Gearbox President: "I Have Always Profited From Criticism"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

BrotherRool:

Cpu46:

Raiyan 1.0:

How is accusing critics of 'showboating' being eloquent?

OT: Sterling earns yet another developer's ire, and my respect.

To be fair he is accusing Sterling of showboating.
I love Jim and his show but I do have to say that Pritchford isn't wrong in that regard.

To me he sounds more frustrated that Sterling didn't contact him first with questions about why it turned out the way it did and just went on to create his video on Aliens: CM. Don't get me wrong Jims A-lie-ns video was perfectly justified and I agree with almost everything in the video but I do understand the tone that Pritchford is taking.

but the thing is, what Gearbox are basically doing is they#re trying to rake in as many sales as possible, before people realise the game is crud. They release a deceptive demo, hold back the reviews and now the game is out and the word is getting around they ask the people calling it out as crud to 'talk personally with them'. When you're actively trying to slash and burn to get some money, you've lost the right to have a personal question with you because they're relying on selling games before people go public with stuff like this.

I agree with most of what you say but I still have some sympathy for Gearbox. In 2008 they had announced that they were developing Aliens: CM, then later that year they announced they were developing that horror story of a development cycle Duke Nukem, Borderlands was still in development, and then they had a ton of layoffs making them one of the smallest AAA developers still in business with 3 AAA titles in their lap at one time. Remember that they are a developer so they have contracts stipulating when a game should come out, how much the game should make, and other criteria that are given by the publisher in order to get paid fully. If they didn't do what they did about Aliens then they would probably owe Sega a LOT of money and most likely would go under as a company. I don't condone them lying but I find it hard to hate them for it when considering all this.

Cpu46:

I agree with most of what you say but I still have some sympathy for Gearbox. In 2008 they had announced that they were developing Aliens: CM, then later that year they announced they were developing that horror story of a development cycle Duke Nukem, Borderlands was still in development, and then they had a ton of layoffs making them one of the smallest AAA developers still in business with 3 AAA titles in their lap at one time. Remember that they are a developer so they have contracts stipulating when a game should come out, how much the game should make, and other criteria that are given by the publisher in order to get paid fully. If they didn't do what they did about Aliens then they would probably owe Sega a LOT of money and most likely would go under as a company. I don't condone them lying but I find it hard to hate them for it when considering all this.

I guess thats fair enough really, being an independent developer isn't much fun in that sense and they don't exactly get a lot of control. I guess in reality trying to make sure your employees get paid is pretty important

Shadow-Phoenix:
You know what's really sad about this whole Aliens Colonial Marines being so shit?.

It's this comparison video that explains it all clear as day, crystal clear.

No it doesn't, that video cherry picks. All the footage shown for the 2010 game is of the very beginning, the game actually changes drastically to be much like the 2013 game later on where the tension is lost and you just run n' gun.

I think people are confusing something as well, this game isn't titled Aliens vs. Predator. It's Colonial Marines; it's about marines, its not fair to compare it to an AvP game.

People complain that it plays differently from AvP games... they complain that they were expecting an AvP game....

It's not an AvP game, okay?

MikeWehner:
Gearbox President: "I Have Always Profited From Criticism"

Randy Pitchford takes to Twitter to address Aliens: Colonial Marines hate.

Since the launch of Aliens: Colonial Marines, developer Gearbox has come under a great deal of fire for the quality of the final release, especially given how different the game now appears from the early "demo" videos spread so widely online. Now, perhaps in an attempt to clear the air, Gearbox President Randy Pitchford is addressing concerns via his personal Twitter account, but it appears his responses are generating more heat than they are dissipating.

"As a glass-half-full kind of guy, so I only want positive feelings with my personal twitter. Thanks for understanding!" Pitchford wrote, just before responding to a number of Twitter users, and apparently blocking others as well.

image

One of Pitchford's more vocal critics has been Destructoid's Reviews Editor and Escapist contributor Jim Sterling, who has helped draw attention to the stark contrast between early Colonial Marines footage and the game that ended up being released for $60.

