Response time is critical. Having launch issues is to be expected. Not excused, per se, but expected, for sure.
Having it take this long to fix something as critically broken as the Rose, which has completely ruined the fun of multiplayer on both teams for me, is completely absurd. Most multiplayer games design their titles in such a way that minor updates that change things like damage values or other simple number changes are easily pushed without an actual patch (i.e. it's handled server-side) so that they don't have to wait for cert or a new patch. Hotfixes can also be used as a temporary remedy. That we have nothing and just have to continue dealing with this nonsense is completely unacceptable.
They haven't even given us a detailed explanation of the changes they're making. They can lower her damage, but that only fixes part of the problem. To me, her CC is game ruining. It makes the game unfun to play because it doesn't actually let me play the game. It's a huuuuge issue for me, I had an entire thread about it, after all. Rose is really fun to play, and if her abilities and weapon weren't completely out of whack with everything else in the game, she'd be fun to play against, too. The Imp's got just an absurd of an AOE debuff but at least I can take him down with two eyes closed because of his paper skin.
Although you did say "everyone who thinks this game is a waste of money," I don't think that, but I do think it's telling how long we have to wait for an update to make this multiplayer-only title playable in multiplayer.
For one thing it's not multiplayer only, secondly and more importantly all of the games listed above have/had terrible response times. It's been a week since launch, if the update comes out this week, then the response time is already better than half of those games.
It took Destiny a few weeks, ESO an entire year, Black Ops III still hasn't fixed it's issues, and it took the original Garden Warfare a few weeks to fix it.
Honestly, as long as there are three or fewer Roses it isn't even a problem anymore. I find it interesting you say Rose is fun to play because that implies you're some kind of scumbag who plays Rose, but the game is still tons of fun. Regardless of which side your on.
What an unnecessarily hostile reply. Do you own stock in Popcap or something?
1. It's multiplayer only. You can "play" it single-player, but the single player component is less exciting than an excel spreadsheet. It's completely unfun. You can argue this point all you want, the single player is half-assed garbage.
2. I don't care what the response times in the other games are. This isn't the other games.
3. Hoping that the other team has "three or less roses" is the perfect example of how critical the issue is.
4. I said that it's fun to play Rose because it's fun to play Rose. I tried her and all the other classes out when I first got the game, and her and Kernel Corn are my favorite newcomers. I've played her very little since because 40+ kills in a 5 minute round without even trying doesn't feel good, it feels like a bad game.
5. The game is not tons of fun for me at all right now, specifically because of the Rose issue. And when they lower her damage, that still won't fix the bigger issues I have with her. You saying it's fun won't make it fun for me, that's how opinions work.
I'd agree the launch has been clean for me. However like many have states, Rose is so incredibly unbalanced that it does put a bit of a downer on the whole situation.
FIFA 16: A game I own and a game that I've experienced zero multiplayer issues with.
Forza 6: Aside from a few very minor glitches (that were addressed on the first patch release) a strangely trouble free launch - albeit experiencing lobby issues later on in it's existence but that was purely down to an update that went a little pear shaped.
Zombie Army Trilogy: Again absolutely no issues with launch, online aspects and general gameplay.
Rocket League: Ditto
Sorry but although I agree with what you're trying to say its not always a good idea to use a (very) selective list of games in defence of your argument because, as I have done, by doing so it's way too easy to manipulate the facts in such a way that your argument holds validity. The real issue is a bit of a two-fold affair.
First and foremost everyone's natural defence is, if a game doesn't meet upto their expectations or doesn't work to a level that they expect, then their immediate reaction is always to feel that they've been cheated. "waste of money", "refund", "never buying a game from xx company ever again". You know, the usual stuff. Everyone (bar none) feels exactly the same way - irrespective of what the product is, who made it and what you use it for. And so on, and so on. The only difference being that some people feel an urge to air their feelings publicly whilst others choose not to.
You go to a football match. It's freezing cold, the game is awful and your team loses 10-0
You go out for a meal. The service is awful and the food is awful.
You go on holiday. The hotel is filthy, there's a building site right outside your window and the weather is lousy.
The list is endless - but one thing remains the same (rewinds to very beginning of the paragraph)......
Secondly. This doesn't tend to help things but modern day console gamers are beset with a brand new problem. Namely, 'deadlines'. In days gone by a console game was by and large only released when it was good and ready because once it was placed on that cartridge/CDRom/DVDR then there was simply no going back. There were no such things as live updates and hotfixes - it had to be right first time around. In a lot of respects that was a good thing because when you went to your local retailer to buy the game of your choice you were pretty sure that whatever you bought was going to work to a level that trading standards weren't going to cast their disputing eyes on. We knew this and software houses (wow, a long time since I've used that phrase) knew is as well. It didn't matter if the game was a bit rubbish (and a lot were) so long as it worked - and an army of games testers and (in some cases) a very stringent quality control ensured that was pretty much always going to be the case.
Back to deadlines. Unfortunately today's mentality is that initial quality of product is far less important than a release deadline because investors and shareholders alike dictate the state of affairs (after all, time is their money) so something has to give and that something is normally the dreaded unfinished/untested (but released on deadline) product. Flutter your eyelids, apologise profusely and instil confidence by announcing a patch//hotfix "soon" - but just in case, make sure that somewhere deep inside an ever expanding, ever font size shrinking T&C that the phrase "as is" is welded down solid to ensure that everything is above board and there is no comeback from that dreaded, unthinkable scenario......The product cannot be fixed.
That unfortunately is the modern way of thinking.
Quality control and hardcore game testing are well and truly words of yesteryear.
Ok, this all sounds a bit cynical and going nowhere so i'll get to the point.
What i'm saying is that a lot of today's console gamers tend not to look beyond the end of their noses by assuming that what they purchase has to be (and will be) in perfect working condition the very second they receive it. Today you have to look at the big picture. A game will nearly always be released as "fit for purpose" because that phrase has been manipulated so much that nobody actually knows what it means any more but where the 'waste of money' thing kicks in is unfortunately way, way down the line at such a point when, erm, "fitter for purpose" (or even the insanely rare "working perfectly") hasn't actually occurred. Purely and simply because that's the way things happen nowadays.
I don't like it as much as the next person and sometimes wish I would have considered purchasing certain games a little later on in their life but I never do. I want to purchase a game immediately because quite simply I want to play it and don't want to miss out. That's the scenario I choose (the gamble I take) and that's exactly the same scenario everyone else who buys an early release takes. Everyone is fully aware of how the software industry works and because of which, until such a point where it's perfectly clear that your purchase is never going to function correctly, nobody (and I mean nobody) has any genuine cause for complaint. Sure, exercise your disappointment, exercise your concerns, exercise your dog if you really have to - but please, never use your weakness of simply not waiting for a product to evolve as an excuse for it being a waste of money.
Anyhows, I have to go to work now. Oops, silly me I've got a broken leg so I don't have to go for another 6 weeks. Oh well, back to my Xbox and PVZ1 (for the time being)
Thanks.
