Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League (PS5/XSX|S/PC). Rocksteady. Out now.

Another big name release that isn't up to par at launch. If this is surprising to you at this point I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not saying these games aren't still fun to play, but if publishers think there are enough dozy plonkers out there happy to pay £60-£100 on half-finished games they're just going to keep on doing it.

Open Critic & Metacritic: 57% - https://opencritic.com/game/14351/suici ... ice-league & 63% - https://www.metacritic.com/game/suicide ... ce-league/

Push Square wrote:Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League is a complicated game. It's tough not to think about what could have been if Rocksteady opted for another traditional single player title — especially since the split personalities at this game's heart stop it from reaching the heights of the developer's previous works. That said, despite all of our complaints, we can't deny that the game's fun. The story lacks the payoff but remains engaging throughout, the traversal-tinged combat is genuinely fantastic, it’s a blast to play with friends, it’s one of the best looking games on PS5, it runs like an absolute dream, and, as far as live-service games go, it’s shaping up to be a meaty and generous offering. There is a bittersweet feeling surrounding Suicide Squad, and that sentiment will remain for a lot of players, but it's hard to say that Rocksteady entirely missed the mark with this big gamble.

Maybe this text sums up what could be a common issue with reviews for the game; for some reviewers, the fact that this isn't a totally offline, single-player title could cloud their verdict. Well, I say cloud... of course, that's maybe not really the case, as anyone is free to moan about the game not being an offline, single-player title if they want to.

But perhaps a review should be based upon what is rather than what it isn't. I mean, you look at a chunk of that summary and you kinda think it must be a very good game:

...we can't deny that the game's fun. The story lacks the payoff but remains engaging throughout, the traversal-tinged combat is genuinely fantastic, it’s a blast to play with friends, it’s one of the best looking games on PS5, it runs like an absolute dream, and, as far as live-service games go, it’s shaping up to be a meaty and generous offering...

So... why the frowns, then? Well...

...There is a bittersweet feeling surrounding Suicide Squad, and that sentiment will remain for a lot of players...

...and that's the crux of it. The game isn't a single-player, offline title and this means that - no matter how decent the multiplayer, online action is - it's gonna get a rough ride from some.

And that's just the way it is. Different strokes.

jawa_ wrote:

Push Square wrote:Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League is a complicated game. It's tough not to think about what could have been if Rocksteady opted for another traditional single player title — especially since the split personalities at this game's heart stop it from reaching the heights of the developer's previous works. That said, despite all of our complaints, we can't deny that the game's fun. The story lacks the payoff but remains engaging throughout, the traversal-tinged combat is genuinely fantastic, it’s a blast to play with friends, it’s one of the best looking games on PS5, it runs like an absolute dream, and, as far as live-service games go, it’s shaping up to be a meaty and generous offering. There is a bittersweet feeling surrounding Suicide Squad, and that sentiment will remain for a lot of players, but it's hard to say that Rocksteady entirely missed the mark with this big gamble.

Maybe this text sums up what could be a common issue with reviews for the game; for some reviewers, the fact that this isn't a totally offline, single-player title could cloud their verdict. Well, I say cloud... of course, that's maybe not really the case, as anyone is free to moan about the game not being an offline, single-player title if they want to.

But perhaps a review should be based upon what is rather than what it isn't. I mean, you look at a chunk of that summary and you kinda think it must be a very good game:

...we can't deny that the game's fun. The story lacks the payoff but remains engaging throughout, the traversal-tinged combat is genuinely fantastic, it’s a blast to play with friends, it’s one of the best looking games on PS5, it runs like an absolute dream, and, as far as live-service games go, it’s shaping up to be a meaty and generous offering...

So... why the frowns, then? Well...

...There is a bittersweet feeling surrounding Suicide Squad, and that sentiment will remain for a lot of players...

...and that's the crux of it. The game isn't a single-player, offline title and this means that - no matter how decent the multiplayer, online action is - it's gonna get a rough ride from some.

And that's just the way it is. Different strokes.

It's a game mired in design philosophies that are about a gen-behind at this point. It's a fancy looking XB1/PS4 game.

It's a game built around the direction of WB who have been vocal about wanting all their games to be live services.

It's a game that has every shitty buzz-word in the industry around it. It's open-world, it's a looter-shooter, it's a 4-player co-op game.
It's everything I strawberry floating hate with AAA gaming all wrapped up in one shitty Warner Bros shaped package.

