On one hand, yes. I too felt there was a bit too much vitriol before launch.I can't help but kinda pity the game. Its not a game I'd be interested in or one that's particularly good, but the discussion doesn't seem about that. From the very start it was about practically the whole internet wanted the game to fail and that nothing the devs could have said or done would be able to overcome this.
And I get it. Live service no one wanted, and one that also took the hype slot at the game award. I get the frosty reception. But the sheer hatred is probably a bit much.
Despite being a live service shooter it does look a bit more unique than Concord at least.
However, they got nearly 100k players basically directly at launch. The vitriol did not prevent people from trying it out. Even bad publicity is publicity and all that - this worked.
The bad after launch reviews which are mostly about stuff the game award trailer did not show (3 v 3, maps to big, characters feel samey, disjointed mess of objectives etc.) are what the game earned for itself. So, yeah, i don't feel too bad.
The game definitely gots its chance to prove the naysayers wrong. If it had been good, it would have had enough attention to explode in userbase now.
------------------
And yes, it looks way better than Concord. If i was into hero-shooters (i am not), i would have tried it out today as well. But unfortunately "better than Concord" is not enough in the highly competitive shooter market.
