Developer Accuses Reviewers Of Not Playing His Poorly Reviewed Game
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- Ancestors: A Humankind Odyssey kind of squirted out to middling reviews, earning praise for its ambitious elements but coming under fire for being obtuse, awkward, boring, and irritating.
Its chief developer is rather bitter about the whole thing, and says he's used to better reviews. In expressing his disappointment, he accused some game reviewers of not really playing the game and making stuff up about it, unsubtly suggesting his game would perform better otherwise.
As a critic and a former full-time game reviewer, I've got some serious issues with the implications being made, especially when all the evidence points to the fact that Ancestors just isn't all that good a game.
#Ancestors #Reviews #Metacritic #JimSterling #IndustryBS
Sources: www.gamesindus...
www.usgamer.ne...
As soon as you see the words "I'm used to having bigger numbers than that", that pretty much tells you all you need to know about someone's ego, doesn't it?
Gilbert Rueger exactly. His head blow up to the size of a hot air balloon and when the scores came, he deflated quickly 😂
Apply that same logic to school to see how absurd it is. You're used to getting high grades because you're diligent and smart, then suddenly, you get a bad grade from a test and instead of studying more for that subject and see what types of mistakes you did, you start attacking the teacher and say that they have something against you.
It's such a dumb and flawed argument.
@@Rocketai however not always necessarily wrong.clearly im not making any excuses for the actions of any individuals, however there are those people in positions of power like teachers who adore the capability of abusing certain peoples.
@@Rocketai That's actually a less obvious argument than the game-developer arguing about average review scores. I have seen myself where a teacher had to be intervened with to give the right grade, it's rare but can happen since it's just a single teacher judging a single student. The teacher is in a position of power and if unscrupulous can give undeserved grades, both negative and positive.
A better simile would be the case of a single student writing their exam, then photocopying the exam and giving it to all the teachers in both their own school, as well as other schools, and getting the same low score from all sources with minor variations. After which this student claims they gave an unfairly low score, which would only be possible if it's a conspiracy against them.
Or perhaps even more apt, the student had always received good grades, but only done group projects so far. And now doing a solo project got bad grades despite having several unrelated reviewers from different schools.
Or TLDR version, this is actually much dumber than arguing a teacher has it out for you since that could potentially be the case and more akin to arguing that they were the driving force and sole decision maker behind all the projects they have been in before and everyone would see that for the truth if the reviewers weren't conspiring against them.
Yea it's Jim's Ego, as much as I want to agree with him that the game is confusing I don't entirely agree with him that reviewers do not play games to the fullest or even at all. For example Dead Cells review in IGN which is a copy pasta or Marasama the Demon blade the reviewer played a 20 hr game for 1 hr or my best one Good Game Reviewing MY Little kings story where they SAID " I wish there was a teleport back" which was IN THE GAME. So even though he has beef with reviewers it's not entirely unfounded.
“No, it’s the children who are wrong”
@Jim sterling oh, don't you think you're being a little disingenuous? Like you are legitimately spurting definition the thing you prattled on about for years.
It's common knowledge that the game developer was talking about Metacritic scores that never reviewed the game and said that there were fires in the game where there was never fires in the game.
The Metacritic score reviews have been recently changed in the last day because of this outcry oh, it's kind of sad to see someone like you getting around $25,000+ a month and literally do zero research.
I don't know if you had a vendetta against this developer but I can clearly see your prejudice even though I'm in love with you.
@Milktank ™ the reason why the developer and creator of the Assassin's Creed series had a problem with Metacritic scores is because they never reviewed the game. They talked about gameplay features that aren't even in the game.
so if you support game journalists that know nothing about video games then you're part of the problem :-) #cuphead
@Milktank ™ Subject matter is irrelevant, it could be about world peace and it wouldn't matter one bit. Each game deserves the scores it gets, that's the whole principle or reviewing. And the game did not get shit score. It got mostly 5s and 6s. That's "kinda interesting but disfunctional" or "functional but meh". Which is exactly what this game is.
no....NO.....YOU ARE WRONG!
[throws lightning at you]
UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!!
sorry, i couldn't resist lolz
@Milktank ™ Is that because you think Evolution is boring or doesn't exist? You don't want people to misunderstand and think you're a Flat Earther, LOL.
You know, just last week I was thinking to myself: "Man, there sure has been a lack of self-absorbed developers making fools of themselves lately."
Glad to see the world hasn't *COMPLETELY* flipped on its head.
Super seducer guy still is a bigger fool, however
Look up what the developer behind CivilContract has been getting up to over on SidAlpha's channel. Idiot developers are very much still alive and doing what they are known for -- being idiotic.
Ah ya also recommend SidAlpha who’s been in the CivilContract and other game dev freak outs, PERSONALLY involved
@@matthewshiers9038 So they're just more weasely then ever, going after smaller channels and outlets because they know they can't stand against JIM FUCKING STERLING SON!!!!!
It's a Christmas miracle!
"People expected my 35 man studio to deliver a game like Assassin's Creed"
No they didn't. You set that expectation yourself. You tried to make a big AAA game and failed insted of setting a goal that was more reasonable. You have no one to blame but yourself.
This right here, "FROM THE CREATOR OF ASSASSINS CREED" was the big tagline of every trailer, this could have interested people if the trailers didn't look like asset flips games.
"people expected me to make an assassins creed game" says the person that can't stop talking about how he helped making an assassins creed which BTW aren't all that special to begin with
Exactly, there are tons of games that are made by small teams that make great games within their own limitations. Also Assassin’s Creed isn’t exactly the pinnacle of AAA games.
ruclips.net/video/5V1oN4W_-9Y/видео.html this is the reviewer that the French developer was talking about, he says you can make fire and ride a horse
"People shouldn't expect my 35 man team to make a big AAA quality game like Assassin's Creed but also these are review scores way lower than I'm used to and I'm mad about it"
Like bitch are you for real? You can't have both buddy
I remember seeing ads for Ancestors everywhere for a bit. Then it just seemed to disappear and I never heard anything about it since. The game releasing exclusively on the Epic store sure does explain why no one seems to care, though.
Serves em right. Fuck epic.
The game got a better score than Anthem and Fallout 76, so... that's something, right?
Close to 70 out of 100, or 7/10, so almost as good as Breath of the Wild.
Oh, the positiveness!
I take a shit every morning that gets better reviews than Fallout 76. Probably because I don't charge them extra after release.
"At least is not Fallout76"
Metacritic 5.8/10
That's the thing; the reviews are *average*, so that goes to another implication that Jim has addressed in a wider sense, and that is that games have to make "all of the money", so when it comes to ratings, this middling score is just not enough. This is ridiculous, because what if it's just a niche game from the outset (it certainly looks like it), that a few people like and loads of people just can't get on with?
