Extremely Concerned

[aggimajera]

I am happy there is a community of dedicated players on the discord who will stand by you till the bitter end. Support is good, and the devs worked hard on this project. However, I am not one of them anymore. I’ve played enough and seen enough that I no longer have complete faith in Six Days as a project.

Though I have no doubt the teams intention in the beginning was to deliver some sort of empathy-driven experience, the current state of the game leaves little to chew on to suggest that is the real goal.

Yes - I am aware folks say early access is hardly fair to judge a game on. I disagree. You put a product out there in an unfinished state. It is a product nonetheless and is every bit as susceptible to criticism as anything else. And guess what? That unfinished product is what the world saw. Outside of Youtube influencers, the reaction was a big, fat, whopping "meh". A far, far cry from what all of us anticipated.

It seems based on everything that Victura’s long term goal with Six Days lies in multiplayer. While many will see that as a sensible goal to make the game more sociable or approachable, or fun, the premise suffers from a conflict of interests. How in the hell is it possible to reconcile fun with Fallujah? I truly believe this focus on making Phantom Fury into a coop tactical shooter serves to the concepts detriment. Nothing in game even remotely draws responses beyond the usual game banter - no opportunity can exist in a setting like this to encourage anything otherwise. Content creators are hyping Six Days now - and as more content rolls in I know they’ll go right back to doing so. But that’s all it is - hype. It will die. Nothing about this is a game changer, nor does anything seem so far to suggest it will be so moving forward.

I have grave concerns about this games execution, and fear it will simply fall by the wayside as just another tactical shooter with fancy Marine paint. Coupled with the fact you’ve recently advertised the position of Director of Development, along with several other positions that seem integral to leadership, it signals potential trouble behind the scenes.

I hope to God I am wrong and you pull the rabbit out of the hat. I hope I eat my words one day. But I have not been this concerned about this game since it was cancelled. Now that it’s back and I see it’s potential fate, I almost wish it was never revived.

[AmperCamper]

Thanks for sharing your concerns with us, agg.

We have more content coming as we progress through Early Access, and we've acknowledged that solo players in the community were definitely left asking for more. We hope our first narrative Campaign mission alongside friendly AI that can accompany you into our Fireteam mode demonstrates our focus is not solely on multiplayer.

There are certainly areas of what we've currently released that need polishing (and we're working on that), but we've barely scratched the surface of what's to come.

[Kean_1]

Back in February you were vehemently against co-op in SDiF saying it was a mistake both from a moral standpoint and a practical one. .....so it's fair to say your current stance comes as no surprise. I disagreed back then and still do.

As far as the "hype" from those YT influencers, several of them happen to be ones that have a good reputation in the gaming community and some I have personally followed respected over the years for their feedback. In those particular cases I didn't get a feeling of anything disingenuous on their part (e.g. "hype" vs. honest opinion) when talking about the game, how it compared to their own combat experience, how it could be improved, etc.

Obviously, I can't sit here and tell you that the campaign or even the team AI will deliver the experience you desire. The fact is, no one knows that yet but then again, even if it lives up to what others desire it may still fall short in your eyes.

I hope there is something for you to enjoy when the game finally releases as a complete product but to be honest, I know we're not aligned on what we want from this game.
Personally, I am glad with the current direction of SDiF. I know my friends and I can't wait to play it together.

Will my opinion and that of my friends change over time? .....perhaps. There is still a lot of content to come so we'll just have to see. There is simply not enough here for us now to make a final judgment.

[WetDogBreath]

How can a player have 965 clears already?
It does not pass the smell test.

[BobTank63]

I am happy there is a community of dedicated players on the discord who will stand by you till the bitter end. Support is good, and the devs worked hard on this project. However, I am not one of them anymore. I’ve played enough and seen enough that I no longer have complete faith in Six Days as a project.

Though I have no doubt the teams intention in the beginning was to deliver some sort of empathy-driven experience, the current state of the game leaves little to chew on to suggest that is the real goal.

Yes - I am aware folks say early access is hardly fair to judge a game on. I disagree. You put a product out there in an unfinished state. It is a product nonetheless and is every bit as susceptible to criticism as anything else. And guess what? That unfinished product is what the world saw. Outside of Youtube influencers, the reaction was a big, fat, whopping "meh". A far, far cry from what all of us anticipated.

It seems based on everything that Victura’s long term goal with Six Days lies in multiplayer. While many will see that as a sensible goal to make the game more sociable or approachable, or fun, the premise suffers from a conflict of interests. How in the hell is it possible to reconcile fun with Fallujah? I truly believe this focus on making Phantom Fury into a coop tactical shooter serves to the concepts detriment. Nothing in game even remotely draws responses beyond the usual game banter - no opportunity can exist in a setting like this to encourage anything otherwise. Content creators are hyping Six Days now - and as more content rolls in I know they’ll go right back to doing so. But that’s all it is - hype. It will die. Nothing about this is a game changer, nor does anything seem so far to suggest it will be so moving forward.

