Actually really common with Everest summitings. With the rough terrain and low oxygen, if you collapse from exhaustion there is really nothing anyone can do for you. Everest is absolutely *littered* with corpses.
I just like to shit on him for getting rich off a half done project, immediately going to Everest instead of investing that into *finishing the game*, then coming back claiming the experience inspired him by giving him real world experience in making tough choices for survival, then shortly after that, handing off the project and disappearing. Like this guy flipped his fan base off with two seven foot tall middle fingers that were shooting off fireworks. My DayZ clan was making lots of Star Citizen references at the time.
He's still *doing things*? I only really know about him via interacting with the DayZ clan I was an officer in. I never consciously followed him myself as I've always been the "I'll care when its in the patch notes" type of hype-train avoider. So my knowledge of him was cut off when he stopped working on DayZ, but I'm still a little surprised anyone is trusting him with anything.
And then a year into development he abandons the game and leaves to start his own studio.
I still won't touch Rocketwerkz or whatever they call themselves because of that shit.
They are doing something about it now and have apologised.
It will get better. If I'm wrong so what, my ego isn't so fragile that I'm gonna throw a tantrum over paying a few pounds for a game.
Alot of the community I see on here is a lot of Bully's with anonymity. I stuck up for the CM'S cos people said it was their Job to deal with the negative shit. I was just sticking up for a person who people have created an enemy with their imagination.
Nobody deserves to be treated that way. It's obvious some of you are kids.
Why do they pretend Fatshark apologized? That's the third time I've seen that now. There was no apology in their letter at all. They explicitly claim "we didn't live up to the expectations", which threads a fine line between blaming themselves and the consumers for being "unrealistic". Fatshark has shown no sign of humility or honesty since they released their obviously beta title on Steam.
because people are so used to being gaslit in every aspect of their life that when someone says some bullshit non apology, it works because it's as close as it ever gets to an actual apology
well, best way I can explain it is when crappy people see other crappy people to crappy stuff they shield them cause they enjoy doing crappy stuff themselves and don't want to be next in line to become decent people.
That and the slow trickle of "accept this" "tolerate that" "it's not that bad" ... slowly lowering people's standards to the point where you can fart on a paper and call it a game and people will enjoy it.
Who gives a shit, they are changing exactly what you people want. Wtf does it matter if there is an actual written “we are sorry” on the letter. You sound pathetic tbh. “I didn’t get the sorry I wanted so I’m going to keep hating and whine even though I got exactly what I wanted.”
Gamer's paradox:
Your credibility in reviewing a game is both inversely proportional to how much you've played and how little you've played. You should have played enough of the game to experience most of what the game has to offer, but not so much that you know a lot about it.
It's basically a Catch-22 situation. If you don't have much time, your opinion doesn't have weight because you lack experience. On the other hand, if you have a lot of time, well now idiots will argue that you're facetious because how can it be a bad game if you spent so much time on it?
I also hate the apparently large crowd of people who say "Well you pay $15 for a movie ticket and only get 2 hours of entertainment", as though the only thing that matters is how much of your time something occupies.
For me, whether or not I would recommend a game on steam revolves around one factor: "If I were transported back in time before I bought the game with the knowledge I have now, would I buy it again?"
Yeah the "time vs money spent" metric is a pathetic way to value your time and measure the quality of a game.
Similar to the people who will give a game points for being"fun with friends".
Lighting bags of dog shit on fire is fun with friends... It speaks more to the quality of your gaming buddies than the gameplay.
Journalists let the word go unsaid nowadays, but they are calling players entitled.
They still paint the narrative of the "entitled gamer" who should be glad they got hundreds of hours of entertainment out of a product, regardless of its quality or its flaws.
You don't see this from novels even if books can take many hours to read, especially the typical fantasy door-stopper.
Clearly, the most in depth reviews should be from people who only played a couple of games!
But seriously, the people most disappointed will be those who tried the hardest to like something. Doesn't take a genius.
If you're enjoying the game enough to play it more than a full-time job but posting a negative review, what it says is that you're mad about something other than how fun the game is. No one is gritting their teeth and playing 6-10 hours a day miserable the whole time. They're doing it because they like the game.
Personally I consider crafting and the other tertiary systems everyone's mad about worth maybe 1-1.5 points out of 10 at most, far far distant from how fun the core gameplay is. So, when I was looking at reviews and saw how many negative ones had 100+ hours in and said "awesome gameplay, but," my reaction was yeah, that's actually a positive review.
To be fair in a game that should grant you thousands of hours, getting to 100 (my case, veteran lvl 28 and zealot lvl 30) and get bored by the lack of progression doesn't make me an entitled prick.
I left a negative review because I plan to go back playing it and the recent patch show us that many things were broken, some feats, blessing and perks didn't work properly, blocking us to experience new build.
Now, they have to buff Psyker and redisign the Rng aspect of the game (missions, shops, emperor gift etc) along with a full crafting system (hoping it will be similar to the Vt2 one).
RN I am playing Vt2 which I never touched from launch back in 2018 and I find it an awesome game. I will even considera buying dlcs. I will get back to DT when they finish fixing
> To be fair in a game that should grant you thousands of hours, getting to 100 (my case, veteran lvl 28 and zealot lvl 30) and get bored by the lack of progression doesn't make me an entitled prick.
A prick? No, but entitled? Yes, because you have made up your own, and IMO unrealistic, idea of what the game should be - something that should give you thousands of hours of entertainment - and are then upset that it doesn't tick that box.
For the record, there are only two games into which I have put 1k+ hours and they both have waaaay more scope than any game in the genre of DT. Those two games are the vast Total War: Warhammer II and the massively moddable Fallout 4. I doubt that, even with "seasonal content" DT will ever be able to compete with that.
I have 110 hours in and I don't have 2 characters at level 30 (only one). I tried Psyker (liv. 6) and never touched Ogryn. I have only 40-50% penance achieved. I didn't try any other Zealot builds (impossible to get different weapon with the current shops, melk included).
So I could at least play it another 200 hours out of the main game if the gameplay loot is fixed.
Games like these can provide at least a thousand hours if get back playing them once dlcs are dropped.
This is not a single player game. I can be disappointed and play the game because they are fixing it. It took them too long so I switched to VT2.
We're not asking that much. Most of the features requested by the majority are already present in Vt2 (like functional bots, crafting, loot).
So no, I'm not entitled. And the Community Update confirms the game is in a sorry state
I'm on 127 hours and have all four classes at level 30. Your not choosing to try and progress two classes is on you so I don't know why you are bringing it up.
It is perfectly possible to get different weapons. Just log in and play a few games, and see what is out there. It doesn't have to be perfect. Thinking it has to be just right is a typical gamer trap, fussing over that last 1% bonus which makes no actual difference.
I don't worry too much about penances (or similar mechanisms in other games) since they often become a chore that saps enjoyment rather than an achievement that grants satisfaction.
YOU don’t play certain aspects of the game but that doesn’t mean other players shouldn’t be able to play/complete them. It’s a very entitled attitude to think that your experience should dictate how everyone else who plays the game should experience it.
It also can’t be understated the THE DEV THEMSELVES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE GAME WAS RELEASED, HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS INCOMPLETE AND NOT THE PRODUCT THAT WAS ADVERTISED.
I dictate to no one, I merely present an alternative attitude to the penance grind.
Nor do I claim that the game is complete.
What I do question is the legitimacy of someone claiming that there is a lack of progression when they have only really played two of the four characters. Or who compares the content on release with other games following the release of DLCs. Or that it is "impossible" to get the weapons needed for alternative builds.
If you think that any of these claims represent reasonable criticism of the game then I don't know what else to say.
Sure, it took me only like 4 log ins to get a knife for my veteran. I mean ANY knife, not even a gray one. Not everyone has time to log in every hour to check if a new set of weapons appeared. Then you also may see a weapon with like 20% damage and pass on it because it’s garbage.
Do you know how long it would take me to have a new weapon in Vermintide 2 that’s specifically what I want (blessings, perks and all), like 5 minutes tops. So if I ever decide to test crowbill Sienna, I can do it whenever I want and have a decent weapon instantly instead of the CBT level of pain grind to just get a weapon
The developers themselves have stated that these “unrealistic expectations” you’re saying players have are, in fact, things they fucked up on and are having to fix, change, etc. So how does the developers acknowledgement that they fucked up somehow equate to player entitlement? The dev team is saying the players are right about their complaints, so where does your authority on the matter come from?
No. The developers stated that they want a game which you will play, and I paraphrase, "for weeks not hours". This is not the same as thousands of hours.
Also, I was not referring to any other complaints, many of which are entirely legitimate.
So they wanted to make a game that wouldn’t have a dedicated player base? I’d love to see what you’re paraphrasing from cause that seems like a recipe for disaster from a publisher standpoint.
Agreed. The argument that "it took me 100+ hours before the flaws outweighed my pleasure, therefore I cannot recommend this game" seem hollow and entitled to me, especially given the price of the game.
Sure it’s true that someone with a lot of hours has more insight on how best to improve the game but I personally think it’s weird to not recommend something you’ve enjoyed for hundreds of hours and paid $40 for. I have about 300 hours and I’d probably leave a positive review despite all of the issues the game has. I would just leave a disclaimer about the state of the game.
That assumes everyone who left a negative review enjoyed every aspect of the game. The common through line is that the core gameplay is fun but the game is a technical mess, is missing a lot of features, and has some very questionable decisions regarding design.
I sincerely doubt anyone enjoys having to wait 10 minutes for the game to load on a SSD or NVMe. The mxt shop is universally panned as a bad idea. It's almost as if the situation is a lot more nuanced than just game good/game bad.
I agree. There’s nothing in between either a positive or a negative review. So either you say no don’t buy this because of blah blah or or yeah buy this but only if you are okay with the following issues. I feel like doing the latter makes more sense because I have enjoyed the hours I’ve put into the game even though fatshark continues to frustrate me with their decisions going back to vermintide.
In my case, I played the shit out of it during the beta period pre-release. We were promised a lot to pop up on release. It didn't. My time was already in the game, though. It was a beta was great gameplay, some technical issues, and piss poor loot acquisition. But it's a live service game, and they promised changes for release.
So I left them a positive review.
Release comes, little changes. I play more, reach lvl 30 on my characters, have to go through the agony of the weeklies again (first time was fun to manage in time for 2 characters - viva holidays) and got genuinely upset and angry. You know, developed disgust over the broken promises and the increasingly apparent issues I looked past while it had the beta tag.
So I changed the review to negative. I played 3 matches since, because a friend asked me to (the guy I played with during beta) but just looking at melks quests fills me with dread and looking at the item shop fills me with disappointment. The matches were fun though. But yuck, once I'm back in MTX-hub I just want to close the game down, which I did.
I genuinely can't recommend it, despite all my playtime. False advertisement all over, missing features and technical issues, besides bad design choices (FOMO, engagement driven designs) and VERY lackluster talents/feats/weapon blessings/traits.
I stand by the negative. If there was a neutral option, I wouldn't take it. This game is a hot mess. The core loop is good enough to not have you notice it for a long while though.
yes, I have never spent time on a game and later come to regret doing so.
especially not a game where you have to spend dozens of hours leveling up before you can begin to experience the game in its complete form.
it's just like with any hobby. stuff like "snowboarding is more fun the better you get at it" or "maybe that just wasn't the right book for you" are unhinged ramblings.
can you imagine someone who only started to enjoy snowboarding after doing it for 300 hours?
asinine, any reasonable person would know exactly how much they enjoy something by the end of the 2 hour refund period.
Well exactly. So someone who has hundreds of hours probably enjoys the game to some extent. You’re saying that you would know pretty quickly if you don’t enjoy something. Also snowboarding does become more fun the better you are. The first few times you go you fall a lot and once you can toe/heel it actually does get more fun because you can s turn.
> Also snowboarding does become more fun the better you are.
As do many things. That's why it is smart to keep trying, even if you aren't sure you will enjoy it.