Not acceptable, apparently, because obviously the developer _needs_ this game to score 80 or above for him to even consider it reasonable.
Not saying the nature of the industry is "his fault", but his tantrum afterwards just makes me wonder if he was born yesterday.
„I‘m used to having bigger numbers...“ well, I‘m used to having wisdom teeth, guess what, things change, mate.
I still have your teeth, if you want them back. I'm not creepy, just a collector
Lol the funny part is he acts like those numbers are attributed to him too. Like, he realizes he worked on Assassin's Creed, right?
@@Sturmfall1 and thats why he feels entitled to having a massive audience, its like he believes people play games for the people behind them, not the games themselves.
Charlie Navilio Maybe there is a secret metacritic for people and we just don’t know 🤔
@@Sturmfall1 Most game directors in the industry like to take credit for absolutely everything.
He should be taking notes, not attacking his criticism
@Andrew Finefrock and getting off his High Horse ;p
since when critics are a good source of input? he should be asking the common players what he did wrong or right
take notes? take NOTES! he worked on assassins creed thank you very much do you even know whom he is i daresay it is YOU who should be taking notes!
I just hope Jim didn't pay money to these slobby under-developers
@@Wolfrich666 that would still be accepting criticism.
"I've done a nanosecond of research, and as it turns out horses don't exist! Yaaaay!!!"
~HBomberguy
AndYetNoBananas Weird smug little pricks
🎶 Goodbye horses, you don't exist at all 🎶
Turns out they're just unfortunately proportioned herbivorous dogs. "Horses" are a conspiracy by the intellectulist leftist mass media dontchaknow?
Myideologycan'taccountforhavingtodealwithyousoyou'renotrealnow.
Praise sobek
"I didn't play the game. I thought it'd be funnier if I didn't"
Ironically this is a situation where I find it more entertaining that Jim is discussing a game he didn't actually play.
And gets it wrong frankly, read the review the guys mad about being railroaded over stuff that's not even in his game.
Its okay, ive seen enuff of Jim and all the other youtubers do the same fire and dance, hypocrisy is a funny thang.
@@falcor200 You're pretty much right. Unfortunately, the moment a dev says anything, context gets thrown out the window. I'm still trying to figure out why game developers even tries to say anything at this point.
@@HookahOtaku Not sure it's hypocritical to do a video on a game he's never played about people who have never played it when it's not about the game itself
I mean, the game is technically not even out yet. They are still in the "funded by Epic" stage, so we can hardly blame Jim for being a good consumer, and waiting to buy it until after Epic stops feeding the developer free money.
Every copy you buy during this stage doesn't go to the developer, after all. Epic guarantees a certain level of sales during the intro.
If only there were a storefront he could sell this game on. One that has a review system that shows you how long the reviewer has played the game. Some totally made up thing that I'll just randomly call "Steam" for no reason.
Steam ? Never heard of that.
Sounds interesting.
What a strange concept. It'll never catch on!
Is it possible to find this website?
@@Drahko12 of course not! Why would be talking like this if it did? But if it did exist, how cool would that be? *smiles but shrugs* oh well, it'll never happen
It's a shame he got so up his own arse, He should be happy his small team released a game that reviewed better than Fallout 76 which was made by a huge company and also had the Fallout name behind it. Silver lining and all that.
hopefully the bar for good games is not now "better than Fallout 76" though, because oof
@@WarspawnOG it is not.
Saying that you made a better game than Fuckoff 76 is like saying that you are better at walking than a fish.
seriously those critic scores aren't even that bad. I have played games with lower scores that are enjoyable.
Honestly, this.
This is the part where a game developer says "we had to make some harsh decisions to get the game out under the circumstances, and it shows. However, we've learned a lot from it, we've had a bit more time to fix some of the issues for the console release, hopefully we can continue to improve on it in the coming year, and thank you to everyone patient enough to wait for it to be improved."
But, I imagine something like that is unrealistic to hope for.
Now that he doesn't have those guaranteed Ubisoft scores, he's whining about getting fair ratings. What a child.
ubisheep
You know Ubisoft fired the guy twice, right?
@@dgas5904 Probably because he's shit at making games but I doubt ubisoft would fire him for that considering the garbage they shovel out
@@dgas5904 typical artistic differences reason...the first time. The second time, they bought his IP and company of THQ leftovers and fired him again and then released Far Cry Primal...because they wanted to make Skyrim without guns, maybe? I really don't know.
@@intrepidmatter8165 Nah, Ubisoft makes great games that get turned to shit with all the crap they add on top of them.
Dev: *They didn't play the game and don't know how good it is*
Same Dev: *We had to make a load of cuts that might compromise my game in order to save time and money*
Also same dev: We took Epic's money and still made those cuts.
This game has a cool idea anyway, shoulda been more like Tokyo Jungle, that game was incredible
I'd play the hell out of that game today if I could get it
Always happy to see some love for Tokyo Jungle. A sequel with more animals would been amazing.
Hey fellow Tokyo Jungler! Glad to find others who love that game!
Yeah, that's the thing that I think about when these reviewers lose it. The game looks functional and it has a cool premise. But if they'd stop taking everything to heart so much and just let it go I think the people that get really invested in it would do a lot of the work for them. They could make a sequel and it would probably do very well. I mean, they should be able to manage that, because it's a small team, which means they could MUCH more easily manage resources and lower costs. Not saying it's perfect, but they could've at least ignored the negative reviews and worked it off by selling it at a lower price on launch.
@@mayuzanevideos Same!
Sounds like a lot people I know:
“Here’s some criticism”
“Your criticism is not valid”
...
Sounds like death stranding. "It's a masterpiece, Kojima is a genius".
Well, I didn't find the gameplay engaging and I felt the dialogue was overwritten and full of dull exposition dumps, the themes and metaphors were too on the nose and overexplained...
"You just didn't get it"
No. I got it. I just didn't like it.
@@johnwrath3612 Hidavido Cage-ima
Back in the 2014 I remember many people around me going
"Here's some criticism"
"Your criticism is not valid, becoes you're gay"
Russia was a wild place back then, I wonder if west have similart stuff.
@@DeadlyYellow I have no idea what that means.
john wrath he’s mashing up names of wonky developers
If I were pissed off every time they tell me my music was f'ed up in a concert, I'd stop doing music altogether. I mean seriously, grow up.
Professional kazoo player heh?
@@miceandgods4171 lol. Actually saxophone
@@Shun_Monk that's cool. I played the sax for awhile, but my mom refused to buy me more bubble making liquid for it. I was getting good at it too. I could blow a massive bubble.