"You [sic] entire purpose seems angled towards vilification and injury. I am flattered, but ain't nobody got time for dat," Pitchford Tweeted directly at Sterling, following with "Also - you know how to reach me if you want to ask questions. It appears you would rather show boat publicly for attention."

Of course, it seems somewhat silly of the videogame community not to publicly address issues with the game now that it's available for purchase. I'm not sure what good privately addressing the game's very obvious flaws will do to help consumers, but that appears to be the road Pitchford would rather take.

The Gearbox boss also claims that the company is "looking at" why Colonial Marines ended up as it did, noting that he needs to be "very carful at the moment" regarding what he says about the title.

Source: Twitter

Permalink

To be fair, I don't like how Jim does those little videos either. Not saying he shouldn't do them, but there's a way to calmly express your opinion without, as Randy said "vilifying" someone. And he certainly does come off as needing attention, hes an angry fat guy that pretty much foams at the mouth in almost all of his videos, clearly something he deliberately does because he knows it garners more views. So again Randy wasn't wrong by saying he showboats. He clearly does.

And this post, actually, would seem to indicate we should vilify Randy, and back up Jim, but Jim is really the one who goes all nuts and gets angry, but here's Randy calmly addressing people on his twitter.

Hm.... I side with Randy on this one, and I say Jim should start doing more professional reviews/looks at games.

Edit: To reiterate my point, there's a difference, OP, between "the gaming community" addressing their concerns with a game, and a "gaming figurehead" foaming at the mouth in videos every time something upsets him. By the very rules of this forum, 'gaming' users need to be polite and mellow-headed to each other. If we behaved on here like Jim does in his videos, we'd all get banned.

Basically there's a way to discuss video games without getting all offensive about it.

Dryk:

Terramax:
He profits, but the consumer doesn't.

Truly this is the generation of "Fuck you, buy our product"

Corporate gangsterism:

It's the indifferent attitude and dismissive contempt he has for people people who pay for his entire livelihood I find galling, people paying when they can hardly afford gas and rent/mortgage payment for someone to fritter it away. I've seen how extensive the marketing has been for Aliens CM, but where were the time and resources to just make the game good?

This wasn't a "Gearbox Presents" this was widely shown as a "This is a gearbox made game".

michael87cn:

I think people are confusing something as well, this game isn't titled Aliens vs. Predator. It's Colonial Marines; it's about marines, its not fair to compare it to an AvP game.

Yeah, it's not fair, but not fair on the AvP game! A game that only has a third of it's development devoted to the Marines section yet it easily looks better and is in almost every way better than a game that was totally devoted to the Marines experience.

Why do I always read his name as "Randy Pitchfork". I keep getting mental images of a really sexually frustrated pitchfork whenever I hear of him :S

Anymore I hate Randy Pitchford. I remember how awesome he was from those Borderlands 1 videos where he humorously explained how his game was for the hardcore gaming audience and not the "casual-I-only-play-CoD-and-smartphone-games" audience. Now he's just a lying asshole. Also, my real reason for replying: a snarky response to his quote!

If he's profited from criticism he could be the next Rockefeller.

Mild spoiler warnings within.

Basically I reveal a secret character but the reveal hardly "spoils" the game, more "spares" you by the dumbness of it showing why you should completely skip this game and how it obviously cannot be in-canon.

Cpu46:

I agree with most of what you say but I still have some sympathy for Gearbox. In 2008 they had announced that they were developing Aliens: CM, then later that year they announced they were developing that horror story of a development cycle Duke Nukem, Borderlands was still in development, and then they had a ton of layoffs making them one of the smallest AAA developers still in business with 3 AAA titles in their lap at one time. Remember that they are a developer so they have contracts stipulating when a game should come out, how much the game should make, and other criteria that are given by the publisher in order to get paid fully. If they didn't do what they did about Aliens then they would probably owe Sega a LOT of money and most likely would go under as a company. I don't condone them lying but I find it hard to hate them for it when considering all this.