I have grave concerns about this games execution, and fear it will simply fall by the wayside as just another tactical shooter with fancy Marine paint. Coupled with the fact you’ve recently advertised the position of Director of Development, along with several other positions that seem integral to leadership, it signals potential trouble behind the scenes.

I hope to God I am wrong and you pull the rabbit out of the hat. I hope I eat my words one day. But I have not been this concerned about this game since it was cancelled. Now that it’s back and I see it’s potential fate, I almost wish it was never revived.

The reaction was not “meh”. Game is currently hovering around 85% Positive on Steam and it hit the top of the Top Sellers list on release week. That’s a massive success considering what this game went up against. Yes, player count is now down, but I attribute that to a slow content release schedule more than anything about the game actually being mediocre. It’s extremely fun to play, and there’s nothing wrong IMO with having fun while learning about history.

[aggimajera]

I am happy there is a community of dedicated players on the discord who will stand by you till the bitter end. Support is good, and the devs worked hard on this project. However, I am not one of them anymore. I’ve played enough and seen enough that I no longer have complete faith in Six Days as a project.

Though I have no doubt the teams intention in the beginning was to deliver some sort of empathy-driven experience, the current state of the game leaves little to chew on to suggest that is the real goal.

Yes - I am aware folks say early access is hardly fair to judge a game on. I disagree. You put a product out there in an unfinished state. It is a product nonetheless and is every bit as susceptible to criticism as anything else. And guess what? That unfinished product is what the world saw. Outside of Youtube influencers, the reaction was a big, fat, whopping "meh". A far, far cry from what all of us anticipated.

It seems based on everything that Victura’s long term goal with Six Days lies in multiplayer. While many will see that as a sensible goal to make the game more sociable or approachable, or fun, the premise suffers from a conflict of interests. How in the hell is it possible to reconcile fun with Fallujah? I truly believe this focus on making Phantom Fury into a coop tactical shooter serves to the concepts detriment. Nothing in game even remotely draws responses beyond the usual game banter - no opportunity can exist in a setting like this to encourage anything otherwise. Content creators are hyping Six Days now - and as more content rolls in I know they’ll go right back to doing so. But that’s all it is - hype. It will die. Nothing about this is a game changer, nor does anything seem so far to suggest it will be so moving forward.

I have grave concerns about this games execution, and fear it will simply fall by the wayside as just another tactical shooter with fancy Marine paint. Coupled with the fact you’ve recently advertised the position of Director of Development, along with several other positions that seem integral to leadership, it signals potential trouble behind the scenes.

I hope to God I am wrong and you pull the rabbit out of the hat. I hope I eat my words one day. But I have not been this concerned about this game since it was cancelled. Now that it’s back and I see it’s potential fate, I almost wish it was never revived.

The reaction was not “meh”. Game is currently hovering around 85% Positive on Steam and it hit the top of the Top Sellers list on release week. That’s a massive success considering what this game went up against. Yes, player count is now down, but I attribute that to a slow content release schedule more than anything about the game actually being mediocre. It’s extremely fun to play, and there’s nothing wrong IMO with having fun while learning about history.

I’ve got the opposite views to you in just about every way.

Sure, but how many of those reviews stemmed from players who cast a rebellious review against the left? Guaranteed many of those reviews were made with the concept instead of the product. The player count is down because of both a lack of content, sure. But there’s an inability to retain players because of the fact the mechanics simply aren’t there. The game is both mechanically unfinished and lacks substance, and I fear the only players left before too long will be diehards. And given the state of what’s been put in the game so far there is concern that the new content delivered will be equally untested and unrefined.

I also do not understand why every person who defends the game defends the lack of content because of EA like it’s some sort of little thing. It’s a huge issue and will serve to dissuade those out of the loop from buying.

And learn history? Are we playing the same game? At present the only thing historical is the opening videos - the gameplay itself offers little in the way of history playing out. And again, I don’t believe one should have fun in a game like this. We should be stressed and horrified at what we’ve learned. This just plain old ain’t right.

[BobTank63]

I am happy there is a community of dedicated players on the discord who will stand by you till the bitter end. Support is good, and the devs worked hard on this project. However, I am not one of them anymore. I’ve played enough and seen enough that I no longer have complete faith in Six Days as a project.

Though I have no doubt the teams intention in the beginning was to deliver some sort of empathy-driven experience, the current state of the game leaves little to chew on to suggest that is the real goal.

Yes - I am aware folks say early access is hardly fair to judge a game on. I disagree. You put a product out there in an unfinished state. It is a product nonetheless and is every bit as susceptible to criticism as anything else. And guess what? That unfinished product is what the world saw. Outside of Youtube influencers, the reaction was a big, fat, whopping "meh". A far, far cry from what all of us anticipated.

