Jump to content

Marvel’s Avengers: A-Day


Recommended Posts

Thing is what you want from an Avengers game is something that really sells the power fantasy of playing as these characters. Ideally you’d have some really diverse gameplay where a Hulk level would have smashing entire armies to pulp and knocking down buildings, an Iron Man level might have you jetting around like Ace Combat, while a Black Widow level could be a lower powered more stealth orientated affair.

 

Problem is they decided to put this into production in that period where everyone thought that making a Destiny-alike would be easy long-term cash. So every level has to be a straightforward generic affair designed to be run through hundreds of times to grind up stats and get random loot. As every level has to be playable by every character you can’t go wild with the powers, at best you‘ll get the odd animation flourish. Iron Man will be able to fly a bit, but he can’t go zooming off into the sky too far as that would break a level compared to someone who has to traverse it by foot. Because everything has to be balanced it also means that punching someone in the face as the Hulk can’t be allowed to do much more damage than Black Widow doing the same action.

 

The whole project feels misjudged and the almost zero hype for it must be worrying Square-Enix a bit after how badly Anthem cratered. I don’t see it doing quite a badly as that game, purely due to the license, but  things don’t look great for it.

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone thinking of doing the old ‘pre-order and cancel’ trick to try out the beta?

 

I’m tempted as I really want to see if it’s as bad as it looks, but don’t really have the time to put in right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure it’s even that clear. It sounds like it might just be their “special relationship”.

 

In the spokesperson’s defense a journalist interviewing someone and looking for a clear answer on a question should be asking follow up questions until they can get to a clear paraphrase or quote as an answer, not just posting up the  original response unedited. Lazy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony have the movie rights, nowt else. There's definitely also a special relationship because of that and that's how Sony decided to make a PlayStation exclusive Spider-Man game - but unless there have been new agreements in which Marvel relinquished even more Spider-Man rights to Sony, there's nothing else there but "a special relationship". Sony have had the exclusive movie rights for two decades. How many multiplatform Spider-Man games have we had since then? Not even made by Sony, Activision had that sown up for a long time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there's the playerbase.....but it seems a little mad to me that they're releasing a "Live Service" game during the twilight of the PS4/Xbox One life. I'll wait for the PS5 version. Maybe by then it'll be good and have some costumes that don't look like they're from a f2p mobile game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Andy_Why said:

When they say they have 'a special relationship' they mean they have a big bag of cash though, right? They just don't like to make it totally on the nose.


Nah you’re all so cynical, I’m sure Crystal Dynamics went to the trouble of designing a version of  Spider-man and his move set and progression tree, cosmetics and play testing all this, all because they know that Sony are such super-duper Spider-man fans.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Harsin said:


Nah you’re all so cynical, I’m sure Crystal Dynamics went to the trouble of designing a version of  Spider-man and his move set and progression tree, cosmetics and play testing all this, all because they know that Sony are such super-duper Spider-man fans.

 

You're right, of course. I feel like such a fool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Harsin said:

spacer.png

 

I like how Iron Man's legendary outfit forgoes any leg armour in favour of some fetching gold tights. Nice red leotard too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that Sony think of Spider-Man as their character. They don’t outright own the character, but they own enough of it to have bargaining power. Marvel are constantly having to go to Sony and negotiate terms to get access to one of their most popular characters in their movies, which are their main revenue source right now. That’s a huge amount of power for Sony to have, and it means they can get their claws into the bits of Spider-Man they don’t technically own. They’re clearly pushing to make Spider-Man games an exclusively Sony thing, and I’m assuming they’re doing that by leveraging their movie rights against the game rights. I’m guessing that a Marvel and Disney probably care a lot less about the game rights than they do the movie ones, and Sony probably care more about the game rights considering the importance of the PlayStation brand to them. Whilst it’s tempting to say that he’s not a Sony character and point to older games, it’s completely possible that he’s basically becoming a Sony character as far as the games are concerned, and that’s why he’s being used as an exclusive for the first time. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Broker you could be completely right. Easy for Sony to say that they also want exclusive game stuff in return for MCU appearances. As a bonus, his appearances in the MCU make him more valuable as a game character. Win-win.

 

Edit: and the success of the recent PS4 Spider-Man game could have made them even more dead set on keeping him exclusive.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Broker said:

Whilst it’s tempting to say that he’s not a Sony character and point to older games, it’s completely possible that he’s basically becoming a Sony character as far as the games are concerned, and that’s why he’s being used as an exclusive for the first time. 

 

Again, he's in Marvel UItimate Alliance 3, and that's a Switch exclusive that launched last year.

 

Sony definitely want to give the impression they have the sole rights and that he'll always be exclusive, but we can acknowledge they're not and it's just a moneyhat.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm one of very few people who actually like Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 and it would suuuuuck if we ever get a 4 and Spidey isn't in that. It would be like a Marvel vs Capcom game without X-Men or something equally absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

Again, he's in Marvel UItimate Alliance 3, and that's a Switch exclusive that launched last year.

 

Sony definitely want to give the impression they have the sole rights and that he'll always be exclusive, but we can acknowledge they're not and it's just a moneyhat.

Not just switch exclusive, since I suppose that could still allow Sony to have sublicensed to Activision or Square Enix etc, in theory. It's actually published by Nintendo.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

Again, he's in Marvel UItimate Alliance 3, and that's a Switch exclusive that launched last year.

 

Sony definitely want to give the impression they have the sole rights and that he'll always be exclusive, but we can acknowledge they're not and it's just a moneyhat.

 

That could easily have been the third part of a licensing deal done years ago for that specific series of games.  If, originally, Capcom signed a deal to produce 3 Marvel games with access to a certain set of characters then they would still be able to use those rights within any time-frame set out.  Equally, at the time of Sony signing the deal allowing Insomniac to do their game, they would've been made aware of the existence of Capcom having those rights and would likely not have seen it as problematic, as noone would really see that as competition.  Maybe Capcom's deal has now expired, maybe they have the rights to do more, who knows.  But the existence of Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 does not prove that Sony don't currently have the 'game rights' to Spiderman right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Doctor Shark said:

This looks so creatively bankrupt it's laughable. You think with the money Disney have they could get something decent done with the licence and not this Tesco's value brand looking shit. 

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it was Disney execs behind the push for all the monetisation and lootboxes, they clearly saw the money being made in Destiny and Fortnite, and figured they wanted a piece of that pie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Thor said:

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it was Disney execs behind the push for all the monetisation and lootboxes, they clearly saw the money being made in Destiny and Fortnite, and figured they wanted a piece of that pie.


Unlikely as it was pressure from Disney that got most of the mtx and loot boxes removed from Battlefront 2. With all the fuss over child gambling it was toxic for a family friendly brand.

 

I suspect it’s unlikely this will be any different

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow and people shit the bed over halo infinite this looks absolutely terrible, the character models are beyond awful. Saving a few bob on actual likenesses is going to bite them on the arse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.