"Earth's Mightiest Heroes" indeed...

Reality is often disappointing

Success is never guaranteed in life. It can't be, else the moment would never be sought after nor appreciated. Though there are those times when success is so tipped in your favour that perhaps the more impressive feat would be finding some way not to sink that basket in the manner that seems inevitable; a sort of "Wow, you messed up so spectacularly that it's kinda impressive" sort of stance. Personally, I would consider the later to be personified in the sort of example where you, as a huge corporate entity with resources pouring out of your ears and a bevy of well respected studios at your beck and call, are granted exclusive rights to the single most sought-after and profitable licence in the entertainment world, only to somehow manage to twist things on their head and make an ass of yourself. (Maybe that's more indicative of the way that even sure-fire success is never as easy as it seems.) As you can likely deduce right now, the stand-ins for this example are 'Square Enix' and 'Marvel'. (I'll let you figure out which goes where.)

So with the rights to make an Avengers game there was little doubt that this would be the sort of game to sell gangbusters. I mean sure, we had no idea what the game even was for several months, the only footage which existed had to be literally smuggled out of the amphitheatre and Square kept teasing live-service elements before their gameplay showcase; but none of that mattered because this was 'Avengers'! The Marvel brand is a total juggernaut built by the blood, sweat and tears of countless over the past decade, surely there was absolutely nothing Square could do which would sully such a brand in the eyes of fans. And I'd argue that they still haven't. Even after everything that Square's Avengers turned out to be, and all the ways it severely let down just about everyone who shelled out for it, Marvel are so untouchable at this point that the blame seems to have landed squarely on Square's doorsteps. (And can you really blame the masses for picking such a scapegoat?)

I think that right from the moment go there were concerns about exactly what it was this game was going to turn out to be, stemming from the base that no one was quite sure what a perfect Avengers game would be. I mean it was going to have to be multiplayer of course, that was a given, but should this be a narrative based game? Perhaps a more loose open world one? A beat 'em up? An RPG? What would best allow the player to step into the shoes of Earth's Mightiest Heroes? Square basically had complete creative control over what this title could end up shaping up as, and to the chagrin of many they travelled the path that so many others had stumbled on; they decided to make a live service. But before I go on I should say something; there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a 'live service'. I think the concept of a game that you can come back to time and time again as it keeps getting updated has been alive and well since the days of early Minecraft; but the big companies have a habit of taking something charming and community building before turning it cold and uncaring. Thus was the case with Avengers.

Like practically every big-budget live service before it, Avengers launched as a mess of bugs and frame losses that one would be embarrassed to present to their audience if one had any self respect. The game just frankly did not hit consistent frames on console, full on crashed often, suffered visual and audio bugs all over the place and had trouble with networking out the gate. And those were just the unintended drawbacks. People soon found the gameplay loop to be overly repetitive, the gear system to be uninspired, the RPG elements to be undercooked and the story to be so short that they only managed to fit 3 supervillains into the game. (All three of whom they had revealed in promotion.) Behind that all was a game that at least felt fun to mess around in for a bit, I still feel that smashing the odd head together as hulk or pining people to walls as Thor still holds it's appeal; but enough appeal to cost £50 and to come to back day after day? Nah, I'll be fine without, thanks.

Of course, like many predicted the Marvel name was enough to trump many of those criticisms and bring people to the game, but it wouldn't be enough to get people to buy into the gameplay loop. Sure, everyone wants to be an Avenger when they see the logo, but actually sit them down and tell them to work this game into their weekly schedule and you'll find people move on quickly. The game was just simply lacking in spectacle, excitement, oh- and decent loot to fuel the looter aspects of the game which were meant to be the main selling point. (Have you people learned nothing from Anthem?) But how can I just sit here and tell you that people moved on from the game so quickly? Do I have insider information in the Square's play charts? Of course not, but I do have a web browser and can easily look at Steam Charts to see that the game had but 750 players in the last hour. (The game launched about a month ago, remember)

Now 750 ain't dead by any stretch of the imagination, that's about 750 more people than are playing 'Fast and Furious: Crossroads' right now, but for a multiplayer co-op title with a huge license attached to it in the middle of the day; that ain't too healthy either. When you bear in mind that this is a game that requires a full four-team of people, who pick different characters out of a roster of 6, in order to be played as intended, suddenly that 750-1000 daily player roster starts to feel a little more constricting. In that vein, reports have claimed genuine trouble landing a multiplayer session with randoms in the game, this time not due to poor networking but a poor player pool, and even the PS4 version of the game seems to mimic these issues. So what does this tell us? That people have moved onto one of the numerous free or cheaper online games that are infinitely better conceived and just plain more fun. 

For their part, Crystal Dynamic and Square have kept on a confident face throughout this all and claimed that they're not at all worried by the shrinking numbers. Afterall, they have two events incoming that will introduce the new characters to the universe; both of whom are Hawkeye. (Huh?) Yeah, in order to 'change up the roster' they're going to introduce two different characters that both use bows and, given their track record, will probably play almost identical to one another. (Yep, that'll revive the game for sure.) I'm sure this event will bring back some players, events usually do, but I have no idea why Crystal will think they'll stick around before any of the core issues are solved. What's the point of adding new heroes when the gameplay loop is still boring and tedious? This is textbook 'horse before the cart' stuff right here.

Quite honestly, I wanted Avengers to be good. I really did. I've always held an affinity to Marvel over the years and have been disappointed with the way in which quality games under their brand have been far and few between. With so much source material out there you'd think it'd be easy, but I suppose Square have come by to prove how that isn't the case. (Then again, they hardly pulled from any source material whatsoever, so maybe some of the blame does land on them) Yet it seems that the moment has come and gone and Avengers is destined to be another forgotten live service by the end of the year, providing more evidence at how this game design model isn't sustainable. (Evidence that the industry is sure to promptly ignore) I just hope this downfall doesn't hurt future prospects for Marvel games, because I'm still waiting for another great X-men title. It's been far too long.