*Look at Bloodstained's Dev or the Sonic Movie Makers:* They got told it looks like shit, took notes and fixed their shit. They got a standing ovation from their fanbase for listening.
*This Dev:*
Discount Disco What was the initial issues with Bloodstained?
anonymous anonymous Extremely poor optimization for the Nintendo Switch. Ran like absolute dogshit when it had the capability to be better. Fans took notice, pointed it out, and the devs fixed it. Now it runs a lot better.
Cuphead got some pretty unanimous dev criticisms while still in development too, and they delayed by 6 months to implement more bosses.
Was the right move
@@jacobmarcelo9805 The OP may be referring to the characters and lighting from an early point in the design phase post Kickstarter. Miriam didn't look all that great, and the graphics style didn't mesh well with the lighting (Cel shading with realistic lighting is always going to be a challenge). The devs went back to the drawing board with Miriam, keeping her main style and theme the same, but reworking other parts, and reworked the textures to give us what we have now. Time well spent, I'd say.
@@lunascythe6927 also the guy who invented the potato chip was sticking it to a customer who complained that their fries weren't thin enough.
Launched on the epic store. . .
That might be why no one has heard of it.
Absolutely... This game is RIGHT up my alley. But ive only just heard about it now.
Also theres a possibility this Dev is clever and KNOWS this... So he creates a "Drama" that will get people reporting on his Game in News.
^ Hell 5.8 for a brand new "Small Devs" game sounds ok to me. I will probably get this in a few months if it improves.
Nah, it's just poor marketing in general. Early interest comes from pre release hype, not whatever shop you're selling it in.
@@Graknorke I disagree... I refuse to use Epic.
Us Russians know damn well what China and their corporations answer to.
Communism.
@@Graknorke Anything epic I am effectivrly numb to and unaware of. Devs are fools to go near Epic I hope im not alone.
@@MiraSubieGirl
That's pretty dumb NGL. The release platform doesn't affect the game, Epic isn't China, and China isn't communist. None of the steps of that argument make a lot of sense.
I'd actually argue that Assassins Creed was rated too highly, Especially that first game.
I'd agree. AC1 was very novel for its time and I have little doubt that the splash it made had a bigger impact than its actual merits as a game
When Assassin's Creed 1 first released I was a stupid and gullible 15 year old, never read reviews just went off the hype and or marketing. I rented it, was blown away by the graphics but only managed to play it for an hour before getting bored. I've never gone from hyped to bored so quickly from a game before.
The first one is abysmally bad, though sort of unique at the time it came out. The first good AC's are BF and Rogue.
That first one was a glorified tech demo... Or a proof of concept.
@@Romanticoutlaw you have to remember that every game is reviewed compared to what we had and assassin's creed one even with all the glitches was amazing we'd never seen anything like it before. It deserved it's plaudits if anything the games after 2 were all way too highly rated because they brought so little new to the series.
The entitlement of expecting good reviews because he got them on entirely different projects is embarrassing.
Yeah, even if I felt that way, I'd keep that shit to myself. I can picture Jay Bauman now: "How embarrassing"
Epic grabbed up a timed exclusive that wasn't even a really good game? Thought they were only going to allow really good games.
It was a good game, but this more a "niche" title, makes no sense why epic did that.
Well they also got Shenmue 3, so...
Probably hit the threshold on the Steam wishlist to attract Epic's attention given that seems to be a common metric they've used in the past.
@@digitaldeathsquid3448 Exactly. I thought they were only going to allow really good games. :p
Epic only looks at the hype surrounding a game when they are out poaching, they have no way to know quality. I am glad that their strategy is starting to backfire. Few more flops might get them to stop, or at least slow down, with this bullshit.
"We know for a fact"
Fails to point to the facts that gave him said knowledge.
Sounds more like he feels entitled to good reviews and wants to play "we're a small indie developer" card as well.
Didn't hear about this game, and will continue to not hear about it.
I saw it on the epic store several times, it looked like shit, thought to myself 'this looks like steam greenlight trash, but with better graphics' and went on with my day, didn't even look up the game more than that. Now that i did look it up, yeap, i was right, it is steam greenlight tier trash.
I guess he wasn't the reason AC 1-3 was so successful i guess, LMAO
I saw a streamer play it, figured it was pretty boring almost immediately, still spent 30 minutes watching because the streamer is usually entertaining.. But unfortunately the game ruined the experience for me.
Inbefore this becomes the next F76...
Nah. FO76 actually had people hyped for it
People have dug up the review he's talking about. It's literally just one review from a french outlet, I think? perhaps just a french youtube channel? I don't care enough to check. Either way his point is still nonsense. He's using one example to pan the entirety of the review media based on tracking down one review where someone MAY have not played the game and slapped a score on it. That score may not even be influencing metacritic lol
"Wiiiiild, wild horses... weren't in my game."
Childish whinging.. is easy to do, the reviews you wanted.. never came through.
And the tenderness I feel...
ruclips.net/video/5V1oN4W_-9Y/видео.html this is the reviewer that the French developer was talking about, he says you can make fire and ride a horse like “planet of the apes “
@@comedownmusic8042 That would be incredibly frustrating to have someone misrepresent your work... but i couldn't resist the Stones joke.
Wait, THAT was Patrice's new game? The one he's been working on for a decade after leaving Ubisoft? Jesus Christ.
A decade? I thought it was being made in the last 2/3 years.
So Ronnie Pickering actually started developing games.
“Do you know who I am? Ronnie f*cking Pickering and I deserve a 90 on Metacritic! Or else we’re gonna have a bare knuckle fight!”
kinda reminds me of uwe boll. at least he was serious when he challenged his critics to a boxing match.
Ronnie Pickering is a saint.
I'm sure there's a snide Kojima joke in here somewhere.
@@MrJonniman007 No he wasn't, when a critic accepted Boll's challenge, he chickened the fuck out.
Dutchfalco A Ronnie Pickering joke in the year of our lord two thousand and nineteen? Get with the times Boomster.
Is this the "old man yells at cloud" of video game news?
Local Man Too Angry To Die
Eh nah this fat man won't make it to old age lol
No. It is more Skinner saying, "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
Having spent a decent amount of time on Ancestor's I can tell you why the game failed. Other than the aesthetic, the "evolution" gimmick and the usual walking/jumping/climbing you're used to if you've played any of the Assassin's Creed games (or games that have borrowed that style; Shadow of Mordor, etc), then there is only 1 actual gameplay mechanic! This is the biggest problem the game has. The way you do everything, from bonding with a partner, to dodging attacks, to readying weapons, to making medicine, to attacking animals is the EXACT same. "Hold [button] to [action], release at the right time". Want to dodge an enemy? Hold [button], move stick away, release in time. Want to attack enemy? Hold [button], move stick towards, release in time. Want to bond (for breeding)? Hold [button], release in time. Want to strip a branch to make a weapon? Hold [button], release in time. Want to sharpen branch to make a better weapon? Hold [button], release in time.
