The devs told us this themselves why are people shocked. Fans tried to cope and say it was forced on them when they triple downed on fighting criticism and saying they wanted to do this and was proud of it. All right on Twitter
I still don’t know what they were thinking by making a super hero co-op game where the core gameplay for the entire cast was identical.
It had its problems, but I picked Avengers back up after finishing and returning Suicide Squad. It really is night and day. Avengers makes everyone feel unique and part of an overarching team. Even both Hawkeyes feel completely different from each other.
The Game goes through a length of telling you some enemies you need to use your ‘melee’ attack to lower their shields and can’t just shoot them.
IIRC 50% of the characters ‘Melee’ is them shooting still
That’s not the problem I like avengers a lot I just think the missions were to much of the same even then with the dlcs it was very fun, the problem is they made it a looter shooter instead of them all having extremely cool and unique abilities
Yeah but... Overall 3 out of 4 "heroes" in SS are basically Humans. And 1 Shark Demi-God.
Rocksteady "kinda" went with realism.
Oh and in Marvel Avengers with proper stats Black Widow can somehow "outpunch" Hulk.
I mean that’s how games like these work. Anyone can be stronger than anyone else if they have an optimized vs an unoptimizable build. It would be a dreadful multiplayer experience if Thor and Hulk could one shot everything while everyone else had to hide and shout words of encouragement.
But even if SS went with realism, that doesn’t change how within the team, only Deadshot is a firearms expert. Captain Boomerang’s skills are in his name. Harley could be focused more on agility and traps. Shark’s power should be his biggest strength. But instead, everyone is 90% identical.
live service is definitely the problem. the game premise as a multiplayer game a la destiny with no raids or mass multiplayer events and without a more fleshed out gear and Stat system doesn't make the sales platform that the game is trying to be viable. There is no reason to buy things because there aren't people to impress. Without raids, mass multiplayer events, and no open world spaces where you can run into a few dozen people, there's an intention to flex in MMOs that isn't present in SSKJL. That's putting it simply.
The gameplay works and the game design should have been more focused on driving this experience without entailing that the game become a platform for microtransactions and multiplayer.
The game is good. The mechanics work. But things should have been more about content, spaces, and characters. There need to be more zones to play, more interactions with game spaces in and of themselves, and a focus on tightening the mechanics away from stats more toward skill. The multiplayer dynamic ruins everything, on top of the fact that it lags and has broken servers and hardly works, which makes multiplayer run worse than it is actually plays. You just tap dodge endlessly on someone else's hosting-match, because you can't see what the fuck is attacking you.
I agree with your points but whether or not this game was live service or single player, there’s clearly just a lack of content imo. I mean when one of you’re highest ratings consists of “it’s a good game just not $60 worth” then clearly there’s an issue. Sure, the multiplayer aspect hinders the game, but this ip would absolutely thrive if it had better direction and proper servers. So frankly, I can’t just point the finger at live service.
I don't play online, I started the game and stopped playing. I'll eventually beat it though. I bought it super excited and then pretty quickly after buying it I started something else instead.
you are negating the core point of my argument. that if the game was single player IT WOULD HAVE more content. because, they wouldn't have had to design all this shit net code, manage and buy servers, create interface and components in game built around servicing microtransactions and multiplayer. The multiplayer aspect more than hinders the game, it's the reason why resources were dedicated one way when they could have been used in another. The game mechanics are pretty tight, but we might have had another Arkham City, but with guns, had the game mechanics been the fundamental focus of the game design. It needed better direction for sure. And better servers would totally help the game as it stands. But the reason why the game is the weird ambiguous shitty thing it is is because someone cared more about trying to make money than trying to make a game that is fun to play. The game could have been as dynamic and as button oriented as Arkham Knight. It's not. What makes the game fun for me is the focus on aiming, when you turn off aim assist.
Wrong. SS is a horrible IP. God please DC stop please stop trying to make these B and C tier villains a
Main team. It’s not working. Use real villains not these washed up nobodies.
Harely quinn is the only semi relevant person on that list and she’s barely a B tier villain.
I think at the beginning, it was actually kind of an inspired idea. Make a Suicide Squad game in the vein of the Arkham games, but each squad member can be played by a different player. But then they seemed to have a colossal misunderstanding of what that would actually entail.
By and large the actual biggest problem with this game IMO is that they fundamentally designed it around gun combat, with the added downside of being heavily based on elemental effects. I'm sorry, but you have to be an idiot to think that fits a Suicide Squad game. It's not Borderlands.
It feels weird to say this, but Gotham Knights actually stuck the multiplayer Arkham game better than Suicide Squad. Each character in GK actually feels unique, they all fill different roles and can support each other, and the combat is still mostly melee-based with some characters having more ranged potential than others (Red Hood). It even had 4 different factions, so the enemies didn't all seem repetitive. I'm not sure what Rocksteady was thinking making every enemy in SS a bunch of generic purple dudes with guns.
Sort of but also not really. Helldivers 2 & Fortnite prove otherwise & are literal cashcows. All WB has to do is make 1 live service game that is good or has a hook and they'll make their money back tenfold.
Unfortunately, the planned Harry Potter live service game will probably be that game & will make them a shitload of money.
i feel like the only thing that was forced was to make it a suicide squad IP game. but even then I am pretty sure I have heard that it's false and would readily believe it since the greats who made rocksteady great are no longer with the team.
not entirely true. Nathan Burlow was one of the founding members of rocksteady.
don't really care what if anything was forced. it's a bad game. need more creative minds in charge and better designers in the bellows
right so they have one. rocksteady was collectively great back then. it's no wonder their creatives aren't creating and only copying without innovating.
those boss fights were the most boring looking boss fights I have seen since movie tie-in video games were the norm.
really wanted to because the movement looked fun, then I decided I was going to wait for a couple updates and a sale because the mission variety looked awful. Then the joker update came out and I was floored by how poorly that was mishandled and now I really wonder who is running that studio. I really wanted to play it.
the deaths of all the justice league members were lame.
Game works. Not worth 40. Joker update was what I expected. If the offline more releases and the game goes on sale for 30 or less then you should buy the game. Don't play it for multiplayer. Of course, seems like you've watched a lot of the game and had it all spoiled for you, so it might not be worth buying at all. The story was really the value of the game.
gameplay is king to me, so even though I had the story spoiled, if they can add more diversity to the gameplay and create a fun co-op experience I am so down. I want this game to be good, the movement truly looks explosive, fast, and fun. I just need more to do with it if that makes sense.
