zarx said:
There problem wasn't with over spending, even if they didn't spend all of the budget it's not like they would have got to keep that money anyway Square Enix payed them enough to make a game with whatever budget it had. It just sold really poorly and they couldn't get more work in time. Lets face it no matter the size of the studio or the budget of the game if you make several games that under perform in a row people aren't going togive you money to make more. Not unless you make critical darlings and a publisher goes looking for a prestige project anyway. If they made low budget indie games that floped they would have gone under just the same, hell their previous game was a low budget downloadable title that also didn't sell well. It's not like they were really a AAA studio anyway, more of a mid tier one. I am sure the budget for Murdered wasn't even a quarter of something like Tomb Raider.
|
I'll out a part of the plane in game reviewers. They are bashing and giving horrible scores for almost all games now and giving free passes for games with serious issues. Castlevania received horrible scores and Murdered received 40s on Metacritic. This is insane. Rambo received 35 and is a completely broken horrible mess. Murdered isn't a masterpiece, but it is quite decent and enjoyable. How can it be only 5 points better than a complete crap? Anybody that saw it thought this game was broken or simply was horrible.
And the same critics have given 97 to GTA V. It's a great game, but 97? Really? It isn't nowhere close to that with a simplistic history like that. This was a free pass with critics.