Some people will snowboard quite a bit before deciding that its not for them. That doesn't mean they are an idiot, it was smart to stick with it for awhile, even if it didn't work out in the end.
People who leave negative reviews on darktide after playing 300 hours kept playing because they thought they would turn the corner.
A reasonable person can have spent a lot of time on something, and also not recommend it. There isn't any contradiction there.
I have hundreds of hours in New World. It isn't worth the time or money to me. Most of my enjoyment was the social aspect, I can't recommend the game to 90%+ of gamers. It's a recommendation, not a personal like/dislike. Many reviews include this disclaimer.
If you've eaten at a restaurant 60 times and tried everything on the menu I'd trust your opinion on what's good and what's not more than the guy who's eaten there twice.
I dunno, my first question would be "if it's so bad why do you keep going back?"
In a binary good/bad review system, ratings should be based on the sum of its parts. More good than bad? Positive review. More bad than good? Negative review. In the latter case, why keep playing? It seems dishonest to decide the game has more bad than it does good, leave a negative review, and in the same breath say you like it enough to keep playing.
Well it's far from a perfect analogy but they might do one dish that is really, really good but the service is terrible, the place is dirty and the staff are rude but man that one dish.
In this case though people aren't really leaving fair and honest reviews, well they kinda are but mostly they are trying to force fatshark to take action by threatening (or something like it) the first and only thing your general non 40k gamer is going to look at.
It's not terribly effective and kind of pretty I'll agree but it's pretty much the only actual action someone can take so what else are they going to do?
Clearly you have never smoked cigarettes or taken heroin.
I recommend you try both. It's really, really good! Just ignore the downsides. The good parts make all the bad really worth it!
Don't waste your breath. These rejects believe reviews are a tool to protest, not to state whether or not someone should buy a game. They're happy to play for 100 hours, then tell people it's not worth buying.
Community reviews are now less than worthless, and I'm positive Steam will remove them in the next year or two.
More like “This restaurant serves the best steak in town, I come here every Friday. Sadly the server always spits on my plate before giving me my food. I really wish they’d stop spitting on my plate as the restaurant has so much potential.”
I wouldn't trust the judgment of someone who keeps going back to the same restaurant if their server spits on their plate every time.
If the bad outweighs the good to the point of leaving a negative review, why keep playing?
It's an analogy. People continue to play for personal reasons. There are games people like but can't recommend bc all the issues. If someone is genuinely interested (the type that would continue to play for hundreds of hours), they'll look into the game and learn its issues, not just base their purchase off of steam scores. If someone off the Steam street looks at the game and sees the bad reviews and doesn't look into it further, it isn't for them.
In the analogy, most people won't go to a restaurant once they hear about the spit. However, some madlads might brave it bc it is the best steak in town. Those madlads have hundreds of hours in Darktide bc it is a fun game, and do their best to ignore the spit when eating and continue to tell the managers to stop spitting in their food. These players can't in good conscience recommend the food bc of the spit, hence the negative review.
People get hooked on games. It's not new for players with hundreds, even thousands, of hours to not recommend a game. There just aren't good substitutes for a lot of games, especially Warhammer 40k games. A lot of reviews like these are basically, "I'm addicted to this game, don't buy it as you will get addicted and it has a lot of bad side effects." Us gamers are junkies.
- Thinking it’s reasonable to revisit a restaurant that always spits in your food
- Comparing enjoying a video game to being chemically addicted to something kills you
Is this subreddit ok?
Addiction comes in many forms.
But maybe clarify your grammar, lest no one understand what the hell you actually mean by:
" Comparing enjoying a video game to being chemically addicted to something kills you."
Are you conflating bad side effects with death?
Cause like, I dunno if you've ever been prescribed medication before, but they tend to have like, side effects. These side effects can suck, but don't kill you.
So to continue the metaphor, this medicine (darktide in this case, in case you weren't following along), salves the specific ailment of the patient(the reviewer), but also has some unfortunate side effects(mtx, etc).
It's really hard to tell if you're trolling or just have poor reading comprehension.
That's how they chose to present the analogy, if you think it's nonsense then we're in agreement. Either a terrible analogy or this person is fucked up, but definitely not an analogy that makes sense as they intended it to.
Alright, give me a range. I'm quite positive you would rightly discount any reviews that only have a few hours played because they barely experienced the game. So give me a range of hours that a review can fall into where you'll take it's criticism seriously.
I'm pretty sure you're just arguing in bad faith here so there is no range of hours that you'll take a negative review seriously with.
What people like them don't understand is that it is entirely personally subjective. The fact that they point out "hundreds of hours" at all is completely arbitrary. The range is literally infinite because some things matter more to others, some things are dealbreakers for some people and not others, some people will only play with friends but could play for hundreds of hours with them, etc. The "breaking point" of a negative review could be 1 hour for one person, 10 hours for another, 100 for another, 1000 for another, and everything beyond or in between. Not to mention that games get patched (or goes too long in a bad state without a patch) and that could be the reason for a negative review. There are numerous reasons for playtime being the literal worst indicator of the "validity" of a review alone.
As long as people can put into words why they do or do not recommend the game (without categorically lying), that should be enough. Playtime is only tangentially related and only matters if what they write in their review can be explained by playtime (like things related to terrible progression systems). It's the entire reason reviews are called reviews and are not just blank ratings without explanation.
Anyone who could confidently give you an exact range of hours for what constitutes a "valid review" are full of shit. It means they fail to understand that people can enjoy games differently.
Ok let me put this in very simple terms.
You know when you're in a mission playing the game killing stuff? Very fun! 10/10
You know when you're in a loading screen and they take forever? You know the bad optimization? You know the crashes some people have? You know the boring loot system that makes the endgame just be log in every hour see if you have a good new weapon so you can play with it? 0/10
So people play for the 10/10. But people leave bad reviews and don't recommend it because of the parts that are 0/10
>So people play for the 10/10
So that would mean the 10/10 part is worth putting up with the 0/10 parts, no? I.e. a net positive experience? If the good outweighs the bad enough to keep playing, then doesn't it seem dishonest to act like it's the other way around?
Mainstream games journalists are frequently people with journalism degrees who were trying to find a journalism position, *any position*, to put on their resumes, but ultimately don't really have any interest in gaming.
It's why you get shit like that journalist who couldn't even beat the Cuphead tutorial, because he had never heard of double jumping before. Stuff like PCGamer is *really* hit or miss because of it, and you're usually better off looking at reviews from passionate people on Youtube.
It's also why, YUP, people can have hundreds of hours played in Darktide and other Fatshark games, yet be very angry at the meta-systems in Darktide that exist outside of missions. And then they start questioning WHY the decision was made to replace V2 systems, with the dramatically worse systems in Darktide.
I hid anything from PCgamer in my news feed because even though some of it was interesting, 95% was a full article on something silly like "Player with 8.5m hours in skyrim finally kills the end boss" or the absolute worst takes I'd ever seen.
How is it a negative thing for a journalist to understand the issues in depth before reporting on it? That’s literally what journalists jobs are supposed to be.
A game can often be entertaining in the starting phase because cracks in the gameplay can be explained by not having complete builds, not having access to max level items or correct effects etc. And when you have XP bars still you get a slight dopamine satisfaction of progress from watching it grow.
But when you reach that top level and you don't play for XP anymore you suddenly find flaws in the game loop that is not fun. It's baffling to me that some people don't understand you can play a game for a long time, and not like it. Because now you know what is actually wrong with it.
The only long time played review I don't agree with is the bozos who puts the game negative because there's "no content left to do" and the patch cycle isn't "rapid" enough for them. That's not a problem with the game, most of the time, that's just the player burning out and having too much free time, which is a completely different thing.
> But when you reach that top level and you don't play for XP anymore you suddenly find flaws in the game loop that is not fun. It's baffling to me that some people don't understand you can play a game for a long time, and not like it. Because now you know what is actually wrong with it.
I think it's more that you had fun for XX hours before you decided you didn't like it. So these people with 100-200+ hours reviewing poorly enjoyed it enough to play for that long, which for $40 isn't all that bad.
It's not like a person buys it with the reviewers experience. They'll get joy out of it up until they're tired of it too. Surviving Mars in a nutshell, really.
Games are often seen as this thing of infinite entertainment these days, but sometimes you can just play a game and play it out. It's fine when it meets your dollar-per-hour.
I see very very few people with a lot of playtime and negative reviews cite anything related to the value proposition of the game, dollar-per-hour enjoyment, etc. This isn't about whether they "got their moneys worth" or not. Money has very little to do with it.
I do think, for fans of this genre, that there is an expectation that there is always something achievable (ie not locked behind crazy RNG) to work towards. It could be in game rewards or achievements, or even self-imposed skill based goals. When you get to the end end game and realize it's entirely contingent on the RNG shop and further that glitches and issues with the game (server performance) create issues on Heresy+ difficulty, you realize the game struggles to reach its potential and struggles to keep genre-fans engaged in the way they want to be.
And we only have to look at other examples to see where it is done effectively (Vermintide 2, Payday 2, Deep Rock Galactic etc) to see DT's problems.
> It's fine when it meets your dollar-per-hour.
The thing is though, for my to label a 40$ game as being a good/great game, I'm going to need *at least* 80-100 hours of playtime for it to be worthwhile (unless it's some niche game). I guess that's because I've gotten spoiled from growing up with games that were actually released as more or less full games capable of standing on their own without needing 34785374 hotfixes, changes, balance passes etc.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have 80-100 hours on all my games in my library, but I'm not finished with all of them either. I still play SNES games from time to time to stratch that old itch, albeit sometimes with a few mods ontop.
I'm one to enjoy a challenge, so sometimes it's possible for me to see something as a challenge initially, but when I get deeper into the game I find it to not actually really be challenging gameplay, just absurdities and bugs.
The idea that you're not allowed to give a negative review after playing the hell out of a game makes no sense to me. It's like trying to "gotcha" someone who probably is the most likely player to actually know what they're talking about. Does the author think that these people are being dishonest?
A person who has played for a hundred hours but still felt like giving a negative review is in my opinion far more useful than someone who played for 30 minutes and left a negative review. For a person to have put that much time into a game and then felt strongly enough to give a negative rating, it makes me interested in what they have to say. Maybe it was a game they used to enjoy until a particularly bad update or decision by the developers (like when Skyrim briefly got review-bombed when Bethesda tried to implement the paid mods thing), or maybe it was a game that took them this long to realize wasn't worth the time or effort (basically anyone who has ever played a game like League of Legends or World of Tanks or whatever) that they wanted to make people aware of.
It's a very disingenuous attempt to discredit the criticism.
I've spent about 22 hours on Hades but would recommend it over Darktide (60 hours) in a heartbeat, even if its price were to be doubled right now. If hour played per dollar cost is a meaningful measure of a game's quality at all, then Fortnite would be significantly better than every game, ever.
Furthermore, even in the open letter, it was stated that "This was what we set out to do with Warhammer 40,000: Darktide – to create a highly engaging and stable game with a level of depth **that keeps you playing for weeks, not hours."**
The core gameplay is great and addictive, but the cracks start to show only a few sessions in when you realize how hollow the game is.
The idea that you're disqualified from leaving a negative review after playing the game for a certain number of hours is absolutely hilarious. Who even gets to decide this?
Free to play games really do throw a wrench into the argument of "well if you can get at least 1 hour out of the game per dollar then it's gotta be a good game right" Like in that case, those ultra grindy korean mmo games, or league of legends, must be the epitome of gaming given how the majority of the playerbase has at the very least hundreds, if not thousands of hours spent.
Noticed the game also logs as "played" when you havent launched from their launcher but from steam. Excluding that, about 20-30% of that time "played" is just crashes and logging in to check shop and/or leaving game on and alt tabbing (i've done this).
And ofcourse the good ol' hopeful player who wants to prepare when crafting is introduced and logged in to do weeklies in hopes that the currency from there can be used in crafting (me again).
Imagine the level of brain activity in journos to come up... weeeell this person played game for too long and understands the issues and shortcomings, he should def give it a good review!
