this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
60 points (91.7% liked)
PC Gaming
8683 readers
170 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
“By the ex developers of …” is almost always a red flag.
I’m surprised games still get marketed like this and still get hype.
Dunno, more often than not they are disgruntled developers unsatisfied with the direction the company is going. That usually means less artistic freedom, more crunch, more braindead monetization schemes.
Who go to create a new dev studio under another corporate thumb and churn out the same garbage.
What someone believes and does isn't the same as the situation they place themselves into. I don't care if every employee in the studio is from the Witcher 3 days, they're still funded by investors and will likely face the same pressures. Their desire to be free of those constraints mean literally nothing.
Why is this a red flag?
I’ve noticed that games marketed that way usually turn out pretty poorly. Notable examples off the top of my head are Back 4 Blood, Callisto Protocol and Mighty No 9.
It can also be quite misleading as was the case with Back 4 Blood where there was only around 5 people on the team that were actually involved in L4D. Despite the whole “From the people that made L4D” thing.
There’s also the fact that being part of a team that made a successful game does not necessarily mean you’re going to be successful as part of another team. We also don’t know their level of involvement most of the time so they could be all the MVPs of the past projects. But they could also be people who were nowhere near as involved using their connection for clout and hype.
Because people always assume it means "the guys responsible for all of the good parts of the game franchise you love with none of the managerial/corporate oversight baggage that ruined the games these devs came from!"
It's a blatant attempt at cashing in on brand recognition for starters. Second and most importantly its main purpose is to essentially disinfect the developer group of their previous failures. It's not the same level of obviousness as say... The devs of "the day before" literally closing down their studio and opening up under a new name, but it's essentially the PR friendly version of that process.
Make no mistake, this group and their new game are operating on the same level of competence as any other, don't trust shit about them or their supposed pedigree. Don't preorder, don't hype, for fucks sake stop feeding this slot machine mobile game AAA experience.
Fair enough
It's pretty hard to work at any job, in any industry for a significant amount of time and not have a sense of what's going on in other departments. You can be a dishwasher in a restaurant for 2 years and if you don't manage to pick up how the kitchen is run, then you're simply an idiot. That doesn't mean you're a chef, but having the experience of working along side one is invaluable.
Don't downplay experience.
Im downplaying the fact that they'll be any different when the overall system that causes this issue still remains.
It’s not. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to market a product with that information, but it’s not a terrible thing that some people used to work elsewhere. And reading any more into it than that is just a form a bias.