66% of people I watched didn’t have too many problems getting into and exploring the game. The other 33% had major problems loading the game and quit.
Highest rating I have seen so far was a 5.9/10.
I give it a 0/10. It’s a scam trying to get early access to pay for development. Fuck that. There are thousands of games that don’t do that because it is shady as fuck. Just be honest devs or get scorched.
So people get toxic when you advertise misleadingly? Who'da thunk it.
People do turn into nutjobs about games, but also, with only their word for the toxicity and no word at all about what they mean by it, it's hard to have an opinion.
Also, a related "article" has this gem:
... doesn’t appear to be an MMO after all but an extraction shooter. This goes against what previous teasers shown by developer Fntastic alluded to and clearly describes on the game’s Steam store page and official website.
Is this terribly broken English or am I just having a minor stroke?
So people get toxic when you advertise misleadingly?
The whole online culture around gaming has been so thoroughly infiltrated by reactionaries, incels, and plain old misanthropes any developer can expect to be abused online by toxic gamers. Whether or not the grievances are genuine is beside the point.
I’m not criticizing you or defending this game, I’m just saying how fucked it is that gamers being abusive is normalized and expected.
2013: gamer /gā′mər/ n. one who plays roleplyaing or video games.
2023: gamer /gā′mər/ n. asshole spewing hate on the internet.
I see that they used the wrong tense for “described”, but that could be a typo. Other than that it seems grammatical to me. I guess “alluded to” and “described” are redundant, but that’s more a stylistic defect than an actual error imo.
However, the linchpin that really riled up gamers was when they realized The Day Before wasn’t actually an MMO but an extraction shooter zombie game, despite what previous advertisements would have you believe.
Is an extraction shooter not a kind of MMO? Is it because, although there are many players, there are only a limited number of players per map?
If that’s the case, then there are a bunch of games I think of as MMOs that aren’t, like Phantasy Star Online and Path of Exile.
By that definition an MMO has never existed as all of them are divided by servers.
But!
Let’s say an MMO becomes unpopular and there’s only one server left and at most 70 concurrent players, is the game not an MMO anymore because some games with 100 players on the same server aren’t considered MMOs?
While the servers are indeed likely to be joined, I highly doubt there isn’t an instancing system in case every eve player decides to travel to the exact same coordinates at the same time.
Otherwise a large enough corp could essentially “chunk ban” an area.
poeple are bored shitless with fps style multiplayer games, and after that, bored shitless of crappy lead tier mmos likes WoW, NW, GW2 etc whose endgame is really shit. Compared to Champions of Regnum or DAOC, all the lead tiers are boring as hell. Zero endgame creativity -- the only thing that makes mmos worthwhile is solid endgame RvR open pvp. If ur mmo doe not have it, then you will perish like The Day Before.
The number of players that determine if it’s “massive” will be subjective, but there’s more to the definition than just that. A CoD game isn’t an MMO just because it has a 16vs16 lobby for example. Gameplay design is still always going to be a big factor into the genre definitions.
Correct, they're not. PSO appears to be 4 players. PoE appears to be 6. You could call them "MORPGs", but that term has never really been common. They are certainly not massively anything, and I've never seen them described as MMOs at all.
The "traditional" definition involves tons of players (whatever that means for the time period, platform etc) active in the same world/server/instance. Even games with a zillion concurrent players would not fit, as long as those players were "isolated" to smaller servers.
Add comment