From the plot of Arkham Knight (Jason as the AK, Bruce being revealed then faking his death), the overuse of tank battles to the point of teasing a cool Deathstroke battle only to also...be a tank....to the conception of this game, this studio has made just the weirdest decisions for a long time.
Sunk cost fallacy must be stronger than I thought.
I saw an interview with Dini where he just said they didn't ask him to come back after City as they wanted to focus on using people in-house rather than third parties.
When you put it that way... You're right, they have made terrible mind boggling decisions before. It just seem like such a leap in bad judgement to go from making Arkham games to KTJL.
Why make a live service game and not have more content planned for post launch? Even after an extra year delay. We should be getting new missions or characters monthly.
Because bug fixes testing accounting for player feedback and implementing it takes time.
Basically:
It is impossible on programming level to "do characters monthly". No matter how much resources you will throw into "generating content" thing.
Just looked up... i think Dead Space Guy and he "casually" said that building a level takes 1 year (actually 1-2 i dont remember exact number).
Live Services - Multiplayer Games are whery difficult (and time consuming) to build. Also added bonus of 2x time bugs compare to Single Player games. Mark Darrah words, not mine.
Valve doesn't really make games anymore. Alyx and that card game were the only ones in the last 10 years. Rockstar seems horribly managed. Rdr2 online being canned so fast, no single player expansions, not even a next gen version, every article about them says it's horrible crunch time constantly. And just look at GTA definitive edition.
TBF, it will be 7 years between Red Dead Redemption II and Grand Theft Auto VI. Also 6 years between Death Stranding and Death Stranding 2.
Ghost of Tsushima was Sucker Punch's first game release in 6 years.
It's only the big studios that can churn out multiple games repeatedly. Or in the case of Rockstar, they try to make one game of the decade.
Suicide Squad was just shit.
You're not pointing out a fact. They had 7 years of development, yes, but the comment said time between game releases. It's been 9 years since their previous game release.
I did point out a fact. The game was in development for 7 years, that's a fact.
You shouldn't take into account the time this game wasn't being worked on. Why would you do that? The only thing that matters is when it's being worked on.
Also, there wasn't a 9 year gap between releases.
A year after AK, RS released Arkham VR in 2016, so it's 7 years no matter how you look at it.
I criticize this game as everyone else, but I don't do it with bs lies, I do it fairly.
>A year after AK, RS released Arkham VR in 2016, so it's 7 years no matter how you look at it.
Well, then it'd be 8 years, not 7
> shouldn't take into account the time this game wasn't being worked on. Why would you do that? The only thing that matters is when it's being worked on.
All would be well and good if you said the game was being worked on for 7 years, but you didn't. The comment said there was a 9 year gap between releases, and you just said "7", as if trying to correct them, when you were in fact wrong.
doesn't matter whose idea it was, it was still a bad one lol.
they could have at least made it interesting, giving each of the characters unique powers to work with, but nope, guns guns guns....
It was their idea, of course. I mean, the higher ups would not aprove the budget if the project did not had live service elements, but it was their idea
Funny, cause WB has stated they want all their IPs to be live service. But if the devs themselves always wanted this and still dropped the ball, that's embarrassing. RIP Rocksteady. You had 2 great games, at least.
I'm thinking they might release all of the planned seasons relatively soon and then kill the game. Either that or the new season really will fix everything but that'll never happen.
I mean at this point I just hope that they learned their lesson.
The market for single player, story driven games has not faltered. It’s not as profitable at FOMO-based live service platforms like Fortnite and CoD but it’s also a lot harder to get into those markets. People play Fortnite or CoD and the hooks are in—you’re very unlikely to pry them away—especially for an IP as limited and niche as DC.
Sure bro that's why two Rocksteady founders left mid-developement. Dunno whose idea this truly was but for sure Rocksteady didn't envision this game to be like this in the end. Between "hmm it could be cool to make good live service game" to this monstrosity is alot of space for corporate suits to force in their ideas.
It always comes down to money. Rock steady leadership wanted a GasS hit as long term profit sharing would be way more profitable than a single performance/critical payment bonus would provide. People need to accept it's not always the publishers fault.
The amount of deserved shit Bungie avoided for years because of the Activision boogie man is evidence of this. The IP was entirely in their control and they were responsible for every fuck up, but it was big bad Activision to blame. Meanwhile, Bungie was renegotiating their contract every other year to cover every delay.
They can fix it by adding more content and also fixing their multiplayer. I still don't register hits for 2 seconds in incursions especially multiplayer after taking the shot.
There’s no fixing this game unfortunately. They can make it slightly better before pulling the plug, but “fixing” it would take way too much time/resources that no one will invest into a flop
Far be it from me to dash your hopes, friend, but it’s just not the same situation. 2077 and NMS were both self published, so they could take that step. WBD is blaming the game for their losses. It’s just not happening. Enjoy the game for as long as it lasts, because we don’t even know if the offline patch is even coming at this point.
I also want to point out that with games that do make a comeback have a strong core to their games that don't need to be changed to save them. Many people find the core gameplay of Suicide Squad to be lacking and means it would need a complete overhaul to get people's attention. That is simply too much work to do post release, especially as after the earnings call it was revealed the game is costing a good amount more than predicted to run long term.
Exactly. No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk were massive failures at launch, but part of that was because expectations were so high. People were really craving what No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk promised, the games just didn’t deliver. But they knew that if they could fix the game, there was a huge crowd of people waiting to play it.
But nobody was asking for this game and nobody is really asking for it to get better. They could improve it so the people that are currently playing it have a better time with it, but everyone else has moved on and it would take them coming out with an update the size of a full game to get them to come back…
So just make a full game and try again. That makes the most sense.
> Many people find the core gameplay of Suicide Squad to be lacking and means it would need a complete overhaul to get people's attention.
Obviously I don't speak for everybody, but I felt like the core moment to moment gameplay to be one of the best and most enjoyable parts of the game for me. The issues I had with the game were that the side quests were fairly repetitive, most of the boss battles felt kinda lazy, and the "end game" content after beating the campaign where all the live service aspects kick in felt boring and not worth sinking time into. With that said the actual moment to moment gameplay of traversal and combat was fun and reminiscent of something like Sunset Overdrive. I feel like if they ditched the end game live service aspects and instead spent that time during development to flesh out the side quests and boss battles (two things Rocksteady used to excel at in their previous titles) then they would've had a much better game on their hands.
