But those moves have traditionally come when a game is out and has, by whatever metric, failed. Or, at the other end of the scale, when a game fails to get off the ground earlier in development, and a publisher decides to cut its losses, or as it would probably say, “reallocate resources”. To commit five years of work, to build an entire company around the goal of producing a single game, and then throw it all in the bin just days before it was supposed to come out is a whole new level of ineptitude that’s particularly cruel, even by this industry’s cruel-by-default standards.
Abandoning a project right out of the gate before there’s a real chance to see what it can be is “cruel”.
Recognizing that a product doesn’t deserve to be shipped is a good thing. They gave it a great chance to get to a finished product, evaluated where it was at, and had the decency to not shovel shit out the door and rip people off.
A new Mario, Zelda, metroid is what ninten does? Well, I suppose the article is technically correct. Shame the company is a dinosaur with draconian beliefs.
Indeed. I own a Nintendo Switch and Breath of the Wild but Nintendo says I’m not allowed to play it on my Steam Deck. I guess that’s the last time I buy something from them. Their games really are amazing though so it’s a shame.
After the emulation debacle I’ve promised myself I wouldn’t spend money with Nintendo anymore. As you say, a shame, because I was considering getting Botw but…
Paradox Deputy CEO Mattias Lilja is announcing this just like he was the one to announce the changes to Cities Skylines 2 development.
Apparently he was made Deputy CEO only this year, but has been with Paradox for years. I really wonder: does he get picked to announce these things because no one else wants to take responsibility? Or is he the one stepping in where the rest of the management have let things run out of control?
Honestly, 80% of everything is crap, and 80% of businesses fail, and that’s nobody’s fault. It would be even worse if they tried to ship a turd they knew wouldn’t satisfy players.
I understand if you’re sad that the game didn’t turn out and you don’t get to play it, but I’m just proud of them for taking the risk to begin with, and I’m sorry it didn’t turn out how anyone would have liked. Sometimes thems the brakes.
Tbf I’ve read that they missed their third deadline for an early access release. I was interested in the game but if what you have after like 5 years still isn’t enough for even early gameplay scrutiny, maaaaybe some major mistakes were made. And then never addressed. For half a decade.
I’ll hate on big companies and executives alllllll day, but I’m an equal opportunity hater whenever it’s warranted.
It’s all on the executives right? All responsibility lays with them. The workers just do their job. If the product fails, it’s the executives responsibility.
In another post you also say that executive pay is too high.
I’m tired of these super generalized polarizing comments. “These bad guys up there” and all of that. Just stop that bs, there is no Karma here.
True for most screw-ups in gaming, yes, but not this time. The studio in question, Paradox Tectonic missed three Early Access deadlines. It sounds like Tectonic bit off more than they could chew. I like bashing execs as much as the next guy, but if you miss three deadlines at any job, you’re probably getting the axe.
No idea what that means, but I do know the devs of this game also made War for The Overworld and they did a fantastic job of making and maintaining it.
I’d highly recommend their studio… and if this is the type of game you’re interested in, you should definitely check it out!
I don’t know, I never saw it as a meme but rather just shorthand in cases where no other term existed that efficiently communicated the genre or style of a game.
Do you have a replacement term available for Souls-like that sums up what you can expect of a game within that genre using two words or less?
I saw another article describing something, perhaps this game, as a “Theme Hospital-like”. Theme Hospital-like is not a genre.
Souls-like is likely in a similar situation as Rogue-like or perhaps “Doom Clone” from back in the day, where a new genre is emerging and there isn’t yet an agreed-upon term for it. Rogue-like stuck around probably because it was such a niche game/genre for so long and people had been calling it that for maybe decades before the term went mainstream. Doom Clone died out because the genre branched out so much.
I wouldn’t necessarily want to reduce “Souls-like” to another genre, because it may very well be its own genre. It may end up “growing” a new name like First-Person Shooters did, or it may end up sticking around because “X-like” may be the new thing to do.
I’m just getting annoyed by seeing things like “Stardew Valley-like”, “Dragon Quest-like”, “Theme Hospital-like”…those tell you nothing if you don’t know the game they’re talking about, and if you DO know the game they’re talking about, you might get the wrong idea what the game is about because the author is making a bad comparison.
