That's not why developers make games. It's such a pessimistic worldview to hold.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jimpressions: We Happy Few - A Joyless Broken Disaster
- Thread starter Toumari
- Start date
Yeah, no thanks.
With so many game releasss per month I won't pay my hard earned money to "find out for myself ". Every game deserves to go down this review process .
Most videogames charge full price. STALKER charged full price at release and it was, according to someone who worked at THQ, shipped the moment they could speedrun the main storyline without crashing. Does that make STALKER a "scam", somehow?
A lot of videogames are released before they're quite "ready". It's the unfortunate reality of game development. How have they "pulled one over" in this case? They've delivered the game they promised, but it has bugs. Bugs that will be fixed. A scam typically involves tricking people.
This game used to be 30 bucks in early access?
It looks like a budget game at best. Not a game published by Microsoft with a full price tag. This studio is off to a bad start.
Shit wait these people made Contrast???
It looks like a budget game at best. Not a game published by Microsoft with a full price tag. This studio is off to a bad start.
Shit wait these people made Contrast???
The Early Access version was a mechanics test. It had some elements from Arthur's campaign, but that was it. This is a 30 hour long game with three different protagonists with their own mechanics and an actual story and all that. We don't know how much money it cost to make, but it goes without saying it's a significantly more expensive affair than the Early Access tech demo.
What a shame. So much about this game appeals to me. It being a procedural generated survival game just never seemed to be able to mesh with the story experience they wanted to deliver.
I'll check back in sometime next year and see how improved it becomes after patches. I'm not going to write it off completely. Like Jim, I really wanted this to be good (and still do). Hopefully it gets there eventually.
I'll check back in sometime next year and see how improved it becomes after patches. I'm not going to write it off completely. Like Jim, I really wanted this to be good (and still do). Hopefully it gets there eventually.
Basically the point I was making was that it is good to take both things into account: your own feelings and intelligence with games, and reviews by people you trust more so than most.
Not just reviews by semi-famous people.
Not me at all, maybe you or the person who is interested make a decision themselves.
To the others saying it's a lot of money I agree, so rent it first.
For sure, I just don't understand why people get so upset at certain single reviews. The BOTW review by Jim sterling and reaction by people blew my mind
Yeah no, especially for people who have limited time in their hands.
The best thing to do is find reviewers which aligns with your taste , for me it's EasyA, ACG, and SkillUp, and see what they're take on it.
After watching Jim's video I just can't figure out what they were working on for the last 2 years since early access launch unless Jim is just having a bad time, the thing with the constant repeating NPCs is very noticable.
Not sure Microsoft made the right move buying this studio. Their last game contrast was decent but nothing you'd buy a studio over.
Not sure Microsoft made the right move buying this studio. Their last game contrast was decent but nothing you'd buy a studio over.
The disturbing part is that for those two years they were likely truly working on the game. Seems like the thing was too ambitious, unfocused or under-supported. Or even all of the above.
I hope this isn't going to be a case like Hello Neighbour a truly horrendous, and broken game that still makes a truckload of cash :(
The early access launch was missing almost the entire game. The Youtube videos that cut the game down to just its story are 7 hours long. It's a 30 hour game with hours of cutscenes. None of which was in the Early Access launch, nor the early access builds. The game's story production values are very high. That's what they've spent the last two years working on. Expanding the game's narrative focus because that's what people wanted.
In this case, it's because the game is quite overtly not influenced by Bioshock. The whole "Bioshock-like" thing was projected onto the game by external parties who lacked the frame of reference for the game's artistic influences.
Well his view on the game was pretty dumb, it was complaining about weapon breaking: a feature, like it or not, that was fundamental the entire survival theme of the game, and that no competent gamer had issues with.
As for We Happy Few: the game looked a disaster the moment they showed genuine gameplay. Unstructured and aimless. Nice ideas, poor execution.
About 4 hours in, and the jank is indeed awful. Noticed several of the things he said and more. I punched a rat, knocked it unconscious, took the meat, and it was still unconscious, very minor thing, but I found it hilarious.
It's a pity too, as the premise and artstyle are top notch. The scripted sequences so far have been good to great, I really wish they would of made a tighter more focused experience, so much potential here.
Maybe their next game will reach it with MS's backing.
It's a pity too, as the premise and artstyle are top notch. The scripted sequences so far have been good to great, I really wish they would of made a tighter more focused experience, so much potential here.
Maybe their next game will reach it with MS's backing.
How is the game aimless? You are always given a narrative goal, and that goal drives the story forward, although obviously there's a fair bit of running back and forth. How is that "unstructured and aimless"?
Also, what you mean by "genuine gameplay"? Because there's a difference between the story driven experience of the final game and the roguelike survival game of the Early Access demo/sandbox mode DLC. They're both "genuine gameplay", but they're obviously very different in concept and scope.
You seem to have a personal attachment to the game and its development. Just a backer or what?
Nothing like that. It's just a pretty amazing game with fantastic writing and world building that was clearly pushed out the door too quickly. I certainly wouldn't recommend playing it until the next wave of patches, since it is rather buggy, but it has a lot going for it, and because so many people are just repeating second hand opinions instead of playing the game, discussion goes in circles. Hopefully that'll change when the game gets some patches and perhaps a price drop and more people play it.
The same was true of Homefront: The Revolution, mind you. Great game. Incredible atmosphere. Terrible technical issues, that mostly got fixed eventually. Jim Sterling gave it a 1/10. Hopefully Compulsion fix their technical problems faster than Dambuster did.