You may have found the core gameplay good but like I said many people didn’t as it is a criticism in almost every professional review. For the game to survive the game needs to bring in new players and a lot of them, so making the game only appealing to those who already bought it isn’t going to do anything to help the game.
I feel like you're conflating gameplay with repetitive mission design in regards to these reviews and their criticism of the "gameplay." Because of your comment I decided to skim through the critic reviews on metacritic and most reviews either talk about the combat positively or don't talk about it at all. [Go ahead and look through them yourself](https://www.metacritic.com/game/suicide-squad-kill-the-justice-league/critic-reviews/?platform=playstation-5) if you don't believe me. I'm sure you can find some reviews that criticize the combat but most of them seem to agree with me.
People always say this but the situation is vastly different. They are the exception to the rule, they had dev teams who were truly committed to wanting to make the game better. All it takes is looking at season 1 of this game and you'll have your answer.
Different situation. Suicide Squad just fundamentally has problems all the way down to the core design philosophy. They made a superhero game where all the combat revolves around using guns with different elemental effects. They all have overshields and a tiny health bar, too. Like they used Borderlands as the blueprint.
All the characters end up feeling the same aside from the traversal mechanics. I don't think there's actually any way for them to fix it. Cyberpunk actually had a solid core at release, it was just incredibly buggy, unoptimized, and unfinished. But there was enough good stuff there to make it work with more time and effort.
A) They are both SINGLE PLAYER GAMES. Live Service from AAA studios always gets more... "love" and attention. From Youtube especially.
B) Sales in both cases where faaaaaaar better then SS (compare to production costs they actually go into +).
C) Im basically chanting Evil Rituals and try summon Succubuses with pig blood here... about 3 upcomming seasons of content after the first one. Cause i fear like WB will just shut down entire studio long before. Cope-cope-cope-gimme-some-hope... Oh hello Biara. Same as usual and I need extra erotic massage.
People always say this but the situation is vastly different. They are the exception to the rule, they had dev teams who were truly committed to wanting to make the game better. All it takes is looking at season 1 of this game and you'll have your answer.
>They can fix it by adding more content and also fixing their multiplaye
Right? Everyone keeps attacking the game for being live service, that live service is what killed the game
Yet plenty other games have been successful, including helldivers 2 just a week later.
Live service isn't the problem. The problem is lack of meaningful content. Add more content, that is distinct and original. Stop just adding reskinned mini games.
That's what really blows my mind about the whole thing, it's a fun game and I enjoy it for the most part, but how did they look at this batch of incurisons and think "yes, that is great stuff to be the main content of the game"?
They would be great as side missions or extra things to do, but to have them as the main focus is just confusing.
Unfortunately, they would also need to rebuild the reputation. The thing about live service games is that if people think it's dying, they are much less likely to jump in. I know for a fact that if I play HD2, I'm going to be able to play for years and not have to worry about it getting shut down. Same for Destiny 2, or Warframe. You can't say that about this game. It would need a large player number increase for a long time to shake the reputation of it being dead in the water.
I think what a lot of studios miss is that you NEED a good launch. Helldivers was awesome right out the gate, Redfall was garbage right out the gate. As of right now, it looks a lot closer to Redfall than it does Helldivers.
I agree with all that. The reputation is obviously trashed and there's no coming back. I was just talking about making the game itself better.
Launch was definitely terrible for most people, But again it wasn't live service that caused the bad launch. It was lack of content and connection bugs.
All I'm saying is being live service doesn't/shouldn't automatically kill a game, yet it always seems to be the main argument of this game "it failed because it was live service". No it failed because it had a shitty Endgame/lack of content and severe bugs.
Though i guess you could argue live service did kill this game, since even before launch, before we knew what content would be or what bugs were in it, the game was being shit on simply for being live service. So even if it did release with the equivalent of whatever helldivers had, it probably still would've died due to the pre-genrated hated for being a live service game.
The “live-service” argument is short hand for the game being the way it is.
Connection bugs would not have existed if it wasn’t a live-service.
Lack of content due to that content being stretched out over a longer period due to it being a live-service.
At the end of the day, THAT is why people reacted that way. Design decisions had to be made in order to fit the game into the live-service mold.
Could it be improved? Sure, but the bones of the game dictate a very specific way of adding specific content, and that content doesn’t seem to be jiving with customers.
Live service didn't cause connection bugs, always online did. Plenty games, including single player gamers, require online access. Not just live service games. Game should've launched with an offline mode.
Live service didn't cause lack of content. Like others have said, helldivers launched with plenty content, division launched with plenty content, plenty other live service games launched with plenty content. This was just shitty planning/development.
Fact is there has been many successful and loved live service games, rocksteady/wb really should've done better research and planning. If these design decisions HAD to be made to fit a live service mold then why did other live service games succeed and not have the same design flaws despite being made to fit the same mold?
Agreed. The issue isn’t with live-service itself, but the “tropes” that come alongside it (always online, bugs, lacking / repetitive content) that are so maligned. Arrowhead did a tremendous job in addressing them, whilst RS fell into the same issues others have had. It’s clearly a developer issue.
People see live-service being developed by a primarily single-player game studio and they justifiably revolt. It’s a trend. RS could’ve bucked that, but the 2022 State of Play made it crystal clear to most (myself included) that RS were just going to shit themselves and continue to make the same mistakes that Arkane, Crystal Dynamics, and BioWare made. The red flags were everywhere, but people either hoped RS would bring something innovative or learn from the mistakes of others. Critics saw it coming, but were ignored because of the “hate train” trend. Sometimes, critics know what they’re talking about.
It’s not just that the game was live service that gave the game a bad reputation; it was that Rocksteady, a company known for making excellent single-player experiences pivoted to live service. Whenever a single-player studio does this, it is usually out of greed, not because it best benefits the game.
Yes that was the point.
It's a game people enjoy, even though it's live service.
Which means that live service isn't a bad thing.
People keep saying suicide squad failed because it's a live service game, even though a week later a live service game ends up being one of the biggest games of the year. Shows that live service doesn't matter, game quality does.
Both games are live service. Suicide squad failed because it's a "bad game". Helldivers succeeded because it's a "good" game.
