DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I've played them all.
So, your taste is trash. Got it.
I've played them all.
There are two Nate the Hate threads going right now on the front page.
One, where he says something some people really want to hear, he's praised as a prophet.
The other, where he says something some people don't want to hear, he's a hack.
I’d that’s how your company conduct market research and user testing, I’m afraid they’re doing it wrong. Especially if marketing are leading the research.My company does the same thing when trying to gauge their own product quality.
And guess what? I've sat in them and even chimed in my own ratings. Internal reviews are stupid for numerous reasons:
1. We're all employees so it's pretty hard right off the bat to grill you're own prototypes or expect them to get meh reviews. Nobody wants to upset the marketing managers in charge of the product lines
2. Every marketing manager says their products and brand are top notch like 8/10 minimum. And amazingly, when they chime in with their reviews of competing products at the board room table, funny how most other competing products are crap like 5 or 6/10. It's retarded. We'd be all trying to give our honest opinion.... trust me I gave mine, and I probably pissed them off because I havent been invited back to one of those internal evaluation meetings in like 5 years! LOL) and some competing branded products are clearly better or have double the market share.... yet the marketing manager would score our brand and their brand both like an 8/10. wtf? The should get like a 9. We should get maybe a 6 score for the brand opinion question
3. Every marketing and product manager will push their products are great so execs will give it a green light so they keep their job. If they were to tell execs their product lines stink and nobody likes them bosses will get pissed they cant get new products in line, they'd probably get gassed
4. Focus group research is BS too. Not the research itself but the tallied scores. The managers in charge of promoting the new products as awesome giving a good score will cherry pick the questions the research company did that had positive results and feedback. But ignore the bad ones. That's why when we'd get tallies saying this or that product got like a 9.1/10 the comments and metrics used to tally the scores arent even the same questions
5. For those of you who work in an office and go through this stuff, never believe any product manager's sales estimates. They are overinflated 90% of the time. They push giant numbers to look good so execs love it. But in reality their numbers are junk and made up. All any of us in finance have to do is pull up similar product sales history to get a gauge. So when these egotistical marketing people say their new product will sell a million units in year one, all I do is say in the room how can that be when all similar kinds of products in the past have never sold more than 500,000 units in a year? Dead silence or..... "Uhhh lemme look at the numbers again". Exactly. Stop pushing BS numbers and come back to us with realistic financials. It gets to a point for some people the execs dont even care much for what they say and they just come to my finance dept for an estimate based on historical sales. And they'll use that as a logical foundation
Yes because you must always have the correct opinion, despite evidence to the contrary.So, your taste is trash. Got it.
Here's the thing, in a world where Spider man 2, a game devoid of anything interesting gets 90+ I can't see why a game like Hellblade 2 would get less than that.
There are no criteria any more.
Ok, Spider Man 2 is 90+ on Metacritics, must be one of the best games ever. Nope, crappy gameplay, nothing new, shallow as a puddle, played better games 20 years ago.
Should we act surprised?It's already a 10/10 in my internal review.
Recently learned that many publishers has point in their contract stating hat you will only get full payment as a developer if the game has a high Metacritic score. Which is really sad.
Yes because you must always have the correct opinion, despite evidence to the contrary.Yes because you must always have the correct opinion, despite evidence to the contrary.
Games aren’t shit because we have high expectations. Games are shit because they are shit. Games just need to not be shit.Toxic BS that just raises expectations. Annoying.
Lmao, Xbox have zero self awareness so this is par for the course.
Hellblade was a boring,shallow mess that was all pretentiousness with good viduals. Honestly not expecting anything but the same from the wildly overrated Ninja Theory, the same devs who thought their take on DmC was shakespearean and not the cringiest,shittest action game in years…
Could post several links, but new year new me, you guys do you....Yes because you must always have the correct opinion, despite evidence to the contrary.
There are two Nate the Hate threads going right now on the front page.
One, where he says something some people really want to hear, he's praised as a prophet.
The other, where he says something some people don't want to hear, he's a hack.
