the campaigns should be a great way to learn the mechanics of the game (again I point to the Starcraft/Warcraft games). This goes hand in hand with the bad campaigns.
#REFLEX ARENA BEST NETCODE HOW TO#
*Most fighting game tutorials are also awful and don't really understand how to allow a player to naturally learn versus just dumping a wall of information on them. And again, if the campaign isn't good/worthwhile then why is the consumer paying $60 for your shitty campaign and bad online? The only recent FG campaign that I thought was serviceable was from Granblue Versus. Compare the campaign of like a Starcraft/Warcraft (competitive RTS MP games) game versus any fighting game. *Fighting game campaigns are generally speaking god awful.
Players just have cheaper and quite frankly better options when it comes to online MP. If the only allure to your FG is its Versus mode then there is very little justification as to why in the current gaming environment your game costs $60. Otherwise if you are MP only then you should be F2P because that's what the market has decided how MP games should be (like LoL, Fortnite, DOTA 2 etc.).
#REFLEX ARENA BEST NETCODE FULL#
These days if you offer a full retail package multiplayer game then it better have some good single player content to go with it (unless I guess you are COD).
*It's not a surprise that the best selling FGs are the ones that focus the hardest on single player content (MKX and Smash). FGs have to compete against MOBAs, shooters, battle royales, card games and off beat MP games like Rocket League. *There are simply way more competitive MP games now than when FGs were at their peaks. it's almost always a binary you lose or you win type situation. There are essentially no mini-quests or mini-games in fighting games for the most part that allow them to learn the game at a steady rate. Fighting games don't reward the player for doing smaller things right (like breaking a throw, doing an anti air etc.) where as a lot of other MP games have smaller amounts of rewards for players of lower skills to chase (ie. This is a big reason why 1v1 RTS games have died down as well, players just have more options for competitive games that are less punishing. *Loss being a direct result of the player skill (or lack thereof) and not due to external factors. Having a competitive game these days with a poor online is a sure fire way to have your game go into a steady decline post launch. Players have to riot for the developers to even budge on some of these. Not talking just about netcode but the lobby systems, match making, online events, modes etc. *Fighting game online experience is still 15 years stuck in the past. There are probably a dozen of different reasons why fighting games overall are still lagging behind other genres. Fighting games were created in, DESIGNED FOR, one set of social circumstances and those social circumstances have changed and now there is not as much social opportunity for people to get into them. What has changed? The social culture of video games, dramatically. So that variable must not be that big of a deal. In fact, it was worse than losing at home because you wasted a quarter or two and everybody could see your scrub ass face when you lost. Losing in a fighting game was just as crushing, which is why you get sensational stories about people getting violent at arcades when you threw somebody. Fighting games are a niche now not because they are 1v1, but because the social structures that once made fighting games the most popular thing around no longer exist anymore.īack when there were arcades, everybody played fighting games.īack when the only way to play games with friends was GOING TO THEIR HOUSE, everybody played fighting games.įighting games were just as 1v1 back then.
0 kommentar(er)