Honestly, you build a game with a repetitive gameplay loop and literally 1 mechanic a glorified QTE and wonder why people aren't in love with your game: Probably the same reason "shuffling" isn't a card game.
Yes! It seems like Desilets' tantrum gambit worked. Throwing games journalism in the hot-seat, and hitting them with a dash of "Don't you know who I am!?" drew pretty much all the attention away from the fact that the game is really, REALLY shit.
Nobody's buying my game!!
> Is it an Epic Exclusive?
YES!
> hmm. So you made an Avant-garde title, with minimal marketing, no word of mouth, and released exclusively on limited platform struggling so badly with it's own public image that they need to release a free game every week just to get eyeballs on the store front?
Yeah...
> ***Shruggs*** Life is a mystery.
"Launched without fanfare" cough* Aka, Epic exclusive
Nothing to do with it.
@@Graknorke If it had been on steam people would've actually bought it, I know I would... Borderwhat? OuterWho?
Sorry, no Steamo no buyo, no buyo no reviewo.
Borderlands 3
@@lordcommandernox9197 Steam fanboys never change
@@shmekelfreckles8157 I use Gog , G2A and even origin, imagine that, but screw Tencent, Epic and your opinion too.
I’ve watched gameplay of this on different RUclips channels and I can safely say that I don’t want to play it either.
Yepp, there's playing for the grind, but FTS
"Obtuse, not really telling the player what to do, having a frustrating gameplay loop, and generally being very awkward to play."
So it's basically Assassin's Creed with monkeys :P
brainflash1 I don’t really agree, assassins creed is not frustrating to play and you know exactly what to do. Assassins creed is actually pretty cookie cutter basic. Which is why it’s kind of bad it never evolved since the first one.
But I’ve never gotten lost in an AC game. Unfortunately.
@@TiGiPiT I fell out of it after origins, when it became less parkour, and clever assassination and more of an RPG with basic parkour.
haha actually laughed at this one mate
@@tuckinatorinator787
That's when I came in, lol, couldn't stand the old gameplay and mechanics. They're still repetitive as fck, do.
@@yeahwellthatsjustlikeyouro7466 There's a huge divide when it comes to the Assassin's Creed games. A lot of people say what you just said and I understand it but that's what I loved about it. If they want to keep their "warrior" system rather than assassin system, fine. But they need to seriously change the name because game after game they're getting rid of the features that make you an assassin. To me they just create these huge worlds with mindless quests, basic loot system that's been copied a thousand times now, and Im just not seeing the love put into the games anymore. If they keep using the same system from Origins and Odyssey, they'll get stale in their own way just like the older games.
"egg-zac-a-tally"
- Jim Sterling
Exac-tic-ally. It’s from Alice in Wonderland.
We're all mad here.
egg sack italy
U
I remember seeing this at E3 and thinking "this looks completely unremarkable, who is going to play this"
"Assassins Creed Developer"
You could also say "Expert Bullshitter" and itd be the same.
nice to know that even professional developers can attack like asset fliper creators on steam
ahh what a world
This kind of behaviour really pisses me off, this "It's everyone's fault but my own"-attitude. Take some responsibility FFS.
It looks like he was right and some Reviews were total bs.
@@nox5555 Some, by no means all of them.
@@MrFutago87 he just called out some reviews, not all of them.
@@nox5555 He called out all reviews, he specifically referred to the metacritic score.
I read the reviews, some of the "negative" reviews gave positives about the game aswell, I mean I have seen worse reviews
mid 60's isn't bad at all for a unique strange arthouse game, frankly.
Jesse H. A lot of more ambitious “culty” stuff gets poor reviews. Like what the fuck lol, you’ll get your revenue anyways.
When I think about worse reviews only IGN comes to my mind...
@@Jesse__H This. Like... look, we all want our projects to be hits in some way when they come out the gate. Critical, sales, whatever.
Sometimes you fail. Sometimes it may even have come down to just choosing which fail state was the most salvageable one.
But this is still a game that got okay enough scores, let alone time to polish a console version. Take the semi-L and try to do better next time out, rather than try to generalize out a bunch of nonsense to make yourself feel 'better'. just degrades the good work he and his people did.
I legitimately thought you were showing gameplay footage of "Day One: Gary's Incident"
He was. It was moxed together with footage of Ancestors.
Oh no, the the portrait of communism. BEGONE, power of capitalism compels you!!!!
I was literally offered the game for free, and I turned it down after watching gameplay on youtube... I was like "yeah, I'm not spending hours of my own time, to review this game, even if I DO get it for free".
you know a game's bad when you can't convince people to play it for free
@@Romanticoutlaw no shit
Did he ever cite the interview that mentioned RIDING a horse? Because if he actually lied about that, even his criticism is invalid. And if he named a publisher AND lied about it, that's actually slander.
Justin Adams according to other comments the post about the horse and fire was removed, which does make sense
No, no, I resent that.
Slander is written word. Spoken word is libel.
@@Zappygunshot it was a written letter... And therefore slander.
Well yes, but that ruins the joke, doesn't it
Slander is spoken word. In print it's libel (not that it really makes a difference. I just don't want to let J Jonah Jameson down)
Finally I've missed 2012
"Sometimes" is not "a fact".
Sometimes it rains. Sometimes it doesn't.
Developer of "Ancestors: A Humankind Odyssey" - blames low Metacritic score of 64 for not being popular.
Meanwhile Warframe, with a Metacritic score of 69, has been in the top 10 most played games on Steam for the past several years, while also having a separate independent launcher and a discord launcher on PC.
Sure mate, it's because of the "bad meanie critics" that your game is not doing well...
I've always hated score based reviews. Hell I usually strongly disagree with Jim about what games are fun because we have different tastes (I love Death Stranding, and didn't click with Disco Elysium, but god damn do we agree on Deadly Premonition). I still listen to Jim despite our differences in preferences because I feel that as a critic he brings up valid points to consider about games I'm interested in buying both negative and positive. I combine that with multiple other reviews, game play experience from demos, etc. A review is more than just a score and I've always thought that Metacritic's idea to aggregate multiple scores together ignores things like the personal preferences, cultural differences, review standards, and many other factors. To boil down reviews to a normalized score and average them doesn't tell a person on the site if the game that's scoring a 90 is actually something that wont work for them at all. For that someone needs to actually read the reviews, not aggregate them.
