remember avidly following the news about it. I do enjoy a good dumpster fire, and when these samey, hideous, money extraction bandwagonning type "games" fail disastrously it's only a good thing. Less of these wastes of time, money and resources and more actual fun and original video games please.

 

[iamthemilkman]

Characters looked like Dollar Store Guardians of the Galaxy. Can't believe this is what ex-Halo and COD devs came up with.

Anyways, I cheer on the failure of more live service slop. It's not my concern to worry about the devs. If they put out a bad product, regardless of whose fault it is, that's not my problem. Stop making crap.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

A year ago today, this game shut down. It launched just two weeks earlier, to incredibly low sales because literally nobody wanted yet another live-service shooter in an age loaded to the gills with them. In the end, all copies of this unmitigated disasterpiece were refunded, and though there were thoughts of getting the game back up, the studio that developed it was nuked nearly two months later. As is the modern-day tradition.

And this is why GaaS are bad for long term preservation...

I'm wondering, how could we try that game in a decade? I know that it's bad but at least you can try Superman 64 even to this day.

 

[ThunderBoy]

 

[AmosTrask]

At the start of the original teaser trailer I was hopeful to get a cool new sci-fi single player game, similar to Guardians of the Galaxy, when I saw the gameplay I don't think I even finished watching the trailer. Then I entirely forgot about it until I heard it was launched and then cancelled.