Wolfenstein Youngblood (PC, PS4, Xbox One, Switch)

Sudden Valley

Its pity that this game is getting lukewarm reviews, I've enjoyed the previous games. I thought it was just a few of the usual youtubers that judge games for their politics but no it seems the mechanics of the game especially the co-op AI is pretty bad. Perhaps they will be able to patch this out later.

deceit

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Its pity that this game is getting lukewarm reviews, I've enjoyed the previous games. I thought it was just a few of the usual youtubers that judge games for their politics but no it seems the mechanics of the game especially the co-op AI is pretty bad. Perhaps they will be able to patch this out later.

Their first patch was to protect their micro transactions so I doubt that will be their focus.
Look at fallout 76 for a future patch quality on this game.

gimli2112

Skillups video was entitled something like Why in the name of God did they do this?
I didn't watch it but between that an Echelon Games' video I'd be inclined not to risk it.

gizmo

I can't understand why some folk are confused as to why Bethesda wanted this.

• Wolfenstein III is still in development, it'll most likely be a next gen title.
• The Wolfenstein licence is a well known and relatively bankable IP.
• They have resources available in both MachineGames and Arkane Lyon.
• Co-op orientated, RPG-lite titles (with vanity-based micro-transactions) are quite "in" right now.
• Their last tranche of single-player only games didn't sell particularly well - Dishonored is "resting", Prey never made much of a mark and Wolfenstein II sold markedly less than its predecessor.
• Development of a full-blown, full priced version of these "live service" titles requires significant investment in terms of both time and resources to compete.

So what do we get? This.

Is it necessarily what fans of the previous titles want? Probably not, but the reasoning behind it is pretty obvious.

Retr0gamer

Zenimax needed to support those games a lot better. Prey was sent out to die and there was very little fanfare or hype for the last two dishonored games. They were fine, even great games but only became cult games because of lack of publisher support.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Zenimax needed to support those games a lot better. Prey was sent out to die and there was very little fanfare or hype for the last two dishonored games. They were fine, even great games but only became cult games because of lack of publisher support.

While there was definitely a notable lack of advertising for Prey, Dishonored 2 had a fairly meaty campaign with ad banners across most major sites, multiple TV spots featuring licenced music and, in terms of real world marketing, a fairly large scale bus and bus stance postering roll-out.

The danger with ramping things up is well understood at this point though. Increased marketing budgets can cause a projects budget to balloon and if those campaigns don't result into notable sales bumps, it can see the end of an entire series. It's a pretty ****ty situation obviously but in this context, I can at least understand how there may have been some head scratching when it came to properly pushing Prey to a larger audience.

Venom

gizmo wrote: »

While there was definitely a notable lack of advertising for Prey, Dishonored 2 had a fairly meaty campaign with ad banners across most major sites, multiple TV spots featuring licenced music and, in terms of real world marketing, a fairly large scale bus and bus stance postering roll-out.

The danger with ramping things up is well understood at this point though. Increased marketing budgets can cause a projects budget to balloon and if those campaigns don't result into notable sales bumps, it can see the end of an entire series. It's a pretty ****ty situation obviously but in this context, I can at least understand how there may have been some head scratching when it came to properly pushing Prey to a larger audience.

I always felt Prey underperforming from a sales perspective, was due to how secretive the devs tried to be about every element of that game from its plot, it's gameplay mechanics and it really being such an amazing spiritual successor to System Shock 2.

TerrorFirmer

gizmo wrote: »

I can't understand why some folk are confused as to why Bethesda wanted this.

All valid points but some people are being overly and unfairly harsh on Youngblood. Most irritatingly, people proclaiming it to be 'total crap' without having even played it.

1) The RPG-lite elements are quite interesting and compliment the co-op style gameplay and totally new non-linear approach to the story progression.

Some people want to basically say "**** them for doing something different", but I'd also wager that a straight forward, linear campaign re-suing most assests would be written off as competent but boring in the aftermath of New World Order, Old Blood and New Collossus.