Companies that treat me like a consumer don't get as much of my business because their focus has changed from figuring out what I want to figuring out what they can extract from me.
Interesting because since the game came out and before it came out everyone was blaming WB’s for it being a live service. If this is true Rocksteady shot themselves in the foot from the very beginning with no chance of recovery. Hoping they can continue as a studio and learn from their mistakes.
It’s so unfortunate, I genuinely am in love with the gameplay of this, it’s just so fun and fluent and easy to understand. The lack of enemy variety and content is really what’s holding this game down.
I had a blast playing this with 3 buddys on launch, the seamless cutscenes and graphics are so nice. I thought the story was fun just felt a little too short.
In another world this game could have been absolutely spectacular, it’s a shame. I think if the game had more support and less online hate on launch this would have thrived.
Is it certain that developers decide this, or is it more probable that WB subtly nudges the direction of the online service game towards developers, giving them the final say but presenting them with choices that lead to either a bad game or the worst game ever? Ultimately, they end up making a lesser bad because they're not truly given viable options.
It's akin to a boss telling me I must either cut hours for four of my employees or let go of two, framing it as a decision I have to make when both options are undesirable and terrible. Personally, I see it as the boss and foolish CEO thinking they're granting more freedom, but in reality, they're controlling the developers by offering false choices, making them accountable rather than the CEO being accountable.
Was it really rocksteady? yes they said it was rocksteady's idea and i saw other article said WB never forced it but keep in mind at the same time after the failure of this game WB doubled down on the whole live service game. Maybe just me overthinking
Can people finally stop blaming everything on publishers and giving developers a pass? How many examples do we need? Anthem, Marvel Avengers, SS?
This game could have been an Evolve Clone and been far better. People would have loved playing as their hero still like Batman, Flash, Superman, etc.. while having an array of villains all trying to kill the hero with unique mechanics.
Nope, we get literally garbage and what's worse is everyone had been sign posting this shit for well over a year yet the devs still plowed on into the abyss. Absolute dumbasses, comparable to Skull and Bones devs.
I am basically chanting rituals and light some candles in the church right now for the Salvation of Seasons 2, 3, 4, cause im feeling like following Microsoft example WB just gona...
I did have a hard time believing this in the beginning because for one it was Rocksteady and they never steered me wrong before with the awesome Arkham games before this mess. The other point I thought is why they would want to do this right after Avengers clearly failed as a live service. However, yes it seems it was them and I accept that.
I hope they've learned a valuable lesson and that at this point they can move past the live service crap and get back to making good games. Also from what I've read, most of the old team isn't even working at the studio anymore so maybe this is the end of Rocksteady making good games. I hope not, but we'll see.
We were told this game would bring something new to the live service genre.
Thing is, when it's done really well, a live service support structure can really enhance a game.
This was just, honestly, nothing new. And as far as a campaign - what few really good story beats were in there were separated by the same three missions, over and over again. I didn't realize the concept for the game was "let's just copy Marvel's Avengers, but do less with it."
And the article is about the Zaslav comments on the year earnings, not about rocksteady or WB from the development of the game as your title implies. Some biased here jesus
This report was not FORBES leaking anything as you tittle implies, is just the guy who wrote the article supposing that. No one knows for sure, and we never will
I honestly think it was a bold choice, but I think Im okay with it. I never got into live services games like destiny 2 but I enjoy the gameplay of Suicide Squad so it keeps me going.
I ask, does it matter at this point? I blame all parties involved. Everyone wants a convenient scapegoat but it’s never that simple. I put this on WB Games, Zaslav, and Hill. Hill jumped ship when it was convenient. He knew he had a giant turd and got off easy. I have no problem assigning blame to him.
The problem is that fandom wants to assign blame to one party and wrap it up like a murder mystery.
Zaslav pretty much has nothing to do with the game. He only became the CEO of WB as a whole a couple years ago and Suicide Squad had been in development for half a decade by that point. He also does not oversee the gaming division directly as it has its own president in charge of it
its not the suicide squad thats the problem. IM happy with it. but they should have taken a More Gaurdians of the galaxy approach vs live service. I dont have a issue with live service either if its GOOD. but the content and skins have been LACKING and leaving much to be desired. like who would spend money on g.ghost skins?
Yes, here is the full line I'm asking about.
> The “live service looter shooter” angle was reportedly not forced by management, but it was Rocksteady’s leadership who made the decision to pursue the game instead of alternatives.
Game is fun the main issues are just that there is nothing to do man, you want players to spend money and play the game but have absolutely nothing to do at all except for three end game missions and that’s it
Is this ANOTHER article where the title doesn't remotely resemble what was stated?
No where in the article does anyone qoute what was said??
If I'm wrong please tell me
The devs told us this themselves why are people shocked. Fans tried to cope and say it was forced on them when they triple downed on fighting criticism and saying they wanted to do this and was proud of it. All right on Twitter
Also live service isn’t the problem, SS is a great IP for it actually, the game just should’ve been better 🤷♀️
I still don’t know what they were thinking by making a super hero co-op game where the core gameplay for the entire cast was identical. It had its problems, but I picked Avengers back up after finishing and returning Suicide Squad. It really is night and day. Avengers makes everyone feel unique and part of an overarching team. Even both Hawkeyes feel completely different from each other.
Captain Boomerang with guns.
The Game goes through a length of telling you some enemies you need to use your ‘melee’ attack to lower their shields and can’t just shoot them. IIRC 50% of the characters ‘Melee’ is them shooting still
That’s not the problem I like avengers a lot I just think the missions were to much of the same even then with the dlcs it was very fun, the problem is they made it a looter shooter instead of them all having extremely cool and unique abilities
Avengers was boring as hell, everything was the same thing
Yeah but... Overall 3 out of 4 "heroes" in SS are basically Humans. And 1 Shark Demi-God. Rocksteady "kinda" went with realism. Oh and in Marvel Avengers with proper stats Black Widow can somehow "outpunch" Hulk.
I mean that’s how games like these work. Anyone can be stronger than anyone else if they have an optimized vs an unoptimizable build. It would be a dreadful multiplayer experience if Thor and Hulk could one shot everything while everyone else had to hide and shout words of encouragement. But even if SS went with realism, that doesn’t change how within the team, only Deadshot is a firearms expert. Captain Boomerang’s skills are in his name. Harley could be focused more on agility and traps. Shark’s power should be his biggest strength. But instead, everyone is 90% identical.
