- Sep 5, 2009
True, it does add context and you can clearly see the problem that's occured here, but that doesn't make up for a bad game. A simple fact is that bad games generally don't sell well, and even in context, it still seems kind of like a disapointment considering what people would expect from a game like this.Testsubject909 said:I wonder if one should consider the state of the studio that has dished out this game.
That is. Loss of financial backing as well as loss of manpower, thus making the task of creating a refined videogame all the more difficult.
Think of it like this. What would happen of Breach could come out backed under a large company's name, coming out as a large name title as opposed to a smaller named game which one could now mark off as a sort of indie game (and by indie standard, it's pretty damn huge... Plus, they technically do count as indie, since they're a newly founded company with no clear backing, thus independent.)
Think. If this game had one more year of work on it, a full campaign and a team about two to ten times larger then they are right now rather then then salvaging material from a previously made game that's a few years old to begin with.
How polished would the game be? Also, consider the time when this game was meant to come out. At the time, this would've been quite gripping to many.
But, I doubt many would take that under consideration. Does it alter the facts of what Breach presents today? no, not really. But it adds context.
More time and more polish would have made a better game, but Breach isn't that game, it's Breach and nothing alters that fact.