It's something new to the franchise, it's interesting and reasonably well done - the fact you can pick and chose mission progression, and that you can build up to a confrontation or go in straight off the bat with all guns blazing is quite interesting, especially in the context of being a co-op.

On that note, the enemies having levels plays into that. The game doesn't stop you from railroading the most direct line through the story, but you pay heavily for it. It means you can play the game your way. Notwithstanding that levels vary - no matter what you do or where you go, there are always 'low-level enemies', just specifically higher armoured/armed units sprinkled into the tougher sections.

Really, not much different to many RPG-leaning titles that don't restrict your movement, but make it incredibly punishing to attempt too much, too soon...but it's still possible. Dead Island is a game that Youngblood reminded me of actually.

2) It's built entirely around Co-op gameplay, and is functional as an SP title but not designed that way, nor particularly good that way. Not very fair to lambast it as having weak AI, it's not much different to numerous other games like Left4Dead, Deathwing, World War Z, Payday, etc in this regard.

Again, it's really a different game to its precedessors and aims to offer something midly innovative within the franchise. Personally I commend them for it, another short linear storyline SP re-using assests from Wolf2 would've frankly been very stale to me personally.

3) Finally, it's a €30 game. Can't be held to the same standards as a €60 title straight off the bat.

I really would ask people to view it through the proper lens. A co-op side-step of an experience in the franchise that offers something innovative in allowing you to chose how you progress through your story path.

Not as a linear SP story campaign, or a Wolfenstein 3 (or even 2.5). If you view it that way, which it was never intended to be, you'll probably inevitably be disappointed.

Also don't get the hullabaloo about micro-transactions. Unless I'm missing something, you can straight-buy currency for character and weapons skins, but they can also be unlocked via grinding. It's really not a big deal and it's hardly something new, it doesn't affect gameplay whatsoever.

I've played 4 hours so far with a friend and we're really enjoying it. It's certainly not perfect but it's a very solid and satisfying co-op experience.

gizmo

Venom wrote: »

I always felt Prey underperforming from a sales perspective, was due to how secretive the devs tried to be about every element of that game from its plot, it's gameplay mechanics and it really being such an amazing spiritual successor to System Shock 2.

Generally speaking, that would pretty much fall under the purview of marketing. From the initial decision to use the Prey IP for a completely unrelated game, to the release of that bizarre initial gameplay trailer nine months out and following it up with, as you point out, near radio silence from the team about what their game actually is - it was a confusing mess. They tried to course correct just before launch with the release of a demo but by then it was too late.

When the most common question being asked about your game in the lead up to release is, "What is this?", you have a major problem because people are highly unlikely to want to pay £50 to answer that question for themselves.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

All valid points but some people are being overly and unfairly harsh on Youngblood.

Just to note, I didn't intend those comments to apply to either the quality of the game or people's reactions to that particular aspect. You're quite correct though, at the very least it really should be viewed for what it is, a spin-off of the mainline series, not a sequel.

Azza

Every time a spin off game is released you get a vocal crowd shouting I never asked for this, its become a MEME since that Deus Ex mobile spin off. Its fine to be critical of a game if its not good, but saying no was asking for a spin off games misses the point that there is nothing stopping a spin off from being good game in its own right and perhaps broadening the appeal of the brand . Nor does developing a spin off game mean development on the main series has to end or can't be done in conjunction. Mario fans don't shout I never asked for this when a Mario Kart game is released. Hell Mario himself is a spin off from Donkey Kong.

Venom

gizmo wrote: »

When the most common question being asked about your game in the lead up to release is, "What is this?", you have a major problem because people are highly unlikely to want to pay £50 to answer that question for themselves.

