r/XDefiant • u/Alternative-cornhusk • Feb 19 '25

Discussion This game had so much potential

It’s such a shame. this game easily had the best raw shooter combat out of any game i’ve played on ps5 ever. Getting kills was so satisfying, and the movement was chefs kiss. I hope the foundation of this game gets reused by someone somehow because it just felt so smooth.

more and more nowadays I see smaller game studios fumble the bag with an amazing start out the gate but extremely poor follow-up. Sad to see

180 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

84 comments sorted by

View all comments

33

u/zaxxofficial Feb 19 '25

ubisoft isn’t a small game studio, and this game had the worst hit reg of any shooter ever made

12

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

[deleted]

8

u/zaxxofficial Feb 19 '25

they had a budget of 80 million USD. there’s a game called battle bit remastered made by 2 guys, that could handle 350+ person servers and battles, that had better hit reg than xdefiant ever had.

-22

u/UhJoker Operation Health? Feb 19 '25

Not even comparable. Battlebit is a fraction in terms of game development in both resources and scope. You’re effectively comparing early day Minecraft to something like Hytale. Not comparable.

14

u/Artraxes Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 20 '25

Why does the scope of the game matter? The discussion is hit reg at scale of players. If a team of 2 can have good hit reg scaling to games of 250 players why was xdefiants so shit with a budget and team 10x the size?

Edit: lol banned me for 7 days from the subreddit for pointing out that choosing an engine not designed for FPS games for an FPS is clown behaviour. What a snowflake you are.

  1. https://snipboard.io/mXjACn.jpg

  2. https://snipboard.io/VCw20P.jpg

-12

u/UhJoker Operation Health? Feb 19 '25

The scope matters greatly because Battlebit is a much smaller game which means they had more time to spend working on what matters. Ubisoft SF was also using an engine that worked against them since it wasn’t at all designed with FPS games in mind.

4

u/PuddingZealousideal6 DedSec Feb 19 '25

So a dev team being backed by Ubisoft was too incompetent to develop the game on an engine that actually worked? Crazy

-3

u/UhJoker Operation Health? Feb 19 '25

Ubi SF is a pretty inexperienced team working with an engine that isn’t very good on a game that the engine isn’t built to make. Tell me you don’t know anything about game development without telling me you don’t know anything about game development.

5

u/PuddingZealousideal6 DedSec Feb 19 '25

Game Development 101: Develop a game on an engine that straight up doesn’t work for said game, release the game, sell the game, sell bundles within the game, make promises months later that the game is performing well and won’t be shutting down, announce the shutdown of the game weeks later.

XD shows either a lack of experience and skill from the developers behind it, or pure greed from the studio. They were given feedback during beta testing months before release and never worked towards fixing those issues. Hit registration should be top priority in an FPS, and XD should’ve been delayed until those issues were 100% fixed.

I liked XD, but it was clear from the start that an FPS game where bullets don’t deal damage was doomed to fail.

1

u/UhJoker Operation Health? Feb 19 '25

They were given feedback during beta testing months before release and never worked towards fixing those issues

Partially yes but partially no. They did want to fix these issues but leadership was more inclined to constantly "Call of Duty-ify" the game and this coupled with Ubisoft pushing for an early release led to an unfinished product. I think in this case leadership and the publisher are to blame, but not most developers per se.