I can accept all that.

What is not acceptable is the obvious deception, and I'll go further than "not condoning". This damages the reputation of the entire industry.

They should have been honest that this was beyond their means to fix and Sega needs to man up and stop trying to do this on the cheap, trying to get a skeleton crew developer to make/fix three games at once, including borderlands 2 back to back after Borderlands 1. There is also talk of a Duke Nukem sequel or remake being made at the same time?!?

It's their fault for signing contract stipulations beyond what they could manage, their loyal trusting customers should not be exploited unfairly to cover up for their terrible business decisions.

I mean I don't get them, why did they take Duke Nukem Forever? It obviously wasn't out of any sort of loyalty to that classic gamestyle, they blatantly cashed that in for Halo style gameplay with 2 weapon limit and regenerating health, it pissed off everyone! Aliens: CM wasn't true to the aliens franchise as it is supposedly "of canon" game that completely contradicts the movies such as LV426 not being nuked from orbit, Sulaco remaining in orbit, Hicks surviving and being on LV426.

Treblaine:

Cpu46:

I agree with most of what you say but I still have some sympathy for Gearbox. In 2008 they had announced that they were developing Aliens: CM, then later that year they announced they were developing that horror story of a development cycle Duke Nukem, Borderlands was still in development, and then they had a ton of layoffs making them one of the smallest AAA developers still in business with 3 AAA titles in their lap at one time. Remember that they are a developer so they have contracts stipulating when a game should come out, how much the game should make, and other criteria that are given by the publisher in order to get paid fully. If they didn't do what they did about Aliens then they would probably owe Sega a LOT of money and most likely would go under as a company. I don't condone them lying but I find it hard to hate them for it when considering all this.

I can accept all that.

What is not acceptable is the obvious deception, and I'll go further than "not condoning". This damages the reputation of the entire industry.

They should have been honest that this was beyond their means to fix and Sega needs to man up and stop trying to do this on the cheap, trying to get a skeleton crew developer to make/fix three games at once, including borderlands 2 back to back after Borderlands 1. There is also talk of a Duke Nukem sequel or remake being made at the same time?!?

It's their fault for signing contract stipulations beyond what they could manage, their loyal trusting customers should not be exploited unfairly to cover up for their terrible business decisions.

I mean I don't get them, why did they take Duke Nukem Forever? It obviously wasn't out of any sort of loyalty to that classic gamestyle, they blatantly cashed that in for Halo style gameplay with 2 weapon limit and regenerating health, it pissed off everyone! Aliens: CM wasn't true to the aliens franchise as it is supposedly "of canon" game that completely contradicts the movies such as LV426 not being nuked from orbit, Sulaco remaining in orbit, ---- surviving and being on LV426.

A corporate entity will never be honest about its problems. Shareholders and stakeholders would crucify a CEO if he/she started talking down its own product. The Ethics of business at the end of the day is to make as much money as possible and if you screw customers over to do that... well shareholders don't give a damn, and shareholders come first no matter what CEO you are.

Not saying what they did isn't wrong, and it won't bite them in the ass regarding brand loyalty in the future but the industry doesn't seem to be able to see beyond the end of year figures anymore.

Also, spoilers mate... You named the character who survived, edit it out of your post. I was going to rent the game this weekend for that sole reason.

barbzilla:

Akalabeth:
Sterling didn't contrast the game and the demo, he simply showed the demo and derided the game. I found the video fairly useless quite frankly because not seeing the game itself I've nothing but his word to know that it differs greatly. And to say that something from the demo is not in the game does not prove the game itself is lacking, it's simply saying it's different.

Half Life's demo differed greatly from the game. But it was still a decent game.
Fear's demo differed from the game. But it was still a decent game.