I remember a few months after its launch, asking a mate who mentioned he picked it up during a sale what it was about and his "its a System Shock 2 style game with shape-changing aliens instead of a crazy AI" answered all my questions. Crazy how such a simple explanation was handled so badly by both the devs and publisher.

deceit

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

All valid points but some people are being overly and unfairly harsh on Youngblood. Most irritatingly, people proclaiming it to be 'total crap' without having even played it.

1) The RPG-lite elements are quite interesting and compliment the co-op style gameplay and totally new non-linear approach to the story progression.

The RPG-lite elements could've been interesting if they were implemented in a fun way but they are atrocious in this game (I purchased and refunded this game, its the only game I've ever got a refund on).
It feels like these were implemented in a way to annoy the gamer enough that they will buy microtransactions to make it less of a GRIND.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Some people want to basically say "**** them for doing something different", but I'd also wager that a straight forward, linear campaign re-suing most assests would be written off as competent but boring in the aftermath of New World Order, Old Blood and New Collossus.

I would have bought it and been happy with more of the same, especially over this junk. I also would have been happy if they implemented something new and interesting but they didn't.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It's something new to the franchise, it's interesting and reasonably well done - the fact you can pick and chose mission progression, and that you can build up to a confrontation or go in straight off the bat with all guns blazing is quite interesting, especially in the context of being a co-op.
On that note, the enemies having levels plays into that. The game doesn't stop you from railroading the most direct line through the story, but you pay heavily for it. It means you can play the game your way. Notwithstanding that levels vary - no matter what you do or where you go, there are always 'low-level enemies', just specifically higher armoured/armed units sprinkled into the tougher sections.

Really, not much different to many RPG-leaning titles that don't restrict your movement, but make it incredibly punishing to attempt too much, too soon...but it's still possible. Dead Island is a game that Youngblood reminded me of actually.

I really feel like we played different games.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

2) It's built entirely around Co-op gameplay, and is functional as an SP title but not designed that way, nor particularly good that way. Not very fair to lambast it as having weak AI, it's not much different to numerous other games like Left4Dead, Deathwing, World War Z, Payday, etc in this regard.

Again, it's really a different game to its precedessors and aims to offer something midly innovative within the franchise. Personally I commend them for it, another short linear storyline SP re-using assests from Wolf2 would've frankly been very stale to me personally.

This shouldve been my ideal game. My preferred way to play is Co-op with friends but I would never want to convince a friend to buy this. You would be better off just going back to an old game like borderlands (My favourite series) or The division which do grind mechanics right and make them fun.
This game just screams of a quick crash grab like fallout 76. Selling junk on the strength of the good will built up through previous titles.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

3) Finally, it's a €30 game. Can't be held to the same standards as a €60 title straight off the bat.

At any price I would consider it a poor game that looks pretty.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Also don't get the hullabaloo about micro-transactions. Unless I'm missing something, you can straight-buy currency for character and weapons skins, but they can also be unlocked via grinding. It's really not a big deal and it's hardly something new, it doesn't affect gameplay whatsoever.

I've played 4 hours so far with a friend and we're really enjoying it. It's certainly not perfect but it's a very solid and satisfying co-op experience.

Microtransactions shouldn't be in a singleplayer full stop, especially ones where they tempt publishers to make a worse game than they otherwise would have so they can charge more for micro transactions to make the game more fun. (Assassins creed being another example)

TerrorFirmer

TBH it sounds like you played the game single player. It's not how it was designed nor how it should be reviewed, realistically. Like when Left4Dead came out, it wasn't lauded on its single player component, and that was at a point when many people still didn't have sufficient connectivity to enjoy MP titles.

I don't agree at all with your feeling that microtransctions are geared towards making players pay out rather than grind. The 'grind' in the game is really not hard nor challenging, only 5 hours in and I've already upgraded most of the guns fully and some abilities, full abilities are next. In fact the grind is no different than most other RPG-leaning titles, with or without microstransactions. It's certainly no Battlefront 2 and is very fair.

I also feel that if I was playing this on my own rather than with a friend, I'd get bored in about an hour. The game is simply not built to be an SP title.

