To be honest I’ve never even heard of the game. This was an enormous failure in marketing more than a game being bad.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
125 points (93.1% liked)
Games
30553 readers
157 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Same, wtf even is this? I thought it was a MCU movie or something?
Armored Core and Baldur's Gate taking up the limelight right now.
@altima_neo @BURN It looks like a reskin of Fable Legends, but in the style of Too Human.
From the little I’ve looked it doesn’t look terrible, but I’m not sure I’d pay for it myself
Same, although maybe it was targeted more at console players and fans of fps games. I looked it up just now and it looks well made, and also interesting. Finger guns and lots of movement, etc. Something went very wrong to get low numbers on this.
Right? Looks half interesting, probably could of sold well enough with any level of marketing.
I can't imagine how soul-destroying it must be to put so much time and effort into a big-budget game like this only for it to flop so utterly. Even notoriously bad games sell at least a few thousand copies; being ignored is even worse. I'd say "at least it's not an indie game," but then most indie developers would expect their games to have minimal uptake these days.
It is an indie game tho, it's just published under EA's EA Originals label which is for indie studios.
From the other reviews it doesn't sound like they put TOO much time and effort into it...
"They" as in the whole development studio? Probably not. But "they" who worked on the game did most likely put in a lot of time and effort.
What is it with games like this lately? These titles are completely devoid of creativity, running exclusively on the promise of amazing UE5 graphics
And then fail to deliver amazing graphics
Personally, I don't even care about the graphics that much. Sure, it's breathtaking and all, but by themselves they get old so quickly
Just looked at Steam reviews and apparently it's another shitty launch that doesn't run on anything other than the best cpu and gpu combos, so they can't even promise good graphics lol
I don't necessarily think title is the issue. Some of the biggest name games out there use pretty basic words: "God of War", "The Last of Us". They definitely lose some attention by being a brand new IP without much of a "signature feel" to them, like giant mechs, zombies, or princess magic.
I'm not talking about the title as in the name of the game. I'm talking about it in the sense of the game itself
load more comments
(1 replies)
I've literally never heard about it until this post.
Looking at the reviews seems like a shame as the only complaints are the hardware limitations. Still won't be getting it until I finish (at least some of) my backlog.
Gee, certainly had nothing to do with it releasing while BG3 is still all-engrossing and the queen of the looter shooter, Warframe, had its convention yesterday and pulled in over 200k people into the main livestream yesterday, as well as having events all week.
Might be the worst time to drop a looter shooter.
Not to mention releasing so close to other popular games like Armored Core 6 and Starfield
I wouldn't blame BG3. The FPS and CRPG markets generally aren't that closely related. I'm finding all the BG3 clips people post online interesting, but I'm certainly more interested in a good singleplayer FPS. "Good" being key.
No one was really predicting Baldur's Gate would blow up THIS much, honestly. And besides, what could they do? Delay it any amount and you get close to something that IS predictably going to explode: Starfield.
Damn, I haven't played Warframe in years (and never will again, 5000h is enough), but it's good to hear it's going strong. It's an incredible game that at the time of my quitting just needed some clear direction.
RockPaperShotgun did a performance analysis on this - long story short, a 30xx card will be good for about medium settings, a 40xx for high, and really a 4090 for ultra. According to the Steam hardware survey, that's about one-in-five PC gamers that could start this up if they wanted to; a few percent can run it with all the flashy graphics. Combine the hardware exclusivity and the distinctly 'meh' reviews, get some seriously low player numbers.
This is it right here, unrealistic pc expectations. The reviews also warn potential buyers unless you have a high end device avoid the game.
load more comments
(8 replies)
The visual design of their game world looks like it tried to replicate "stock asset" in blender. Everything feels devoid of any real artistic intent. So it feels overwhelmingly shiny and chrome and just bland. That's just based on visuals, but I legitimately confused this with the other God's of whatever title from 6-8 months ago.
