>morons at the company decide that adding femoid space marines and going out of their way to piss off their entire fanbase would be a good idea >Rachel has the foresight to bail immediately
Bag holding time.
Hasbro/WotC is going through the same thing right now. 2024 is the year to bail. Sell your shares, wipe your social and disapear. 2025 will be the year of the angry nerd, and I wouldn't want to have my hand caught in the cookie jar when that pot boils over. Time to cash out and hide.
It's just amazing to me that they think that this is a really good idea. Hasbro (barely) stays afloat selling overpriced slips of cardboard that anyone with a desktop printer can reproduce. Meanwhile, Games Workshop's entire business model is built around selling small, low quality models that are neither painted nor assembled, and they avoided falling apart in the age of the 3D printer basically through appealing to goodwill of their fanbase. Then they tell their fanbase to go frick themselves, outright. They do this even while 3D printing nerds having a burgeoning community playing independent games that are cheap/free.
Hasbro/WotC is going through the same thing right now. 2024 is the year to bail. Sell your shares, wipe your social and disapear. 2025 will be the year of the angry nerd, and I wouldn't want to have my hand caught in the cookie jar when that pot boils over. Time to cash out and hide.
Or, she knows a bigger frickup is coming. Ubisoft is doubling down on the policy, on the other hand.
>Or, she knows a bigger frickup is coming
Oh, I'm sure of it. This kind of shit doesn't pop-up in isolation. First they rewrote the lore and gave the Emperor a moronic waifu that you are supposed to think is awesome (even though the way that they wrote her she basically caused everything bad that has ever happened), now they have female Custodes. This is a clear trend and whatever they do next will make it all even worse. Assuming that they stay in business that long, I'm not convinced that they will.
What do you mean by "succeed"? Tons of small games do great for themselves. Most of the time when a game doesn't make any money it's because it's shit and the company spent way too much making it.
It means recoup their costs and not get their studio shutdown. Every other AAA horror game that isn't Resident Evil failed,Dead space, Callisto and now this are just a few examples
Well, there's a problem in the 'AAA' developer world that is in serious need of market correction, and that is what we're seeing now. I think technology has come to a point where we've boomeranged back to not needing THAT many people to produce a high quality game. You just need a relatively small team of highly talented programmers and artists working with established tools and engines, and you can make a game looks and plays similar to a 2000 person billion dollar project (KCD comes to mind). The companies that don't realize this will slowly die out as their 1000+ team DEI hires bleed them dry, whilst based and zased central/eastern euro devs produce absolute bangers with a relatively small teams and budgets.
Those asymetrical multiplayer horror games are cringe and for women, but they seem massively successful. Resident evil is certainly a monopoly when it comes to AAA singleplayer survival horror.
What person of taste gives a shit if something is successful or not? We still have amazing new experiences like Alisa and Tormented Souls yet I never see you frickers talk about them despite being better than the rest of the AAA trash that gets put out.
Will look into that, I also learned today a Tormented Souls 2 is coming. I hope Alisa gets a sequel too I had a blast with it and it's quite replayable as RE was.
Why did they think paying for C list netflix actors in their game would make it appealing?
Nothing was interesting about the game, and everything they did show looked extremely generic. Either the game was genuinely mid, or the publisher did a terrible job marketing it (or both). Either way, I'll never try the game unless it's literally on sale for $1.50.
Fell for the classic blunder.
Prioritized visuals over gameplay. > You want a less visually appealing game
An ounce of stylization can cover for a ton of graphical fidelity.
The devs needed to create a form of investigative gameplay that is actually engaging. Being led by the hand through simple puzzles to reach the dishwater gunplay is hardly what I would call a riveting experience.
If they couldn't do that, then they needed to create a story that can be branched by the player in many meaningful ways - without cheating by having everything tie back together into one or two endings. > But cutscenes are expensive! Think of the voice acting!
Then use still images and text. Work within your means, and focus on elevating and refining the core of your game as much as possible. > But our game isn't compelling enough to sell on its own merit, narrative or mechanically. We need the bells, whistles, and coat of gloss to rake in sales
Then you confirm that you don't deserve them - which also explains why you didn't get them.
They were teasing an AitD 2 remake a lot in this game. Would've liked to see it, this game wasn't great but there is literally zero chance a remake of 2 would end up being worse than the original.
>"Let's make our protagonists as boring looking as possible" >"Yeah, make sure that the main girl is not cute or sexy and the guy is generic as frick. This will surely sell our game"
Unless you're talking about A New Nightmare, you're legitimately tripping on copious amounts of acid right now. The first Alone in the Dark was very innovative in that it let you explore a fully 3d mansion with enemies and separate rooms, something unheard of at the time.
As soon as RE1 came out, the game was completely BTFO. Granted, its merits are undeniable, but it's an atrocious game if held on its own nowadays, not taking into account that it was a pioneer in its genre.
>it looked more like a "Wait for Sale" title.
It was.
