Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Using Post Scriptums beta numbers would probably be a more accurate comparison since it was the first 24/7 version of the game that everyone could access by owning the game. If you call it early access, beta or full release doesn't really matter (though I think PS was a bit quick saying the game was a full standalone title). But I don't consider HLL a failure either, we'll see how the games go with time, though I honestly don't see why both can't exist.
If we use the "open beta" numbers from Post Scriptum, that'll just shine a light on how poorly the game was received, how far it sunk and continued to drop over the past 9 months. The only time the player numbers have increased significantly was the free weekend in Nov 2018 and this free weekend.
They both should be able to exist. While somewhat similar in premise, they both have their own style of game play. People just like to take pot shots from both sides.
I think it'll be interesting to see how HLL holds up as it ventures through it's year of EA development and reaches 1.0 release, where PS has already been for the past 10 months.
Day of Infamy had 9,214 all time peak and died a quick death just under a few months (less than 3 i belive), taking in account it was a "casual" game that didint retain its playerbase. Nowadays its extremely impressive if it reaches over 300 to 400 players in a day.
Hell Let Loose might follow its fate (albeit in a more quick fashion) due to its similar take on being a more casual experience and the large emphasis on 100 player matches.
Post Scriptum only small and rather s.hitty saving grace is that its Squad-like gameplay still maintains a small playerbase.
None of these games were success stories, mind you.
You say HLL might follow DOI's fate, however it might not. Unless you have access to some information the rest of us don't, I don't believe you know what's going to happen in the future anymore than the rest of us.
The same goes for PS. PG might finally get their act together and improve the performance, game play, visuals and turn the title around, or they might not. We'll just have to see what happens.
I adore RO/RO2 and Rising Storm because it's semi realistic and you don't need intimate knowledge of the maps to actually feel like you are contributing something to the war effort.
If HLL is a hybrid of RO2 and PS then that can only be a good thing. Still the reviews are bad and I'll stick to Squad and Rising Storm I think. Oh and Arma of course
I didn't think the reviews were too terribly bad, currently 71% Mostly Positive. However I'd agree Squad and the Arma series are a good way to go.
- I am not arguing or comparing realism, they are both video games and while I prefer the more realistic games to the arcade-y ones, typically, I wouldn't call the more realistic game the better game just because it has more realistic factors.
The reality is HLL is not the better game and yet is being pumped up like the next best ww2 game, which if it was, then I'd agree and personally be pretty happy about playing a great ww2 game and wouldn't have ever created this thread, but to me, and I can't see any reason or comparison anyone has made to justify the reasons or features that would make it superior, so you see a lot of smoke being blown for the game and comparisons to PS, which was the point of this thread and yet this was after trying the game out for myself, not just watching youtube videos and reading reviews, which don't do a half as much as actually trying the games yourself.
The reason i wrote made this post was to warn the community not to get your hopes up because you're hearing a lot of good things about this game, secondly because I know there's guys like me out there who are always looking for a good ww2 game, and lastly because people were hyping it up and saying it will smash PS and yet can't even give you a reason.
- PS is not flawless or ww2 perfection...but it's absolutely the better game and I could give a long list as to why, and the fact that HLL is early access is not the only reason, I could give you a whole list of things the game lacks just from first glance.
For example, brush/foilage in HLL is impassable making players funnel to certain points, which means you'll get killing fields/predictable choke points where people will simply set up and camp these exits. In just a short time of gameplay, I already saw a bunch of people bunched up in certain predictable areas, so if i knew the maps I know where the enemy is going to be, which means where to send the artillery and camp the enemy, that's end game for them.
Another thing, I saw no transport vehicles, this means people were only attacking in linear lines, making their paths extremely predictable on a restriced map, meaning again, you can just camp areas for maximum kills, because you know EXACTLY where they are coming from.
Finally as another fundamental gameplay impression, the maps have objectives that are placed on the edge of the map, which means again, even less areas to predict incoming enemies and you will be attacking at the edges of these areas to camp and rack up kills. Trust me, you've played this kind of FPS before in HLL.
- The reason why PS doesn't have a HUGE fanbase and I don't think it will and the reason why HLL might retain one that is higher is simply because you can jump into the game in HLL and not really know anything beyond what you're familiar with in an traditional FPS shooter and you'll be fine, you'll survive, you'll pick it up a little as you go, not a huge learning curve.
PS on the other hand, jump into a logistics squad (can mean the difference between winning and losing the game), or commander role or squad leader for the first time, without a mic, and you're likely to be chewed out or have a hugely negative impact on the game and not even be aware of it, especially as a logistic squad not knowing about how fob's work in gamemodes and especially if you're playing with people who know the impact those roles can make in a game.
For this reason and this reason alone you will likely have more players automatically drawn to the more easily accessible game and which is why I think PS needs a better tutorial and introduction to the game for players who aren't going to sit around for long if the game is frustratingly challenging or confusing, especially with people yelling at them for not knowing what to do.
A few bad initial experiences with PS and you might get entirely turned off, so a lot of potentially good players are being shunned away for reasons they shouldn't be. If the game is challenging great, but the players should be able to introduced or at the very least warned about the responsibility of certain roles, rather than leaving it to the player base to provide mob justice by scolding, that's not cool in my book.
My guess is from looking at numerous other examples of games in similar situations.
The lack of (true) community servers in HLL is a critical problem down the road, it makes the whole thing expensive and kills the community pretty damn quick. Their publisher is extremely unreliable (team17), they had a very low initial playerbase and they lost alot of faith from kickstarters that thought they were goin for a more sim approach.