If the aliens have better AI in the demo then show me an example.

etcetera

This is what people refer to when they speak of entitlement. You are acting as though you are entitled to receive all of the relevant information without having to work for it. I saw the same video you did, and had similar questions afterwards. The difference being the video encouraged me to investigate for myself, and the video looks as though it encouraged you to want something you didn't get.

Hahaha. This has NOTHING to do with entitlement, this is about presenting an effective argument. An effective argument includes evidence. You give evidence how the two are different, you don't simply show one and then say how it's different.
I'm not saying I DESERVE a better argument, I'm saying his argument was flawed and ineffective.

As for investigating the game, I don't really care about it so I have no need to investigate it further. Jim's opinion of the game didn't sway me one way or the other, he just made himself look bad and I'm not surprised by the Gearbox guy's response.

As for your comments about Half Life and Fear's demos, I don't see how that is actually relevant. Jim said through out the video that it was a vertical slice, what he was on about is how the environments changed so much from the video to the released game, and for the worse at that. You don't make an amazing set piece and then throw it away to make a new worse looking one. That would be counter productive and pointless. The fact is those set pieces were fabricated just for the gameplay demo, but gearbox can cover its ass with bullshit excuses to keep them clear of false advertising claims. Our only hope for retribution is from Sega, since some of the A:CM funds were misappropriated to be used on Boarderlands.

Did you play Half Life's demo? It has this epic moment where you're running around and suddenly the place starts shaking. The huge Gargantua is shaking the place up. Things are falling down, you climb up an air duct, and as your climbing through the ducts it shakes again and the duct breaks, you fall into a room. You see the gargantua in half lighting, a guard is firing at it ineffectively, he gets killed, a cowering scientist gets killed, then it comes for you. All the while you're blasting away, and doing nothing.

It was a great set piece, and a great introduction. Was it in the game? Absolutely not. Do I remember how the Gargantua gets revealed in the actual game? Not at all.

So how does this differ in any way from the ACM demo?

The demo had entire areas that weren't in the game. Entire set pieces that weren't in the game. It was not reflective of the game in a lot of ways. It's, a demo.

See the fact that something is IN the demo, but not in the game, does not make it a lie. It makes it different.
Now, if the quality of the demo is measurably different in all aspects to that of the game, then you can say it was misrepresentative, but missing one or two set pieces or an area does not make it a lie.

Who wants a demo that is just a piece of the game anyway? So you play the demo, then you play the game and have to replay the exact same area again? How is that fun? FEAR's demo had some bits from the game, it also had some bits and areas that weren't in the game at all. Same thing

Ghonzor:
I sense EA levels of douche-baggery

Come on, even the conmbined forces of Bobby Kotick and John Riccitiello wouldn't be this douchey.

OT: Considering one of the controversies was that Gearbox was siphoning funds from ACM to Borderlands, I'd say he did profit on this, but not because of criticism.

Or, on another tack, "defrauding the people you work for AND the public is a good thing."

Akalabeth:

So how does this differ in any way from the ACM demo?

That depends. I don't give a damn about the game and didn't when it came out, so I didn't follow it. Did the devs claim that it was actual gameplay when it wasn't, or part of the finished game when it wasn't? Was the demo you played legitimately gameplay overall?

Many games had demos that contained elements not in the game or different from the game. Few have ever been this actively deceptive.

Oh look, another false advertising fuckbag being a dick towards his fanbase. I don't care if it seems like I'm being overboard, fuck you Randy Pitchford, you are scum.

I never liked Pitchford and this just further confirms to me that he's a douche.

chiefohara:

A corporate entity will never be honest about its problems. Shareholders and stakeholders would crucify a CEO if he/she started talking down its own product. The Ethics of business at the end of the day is to make as much money as possible and if you screw customers over to do that... well shareholders don't give a damn, and shareholders come first no matter what CEO you are.

Not saying what they did isn't wrong, and it won't bite them in the ass regarding brand loyalty in the future but the industry doesn't seem to be able to see beyond the end of year figures anymore.

Also, spoilers mate... You named the character who survived, edit it out of your post. I was going to rent the game this weekend for that sole reason.