But that complaint about Metacritic is nothing new, so I'm just a broken record over here.
I don't mind scores but people have a tendency to hyperfocus on them and miss the forest for the trees; remember that one IGN review of Pokemon ruby and sapphire remakes that got memed to hell and back, the two much water one? It was actually a perfectly fair review, arguably being kinder to the game than it deserved, and "too much water" was a weird summary of how bad the water routes (which are half of the routes in the game) still are even in the remake. If it didn't have the score, I doubt it would have been memed nearly as much as it was; most people never read the actual review anyway.
My main issue with Metacritic and other "professional" review sites is that there is often a large divide between the critics and the community. Whether by skill, or by necessity, it's incredibly common to see a critic score of above 80 and a community score of below 70.
@@SnivyTries I think that comes from a difference in standards. Reviews for the newest Pokemon might be a good example here. From reviewers we hear "This series is stagnant and not changing, this one dropped large chunks from the roster, but it's still a lot of fun, there's a lot to enjoy here, and taken as a game by itself it's fun." Fans of the series say "They cut our favorite Pokemon! They lied about new animations and models! This is the worst Pokemon game ever!" Each group is right, but they have different perspectives. That's why when looking at games I highly value not just the information from reviewers who I typically agree with, but those whom I specifically disagree with as well.
101: How to completely nuke your own game by accusing reviewers of lying.
If it was only one or two it would not be a problem. Blaming all reviews is an excuse and immature. He got too many participation awards and had a weak father, if he had one at all.
@@requited2568 Lying about other people statements is also immature.
Its not a bad trick since everybody hates most reviewers.
Turns out reviewers were lying tho !
The ego on some developers is pretty ridiculous, lately.
"This bad decision isn't bad, it's ART!"
Personality disorders. The word you are looking for is personality disorder. It's the only rational explanation why people are acting this extremely weird and without the ability for self reflection in the slightest.
Bad is Subjective
Tleps Sdrawkcab As an artist I have no idea how someone could act like this. Now if his reaction was along the lines of, “I understand most people don’t like it, but this is what I wanted to make and I’m happy with it.” That’s a normal response, you can always try to make your next thing for a wider, mainstream audience.
The “Mass Effect“ ...
@@heno02 um no? not being rational doesnt make you have an illness. Also self reflection is something many people have not, not only people with personality disorders. Please dont spread misinformation about these topics.
Given how frequently we have seen in the past 'professional' reviewers from the industry are terrible at playing games because they're a journalist and not a gamer and are just there for the job, I'm inclined to give this developer some benefit of doubt. It's a survival game with little hand holding, and any reviewer who is a journalist and not a gamer is going to just not play the game.
I trust the user score more, but again: no hand holding survival game, not everyone's cup of tea, it's going to have lower scores regardless of how good it is because of those people who play it and want it to be something it isn't meant to be.
Naw. If he'd had an actual example he'd have cited it. Odds are good it was a bs post on some crappy gaming blog that he didn't want to mention by name and undercut his argument.
I totally agree, many survival/sandbox games don't hold your hand and still do extremely well, I mean Minecraft right? They aren't gonna do a good impression if you don't invest the time.
I think this may be a mix of the developers hyping up the Assassin's Creed(expected polish) thing and people outside of the genre giving it a try and not liking it combined with some confirmed(by other comments) lazy journalism. One of the "harsh decisions" was probably the cut of a tutorial, which are a surprising amount of work to do right , expecting a community to be there and pick up the slack. I sympathize with the developers frustration, but it's likely just a marketing error.
Not trying the game untill it's off Epic anyways.
@@NickMarcha I believe you can download the game directly from their own website. I've stopped playing games within the first 6 months of their release anyway though, because it seems to take at least that long for a "full release" game to get the polish it needed before release.
@@Darke_Exelbirth you can't. Although I almost never buy games immediately after the release, I'm getting annoyed by all the recent exclusives.
Honestly I would like to see a Jimpressions for this game. I've been following this game for a while now but even now I dunno what this game actually is.
Forsan aktchually finished game on stream. So there are vods of gameplay loop
It's... Not good. Very interesting idea, so I bought it and played for a few hours, but just couldn't get used to the poor controls. I wrote my impressions of the game a while back, but don't really remember much. It's deserving of its 5/6 scores, for sure.
I followed the game for a while. Sad to see the reviews being so lukewarm, but I knew it was gonna happen. That's usually the result of blowing up the budget on graphics and not on anything else. AAA devs usually invest in story too in order to drive people towards buying their bland game, but since this one doesn't have a story, it was an obvious flop. Play Niche instead, it's not perfect, but it might be the best biology-based game we've ever gotten.
"Made its way to the epic games store in August"
So that explains why no one has ever heard of this game.
Laughs in Metro Exodus
randomguy6679 what’s that?
@@randomguy6679 that's because deepshitter uses steam community to promote the game, and then they just disappeared and voila, epic exclusive
Developer: "I like my game"
Gamer: "It's shit"
Developer: "I can dig it. What would make it better?"
Gamer: "Really? Awesome. Thank you for listening"
Developer: "I can see how that can make it better. How about the rest of you?"
FFS!!! Why is that so hard?
Us vs Them mentality destroys many devs abilities to see criticizing a product as anything other than personal attacks.
Adamurquhart it’s because reality is much harder then that
The reality is Gamers on average aren’t like that,
They will hate on a game they don’t understand or isn’t what they are used to, and will at times refuse to take the time to learn how to play it,
Which is one of the reasons this unique game was poorly reviewed.
This issue is worse with Pc players with their refund culture that removes funding from devs whilst players enjoy free content and then getting their money back
Because gamers just yelling "ITS FUKCING SHIT AWFUL TURD DIARRHEA" isn't exactly helpful of starting a conversation.
@@rileypalmer8614 Refund culture? You mean getting a two hour demo of a game in case it's bad or doesn't run well on your computer? How could you possibly argue that as being a bad thing? 2 hours is a perfectly reasonable amount of time. If anything, it probably encourages more sales from people who wouldn't have otherwise taken a plunge but are willing to give it a try because they can get a refund if they don't like it.
"removes funding from devs whilst players enjoy free content"
Who the fuck would refund a game they liked unless it turned out to be absurdly short and overpriced?
Besides, does anywhere but Steam even allow this kind of thing at all?
That's at least one good hing I can say about Hideo Kojima. He's just vibing after Death Stranding release and and saying that he expected many people will dislike the game and he's okay with that.