Id say just play DMC 1-3-4-5, they are all superior. Thank fuck DmC didnt kill the franchise for good, and after Dragons Dogma 2 hopefully Itsuno is returning to DMC6I thought hellblade was boring but enjoyed their dmc game.
Yeah, I dropped the game after like 2 hours. Couldn’t get into it at all.Sounds about right. The first Hellblade was so boring I actually fell asleep playing it. I don't get the hype behind the sequel either.
Yeah, I dropped the game after like 2 hours. Couldn’t get into it at all.
Wondering what the internal reviews were for Halo Infinite.
That's easy to say. In practice expectations shape the perception of a game on launch, people are emotional.Games aren’t shit because we have high expectations. Games are shit because they are shit. Games just need to not be shit.
Yes because you must always have the correct opinion, despite evidence to the contrary.
This is quite conflicting.Not saying that I have the correct opinion, just that yours is clearly trash in this instance.
Same. I finally turned it off when the puzzles got super tiring.Sounds about right. The first Hellblade was so boring I actually fell asleep playing it. I don't get the hype behind the sequel either.
This is quite conflicting.
I thought he says in the quote it was low 60’s and double digits would mean 10 or higher right? It must’ve been in the 70’s somewhere - which is still off by a bit but I could see that happeningNo, it was 67-68 MC when Phil said that there was a double-digit difference in internal reviews. So internal reviews for Redfall were close to 80.
After the interview, Redfall's score dropped to and settled on 57. So, as it turns out, the difference was at least more than 20 points or ~27%.
Female protag with mental health issues......that's gonna resonate with a lot of critics.......should score high,lol.
Steady on, she is only a 'cis' female after all. So, knock a few points off the score for that.Female lead battling mental health issues. The reviewers will eat that shit up. I can already hear some fuck talking about how he identifies with her struggle.
Should we act surprised?
I mean, there's clearly a sizeable (very sizeable, in the multiple millions) installed base for these kind of casual cinematic driven adventure games like god of war and hellblade
Correct. That’s why he played them.So, your taste is trash. Got it.
two things:Wtf is an internal mock review..
People who are hyping it to be something like GOW are doing developers a disservice.
I just want to know if the combat and puzzles are about the same or they’ve evolved and is the game about the same length or more AAA length. Either way some review could have high scores, tells me nothing.
Yea, I’m just more on the “believe it when I see it” phase. They haven’t demonstrated it yet. We’ll see. I’m hopeful. That one comment about making AA games that look AAA doesn’t sit with me well. Wasn’t specifically about this game, but that’s pretty much what the first one was so it wouldn’t surprise me either.Nobody's doing this, though. The two games are nothing alike.
Combat is one of the areas they've put the most focus into improving, according to the devs.
No idea about length, but this is an AAA production this time, unlike the previous game made on a very modest budget.
That one comment about making AA games that look AAA doesn’t sit with me well. Wasn’t specifically about this game, but that’s pretty much what the first one was so it wouldn’t surprise me either.
"The goal with Hellblade 2 isn't to perfect it, but to create an experience that feels more believable and more refined. Its ambition in terms of scale is bigger. I think Hellblade 2 will make Hellblade look like an indie game," Antoniades told NME.
Hey now, this is GAF. Some people rather play AA games that look AAA, rather than play AAA games.Yea, I’m just more on the “believe it when I see it” phase. They haven’t demonstrated it yet. We’ll see. I’m hopeful. That one comment about making AA games that look AAA doesn’t sit with me well. Wasn’t specifically about this game, but that’s pretty much what the first one was so it wouldn’t surprise me either.
No need to insult GoW, they arent remotely similar thankfully…I mean, there's clearly a sizeable (very sizeable, in the multiple millions) installed base for these kind of casual cinematic driven adventure games like god of war and hellblade, so I'm sure it'll do well (especially if it crosses that 90 MC barrier), as opposed to predominantly skill based mechanically complex and deep J-Action games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta etc,.
Good for people who like these games I guess, not gonna shit on their parade just because I don't play or not being interested in them.
I thought hellblade was boring but enjoyed their dmc game.