Yeah, I know. But surely they must see how this damages their future profitability for short term gains.

Not really a spoiler... I haven't "spoiled" anything considerign the advice remains to not play this game and not consider it canon, but I guess 1 in a thousand obsessive compulsive person who would care about such a thing...

Gearbox boycott? Anyone?

I think he's the head of a company that got stuck in a shitty situation (working with four or five other studios to try and push out A:CM at the same time they're working on Borderlands 2), knowingly pushed out a toxic turd of a game, dolled it up as much as possible to make as much cash as they could off it, and is now stepping really carefully to avoid saying anything that will damage the company's stock.

All in all, he's fulfilling his duties as a director admirably.

Treblaine:

chiefohara:

A corporate entity will never be honest about its problems. Shareholders and stakeholders would crucify a CEO if he/she started talking down its own product. The Ethics of business at the end of the day is to make as much money as possible and if you screw customers over to do that... well shareholders don't give a damn, and shareholders come first no matter what CEO you are.

Not saying what they did isn't wrong, and it won't bite them in the ass regarding brand loyalty in the future but the industry doesn't seem to be able to see beyond the end of year figures anymore.

Also, spoilers mate... You named the character who survived, edit it out of your post. I was going to rent the game this weekend for that sole reason.

Yeah, I know. But surely they must see how this damages their future profitability for short term gains.

Not really a spoiler... I haven't "spoiled" anything considerign the advice remains to not play this game and not consider it canon, but I guess 1 in a thousand obsessive compulsive person who would care about such a thing...

Yes it is a spoiler.

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that its a spoiler.

Every online review of the game avoided mentioning it because its a spoiler.

Deliberately leaving your post unedited is a dick move.

bastardofmelbourne:
I think he's the head of a company that got stuck in a shitty situation (working with four or five other studios to try and push out A:CM at the same time they're working on Borderlands 2), knowingly pushed out a toxic turd of a game, dolled it up as much as possible to make as much cash as they could off it, and is now stepping really carefully to avoid saying anything that will damage the company's stock.

All in all, he's fulfilling his duties as a director admirably.

to be fair, they are the ones who put themselves in that position

I hope this escalates a bit further so we get another new year's video.

chiefohara:

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that its a spoiler.

Sorry, I didn't know you cared.

And it's only an insult if you choose to take such a statement personally.

And I stand by it's not a spoiler by the definition of what "spoil" means. As in it isn't ruined already. It's a "reveal" but it doesn't spoil what was a ruined mess no matter how you go into it.

But whatever, I added the "spoiler" warning to my previous post, with caveats.

Now don't get worked up over a ridiculous plot element of a terrible game being revealed.

Akalabeth:
Who wants a demo that is just a piece of the game anyway? So you play the demo, then you play the game and have to replay the exact same area again? How is that fun? FEAR's demo had some bits from the game, it also had some bits and areas that weren't in the game at all. Same thing

The FEAR demo was designed especially to showcase various bits, it was stated as such by the developers (who put effort into it). I don't know about you but you chose the worst two examples to give, both Half Life and FEAR are some of the best shooters we've seen in gaming history. If Colonial Marines Final product were even remotely as well made as either of those games, do you think anyone would care about what was shown in the demos?

Ultraman1966:

Akalabeth:
Who wants a demo that is just a piece of the game anyway? So you play the demo, then you play the game and have to replay the exact same area again? How is that fun? FEAR's demo had some bits from the game, it also had some bits and areas that weren't in the game at all. Same thing

The FEAR demo was designed especially to showcase various bits, it was stated as such by the developers (who put effort into it). I don't know about you but you chose the worst two examples to give, both Half Life and FEAR are some of the best shooters we've seen in gaming history. If Colonial Marines Final product were even remotely as well made as either of those games, do you think anyone would care about what was shown in the demos?

So what you're suggesting is that people have a double standard? And that, accusations of "lying and misrepresentation" are being given not because the demo differs from the game but because the game is not a good game?

