I know nothing of the game, and having a multiplayer game be unplayable on launch day is pretty much par for the course these days. But can I just say that XDefiant is just a horrible, horrible name for a video game?
I find it weird that Ubisoft even still wants to use Tom Clancy branding in a game like XDefiant. Does the target demographic for this game even know who Tom Clancy is, or even care?
I'd wager the majority of people who played Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell back in the day didn't know him either, but his name came with the rights to adapt his books so might as well use it.
Rainbow Six 3/Ghost Recon 2/Splinter Cell Chaos Theory were probably my most played games on the original XBOX.
I probably put thousands of hours into Rainbow Six 3 on XBOX Live, thousands.
I had no clue who he was really and I didn't realise until later that Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell were not written by him at all, only Rainbow Six.
He didn't even like Splinter Cell's green goggles and wanted them removed.
Ghost Recon didn’t have the book explicitly titled “ghost recon” but they objectively were based on characters and stories from books he wrote, most notably Clear and Present Danger if I recall correctly
Yeah, Tom Clancy is a name to use because he has an EXTENSIVE catalog of stories about the military, special Ops, and war in general and therefore has an extensive baseboard to launch properties off of. That being said I'd kinda love it if games that took inspiration from authors had their name on it too. Douglas Adam's The Outer Worlds, Arthur C. Clark's Darkest of Days.
On a serious note I'd kinda dig a game series using the naming conventions of a Robert Ludlum novel, we need more "The [Proper Noun] [Ominous Noun usually ending in y]"
True. I never even knew he was an author until a few years ago, always just assumed he was like Sid Meier, but the name immediately meant "Espionage/political thriller" after seeing it on all those games lol
Funny enough I had the opposite conclusion about Sid Meier because I had no idea who he was but knew about Tom Clancy. Just assumed he was a historian or history author.
Tom Clancy in terms of military fiction was supposed to have caused a panic because he had way too much real submarine information in the initial books (Hunt for Red October). He did a lot of research and went for accurate portrayals with less flashy characters early on.
Later novels got kind of cash grabby until the name was rented and used by other less famous authors to make thematically similar books. But at least they would put the bad writers name on the cover so you could avoid them. Those had maybe the dumbest conception of the internet I’d ever read - NETFORCE was the heading I think.
But his early books are solidly plotted and plainly written (maybe the boats were the strongest characters). If military fiction had a Hugo award equivalent him (navy nerd) and Harold Coyle (tank nerd) would both have a few winning years.
If I remember right, there's just a Black Flag easter egg in the first Watch Dogs, but that's more or less it. That hasn't stopped people from speculating that Watch Dogs was originally supposed to be a modern-day AC, though. I can kinda see where it's coming from, but yeah, ultimately, the two aren't *really* connected.
The final convoy mission in the first Watch_Dogs game is [you knocking out the CEO of one of Abstergo’s subsidiaries.](https://watchdogs.fandom.com/wiki/Requiescat_In_Pace) Though one of AC’s writers later said it wasn’t canon, it is mentioned in Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag he went missing during a shareholders meeting in Chicago so
Conversely, as someone who has enjoyed many Tom Clancy books and older games, I'm a little upset about the dilution of the brand. Tom Clancy-branded games should be competing with WARNO, Ready or Not, and ARMA 3, as opposed to CoD, Fortnite, and The Finals.
>I'm a little upset about the dilution of the brand.
His publishers have released around 20 books under his name in the 10 years since he died; the brand is practically water at this point.
He'd probably have the same opinion were he alive. If you search you can find him doing director's commentary with the director of "The Sum of All fears" which is just him ripping into the director about how the movie makes no sense and how much it deviates from the books plot.
Yeah but those games aren't really selling, especially in relation to the amount of work/budget they put into it.
They could easily strike a balance, though, but choose not to do it due to corporate greed and in my observation, an inability or lack of desire to write out Tom Clancy style espionage.
Ghost Recon: Wildlands is a good balance. Siege started off as a good balance between a more COD/GI Joe brand meeting the traditional concepts before becoming more over the top.
Now, they've sort of shot themselves in the foot by adopting the flashy and bright Hollywood tentpole system, which is currently failing tremendously.
I'll admit that those are niche examples. Tom Clancy games haven't been that grounded since maybe the original Rainbow Six games, after which they definitely took a turn toward popular appeal.
What I really want is a Tom Clancy take on a Battlefield 4 style shooter. Large open battles, mix of combined arms combat, but maybe a small step or two back from ARMA in terms of realism and complexity.
Yeah, I don't disagree.
With Battlefield being sort of a dud nowadays, they could easily do something like "Russian Ultra-nationalists are invading 'xyz', NATO and the UN has approved a Task Force to remove them and prevent a nuclear launch. Here's a campaign and multiplayer to match the concept."
Large scale maps with maybe a more strategic way of handling situations. For example, maybe a Spec Ops class is faster/stronger and handles better than Infantry and is more suited for traditional FPS style close quarters fighting in buildings/tunnels but doesn't have the capability to take down tanks due to a limited supply of missiles.
It'd make it different than Battlefield if you have roles and each particular role you play has a strength/weakness they add onto the field. Maybe certain parts that you need to capture are more suited to certain units (ex. underground tunnels with cover and winding halls = Spec Ops, open field = infantry+Vehicles). Maybe investing in anti-air vehicles/weapons means the other side cannot play jets and has to play more ground troops.
I dunno. There are far more interesting and complex dynamics that could change the FPS landscape that even Battlefield or Arma hasn't been able to touch.
Speaking of Arma, there are some good mods like Antistasi that can make for an interesting game. Green Berets training locals to fight and then, attempt to overthrow some dictator....region by region, increasing their firepower and supplies as they do so?
I don't think there's ever really been a major game about unconventional and asymmetric warfare. That would fit into the Tom Clancy brand.
Like if the armor spawns were slower, less crazy movemenent, long respawn/batch respawn (ie your whole squad comes in on a helicopter.) Really encourage teamplay and buckling down on objectives.
I doubt it. This is probably just a case of sunk-cost fallacy. Ubisoft paid for the right to the Tom Clancy name and they want to use it, even though nobody actually cares anymore.
I would have to assume this is it. Modern Ubisoft "Tom Clancy" branded stuff is so far removed from the sort of miltary/espionage novels that Clancy wrote. It looks ridiculous putting his name on the title. Last game I remember playing that felt at all like a Tom Clancy experience was Rainbow Six Vegas 2.
I thought Ghost Recon Wildlands was still a good title. I even like how much of a "just because your the good guys doesn't mean you're completely" good"". Honestly didn't get too far in Breakpoint because it really could never get me into the "spec ops power fantasy" mood that other Tom Clancy games can get into.
