• zikzak025@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I thought Wilds was regarded as substantially worse than World. Its ratings seem to indicate as much, at least, and Steam player counts still show World as the more actively played.

    So seems to me like they made one good game and then a cash grab retread of the same formula.

    • Annoyed_🦀 @lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Because Wilds only launched with 29 large monsters and no g/master rank, while World Iceborne is a much more complete experience, with 71 large monsters(including subspecies). Ascendance launch could bring all the player back.

      As of now there’s almost equal amount of player in both game.

      • Wimopy@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That, and it had significant performance issues for many people, along with some texture glitches. That’s why I added that little parenthetical bit about the games not being perfect on launch. World was a big shift and also had some launch issues.

        I would say that’s not down to some “design by committee” art/design choice though. I’d very much agree with issues around Capcom’s monetisation (character edit vouchers, a million cosmetic packs) and their launch model (e.g.: wait another year and have all those title updates already in). But I disagree with them being pure cash grabs that are somehow artistically stunted by some corporate process to some major degree.

        Maybe they should bring back the mandatory “gather 20 mushrooms” quest though for completeness I guess.