That's the point. If a demo, or a game in progress, differs from the end product in the details it's not really that relevant. Being different is not a basis for criticism, because it happens all the time. Like if in the demo some guy gets killed, and in the game, he doesn't get killed, what's the difference?

Now if the actual quality and game play is not reflective of what's happening, that's another story. But that's why you need a comparison. To demonstrate how things act in one case and not in another. Like if there's an autoturret sequence in the game, but not in the place the demonstration gives, then what's the difference? The feature's still in the game.

I mean the demonstration in question is from October 2011. A lot can happen in a year.

Now if Jim is suggesting that the video is not actual game play, and instead simply an animation presented as gameplay that's another story. That would be a lie. But having something in the demonstration, then the game being changed, is not a lie persay it's simply a different version of the same game.

Akalabeth:

barbzilla:

Akalabeth:
Sterling didn't contrast the game and the demo, he simply showed the demo and derided the game. I found the video fairly useless quite frankly because not seeing the game itself I've nothing but his word to know that it differs greatly. And to say that something from the demo is not in the game does not prove the game itself is lacking, it's simply saying it's different.

Half Life's demo differed greatly from the game. But it was still a decent game.
Fear's demo differed from the game. But it was still a decent game.

If the aliens have better AI in the demo then show me an example.

etcetera

This is what people refer to when they speak of entitlement. You are acting as though you are entitled to receive all of the relevant information without having to work for it. I saw the same video you did, and had similar questions afterwards. The difference being the video encouraged me to investigate for myself, and the video looks as though it encouraged you to want something you didn't get.

Hahaha. This has NOTHING to do with entitlement, this is about presenting an effective argument. An effective argument includes evidence. You give evidence how the two are different, you don't simply show one and then say how it's different.
I'm not saying I DESERVE a better argument, I'm saying his argument was flawed and ineffective.

As for investigating the game, I don't really care about it so I have no need to investigate it further. Jim's opinion of the game didn't sway me one way or the other, he just made himself look bad and I'm not surprised by the Gearbox guy's response.

As for your comments about Half Life and Fear's demos, I don't see how that is actually relevant. Jim said through out the video that it was a vertical slice, what he was on about is how the environments changed so much from the video to the released game, and for the worse at that. You don't make an amazing set piece and then throw it away to make a new worse looking one. That would be counter productive and pointless. The fact is those set pieces were fabricated just for the gameplay demo, but gearbox can cover its ass with bullshit excuses to keep them clear of false advertising claims. Our only hope for retribution is from Sega, since some of the A:CM funds were misappropriated to be used on Boarderlands.

Did you play Half Life's demo? It has this epic moment where you're running around and suddenly the place starts shaking. The huge Gargantua is shaking the place up. Things are falling down, you climb up an air duct, and as your climbing through the ducts it shakes again and the duct breaks, you fall into a room. You see the gargantua in half lighting, a guard is firing at it ineffectively, he gets killed, a cowering scientist gets killed, then it comes for you. All the while you're blasting away, and doing nothing.

It was a great set piece, and a great introduction. Was it in the game? Absolutely not. Do I remember how the Gargantua gets revealed in the actual game? Not at all.

So how does this differ in any way from the ACM demo?

The demo had entire areas that weren't in the game. Entire set pieces that weren't in the game. It was not reflective of the game in a lot of ways. It's, a demo.

See the fact that something is IN the demo, but not in the game, does not make it a lie. It makes it different.
Now, if the quality of the demo is measurably different in all aspects to that of the game, then you can say it was misrepresentative, but missing one or two set pieces or an area does not make it a lie.

Who wants a demo that is just a piece of the game anyway? So you play the demo, then you play the game and have to replay the exact same area again? How is that fun? FEAR's demo had some bits from the game, it also had some bits and areas that weren't in the game at all. Same thing

I apologize if you weren't implying that you deserved a video that did the work for you. That is what your initial argument imparted upon me, its hard to get the proper picture sometimes when reading text. If you had been implying that you deserved to have both the demo and the game itself prepared for you instead of just the demo, that would have been entitled.