Oh and we're well past the "cosmetics are fine" stage of things. Cosmetics are the wedge in the door. Cosmetics are the "acceptable" face of micro-transactions when all they are effectively designed to do is create FOMO and a "haves/have nots" dynamic, especially in MP games where kids are legitimately bullied at school if they use the default skins.

It's not just that it's not another single-player game, its more that we've had 3 excellent games in this universe from this dev and we've been waiting a long time for their next game. So when that next game is a cynical, transparent attempt at leeching money from their player-base people rightly call them out and tell them "no".

They pulled the same gooseberry fool with Shadow of War. I was so looking forward to that game, then the lootbox stuff came out and to this day I've never so much as installed it (I think I got it in a humble bundle at some point). I refuse to engage with it. Same with Battlefront II.

It's the very definition of "product" or "content". It's designed for us to suck it down like good little consumers and keep coming back for more of it for as long as WB can be bothered to pay for the servers.

Ultimately it's not about the quality of the product. We know that Rocksteady are a talented developer, so I'd be very surprised if it's not at least ok. Instead it's about the homogenisation of AAA output so that all these games are effectively just slight variations on each other and people are getting strawberry floating sick of it.

I will not be buying this game. WB will not get a penny from me. I might give it a brief go if it hits Gamepass/PS+ or wherever out of curiosity, but I'm done enabling this gooseberry fool.

Cheeky Devlin wrote:
They pulled the same gooseberry fool with Shadow of War. I was so looking forward to that game, then the lootbox stuff came out and to this day I've never so much as installed it (I think I got it in a humble bundle at some point). I refuse to engage with it. Same with Battlefront II.

It got patched out of Shadow of War at least. And they reworked the finale which previously either involved a ridiculous amount of grinding or paying to win with lootboxes.

Memento Mori wrote:

Cheeky Devlin wrote:
They pulled the same gooseberry fool with Shadow of War. I was so looking forward to that game, then the lootbox stuff came out and to this day I've never so much as installed it (I think I got it in a humble bundle at some point). I refuse to engage with it. Same with Battlefront II.

It got patched out of Shadow of War at least. And they reworked the finale which previously either involved a ridiculous amount of grinding or paying to win with lootboxes.

Yeah I meant to mention that. They salted the well so badly I still can't be bothered with it even after they were removed.

I liked Borderlands 3 so I'm quite tempted by this.

It does look better than Gotham Knights. At least the city looks a lot more busy and brighter than GK. The story is much more interesting. But I'm very wary about dropping 70 notes on it.

I must resist and wait for the price drop.

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Instead it's about the homogenisation of AAA output so that all these games are effectively just slight variations on each other and people are getting strawberry floating sick of it.

I’ve only quoted a section to avoid wall of text but your whole post was a perfect description of why this is getting hate.

Cheeky Devlin wrote:...but I'm done enabling this gooseberry fool.

Dev, I don't don't disagree with your anger about the loot box / live service stuff. I don't like it myself; I created the "moaning about loot boxes etc" thread and I've posted plenty of stuff in it over these past years! I didn't buy SW Battlefront II because of it and I didn't get Shadows of Mordor until they reversed the loot boxes and the GOTY edition was on sale.

But "live service" doesn't have to always equal bad, imho. In this case, it doesn't seem particularly bad, with the DLC being cosmetic. Yes, there have been cases of bullying around some games because of DLC and, naturally, none of us like that. But we are never going to stop the DLC train now; the mass market accepts it and has done for years. Now that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't rail against the more egregious elements... but is that really the case with this game?

Fortnite uses a battle pass and cosmetic DLC system exactly like this game does. That isn't to say that because one game does something then all other games should, but it does make me wonder why some of the heat levelled at this game is so hot.

I think it comes back to your opening paragraphs; no matter what this game is or does, it won't get a good reception from plenty of folk because it's not a single-player, offline, no-DLC title. Personally, though, this game just doesn't feel that it has the worst of those aspects. Maybe it's a case of too many bad live service games over the past years souring the waters? I can get the thinking behind that.

FatDaz wrote:

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Instead it's about the homogenisation of AAA output so that all these games are effectively just slight variations on each other and people are getting strawberry floating sick of it.

I’ve only quoted a section to avoid wall of text but your whole post was a perfect description of why this is getting hate.

Yep. I agree with the post. Well thought out and mirrors my views. I won’t be buying.

jawa_ wrote:

Cheeky Devlin wrote:...but I'm done enabling this gooseberry fool.

Dev, I don't don't disagree with your anger about the loot box / live service stuff. I don't like it myself; I created the "moaning about loot boxes etc" thread and I've posted plenty of stuff in it over these past years! I didn't buy SW Battlefront II because of it and I didn't get Shadows of Mordor until they reversed the loot boxes and the GOTY edition was on sale.