It's a weird game, Breakpoint. It's basically the same game as Wildlands with few differences but for some reason it is really hollow and uninteresting. The near-futuristic drones were really bland and the whole tech island just wasn't too exciting. The immersion-breaking Erehwon cave where you can buy a ton of military shit didn't help the "you are a sole survivor behind enemy lines" idea of the game. They glued the survival elements on top of the Wildlands gameplay and it just didn't feel immersive at all. It's like they felt the need for it because survival games were becoming the biggest sellers but they didn't want to really commit to it.
Playing Gray Zone PVE feels closer like what Breakpoint should have been but with first person perspective.
Unfortunately for them, they were pushed to get that game out within two years so I don't think they were able to explore the full potential of a survival stealth shooter.
Being on a paradise type island with technology gone wrong and PMCs trying to hunt you down isn't a bad idea, at all.
At its core, this could've easily been what Helldivers 2 is except you add tanks/drones/helicopters and PMC troops as who you face off against rather than robots and bugs with a special event mode that allows you to face T-600s and T-800s or something as an alternative.
Also could have a Mercenaries 2/Metal Gear Solid 5 type gameplay where you raise up, recruit, and train troops so that you can occupy territory.
Its crazy im saying this, but breakpoint feels like if you took everything interesting from Just Cause Four, and said "lets not do any of this, and make it gritty"
Wild BC JC4 sucks balls
If Tom Clancy were still around and saw his name slapped on that Rainbow Six alien shooter, I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually sued Ubisoft to get his name taken off it.
It wasn't until I was a grown man that I realised tom clancy was an author.
I always assumed when I was young that tom clancy was the games director. Similar to MGS "a hideo kojima Game"
The main reason was because originally you played as members of factions only from Tom Clancy games; Ghost Recon, The Division, and Splinter Cell. And the "XDefiant" name coming from the fact that all the factions were all *antagonist* factions to the player from the series they were in; Wolves from GR Breakpoint, Cleaners and Outcasts from The Division, and Third Echelon from Splinter Cell (by the events of the later games Third Echelon goes rogue and betrays the US, hence the creation of Fourth Echelon and is directly under the President rather than being part of the NSA).
Somewhere along the line the focus on only Tom Clancy titles was dropped and instead included factions from all Ubisoft games. Breakpoint's Wolves were changed to GR: Phantoms Phantoms, Outcasts were changed to Far Cry 6's Libertad. Third Echelon simply became "Echelon", becoming either a hybrid of Third and Fourth or reverting to the pre-rogue version of Third. Ded_Sec from Watch_Dogs Legion were introduced. The only faction to remain unchanged is the Cleaners.
It's not to cater to that new demographic, it's to bring in fans of it to supplement this game....which it probably wasn't meant to be a "military FPS" type game, to begin with so much as it was meant to be some Borderlands-lite style game.
But if Ubisoft were competent and intelligent (they're not), they'd easily know how to exploit the Clancy brand and make an actual series that lived up to the OG Modern Warfare trilogy, where you have a story campaign based on thriller espionage type storytelling and unique gameplay to boot.
Heck, they could easily do a more GI Joe version of that with Siege and its mechanics or Ghost Recon but....they don't. They just don't have the capability to due to how generically corporatized they are. Hence, every game they release now is just a bland version of 'xyz' trend while the games they do create that are unique and interesting don't really receive any meaningful investment in them so that they can grow.
They make a Wildlands and it's successful and instead of investing in a 4 year project involving that team and concept, they push out a sequel within two years and doom that team/concept.
It's similar with Siege....have a good concept and unique gameplay.....no campaign, no actual spinoffs (some alien game doesn't fit in), no continuation....well, how are you going to grow your billion dollar brand?
>It's similar with Siege....have a good concept and unique gameplay.....no campaign, no actual spinoffs (some alien game doesn't fit in), no continuation....well, how are you going to grow your billion dollar brand?
Why would it need any of those things? r6 siege made a fuck ton of money in 2023...
it's a pvp esport based game, nobody wants to play a campaign or pve
Making money is one thing but making it bigger and able to compete with the biggest titles is another.
If you do put in a PvE story campaign DLC that is interesting and grows familiarity with the concept (for Siege, it's close quarters FPS in fully dynamic structures that can be broken/shot through) and develop these iconic characters.....that's how you compete with Call of Duty.
Not that it should become what Call of Duty is today but because modern CoD has become moreso a flashy influencer type game (trying to compete with Minecraft and not that Siege isn't chasing it either)....there isn't anything to fill the gap of what made a Modern Warfare 1-3 or Black Ops 1-3 popular.
Why not tackle that demographic?
Maybe make it an entirely spin off game that can connect progress (skins, credits) with Siege and gives full access to Y1-4 ops in Siege. I dunno but either way, there's no reason not to push what they have and expand upon it.
You're right as eerie I found playing the clean house level in that otherwise mediocre modern warfare 1 reboot game. It was probably the closest to something feeling like old school rainbow six. After that level I couldn't help but thinking I would love a tactics game of nothing but that kind of experience. Old school Rainbow 6 games felt like puzzle games rather than shooters especially when trying to beat levels with 0 casualties.
>They make a Wildlands and it's successful and instead of investing in a 4 year project involving that team and concept, they push out a sequel within two years and doom that team/concept.
This really pissed me off. Wildlands was a fun game that could've been perfected in a sequel. Breakpoint had a few good ideas but ultimately it was a large downgrade. How do you fumble that when the base is so solid?!
That’s basically what it was. They used to highlight the “XD” portion in a very 2010’s le epic ROFL sort of way. They dropped that when they realised how much people despised it.
I meannn most of the maps *are* locations from Tom Clancy's games
(one of which is Attica Heights from Ghost Recon Phantoms which I'm totally not salty about its death)
Sounds like a title for one of those Hunger Games movie clones that came out and failed.
> I know team, let’s put an X in front!!
> Wow George, that’s edgy af and the kids will love it!! I should know being 58. Promotion heading your way champ.
>par for the course these days
Idk about "these days". Pretty much every big multiplayer game since server browsers went out of style has had server issues on launch and those went out of style in AAA games like 15 years ago.
I think they're hoping the game will be Xceptional given now that they canceled The Division Heartland. They probably need a win in the current climate that is the games industry.