I did play both demos, and that is what is called a vertical slice. Something Jim mentions many times in his video. The point that the areas and events in the demo didn't happen in the game isn't what we are arguing about. We are upset about how the things that are in the game were changed/removed (or much more likely never existed), not the places/ect. We are upset that the advanced AI that was supposed to be in the game wasn't there, the way the effects and lighting that was in an alpha stage version of the game isn't there, and the way the places that are in the game have been changed for the worse. The way they make it seem is that those things were never part of the game at all, and the demo was made separate from the game entirely for the point of selling the game. That is ethically wrong, and borderline illegal.

Fear and Half life did the vertical slice gameplay, but the AI/effects/and places that are in there remain or were improved upon. That is why I dismiss your argument about those. In fact I even said this in my previous post.

So....Randy Pitchford is complaining that Jim is showboating for attention?

The same Randy Pitchford who exaggerated, deceived and even straight-up lied about his game so that it would seem more impressive to potential customers?

Akalabeth:
So what you're suggesting is that people have a double standard? And that, accusations of "lying and misrepresentation" are being given not because the demo differs from the game but because the game is not a good game?

Nope, you don't understand. I haven't played the Half Life demo (I bought the game twice over the years without having played it) but I play the FEAR one and the developers specifically created the demo after the game was nearly completed. They also made it be known that it was specially created demo which cost them extra money. Again, I stress that if CM was a good game then no one would give two shits about the 2011 demo.

Akalabeth:
That's the point. If a demo, or a game in progress, differs from the end product in the details it's not really that relevant. Being different is not a basis for criticism, because it happens all the time. Like if in the demo some guy gets killed, and in the game, he doesn't get killed, what's the difference?

That's just being picky on both sides. I'm not bothered if every little detail doesn't happen but question is, a lot of that stuff looks good and adds to the game (like marines being whisked off by aliens or being chased by that tank alien) so why wasn't it in the final version?

Akalabeth:
Now if the actual quality and game play is not reflective of what's happening, that's another story. But that's why you need a comparison. To demonstrate how things act in one case and not in another. Like if there's an autoturret sequence in the game, but not in the place the demonstration gives, then what's the difference? The feature's still in the game.

The quality is different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z2qVebxlUo
Take a look yourself.

Akalabeth:
I mean the demonstration in question is from October 2011. A lot can happen in a year.

The game looks completely different from that demo to what we have today. The lighting and textures are different... it looks worse than a work in progress video. Clearly, a lot of shit has happened in that time.

Akalabeth:
Now if Jim is suggesting that the video is not actual game play, and instead simply an animation presented as gameplay that's another story. That would be a lie. But having something in the demonstration, then the game being changed, is not a lie persay it's simply a different version of the same game.

If you listen to what Jim says (he rants alot so it's hard to make out), he basically was given the impression that during the demo he was watching a Gearbox employee "play" the game.

BansheeBomb:
Gearbox boycott? Anyone?

Gearbox has one of the most rabid fans, Hell, Borderlands 2 might as well be a DLC of the original Borderlands with how the mechanics of the game is almost no different from the original and yet fans still call it the best game of 2013.

Ya gearbox has me nervous now. I haven't played aliens, but I have seen some of the examples of gameplay quality and the demo they showed off. And after seeing all these posts, I'm getting to the point where i don't think I will buy any more of their games until I've seen evidence of quality. I think I will wait until reviews and videos come along to prove they actually tried.

Raiyan 1.0:

Cpu46:

Raiyan 1.0:

How is accusing critics of 'showboating' being eloquent?

OT: Sterling earns yet another developer's ire, and my respect.

To be fair he is accusing Sterling of showboating.
I love Jim and his show but I do have to say that Pritchford isn't wrong in that regard.

