I’ve seen analysis that said Catwoman may have been more about royalties in the streaming era rather than solely tax write-offs, but this article does point out “this year” specifically. The lower bound for how much Concord lost is in line with the highest recorded box office loss of John Carter, according to the article. Previous Kotaku reporting confirms from multiple sources that Concord lost at least $200M, but did not fully corroborate the $400M figure that Colin Moriarty reported.
This is less a sign of “the devs don’t trust the player” and more just plain out bad game design. Maybe the game itself is very obvious (I don’t know, i haven’t played nor do I intend to), but this kind of thing is usually done when the game is obtuse and the developer wants a quickfix instead of actually reworking the entire thing. Then again, if your game is for little children and they can’t figure out how to play it, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with it and maybe you should go back to the drawing board.
I would say that if you non-jokingly talk like that, you got bigger issues than any specific gaming sites or which consultants are brought in to work on which game.
I played through it yesterday. It was interesting, and there were fun story beats, but it was very easy. With all the accessibility features and tutorials, it’s probably a great game to get people who don’t play games interested in platforming games and maybe even some RPGs.
Either a shit article or shit website. The article gives a summary of the game then says the developers don’t trust their customers. That’s it. No reasons given. Am I missing something?
There’s a section under the “read more” split where it complains about over-tutorialization. The game hits you over the head with puzzle solutions and intended routes and leaves nothing for the player to figure out.
I don’t think their implementation is the way to go. It reeks of bad UI, like Clippy in Microsoft Word.
Mario games are so accessible without the heavy handed videos/stops, because their designers think about how to best teach the player through play.
It’s like teaching by giving people a hour long lecture vs hands-on experience - there’s usecases for both, but in a interactive medium like gaming, one is superior than the other.
Ideally, it would be an optional thing, but oh well.
Yeah tons of games ask you at the start of the game, like “have you played this kind of game before?” Def seems clumsy for a game that otherwise seems pretty well thought out.
I have seen people (in person and on the Internet) click tutorials away, proceed to utterly fail at the most basic tasks only to then blame the game and the developers, including in reviews. I don’t blame developers for trying to prevent this from happening.
Idk if that’s a useful example case. Streamers are under pressure from their audience to be entertaining, so they will frequently skip tutorials against their better judgment bc tutorials aren’t fun to watch. I can’t speak to your irl examples, but it’s possible that there was a similar dynamic happening there. At least, I can say that I have personally felt a similar pressure when playing games while other people are watching me.
Edit: user reviews are good example, though. I could see a dev over-tutorializing bc they are anxious about negative user reviews.
kotaku.com
Najnowsze