But "live service" doesn't have to always equal bad, imho. In this case, it doesn't seem particularly bad, with the DLC being cosmetic. Yes, there have been cases of bullying around some games because of DLC and, naturally, none of us like that. But we are never going to stop the DLC train now; the mass market accepts it and has done for years. Now that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't rail against the more egregious elements... but is that really the case with this game?

Fortnite uses a battle pass and cosmetic DLC system exactly like this game does. That isn't to say that because one game does something then all other games should, but it does make me wonder why some of the heat levelled at this game is so hot.

I think it comes back to your opening paragraphs; no matter what this game is or does, it won't get a good reception from plenty of folk because it's not a single-player, offline, no-DLC title. Personally, though, this game just doesn't feel that it has the worst of those aspects. Maybe it's a case of too many bad live service games over the past years souring the waters? I can get the thinking behind that.

I get where you're coming from Jawa and you are right about Live Service not automatically being bad. But in this case I think it's more than justified.

I think for me the annoyance of it all is that after all this time a developer of Rocksteadys caliber has put out something so... uninspiring and generic in everything it does. There's nothing unique or interesting about anything they've done here.

I had feeling they had no place in saying it, WB wanted them to make the game and also made it live service for no real reason.

I'm hoping after this Rocksteady goes back to making more engaging games. But yeah, can't say I'm thrilled about paying for this... especially at that price range.

Seven wrote:I had feeling they had no place in saying it, WB wanted them to make the game and also made it live service for no real reason.

I'm hoping after this Rocksteady goes back to making more engaging games. But yeah, can't say I'm thrilled about paying for this... especially at that price range.

This is true but like Devlin says, it comes across very generic. Solid but uninspired. The type of game was likely dictated by the publisher but the actual nature of the gameplay was on them.

FatDaz wrote:

Seven wrote:I had feeling they had no place in saying it, WB wanted them to make the game and also made it live service for no real reason.

I'm hoping after this Rocksteady goes back to making more engaging games. But yeah, can't say I'm thrilled about paying for this... especially at that price range.

This is true but like Devlin says, it comes across very generic. Solid but uninspired. The type of game was likely dictated by the publisher but the actual nature of the gameplay was on them.

That's fair, yeah.

Review assessments continue to be all over the place for this; it really is proving to be divisive.

Pure Xbox liked it, though:

Rocksteady's Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League, despite all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth pre-release, has arrived in perfectly fine form. This is, at launch, one of the most polished looter shooters we've played, an action-packed superhero adventure that dishes up top-notch combat, tons of fan-service, excellent traversal (important for superheroes!), addicting loot, and plenty of surprises and shocks to boot. Yes, the story is artificially dragged out, mission types are repetitive and the store is a right royal rip-off, but the writing, the performances, core mechanics and incredible attention to detail here ensure that this is one squad of misfits who've managed to take the heat and survive intact.

Source: Pure Xbox

IGN were not fans, however:

Engaging mission design is nearly non-existent, the looter-shooter mechanics are tired and dull, and the grotesquely-repetitive postgame leaves little-to-nothing to do of interest. The result is a bit of a mess that doesn't ever impress with any of its numerous ill-conceived ideas. It's not bad, it's just disappointing from Rocksteady - pioneers of single-player story action chasing already outdated multiplayer trends. A City of Tomorrow built on the unstable foundations of yesterday.

IGN

Zilnad wrote:IGN were not fans, however...

And that"s exactly the crux of the issue in terms of how it reviews; there are huge variances of opinion and - in my humble view - I believe that the fact that the game is "live, multiplayer" is a bigger issue rather than, say, the graphics or gameplay. I'm not gonna get into the situation where we post alternative review perspectives if one appears that we don't personally like; opinion is so divided that we could probably do this for several hours.

So, yeah. I'm done with talking about this particular game in GR.

Thank God for that. We can really let rip with the negativity now

To be fair, the crux of the issue is the high standards and expectations that we had from the previous games. The disappointment in moving from that, to this.

I still think this would be a 6/10 any day of the week. But the anticipation and excitement means that we can’t judge this on an independent basis and on its 6/10 merit.

It’s just a massive disappointment from an excellent dev following amazing games. Need to play city and knight again.

Was listening to Easy Allies impressions and they say 80% of the game is jumping from roof to roof taking out grunts. They weren’t sticking the boot in or anything but watching the gameplay and seeing that over and over again it’s the first time I’ve though this must be tiresome as strawberry float.