To me he sounds more frustrated that Sterling didn't contact him first with questions about why it turned out the way it did and just went on to create his video on Aliens: CM. Don't get me wrong Jims A-lie-ns video was perfectly justified and I agree with almost everything in the video but I do understand the tone that Pritchford is taking.

That's the thing about Jim. He's not going to consult with the developer or the publisher before tackling their anti-consumer behavior. In fact, I believe he is doing it at his own expense, since I can't see Gearbox being too enthusiastic about giving his publication exclusives in the future, not to mention Jim genuinely seems to like Randy. Same with Konami - he loves their games, but because of his criticisms, he's banned from their press conferences or something the last I heard. Was he being boisterous and outspoken about a certain shady industry practice? You bet, and that's exactly what we need in the post-Doritosgate industry.

...

Looking back, it's kind of funny how I raged about Jimquisition when it started and was asking the site to boot him out.

And at the same time he bashed Erik Kain for doing the same thing in a more civil manner

chiefohara:

Treblaine:

Cpu46:

I agree with most of what you say but I still have some sympathy for Gearbox. In 2008 they had announced that they were developing Aliens: CM, then later that year they announced they were developing that horror story of a development cycle Duke Nukem, Borderlands was still in development, and then they had a ton of layoffs making them one of the smallest AAA developers still in business with 3 AAA titles in their lap at one time. Remember that they are a developer so they have contracts stipulating when a game should come out, how much the game should make, and other criteria that are given by the publisher in order to get paid fully. If they didn't do what they did about Aliens then they would probably owe Sega a LOT of money and most likely would go under as a company. I don't condone them lying but I find it hard to hate them for it when considering all this.

I can accept all that.

What is not acceptable is the obvious deception, and I'll go further than "not condoning". This damages the reputation of the entire industry.

They should have been honest that this was beyond their means to fix and Sega needs to man up and stop trying to do this on the cheap, trying to get a skeleton crew developer to make/fix three games at once, including borderlands 2 back to back after Borderlands 1. There is also talk of a Duke Nukem sequel or remake being made at the same time?!?

It's their fault for signing contract stipulations beyond what they could manage, their loyal trusting customers should not be exploited unfairly to cover up for their terrible business decisions.

I mean I don't get them, why did they take Duke Nukem Forever? It obviously wasn't out of any sort of loyalty to that classic gamestyle, they blatantly cashed that in for Halo style gameplay with 2 weapon limit and regenerating health, it pissed off everyone! Aliens: CM wasn't true to the aliens franchise as it is supposedly "of canon" game that completely contradicts the movies such as LV426 not being nuked from orbit, Sulaco remaining in orbit, ---- surviving and being on LV426.

A corporate entity will never be honest about its problems. Shareholders and stakeholders would crucify a CEO if he/she started talking down its own product. The Ethics of business at the end of the day is to make as much money as possible and if you screw customers over to do that... well shareholders don't give a damn, and shareholders come first no matter what CEO you are.

Not saying what they did isn't wrong, and it won't bite them in the ass regarding brand loyalty in the future but the industry doesn't seem to be able to see beyond the end of year figures anymore.

Also, spoilers mate... You named the character who survived, edit it out of your post. I was going to rent the game this weekend for that sole reason.

It wouldn't have helped, the game displays Michael Biehn in the opening credits, which are captioned over the animation in gloriously large font. Pre-release I thought it might be Hudson, then I started the game.

Chester Rabbit:
No...no Randy would never say that.... O.O Randy...you're breaking my heart! You're going down a path I can't follow!

Please, isn't there enough shit involved in this discussion? Don't go quoting episode 3 now. Nobody needs that on top of this disappointment of a game.

One thing that just keeps popping up is their HUGE TELEVISION AD CAMPAIGN. It is everywhere. Someone is spending megabucks trying to make this sound like the best thing since the original Halo.

Jim Sterling, can you address that? Is it possible for a publisher to overwhelm crap quality with over-the-top advertising?

I'd love to read that article, or see that vid.

Thanks.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here