I actually played a good chunk of this game.
It's actually pretty fun. The combat feels fun enough shooting spells from your hands. The world is pretty cool. Gina Torres was fantastic to see.
There are two showstoppers though. The PC performance is horrid, with a 3070 on pretty low settings with DLSS I'm still getting horrible framerates at points. The other issue is at $60-70 its a very high ask for such a short/simple game. I went the route of buying a month of EA play plus or whatever for $15 to play through it. If it was released at $30-40 might have felt a bit more fair for what it is.
I didn't see any marketing for it until release personally, and with the mixed/negative reviews my expectations were low. So going in with that perspective, and enjoying my playtime overall was a nice surprise.
Not surprising, but disappointing. The premise was interesting (first person magic shooter) but the execution was tepid. The presentation / atmosphere, the generic graphics, the dopey dialogue, the lack of an interesting story. A lot of the success of games like Halo is how the world sucks you in with its atmosphere and storyline, I think developers really underestimate how much that matters in a single player game. Cinematogrophy is important, the feel of an experience is more than the simple gameplay of moving a character around and pushing buttons.
The first two halo games were masterpieces in world building and suspense in gameplay. When the flood is first introduced your on the edge of your seat it's on par with the best horror games ever made.
Even Halo 3, for all its faults ("to war" immediately springs to mind), kept everything largely within the world-building of the previous two games, and it made the whole trilogy feel super cohesive and immersive when played back to back.
3 was definitely the last solid one. I still can't believe they tried to turn it into a class based loadout cod game for multiplayer...
The story is good in Halo, but you really discount that 1-3 were basically the best shooter experience available at the time.
Halo was one of the first console fps games that got the controls right. Before Halo, FPS games were only really good on the PC (though some console ones like Goldeneye and PD were good despite bad controls). Mouse and keyboard are still supreme, but Halo's one stick looks one stick moves scheme brought consoles out of that awkward to control range.
Moving around effectively in Goldeneye or PD was an art. In Halo, like PC games, it was natural.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh, that's already out?
I kinda mentally dropped away from it when I saw the graphics, no way I can run that remotely usefully on a 3070. And from the reviews on Steam, it seems performance is bad in general. I'm curious to try it, but not if running it would just be frustration.
Honestly performance is a big selling factor for PC games for me. I was more interested in Immortals than Armored Core 6 pre launch, but Armored Core apparently runs great on steam deck and will be a good experience on any PC I own, while I'm not sure Immortals would run acceptably on my main PC.
The entire game looks cheap to me. The weapons and the way it just handles doesn't seem very good.
I don't know anything about the game, maybe there was some big outrage I don't know. Everyone always mad about games these days.
But that's kind of sad. Doesn't make me happy to see success siloed so much these days. In this industry it feels like there's no space for anyone but the giant success stories, or the bedroom developer that can live on tiny indie sales
There isn't any outrage or anything, I wouldn't feel too bad about it because it seems like an extremely generic shooter with mictrotransactions and menus that look exactly like Destiny. It just had terrible marketing and was very uninspired.
Also the minimum specs are so high that most people can't play it, and it runs very poorly.
If there was big outrage it would have more sales.
It was put out by EA, and this flop very likely solidifies their logic that "Singleplayer games don't sell" - although I'm sure most people around here would confidently say it failed for other reasons.
Aveum, I’m gonna let you finish, but Ghostwire Tokyo has the best the “shoot magic from your hands” look.
Hopefully, it sold more on consoles. Otherwise, numbers like this could kill a fledgling studio outright.
I wonder how much of that is just due to it being an EA game and so people pick it up on the EA store. Although could also be their marketing. Maybe I’m just not in the target demographic but I saw 1 ad for it before launch and it explained nothing about the game. From that all I took was that it looked like a shitty early access game.
I thought you were going somewhere else with it being an EA game, lol
view more: next ›