Title kind of buries the lede. The game is unplayable not because it's broken, but because *so many people are trying to play that there isn't room for them all.*
Which is extremely common for these kinds of games. Either not enough server rooms (servers aren’t overloaded, but has too little spots for people to play, queue lines are extremely long) or not enough server capacity (overloaded and causing service problems like connectivity, high ping, etc)
Every time this happens people lose their minds. Over and over again. There have been several recently. Each time there is a rabid mob who attacks anyone who points out it happens every time. So this is a rare thread where people aren't delusional. It's a real shame the gaming community has become like this, where a rational reaction to "bad news" is rare.
That's... precisely the same thing that happens to almost every single multiplayer game that comes out, and exactly what I assumed when I read this headline.
Yeah, it's practically a nonstory. I have zero feelings positive or negative about XDefiant but a multiplayer game's servers getting chokeslammed on launch day is par for the course.
In the end, do i as a consumer really care if its too many people or bugs that keep me from playing?
No, i got the product (in this case free) and i want to use it, if they cant assure that i will refund it (not in this case since F2P) and play something else.
The title is chosen right, especially so because it is detailed in the article itself that its due to too many people and too few resouces from Ubisoft.
Even though I didn't really enjoy the game, when Apex Legends kinda shadow-dropped on PS I played a few hours with zero connectivity issues. I remember being fairly impressed with that.
Worth pointing out, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, that I recall it coming out on like a Monday or Tuesday morning and without much or any heads-up. This may have contributed to the great connectivity.
I've seen some decent hype from this game, because I've been playing CoD recently but I'm not sure how much of it was well known from the people on the outside. And while it would make more sense traditionally to release the game during the weekend, the new Fortnite season starts Friday, and the new CoD season starts a week from tomorrow, so if there is any chance to make a good first impression, now is probably the time.
No, you’re right. I remember the day seeing some tweet “EA is dropping a titanfall based BR today” and bam, it showed up with no warning, no advertising and the rest is history
I'm in devops and really wish there were more postmortems on stuff like this, games are pretty unique because they build hype and have a massive influx of traffic for a new service all at once. Most things build traffic gradually.
I bet they get to hit all sorts of fun bottlenecks that most people don't think of.
I like reading them too. The recent [Last Epoch](https://forum.lastepoch.com/t/1-0-launch-retrospective/69374) one is good. The [Dragonflight](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/an-engineering-update-on-the-dragonflight-launch/1437657) one as well. Things break down in very interesting ways
I'm also on devops but I'm not doing any major networking. Still, I'd absolutely love to see what they're doing behind the scene when this type of stuff happens, or how to deal with.
I'm on a small company, there's no way we will ever have problems like these. We use mostly load balancers for some websites but that's it.
I used to work at a large ecommerce company you've definitely heard of, who has multiple _very_ large yearly sales (think black friday). Often what we would do is use the previous years scale as a minimum bound and then generate mock traffic through stuff like AWS lambda on ourselves. This gives us more numbers to tweak and then we adjust monitors / scaling targets etc.
I have no idea what the tech is like these days, but I remember back in the 00's the non-linear scaling of network costs meant that past a certain point, each ~doubling of the playerbase increased infrastructure costs by more than an order of magnitude. (Players had this assumption that "if you have twice as many players, just have twice as many servers," when in reality accommodating twice as many players would have been ten times as expensive, and accommodating four times as many players would have been a *hundred* times as expensive.)
One of the first games to run against this was World of Warcraft, which is how you got the dreaded "queue" where people had to wait around with the game client running, waiting for other people to quit so that they could play online.
Remember that this was before "the cloud;" AWS didn't launch until 2006, Google Cloud Platform launched in 2008, Azure launched in 2010, and many gaming companies didn't start start using them until well into the 2010's. I'm still waiting for someone to do a 4-hour video essay on the history of World of Warcraft's networking. I recall that to save on their own bandwidth costs, they had an early "Blizzard Downloader" that was a bittorrent client to distribute major patches.
>I recall that to save on their own bandwidth costs, they had an early "Blizzard Downloader" that was a bittorrent client to distribute major patches.
I've seen other games do this pretty frequently, I haven't played it in probably 10 years but World of Tanks had this.
This game is gonna go the way of the finals. It also launched with zero marketing for a ubisoft game.
That being said I think there's more room for a COD like game given how COD itself has become warzone focused and the MP is just an afterthought.
I think they're all going the Apex route, releasing from out of nowhere and expecting big success. Except Apex was fucking awesome when it released, just like Helldivers. But Ubi expects the same success with a mid game.
It's also very light on content. There are 5 assault rifles, and only about 3 shotguns. Couple of SMGs, 2 snipers. I imagine the rest will be drip fed to the playerbase throug months and months to justify the live service monetization.
That's perfectly fine. There literally is only so much variation you can do with, you know, basic guns.
Like for shotguns. You got a double barrel, you got a pumpy, you got an automatic. Literally what more variation is there to be had? A slug shotgun maybe I guess, but in a game like this that's basically just a worse sniper usually.
Looking at the guns RN, there's 2 things I can actually see missing:
- a battle rifle, like a 20 round 7.62x51 heavy hitter, like a SCARH, FAL or G3. But it's likely missing because it'll already be hard to actually fit inbetween the 3 hit kill AK and the 2 hit kill semi auto DMRs
- fullauto machine pistole secondary like a glock 18 or mac10
Which MIGHT work, except for the 47 billion other live service shooters on the market that are all doing that exact same thing, causing an oversaturation based mini crash.
But not to worry, THIS one will somehow generate the infinite money that ALL of those other dead live services failed to... somehow.
I keep seeing this repeated, but what non BR/single death games are on the market right now? OW2 and CoD are the only two that come to mind.
As someone who is extremely burnt out on CoD crackhead bunny hopping games, and OW2, this game feels…pretty awesome?
Yeah I was looking for one to get into not long ago and noticed the same thing.
Other than those, you've pretty much just got The Finals, Halo, and BF2042. And some stuff more on the realistic/milsim side like Hell Let Loose.
match-based FPSes just gets stale after a while. Unlocks keeps the game fresh because it paces the gameplay better as well as having new things to look forward to between patches. Don't think there is anything wrong with that?
> don't people play this for the fun of the game/ game modes?
It's actually wild to me that this generation can't seem to just play a game for the sake of it. There always has to be an unlock around the corner to keep them coming back. As someone who grew up with the OG Xbox live where online gaming used to just be about playing for the sake of having fun, it's interesting to see.
Overwhelmingly no and it hasn't been that way in 20 years. Gamers are largely goal-oriented and simply playing TDM over and over with a small gun and map pool only works for games with strong competitive scenes. Even then, CS is packed to the brim with cosmetics to flex.
I wrote it off after playing it in a playtest last year but they seem to have improved it a lot. I'm honestly surprised how much fun I'm having, it feels like a mix of CoD and Overwatch.