When I saw an ad for this I thought that the game was the same one Digital Homicide made a long time ago and thought "Holy shit, they're back?!?!?!?!"
Correction: Jim, the last developer who insulted people who gave their game bad reviews was actually... Kojima. Even though I like the game, that man has an ego that rivals yours haha
Kojima is like the most pretentious developer I've ever seen who actually consistently makes good games.
@@hoodedman6579 I agree
@@hoodedman6579 you clearly never seen tweets by the maker of Devil May Cry, he and Kojima trading insults and spats each other before Twitter was invented since the day of Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Solid debut.
@@ihatecabbage7270 Which one tho?
👿👿👿👿👿👿👿👿👿👿👿
To play Devil's Advocate, many reviewer's don't state they've only played a few hours or are just 4 hours into game, or don't state their review is a debug copy. I've NEVER trusted any reviewer who doesn't state up front that they are just a few hours in or out right say, they've completed the game. Gamespot was really bad about giving reviews to games they hadn't completed.
Though to be fair, sometimes 4 hours is enough into a game. I mean I played Watchdogs and 3 hours in I was done, it just didn't catch/hold my attention at all. Then with Watchdogs 2 I played 3 hours and was shocked I had been playing for that long, the amount of fun I had made it seem like less time. Then there was a game I played called Wet, don't remember how long I played for but I just couldn't keep going, it was awful gameplay. I mean play a game for 5-10 minutes and you generally get the gist of what you're going to be doing for the next however many hours of gameplay there is. So if by 4 hours in NOTHING has held onto your attention, be it gameplay or story or both, or anything in between, why should someone be forced to play the entire game to give a review. Now I know what people might say "Well the story/gameplay near the end makes up for it" and that's subjective, and personally if it takes 8 hours in for a 12 hour game to be fun for me, it's not a good thing. Plus I feel like people would be harder on a bad game they were forced to complete than if they only had to go through a short time with it, leaving a more open ended review allowing for some people to read it and think "Well maybe I'll give this a try anyway"
@@jaxman682 Sometimes it is and Sometimes its not, I agree with you.
I feel that the "we had to make some harsh decisions when developing this game to get it shipped" is indeed the smoking-gun when it comes to review scores.
But I feel that if we are forced to pull one small grain of truth from these accusations, I myself wonder if professional games reviewers/critics share the same "value" of time spent into a game compared to, say a high-schooler, or single college-age person who may have free time, or a Parent of 3 kids who can only play an hour or two some nights of the week? I feel time has very fluid value to the person playing it, and it makes me wonder from a purely hypothetical perspective if your job is to play games, and that time is literally money, if there's any temptation to dismiss a game that asks it's players to invest time. Granted, bad games are bad, and good games are good, but are there any situations where a review can change (for better or worse) based on how much time was invested? If I recall, didn't a review site change their review of Death Stranding After completing it? I cant seem to find it on my google search, but I believe games are a unique entertainment and art medium, compared to movies and books. A movie shows it run time right there on the box. You can pick up a book and see how thick it is to determine how long it will take. With games? You basically have to be told by a third party "It took me 8 hours to beat." or "This is a 40+ hour game." Are all games objectively measured by content and time investment?
Not really you can guess how long a game might take you for a first go around based on what type of game it is. For instance a open world game will generally have you sink 40+ hours into it if you do all the stuff and not just the story. While a platform might take 8 to 20ish hours to play. Depending on how good you are at platformers and the story itself/collectibles. As long as you have an idea of what's in it and which genre conventions it follows you can make a fairly educated guess on how much time you might spend on it.
Well, there is an element of importance with correct pacing of certain genres. A 40+ hour platformer becomes boring, while a 10 hour open world game is far too short.
I do agree with you though, game reviewers and the average game player have a unmistakable disconnect when it comes to things like that.
Bumberton Hollow Knight is a damn good 40+ hour platformer.
@@Argonak1 Hollow Knight is a Metroidvania rather than a Mario
a human origins game that DOESN'T have fire or horses is probably a bad thing
I can't tell if this is the case because I also haven't played Ancestors...But I honestly believe that some reviewers put their work up without playing the game, or playing it for very little time. Back in the Resident Evil 2 days it was easy to see this as the case with how many of them passed on simply wrong information on how Mr.X acted during the game, and they all made the same mistakes talking about it, like they read something from someone else and wrote based on it.
To be fair there were some "professional" reviews on Death Stranding that stated vehicles, weapons, and combat were not even in the game so they couldnt have played more than a few hours of it if even that.
@ 3 hours is unacceptable for a review if the video game is intented to be a 50-60 hour experience. I would rather call that first impressions instead of a review which is supposed to comprehensively dissect and analyze the gameplay, mission design, story etc.
Reminds of that old Homer Simpson quote
"This is everybody's fault but mine"
kurt engel actually, not to be sexist or anything, but that sounds more like modern day women... just saying 🤷♂️
@@ProjectChaos77 "not to be sexist or anything" and yet you are, mate.
@@ProjectChaos77 yikes...
@@ProjectChaos77 "Now I'm not a sexist, but I sure am sick of all these uppity cunts thinking they should be out of the kitchen".
Over the years, there have certainly been cases where reviewers obviously either didn't play a game or barely played it, and it isn't just small sites. I'd guess the bigger sites (and previously magazines, and I guess these days RUclips channels) are more guilty simply because they are bigger. It isn't an industry conspiracy; it is just a matter of scale. A small site run by four friends who love games have little incentive to fake a review. A large site which functions as a business first, where people are doing jobs for paychecks? With underpaid freelancers, reviewers who don't even care about the genre of the game they are reviewing and are probably half-burnt out on playing games as a job, editors with their own biases affecting assignments and content, ... It isn't surprising that someone might occasionally take a shortcut and not get caught. In that regard, it isn't much different from plagiarism. (The big difference being that it is possible to plagiarism by finding the work that was copied, while "proof" that a reviewer didn't properly play a game tends to stay circumstantial. And sites are a lot less likely to sweep plagiarism allegations under the rug. And plagiarism is a crime.)
Good comment.
My main thought while playing Ancestors myself was "Did any of the devs even play this? It's so not-fun that it feels broken, but I guess it's intentional." Ancestors is either soul-crushingly boring and tedious, or so rage-inducing amounts obtuse and frustrating , and barely a moment of anything else.
I'm sure there are plenty of good artists, programmers, developers, etc the work hard at Panache Studios; and many of the technical aspects of Ancestors are fine. There is no game here though. The designer/director has cooked this project on a fundamental level. The "gameplay" is not even puddle-deep; and it's lazy, sloppy, stale, old puddle water at that.