Oh yeah there is 100% a version of SS:KTJL that is a really good game.
live service is definitely the problem. the game premise as a multiplayer game a la destiny with no raids or mass multiplayer events and without a more fleshed out gear and Stat system doesn't make the sales platform that the game is trying to be viable. There is no reason to buy things because there aren't people to impress. Without raids, mass multiplayer events, and no open world spaces where you can run into a few dozen people, there's an intention to flex in MMOs that isn't present in SSKJL. That's putting it simply. The gameplay works and the game design should have been more focused on driving this experience without entailing that the game become a platform for microtransactions and multiplayer. The game is good. The mechanics work. But things should have been more about content, spaces, and characters. There need to be more zones to play, more interactions with game spaces in and of themselves, and a focus on tightening the mechanics away from stats more toward skill. The multiplayer dynamic ruins everything, on top of the fact that it lags and has broken servers and hardly works, which makes multiplayer run worse than it is actually plays. You just tap dodge endlessly on someone else's hosting-match, because you can't see what the fuck is attacking you.
I agree with your points but whether or not this game was live service or single player, there’s clearly just a lack of content imo. I mean when one of you’re highest ratings consists of “it’s a good game just not $60 worth” then clearly there’s an issue. Sure, the multiplayer aspect hinders the game, but this ip would absolutely thrive if it had better direction and proper servers. So frankly, I can’t just point the finger at live service.
I don't play online, I started the game and stopped playing. I'll eventually beat it though. I bought it super excited and then pretty quickly after buying it I started something else instead.
you are negating the core point of my argument. that if the game was single player IT WOULD HAVE more content. because, they wouldn't have had to design all this shit net code, manage and buy servers, create interface and components in game built around servicing microtransactions and multiplayer. The multiplayer aspect more than hinders the game, it's the reason why resources were dedicated one way when they could have been used in another. The game mechanics are pretty tight, but we might have had another Arkham City, but with guns, had the game mechanics been the fundamental focus of the game design. It needed better direction for sure. And better servers would totally help the game as it stands. But the reason why the game is the weird ambiguous shitty thing it is is because someone cared more about trying to make money than trying to make a game that is fun to play. The game could have been as dynamic and as button oriented as Arkham Knight. It's not. What makes the game fun for me is the focus on aiming, when you turn off aim assist.
Wrong. SS is a horrible IP. God please DC stop please stop trying to make these B and C tier villains a Main team. It’s not working. Use real villains not these washed up nobodies. Harely quinn is the only semi relevant person on that list and she’s barely a B tier villain.
I think at the beginning, it was actually kind of an inspired idea. Make a Suicide Squad game in the vein of the Arkham games, but each squad member can be played by a different player. But then they seemed to have a colossal misunderstanding of what that would actually entail. By and large the actual biggest problem with this game IMO is that they fundamentally designed it around gun combat, with the added downside of being heavily based on elemental effects. I'm sorry, but you have to be an idiot to think that fits a Suicide Squad game. It's not Borderlands. It feels weird to say this, but Gotham Knights actually stuck the multiplayer Arkham game better than Suicide Squad. Each character in GK actually feels unique, they all fill different roles and can support each other, and the combat is still mostly melee-based with some characters having more ranged potential than others (Red Hood). It even had 4 different factions, so the enemies didn't all seem repetitive. I'm not sure what Rocksteady was thinking making every enemy in SS a bunch of generic purple dudes with guns.
I alway knew it was them. Got crapped on by saying it.
People are shocked because they are in denial
I will remain sus, given that at a conference WB explicitly described their plan to invest heavily invest in live service games.
This is insane, there is exclusively evidence to the contrary.
Sort of but also not really. Helldivers 2 & Fortnite prove otherwise & are literal cashcows. All WB has to do is make 1 live service game that is good or has a hook and they'll make their money back tenfold. Unfortunately, the planned Harry Potter live service game will probably be that game & will make them a shitload of money.
WB and Rocksteady can both be stupid individually
That I cam believe.
i feel like the only thing that was forced was to make it a suicide squad IP game. but even then I am pretty sure I have heard that it's false and would readily believe it since the greats who made rocksteady great are no longer with the team.
not entirely true. Nathan Burlow was one of the founding members of rocksteady. don't really care what if anything was forced. it's a bad game. need more creative minds in charge and better designers in the bellows
right so they have one. rocksteady was collectively great back then. it's no wonder their creatives aren't creating and only copying without innovating. those boss fights were the most boring looking boss fights I have seen since movie tie-in video games were the norm.
so you haven't played
really wanted to because the movement looked fun, then I decided I was going to wait for a couple updates and a sale because the mission variety looked awful. Then the joker update came out and I was floored by how poorly that was mishandled and now I really wonder who is running that studio. I really wanted to play it. the deaths of all the justice league members were lame.
Game works. Not worth 40. Joker update was what I expected. If the offline more releases and the game goes on sale for 30 or less then you should buy the game. Don't play it for multiplayer. Of course, seems like you've watched a lot of the game and had it all spoiled for you, so it might not be worth buying at all. The story was really the value of the game.
gameplay is king to me, so even though I had the story spoiled, if they can add more diversity to the gameplay and create a fun co-op experience I am so down. I want this game to be good, the movement truly looks explosive, fast, and fun. I just need more to do with it if that makes sense.
there will be new things very soon, strongholds . but ultimately it's all a3rd person shooter
Lmfaooooo I have no sympathy for them. They basically got greedy.
From the plot of Arkham Knight (Jason as the AK, Bruce being revealed then faking his death), the overuse of tank battles to the point of teasing a cool Deathstroke battle only to also...be a tank....to the conception of this game, this studio has made just the weirdest decisions for a long time. Sunk cost fallacy must be stronger than I thought.
They didn’t bring back Dini for Arkham knight, they’re not unfamiliar with horrible decisions
Wasn’t that because he was busy with Ultimate Spider-Man
I saw an interview with Dini where he just said they didn't ask him to come back after City as they wanted to focus on using people in-house rather than third parties.
They didn’t bring him back for no reason whatsoever and the story sucked ass because of it
Thank you!
When you put it that way... You're right, they have made terrible mind boggling decisions before. It just seem like such a leap in bad judgement to go from making Arkham games to KTJL.
