Fake
Member
Christ dude put a spoiler lmao.
Yeah, we've got a more authentic take on their abilities in Telltale's Lego games.I don't think so.
It's hated because the gameplay is generic, everyone has a gun and jumps around as if they're flying, which makes absolute no sense with the characters, Gothan is colorfull in contrast with real Gothan, the boss battle is straight up stupid with Flash, the fastest hero alive, simply keep itself open for attacks for a time, etc.
Dude, take away the GaaS elements and the game would still look like crap. Think it's bad just because it's GaaS is pure fallacy.
Trend-chasing driven games development. Sounds about right with the way things are. I don't care for Scheier but he is right here.
False.
Change is difficult. You only change when you're forced to. The Batman liscense ate into their profits and each title was getting more expensive to make without an increase in sales ceiling.
Also, critical acclaim is basically meaningless. It doesn't pay the bills.
Yer definitely an assholeAre people honestly this sentimental, or am I just an asshole?
I don't think he minds considering he took the job. He's working with the same people he's worked with on multiple games and knows these guys.
The writing was on the wall when Sefton Hill left the studio.
Yup. Late 2022.Yup.
Wasn't it 2 founders that left?
This is a brewery post, so I might be missing something obvious, but...
WB has owned DC since 1967. Why would the license for Batman be eating into profits for any game being published by Warner Games? This would be like the Halo license being too expensive for an acquired ATVI studio if MS ever decided they wanted a different set of hands working on the property.
Also, WB bought a majority stake in Rocksteady in 2010. Why would they be "paying" anything for the license at that point?
Anyway, I hope this doesn't sink the studio, but seven years of development and closing in on nine years since their last release, the expectations are not gonna be healthy. They did for super hero games what Nolan did for super hero movies, they deserve better than this.
Yes, the combat and mobility look like a huge improvement over the Batman games.
Back in 2017 when they were put on this it probably looked like a great idea. Unfortunately when you go too deep into the rabbit hole and the expenses keep rising you only have 2 options, cut your losses or see it out to the endI'll never understand how these companies continue to give people exactly what they don't want...
Avengers, and Gotham Knights weren't enough for you to see this was not It?
Like buying into a pump and dump after the dump lolTrend-chasing driven games development. Sounds about right with the way things are. I don't care for Scheier but he is right here.
Aren't they part of WB Games? So unless WB Games decide to kill Rocksteady, I don't think they need to be overly concerned with revenue.Could this game kill Rocksteady?
They do not have other game to get.money at this moment, right?
So the solution was to pivot to an even more expensive way of making games in a more competitive environment?You are right about the licensing issue, but my point still stands.
No person, or organization, changes unless they have to. The SP Batman games were getting more expensive to make with each installment and their sales ceiling wasn't rising at a healthy enough rate.
They were forced to jump off that train because it led to a 1,000ft cliff.
When this game flops, it may be a cautionary tale to some publishers, but the big "lesson" that will be taken away is "Oh, no one cares about the Arkhamverse anymore." It won't be that live service games are a bad trend to chase. The people making these decisions will not blame themselves, they'll blame fickle consumers. The answer is never "we were wrong to go in this direction." Rocksteady will get blamed for "doing live service wrong" and maybe someone's head will roll for insisting it be Suicide Squad and the Arkhamverse. They'll almost certainly try again with another IP expecting a different result.More of these big GaaS need to fail miserably, so companies go back to make normal, good games.
So if this game flops hard, it's great news for us gamers, as it sends a clear message to the gaming industry: enough with all these GaaS.
Yup. Late 2022.
Rocksteady Founders Sefton Hill And Jamie Walker Are Leaving The Studio
Hill and Walker are hanging up their capes and cowls after an 18-year run at the company that they helped form.www.gamespot.com
That depends on how much og talent there's left in that studio. If it's only the name, then it will be hard to find a buyer since you're not buying the studio along with "their" IP's.Rocksteady is going to be closed down or acquired by someone
I'll never understand how these companies continue to give people exactly what they don't want...
Avengers, and Gotham Knights weren't enough for you to see this was not It?
Gamers shitting on a game if one thing, but there's something tacky about "game journos ®™©" shitting on a game before it's release.
There IS a campaign, but if you don't play with other players, apparently you play with bots.This could sink the studio. Hopefully not and hopefully they get the next 4 years to make a batman game again.