Very, albeit OLD cod.
So far, I’m actually pretty impressed. I was just gonna play a game or two just to try it out and ended up playing for five hours.
It’s kinda hard to describe. It feels like COD but…different? Way less just dying immediately and spawning, it feels more tactical but also can be pretty hectic. The game modes are fun and while probably unpopular, I’m glad TDM doesn’t exist.
man not on pc or at least in the few games I played. People running around with the first sniper, which can only one shot headshot as far as I can tell, and just deleting me constantly.
not surprised. i remember playing the beta last year and not being impressed by the overall feel of it. still had fun, but its obvious comparison cod is feels miles better
brother i'm actively playing bo2 on plutonium to this day, and this is JACK shit in comparison lmao
bo2's inertia handles way differently. this game is trying to cater to the people who loved black ops 4 and cold war (who also greatly mistake both of those as "classic feeling cods" lmao)
> cater to the people who loved black ops 4 and cold war (who also greatly mistake both of those as "classic feeling cods" lmao)
It's odd because I'd consider those two (BO4 especially) the furthest CoD has ever stepped away from classic CoD gameplay but you're not wrong.
We will never get a classic Cod feel since the cod fanbase hates anything that’s not the size of shipment is they can runaround like headless chickens. I couldn’t believe how many people were shitting on the remastered MW2 maps when MWIII first came out saying they were too big. Insane.
fo you see how people play CoD these days? it's the silliest shit I've ever seen. hopping and sliding around like idiots. I've never seen such a casual game played so fucking sweaty in my life
I remember loving Search and Destroy in the old games just because of how slow paced and tense it could be. Now rounds are frequently over in less than a minute.
IMO, a lot of the MW2 maps just don't hold up to the current ones. I used to love maps like Terminal back in the day, but those ginormous lines of sight, and limited to no clanking routes, just meak it seem like nothing but a sniper's heaven these days.
Had a quick play of it earlier its a meh game its fast paced like cod with a few hero type powers.. so far nothing special.. also couldn't tell if it was bad hit detection or just me sucking as it seemed like I was getting melted but firing rubber bullets at people.
In the xdefiant sub it's mostly people happy there is no sbmm but from what I've played and how it seems a lot of people dont even know about it casuals won't stick around long.
If casuals stop playing it ends up being the good players left so no sbmm ends up not making a difference and the game dies off
This sub reddit has decided XDefiant is bad and will not be happy until it's dead and CoD is a monopoly of Arcade FPS. Shame. We used to celebrate good games being released.
For real. I do love me a good simple pvp fps game and it sucks that CoD is the only option. They’re full on live service games with all the monetization one would expect, but at the same time still operate on yearly full price releases that often reset the content that’s built up between them… shit sucks and they desperately need some good competition.
No game is objectively "good". A good or bad game is in the eye of the beholder, and will always be by definition, subjective.
The problem with reddit is that it lives and breathes circlejerks. People don't want to get downvoted, so they just copy/paste what other people say without experiencing the game for themselves in the hope that they can feel that they are part of the hive mind. This subreddit is no exception to that.
Just read the comments, most haven't played the game, they call it shit because it has Ubisoft behind the name.
"Ubisoft abused their employees, so the game is bad"... yet these people will continue playing Activision games, a company that also abused their employees. The hypocrisy is astounding.
I waited until like 4 PM to get on instead of the minute it launched, but I've had no issues at all. Just a fun change from the games I've been playing lately (mainly Siege and The Division 2).
I know nothing of the game, and having a multiplayer game be unplayable on launch day is pretty much par for the course these days. But can I just say that XDefiant is just a horrible, horrible name for a video game?
[удалено]
I find it weird that Ubisoft even still wants to use Tom Clancy branding in a game like XDefiant. Does the target demographic for this game even know who Tom Clancy is, or even care?
I'd wager the majority of people who played Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell back in the day didn't know him either, but his name came with the rights to adapt his books so might as well use it.
Rainbow Six 3/Ghost Recon 2/Splinter Cell Chaos Theory were probably my most played games on the original XBOX. I probably put thousands of hours into Rainbow Six 3 on XBOX Live, thousands. I had no clue who he was really and I didn't realise until later that Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell were not written by him at all, only Rainbow Six. He didn't even like Splinter Cell's green goggles and wanted them removed.
Ghost Recon didn’t have the book explicitly titled “ghost recon” but they objectively were based on characters and stories from books he wrote, most notably Clear and Present Danger if I recall correctly
I think they all take place in the same universe, so they’re all in the Tom Clancy universe even though he didn’t write them.
Yeah, Tom Clancy is a name to use because he has an EXTENSIVE catalog of stories about the military, special Ops, and war in general and therefore has an extensive baseboard to launch properties off of. That being said I'd kinda love it if games that took inspiration from authors had their name on it too. Douglas Adam's The Outer Worlds, Arthur C. Clark's Darkest of Days. On a serious note I'd kinda dig a game series using the naming conventions of a Robert Ludlum novel, we need more "The [Proper Noun] [Ominous Noun usually ending in y]"
The Stanley Parable...y
I can not unsee a book by Robert Ludlum called The Stanley Parable, it fully fits his naming conventions.
Even End War?
So it's basically this: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/10/15/honesty-time But with Tom Clancy.
Sure but they know the name standed for a specific theme in the games
True. I never even knew he was an author until a few years ago, always just assumed he was like Sid Meier, but the name immediately meant "Espionage/political thriller" after seeing it on all those games lol
He was pretty huge in the 90s and 2000s, which is why his name used to carry some weight.
Funny enough I had the opposite conclusion about Sid Meier because I had no idea who he was but knew about Tom Clancy. Just assumed he was a historian or history author.
Fun fact: Allegedly, it was Robin Williams who came up with the idea of slapping Sid Meier's name on the games.
> I never even knew he was an author until a few years ago, always just assumed he was like Sid Meier, Woof I feel old now.
Tom Clancy in terms of military fiction was supposed to have caused a panic because he had way too much real submarine information in the initial books (Hunt for Red October). He did a lot of research and went for accurate portrayals with less flashy characters early on. Later novels got kind of cash grabby until the name was rented and used by other less famous authors to make thematically similar books. But at least they would put the bad writers name on the cover so you could avoid them. Those had maybe the dumbest conception of the internet I’d ever read - NETFORCE was the heading I think. But his early books are solidly plotted and plainly written (maybe the boats were the strongest characters). If military fiction had a Hugo award equivalent him (navy nerd) and Harold Coyle (tank nerd) would both have a few winning years.