That's the funniest part about this whole thing with Patrice Desilets; HE is the reason the game got such low scores. He did a bad job. He made a bad game. Then he goes out in public and has a cry about it. Hahaha! Too funny.
It's a game where you play as an ape. Anyone remember "Primate"? He's lucky the score isn't lower.
Technically, in the vast majority of video games you play as an ape. ;)
Well, Gamespot more or less admits to "inaccuracies" in their review in a disclaimer on their podcast page so...
So, I've seen a number of stories where reviews have had their scores tampered with to appease large publishers. Maybe he's gotten a shock now that he's not working for a large publisher that can put their thumb on the scale?
He's too use to bought-out review scores working with Ubisoft that he can't understand.
It's funny the only thing I have ever heard about this game is how the developer from Assassin Creed was working on it. They name dropped that fact almost constantly, and then they complain when people expected that level of quality in their game? Reminds me of all those crowd funded games from a developer of some hit franchise.
They sell the whole project on the fact they used to work with Mega Man or Final Fantasy Tactics and then turn out crude nothing like those games. They are fine with name dropping to get investors attention but get angry if you expect that level of quality in the game they are making.
_cough_ *Igarashi* _cough_
_cough_ *Bloodstained* _cough_ _cough_
Excuse, had something in my throat...
@@dankeykang4576 Yeah that one was pretty good, not entirely amazing and in a side by side comparison probably not as good as SoTN. But it's really in the minority of successful kick starter games sold on a promise of reviving a dead franchise.
Most don't even get finished, let alone do well.
"I head the team that made Assassin's Creed!"
"You can't expect my team of 35 to make a game like Assassin's Creed"
You can't have both statements be true at the same time.
E.g., from GameSpot's own post:
Update: This episode of GameSpot After Dark contains a few incorrect statements regarding Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey, namely: players have the ability to ride horses and create fires, and that creatures other than apes evolve over time. Our reviewer came to these conclusions based on aspects of the game that suggest such possibilities, but after further clarification from Private Division, we now understand these elements are not a part of the game.
Another blunder from Jim Sterling.
Oh this actually came out.
I forgot it was a game that actually existed, let alone it having a release date or even coming out.
@@originalscreenname44 Epic Games store: "Coming Soon..." *10 months later* "Now Available." Their storefront is just awkward and I think it's an exclusive.
tbh this is the first I'm hearing of it
Yeah, I saw two ads for it 6 months ago (I actually watched the long-form one, it looked interesting enough!), and then nothing since. Figured it was still a year or so away. Certainly looked like it needed plenty more work at the time.
Nobody expected them to make a game close to Assasin's Creed. That's way too much bloat for a 35 man studio to handle!
This reminds me of Eurogamer's 'review' of DOA6 in which the reviewer started off by complaining that the series as a whole still existed before following up by inventing animation and sound glitches that didn't exist, outfits that weren't in the game and hair physics bugs that weren't there. Digital Foundry (who work very closely with EG) did a tech breakdown of the game and found none of those so-called problems. There exists no video nor any screenshot that illustrates any of them. And yet EG have never made any sort of retraction and the 'review' sat as Steam's featured piece on the game for the entirety of its launch period. The Digital Foundry video was never even featured on EG, only on RUclips. So whilst it seems that the developer here has overreacted to a couple of mistakes (apparently Gamespot made a correction to a post-review discussion) I can see why he might have been suspicious.
Game reviewers dont give a shit about their work apparently lol
Oh no. I've been looking forward to playing this. I might have to rethink it
yarr harr, fiddle dee dee being a pirate is okay to me.
I've played it.
Regardless of how one of the developers are behaving, I enjoyed the experience alot.
This isn't sarcasm, having to try and think of new ways to advance the game was immersive.
What other people are touting as convoluted and directionless I've picked up the torch and found an interesting thought process that felt like BoTW style discovery.
Not the best game I've ever played but I definitely liked it more than most.
I can't sleep so thanks for keeping me company
have you tried a milky drink?
I think I might've found the source of the horse statement and it could be a review of the game from GameSpot. I found this disclaimer on one of their reviews of it after searching up a review, " Editor's note: This episode of GameSpot After Dark contains a few incorrect statements regarding Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey, namely: players have the ability to ride horses and create fires, and that creatures other than apes evolve over time. Our reviewer came to these conclusions based on aspects of the game that suggest such possibilities, but after further clarification from Private Division, we now understand these elements are not a part of the game. GameSpot regrets the error." Here is a link to the video, ruclips.net/video/5V1oN4W_-9Y/видео.html.
I heard a rumor that Jim is actually the crazy "Surprise Mechanic".
DTRaiden I just realized we’ve never seen the Surprise Mechanic and Cornflake Homunculus in the same place at the same time.
I _think_ I may have found the source for the claim that a reviewer complained about the horse riding.
The French reviewer for jeuxvideo.com (who gave the game 80% btw) uses the word "chevaucher" in a sentence.
Now, that word literally means "horse riding", but it's almost never used that way in French. Its much more common meaning is "overlapping".
And that's exactly how it was used in the review:
"Les icônes sont un peu grossières, ont une certaine tendance à trop *se chevaucher,* gênant parfois la visibilité"
Translated:
"Icons are a bit rough, and have a certain tendency to *overlap* too much, sometimes hindering visibility"
I'm pretty sure Désilets speaks French, so if that's where he got the idea that someone was bitching about horse riding, he must not have read the review...
Remember when Jim Sterling gave Super Mario Odyssey 7/10? Oh wait, someone made that up.
Breath of the Wild is still 7/10.
@ great adventure game, mediocre as a Zelda game
@@surton91 that doesn't make much sense
He should have named it ' The first of us'
Lol religion is weird
Did you guys know that planet of the apes game came out years ago?? I had no idea
I do wish you hadn’t said people “don’t/didn’t like” the game a bunch. As you noted, the reviews are generally lukewarm. Ergo, the majority of critics did not necessarily “dislike” the game. Many did, as the lower scores on the spectrum prove, but based on the quotes in the video, even many of those reviewers admired its ambition, with some saying they still found a game worth playing in there despite its numerous glaring faults. Every review scale is different, of course, and many sites grade on the “high school curve” (7 = C-) but as a general rule, active dislike of a game would seem to be indicated by a score of 5 or lower, right? It’s more accurate to say they didn’t _love_ the game, surely.
I point this out because I’ve heard you yourself defend sevens and sixes as good scores according to your personal rubric, and it feels almost as weird and inaccurate to me to suggest that the reviewers didn’t like the game as to suggest that the reviewers didn’t play it or made up their reviews. If I were one of the reviewers, I’d be annoyed that you mischaracterized my opinion of the game in the video, frankly.