I actually thought SS was a single player title. Will it have a campaign at least?
Gamers shitting on a game if one thing, but there's something tacky about "game journos ®™©" shitting on a game before it's release.
Gamers shitting on a game if one thing, but there's something tacky about "game journos ®™©" shitting on a game before it's release.
There IS a campaign, but if you don't play with other players, apparently you play with bots.
I personally think them showing differing opinions is a good thing. I mean, just like "gamers", they're real people and no different. So I'd much rather them be honest with themselves and others than not. A lot of people think the negativity isn't warranted, and that's fine. But for all we've seen over the years regarding AAA games and what feels like paid reviews or publicity, this just feels more realistic. From what I've seen no one has out right said this game is awful (IGN was close), but a lot do point out some concerns.
Maybe that "rule" was something Rocksteady wasn't clear about? Or maybe Rocksteady told them to be honest and true? Of course, the previews typically don't represent the final product, but I would certainly imagine the press/content creators previewing the game are aware of that. Of course playtesters, not so much.Then they cry about being blacklisted.
The rule has always been that previews are meant to be neutral. Usually because preview code is unfinished and you won't be playing the finished game until review code.
Maybe that "rule" was something Rocksteady wasn't clear about? Or maybe Rocksteady told them to be honest and true? Of course, the previews typically don't represent the final product, but I would certainly imagine the press/content creators previewing the game are aware of that. Of course playtesters, not so much.
You know what's messed up? I've been looking at old games recently and I search them up on Wikipedia. Most of the dev studios just either disappear, get asorbed or remain in name only (totally different to what they once were) very few actually remain and be the same.
One of the greatest videogame developers of all time reduced to ashes. A decade just... gone. Fuck whoever is responsible for this.
Yes, it's WB Games that handles it as the publisher, correct. But that's the thing, do we have proof that this is the "journalists breaking the rule"? I mean, we can see what they've said via social media, but we don't know what they were told, informed, etc. I'm not sure if pissed is the word, but the most certainly reacted quickly regarding the NDA, I honestly figured it was to try and get more positive sentiment out there after IGN's preview went live.Rocksteady has no say, it's WB Games PR who sets the "rule". And it's not a per-game rule either. It's a standard rule that all gaming writers have been following since people have been writing about games. This time the game "journalists" decided to break that rule, and you can tell it pissed off Rocksteady and WB with how they quickly ditched the NDA on the alpha.
The rule has always been that previews are meant to be neutral. Usually because preview code is unfinished and you won't be playing the finished game until review code.
From what I've seen and gathered, it appears that the differentiation between characters just isn't that bold. Sure, there's minor differences, but it doesn't sound as successful as other similar titles where there's broader distinctions between playable characters. I'm sure everyone just blasting with guns and the like doesn't really help either.Missing characters we care about is an aspect of the problem, but much less so than how dreadful the gameplay looks. If you reskinned machine gun man and anglo criminal man into Superman and Batman, this still wouldn't be a good game at all.
Guardians was great, but the problem was its direct initial comparisons to avengers. People already knew what avengers was, and how terrible it was, guardians, whilst not the same, looked the same, and the initial marketing did not do much to dispel that belief. It quickly cemented perceptions among enough people that it’s failure by association became a self fulfilling prophecy.Guardians was not a GaaS MP game. Stop pretending it is when you obviously never played it.
Guardians was great, but the problem was its direct initial comparisons to avengers. People already knew what avengers was, and how terrible it was, guardians, whilst not the same, looked the same, and the initial marketing did not do much to dispel that belief. It quickly cemented perceptions among enough people that it’s failure by association became a self fulfilling prophecy.
Almost like Destiny chars where the main difference is how they fly.From what I've seen and gathered, it appears that the differentiation between characters just isn't that bold. Sure, there's minor differences, but it doesn't sound as successful as other similar titles where there's broader distinctions between playable characters. I'm sure everyone just blasting with guns and the like doesn't really help either.
From what I've seen and gathered, it appears that the differentiation between characters just isn't that bold. Sure, there's minor differences, but it doesn't sound as successful as other similar titles where there's broader distinctions between playable characters. I'm sure everyone just blasting with guns and the like doesn't really help either.
They should just cancel the project and put the studio to work on an open-world, gritty TMNT game.