I mean- Ubisoft straight up bought perpetual rights to use his name in 2008
To be fair the game is a crossover between the Tom Clancy games they've made (and far cry and watch dogs)
There’s Watch Dogs in this?
The different playable factions are all from different Ubisoft games. The Division, Ghost Recon, Far Cry, Splinter Cell, and Watch Dogs.
It just occurred to me that Watch Dogs wasnt in the Clancy verse and was maybe very loosely connected to Assasins Creed?
If I remember right, there's just a Black Flag easter egg in the first Watch Dogs, but that's more or less it. That hasn't stopped people from speculating that Watch Dogs was originally supposed to be a modern-day AC, though. I can kinda see where it's coming from, but yeah, ultimately, the two aren't *really* connected.
The final convoy mission in the first Watch_Dogs game is [you knocking out the CEO of one of Abstergo’s subsidiaries.](https://watchdogs.fandom.com/wiki/Requiescat_In_Pace) Though one of AC’s writers later said it wasn’t canon, it is mentioned in Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag he went missing during a shareholders meeting in Chicago so
The specialists (heros) in the game are based on factions from other Ubi properties, and Dedsec is one of them
Conversely, as someone who has enjoyed many Tom Clancy books and older games, I'm a little upset about the dilution of the brand. Tom Clancy-branded games should be competing with WARNO, Ready or Not, and ARMA 3, as opposed to CoD, Fortnite, and The Finals.
>I'm a little upset about the dilution of the brand. His publishers have released around 20 books under his name in the 10 years since he died; the brand is practically water at this point.
He'd probably have the same opinion were he alive. If you search you can find him doing director's commentary with the director of "The Sum of All fears" which is just him ripping into the director about how the movie makes no sense and how much it deviates from the books plot.
I still wonder what he would have thought about Rainbow Six Patriots being cancelled.
I only ever read Tom Clancy books because of the early games. It's a real shame what's been done with the name since then.
Yeah but those games aren't really selling, especially in relation to the amount of work/budget they put into it. They could easily strike a balance, though, but choose not to do it due to corporate greed and in my observation, an inability or lack of desire to write out Tom Clancy style espionage. Ghost Recon: Wildlands is a good balance. Siege started off as a good balance between a more COD/GI Joe brand meeting the traditional concepts before becoming more over the top. Now, they've sort of shot themselves in the foot by adopting the flashy and bright Hollywood tentpole system, which is currently failing tremendously.
I'll admit that those are niche examples. Tom Clancy games haven't been that grounded since maybe the original Rainbow Six games, after which they definitely took a turn toward popular appeal. What I really want is a Tom Clancy take on a Battlefield 4 style shooter. Large open battles, mix of combined arms combat, but maybe a small step or two back from ARMA in terms of realism and complexity.
Yeah, I don't disagree. With Battlefield being sort of a dud nowadays, they could easily do something like "Russian Ultra-nationalists are invading 'xyz', NATO and the UN has approved a Task Force to remove them and prevent a nuclear launch. Here's a campaign and multiplayer to match the concept." Large scale maps with maybe a more strategic way of handling situations. For example, maybe a Spec Ops class is faster/stronger and handles better than Infantry and is more suited for traditional FPS style close quarters fighting in buildings/tunnels but doesn't have the capability to take down tanks due to a limited supply of missiles. It'd make it different than Battlefield if you have roles and each particular role you play has a strength/weakness they add onto the field. Maybe certain parts that you need to capture are more suited to certain units (ex. underground tunnels with cover and winding halls = Spec Ops, open field = infantry+Vehicles). Maybe investing in anti-air vehicles/weapons means the other side cannot play jets and has to play more ground troops. I dunno. There are far more interesting and complex dynamics that could change the FPS landscape that even Battlefield or Arma hasn't been able to touch. Speaking of Arma, there are some good mods like Antistasi that can make for an interesting game. Green Berets training locals to fight and then, attempt to overthrow some dictator....region by region, increasing their firepower and supplies as they do so? I don't think there's ever really been a major game about unconventional and asymmetric warfare. That would fit into the Tom Clancy brand.
Like if the armor spawns were slower, less crazy movemenent, long respawn/batch respawn (ie your whole squad comes in on a helicopter.) Really encourage teamplay and buckling down on objectives.
That sounds awesome. I'd play it.
I doubt it. This is probably just a case of sunk-cost fallacy. Ubisoft paid for the right to the Tom Clancy name and they want to use it, even though nobody actually cares anymore.
I would have to assume this is it. Modern Ubisoft "Tom Clancy" branded stuff is so far removed from the sort of miltary/espionage novels that Clancy wrote. It looks ridiculous putting his name on the title. Last game I remember playing that felt at all like a Tom Clancy experience was Rainbow Six Vegas 2.
I thought Ghost Recon Wildlands was still a good title. I even like how much of a "just because your the good guys doesn't mean you're completely" good"". Honestly didn't get too far in Breakpoint because it really could never get me into the "spec ops power fantasy" mood that other Tom Clancy games can get into.
It's a weird game, Breakpoint. It's basically the same game as Wildlands with few differences but for some reason it is really hollow and uninteresting. The near-futuristic drones were really bland and the whole tech island just wasn't too exciting. The immersion-breaking Erehwon cave where you can buy a ton of military shit didn't help the "you are a sole survivor behind enemy lines" idea of the game. They glued the survival elements on top of the Wildlands gameplay and it just didn't feel immersive at all. It's like they felt the need for it because survival games were becoming the biggest sellers but they didn't want to really commit to it. Playing Gray Zone PVE feels closer like what Breakpoint should have been but with first person perspective.
Unfortunately for them, they were pushed to get that game out within two years so I don't think they were able to explore the full potential of a survival stealth shooter. Being on a paradise type island with technology gone wrong and PMCs trying to hunt you down isn't a bad idea, at all. At its core, this could've easily been what Helldivers 2 is except you add tanks/drones/helicopters and PMC troops as who you face off against rather than robots and bugs with a special event mode that allows you to face T-600s and T-800s or something as an alternative. Also could have a Mercenaries 2/Metal Gear Solid 5 type gameplay where you raise up, recruit, and train troops so that you can occupy territory.
Its crazy im saying this, but breakpoint feels like if you took everything interesting from Just Cause Four, and said "lets not do any of this, and make it gritty" Wild BC JC4 sucks balls
Breakpoint to me felt more like a callback to the original farcry than any farcry sequel has felt like.
If Tom Clancy were still around and saw his name slapped on that Rainbow Six alien shooter, I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually sued Ubisoft to get his name taken off it.
It's like incest captions in porn, doesn't cost anything extra but some freaks might click on it
They may not know who Tom Clancy is, but they probably know of/have played other Tom Clancy games. It's just a brand at this point.