(And yes, I know you clarify that it got okay scores in the text bit under the video, but I doubt people will read that.)
Big fan and Patreon backer, so I’m a little disappointed here.
Ouch. I really wanted to be on his side because I agree many game reviewers don't play a game enough to write an informed review, though that usually means the reviewers overrate by missing the problems. But this guy didn't make any real arguments. And what's more, the score wasn't THAT bad. That 64 is perceived as terrible is indicative of a whole 'nother problem. Pathfinder Kingmaker, arguably the best of its year after bugfixes, got a 73. The Outer Worlds, the new darling, got an 82.
The game looks ok no masterpiece.
Wouldn't put it past some reviewers reading a few other reviews and stringing together their own from that, maybe playing an hour or two.
Still that doesn't mean the game isn't shit
Aren't "shadow" written reviews basically an open secret at this point though? I remember the Good Game reviewers weren't actually written by the "reviewers" but a team of staff who wrote the reviews then the main reviewers passed them off as their own. The argument was when this came out is that it was basically an industry standard and it's impossible for the main reviewers to actually review everything they have to review especially when so many big games drop at once. (Junglist who was the initial guy that got Good Game green lit literally bailed over this)
I think a bigger issue with reviews is more that established franchises seem get a far more lax standards they are held too than any new IP which often seem to be treated extremely harshly by professional reviewers. Pokemon SW/SH controversy is a great example of reviewers shrugging and holding an established franchise to ridiculously low standards comparatively to any other new JRPG IP which seem to regularly get slammed despite being honestly better in every conceivable way than SH/SH.
Yeah, your second point is very true. Reviewers (#notAllReviewers etc.) are notoriously scared of large fandoms.
Maybe if Pokemon games got bad reviews Game Freak would have incentives to actually improve the gameplay. It's 2019 and they still don't have voice acting or good animations.
I like how they framed pretty much every negative reviews as some sort of "didn't play" conspiracy. Seems like everything these days is a conspiracy when something doesn't go your way lol
"It feels like it's been ages since we've had a story about a developer getting all pissy because games weren't as glowing and deferential as they wanted them to be."
Kojima shuffles awkwardly in the background
I'm usually on the side of game devs when when comes to video game outrages because most of the gaming community (I use that loosely) takes thing to like a 10 but in reality its like a 3-5 but in this situation this dev needs to chill.
honestly in my opinion i didn't even know this game even come out
Technically didn't. 3 months of Epic exclusive, so no reason to go looking for it just yet. And after that it only releases for consoles, IIRC.
@@silvervelvet8893 gotcha
I want to accuse devs of not playing their game.
This should be the top comment, it was my main thought while playing Ancestors myself; "Did any of the devs actually play this? It's so not-fun that it feels broken, but I guess it's intentional." Ancestors is either soul-crushingly boring and tedious, or so rage-inducing amounts obtuse and frustrating , and barely a moment of anything else.
I'm sure there are plenty of good artists, programmers, developers, etc the work hard at Panache Studios; and many of the technical aspects of Ancestors are fine. There is no game here though. The designer/director has cooked this project on a fundamental level. The "gameplay" is not even puddle-deep; and it's lazy, sloppy, stale, old puddle water at that.
That's the funniest part about this whole thing with Patrice Desilets; HE is the reason the game got such low scores. He did a bad job. He made a bad game. Then he goes out in public and has a cry about it. Hahaha! Too funny.
When I was working for G2A, I wouldn't be expected to review 15 games a week, no. Which is why they'd let me go and outsourced my work to several badly-paid interns, who were able to do my work (badly), just much more of it. So the guy has something of a point here. Of course, that's not the problem of reviewers, but their employers, but still!
The game looks like a semi-decent indie title. From 2009.
I feel like I could make more competent animations given enough time and I've never even used animation software. Everything moves like it's an animatronic
I've seen some of the reviews, they've since been removed!! Horse riding and crafting fires was another one!! 100% some of the reviews were bull shit but the majority of genuine reviews were still poor - so no excuse... Sour grapes...
It was Gamespot. Seriously. They've since posted an update warning that episode 4 of their Gamespot After Dark podcast, where the person they had reviewing the game talked about it, "contains a few incorrect statements". Specifically that "players have the ability to ride horses and create fires, and that creatures other than apes evolve over time."
6:44 That reminds me of Randy Pitchford "I worked on Borderlands! Don't you know who I am?"
Randy Bitchford, please, use his proper name.
"I am a paying customer at this Medieval Times!"
I mean I’m interested in the game in general. I might get it on console just for the sake of something weird and different.
But the guy should be aware this game is weird and different and reviews for things that aren’t mainstream will never be great.
"People expected my 35 man studio to deliver a game like Assassin's Creed"
Yeah, well people also don't expect a sub five man studio to produce gems, but that happens too.
I've seen games of that quality made by a team of like seven people, each person doing like three things each in terms of game design.
I expect a team of 35 to be able to make a much better game. Like...I dunno...Assassin's Creed.
I actually spoke to Patrice Désillet at the MEGA MIGS event. The guy admitted that the first 10 hours can be rough. I do believe thata lot of people might have been mad by the game's beginning and indeed not finish the game, which make sense.
I remember this, it looked interesting but way too janky and awkward for me to bother.
Eh. I like the concept. Plus it's nice to see someone take a risk in this generation.
There's a lot I like about the game and it was the reason why I installed Epic Store in the first place. However... The progression feels really convoluted and it's really difficult to figure out how you can even progress in the game. I've managed to destroy my lineage just because I was told that I could progress the lineage and didn't know that I was supposed to gather more family and get them breeding first. None of that was explained and it all came as a surprise because while the time in the game progressed for 15 years, the other members of my lineage just didn't do anything to provide offspring.
The gameplay loop is also somewhat convoluted as the main goal most of the time is just do stuff so that you learn how to do that stuff better. And the world is really damn small early on until you can learn how to defeat predators and that takes a long while. Until then taking the whole tribe outside of the base is just asking for having them killed.
So while filled with lots of interesting things, the learning curve is too steep and arduous, and the gameplay-loop is not interesting enough to justify sticking with the game.
"Obtuse, frustrating gameplay loop, and awkward to play." Is Kojima's name attached to it? If so, 10/10.
Maybe they picked the wrong game genre lmao
So now we know why they went Epic exclusive couldn't face the Steam reviews.
In fairness to the maker of super seducer, he also dies in one of the endings of the game, and his "friend" is portrayed as some kind of wierdo possible serial killer....so it's not like he isn't even handed, he gives it to everybody including himself. I respect that.