Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
And I mean, that's maybe where the problems lie. This game is all jank and all generics, with no specific thing to present except "OMG LOOK AT OUR GRAPHICS!!!!".
This is exactly what AAA gaming is. Some guys in suits dictate projects to make money. There's no passion behind them. They can't do anything unique or interesting because it may not make money. They just make safe games, and they're generic and boring as hell.
"potential customer hears about product for the first time after it's announced a flop"
I mean, a single player FPS... Oh it's an EA game we are talking about! NEVERMIND.
I've been hearing rumblings of people complaining about current game advertisement cycles being too long. Immortals, is a great example of one too short. Announced at Summer Game Fest and released in August(?). We don't need long Ad campaigns for old brands but if you want to market a new IP as Triple A you have to put in the work to reach unplugged gamers, and it barely reached plugged in gamers.
I also don't want to be marketed at. If it's good I'll find out organically.
And I don't want to find out about it at/before release-time. Because then I'll want to buy it on release.
That's the time the game is most buggy and least optimised (maybe also unbalanced too).
Complaining it didn't sell well enough on release is some real crybaby stuff as well.
"It didn't go exactly the best way I wanted it to go ππ"
Maybe if you market it at all so that I've actually fucking heard of it that'll help?
"a AAA single-player shooter in today's market was a truly awful idea"
Fucking what? Why? What in the actual fuck?
You have to remember that they mentally block out the idea that their game was a bag of wank.
This game was the most AA shit I've ever seen. In the PS2 days it would have got a 7.5 average from most reviewers then it would have had a not-insignificant number of people pick it up.
They are delusional for thinking a UE5 asset flip is a AAA game.
Wait for the "Body Cam" games to flood the market with their UE5 asset flips. Its all shit.
I would love an AAA single player shooter. If it is done well and fun. So no chance EA could do it
EA is a truly awful idea. I'm curious if their sports games are the only thing keeping them in business.
Well that, The Sims and the Star Wars license...
I play a lot of single player shooters. One thing they all have in common is that I know they exist, which I'm thinking could potentially be part of the problem with this one. Based on reactions in this thread it seems like a lot of people are in the same position I'm in, where the first they hear of the game is when it's being pronounced a flop. I'm getting big The Producers vibes.
Unlike many people in this thread, I actually have heard of the game. The makers of a podcast I follow loved it, and had the head of the studio on their show for a pretty frank interview, too. When I learned that there was a free demo, I decided I would give the game a try some time.
And in light of the overwhelming negativity in this thread, I did so last night. And what can I say? I spent an hour and change going through the prologue, the training and the first battle sequence, and I really enjoyed it. Movement and ~~shooting~~ slinging magic are great fun, with a diversity of spells available pretty much from the get-go. Just shoot, or throw a massive armor-breaking spell at a wave of enemies, or use a lash to pull a remote enemy close and whack them. I wouldn't have know what to expect from the 'CoD with magic' premise but it's really enjoyable so far.
The voice acting is very good, and while the facial animations are a bit uncanny valley, I am enjoying the snarky dialogues and matching facial expressions. Gina Torres has presence, and the rest of the cast so far blends in fine.
I will definitely spend some more time with the demo, and if it doesn't annoy me too much, I might just buy this. And that seems to be the feedback the devs got from many people - once players actually get their hands on it, they actually enjoy it. According ton the studio head, sales have picked up towards Christmas, and they've been getting a lot of conversions from the free demo.
I think the problem is just that, the game is... okay, not bad or good, just okay, unremarkable and forgettable.
If you want good sales you need to do something innovative and interesting, or something clichΓ© but really well done.
Taking a look at Doom 2016 (also a single player shooter) we can see the core gameplay: Shoot demons, Pick up ammo, Shoot more demons. But it's crafted so masterfully that you spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing just that.
Now with this game that I actually forgot the name mid comment, It's... well you get the ideia.
If you want good sales you need to do something innovative and interesting, or something clichΓ© but really well done.
Or a recognisable brand. Starfield got panned and still sold oodles.
Taking a look at Doom 2016 (also a single player shooter)
Case in point. Doom has a lot riding on its name and legacy, and many people will buy it just because of that.
I had to look up a video to realise this wasn't the "I guess that's something I do now" game.
Looks like a confusing mess of a game tbh. When a game's failure is blamed on it being released close to fucking Starfield, you know it never had much going for it.
If you don't have a vision, don't try to turn money into more money by making a game. Everyone loses. Dumping money on assets doesn't make your trope copy/paste any better than the other million cheap Chinese clones on an app store.
