You get to see them a few times during a game. At the start, during the initial drop and other instances of flying around during a match, finishers have 3rd person animations, there are some skins that alter the look even in first person (your hands basically), and during the end tally screen. Of course your opponents also get to see it, and if you are the current kill leader or are part of the leader team there are banners all around the field that show your character.
What on Earth made them think this was a good idea? The game isn't deep enough to worry about changing the meta.This may seem like Respawn trying to get the hang of updating a battle royale game, but the slow pace is intentional. According to a post that went out along with the game’s first balance update, Respawn doesn’t want to change Apex Legends often. “We make less frequent, better tested, higher impact balance changes in order to minimize the impacts on your time spent mastering the game,” Respawn said. Rather than upsetting the meta by shifting around what’s powerful and what isn’t, the developer would prefer to release carefully balanced and tested patches. The result is very few balance changes, and some very buggy patches.
Ironically, even the Quake Champions battle pass is better than this one.
League of Legends and Dota 2 are still quite alive and well.
I think you're quite wrong with your analysis.I think it's less about the hype though and more about the kind of game and culture surrounding it. Apex and Fortnight are "Battle Royale" games, but Apex steers much closer to the likes of PUBG, Blackout, and Firestorm in being an objective-first design model. They're more, I don't know how to put it, traditional I guess? The only reason to play is to master the game systems and conquer your opponents. The skill ceiling is high enough that the gameplay loop and hook revolves around just immersing yourself in the combat in of itself.
Fortnight really is much more than a Battle Royale game. It's heavily driven by a social, communal aspects in the same way Minecraft was, and Epic knows how to play to that market with its various seasonal themes, items, and other gimmicks that aren't really added as a means to expand and balance the game in the framework of its core design, so much as give the social aspect more fluff to talk about, stream, and engage in with friends.
Until a game comes out that can capture the same essence that Minecraft and Fortnight have, the latter will stay on top.
If i had to guess its because its not a good battle pass unlike Rocket League? I dont play Apex.
I think, for me, I’d played so much of the game prior to the Battle Pass/first season launching and I was approaching burn out but was really excited to see what the Pass would bring. They normally inject a good carrot-on-a-stick challenge and they often come with new additions to the game (guns/game modes/map changes in the case of things like COD, Fortnite, PUBG etc). When the Pass dropped with almost entirely terrible rewards and an incredibly slow progression (like, I played for a couple of hours on day one and didn’t even complete one level of it. So no unlocks at all) I looked at it day one, realised I’d never finish it, and bounced totally off of it. Additionally, ‘Season One’ added virtually no changes to the game apart from one new character that you had to buy. It was solely based around a disappointing premium Battle Pass.
Why do people keep saying stuff like this? This and “Lol relying on Twitch for popularity”. Wait, is it bad to use as a check of popularity? Do people think that Twitch is the genesis of popularity for a game, instead of the game being popular by itself which then flows down to viewers? Is there some trend of games having few players but a major Twitch presence? I can *guarantee* that market research people crosscheck Twitch to guess how big a game is outside of just pure viewership.
This is quite bafflingPeople expect a lot out of a game like Apex Legends. At launch, the game was lacking a lot of basic features, like the ability to report players who killed you for suspect plays. It still doesn't have a means to view your stats, such as eliminations, squad wipes, accuracy, and wins. This is a battle royale game that offers you zero means to see how often and how many wins you've accrued. That's utter nonsense, and the fact that I had to use what amounted to tally marks in a Discord server to keep track of my overall win count is just plain sad.
There's also the matter of balancing. Straight-up, Respawn saying they wanted to keep weapons like the Mozambique and Alternator in a borderline-useless state to create a clear power dynamic between weaponry was one of the dumbest things I've ever read in regards to game balancing. They're making a game that needs to sell cosmetics, and they made explicitly clear they have no intention of buffing weapons players have vocally acknowledged to be terrible, while at the same time offering "Legendary" skins of those weapons for upwards of twenty dollars in the in-game shop.
I'm not even going to get into the shop, aside from the fact that the first battle pass was awful enough that I straight-up stopped playing, and selling "Legendary" for a single weapon for twenty dollars makes Call of Duty's microtransactions seem comparatively fair.
Eh, it's not that weird. FN does a similar thing with the weapon rarities, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bunch of guns in PUBG which were objectively worse than others. The Mozambique was a little too far yeah, but the theory makes sense; if every gun was equally viable, people would likely not switch them around as much, and there would be less of a progression in the match.
The thing is, even a grey pistol in Fortnite has its use in the early game. In Apex, you're genuinely better off just punching someone instead of using the Mozambique. Its projectile speed, effective range, damage, fire rate, and magazine capacity all ensure it's a worse option than just using your fists. Even the pretty garbage P2020 is a better choice.Eh, it's not that weird. FN does a similar thing with the weapon rarities, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bunch of guns in PUBG which were objectively worse than others. If every gun was equally viable, people would likely not switch them around as much, and there would be less of a progression in the match.
Yeah, the Mozam went too far, but the idea makes sense - too late on my editing :/The thing is, even a grey pistol in Fortnite has its use in the early game. In Apex, you're genuinely better off just punching someone instead of using the Mozambique. Its projectile speed, effective range, damage, fire rate, and magazine capacity all ensure it's a worse option than just using your fists. Even the pretty garbage P2020 is a better choice.