@liquiddragon: I think you're reading my posts as more hostile than they actually are. I never said across the board that success is due to the developer and failure is due to SE. Re-read what I wrote. The first thing I say is SE funded, the developers executed and the results were great games. That's a joint effort. My point isn't that SE is a shitty company, it's that the seem out of their element when dealing with IPs, and the studios that develop those IPs, that are outside of their normal fare.
- TR1 was successful by any standard; the problem with SE in that case is that their statements after launch expressed disappointment with the game which bothered the developer enough that they felt compelled to publicly defend the quality of they had made. Tomb Raider being a quality product was due to both parties.
- DX:HR was successful and loved by fans an critics. It being a quality product was due to both parties. I didn't get into this above because we weren't really talking about the quality of DX:HR, but if there was anything to criticize it was the boss battles and the push a button ending, which were design decisions and EMs fault.
- Hitman was maybe successful, but just not right away. Hard to tell who pushed for the episodic release but it seems like it was IO driven based upon statements about developing the levels better. It's also hard to tell if it was a good idea. The episodic release kept Giant Bomb coming back to it throughout the year. The same sort of coverage didn't happen with Hitman 2 despite it being a more polished package that was released as a whole. Anyway, I highlighted the timing of SE looking for buyers to illustrate that they probably never really saw how IO fit under the SE umbrella. Even then, I'm not blaming SE, I said they weren't a good pairing. That's on IO as well.
- DX:MD. Ok this one I largely blame SE for, but its hard to argue against it given what the game was criticized for by fans and reviewers. Even then I think I was being fair when I made statements like
"As the developer Eidos Montreal could have done something differently to better wrap up the story or to make Breach less of a grind but it's hard to know how much freedom they had to do so. The founder of the studio resigned during development due to issues with SE and the art director left shortly after MDs release. Employee turnover is reportedly high for that studio, which usually points to an issue with some aspect of management, though not necessarily with SE."
EM could have done better with the restrictions SE placed on them and didn't, that is, if they had that level of control or the time to do so. The high turnover could be due to EM management or it could be due to SE management. Maybe it's neither. Maybe people don't like living in Montreal. Who knows.
- Thief 4. Underwhelming and I think it is entirely EMs fault.
Now, back to my original post and this press conference. Compare how they handled the FF7 Remake and the Avengers reveal. The former is paced well, executed well and showcases why you should be excited about what they are making. The later was muddled, disjointed and underwhelming. Promoting FF7 seems natural, but they seem to stumble while doing the same for Avengers. Just like the seemed to stumble with IO and Hitman or EM and Deus Ex Mankind Divided. Avengers was supposed to close the show for them and THAT was the result.
Maybe I'm wrong. I admitted I don't play a ton of JRPGs so has this happened with some of the JRPGs SE has published and I'm just not aware of it?
Am I thankful for the good games they have produced? Yeah of course. But that's not a reason to just shut up and be grateful when there are valid things to criticize.
Log in to comment