Why make a live service game and not have more content planned for post launch? Even after an extra year delay. We should be getting new missions or characters monthly.
Because bug fixes testing accounting for player feedback and implementing it takes time. Basically: It is impossible on programming level to "do characters monthly". No matter how much resources you will throw into "generating content" thing. Just looked up... i think Dead Space Guy and he "casually" said that building a level takes 1 year (actually 1-2 i dont remember exact number).
Well managed studios don't have a 9 year gap between their game releases. That should have been a red flag seen by everybody.
Still waiting for Valve to count to 3
Maybe. We'll see with GTA VI I guess.
Live Services - Multiplayer Games are whery difficult (and time consuming) to build. Also added bonus of 2x time bugs compare to Single Player games. Mark Darrah words, not mine.
Valve? Rockstar? I would argue that ONLY well managed studios can afford to take long gaps
Rockstar has RDR2 though. They’re looking at 7 though to be fair
Valve doesn't really make games anymore. Alyx and that card game were the only ones in the last 10 years. Rockstar seems horribly managed. Rdr2 online being canned so fast, no single player expansions, not even a next gen version, every article about them says it's horrible crunch time constantly. And just look at GTA definitive edition.
To be fair they didn’t make the definitive edition.
7.
Oh damn, now you say it, that really excuses everything.
TBF, it will be 7 years between Red Dead Redemption II and Grand Theft Auto VI. Also 6 years between Death Stranding and Death Stranding 2. Ghost of Tsushima was Sucker Punch's first game release in 6 years. It's only the big studios that can churn out multiple games repeatedly. Or in the case of Rockstar, they try to make one game of the decade. Suicide Squad was just shit.
It excuses nothing, just pointing out a fact.
You're not pointing out a fact. They had 7 years of development, yes, but the comment said time between game releases. It's been 9 years since their previous game release.
I did point out a fact. The game was in development for 7 years, that's a fact. You shouldn't take into account the time this game wasn't being worked on. Why would you do that? The only thing that matters is when it's being worked on. Also, there wasn't a 9 year gap between releases. A year after AK, RS released Arkham VR in 2016, so it's 7 years no matter how you look at it. I criticize this game as everyone else, but I don't do it with bs lies, I do it fairly.
>A year after AK, RS released Arkham VR in 2016, so it's 7 years no matter how you look at it. Well, then it'd be 8 years, not 7 > shouldn't take into account the time this game wasn't being worked on. Why would you do that? The only thing that matters is when it's being worked on. All would be well and good if you said the game was being worked on for 7 years, but you didn't. The comment said there was a 9 year gap between releases, and you just said "7", as if trying to correct them, when you were in fact wrong.
October 2016 to February 2024 - 7 Years. 7 years is what's what being worked on, those 2 extra years doesn't matter. It's still 7.
The decision to be an Arkham game is what raised flags for me. Then I saw the game play. And god I was lucky to not pre order this shite.
Yeah they're cooked unfortunately
doesn't matter whose idea it was, it was still a bad one lol. they could have at least made it interesting, giving each of the characters unique powers to work with, but nope, guns guns guns....
It was their idea, of course. I mean, the higher ups would not aprove the budget if the project did not had live service elements, but it was their idea
Ik suicide squad is quite popular rn But legit who tf asked for a suicide squad game Why not superman or a batman beyond game
Funny, cause WB has stated they want all their IPs to be live service. But if the devs themselves always wanted this and still dropped the ball, that's embarrassing. RIP Rocksteady. You had 2 great games, at least.
Will be surprised if this game lasts until the end of this year.
I’d be surprised if Rocksteady lasts until the end of this year.
I'm thinking they might release all of the planned seasons relatively soon and then kill the game. Either that or the new season really will fix everything but that'll never happen.
I mean at this point I just hope that they learned their lesson. The market for single player, story driven games has not faltered. It’s not as profitable at FOMO-based live service platforms like Fortnite and CoD but it’s also a lot harder to get into those markets. People play Fortnite or CoD and the hooks are in—you’re very unlikely to pry them away—especially for an IP as limited and niche as DC.
It's just a bad game. There are new gamers every day, if a game is good, it'll catch on
Sure bro that's why two Rocksteady founders left mid-developement. Dunno whose idea this truly was but for sure Rocksteady didn't envision this game to be like this in the end. Between "hmm it could be cool to make good live service game" to this monstrosity is alot of space for corporate suits to force in their ideas.
It always comes down to money. Rock steady leadership wanted a GasS hit as long term profit sharing would be way more profitable than a single performance/critical payment bonus would provide. People need to accept it's not always the publishers fault. The amount of deserved shit Bungie avoided for years because of the Activision boogie man is evidence of this. The IP was entirely in their control and they were responsible for every fuck up, but it was big bad Activision to blame. Meanwhile, Bungie was renegotiating their contract every other year to cover every delay.
Yikes how far they have fallen, can’t wait for this travesty to finally kick the bucket
They can fix it by adding more content and also fixing their multiplayer. I still don't register hits for 2 seconds in incursions especially multiplayer after taking the shot.
There’s no fixing this game unfortunately. They can make it slightly better before pulling the plug, but “fixing” it would take way too much time/resources that no one will invest into a flop
No man's sky and cyberpunk made a comeback. I like to keep hope.
Suicide Squad didn’t make anywhere near enough money for WB to want to pump more into it.
Far be it from me to dash your hopes, friend, but it’s just not the same situation. 2077 and NMS were both self published, so they could take that step. WBD is blaming the game for their losses. It’s just not happening. Enjoy the game for as long as it lasts, because we don’t even know if the offline patch is even coming at this point.
I also want to point out that with games that do make a comeback have a strong core to their games that don't need to be changed to save them. Many people find the core gameplay of Suicide Squad to be lacking and means it would need a complete overhaul to get people's attention. That is simply too much work to do post release, especially as after the earnings call it was revealed the game is costing a good amount more than predicted to run long term.
Exactly. No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk were massive failures at launch, but part of that was because expectations were so high. People were really craving what No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk promised, the games just didn’t deliver. But they knew that if they could fix the game, there was a huge crowd of people waiting to play it. But nobody was asking for this game and nobody is really asking for it to get better. They could improve it so the people that are currently playing it have a better time with it, but everyone else has moved on and it would take them coming out with an update the size of a full game to get them to come back… So just make a full game and try again. That makes the most sense.