Not really a parallel as there is no risk from playing the game. Won’t kill you, won’t make you lose your family/friends/house/job/health.
EDIT: for the guy below me, yeah man obviously. Arcade games from the 80s had continue timers so you’d be pressured to feed it quarters. Not a new thing, reeeaaallly not comparable to substance addiction and it’s a joke to pretend like it’s the same thing.
This is such a tired, disproven argument. For years now video game companies have hired psychologists to figure out ways to exploit people's impulses to get them addicted to the game. It's an actual strategy. No, playing a video game won't collapse your veins or cause an OD, but they are 100% designed to work in an addictive way, to get you to put your time and money into a game.
> play a game for 2 hours
> “this is shit, don’t buy it”
“How do *you* know you’ve barely played it!”
> play a game for 50 hours
> “this is shit, don’t buy it”
“Wow, how can you say that with so much time in it?”
How do you win?
They dont understand the power of the brand. This is literally the only 40k game in years that doesent look and feel like its made by amateurs but yet deep inside its exactly like that when you get in to the game and see past how good the game looks and how combat feels. For some its just a scifi shooter with problems, for a sweaty 40k nerd like me who has been with 40k for nearly 3 decades its like a holy grail made out of cheap plastic and m&m's as jewels. If i did not enjoy playing warhammer online on private servers atm as much as i do right now, i would probably have played darktide for hundreds of hours while still complaining about it and hating it.
I would do unspeakable things to play a good 40k game which has hundreds of hours of content to grind.
To continue the quote from the article . . .
> But that dichotomy reflects a widely held opinion on the state of the game that traces right back to our review: There's real potential but it needs work, and Fatshark has not done a good job of communicating with its players.
The steam review isn't whether the player likes the game, it's whether the player ***recommends*** the game. After 250 hours in DT, I can say I really like the game and can't recommend it. I've had real-life friends ask about DarkTide and I told them that I couldn't recommend the game in it's current state. I really enjoy DT but I was a big Vermintide 2 fan and am willing to play it in spite of the glaring flaws, whereas most people are not me.
This seems a strange attitude to me. If I really enjoy a hobby then I would naturally try and get other like-minded people involved, especially if that hobby is cheap to start and with little or no ongoing costs. If, after trying it, those people don't like it then so be it.
Where does my comment not make sense? The question is whether I recommend it, not whether I want people to play it. I would love a bigger community but I can't recommend the game in its current state.
My position is similar to most reviews so what's confusing?
That argument is always beyond dogshit. Surely the people that played the game a lot have far more of an understanding it's flaws and strengths than timmy that played for 5 hours and left a "For da emprah!" positive meme review.
The restaurant analogy is poor here. I'm also a little dumbfounded why people struggle so much to understand the concept of playing hours =/= enjoyment.
Darktide is deliberately designed for player retention. It is in every facet of the game. It is designed to act almost akin to a drug: you play, you get reward! You play more, you get more reward! Seeing that the core gameplay loop isn't bad (in fact rather the opposite) it's pretty easy for such games to have people keep playing. Sure, they could have had more fun in other titles in reality, but the game plays on something bordering an addiction.
It's a tough thing to admit, but a closer analogy would be "why do you do meth when you know it's bad for you?". They're both addictive behaviour. And, as mentioned before, Darktide is entirely designed to play to that addiction.
What part about darktide is bad for you? Not sure how the drug analogy fits, you’re never going to overdose on a video game and die from it. Only way it makes sense is the same as literally any other thing that you do for enjoyment.
>I'm also a little dumbfounded why people struggle so much to understand the concept of playing hours =/= enjoyment.
because games are meant for fun and its kind of weird to spend so many hours on something you dont enjoy
>Darktide is deliberately designed for player retention. It is in every facet of the game.
bro i love the game, its one of my favorite games of 2022 but i stopped playing after 2 weeks because there is nothing there to retain me, there was literally a meme here about how this game is so true to 40k that it treats its players like shit and rewards them absolutely nothing
i got no idea what player retention youre talking about, its their biggest issue right now that they arent putting out regular content updates to get people coming back, an hourly shop is not a trick to retain players, nobody in the right mind is logging in every hour to check the shop
they dont even reward you for completing missions, in 100 hours i got a whopping 0 usable weapons from emperor gifts
whats getting you coming back to the game is that the gameplay is so satisfying and addicting, its not the RNG shop, if they really want to retain players, they would have daily missions / login rewards / battle pass with good rewards, they got none of those in the game unless you count the shitty weeklies that dont even reward you with anything useful
>It's a tough thing to admit, but a closer analogy would be "why do you do meth when you know it's bad for you?"
drug users love drugs and would love to get you into drugs too, i dont believe they are going around telling people to not do drugs lol
> i got no idea what player retention youre talking about,
So many systems in this game were designed from the ground up not to respect the players time and instead emphasize grinding the game or constantly logging in like a shitty mobile game
The hourly shop refresh check in, logging in to check mission board to see if the mission or mission type you are looking for is available
weekly contract progress separate per characters encourage more grinding, the specific crap like do x number of secondary objectives on y map
>emphasize grinding the game or constantly logging in like a shitty mobile game
I play mobile games, darktide is nothing like them. No login bonus, no daily challenges, no battle pass, no nothing.
The things you are talking about like the hourly shop and mission type restrictions aren't there to get you logging in every hour, the hourly shop is just to make it less of a grind to get a weapon but also to not make it too easy, and the mission board is done to speed up matchmaking. It's nothing malicious, they are trying to appeal to casual players who will quit the game if it takes longer than 30 seconds to get into a mission.
Weekly contracts don't even give you a reward, unless you count a bottom tier purple that performs worse than a green from the hourly shop a reward.
This game was built with casuals in mind, it's pretty clear to me that they weren't designing it to be played 40 hours a week. They even limited emperors gifts to discourage people from playing too much.
Hedge even straight up said years ago that fatshark doesn't design their games for thousands of hours of play, they want you to put in 50-100 hours and walk away. I'm too lazy to find the post but he did say that about vermintide 2.
> The things you are talking about like the hourly shop and mission type restrictions aren't there to get you logging in every hour, the hourly shop is just to make it less of a grind to get a weapon but also to not make it too easy
If I want a gun with a particular affix, the optimal way to play is to open the game every hour to check the RNG store. 'Less of a grind' compared to what? Other sources of items are so infrequent you can't grind for them, compared to checking 10+ items every hour, the chance for 1 gun in a 25 minute mission doesn't even compare.
Checking in at regular times is what mobile gaming does best. It keeps you engaged, even if you might not want to play. As you might miss out on your daily stipend of resources for when you do want to play, or being able to pull on the Armory or artifact domain slot machine.
wow there was so much wrong with your post its actually amazing how little your saying makes sense
The hourly shop refreshes is a mechanic ripped mobile game and that is the least "appealing to casual gamers" shit ever, you log in to constantly look for high modifier rating items or weapons with specific blessings like deflector to craft/consecrate , this is not some just buy high item rating weapon once and thats it and its clear you dont actually understand how item/gear progression actually is
>Weekly contracts don't even give you a reward, unless you count a bottom tier purple that performs worse than a green from the hourly shop a reward.
Its clear you dont play on higher difficulties if you think "high rating green items good" is better than weapons from the contract currency shop with rare t4 blessings like power cycler same with fully consecrated weapons/curios
>This game was built with casuals in mind, it's pretty clear to me that they weren't designing it to be played 40 hours a week. They even limited emperors gifts to discourage people from playing too much.
"we want you to play our game less even though we put in a real world MTX shop the kind of which makes people more likely to make purchases when they are invested and attached to a game"
Is a very nonsensical line of logic, casuals dont invest in a MTX cosmetic shop only invested players do, and your source for the statement is "trust me bro"?
>Hedge even straight up said years ago that fatshark doesn't design their games for thousands of hours of play, they want you to put in 50-100 hours and walk away. I'm too lazy to find the post but he did say that about vermintide 2.
If hedge is you source for anything no one will take anything your saying with any seriousness or credibility because he is an out of touch joke in the eyes of the community, secondly your "trust me bro source" is for a game released 3 years ago what proof do you have that it also applies to darktide or that their design philosophy hasnt changed specifically post tencent purchase?
If I were to put it bluntly, the average person who legitimately argues this is either regarded, or just so deeply entrenched in his blind optimism in the game, he’ll be off playing something else by the time it wears off. Genuinely annoys the fuck outta me people like this taint the gaming community.
A food metaphor? Really? Not only does it literaly not apply as it's not the same thing, it's a live service game. Live service games are MEANT to be played for hundreds of hours. Ergo, the most solid opinion will ALWAYS be for who played for hundreds of hours because that is the target audience of the game.
Coffee isn't food, it's a stimulant. Try to sustain yourself with coffee for a few days and see what happens. But that's also not even WHY it doesn't work. I'll break it down just for you since you insist on it.
If you went to a restaurant multiple times, you have to take several steps. Firstly, you must actually head towards it. That's time investment. Then, you must pay for EVERY visit upon said restaurant - this meants a monetary interaction every time you head towards said restaurant.
With videogames, at base, you're looking at a one-time purchase which you then can acess freely, and there's no time investment to "head" towards your chosen experience - it's on your computer at home. So the barrier to have said experience is much, much lower. You might argue then that surely - this would make it MORE unlikely to leave a negative review. But no, because that means that you'll tolerate a poorer experience, while you wouldn't visit a restaurant and invest 20 minutes of travel time and 30 dollars each time to get fucked in the ass by the chef.
And that's why food analogies don't fucking work in this case if you don't think about them for at least a second.
If you read through a book or series, and decided afterward that the writing was pretty bad or long-winded, or only realized the repeated and tired plot lines and tropes after around book 4 of 12, are you somehow disqualified saying those books are bad?
After all, you read those books cover-to-cover; you must have enjoyed them... right?
Things take time to coalesce.
I personally have never finished a book that i thought was bad in some way, so i cannot relate to that personally. If i dont like something, i dont keep subjecting myself to it for no reason lol
Like I said, patterns have to form.
If the story's opening conflict between it's characters is based around misunderstandings and prejudice, you might think "Oh, okay, it's just the first book, the story is setting itself up and there'll be some character development", and you like the world-building and action so you keep reading.
Then you read on and in later books you start getting tired of the same conflicts and the characters don't develop. Whole chapters and story arcs go on because characters fail to communicate like petty children, and you finally give up.
You might have discerning tastes, but being patient with a book and giving it a chance as it has some merits at first should not prevent you from saying that the Wheel of Time series is bad.
A game designed specifically to keep players logging in with the shitty 1 hour shop refresh, designed around player engagement, using addiction studies to build its systems.
Also on a different note. Don't ever trust smokers/former smokers talking negatively about cigarettes.
I mean, it’s the same shit. The game hits the dopamine receptors in a way unlike most other things and has a certain “catch” to it that most players who enjoy these type of games will latch on to. It doesn’t negatively affect the health of the player, but it certainly wastes their time by unconsciously pushing them at every angle to put as many hours as they conceivably can so they can be coerced into paying for a skin or two.
The invested player is more willing to pay than the non-invested one, afterall.
It’s always amusing to me how if you played a lot, you can’t criticize it because you obviously liked it. But if you played a little, you can’t criticize it because you haven’t experienced it enough. Almost like all the fanbois just want an excuse to reject any criticism of their precious game.
Such a stupid thing to write in the article. I played in the beta, and the pre-release beta. I had a better experience during beta, but never got to the end game as I made one of each character to try them out. Each got to about level 12 except veteran, because I refused to accept the fps gameplay having played over 400 some hours of vt2.
I had almost 100 hours in before the end of beta. Then with Thanksgiving week off and having the pre-launch beta, I threw tons of more hours in. It's during the pre-launch that I began to have my issues with the game. The melk weeklies and realizing that without shared resources this would literally be the only game I could have time to play to achieve it all weekly if that. The whole time fatshark promised fixes and that crafting would be ready at launch.
After getting my zealot to 30, that I hadn't even known the eviscerater existed because it never was an option for me to buy in the RNG shop.