It was copium to have it at 60 for what it was giving especially to an audience who doesn't even know what AitD was.
40 is what it should've been for a AA game.
30 if they are not that confident.
I figured it must've done alright on Playstation considering they got actual actors.
Alone in the Dark's main issue is that unless things get all visually wacky and spooky you know there's never any real tension because there's no monsters and you can just sprint around with impunity.
The constant jumping around reminds me a lot of Evil Within too, where that same issue of just jumping around randomly all the time and also just being literally in your head which really just sapped any of the horror feelings out.
Also the fact that there's no parallel stories and the MC you don't pick is just doing mundane investigative work almost completely oblivious to the supernatural going-ons is a missed opportunity cause I actually otherwise liked the story. It's predictable cosmic horror shit but it's done well.
How the frick do Alone in the Dark games keep getting made?
Not shitposting, that's a franchise that has NEVER had a good game. It was an innovator of course, but one that immediately got overshadowed by multiple games and the game has aged extremely poorly. This is what, the 4th attempt at a reboot?
How the frick do Alone in the Dark games keep getting made?
Not shitposting, that's a franchise that has NEVER had a good game. It was an innovator of course, but one that immediately got overshadowed by multiple games and the game has aged extremely poorly. This is what, the 4th attempt at a reboot?
If you're one of those people who wants a "proper classic RE". Ie no Amnesia monster chasing you around. This pretty much looks like that.
I am actually excited to play it, when it's a BIT cheaper.
What is wrong with Embrace? This is like that new FPS from EA with the forgettable title: In a time with bad economy, online games and gachas raking in the dosh, trying to pump the budget on a completely new title or reviving an old franchise an expecting gangbusters just isnt feasible.
Or is this the plan? The EA plan: Get games made, if it's profitable great, milkt it dry. It does make, liquify the company, fire everyone and write it off a tax return. Embracer has learned from the best.
It's just hard to make a horror games these days without a streamer shilling it or some kind of autistic lore universe.
Markiplier and pewdiepie ruined gaming
and nothing of value was lost
Oh no
EMBRACED
LEL, WHEN THEY CANT PAY THEIR BILLS, THEY'D BE ALONE IN THE DARK FOR REAL LMAO!!!
Shush, you silly goober.
It's a trend.
>morons at the company decide that adding femoid space marines and going out of their way to piss off their entire fanbase would be a good idea
>Rachel has the foresight to bail immediately
Bag holding time.
Hasbro/WotC is going through the same thing right now. 2024 is the year to bail. Sell your shares, wipe your social and disapear. 2025 will be the year of the angry nerd, and I wouldn't want to have my hand caught in the cookie jar when that pot boils over. Time to cash out and hide.
It's just amazing to me that they think that this is a really good idea. Hasbro (barely) stays afloat selling overpriced slips of cardboard that anyone with a desktop printer can reproduce. Meanwhile, Games Workshop's entire business model is built around selling small, low quality models that are neither painted nor assembled, and they avoided falling apart in the age of the 3D printer basically through appealing to goodwill of their fanbase. Then they tell their fanbase to go frick themselves, outright. They do this even while 3D printing nerds having a burgeoning community playing independent games that are cheap/free.
Or, she knows a bigger frickup is coming. Ubisoft is doubling down on the policy, on the other hand.
>Or, she knows a bigger frickup is coming
Oh, I'm sure of it. This kind of shit doesn't pop-up in isolation. First they rewrote the lore and gave the Emperor a moronic waifu that you are supposed to think is awesome (even though the way that they wrote her she basically caused everything bad that has ever happened), now they have female Custodes. This is a clear trend and whatever they do next will make it all even worse. Assuming that they stay in business that long, I'm not convinced that they will.
>Releasing your horror game in any season that's not fall
Resident Evil can get away with it since it's the madden of Survivor Horror.
Resident Evil is literally the only horror game that can succeed in modern times.
What do you mean by "succeed"? Tons of small games do great for themselves. Most of the time when a game doesn't make any money it's because it's shit and the company spent way too much making it.
It means recoup their costs and not get their studio shutdown. Every other AAA horror game that isn't Resident Evil failed,Dead space, Callisto and now this are just a few examples
Well, there's a problem in the 'AAA' developer world that is in serious need of market correction, and that is what we're seeing now. I think technology has come to a point where we've boomeranged back to not needing THAT many people to produce a high quality game. You just need a relatively small team of highly talented programmers and artists working with established tools and engines, and you can make a game looks and plays similar to a 2000 person billion dollar project (KCD comes to mind). The companies that don't realize this will slowly die out as their 1000+ team DEI hires bleed them dry, whilst based and zased central/eastern euro devs produce absolute bangers with a relatively small teams and budgets.
Those asymetrical multiplayer horror games are cringe and for women, but they seem massively successful. Resident evil is certainly a monopoly when it comes to AAA singleplayer survival horror.
Most of them save for dbd are AA at most.