It seems based on everything that Victura’s long term goal with Six Days lies in multiplayer. While many will see that as a sensible goal to make the game more sociable or approachable, or fun, the premise suffers from a conflict of interests. How in the hell is it possible to reconcile fun with Fallujah? I truly believe this focus on making Phantom Fury into a coop tactical shooter serves to the concepts detriment. Nothing in game even remotely draws responses beyond the usual game banter - no opportunity can exist in a setting like this to encourage anything otherwise. Content creators are hyping Six Days now - and as more content rolls in I know they’ll go right back to doing so. But that’s all it is - hype. It will die. Nothing about this is a game changer, nor does anything seem so far to suggest it will be so moving forward.

I have grave concerns about this games execution, and fear it will simply fall by the wayside as just another tactical shooter with fancy Marine paint. Coupled with the fact you’ve recently advertised the position of Director of Development, along with several other positions that seem integral to leadership, it signals potential trouble behind the scenes.

I hope to God I am wrong and you pull the rabbit out of the hat. I hope I eat my words one day. But I have not been this concerned about this game since it was cancelled. Now that it’s back and I see it’s potential fate, I almost wish it was never revived.

The reaction was not “meh”. Game is currently hovering around 85% Positive on Steam and it hit the top of the Top Sellers list on release week. That’s a massive success considering what this game went up against. Yes, player count is now down, but I attribute that to a slow content release schedule more than anything about the game actually being mediocre. It’s extremely fun to play, and there’s nothing wrong IMO with having fun while learning about history.

I’ve got the opposite views to you in just about every way.

Sure, but how many of those reviews stemmed from players who cast a rebellious review against the left? Guaranteed many of those reviews were made with the concept instead of the product. The player count is down because of both a lack of content, sure. But there’s an inability to retain players because of the fact the mechanics simply aren’t there. The game is both mechanically unfinished and lacks substance, and I fear the only players left before too long will be diehards. And given the state of what’s been put in the game so far there is concern that the new content delivered will be equally untested and unrefined.

I also do not understand why every person who defends the game defends the lack of content because of EA like it’s some sort of little thing. It’s a huge issue and will serve to dissuade those out of the loop from buying.

And learn history? Are we playing the same game? At present the only thing historical is the opening videos - the gameplay itself offers little in the way of history playing out. And again, I don’t believe one should have fun in a game like this. We should be stressed and horrified at what we’ve learned. This just plain old ain’t right.

"Sure, but how many of those reviews stemmed from players who cast a rebellious review against the left?" Not a lot of the reviews I've seen have that tone. Mostly seems to be praising the gameplay.

" But there’s an inability to retain players because of the fact the mechanics simply aren’t there." I beg to differ. The mechanics are there, just the content is lacking. Most of the comments on the steam forums are either complaining about a lack of content, and rest are either the flinch mechanic, audio issues, or internet troubles. Not a whole lot of complaints about how the game actually plays.

I'm not excusing the lack of content. I think we need more content, and we need it now. Because the game is really good in its present state and I want to play more scenarios.

"And again, I don’t believe one should have fun in a game like this." I guess that's your opinion then. I will note that generally making a game purposefully unfun is not a good strategy for a game company to take if they actually want to stay in business. I want the game to be continually supported for the long term, and that doesn't happen if Highwire goes out of business because people think the game isn't fun and don't buy it.

[Kean_1]

I’ve got the opposite views to you in just about every way.

......And learn history? Are we playing the same game? At present the only thing historical is the opening videos - the gameplay itself offers little in the way of history playing out. And again, I don’t believe one should have fun in a game like this. We should be stressed and horrified at what we’ve learned. This just plain old ain’t right.

Since when has a game been made that wasn't fun and was successful? You say your concerned that they are losing players interest because of EA, lack of content, etc. but how many more do you think you would lose if it wasn't entertaining?

I know you think co-op was a mistake, you have issues of it being identified as a shooter (albeit with authentic elements), etc. The fact is though, it is a game that is being marketed to people who play them. While they have a message and story to tell, it still has to have that fun factor. ....aspects that do make it entertaining otherwise it would never sell and the story these folks wanted tell would not be told.

IMO, you can make a game that can be both fun and educational. Even vets are playing and enjoying the gameplay experience and making comparisons to their own experiences. In other words, they are having fun. ......is that wrong? That's the debate I guess.

I think you're right that you're not on the same page as some of us but then again, I think your idea of what the game should be is not what their target audience would want. I don't think this game will necessarily entice the masses but it will interest a certain demographic who tend to like more authentic gameplay mechanics in their military shooters. .....milsim or milsim-like if you will.

Even if this game is wildly successful and caters to vets and hardcore military game fans alike, I'll wager that you will still take issue with it and that's fine. There are some who think the it should have never been made into a game and I get the feeling that you have a foot in both camps. I don't agree but then again, folks are entitled to their opinion.