I say HLL has alot of things going against its success, more so than PS, but as you said, miracles can happen. I just usually assume the norm and not hope for something great to happen.
As for PS, i think it will go the way of Mare-Nostrum, Holdfast, Mount & Blade NW and such games, it will have a small dedicated community that will keep the game alive for a long time, but will eventually diminish and fade away.
Also, its very important that both games are in Early Access Hell, where the VAST majority of games die off before release.
Honestly, i wish to see Post Scriptum incorporated into Squad, i know its impossible, but that would be my ideal situation, just like you had Vietnam War,WW2,Modern Conflict, Gulf-era,etc all in just one game called Project Reality.
Numerous other examples of games in similar situations? You're comparing HLL to a COD sized Source mod of Insurgency, that iirc, wasn't intended to have full developmental support from NWI. There's absolutely nothing in common there, other than a WW2 theme. You can't draw valid longevity conclusions about one game from others, as not all games are created equal.
You keep harping on (true) community servers... the game just launched into EA. I think it was a smart move to launch with partnered server hosting sites, that way you can ensure the servers running your game meet the hardware requirements.
Do you think if some moron ran a "launch day" server on a Core 2 Quad he found in his parents basement using their 5Mb internet that it isn't going to reflect poorly on the game? In my experience, players don't check or care what hardware a game server is running on. If one provides garbage performance, they blame the game and the developers. With hosting partners, BM has a better chance of avoiding that.
Then there's the simple fact that BM has already addressed the community server issue and given what I believe is a viable explanation: "We understand that there is a demand for communities to host their own dedicated server, so we are investigating different ways that we can achieve this technically, with the above mentioned systems. This is something that we will look at developing through the Early Access period, and will keep you updated."
Lastly, you're misinformed. PS is not in Early Access, it was released as a finished state 1.0 title back in Aug 2018. HLL just started its EA development period, estimated to be a year or more long.
I am not "just" comparing it to that game, i gave other examples there. The general rule of thumb is that EA games never really deliver on all their promises, specially ones with rocky starts, which are all these games.
And PS is still in "early access", sadly it will stay in the state it is in forever since they decided to call it a official launch and all, without much of the features promised.
Just like HLL, i expect it will either be in "forever EA" or follow PS and get released with a fraction of the promised content.
Even Squad is in Early Access Hell, altho that game has evolved into a playable and enjoyable game, many of the promised features are still nowhere to be seen (the whole Helicopter and Tank warfare).
Either i am too jaded nowadays or your way too hopeful for all of this (are you tho?)
Unless Team17 has unlimited pockets (which i sincerely doubt, considering their post launch support for all their games is historically horrible), i wouldnt put my hopes up.
The only games you've talked about in this thread are DOI, PS and Squad. I believe the only game you've given any numbers or statistics for comparison is DOI. Btw, that 9,000 peak players you mentioned, was from a free weekend Oct 2017, so if course the numbers were inflated. It launched into EA (Jul 2016) with just over 1200 peak.
What rocky start has HLL endured? The servers haven't melted and are working fine, the game is playable if hardware meets or exceeds the official recommended requirements, hasn't dropped below 1,231 players (and that was 1AM PST my time) the reviews are currently 70%-71% positive. I guess some KS backers are miffed that the alpha testing game mode has been shifted to later in the EA development cycle, but the game isn't imploding on the forums and it isn't being review bombed for being a dumpster fire.
PS has never been in Steam's Early Access program. As of last Aug, it is advertised and sold as a full release title. Which has always been strange to me. A mod of an EA alpha state game is releasing as a finished state product?
I'll agree with you about Squad. It was originally advertised to release by the end of 2016, then mid 2017, then end of 2017, then end of 2018, now sometime in 2019. It's still not as good as PR imo, but Squad's been holding its own as far a player numbers for a studio that's never developed a game before.
I'm not too hopeful. I'm a realist that looks at facts and relevant statistics. People preach doom-n-gloom for games all the time, and never have any actual facts or evidence to support their claims. You have an opinion that HLL is going to die or whatever, and you're certainly entitled to it... but it's really just conjecture. You haven't presented anything relevant to the actual game that backs you up. All I'm saying is no one knows what's going to happen. I do however think it's way too early to start picking out grave stones for the game.
Now you're calling financials into question. Do you have information that states how much of the KS funding BM has spent, or how much funding they've received/spent from Team17 or the pre-orders through Xsolla or the EA launch sales? If you do, great...I'd love to see it. If you don't, why would you even bring up concerns for something you know nothing about? lol
The game mode wasn't pushed back. It was dropped, and after the first beta with the AAS style single cap system. And people complained, they said would add secondary objectives.
It was the feedback on release that has got the old game mode back in contention
Quote from dev Roman from discord, June 6th, 20:30
That appears to become more certian, and now looks like it's going to happen.
But, that's not the be all and end all. They advertised as "This is a simulation of war... not an arcade arena shooter"
It really hasn't delivered on the realism either. Adding the old game mode, won't make some of those disappointed happy, and could disappoint the new audience.
My understanding is the "old" game mode is currently going by the name of Campaign, which I read about being worked on weeks ago, not based on feedback from EA release.
Jonno [developer] May 20 @ 8:56am
Hey Amon,
There are currently no plans for a deathmatch or team deathmatch mode.
We are however working on two more modes that are currently titled 'Invasion' and 'Campaign'.
I'm not sure why adding additional game modes would disappoint the new audience, all of the fps games I play have more than 1 game mode, even PS has more than 1 and it doesn't seem to have caused a meltdown. People have a choice and play the game modes they enjoy, pretty simple imo.