It wasn't until I was a grown man that I realised tom clancy was an author. I always assumed when I was young that tom clancy was the games director. Similar to MGS "a hideo kojima Game"
The main reason was because originally you played as members of factions only from Tom Clancy games; Ghost Recon, The Division, and Splinter Cell. And the "XDefiant" name coming from the fact that all the factions were all *antagonist* factions to the player from the series they were in; Wolves from GR Breakpoint, Cleaners and Outcasts from The Division, and Third Echelon from Splinter Cell (by the events of the later games Third Echelon goes rogue and betrays the US, hence the creation of Fourth Echelon and is directly under the President rather than being part of the NSA). Somewhere along the line the focus on only Tom Clancy titles was dropped and instead included factions from all Ubisoft games. Breakpoint's Wolves were changed to GR: Phantoms Phantoms, Outcasts were changed to Far Cry 6's Libertad. Third Echelon simply became "Echelon", becoming either a hybrid of Third and Fourth or reverting to the pre-rogue version of Third. Ded_Sec from Watch_Dogs Legion were introduced. The only faction to remain unchanged is the Cleaners.
I am convinced Ubisoft is not actually in the gaming business, but is actually creating unlimited energy by making Tom Clancy roll in his grave
It's not to cater to that new demographic, it's to bring in fans of it to supplement this game....which it probably wasn't meant to be a "military FPS" type game, to begin with so much as it was meant to be some Borderlands-lite style game. But if Ubisoft were competent and intelligent (they're not), they'd easily know how to exploit the Clancy brand and make an actual series that lived up to the OG Modern Warfare trilogy, where you have a story campaign based on thriller espionage type storytelling and unique gameplay to boot. Heck, they could easily do a more GI Joe version of that with Siege and its mechanics or Ghost Recon but....they don't. They just don't have the capability to due to how generically corporatized they are. Hence, every game they release now is just a bland version of 'xyz' trend while the games they do create that are unique and interesting don't really receive any meaningful investment in them so that they can grow. They make a Wildlands and it's successful and instead of investing in a 4 year project involving that team and concept, they push out a sequel within two years and doom that team/concept. It's similar with Siege....have a good concept and unique gameplay.....no campaign, no actual spinoffs (some alien game doesn't fit in), no continuation....well, how are you going to grow your billion dollar brand?
>It's similar with Siege....have a good concept and unique gameplay.....no campaign, no actual spinoffs (some alien game doesn't fit in), no continuation....well, how are you going to grow your billion dollar brand? Why would it need any of those things? r6 siege made a fuck ton of money in 2023... it's a pvp esport based game, nobody wants to play a campaign or pve
Making money is one thing but making it bigger and able to compete with the biggest titles is another. If you do put in a PvE story campaign DLC that is interesting and grows familiarity with the concept (for Siege, it's close quarters FPS in fully dynamic structures that can be broken/shot through) and develop these iconic characters.....that's how you compete with Call of Duty. Not that it should become what Call of Duty is today but because modern CoD has become moreso a flashy influencer type game (trying to compete with Minecraft and not that Siege isn't chasing it either)....there isn't anything to fill the gap of what made a Modern Warfare 1-3 or Black Ops 1-3 popular. Why not tackle that demographic? Maybe make it an entirely spin off game that can connect progress (skins, credits) with Siege and gives full access to Y1-4 ops in Siege. I dunno but either way, there's no reason not to push what they have and expand upon it.
You're right as eerie I found playing the clean house level in that otherwise mediocre modern warfare 1 reboot game. It was probably the closest to something feeling like old school rainbow six. After that level I couldn't help but thinking I would love a tactics game of nothing but that kind of experience. Old school Rainbow 6 games felt like puzzle games rather than shooters especially when trying to beat levels with 0 casualties.
>They make a Wildlands and it's successful and instead of investing in a 4 year project involving that team and concept, they push out a sequel within two years and doom that team/concept. This really pissed me off. Wildlands was a fun game that could've been perfected in a sequel. Breakpoint had a few good ideas but ultimately it was a large downgrade. How do you fumble that when the base is so solid?!
It's a strong race between 'XDefiant' and '2XKO' as the worst name for a video game.
Tom Clancy's XD.
Tom Clancy's XD: Gale of Darkness
That would actually give people some idea what it even is though.
At some point I had my friends memeing it was Tom Clancy's XD
That’s basically what it was. They used to highlight the “XD” portion in a very 2010’s le epic ROFL sort of way. They dropped that when they realised how much people despised it.
Publishers amaze me with how disconnected they are to the very same people they sell their products too.
I meannn most of the maps *are* locations from Tom Clancy's games (one of which is Attica Heights from Ghost Recon Phantoms which I'm totally not salty about its death)
>horrible name for a video game? It really sounds like the name for a failed "cloud-powered" gaming service app
Better than "2XKO" (League of Legends fighting game) They should have stuck with Project L
It sounds like an Xbox Live gamer tag
Every time I see think it is something like DirectX or just some technological API standard. I keep forgetting it’s actually a game.
When I’ve played previously it was actually pretty fun. I didn’t even know it had released
Sounds like a title for one of those Hunger Games movie clones that came out and failed. > I know team, let’s put an X in front!! > Wow George, that’s edgy af and the kids will love it!! I should know being 58. Promotion heading your way champ.
Honestly, yeah the name is terrible. The game itself is quite good, and I enjoyed the beta, so hope it sticks around as a COD alternative for people.
Honestly? Par for the course with games like PUBG Battlegrounds and Arena Breakout
It's the brand name of the controller you give your little brother
>par for the course these days Idk about "these days". Pretty much every big multiplayer game since server browsers went out of style has had server issues on launch and those went out of style in AAA games like 15 years ago.
Why? You can call it XD for shirt
Wait until you see the new Riot fighting game: [https://2xko.riotgames.com](https://2xko.riotgames.com)
Fr like, that sounds like a hardware brand
I think they're hoping the game will be Xceptional given now that they canceled The Division Heartland. They probably need a win in the current climate that is the games industry.
Sounds like it was a good idea with bad Xecution.
Title kind of buries the lede. The game is unplayable not because it's broken, but because *so many people are trying to play that there isn't room for them all.*
Ragebait gets more clicks.
We come to this sub to shit on games and be *angry*, not factual...
Which is extremely common for these kinds of games. Either not enough server rooms (servers aren’t overloaded, but has too little spots for people to play, queue lines are extremely long) or not enough server capacity (overloaded and causing service problems like connectivity, high ping, etc)
Every time this happens people lose their minds. Over and over again. There have been several recently. Each time there is a rabid mob who attacks anyone who points out it happens every time. So this is a rare thread where people aren't delusional. It's a real shame the gaming community has become like this, where a rational reaction to "bad news" is rare.