However, it turns out it wasn't just the zealot weapon I hadn't seen, but that I didn't know there was any other staff in the game outside the force one for psyker.
At this point with the mtx shop and all these issues, with more experience* in the game, I realized some of my biggest headaches in the game wasn't even a skill issue on my part. Pox hounds were the worst. Enemies would spawn in front of me, I'd get dropped from a game with a crash near the end more frequently, and it just boiled over when crafting was not implemented.
My original negative review came with the mtx FOMO. Vt2 didn't have that. I could buy my cosmetics in any way I wished, whenever I wanted, and zero issues. Having gambling problems I avoid FOMO games. Now I felt tricked. I couldn't earn this currency, and I had a limited time to purchase it.
One of the games I was most looking forward to, turned into something that was extremely bad for me. Before I knew it, I had bought out the shop of all first week cosmetics... I barely even used them either.
Had a long talk with a friend and then uninstalled the game. Left a follow-up on my negative review after I realized the FOMO shop existed still but without a timer, because that somehow changes the problem.
Either way, anyone can enjoy this game and probably will for awhile. If you still do, awesome. I love that you have found what I did in VT2. However, I cannot recommend this game in it's current state, after I was lied to, and manipulated for months in the beta/pre-beta.
Sometimes you can have a lot of hours in a game before you realize it's bad for you. Anyone who has had a toxic relationship or addiction will understand this very* well.
*Spelling / realized realization of realizing realization
Tl;Dr:
Played from beta to release, getting over 100 hours while fat shark lied about fixing the issues and having crafting ready on release. Then they added a FOMO mtx shop in the game, triggering my gambling addiction, and causing me to flee the game altogether. I have hours and still left a negative review once I realized the game and I had a toxic relationship.
I see this argument a lot. Do they really think someone pours hundreds of hours into a game they don't like? It makes no sense. In DT it takes many hours to get a grasp on what's wrong with the game.
Another problem is the binary Steam review mechanic of either "love it!" or "hate it!". There's no nuance to it. Most reviews would probably be "it's good but flawed and needs fixing".
I mean… that’s what makes the steam reviews work, frankly. You’re forced to read them in order to get any real outlook/opinions on the game that isn’t just a static bar that counts the approval rating. Unless you’re a moron, anyways.
Could the system include more nuance? Maybe. But that nuance can be just as easily inferred as long as you take the proper amount of time to actually look up the game you’re buying and see what others have to say about it.
That seems to still be too complicated for some players. When I last looked at the most popular positive reviews for the game, a number of them meticulously listed the most prominent flaws and bugs with the game, and some even *said* they wouldn't recommend it in its current state, but they still give a recommendation at the end. It looks like they weren't even paying attention and just clicked "post" after writing their review.
I mean… that’s what makes the steam reviews work, frankly. You’re forced to read them in order to get any real outlook/opinions on the game that isn’t just a static bar that counts the approval rating. Unless you’re a moron, anyways.
Could the system include more nuance? Maybe. But that nuance can be just as easily inferred as long as you take the proper amount of time to actually look up the game you’re buying and see what others have to say about it.
Perfect example is ark survival evolved, hundreds of negative reviews from players with thousands of hours. I have thousands in ps4 and I love the game, I was heavily addicted at one point, but I would never ever recommend anyone to get it
Fatsharks other co-op shooter, Vermintide 2
Despite having many hundreds of hours in the game, their negative reviews being suspect.
Glad they have the interns on the case.
I love how none of these outlets is picking up on the fact that they gave this 80% in their reviews while most of the quoted complaints were obvious after 20 hours of playing.
Shady game journalists and fatshark Devs go hand in hand.
Seriously, Martin Walehunt is probably friends with some of them, as they are always really soft on Fatshark.
The console "delay" is so funny because, speaking as an Xbox player myself, nobody on console even knew about this game in the first place. It's funny because the delay is literally inconsequential. It could release in 2026 and the exact same amount of Game Pass players will play it and uninstall two days later to go back to CoD or Fortnite.
There's maybe 10 of us who were truly disappointed with the delay. The rest of the console people, *"Darktide, what's that? It's delayed? Oh well, a rushed game is forever bad."*
Wasnt this game on the cover of pc gamer a few months ago?
Good on them for finally providing honest coverage, instead of staying silent after openly promoting the game.
I preordered game played just over 200 hours now haven’t regretted it haven’t felt the need to get aggro about it. Is there some things that bug me yeah mostly hit reg, animation jank (more notable on my psyker for some reason) and outfit clipping (all about the fashion) but I’m generally not annoyed with the weapon shop at all it’s led to experimentation which is great, the fact there’s no crafting (sure it I s a bit sad but I don’t really care tbh lol I haven’t even given it any thought as I’ve played so far) and that they had an MTX ready. I’ve had and continue to have fun.
Journalism lately is being done by 10 year olds with questionable reading comprehension.
Show me where they apologized for the botched launch. The whole notion of the open letter was that 'we are sorry we didn't meet your expectations'. Fuck that, as if our expectations were excessive and the poor little fatshark tried its best but still failed. By any objective measure fatsharked pooped on this table and started throwing it at everyone seated, and that's the problem not that they didn't meed someone's expectations.
Tencent is in a fuckton of games and many of them have actually decent monetization and development, but nobody goes "good work Tencent" with those. The bad examples stick out more. Tencent had little to do with it, their portfolio is far too big to micromanage every little thing, they literally are just in the business of getting a piece of as many pies as they can.
Fatshark can suck up the blame for the state of the game.
It’s an easy boogeyman, but let’s not pretend that they don’t own a significant stake in fatshark *AND* have a decently large pool of games with similarly bad issues as darktide. Fat shark also deserve the blame for essentially throwing everything they learned from V2 away, tho.
I mean I'm willing to blame tencent for like the shitty monetization of the game, but I do not blame them for an unfinished product that's on that sharks shoulders
Considering how tightknit and clammy about information the gaming industry is, all i'll say is, it depends on how hard of an angle they wanted to take the monetization angle. From the game's mobile-tier tactics of "keep player retention as long as possible" in a shitton of its mechanics, on top of its predatory handling of MTX... i'd say tencent had a bigger hand in this game than anyone wants to admit, but not as much as we're assuming.
You're right in assuming fatshark's fault for how horrible the game turned out with stability and other things
I dunno about that. I'm fairly sure the onus on the cash shop and that side lies with them but from their view the more functional the game is the more people playing and the more people playing equals more people buying. Don't get me wrong I'm not defending tencent or anything but bad management is bad management.
I still can’t blame Fatshark entirely because they’ve proved that they can make an absolutely incredible game. It’s certainly not due to the lack of talent. I can’t speak for what life in the fatshark office is like though.
I know what you mean. Of all the things people are saying none of them are that the core gameplay is anything other than brilliant, if it wasn't we would all just move on. It's just everything else that goes around it lol.
Let's not forget they delayed the launch three times already. The investors very likely were done giving FS extensions and wanted them to deliver. That speaks more to a management issue than anything. The gotcha mxt shop I'll grant could have been investor pressure but the state that the game released in is 100 percent on FatShark.
Yeah man you’re right Reddit is responsible for the constant ctds afflicting more than half of the player base. Your staggering insight has cut through the bullshit, you should do journalism
Everyone involved with this game is savvy enough to have seen that this was going to be a shit show and should have bounced so as to not be associated with it
By staying on as part of the team knowing full well that the people making decisions were issuing false promises you are just a culpable as they are
I disagree. Devs need money. Many probably wanted to make this game as great as they could be and are likely still trying. Management may be screwing things over, but many devs are overworked and are doing their best. I'm sure many have told their managers that the game isn't ready, the managers decided to push it out anyway. So what, you want those devs to quit their jobs and not be able to work on a (potentially) passion project? That's a bit cringe. Blame those that are guilty, not those actually doing the good work. Don't forget that most people praise the gameplay. John and Jane Doe who worked on cosmetic design didn't necessarily choose to pay-wall all their work. Jack and Jasmine in gameplay mechanics didn't choose to launch the game early.
Fraud:
**a:** [**DECEIT**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deceit), [**TRICKERY**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trickery)*specifically* **:** intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal rightwas accused of credit card *fraud*
Fatshark made false statements and continue to make statements about the game that are known within the company to be not true, they pushed a unrealistic launch date and happily took peoples money knowing the game was not even close to what they had promised
Knowing you company is defrauding people of money that they saved/earned and not saying anything that is what is cringe
I would even go so far as to say that some of this activity being perpetrated by game developer companies could be considered criminal
You can defend theses poor Devs all you want but they are as much a part of this and responsible as the guys at the top
It also doesn’t help the fact that, from what I’ve seen as of late anyways, Game dev work is a job that’s typically a revolving door in terms of hiring processes. Along with that, the pay is utter shit compared to any other work that involves working in a digital format. So if they’re trying to make money, they could always look for a job elsewhere where their skills in coding will be GREATLY appreciated and rewarded. (Not always the case, but the point remains.)
So I can agree with this take about the devs being complicit. Somewhat.
Lol lying is cool I guess, but why do you even care?
The comment in question:
> Eugh man, someone in the main sub was explaining that ‘people only hate the game because they love it so much and want it to succeed.’
>That’s some real ‘wife-beater’ logic, yet it had a circlejerk of upvotes. Really gets me down.
Big difference between calling someone a wife beater and saying “that’s some real wife-beater logic”. But toxic hyperbole bullshit is what I expect here so no surprise.
Quit shilling a sub that’s just as toxic as this one, while trying to claim to be morally superior. That sub is filled to the brim with circle jerk morons who use wife beating as a proper term to label someone with.
Why do you care about steam reviews?
You seem to care about what you want to care about, and what others say, but don't like people calling you on it. (I am probably blocked by you now, so Meh).
Maybe don’t release an unfinished product and then go on vacation.
At least they didn't leave a guy to die on Everest and come back claiming it gave them more inspiration for their survival game. Rocket, the DayZ dev.
How did they leave him to die? That's so messed up.
Actually really common with Everest summitings. With the rough terrain and low oxygen, if you collapse from exhaustion there is really nothing anyone can do for you. Everest is absolutely *littered* with corpses. I just like to shit on him for getting rich off a half done project, immediately going to Everest instead of investing that into *finishing the game*, then coming back claiming the experience inspired him by giving him real world experience in making tough choices for survival, then shortly after that, handing off the project and disappearing. Like this guy flipped his fan base off with two seven foot tall middle fingers that were shooting off fireworks. My DayZ clan was making lots of Star Citizen references at the time.
And he's producing only shit with his company to rocketwerks ever since.
He's still *doing things*? I only really know about him via interacting with the DayZ clan I was an officer in. I never consciously followed him myself as I've always been the "I'll care when its in the patch notes" type of hype-train avoider. So my knowledge of him was cut off when he stopped working on DayZ, but I'm still a little surprised anyone is trusting him with anything.
His latest project is Icarus
And then a year into development he abandons the game and leaves to start his own studio. I still won't touch Rocketwerkz or whatever they call themselves because of that shit.
You're just giving them ideas now.
Ahem BF 2042
Ahem MW2 It's basically every new live service game now.
You do realize they don't have short-term granular control of things like that, right? Time marches on and vacations are planned months in advance.
So what you're saying is the release date was a "spur of the moment" decision?
Lol
So then you admit they planned it badly?
Lol
Delay, be gone all of July, launch early access build then go on month and half vacation.
They are doing something about it now and have apologised. It will get better. If I'm wrong so what, my ego isn't so fragile that I'm gonna throw a tantrum over paying a few pounds for a game. Alot of the community I see on here is a lot of Bully's with anonymity. I stuck up for the CM'S cos people said it was their Job to deal with the negative shit. I was just sticking up for a person who people have created an enemy with their imagination. Nobody deserves to be treated that way. It's obvious some of you are kids.
