Based on the demo, this score is generous. Reviewers need to get back to more thrashing of games and harsher scores. Maybe it'll make some publishers wake up and look at the quality of the product they're releasing. This kind of lazy effort should have never come from the guys that made MechAssault.

Onyxmeth said: Based on the demo, this score is generous. Reviewers need to get back to more thrashing of games and harsher scores. Maybe it'll make some publishers wake up and look at the quality of the product they're releasing. This kind of lazy effort should have never come from the guys that made MechAssault.

I don't think its very nice to call software developers who can work 80-100 hour weeks+ during crunch time "lazy"

Making games is very difficult work, so be thankful for the games which do succeed in the end. Not all developers have the luxury of scrapping 2+ years of work on a whim and often they can't see the woods for the trees until the very last minute when all the pieces start coming together.

 

Buuhuu, seriously. Most engineers work on difficult products. The thing is in the games industry the risk is higher but if you make a successful game the rewards are potentially bigger. If someone wants me to hand over 60$+ for a piece of plastic the content should be fantastic. Of course the developers are only one piece of the puzzle. Project management, managers who deliver unfinished products, lead devs who go into the wrong direction etc. are all partly to blame in a case like that.



That may be true often but it is a case of bad planning. You should have a prototype and something playable pretty soon. If you only see you have a problem in the last months without some buffer for changes you have a problem. And yes this is difficult but they don't do it for free but expect people to shell out a big amount of money for their product.

Kyros said: I don't think its very nice to call software developers who can work 80-100 hour weeks+ during crunch time "lazy". Making games is very difficult work, so be thankful for the games which do succeed in the end. Buuhuu, seriously. Most engineers work on difficult products. The thing is in the games industry the risk is higher but if you make a successful game the rewards are potentially bigger. If someone wants me to hand over 60$+ for a piece of plastic the content should be fantastic. Of course the developers are only one piece of the puzzle. Project management, managers who deliver unfinished products, lead devs who go into the wrong direction etc. are all partly to blame in a case like that. It still doesn't justify calling anyone in the software development industry "lazy". and often they can't see the woods for the trees until the very last minute when all the pieces start coming together. That may be true often but it is a case of bad planning. You should have a prototype and something playable pretty soon. If you only see you have a problem in the last months without some buffer for changes you have a problem. And yes this is difficult but they don't do it for free but expect people to shell out a big amount of money for their product. Thats only true if they are using an off the shelf engine such as UE3 where they can mock up their designs much more quickly. For games which require that an engine be developed as well such as Fable 2 - it takes a long time before they can see their game in action to bring it all together.

 

 

I think smacked is the appropriate term, and rightfully so. This game was booboo.

And to boot, the graphics should be lower than a 7. I don't know if it's in the final product, but in the demo, I saw tons of pixel boxes......come on now. We're in the HD era, and I still see pixelation....on a game that's supposedly at least 720P? Wtf?

BMaker11 said: And to boot, the graphics should be lower than a 7. I don't know if it's in the final product, but in the demo, I saw tons of pixel boxes......come on now. We're in the HD era, and I still see pixelation....on a game that's supposedly at least 720P? Wtf?

CoD4 on the PS3 has an insane amount of pixel boxes, most of the textures are like that, and people said CoD4 has some of the best graphics to date...

 

Squilliam said: Onyxmeth said: Based on the demo, this score is generous. Reviewers need to get back to more thrashing of games and harsher scores. Maybe it'll make some publishers wake up and look at the quality of the product they're releasing. This kind of lazy effort should have never come from the guys that made MechAssault. I don't think its very nice to call software developers who can work 80-100 hour weeks+ during crunch time "lazy" Making games is very difficult work, so be thankful for the games which do succeed in the end. Not all developers have the luxury of scrapping 2+ years of work on a whim and often they can't see the woods for the trees until the very last minute when all the pieces start coming together.

I don't call every poorly made game "lazy". I start calling it lazy when the pitch meeting consists of, "Ok guys, Gears of War was successful. How can we make that game...but with a twist?". Had this game shown some amount of creativity or ingenuity, i would let comments like mine rest, but seriously this is just half-assed nonsense to cash-in on Gears of War's popularity. I mean they even changed the look of the main character less than a year ago so he could look like a more burly, Epic-esque character. Blame the MechAssault guys or blame Lucas Arts, I don't care, but somebody there took the easy route instead of making a unique game.

Oh and just because they're working long hours doesn't mean I can't call the project lazy. I'm sure somebody spent 80+ hours a week making Ninjabreadman also, but that doesn't make it any less of a lazy effort.

 

That was a good smack.

Not surprised. This has Haze written all over it.

With Bioshock PS3, RFoM2 and GeW2 coming soon did anyone actually expect this small title to do any good ?

Watch when Legendary get the same kind of score...