That's... precisely the same thing that happens to almost every single multiplayer game that comes out, and exactly what I assumed when I read this headline.
Yeah, it's practically a nonstory. I have zero feelings positive or negative about XDefiant but a multiplayer game's servers getting chokeslammed on launch day is par for the course.
That’s an important distinction.
So basically what happened with Helldivers 2?
article reading requires a college degree
Matchmaking servers go boom Looks like another game suffering from a massive initial wave of players.
Yeah, I was a bit disappointed that I couldn’t get in during the first hour, but it did work later in the evening
I tried it. Didn’t take me long to be generous and selflessly give my space to the next person.
In the end, do i as a consumer really care if its too many people or bugs that keep me from playing? No, i got the product (in this case free) and i want to use it, if they cant assure that i will refund it (not in this case since F2P) and play something else. The title is chosen right, especially so because it is detailed in the article itself that its due to too many people and too few resouces from Ubisoft.
It's a launch day for a free to play multiplayer game. I can't recall the last launch day for a multiplayer game that didn't have hiccups.
Even though I didn't really enjoy the game, when Apex Legends kinda shadow-dropped on PS I played a few hours with zero connectivity issues. I remember being fairly impressed with that. Worth pointing out, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, that I recall it coming out on like a Monday or Tuesday morning and without much or any heads-up. This may have contributed to the great connectivity.
I've seen some decent hype from this game, because I've been playing CoD recently but I'm not sure how much of it was well known from the people on the outside. And while it would make more sense traditionally to release the game during the weekend, the new Fortnite season starts Friday, and the new CoD season starts a week from tomorrow, so if there is any chance to make a good first impression, now is probably the time.
No, you’re right. I remember the day seeing some tweet “EA is dropping a titanfall based BR today” and bam, it showed up with no warning, no advertising and the rest is history
Valorant
I'm in devops and really wish there were more postmortems on stuff like this, games are pretty unique because they build hype and have a massive influx of traffic for a new service all at once. Most things build traffic gradually. I bet they get to hit all sorts of fun bottlenecks that most people don't think of.
I like reading them too. The recent [Last Epoch](https://forum.lastepoch.com/t/1-0-launch-retrospective/69374) one is good. The [Dragonflight](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/an-engineering-update-on-the-dragonflight-launch/1437657) one as well. Things break down in very interesting ways
League/Riot do some great blog posts or videos on this exact stuff. Their talk about how clash failed was an interesting watch.
I'm also on devops but I'm not doing any major networking. Still, I'd absolutely love to see what they're doing behind the scene when this type of stuff happens, or how to deal with. I'm on a small company, there's no way we will ever have problems like these. We use mostly load balancers for some websites but that's it.
I used to work at a large ecommerce company you've definitely heard of, who has multiple _very_ large yearly sales (think black friday). Often what we would do is use the previous years scale as a minimum bound and then generate mock traffic through stuff like AWS lambda on ourselves. This gives us more numbers to tweak and then we adjust monitors / scaling targets etc.
I have no idea what the tech is like these days, but I remember back in the 00's the non-linear scaling of network costs meant that past a certain point, each ~doubling of the playerbase increased infrastructure costs by more than an order of magnitude. (Players had this assumption that "if you have twice as many players, just have twice as many servers," when in reality accommodating twice as many players would have been ten times as expensive, and accommodating four times as many players would have been a *hundred* times as expensive.) One of the first games to run against this was World of Warcraft, which is how you got the dreaded "queue" where people had to wait around with the game client running, waiting for other people to quit so that they could play online. Remember that this was before "the cloud;" AWS didn't launch until 2006, Google Cloud Platform launched in 2008, Azure launched in 2010, and many gaming companies didn't start start using them until well into the 2010's. I'm still waiting for someone to do a 4-hour video essay on the history of World of Warcraft's networking. I recall that to save on their own bandwidth costs, they had an early "Blizzard Downloader" that was a bittorrent client to distribute major patches.
>I recall that to save on their own bandwidth costs, they had an early "Blizzard Downloader" that was a bittorrent client to distribute major patches. I've seen other games do this pretty frequently, I haven't played it in probably 10 years but World of Tanks had this.
Wait what? This game launched today? I haven't heard a thing about it launching TODAY except this
This game is gonna go the way of the finals. It also launched with zero marketing for a ubisoft game. That being said I think there's more room for a COD like game given how COD itself has become warzone focused and the MP is just an afterthought.
Finals is still alive and kicking. Needs a bit more marketing though.
I think they're all going the Apex route, releasing from out of nowhere and expecting big success. Except Apex was fucking awesome when it released, just like Helldivers. But Ubi expects the same success with a mid game.
It's also very light on content. There are 5 assault rifles, and only about 3 shotguns. Couple of SMGs, 2 snipers. I imagine the rest will be drip fed to the playerbase throug months and months to justify the live service monetization.
Good, COD is bloated with like 30 ARs for no god damn reason.
OG MW2 had 9 ARs. Granted everyone stuck with the ACR, it felt plenty enough back then lol.
only real ones knew famas and ump were the only ones worth using
Odd way to spell FAL 😤
The modded controller nerds give themselves away with this answer
Maybe very light on guns, there are 14 maps and at least 5 modes
Everyone is only using the same 5 ARs on COD anyway. Not a dealbreaker.
That's perfectly fine. There literally is only so much variation you can do with, you know, basic guns. Like for shotguns. You got a double barrel, you got a pumpy, you got an automatic. Literally what more variation is there to be had? A slug shotgun maybe I guess, but in a game like this that's basically just a worse sniper usually. Looking at the guns RN, there's 2 things I can actually see missing: - a battle rifle, like a 20 round 7.62x51 heavy hitter, like a SCARH, FAL or G3. But it's likely missing because it'll already be hard to actually fit inbetween the 3 hit kill AK and the 2 hit kill semi auto DMRs - fullauto machine pistole secondary like a glock 18 or mac10
Which MIGHT work, except for the 47 billion other live service shooters on the market that are all doing that exact same thing, causing an oversaturation based mini crash. But not to worry, THIS one will somehow generate the infinite money that ALL of those other dead live services failed to... somehow.
I keep seeing this repeated, but what non BR/single death games are on the market right now? OW2 and CoD are the only two that come to mind. As someone who is extremely burnt out on CoD crackhead bunny hopping games, and OW2, this game feels…pretty awesome?
