Justin from TMSGamer continues his article on this worst games he's played this generation with part two.
Alone in the Dark developer Pieces Interactive has been hit with layoffs a month after its release, as per the latest information.
That genuinely, genuinely sucks. The reboot has clear flaws, but it really felt like a solid first step for this team to receive *greater* investment.
That's standard. Teams are together for a Project, after its done some..and sometimes most devs are fired until the next Project is in the works and people are needed again. Only the core members stay in the time between the hot phase of the game development.
What’s annoying is people don’t understand how contractors work, either. All of this is uninformed knee-jerk reactions without any understanding of how employment works in this industry. There are key developers and staff that stay with a studio/publisher, but often times it’s a hire per project and then seeking new employment for a project. That’s how it’s always been…
That's a fair point too. I would say that in light of its tepid critical/commercial response and ongoing mass layoffs across the industry I think it's understandable for fans to worry about the longer-term implications. We'll see how it plays out in the future.
VGChartz's Lee Mehr: "In one sense, it feels strange to even think Pieces Interactive had big shoes to fill with this series' legacy. Given what's come before, did it really? And yet, even when considering the last two flops over a two-decade span, there's still something about Alone in the Dark emblazoned on a title screen that carries a sense of revered history. In that respect, perhaps this reboot's best accomplishment is in honoring that spirit through its inventive world. It's also fair to emphasize knocks against its survival-horror design, some puzzle-solving, and so on; it certainly won't be considered a trendsetter like the 1992 classic. Still, the amount of goodwill wedded to its brighter qualities makes for something that dawdles the line between unfortunately-flawed and impressively-enticing."
The new Alone in the Dark remake doesn't do anything especially noteworthy, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just... cromulent.
Final Fantasy 13, while not as good as its predecessors, is still a relatively good RPG. Worthy of the Final Fantasy name and legacy? Probably not, but there are dozens of worse RPGs to have seen the day during this generation.
Kane and Lynch Dog Days, for me, was quite enjoyable, as long as I had someone to play with. It's by no mean a great game, but as far as couch co-op games go, it was okay, and, while not for everyone, the story was different and actually had me care about the characters.
As for the 3 other games, I must agree, they were pretty bad and had very little fun to offer. But, just like in the first part of this list, I feel the author is not listing the absolute worst games of the generation, but only those who went somewhat mainstream. Plenty of obscure JGRPs, action games and Call of Duty clones were way worse than anything listed.
Simon cowell knows best!
Also I agree with some of those games.
I think the word they're looking for is "disappointing."
Duke Nukem Forever was an ugly, glitchy, dated mess of a game. So how come the single player campaign managed to hold my attention much longer than any COD, Battlefield, Gears Of War or Halo campaign this generation? I know it's a terrible game, but through all the flaws, I still had a blast playing it. It felt like a PS2 game in a good way.
Most disappointing for me was Dead Island :(