Yeah, I agree. And I think his review was entirely warranted there because of how people were just handing out random 10s like it was the first open world ever made. BOTW is a great game, but it's not even close to an actual 97 for me. More like 85 lol. They can do so much more with Zelda with better hardware and better storytelling.
He said he liked the game overall and gave it a good score, hows that dumb?
I'm kind of curious about how people are playing this game that are encountering a lot of issues with the pacing / mechanics and gameplay.
Personally I've just been bolting from mission to mission. Not really exploring, but not dodging anything that looks interesting. So far it's just been mostly mainline progression, story stuff, with stealth missions for the most part that occasionally degrade into not-great combat. Overall I'm enjoying my time with it so far, but I wonder if it's because other people are delving into the game on a deeper level than I am.
For reference I am about 6 hours in and just finished
. Have I just not gotten far enough to see how the experience gets worse, or am I just getting lucky in not seeing so many bugs / glitches?
Personally I've just been bolting from mission to mission. Not really exploring, but not dodging anything that looks interesting. So far it's just been mostly mainline progression, story stuff, with stealth missions for the most part that occasionally degrade into not-great combat. Overall I'm enjoying my time with it so far, but I wonder if it's because other people are delving into the game on a deeper level than I am.
For reference I am about 6 hours in and just finished
the "test" to get into the city" with arthur
No matter how you word that, that's a really bad excuse for hating a guy for liking a game less then you. And no, I know a few people who felt the weapon breaking was just annoying and made little sense in many cases. Like yes a get a rusty sword breaking after a few hits, but a preserved sword, not really. This really comes across a using the "real gamer" mentality to justify dismissing other's views.
Hey I've never said that!
Let's wait and see how their next project turns out. I'm not sure more money can fix bad gameplay decisions tho.
I never said anything about the overall score, just that specific criticisms were bizarre for a survival adventure game. It would be like criticising Resident Evil 1 for its clunky movement, or Far Cry 2 for malaria: frustrating but carefully chosen design choices that serve a clear purpose within the overall experience. Jim's criticism of BotW should a complete misunderstanding of the game.
It's not like criticising Halo for its dual weapon system where that system is arguably less fundamental to the game's function.
Still, he does a good job of criticising We Happy Few, a game that, quite frankly, had some glaring issues from the early showings.
You're not making any sense. He didn't like a feature so he criticised it. That's a perfectly normal thing to do. I put almost 100 hours into BOTW and I still think the weapon durability stuff is a massive waste of time that added exactly no enjoyment or extra challenge to my time with it.
Have MS or compulsion said What they're planning on doing? If not then there are no guarantees. They could support Halo or some other franchise.
Gearbox decided to release this in this state and they made it a full priced game. That company will go down if Borderlands 3 isn't a success.
If people have THAT limited of time maybe gaming isn't right in the first place?
Reviews aren't bad at all, the problem is now anyone with a camera thinks thier opinions matter and that isn't the case at all. Some games speak to some while others think it's awful, nature of the beast
So since we have limited time we shouldn't do any hobby? Which reviewer are you referring to that says their opinion matters more?
It would have been nice if it took him less than 4 minutes to start talking about what was actually wrong with the game
Bought the game a while back when it was EA and still cheap. I have the latest version downloaded, but I am going ot wait for some updates before jumping in.
Not at all but games take time to complete and playing a game for even 30 minutes will tell you yes I like this, no I don't.
All of them do, that's why they do it, to make your voice heard, to tell everyone your thoughts on this game or that movie.
Not the developer as well? Considering their last and only previous game wasn't exactly free from bugs.
They wouldn't do that. Not before they put out another title.
This is very much not true. Unless you're playing a run-based, score attack sort of game (And maybe not even then), 30 minutes is often barely scrapping the surface of what a game is, and what it will become over the next hour, 5 hours, or 20 hours.
The value of listening to reviewers is having someone who took the time to get to those places and offer their opinions so you don't have to play for 5 hours and realize those things that seemed like a lot of fun in the first 30 minutes don't actually pay off in any meaningful way (Or that a boring opening builds into something very complex and rewarding over the first couple hours). "Form you own opinion" is great if you've got unlimited time, but when it comes to entertainment purchases, I'm more than happy to look at an aggregate of reviews and make a purchasing decision.
I'm not that familiar with the developer unfortunately, and haven't read up on their previous game. I only know that one trailer a few years ago looked pretty good.
Then why simply blame the publisher without knowing about the other parties involved?
You're right. Please accept my apologies for insulting Gearbox.
No one in this world has unlimited time, but you see the IGN situation, and now this one, people who take these reviewers at face value what did you do before the internet and a place where anyone could just voice if something is shit or not?
As I've stated before people doing reviews is fine but why does this one guy deserve a thread where he trashes a game? What about the millions of other reviews? We have a review thread/OT for a reason.
Jim Sterling has been around the industry for a long time. He's well known. People clearly like his stuff. He frequently gets his own review threads. (As a variety of other outlets do.) Does it matter if he trashed the game? If you have some reviewer that who you particularly like or think is worthwhile, you should create a thread to bring attention to it (as you're seeing in this thread).
If you think no one should do that, maybe take it up with the mods, as it's considered perfectly acceptable. I don't like AngryJoe, and yet, I don't find myself compelled to go into those threads and tell people that person doesn't need a thread.
Ehh, more so than anything it was the comments I read that brought about my initial comment. It was just everyone nodding along with him having never touched the game. Others finally came in stating that the bugs he mentioned weren't encountered by people actually playing the game.
Like I said it's one thing to take someone's opinion and start forming an opinion, it's another to take one person and blindly agree
It's not a review, he just gives his impressions of the game (clue is in the name)
In this case his impressions were not good at all, and he backs it up with video evidence.