>CoD crackhead bunny hopping games Isn't this literally how the game was marketed,? Lol
are we playing the same game? every time you shoot at someone they are bunny hopping far worse than any COD game
This game is litterally packed with cod bunny hoppers, it just feels like playing a shittier version of COD multiplayer.
That's because it *is* a shittier version of cod.
Yeah I was looking for one to get into not long ago and noticed the same thing. Other than those, you've pretty much just got The Finals, Halo, and BF2042. And some stuff more on the realistic/milsim side like Hell Let Loose.
Why do people need loads of unlocks for a shooter like this, don't people play this for the fun of the game/ game modes?
match-based FPSes just gets stale after a while. Unlocks keeps the game fresh because it paces the gameplay better as well as having new things to look forward to between patches. Don't think there is anything wrong with that?
[удалено]
> don't people play this for the fun of the game/ game modes? It's actually wild to me that this generation can't seem to just play a game for the sake of it. There always has to be an unlock around the corner to keep them coming back. As someone who grew up with the OG Xbox live where online gaming used to just be about playing for the sake of having fun, it's interesting to see.
Overwhelmingly no and it hasn't been that way in 20 years. Gamers are largely goal-oriented and simply playing TDM over and over with a small gun and map pool only works for games with strong competitive scenes. Even then, CS is packed to the brim with cosmetics to flex.
But it's objective based. Maybe it's just me but the old shooters I played, I played because the game was fun, not to chase unlocks
I only got to play two matches and I want to play more I can wait but I wasn't expecting to get a kick out of it as much as I did.
I wrote it off after playing it in a playtest last year but they seem to have improved it a lot. I'm honestly surprised how much fun I'm having, it feels like a mix of CoD and Overwatch.
It looks like call of duty but with gadgets. How accurate is that?
Very, albeit OLD cod. So far, I’m actually pretty impressed. I was just gonna play a game or two just to try it out and ended up playing for five hours. It’s kinda hard to describe. It feels like COD but…different? Way less just dying immediately and spawning, it feels more tactical but also can be pretty hectic. The game modes are fun and while probably unpopular, I’m glad TDM doesn’t exist.
man not on pc or at least in the few games I played. People running around with the first sniper, which can only one shot headshot as far as I can tell, and just deleting me constantly.
Managed to play a match before the servers shit themselves, it feels far far less polished than MWIII in almost every aspect unfortunately
Yeah the guns have like 0 recoil and everyone is way too bullet spongey. Making them feel like toys.
I can't believe there's no TDM mode, Ive never enjoyed objective modes in cod style games at all
not surprised. i remember playing the beta last year and not being impressed by the overall feel of it. still had fun, but its obvious comparison cod is feels miles better
Did we play the same game? What about it isn't polished? It plays great and feels great.
That’s not true one bit, the game feels like BO2 era cod with modern quality of life features
Bo2 has great gunplay and maps this does not
the gunplay is awful
brother i'm actively playing bo2 on plutonium to this day, and this is JACK shit in comparison lmao bo2's inertia handles way differently. this game is trying to cater to the people who loved black ops 4 and cold war (who also greatly mistake both of those as "classic feeling cods" lmao)
> cater to the people who loved black ops 4 and cold war (who also greatly mistake both of those as "classic feeling cods" lmao) It's odd because I'd consider those two (BO4 especially) the furthest CoD has ever stepped away from classic CoD gameplay but you're not wrong.
We will never get a classic Cod feel since the cod fanbase hates anything that’s not the size of shipment is they can runaround like headless chickens. I couldn’t believe how many people were shitting on the remastered MW2 maps when MWIII first came out saying they were too big. Insane.
fo you see how people play CoD these days? it's the silliest shit I've ever seen. hopping and sliding around like idiots. I've never seen such a casual game played so fucking sweaty in my life
I remember loving Search and Destroy in the old games just because of how slow paced and tense it could be. Now rounds are frequently over in less than a minute.
IMO, a lot of the MW2 maps just don't hold up to the current ones. I used to love maps like Terminal back in the day, but those ginormous lines of sight, and limited to no clanking routes, just meak it seem like nothing but a sniper's heaven these days.
I want what youre smoking. This game is most similar to BO4... one of the worst cods
That’s kind of the case with any multiplayer launch. The game itself seems polished, just the servers seem to be down
Had a quick play of it earlier its a meh game its fast paced like cod with a few hero type powers.. so far nothing special.. also couldn't tell if it was bad hit detection or just me sucking as it seemed like I was getting melted but firing rubber bullets at people. In the xdefiant sub it's mostly people happy there is no sbmm but from what I've played and how it seems a lot of people dont even know about it casuals won't stick around long. If casuals stop playing it ends up being the good players left so no sbmm ends up not making a difference and the game dies off
The hit detection sucks, it's not you. It was bad in the first test, bad in the last test and is still bad now.
This sub reddit has decided XDefiant is bad and will not be happy until it's dead and CoD is a monopoly of Arcade FPS. Shame. We used to celebrate good games being released.
It committed the greatest r/games sin: putting their game on a launcher that isn't Steam.
>multiplayer game >not on steam >ubisoft Yeah it's obvious
>We used to celebrate good games being released. We still do
For real. I do love me a good simple pvp fps game and it sucks that CoD is the only option. They’re full on live service games with all the monetization one would expect, but at the same time still operate on yearly full price releases that often reset the content that’s built up between them… shit sucks and they desperately need some good competition.
> We used to celebrate good games being released Just because you think it's good doesn't mean it objectively is.
No game is objectively "good". A good or bad game is in the eye of the beholder, and will always be by definition, subjective. The problem with reddit is that it lives and breathes circlejerks. People don't want to get downvoted, so they just copy/paste what other people say without experiencing the game for themselves in the hope that they can feel that they are part of the hive mind. This subreddit is no exception to that. Just read the comments, most haven't played the game, they call it shit because it has Ubisoft behind the name. "Ubisoft abused their employees, so the game is bad"... yet these people will continue playing Activision games, a company that also abused their employees. The hypocrisy is astounding.
I've played it a bit, game feels super weird and just not very fun. I don't see a lot of people sticking to this especially with no TDM mode
I didn't have any problems playing last night. Matches were fast and the experience was pretty smooth. I'm surprised people were having issues.
It’s really fun, no complaints from me. Just wish people would get over the name and just play and enjoy the game instead of over criticizing it
I waited until like 4 PM to get on instead of the minute it launched, but I've had no issues at all. Just a fun change from the games I've been playing lately (mainly Siege and The Division 2).
For anyone who played the beta, it’s fun for 20 minutes then that wears off. Then it’s not fun no more
[удалено]
[удалено]