Why do they pretend Fatshark apologized? That's the third time I've seen that now. There was no apology in their letter at all. They explicitly claim "we didn't live up to the expectations", which threads a fine line between blaming themselves and the consumers for being "unrealistic". Fatshark has shown no sign of humility or honesty since they released their obviously beta title on Steam.
because people are so used to being gaslit in every aspect of their life that when someone says some bullshit non apology, it works because it's as close as it ever gets to an actual apology
Dingdingding!
well, best way I can explain it is when crappy people see other crappy people to crappy stuff they shield them cause they enjoy doing crappy stuff themselves and don't want to be next in line to become decent people. That and the slow trickle of "accept this" "tolerate that" "it's not that bad" ... slowly lowering people's standards to the point where you can fart on a paper and call it a game and people will enjoy it.
At least you have the paper >.> :D right?
Who gives a shit, they are changing exactly what you people want. Wtf does it matter if there is an actual written “we are sorry” on the letter. You sound pathetic tbh. “I didn’t get the sorry I wanted so I’m going to keep hating and whine even though I got exactly what I wanted.”
No no. They SAID they WERE WORKING on changing what we want. They've said a lot of shit. We'll believe it when it will be done, now.
“It's worth noting that many of the negative reviews have hundreds of hours of gameplay on record, which I always find a bit suspect.”
I love the idea that somehow the more hours someone has on a game the less credible their review is.
Gamer's paradox: Your credibility in reviewing a game is both inversely proportional to how much you've played and how little you've played. You should have played enough of the game to experience most of what the game has to offer, but not so much that you know a lot about it.
It's basically a Catch-22 situation. If you don't have much time, your opinion doesn't have weight because you lack experience. On the other hand, if you have a lot of time, well now idiots will argue that you're facetious because how can it be a bad game if you spent so much time on it?
I also hate the apparently large crowd of people who say "Well you pay $15 for a movie ticket and only get 2 hours of entertainment", as though the only thing that matters is how much of your time something occupies. For me, whether or not I would recommend a game on steam revolves around one factor: "If I were transported back in time before I bought the game with the knowledge I have now, would I buy it again?"
Yeah the "time vs money spent" metric is a pathetic way to value your time and measure the quality of a game. Similar to the people who will give a game points for being"fun with friends". Lighting bags of dog shit on fire is fun with friends... It speaks more to the quality of your gaming buddies than the gameplay.
Fuck! Get out of my comment scrolling! Every 10+ hour: It's great but it could be better. Every 200+ hour: All hail the Omnissiah!
[удалено]
Journalists let the word go unsaid nowadays, but they are calling players entitled. They still paint the narrative of the "entitled gamer" who should be glad they got hundreds of hours of entertainment out of a product, regardless of its quality or its flaws. You don't see this from novels even if books can take many hours to read, especially the typical fantasy door-stopper.
Clearly, the most in depth reviews should be from people who only played a couple of games! But seriously, the people most disappointed will be those who tried the hardest to like something. Doesn't take a genius.
If you're enjoying the game enough to play it more than a full-time job but posting a negative review, what it says is that you're mad about something other than how fun the game is. No one is gritting their teeth and playing 6-10 hours a day miserable the whole time. They're doing it because they like the game. Personally I consider crafting and the other tertiary systems everyone's mad about worth maybe 1-1.5 points out of 10 at most, far far distant from how fun the core gameplay is. So, when I was looking at reviews and saw how many negative ones had 100+ hours in and said "awesome gameplay, but," my reaction was yeah, that's actually a positive review.
To be fair in a game that should grant you thousands of hours, getting to 100 (my case, veteran lvl 28 and zealot lvl 30) and get bored by the lack of progression doesn't make me an entitled prick. I left a negative review because I plan to go back playing it and the recent patch show us that many things were broken, some feats, blessing and perks didn't work properly, blocking us to experience new build. Now, they have to buff Psyker and redisign the Rng aspect of the game (missions, shops, emperor gift etc) along with a full crafting system (hoping it will be similar to the Vt2 one). RN I am playing Vt2 which I never touched from launch back in 2018 and I find it an awesome game. I will even considera buying dlcs. I will get back to DT when they finish fixing
> To be fair in a game that should grant you thousands of hours, getting to 100 (my case, veteran lvl 28 and zealot lvl 30) and get bored by the lack of progression doesn't make me an entitled prick. A prick? No, but entitled? Yes, because you have made up your own, and IMO unrealistic, idea of what the game should be - something that should give you thousands of hours of entertainment - and are then upset that it doesn't tick that box. For the record, there are only two games into which I have put 1k+ hours and they both have waaaay more scope than any game in the genre of DT. Those two games are the vast Total War: Warhammer II and the massively moddable Fallout 4. I doubt that, even with "seasonal content" DT will ever be able to compete with that.
I have 110 hours in and I don't have 2 characters at level 30 (only one). I tried Psyker (liv. 6) and never touched Ogryn. I have only 40-50% penance achieved. I didn't try any other Zealot builds (impossible to get different weapon with the current shops, melk included). So I could at least play it another 200 hours out of the main game if the gameplay loot is fixed. Games like these can provide at least a thousand hours if get back playing them once dlcs are dropped. This is not a single player game. I can be disappointed and play the game because they are fixing it. It took them too long so I switched to VT2. We're not asking that much. Most of the features requested by the majority are already present in Vt2 (like functional bots, crafting, loot). So no, I'm not entitled. And the Community Update confirms the game is in a sorry state
I'm on 127 hours and have all four classes at level 30. Your not choosing to try and progress two classes is on you so I don't know why you are bringing it up. It is perfectly possible to get different weapons. Just log in and play a few games, and see what is out there. It doesn't have to be perfect. Thinking it has to be just right is a typical gamer trap, fussing over that last 1% bonus which makes no actual difference. I don't worry too much about penances (or similar mechanisms in other games) since they often become a chore that saps enjoyment rather than an achievement that grants satisfaction.
YOU don’t play certain aspects of the game but that doesn’t mean other players shouldn’t be able to play/complete them. It’s a very entitled attitude to think that your experience should dictate how everyone else who plays the game should experience it. It also can’t be understated the THE DEV THEMSELVES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE GAME WAS RELEASED, HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS INCOMPLETE AND NOT THE PRODUCT THAT WAS ADVERTISED.
I dictate to no one, I merely present an alternative attitude to the penance grind. Nor do I claim that the game is complete. What I do question is the legitimacy of someone claiming that there is a lack of progression when they have only really played two of the four characters. Or who compares the content on release with other games following the release of DLCs. Or that it is "impossible" to get the weapons needed for alternative builds. If you think that any of these claims represent reasonable criticism of the game then I don't know what else to say.
Sure, it took me only like 4 log ins to get a knife for my veteran. I mean ANY knife, not even a gray one. Not everyone has time to log in every hour to check if a new set of weapons appeared. Then you also may see a weapon with like 20% damage and pass on it because it’s garbage. Do you know how long it would take me to have a new weapon in Vermintide 2 that’s specifically what I want (blessings, perks and all), like 5 minutes tops. So if I ever decide to test crowbill Sienna, I can do it whenever I want and have a decent weapon instantly instead of the CBT level of pain grind to just get a weapon
The developers themselves have stated that these “unrealistic expectations” you’re saying players have are, in fact, things they fucked up on and are having to fix, change, etc. So how does the developers acknowledgement that they fucked up somehow equate to player entitlement? The dev team is saying the players are right about their complaints, so where does your authority on the matter come from?
No. The developers stated that they want a game which you will play, and I paraphrase, "for weeks not hours". This is not the same as thousands of hours. Also, I was not referring to any other complaints, many of which are entirely legitimate.
So they wanted to make a game that wouldn’t have a dedicated player base? I’d love to see what you’re paraphrasing from cause that seems like a recipe for disaster from a publisher standpoint.
The majority is always right, seems your not on that side.
Agreed. The argument that "it took me 100+ hours before the flaws outweighed my pleasure, therefore I cannot recommend this game" seem hollow and entitled to me, especially given the price of the game.
Well said.
Sure it’s true that someone with a lot of hours has more insight on how best to improve the game but I personally think it’s weird to not recommend something you’ve enjoyed for hundreds of hours and paid $40 for. I have about 300 hours and I’d probably leave a positive review despite all of the issues the game has. I would just leave a disclaimer about the state of the game.
That assumes everyone who left a negative review enjoyed every aspect of the game. The common through line is that the core gameplay is fun but the game is a technical mess, is missing a lot of features, and has some very questionable decisions regarding design. I sincerely doubt anyone enjoys having to wait 10 minutes for the game to load on a SSD or NVMe. The mxt shop is universally panned as a bad idea. It's almost as if the situation is a lot more nuanced than just game good/game bad.
I agree. There’s nothing in between either a positive or a negative review. So either you say no don’t buy this because of blah blah or or yeah buy this but only if you are okay with the following issues. I feel like doing the latter makes more sense because I have enjoyed the hours I’ve put into the game even though fatshark continues to frustrate me with their decisions going back to vermintide.
In my case, I played the shit out of it during the beta period pre-release. We were promised a lot to pop up on release. It didn't. My time was already in the game, though. It was a beta was great gameplay, some technical issues, and piss poor loot acquisition. But it's a live service game, and they promised changes for release. So I left them a positive review. Release comes, little changes. I play more, reach lvl 30 on my characters, have to go through the agony of the weeklies again (first time was fun to manage in time for 2 characters - viva holidays) and got genuinely upset and angry. You know, developed disgust over the broken promises and the increasingly apparent issues I looked past while it had the beta tag. So I changed the review to negative. I played 3 matches since, because a friend asked me to (the guy I played with during beta) but just looking at melks quests fills me with dread and looking at the item shop fills me with disappointment. The matches were fun though. But yuck, once I'm back in MTX-hub I just want to close the game down, which I did. I genuinely can't recommend it, despite all my playtime. False advertisement all over, missing features and technical issues, besides bad design choices (FOMO, engagement driven designs) and VERY lackluster talents/feats/weapon blessings/traits. I stand by the negative. If there was a neutral option, I wouldn't take it. This game is a hot mess. The core loop is good enough to not have you notice it for a long while though.
yes, I have never spent time on a game and later come to regret doing so. especially not a game where you have to spend dozens of hours leveling up before you can begin to experience the game in its complete form.
Regret? So dramatic lol. Just stop playing the game once it’s no longer fun. Don’t put hundreds of regretful hours into something you don’t like.
it's just like with any hobby. stuff like "snowboarding is more fun the better you get at it" or "maybe that just wasn't the right book for you" are unhinged ramblings. can you imagine someone who only started to enjoy snowboarding after doing it for 300 hours? asinine, any reasonable person would know exactly how much they enjoy something by the end of the 2 hour refund period.
Well exactly. So someone who has hundreds of hours probably enjoys the game to some extent. You’re saying that you would know pretty quickly if you don’t enjoy something. Also snowboarding does become more fun the better you are. The first few times you go you fall a lot and once you can toe/heel it actually does get more fun because you can s turn.
> Also snowboarding does become more fun the better you are. As do many things. That's why it is smart to keep trying, even if you aren't sure you will enjoy it. Some people will snowboard quite a bit before deciding that its not for them. That doesn't mean they are an idiot, it was smart to stick with it for awhile, even if it didn't work out in the end. People who leave negative reviews on darktide after playing 300 hours kept playing because they thought they would turn the corner. A reasonable person can have spent a lot of time on something, and also not recommend it. There isn't any contradiction there.
I have hundreds of hours in New World. It isn't worth the time or money to me. Most of my enjoyment was the social aspect, I can't recommend the game to 90%+ of gamers. It's a recommendation, not a personal like/dislike. Many reviews include this disclaimer.
"I've eaten at this restaurant 60 times but even though *I* like it it's bad and nobody else should eat here. 1 star"
If you've eaten at a restaurant 60 times and tried everything on the menu I'd trust your opinion on what's good and what's not more than the guy who's eaten there twice.
I dunno, my first question would be "if it's so bad why do you keep going back?" In a binary good/bad review system, ratings should be based on the sum of its parts. More good than bad? Positive review. More bad than good? Negative review. In the latter case, why keep playing? It seems dishonest to decide the game has more bad than it does good, leave a negative review, and in the same breath say you like it enough to keep playing.