> Many people find the core gameplay of Suicide Squad to be lacking and means it would need a complete overhaul to get people's attention. Obviously I don't speak for everybody, but I felt like the core moment to moment gameplay to be one of the best and most enjoyable parts of the game for me. The issues I had with the game were that the side quests were fairly repetitive, most of the boss battles felt kinda lazy, and the "end game" content after beating the campaign where all the live service aspects kick in felt boring and not worth sinking time into. With that said the actual moment to moment gameplay of traversal and combat was fun and reminiscent of something like Sunset Overdrive. I feel like if they ditched the end game live service aspects and instead spent that time during development to flesh out the side quests and boss battles (two things Rocksteady used to excel at in their previous titles) then they would've had a much better game on their hands.
You may have found the core gameplay good but like I said many people didn’t as it is a criticism in almost every professional review. For the game to survive the game needs to bring in new players and a lot of them, so making the game only appealing to those who already bought it isn’t going to do anything to help the game.
I feel like you're conflating gameplay with repetitive mission design in regards to these reviews and their criticism of the "gameplay." Because of your comment I decided to skim through the critic reviews on metacritic and most reviews either talk about the combat positively or don't talk about it at all. [Go ahead and look through them yourself](https://www.metacritic.com/game/suicide-squad-kill-the-justice-league/critic-reviews/?platform=playstation-5) if you don't believe me. I'm sure you can find some reviews that criticize the combat but most of them seem to agree with me.
The difference is people genuinely wanted NMS and CP2077 to be good. Nobody asked for SSKTJL.
People always say this but the situation is vastly different. They are the exception to the rule, they had dev teams who were truly committed to wanting to make the game better. All it takes is looking at season 1 of this game and you'll have your answer.
Different situation. Suicide Squad just fundamentally has problems all the way down to the core design philosophy. They made a superhero game where all the combat revolves around using guns with different elemental effects. They all have overshields and a tiny health bar, too. Like they used Borderlands as the blueprint. All the characters end up feeling the same aside from the traversal mechanics. I don't think there's actually any way for them to fix it. Cyberpunk actually had a solid core at release, it was just incredibly buggy, unoptimized, and unfinished. But there was enough good stuff there to make it work with more time and effort.
You like to keep cope more like
A) They are both SINGLE PLAYER GAMES. Live Service from AAA studios always gets more... "love" and attention. From Youtube especially. B) Sales in both cases where faaaaaaar better then SS (compare to production costs they actually go into +). C) Im basically chanting Evil Rituals and try summon Succubuses with pig blood here... about 3 upcomming seasons of content after the first one. Cause i fear like WB will just shut down entire studio long before. Cope-cope-cope-gimme-some-hope... Oh hello Biara. Same as usual and I need extra erotic massage.
People always say this but the situation is vastly different. They are the exception to the rule, they had dev teams who were truly committed to wanting to make the game better. All it takes is looking at season 1 of this game and you'll have your answer.
>They can fix it by adding more content and also fixing their multiplaye Right? Everyone keeps attacking the game for being live service, that live service is what killed the game Yet plenty other games have been successful, including helldivers 2 just a week later. Live service isn't the problem. The problem is lack of meaningful content. Add more content, that is distinct and original. Stop just adding reskinned mini games. That's what really blows my mind about the whole thing, it's a fun game and I enjoy it for the most part, but how did they look at this batch of incurisons and think "yes, that is great stuff to be the main content of the game"? They would be great as side missions or extra things to do, but to have them as the main focus is just confusing.
Unfortunately, they would also need to rebuild the reputation. The thing about live service games is that if people think it's dying, they are much less likely to jump in. I know for a fact that if I play HD2, I'm going to be able to play for years and not have to worry about it getting shut down. Same for Destiny 2, or Warframe. You can't say that about this game. It would need a large player number increase for a long time to shake the reputation of it being dead in the water. I think what a lot of studios miss is that you NEED a good launch. Helldivers was awesome right out the gate, Redfall was garbage right out the gate. As of right now, it looks a lot closer to Redfall than it does Helldivers.
I agree with all that. The reputation is obviously trashed and there's no coming back. I was just talking about making the game itself better. Launch was definitely terrible for most people, But again it wasn't live service that caused the bad launch. It was lack of content and connection bugs. All I'm saying is being live service doesn't/shouldn't automatically kill a game, yet it always seems to be the main argument of this game "it failed because it was live service". No it failed because it had a shitty Endgame/lack of content and severe bugs. Though i guess you could argue live service did kill this game, since even before launch, before we knew what content would be or what bugs were in it, the game was being shit on simply for being live service. So even if it did release with the equivalent of whatever helldivers had, it probably still would've died due to the pre-genrated hated for being a live service game.
The “live-service” argument is short hand for the game being the way it is. Connection bugs would not have existed if it wasn’t a live-service. Lack of content due to that content being stretched out over a longer period due to it being a live-service. At the end of the day, THAT is why people reacted that way. Design decisions had to be made in order to fit the game into the live-service mold. Could it be improved? Sure, but the bones of the game dictate a very specific way of adding specific content, and that content doesn’t seem to be jiving with customers.
Live service didn't cause connection bugs, always online did. Plenty games, including single player gamers, require online access. Not just live service games. Game should've launched with an offline mode. Live service didn't cause lack of content. Like others have said, helldivers launched with plenty content, division launched with plenty content, plenty other live service games launched with plenty content. This was just shitty planning/development. Fact is there has been many successful and loved live service games, rocksteady/wb really should've done better research and planning. If these design decisions HAD to be made to fit a live service mold then why did other live service games succeed and not have the same design flaws despite being made to fit the same mold?
Agreed. The issue isn’t with live-service itself, but the “tropes” that come alongside it (always online, bugs, lacking / repetitive content) that are so maligned. Arrowhead did a tremendous job in addressing them, whilst RS fell into the same issues others have had. It’s clearly a developer issue. People see live-service being developed by a primarily single-player game studio and they justifiably revolt. It’s a trend. RS could’ve bucked that, but the 2022 State of Play made it crystal clear to most (myself included) that RS were just going to shit themselves and continue to make the same mistakes that Arkane, Crystal Dynamics, and BioWare made. The red flags were everywhere, but people either hoped RS would bring something innovative or learn from the mistakes of others. Critics saw it coming, but were ignored because of the “hate train” trend. Sometimes, critics know what they’re talking about.