I do take your point and it’s a fair criticism. It can almost feel like a marketing ploy to piggyback off of the popularity of another game, such as Stardew Valley-like, considering a lot of the time those games have since developed a genre, like for FPS instead of Doom-like.
I would also add, though, that using Doom-like/Doom-lite would still be appropriate to define games that are closer to a Doom type game than your CoD or Counter Strike. You could make a similar argument for the style of play Stardew Valley offers compared to literally Farming Simulator 20XX.
But you could also argue it gives the reader/consumer a quicker understanding of what to expect from the game. Especially in the case of this article where there isn’t a way to clearly define/ label what to excpet from the game.
My dislike of it stems from the marketing ploy aspect. It feels like clickbait; authors trying to get hits from people looking up (or “interested in”) a certain game even if it may not be an accurate description.
I think the Doom-like FPS’s are getting called “Boomer Shooters” now, lol…but we’re ironically in a situation where we need a new term again. Or we would be if that genre were popular in the mainstream.
I think describing the game in the article as a “Management Sim inspired by Theme Hospital/Bullfrog” would get across the same concept, for example. I don’t think it’s difficult. I think it’s just becoming a popular thing for gaming journalists to do
I can see where you’re coming from and I agree at times it feels like it’s being used for the marketing since it’s easier to say, using the article as an example, “Bullfrog-like”. They could have taken an extra moment to be a bit more descriptive, such as with your example, and say “Management Sim inspired by Theme Hospital/Bullfrog”, for people who may not be familiar with “Theme Hospital” or a Bullfrog game.
Just to circle back to your initial comment, “I got to the word “Bullfroglike” and stopped reading”, I can definitely see where you are coming from, but I did disagree with your approach.
I also just wanted to add that I hope this isn’t taken as an attack upon yourself.
I do like the alliteration for “Boomer Shooter” but I don’t think it’s the right demographic xD. I think it’s still somewhat common, but I also don’t think it’s as mainstream as say your Battlefield or CoD.
We call them first-person shooters now. And I think they were usually called Doom-clones. But it makes sense that they’d use a word like that when a word for the genre hadn’t really been codified by that point.
Yeah, Rogue-like is a notable exception. The difference is that it’s an established term for a genre, whereas a single journalist saying something like “Theme Hospital-like” is not a genre.
whereas a single journalist saying something like “Theme Hospital-like” is not a genre.
Exactly. Which is why your comments here do not make any sense at all; they’re not saying it’s a genre. They’re saying these games are like the games of a long gone company of the past. There’s no established way of saying that other than “Bullfrog-like.”
But that’s their thing, they made war for the overworld because they were huge fans of bullfrog’s dungeon keeper and wanted a spiritual successor to it, now galacticare might be like bullfrog’s theme hospital
TF2 is almost 20 fucking years old and has been F2P for 13 of those years, why should Valve care to do anything about it? Frankly, the official servers even still being online at all is more than most other games(besides subscription based games like WoW) of that era can say.
Like, what were you guys expecting? For Valve to support the game the rest of your lives?
TF2 is no longer making a lot money for valve. Veteran players have all theirs special hats/cosmetics and no new player wants to invest time and money in a game so riddled with cheating bots. They could easily handle the situation. Detecting obvious cheating bots isn’t hard but valve doesn’t even try. Yes, there are community servers, like Uncle Danes, that are good at handling bots, but it’s also a big burden for them to constantly ban/remove cheating bots.
Valve is testing server side AI cheat detection in CS2. Let’s hope that they will bring that to TF2 valve servers. Maybe don’t VAC ban players being detected (AI is buggy), just remove them when detected and maybe disallow them from joining valve servers for a week.
Compared to other companies, Valve let the community use alternative community servers. Even if Valve does not care about the game anymore (sigh, one of may all time favorites), it’s possible to maintain community servers. This is something any other game wish to had, without hacking the system; it’s just part of the game. And people can even use modded communities and there exist some really cool stuff (admittedly I never tried them, I would play the game if it didn’t have the bot problem).
aftermath.site
Hot