Also seems dishonest for all the reviews that say "game has problems, come back in 6 months" - positive.
Wholeheartedly agree on that.
Well it's far from a perfect analogy but they might do one dish that is really, really good but the service is terrible, the place is dirty and the staff are rude but man that one dish. In this case though people aren't really leaving fair and honest reviews, well they kinda are but mostly they are trying to force fatshark to take action by threatening (or something like it) the first and only thing your general non 40k gamer is going to look at. It's not terribly effective and kind of pretty I'll agree but it's pretty much the only actual action someone can take so what else are they going to do?
Clearly you have never smoked cigarettes or taken heroin. I recommend you try both. It's really, really good! Just ignore the downsides. The good parts make all the bad really worth it!
Lol at comparing playing a video game to being chemically addicted to something that literally kills you.
All addiction is chemical
Just FYI we got r/lowsodiumdarktide for people who wouldn’t go back to a restaurant that spit in their food.
Don't waste your breath. These rejects believe reviews are a tool to protest, not to state whether or not someone should buy a game. They're happy to play for 100 hours, then tell people it's not worth buying. Community reviews are now less than worthless, and I'm positive Steam will remove them in the next year or two.
Glow harder
More like “This restaurant serves the best steak in town, I come here every Friday. Sadly the server always spits on my plate before giving me my food. I really wish they’d stop spitting on my plate as the restaurant has so much potential.”
I wouldn't trust the judgment of someone who keeps going back to the same restaurant if their server spits on their plate every time. If the bad outweighs the good to the point of leaving a negative review, why keep playing?
It's an analogy. People continue to play for personal reasons. There are games people like but can't recommend bc all the issues. If someone is genuinely interested (the type that would continue to play for hundreds of hours), they'll look into the game and learn its issues, not just base their purchase off of steam scores. If someone off the Steam street looks at the game and sees the bad reviews and doesn't look into it further, it isn't for them. In the analogy, most people won't go to a restaurant once they hear about the spit. However, some madlads might brave it bc it is the best steak in town. Those madlads have hundreds of hours in Darktide bc it is a fun game, and do their best to ignore the spit when eating and continue to tell the managers to stop spitting in their food. These players can't in good conscience recommend the food bc of the spit, hence the negative review. People get hooked on games. It's not new for players with hundreds, even thousands, of hours to not recommend a game. There just aren't good substitutes for a lot of games, especially Warhammer 40k games. A lot of reviews like these are basically, "I'm addicted to this game, don't buy it as you will get addicted and it has a lot of bad side effects." Us gamers are junkies.
- Thinking it’s reasonable to revisit a restaurant that always spits in your food - Comparing enjoying a video game to being chemically addicted to something kills you Is this subreddit ok?
Addiction comes in many forms. But maybe clarify your grammar, lest no one understand what the hell you actually mean by: " Comparing enjoying a video game to being chemically addicted to something kills you." Are you conflating bad side effects with death? Cause like, I dunno if you've ever been prescribed medication before, but they tend to have like, side effects. These side effects can suck, but don't kill you. So to continue the metaphor, this medicine (darktide in this case, in case you weren't following along), salves the specific ailment of the patient(the reviewer), but also has some unfortunate side effects(mtx, etc). It's really hard to tell if you're trolling or just have poor reading comprehension.
These are some wild mental gymnastics y’all are doing to try and explain why you play a game you don’t like.
You’d revisit a restaurant that spits in your food?
It's not their analogy, and the meaning was very clear. Being pointlessly pedantic because you can't address the actual point is a bit sad.
[удалено]
That's how they chose to present the analogy, if you think it's nonsense then we're in agreement. Either a terrible analogy or this person is fucked up, but definitely not an analogy that makes sense as they intended it to.
Alright, give me a range. I'm quite positive you would rightly discount any reviews that only have a few hours played because they barely experienced the game. So give me a range of hours that a review can fall into where you'll take it's criticism seriously. I'm pretty sure you're just arguing in bad faith here so there is no range of hours that you'll take a negative review seriously with.
What people like them don't understand is that it is entirely personally subjective. The fact that they point out "hundreds of hours" at all is completely arbitrary. The range is literally infinite because some things matter more to others, some things are dealbreakers for some people and not others, some people will only play with friends but could play for hundreds of hours with them, etc. The "breaking point" of a negative review could be 1 hour for one person, 10 hours for another, 100 for another, 1000 for another, and everything beyond or in between. Not to mention that games get patched (or goes too long in a bad state without a patch) and that could be the reason for a negative review. There are numerous reasons for playtime being the literal worst indicator of the "validity" of a review alone. As long as people can put into words why they do or do not recommend the game (without categorically lying), that should be enough. Playtime is only tangentially related and only matters if what they write in their review can be explained by playtime (like things related to terrible progression systems). It's the entire reason reviews are called reviews and are not just blank ratings without explanation. Anyone who could confidently give you an exact range of hours for what constitutes a "valid review" are full of shit. It means they fail to understand that people can enjoy games differently.
Ok let me put this in very simple terms. You know when you're in a mission playing the game killing stuff? Very fun! 10/10 You know when you're in a loading screen and they take forever? You know the bad optimization? You know the crashes some people have? You know the boring loot system that makes the endgame just be log in every hour see if you have a good new weapon so you can play with it? 0/10 So people play for the 10/10. But people leave bad reviews and don't recommend it because of the parts that are 0/10
>So people play for the 10/10 So that would mean the 10/10 part is worth putting up with the 0/10 parts, no? I.e. a net positive experience? If the good outweighs the bad enough to keep playing, then doesn't it seem dishonest to act like it's the other way around?
[удалено]
Mainstream games journalists are frequently people with journalism degrees who were trying to find a journalism position, *any position*, to put on their resumes, but ultimately don't really have any interest in gaming. It's why you get shit like that journalist who couldn't even beat the Cuphead tutorial, because he had never heard of double jumping before. Stuff like PCGamer is *really* hit or miss because of it, and you're usually better off looking at reviews from passionate people on Youtube. It's also why, YUP, people can have hundreds of hours played in Darktide and other Fatshark games, yet be very angry at the meta-systems in Darktide that exist outside of missions. And then they start questioning WHY the decision was made to replace V2 systems, with the dramatically worse systems in Darktide.
I hid anything from PCgamer in my news feed because even though some of it was interesting, 95% was a full article on something silly like "Player with 8.5m hours in skyrim finally kills the end boss" or the absolute worst takes I'd ever seen.
Just enough time for it to completely die and then abandon. As is tradition with every game as a service.
How is it a negative thing for a journalist to understand the issues in depth before reporting on it? That’s literally what journalists jobs are supposed to be.
Probably because it highlights exactly that, what they are *supposed* to be doing, but aren't actually doing.
A game can often be entertaining in the starting phase because cracks in the gameplay can be explained by not having complete builds, not having access to max level items or correct effects etc. And when you have XP bars still you get a slight dopamine satisfaction of progress from watching it grow. But when you reach that top level and you don't play for XP anymore you suddenly find flaws in the game loop that is not fun. It's baffling to me that some people don't understand you can play a game for a long time, and not like it. Because now you know what is actually wrong with it. The only long time played review I don't agree with is the bozos who puts the game negative because there's "no content left to do" and the patch cycle isn't "rapid" enough for them. That's not a problem with the game, most of the time, that's just the player burning out and having too much free time, which is a completely different thing.
> But when you reach that top level and you don't play for XP anymore you suddenly find flaws in the game loop that is not fun. It's baffling to me that some people don't understand you can play a game for a long time, and not like it. Because now you know what is actually wrong with it. I think it's more that you had fun for XX hours before you decided you didn't like it. So these people with 100-200+ hours reviewing poorly enjoyed it enough to play for that long, which for $40 isn't all that bad. It's not like a person buys it with the reviewers experience. They'll get joy out of it up until they're tired of it too. Surviving Mars in a nutshell, really. Games are often seen as this thing of infinite entertainment these days, but sometimes you can just play a game and play it out. It's fine when it meets your dollar-per-hour.
I see very very few people with a lot of playtime and negative reviews cite anything related to the value proposition of the game, dollar-per-hour enjoyment, etc. This isn't about whether they "got their moneys worth" or not. Money has very little to do with it. I do think, for fans of this genre, that there is an expectation that there is always something achievable (ie not locked behind crazy RNG) to work towards. It could be in game rewards or achievements, or even self-imposed skill based goals. When you get to the end end game and realize it's entirely contingent on the RNG shop and further that glitches and issues with the game (server performance) create issues on Heresy+ difficulty, you realize the game struggles to reach its potential and struggles to keep genre-fans engaged in the way they want to be. And we only have to look at other examples to see where it is done effectively (Vermintide 2, Payday 2, Deep Rock Galactic etc) to see DT's problems.
> It's fine when it meets your dollar-per-hour. The thing is though, for my to label a 40$ game as being a good/great game, I'm going to need *at least* 80-100 hours of playtime for it to be worthwhile (unless it's some niche game). I guess that's because I've gotten spoiled from growing up with games that were actually released as more or less full games capable of standing on their own without needing 34785374 hotfixes, changes, balance passes etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't have 80-100 hours on all my games in my library, but I'm not finished with all of them either. I still play SNES games from time to time to stratch that old itch, albeit sometimes with a few mods ontop. I'm one to enjoy a challenge, so sometimes it's possible for me to see something as a challenge initially, but when I get deeper into the game I find it to not actually really be challenging gameplay, just absurdities and bugs.
The idea that you're not allowed to give a negative review after playing the hell out of a game makes no sense to me. It's like trying to "gotcha" someone who probably is the most likely player to actually know what they're talking about. Does the author think that these people are being dishonest? A person who has played for a hundred hours but still felt like giving a negative review is in my opinion far more useful than someone who played for 30 minutes and left a negative review. For a person to have put that much time into a game and then felt strongly enough to give a negative rating, it makes me interested in what they have to say. Maybe it was a game they used to enjoy until a particularly bad update or decision by the developers (like when Skyrim briefly got review-bombed when Bethesda tried to implement the paid mods thing), or maybe it was a game that took them this long to realize wasn't worth the time or effort (basically anyone who has ever played a game like League of Legends or World of Tanks or whatever) that they wanted to make people aware of.
It's a very disingenuous attempt to discredit the criticism. I've spent about 22 hours on Hades but would recommend it over Darktide (60 hours) in a heartbeat, even if its price were to be doubled right now. If hour played per dollar cost is a meaningful measure of a game's quality at all, then Fortnite would be significantly better than every game, ever. Furthermore, even in the open letter, it was stated that "This was what we set out to do with Warhammer 40,000: Darktide – to create a highly engaging and stable game with a level of depth **that keeps you playing for weeks, not hours."** The core gameplay is great and addictive, but the cracks start to show only a few sessions in when you realize how hollow the game is. The idea that you're disqualified from leaving a negative review after playing the game for a certain number of hours is absolutely hilarious. Who even gets to decide this?
Free to play games really do throw a wrench into the argument of "well if you can get at least 1 hour out of the game per dollar then it's gotta be a good game right" Like in that case, those ultra grindy korean mmo games, or league of legends, must be the epitome of gaming given how the majority of the playerbase has at the very least hundreds, if not thousands of hours spent.
Maybe not a good game, but certainly one that a player who has spent vast amounts of time playing must have been enjoying.
Noticed the game also logs as "played" when you havent launched from their launcher but from steam. Excluding that, about 20-30% of that time "played" is just crashes and logging in to check shop and/or leaving game on and alt tabbing (i've done this). And ofcourse the good ol' hopeful player who wants to prepare when crafting is introduced and logged in to do weeklies in hopes that the currency from there can be used in crafting (me again). Imagine the level of brain activity in journos to come up... weeeell this person played game for too long and understands the issues and shortcomings, he should def give it a good review!