What person of taste gives a shit if something is successful or not? We still have amazing new experiences like Alisa and Tormented Souls yet I never see you frickers talk about them despite being better than the rest of the AAA trash that gets put out.
Song of horror is the pinnacle of horror games. Tormented souls is perfect too
Will look into that, I also learned today a Tormented Souls 2 is coming. I hope Alisa gets a sequel too I had a blast with it and it's quite replayable as RE was.
i didn't even know this fricking game came out
Why did they think paying for C list netflix actors in their game would make it appealing?
Nothing was interesting about the game, and everything they did show looked extremely generic. Either the game was genuinely mid, or the publisher did a terrible job marketing it (or both). Either way, I'll never try the game unless it's literally on sale for $1.50.
They need to stop using real actors its such a waste of money on things that dont even matter in games
I like that it looks like an actual survival horror game. By which I mean an adventure game first, and some combat second.
Its insanely mid until the last 20 minutes. It's a genuine shame.
They were way too slow patching the game.
It's just a bit shit. Why was the budget and the price so high?
Anti-white game. I'm happy it bombed
Wrong game friend.
least obsessed alan wake hater
>alone in the dark
>game has a shit ton of people you talk to and everything is well lit.
Fell for the classic blunder.
Prioritized visuals over gameplay.
> You want a less visually appealing game
An ounce of stylization can cover for a ton of graphical fidelity.
The devs needed to create a form of investigative gameplay that is actually engaging. Being led by the hand through simple puzzles to reach the dishwater gunplay is hardly what I would call a riveting experience.
If they couldn't do that, then they needed to create a story that can be branched by the player in many meaningful ways - without cheating by having everything tie back together into one or two endings.
> But cutscenes are expensive! Think of the voice acting!
Then use still images and text. Work within your means, and focus on elevating and refining the core of your game as much as possible.
> But our game isn't compelling enough to sell on its own merit, narrative or mechanically. We need the bells, whistles, and coat of gloss to rake in sales
Then you confirm that you don't deserve them - which also explains why you didn't get them.
They were teasing an AitD 2 remake a lot in this game. Would've liked to see it, this game wasn't great but there is literally zero chance a remake of 2 would end up being worse than the original.
>"Let's make our protagonists as boring looking as possible"
>"Yeah, make sure that the main girl is not cute or sexy and the guy is generic as frick. This will surely sell our game"
Is that the guy from Stranger Things?
I had no idea this game was out btw.
>Remake
>When the superior OG exists
lol
Unless you're talking about A New Nightmare, you're legitimately tripping on copious amounts of acid right now. The first Alone in the Dark was very innovative in that it let you explore a fully 3d mansion with enemies and separate rooms, something unheard of at the time.
As soon as RE1 came out, the game was completely BTFO. Granted, its merits are undeniable, but it's an atrocious game if held on its own nowadays, not taking into account that it was a pioneer in its genre.
>waste 90% of the budget on celebs
>"WTF why did our game fail???"
People working on the industry all are subhuman IQ
That sucks, I heard it was good, but it looked more like a "Wait for Sale" title.
>it looked more like a "Wait for Sale" title.
It was.
It was copium to have it at 60 for what it was giving especially to an audience who doesn't even know what AitD was.
40 is what it should've been for a AA game.
30 if they are not that confident.
I figured it must've done alright on Playstation considering they got actual actors.
Damn I know I don't earn much but I'm just glad to have actual job security.
Alone in the Dark's main issue is that unless things get all visually wacky and spooky you know there's never any real tension because there's no monsters and you can just sprint around with impunity.
The constant jumping around reminds me a lot of Evil Within too, where that same issue of just jumping around randomly all the time and also just being literally in your head which really just sapped any of the horror feelings out.
Also the fact that there's no parallel stories and the MC you don't pick is just doing mundane investigative work almost completely oblivious to the supernatural going-ons is a missed opportunity cause I actually otherwise liked the story. It's predictable cosmic horror shit but it's done well.
I think the gameplay is nice, but i think the style is awful. So i won't buy it. There are plenty of ugly games and i don't want any of it
How the frick do Alone in the Dark games keep getting made?
Not shitposting, that's a franchise that has NEVER had a good game. It was an innovator of course, but one that immediately got overshadowed by multiple games and the game has aged extremely poorly. This is what, the 4th attempt at a reboot?
IP is king. Why else is Atari making a platformer with the YARS name?
It's a damn good title.
If you're one of those people who wants a "proper classic RE". Ie no Amnesia monster chasing you around. This pretty much looks like that.
I am actually excited to play it, when it's a BIT cheaper.
What is wrong with Embrace? This is like that new FPS from EA with the forgettable title: In a time with bad economy, online games and gachas raking in the dosh, trying to pump the budget on a completely new title or reviving an old franchise an expecting gangbusters just isnt feasible.
Or is this the plan? The EA plan: Get games made, if it's profitable great, milkt it dry. It does make, liquify the company, fire everyone and write it off a tax return. Embracer has learned from the best.