Venom

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

TBH it sounds like you played the game single player. It's not how it was designed nor how it should be reviewed, realistically. Like when Left4Dead came out, it wasn't lauded on its single player component, and that was at a point when many people still didn't have sufficient connectivity to enjoy MP titles.

I don't agree at all with your feeling that microtransctions are geared towards making players pay out rather than grind. The 'grind' in the game is really not hard nor challenging, only 5 hours in and I've already upgraded most of the guns fully and some abilities, full abilities are next. In fact the grind is no different than most other RPG-leaning titles, with or without microstransactions. It's certainly no Battlefront 2 and is very fair.

I also feel that if I was playing this on my own rather than with a friend, I'd get bored in about an hour. The game is simply not built to be an SP title.

A large number of the reviewers who gave the more negative reviews, mention the fact the co-op mode out and out didn't work for them so they had no option but to play it solo. This game is advertised as being for both solo and co-op players, so writing off how god awful the AI is in this game because its a co-op game is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, not to mention its not just the AI-controlled sister who locks up but enemy mobs as well.

It's also funny you mention microtransactions not being that big of a deal yet the first patch removed a cheat to bypass their need yet serious issues like AI pathing, save points and bullet spongey mobs gets ignored. Sure was a big enough of a deal to Bethesda.

TerrorFirmer

To be honest, I've had zero issues with AI pathing, save points or spongy enemies. People appear to equating spongey enemies with the enemy levelling system, when in many cases a) Wolf2 had major sponge enemies also and b) certain enemies are weak to certain kinds of ammo rather than being enherently artificially inflated.

Fair enough if people had issues with co-op, but I'm crossplaying with Steam/Bethesda and zero issues also.

Also on the co-op point, all games that have AI single player are advertisted as SP/Co-op. Again, look at popular titles - Left4Dead, Deathwing, WWZ whatever - all work in SP, but are shadows of the genuine intended co-op experience. Seems unfair to single out YB for this, though admittedly if co-op was broken on launch for whatever reason, entirely valid complaint.

deceit

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

To be honest, I've had zero issues with AI pathing, save points or spongy enemies. People appear to equating spongey enemies with the enemy levelling system, when in many cases a) Wolf2 had major sponge enemies also and b) certain enemies are weak to certain kinds of ammo rather than being enherently artificially inflated.

This again leads to it appearing you and I had a different game.
If I didn't know better I would think you got one of the copies the mainstream journalists got. Are you a journalist by chance? :pac::P

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Fair enough if people had issues with co-op, but I'm crossplaying with Steam/Bethesda and zero issues also.

Admittedly I didn't try it in co-op, I bought this game with the intention to play it co-op. If I enjoyed this game I would have spent a lot of time playing on it. I can't imagine the mechanics change much bar the removal of the dumb as nails companion AI.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Also on the co-op point, all games that have AI single player are advertisted as SP/Co-op. Again, look at popular titles - Left4Dead, Deathwing, WWZ whatever - all work in SP, but are shadows of the genuine intended co-op experience. Seems unfair to single out YB for this, though admittedly if co-op was broken on launch for whatever reason, entirely valid complaint.

I loved Left4Dead 1 and 2 in singleplayer. I bought 4 copies of both on the strength of the singpleplayer experience and had 4 pc's for gaming with mates. I built 4 pc's to run all copies also. That was a lot of fun, hopefully another will be made. With living in Germany away from friends this would have been a perfect game for me to keep in playing with mates.
I've never heard of Deathwing and never played WWZ.
Everything about the game is wrong, it just doesn't gel together for a fun experience. I don't think anyone one would put this in the same league as left4dead even with it being dated now.

Edit:
I just looked at Deathwing and it looks very interesting.

Chris_Heilong

The mains characters horrid personality is what is putting me off.