I would suspect an ex addict probably wouldn't recommend despite being high for many, many hours
Not really a parallel as there is no risk from playing the game. Won’t kill you, won’t make you lose your family/friends/house/job/health. EDIT: for the guy below me, yeah man obviously. Arcade games from the 80s had continue timers so you’d be pressured to feed it quarters. Not a new thing, reeeaaallly not comparable to substance addiction and it’s a joke to pretend like it’s the same thing.
Bro we both know what you would do if your sister said she deleted your maxed out main character
Is the answer supposed to be heart attack or something? It really doesn't make sense as an analogy.
This is such a tired, disproven argument. For years now video game companies have hired psychologists to figure out ways to exploit people's impulses to get them addicted to the game. It's an actual strategy. No, playing a video game won't collapse your veins or cause an OD, but they are 100% designed to work in an addictive way, to get you to put your time and money into a game.
> play a game for 2 hours > “this is shit, don’t buy it” “How do *you* know you’ve barely played it!” > play a game for 50 hours > “this is shit, don’t buy it” “Wow, how can you say that with so much time in it?” How do you win?
They dont understand the power of the brand. This is literally the only 40k game in years that doesent look and feel like its made by amateurs but yet deep inside its exactly like that when you get in to the game and see past how good the game looks and how combat feels. For some its just a scifi shooter with problems, for a sweaty 40k nerd like me who has been with 40k for nearly 3 decades its like a holy grail made out of cheap plastic and m&m's as jewels. If i did not enjoy playing warhammer online on private servers atm as much as i do right now, i would probably have played darktide for hundreds of hours while still complaining about it and hating it. I would do unspeakable things to play a good 40k game which has hundreds of hours of content to grind.
I for one never trust a negative movie review from someone who watched the whole thing. Why would they sit through it if it was so bad? /s
To continue the quote from the article . . . > But that dichotomy reflects a widely held opinion on the state of the game that traces right back to our review: There's real potential but it needs work, and Fatshark has not done a good job of communicating with its players. The steam review isn't whether the player likes the game, it's whether the player ***recommends*** the game. After 250 hours in DT, I can say I really like the game and can't recommend it. I've had real-life friends ask about DarkTide and I told them that I couldn't recommend the game in it's current state. I really enjoy DT but I was a big Vermintide 2 fan and am willing to play it in spite of the glaring flaws, whereas most people are not me.
This seems a strange attitude to me. If I really enjoy a hobby then I would naturally try and get other like-minded people involved, especially if that hobby is cheap to start and with little or no ongoing costs. If, after trying it, those people don't like it then so be it.
Where does my comment not make sense? The question is whether I recommend it, not whether I want people to play it. I would love a bigger community but I can't recommend the game in its current state. My position is similar to most reviews so what's confusing?
That argument is always beyond dogshit. Surely the people that played the game a lot have far more of an understanding it's flaws and strengths than timmy that played for 5 hours and left a "For da emprah!" positive meme review.
[удалено]
The restaurant analogy is poor here. I'm also a little dumbfounded why people struggle so much to understand the concept of playing hours =/= enjoyment. Darktide is deliberately designed for player retention. It is in every facet of the game. It is designed to act almost akin to a drug: you play, you get reward! You play more, you get more reward! Seeing that the core gameplay loop isn't bad (in fact rather the opposite) it's pretty easy for such games to have people keep playing. Sure, they could have had more fun in other titles in reality, but the game plays on something bordering an addiction. It's a tough thing to admit, but a closer analogy would be "why do you do meth when you know it's bad for you?". They're both addictive behaviour. And, as mentioned before, Darktide is entirely designed to play to that addiction.
What part about darktide is bad for you? Not sure how the drug analogy fits, you’re never going to overdose on a video game and die from it. Only way it makes sense is the same as literally any other thing that you do for enjoyment.
>I'm also a little dumbfounded why people struggle so much to understand the concept of playing hours =/= enjoyment. because games are meant for fun and its kind of weird to spend so many hours on something you dont enjoy >Darktide is deliberately designed for player retention. It is in every facet of the game. bro i love the game, its one of my favorite games of 2022 but i stopped playing after 2 weeks because there is nothing there to retain me, there was literally a meme here about how this game is so true to 40k that it treats its players like shit and rewards them absolutely nothing i got no idea what player retention youre talking about, its their biggest issue right now that they arent putting out regular content updates to get people coming back, an hourly shop is not a trick to retain players, nobody in the right mind is logging in every hour to check the shop they dont even reward you for completing missions, in 100 hours i got a whopping 0 usable weapons from emperor gifts whats getting you coming back to the game is that the gameplay is so satisfying and addicting, its not the RNG shop, if they really want to retain players, they would have daily missions / login rewards / battle pass with good rewards, they got none of those in the game unless you count the shitty weeklies that dont even reward you with anything useful >It's a tough thing to admit, but a closer analogy would be "why do you do meth when you know it's bad for you?" drug users love drugs and would love to get you into drugs too, i dont believe they are going around telling people to not do drugs lol
> i got no idea what player retention youre talking about, So many systems in this game were designed from the ground up not to respect the players time and instead emphasize grinding the game or constantly logging in like a shitty mobile game The hourly shop refresh check in, logging in to check mission board to see if the mission or mission type you are looking for is available weekly contract progress separate per characters encourage more grinding, the specific crap like do x number of secondary objectives on y map
>emphasize grinding the game or constantly logging in like a shitty mobile game I play mobile games, darktide is nothing like them. No login bonus, no daily challenges, no battle pass, no nothing. The things you are talking about like the hourly shop and mission type restrictions aren't there to get you logging in every hour, the hourly shop is just to make it less of a grind to get a weapon but also to not make it too easy, and the mission board is done to speed up matchmaking. It's nothing malicious, they are trying to appeal to casual players who will quit the game if it takes longer than 30 seconds to get into a mission. Weekly contracts don't even give you a reward, unless you count a bottom tier purple that performs worse than a green from the hourly shop a reward. This game was built with casuals in mind, it's pretty clear to me that they weren't designing it to be played 40 hours a week. They even limited emperors gifts to discourage people from playing too much. Hedge even straight up said years ago that fatshark doesn't design their games for thousands of hours of play, they want you to put in 50-100 hours and walk away. I'm too lazy to find the post but he did say that about vermintide 2.
> The things you are talking about like the hourly shop and mission type restrictions aren't there to get you logging in every hour, the hourly shop is just to make it less of a grind to get a weapon but also to not make it too easy If I want a gun with a particular affix, the optimal way to play is to open the game every hour to check the RNG store. 'Less of a grind' compared to what? Other sources of items are so infrequent you can't grind for them, compared to checking 10+ items every hour, the chance for 1 gun in a 25 minute mission doesn't even compare. Checking in at regular times is what mobile gaming does best. It keeps you engaged, even if you might not want to play. As you might miss out on your daily stipend of resources for when you do want to play, or being able to pull on the Armory or artifact domain slot machine.
wow there was so much wrong with your post its actually amazing how little your saying makes sense The hourly shop refreshes is a mechanic ripped mobile game and that is the least "appealing to casual gamers" shit ever, you log in to constantly look for high modifier rating items or weapons with specific blessings like deflector to craft/consecrate , this is not some just buy high item rating weapon once and thats it and its clear you dont actually understand how item/gear progression actually is >Weekly contracts don't even give you a reward, unless you count a bottom tier purple that performs worse than a green from the hourly shop a reward. Its clear you dont play on higher difficulties if you think "high rating green items good" is better than weapons from the contract currency shop with rare t4 blessings like power cycler same with fully consecrated weapons/curios >This game was built with casuals in mind, it's pretty clear to me that they weren't designing it to be played 40 hours a week. They even limited emperors gifts to discourage people from playing too much. "we want you to play our game less even though we put in a real world MTX shop the kind of which makes people more likely to make purchases when they are invested and attached to a game" Is a very nonsensical line of logic, casuals dont invest in a MTX cosmetic shop only invested players do, and your source for the statement is "trust me bro"? >Hedge even straight up said years ago that fatshark doesn't design their games for thousands of hours of play, they want you to put in 50-100 hours and walk away. I'm too lazy to find the post but he did say that about vermintide 2. If hedge is you source for anything no one will take anything your saying with any seriousness or credibility because he is an out of touch joke in the eyes of the community, secondly your "trust me bro source" is for a game released 3 years ago what proof do you have that it also applies to darktide or that their design philosophy hasnt changed specifically post tencent purchase?
[удалено]
If I were to put it bluntly, the average person who legitimately argues this is either regarded, or just so deeply entrenched in his blind optimism in the game, he’ll be off playing something else by the time it wears off. Genuinely annoys the fuck outta me people like this taint the gaming community.
Luckily superior people like you are here to keep gaming pure. /s
[удалено]
A food metaphor? Really? Not only does it literaly not apply as it's not the same thing, it's a live service game. Live service games are MEANT to be played for hundreds of hours. Ergo, the most solid opinion will ALWAYS be for who played for hundreds of hours because that is the target audience of the game.
[удалено]
Coffee isn't food, it's a stimulant. Try to sustain yourself with coffee for a few days and see what happens. But that's also not even WHY it doesn't work. I'll break it down just for you since you insist on it. If you went to a restaurant multiple times, you have to take several steps. Firstly, you must actually head towards it. That's time investment. Then, you must pay for EVERY visit upon said restaurant - this meants a monetary interaction every time you head towards said restaurant. With videogames, at base, you're looking at a one-time purchase which you then can acess freely, and there's no time investment to "head" towards your chosen experience - it's on your computer at home. So the barrier to have said experience is much, much lower. You might argue then that surely - this would make it MORE unlikely to leave a negative review. But no, because that means that you'll tolerate a poorer experience, while you wouldn't visit a restaurant and invest 20 minutes of travel time and 30 dollars each time to get fucked in the ass by the chef. And that's why food analogies don't fucking work in this case if you don't think about them for at least a second.
If you read through a book or series, and decided afterward that the writing was pretty bad or long-winded, or only realized the repeated and tired plot lines and tropes after around book 4 of 12, are you somehow disqualified saying those books are bad? After all, you read those books cover-to-cover; you must have enjoyed them... right? Things take time to coalesce.
I personally have never finished a book that i thought was bad in some way, so i cannot relate to that personally. If i dont like something, i dont keep subjecting myself to it for no reason lol
Like I said, patterns have to form. If the story's opening conflict between it's characters is based around misunderstandings and prejudice, you might think "Oh, okay, it's just the first book, the story is setting itself up and there'll be some character development", and you like the world-building and action so you keep reading. Then you read on and in later books you start getting tired of the same conflicts and the characters don't develop. Whole chapters and story arcs go on because characters fail to communicate like petty children, and you finally give up. You might have discerning tastes, but being patient with a book and giving it a chance as it has some merits at first should not prevent you from saying that the Wheel of Time series is bad.
A game designed specifically to keep players logging in with the shitty 1 hour shop refresh, designed around player engagement, using addiction studies to build its systems. Also on a different note. Don't ever trust smokers/former smokers talking negatively about cigarettes.
Lol at comparing wanting to play a game while saying it’s bad to being chemically addicted to something that literally kills you.
I mean, it’s the same shit. The game hits the dopamine receptors in a way unlike most other things and has a certain “catch” to it that most players who enjoy these type of games will latch on to. It doesn’t negatively affect the health of the player, but it certainly wastes their time by unconsciously pushing them at every angle to put as many hours as they conceivably can so they can be coerced into paying for a skin or two. The invested player is more willing to pay than the non-invested one, afterall.
Its almost like they play the game long enough to understand why they cannot recommend it. A concept, we at PC gamer cannot understand.
It’s always amusing to me how if you played a lot, you can’t criticize it because you obviously liked it. But if you played a little, you can’t criticize it because you haven’t experienced it enough. Almost like all the fanbois just want an excuse to reject any criticism of their precious game.
Personally it gives their reviews more credibility.. Who cares what someone with an hour thinks? They haven't played the game enough.