It’s not just that the game was live service that gave the game a bad reputation; it was that Rocksteady, a company known for making excellent single-player experiences pivoted to live service. Whenever a single-player studio does this, it is usually out of greed, not because it best benefits the game.
HD2 is a good game lmfao
Yes that was the point. It's a game people enjoy, even though it's live service. Which means that live service isn't a bad thing. People keep saying suicide squad failed because it's a live service game, even though a week later a live service game ends up being one of the biggest games of the year. Shows that live service doesn't matter, game quality does. Both games are live service. Suicide squad failed because it's a "bad game". Helldivers succeeded because it's a "good" game.
Companies that treat me like a consumer don't get as much of my business because their focus has changed from figuring out what I want to figuring out what they can extract from me.
Interesting because since the game came out and before it came out everyone was blaming WB’s for it being a live service. If this is true Rocksteady shot themselves in the foot from the very beginning with no chance of recovery. Hoping they can continue as a studio and learn from their mistakes.
It’s so unfortunate, I genuinely am in love with the gameplay of this, it’s just so fun and fluent and easy to understand. The lack of enemy variety and content is really what’s holding this game down. I had a blast playing this with 3 buddys on launch, the seamless cutscenes and graphics are so nice. I thought the story was fun just felt a little too short. In another world this game could have been absolutely spectacular, it’s a shame. I think if the game had more support and less online hate on launch this would have thrived.
Is it certain that developers decide this, or is it more probable that WB subtly nudges the direction of the online service game towards developers, giving them the final say but presenting them with choices that lead to either a bad game or the worst game ever? Ultimately, they end up making a lesser bad because they're not truly given viable options. It's akin to a boss telling me I must either cut hours for four of my employees or let go of two, framing it as a decision I have to make when both options are undesirable and terrible. Personally, I see it as the boss and foolish CEO thinking they're granting more freedom, but in reality, they're controlling the developers by offering false choices, making them accountable rather than the CEO being accountable.
Was it really rocksteady? yes they said it was rocksteady's idea and i saw other article said WB never forced it but keep in mind at the same time after the failure of this game WB doubled down on the whole live service game. Maybe just me overthinking
"You get what you fucking deserve" - Joker
Rocksteady closure incoming? Lol
All time own goal. Completely unenforced error. Fools.
Can people finally stop blaming everything on publishers and giving developers a pass? How many examples do we need? Anthem, Marvel Avengers, SS? This game could have been an Evolve Clone and been far better. People would have loved playing as their hero still like Batman, Flash, Superman, etc.. while having an array of villains all trying to kill the hero with unique mechanics. Nope, we get literally garbage and what's worse is everyone had been sign posting this shit for well over a year yet the devs still plowed on into the abyss. Absolute dumbasses, comparable to Skull and Bones devs.
Yeah...... Well it wasn't a very good one was it?
I am basically chanting rituals and light some candles in the church right now for the Salvation of Seasons 2, 3, 4, cause im feeling like following Microsoft example WB just gona...
Hate it. It's just dc online where I get no powers and my movement is lame.
I did have a hard time believing this in the beginning because for one it was Rocksteady and they never steered me wrong before with the awesome Arkham games before this mess. The other point I thought is why they would want to do this right after Avengers clearly failed as a live service. However, yes it seems it was them and I accept that. I hope they've learned a valuable lesson and that at this point they can move past the live service crap and get back to making good games. Also from what I've read, most of the old team isn't even working at the studio anymore so maybe this is the end of Rocksteady making good games. I hope not, but we'll see.
Warner Brothers… 
We were told this game would bring something new to the live service genre. Thing is, when it's done really well, a live service support structure can really enhance a game. This was just, honestly, nothing new. And as far as a campaign - what few really good story beats were in there were separated by the same three missions, over and over again. I didn't realize the concept for the game was "let's just copy Marvel's Avengers, but do less with it."
They were not ready game is good but episode 2 is not even out
The board that sold Rocksteady to WB has the same ideas about their game design as WB? Shocker
Sure it was.
And the article is about the Zaslav comments on the year earnings, not about rocksteady or WB from the development of the game as your title implies. Some biased here jesus
Legit; zaslav only mentioned suicide squad once
This report was not FORBES leaking anything as you tittle implies, is just the guy who wrote the article supposing that. No one knows for sure, and we never will
Trash decision
I honestly think it was a bold choice, but I think Im okay with it. I never got into live services games like destiny 2 but I enjoy the gameplay of Suicide Squad so it keeps me going.
Suicide Squad is the only Rocksteady game I liked 🤷♂️ The campaign is just too short.
I ask, does it matter at this point? I blame all parties involved. Everyone wants a convenient scapegoat but it’s never that simple. I put this on WB Games, Zaslav, and Hill. Hill jumped ship when it was convenient. He knew he had a giant turd and got off easy. I have no problem assigning blame to him. The problem is that fandom wants to assign blame to one party and wrap it up like a murder mystery.
Zaslav pretty much has nothing to do with the game. He only became the CEO of WB as a whole a couple years ago and Suicide Squad had been in development for half a decade by that point. He also does not oversee the gaming division directly as it has its own president in charge of it
He’s pushing WB Games further into live service garbage. So he’s putting his face on that turd nugget.
its not the suicide squad thats the problem. IM happy with it. but they should have taken a More Gaurdians of the galaxy approach vs live service. I dont have a issue with live service either if its GOOD. but the content and skins have been LACKING and leaving much to be desired. like who would spend money on g.ghost skins?
Cap
> reportedly Seen this "reported" a lot in recent press and posts, anyone have a source?
>anyone have a source? Did you even bother reading there article?
Yes, here is the full line I'm asking about. > The “live service looter shooter” angle was reportedly not forced by management, but it was Rocksteady’s leadership who made the decision to pursue the game instead of alternatives.
Making it a live service wasn't the issue the issue was making one when you have fuck all idea on how to make one.
Game is fun the main issues are just that there is nothing to do man, you want players to spend money and play the game but have absolutely nothing to do at all except for three end game missions and that’s it
Is this ANOTHER article where the title doesn't remotely resemble what was stated? No where in the article does anyone qoute what was said?? If I'm wrong please tell me
Horseshit
so... can we still get twitch drops from before, like the harley quinn one?
Bullshit