TerrorFirmer

All fair points I suppose. People will have different opinions. Not gonna rethread old ground but I'm playing it in co-op with a friend and we're both loving it. That doesn't mean we think it's a knockout game, but it's certainly very solid and we'd both echo the 7/10 reviews.

Flawed (and there most certainly are major flaws), but enjoyable, co-op shooter, and at €30 for a new AAA title, it's really hard to say it's not worth buying for us.

RE: main characters personalities, I can see why some people would be put off, but it's fairly keeping in like with the wacky nature of Wolfenstein, particularly since Wolf 2. It's also not as CGI driven, understandable given the budget nature. Personally I really like the characters and voice acting, even the silly little cues like the routines in the loading elevators.

Again, I've not tried SP, but I would agree that based on what I've seen in CO-OP, I'd say it'd be a horrible SP title.

martingriff

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

All fair points I suppose. People will have different opinions. Not gonna rethread old ground but I'm playing it in co-op with a friend and we're both loving it. That doesn't mean we think it's a knockout game, but it's certainly very solid and we'd both echo the 7/10 reviews.

Flawed (and there most certainly are major flaws), but enjoyable, co-op shooter, and at €30 for a new AAA title, it's really hard to say it's not worth buying for us.

RE: main characters personalities, I can see why some people would be put off, but it's fairly keeping in like with the wacky nature of Wolfenstein, particularly since Wolf 2. It's also not as CGI driven, understandable given the budget nature. Personally I really like the characters and voice acting, even the silly little cues like the routines in the loading elevators.

Again, I've not tried SP, but I would agree that based on what I've seen in CO-OP, I'd say it'd be a horrible SP title.

Its not horrible as SP as that is how I am playing it but it does get a bit distracing when you think someone is shooting at you and you turn and remember there is a 2nd character.

Spear

I've bought it and played through it, finishing the main campaign.

It's okay. It's mediocre, not great, but neither is as terrible as some clickbaity youtubers are making out.

It took me 12 hours to complete, with a decent level of side missions done. For €30 that's not amazing, but equally there's plenty of triple AAA titles that last around the same or less for twice the price.

That said, it would have been better off as an expansion, not a standalone title. I can't imagine there's a big market for people entering the franchise at this entry.

In terms of gameplay, it's a mixed bag of some good ideas, but some really dumb ones.

I liked:

the open(ish) world areas. Exploring is rewarded with goodies and collectibles.

the fact that the two main characters are two over enthusiastic dumbasses instead of some played out grimdark cardboard cutout. But this aspect will be a very subjective thing.

I didn't like:

the difficulty is very uneven. When enemies scale to higher levels you can find your weapons very ineffective. This is compounded by overuse of the heavier enemies, and little of the normal soldiers. The result is that enemies can suddenly become bullet sponges with no warning.

The partner AI is crap and unreliable. I've had it sit there next to me flat out ignoring requests to res me.


Overall, wait till it's discounted, which won't be long. And hopefully there'll be a few patches to even out the rough edges by then too.

Azza

I think I will still pick this up but I'll wait a while for a few patches and a discounted price.

Homelander

Playing with a friend and it's decent fun. Not sure I would play it by myself, would get very repetitive.

Cordell

It's ok-ish but not quite Wolfenstein. It was fun playing it but I doubt I'll replay it as I did with the other in the (rebooted) series.
The weapon vs armor type mechanics is atrocious. The lack of checkpoints for the boss fights is absolutely insane, it makes you run through the level instead of engaging, which is anything else but Wolfenstein.

Ardent

€6 or thereabouts currently on CDKeys.
https://www.cdkeys.com/wolfenstein-youngblood-pc-bethesda-cd-key

The reviews are terrible, but worth a go at this price?

Cordell

Sure it can be fun. They tweaked some of the things that were so bad, including the penalty for using the wrong ammo, but overall can be a fun game once you get over its quirks.

Wolfenstein YB is on Gamepass for PC so if you haven't subscribed before you could get access for a month for €1 and play some other games while you're at it.