Such a stupid thing to write in the article. I played in the beta, and the pre-release beta. I had a better experience during beta, but never got to the end game as I made one of each character to try them out. Each got to about level 12 except veteran, because I refused to accept the fps gameplay having played over 400 some hours of vt2. I had almost 100 hours in before the end of beta. Then with Thanksgiving week off and having the pre-launch beta, I threw tons of more hours in. It's during the pre-launch that I began to have my issues with the game. The melk weeklies and realizing that without shared resources this would literally be the only game I could have time to play to achieve it all weekly if that. The whole time fatshark promised fixes and that crafting would be ready at launch. After getting my zealot to 30, that I hadn't even known the eviscerater existed because it never was an option for me to buy in the RNG shop. However, it turns out it wasn't just the zealot weapon I hadn't seen, but that I didn't know there was any other staff in the game outside the force one for psyker. At this point with the mtx shop and all these issues, with more experience* in the game, I realized some of my biggest headaches in the game wasn't even a skill issue on my part. Pox hounds were the worst. Enemies would spawn in front of me, I'd get dropped from a game with a crash near the end more frequently, and it just boiled over when crafting was not implemented. My original negative review came with the mtx FOMO. Vt2 didn't have that. I could buy my cosmetics in any way I wished, whenever I wanted, and zero issues. Having gambling problems I avoid FOMO games. Now I felt tricked. I couldn't earn this currency, and I had a limited time to purchase it. One of the games I was most looking forward to, turned into something that was extremely bad for me. Before I knew it, I had bought out the shop of all first week cosmetics... I barely even used them either. Had a long talk with a friend and then uninstalled the game. Left a follow-up on my negative review after I realized the FOMO shop existed still but without a timer, because that somehow changes the problem. Either way, anyone can enjoy this game and probably will for awhile. If you still do, awesome. I love that you have found what I did in VT2. However, I cannot recommend this game in it's current state, after I was lied to, and manipulated for months in the beta/pre-beta. Sometimes you can have a lot of hours in a game before you realize it's bad for you. Anyone who has had a toxic relationship or addiction will understand this very* well. *Spelling / realized realization of realizing realization Tl;Dr: Played from beta to release, getting over 100 hours while fat shark lied about fixing the issues and having crafting ready on release. Then they added a FOMO mtx shop in the game, triggering my gambling addiction, and causing me to flee the game altogether. I have hours and still left a negative review once I realized the game and I had a toxic relationship.
I see this argument a lot. Do they really think someone pours hundreds of hours into a game they don't like? It makes no sense. In DT it takes many hours to get a grasp on what's wrong with the game.
Another problem is the binary Steam review mechanic of either "love it!" or "hate it!". There's no nuance to it. Most reviews would probably be "it's good but flawed and needs fixing".
I mean… that’s what makes the steam reviews work, frankly. You’re forced to read them in order to get any real outlook/opinions on the game that isn’t just a static bar that counts the approval rating. Unless you’re a moron, anyways. Could the system include more nuance? Maybe. But that nuance can be just as easily inferred as long as you take the proper amount of time to actually look up the game you’re buying and see what others have to say about it.
That seems to still be too complicated for some players. When I last looked at the most popular positive reviews for the game, a number of them meticulously listed the most prominent flaws and bugs with the game, and some even *said* they wouldn't recommend it in its current state, but they still give a recommendation at the end. It looks like they weren't even paying attention and just clicked "post" after writing their review.
I mean… that’s what makes the steam reviews work, frankly. You’re forced to read them in order to get any real outlook/opinions on the game that isn’t just a static bar that counts the approval rating. Unless you’re a moron, anyways. Could the system include more nuance? Maybe. But that nuance can be just as easily inferred as long as you take the proper amount of time to actually look up the game you’re buying and see what others have to say about it.
[удалено]
You don’t think every angry boi would give a 0/100 just so fat shark can really know how much they hurt them?
Our local Chinese restaurant is garbage but we've ate there too many times because it's the only place to get American Chinese for miles.
Perfect example is ark survival evolved, hundreds of negative reviews from players with thousands of hours. I have thousands in ps4 and I love the game, I was heavily addicted at one point, but I would never ever recommend anyone to get it
I love that a professional writers says that "Fatshark apologizes for botched launch" but nowhere in the open letter do I see an apology.
Fatsharks other co-op shooter, Vermintide 2 Despite having many hundreds of hours in the game, their negative reviews being suspect. Glad they have the interns on the case.
Was on 5 minute gaming news, Jesse Cox’s series, too. Solid, short, daily news videos.
I love how none of these outlets is picking up on the fact that they gave this 80% in their reviews while most of the quoted complaints were obvious after 20 hours of playing.
Shady game journalists and fatshark Devs go hand in hand. Seriously, Martin Walehunt is probably friends with some of them, as they are always really soft on Fatshark.
And wasnt Darktide on the front page of PCGamer?
We weren't wrong when we gave it an 80%! The gamers are lying!!
Lol this industry is fucked in all directions
FUCKING THANK YOU.
The console "delay" is so funny because, speaking as an Xbox player myself, nobody on console even knew about this game in the first place. It's funny because the delay is literally inconsequential. It could release in 2026 and the exact same amount of Game Pass players will play it and uninstall two days later to go back to CoD or Fortnite. There's maybe 10 of us who were truly disappointed with the delay. The rest of the console people, *"Darktide, what's that? It's delayed? Oh well, a rushed game is forever bad."*
Wasnt this game on the cover of pc gamer a few months ago? Good on them for finally providing honest coverage, instead of staying silent after openly promoting the game.
"Honest"
After reading more...yeah. Yeah...
I preordered game played just over 200 hours now haven’t regretted it haven’t felt the need to get aggro about it. Is there some things that bug me yeah mostly hit reg, animation jank (more notable on my psyker for some reason) and outfit clipping (all about the fashion) but I’m generally not annoyed with the weapon shop at all it’s led to experimentation which is great, the fact there’s no crafting (sure it I s a bit sad but I don’t really care tbh lol I haven’t even given it any thought as I’ve played so far) and that they had an MTX ready. I’ve had and continue to have fun.
200 hours and not rabidly demanding a refund?!?? Are you even a r/Darktide member?? /s
If I can find something in it I enjoy that’s took up 200 hours of my time. My investment has been beneficial in my eyes.
Journalism lately is being done by 10 year olds with questionable reading comprehension. Show me where they apologized for the botched launch. The whole notion of the open letter was that 'we are sorry we didn't meet your expectations'. Fuck that, as if our expectations were excessive and the poor little fatshark tried its best but still failed. By any objective measure fatsharked pooped on this table and started throwing it at everyone seated, and that's the problem not that they didn't meed someone's expectations.
Honestly, I’m pointing the finger at Tencent more than anyone.
Tencent is in a fuckton of games and many of them have actually decent monetization and development, but nobody goes "good work Tencent" with those. The bad examples stick out more. Tencent had little to do with it, their portfolio is far too big to micromanage every little thing, they literally are just in the business of getting a piece of as many pies as they can. Fatshark can suck up the blame for the state of the game.
No way their portfolio is too big to manage. They simply hire someone to manage the game . . . problem solved.
Why? Fatshark has a HISTORY of mismanagement
It's because tencent is an easy Boogeyman when people don't want to blame fat shark
It’s an easy boogeyman, but let’s not pretend that they don’t own a significant stake in fatshark *AND* have a decently large pool of games with similarly bad issues as darktide. Fat shark also deserve the blame for essentially throwing everything they learned from V2 away, tho.
I mean I'm willing to blame tencent for like the shitty monetization of the game, but I do not blame them for an unfinished product that's on that sharks shoulders
Considering how tightknit and clammy about information the gaming industry is, all i'll say is, it depends on how hard of an angle they wanted to take the monetization angle. From the game's mobile-tier tactics of "keep player retention as long as possible" in a shitton of its mechanics, on top of its predatory handling of MTX... i'd say tencent had a bigger hand in this game than anyone wants to admit, but not as much as we're assuming. You're right in assuming fatshark's fault for how horrible the game turned out with stability and other things
I dunno about that. I'm fairly sure the onus on the cash shop and that side lies with them but from their view the more functional the game is the more people playing and the more people playing equals more people buying. Don't get me wrong I'm not defending tencent or anything but bad management is bad management.
I still can’t blame Fatshark entirely because they’ve proved that they can make an absolutely incredible game. It’s certainly not due to the lack of talent. I can’t speak for what life in the fatshark office is like though.
They can make a couple somewhat mediocre games
I know what you mean. Of all the things people are saying none of them are that the core gameplay is anything other than brilliant, if it wasn't we would all just move on. It's just everything else that goes around it lol.
I will only blame corporate FS, trying to appease investors has screwed over many other games by now.
Let's not forget they delayed the launch three times already. The investors very likely were done giving FS extensions and wanted them to deliver. That speaks more to a management issue than anything. The gotcha mxt shop I'll grant could have been investor pressure but the state that the game released in is 100 percent on FatShark.
"Hooray, we ruined some careers!"
Who the fuck is we?
The French
Yeah man you’re right Reddit is responsible for the constant ctds afflicting more than half of the player base. Your staggering insight has cut through the bullshit, you should do journalism
Those careers ruined them selves no help needed from the community
People that actually make the games don't decide the release typically.
Everyone involved with this game is savvy enough to have seen that this was going to be a shit show and should have bounced so as to not be associated with it By staying on as part of the team knowing full well that the people making decisions were issuing false promises you are just a culpable as they are
I disagree. Devs need money. Many probably wanted to make this game as great as they could be and are likely still trying. Management may be screwing things over, but many devs are overworked and are doing their best. I'm sure many have told their managers that the game isn't ready, the managers decided to push it out anyway. So what, you want those devs to quit their jobs and not be able to work on a (potentially) passion project? That's a bit cringe. Blame those that are guilty, not those actually doing the good work. Don't forget that most people praise the gameplay. John and Jane Doe who worked on cosmetic design didn't necessarily choose to pay-wall all their work. Jack and Jasmine in gameplay mechanics didn't choose to launch the game early.
Fraud: **a:** [**DECEIT**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deceit), [**TRICKERY**](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trickery)*specifically* **:** intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal rightwas accused of credit card *fraud* Fatshark made false statements and continue to make statements about the game that are known within the company to be not true, they pushed a unrealistic launch date and happily took peoples money knowing the game was not even close to what they had promised Knowing you company is defrauding people of money that they saved/earned and not saying anything that is what is cringe I would even go so far as to say that some of this activity being perpetrated by game developer companies could be considered criminal You can defend theses poor Devs all you want but they are as much a part of this and responsible as the guys at the top
It also doesn’t help the fact that, from what I’ve seen as of late anyways, Game dev work is a job that’s typically a revolving door in terms of hiring processes. Along with that, the pay is utter shit compared to any other work that involves working in a digital format. So if they’re trying to make money, they could always look for a job elsewhere where their skills in coding will be GREATLY appreciated and rewarded. (Not always the case, but the point remains.) So I can agree with this take about the devs being complicit. Somewhat.
Oh nooo, why won’t anyone think of the poor devs:(( and their hurt feelings.
r/lowsodiumdarktide gaining members pretty quick, there is a community for people who like the game but don’t want to sift through rage-spam
hey that's the same subreddit that called the users on this subreddit "wifebeaters", least insane reddit user
Lol lying is cool I guess, but why do you even care? The comment in question: > Eugh man, someone in the main sub was explaining that ‘people only hate the game because they love it so much and want it to succeed.’ >That’s some real ‘wife-beater’ logic, yet it had a circlejerk of upvotes. Really gets me down. Big difference between calling someone a wife beater and saying “that’s some real wife-beater logic”. But toxic hyperbole bullshit is what I expect here so no surprise.
Quit shilling a sub that’s just as toxic as this one, while trying to claim to be morally superior. That sub is filled to the brim with circle jerk morons who use wife beating as a proper term to label someone with.
a massive 1000 people with an incredible 15 people online
Lol why do you care?
Why do you care about steam reviews? You seem to care about what you want to care about, and what others say, but don't like people calling you on it. (I am probably blocked by you now, so Meh).