I think you're absolutely right.Abomination said:
I just want them to say that instead of saying 'Whoa, dude, it sucked?! We had no idea! Wow, someone should have told us. Sorry about that'
Sega Admits to Inaccurate Aliens: Colonial Marines Trailer
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I just want them to say that instead of saying 'Whoa, dude, it sucked?! We had no idea! Wow, someone should have told us. Sorry about that'
I have to agree with Andy. Adding the disclaimer to the trailers doesn't mean jack squat, since you're generally going to assume that the final product will be better. In fact, that's the whole reason why the "does not represent final product" disclaimer exists in the first place, so that they can show-off early footage of a game without having to worry about some currently-unpolished bit (maybe the AI is still clumsy, or some animations are a little choppy) reflecting badly on the game. Adding a disclaimer that has such connotations to a gameplay trailer that's MORE polished than the final product feels like it's still false advertising.
This a thousand times over. Not that Sega is competent, as the Sonic franchise has proven time and time again, but from my understanding Gearbox took Sega's money to make this game then decided to work on everything but that game during the next five / six years. After all, GB managed to not only buy Duke Nukem Forever and finish it, but then proceeded to make and release Borderlands 2 in it's entirety - all during ACM's development. Honestly, I'm not surprised if the rumors are true that Sega was forcing them to release the game unfinished or else would take them to court, as after six years of taking my money and doing fuck-all with it I'd be pissed too.james.sponge said:
As for the disclaimer, everyone is right that it does nothing to inform people that the game is worse than the trailers make it seem and in fact the disclaimers will probably add more confusion, as one expects the final product to improve from it's demo stages rather than the other way around.
The problem there is the legal ramifications for making such a statement. Admitting publically that they knew they were producing shit and charging $60 for it would grant many people the option to demand a refund. No EULA would protect a company from a public statement of a faulty product.ObsidianJones said:
The second issue is that Gearbox could turn around and sue for defamation.
This is a great big turd sandwich that Gearbox has served to everyone. The publisher has to produce it to recoup some of their investment and get the rap for that, the unfortunate consumer takes a bite and gets to savor the taste and other developers collectively facepalm at the precedent this will set for their publisher-developer relationships.
While Sega should have managed Gearbox better it was Gearbox who ultimately failed with this product. The product could have been produced to expectations with or without Sega using more strict oversight.
The trailers actually looked terrible.
The enemies clearly were scripted, and that corridor with the smartgun looked like the worst gameplay I've ever seen come out of an Aliens game.
If you had watched even 1 trailer before release you would've realised not to buy it.
The enemies clearly were scripted, and that corridor with the smartgun looked like the worst gameplay I've ever seen come out of an Aliens game.
If you had watched even 1 trailer before release you would've realised not to buy it.
Well, if Gearbox took SEGA's money, in over a period of 6 years released, Borderlands, DNF, and a ass load of Brothers in Arms games, then maybe SEGA doesnt really have a foot to stand on. I mean, if I paid a contractor to fix up my kitchen, and he worked on and finished several other projects after I gave him the money, I would be pissed. But would I really have anything to go on if I just waited for several months before he got back to work on it? SEGA should have really have been riding Gearbox on this.V da Mighty Taco said:
I know people want to see publishers give more freedom to developers when it comes to games, but, on one hand, you have something like EA's relationship with its devs, and on the other, you have this. Developers should have freedom, but it should still have some freaking oversight. I mean really, what all did SEGA do during that time?
[I have not played it so let's not go into anything from the game itself.]itsthesheppy said:
There'd be a worthwhile comparison if you could say that their recent gameplay demos weren't indicative of the final product, which I'm inclined to doubt seeing as you had to go back to the very first thing shown from 2 and a half years ago. At that point you're not far off from complaining about a pre-vis demo.
Umm... that's utter bullshit.
Instead of slapping on a "from demo" onto the ads, they should be forced to remove the false ads from public viewing and make ads that are of the actual game.
Instead of slapping on a "from demo" onto the ads, they should be forced to remove the false ads from public viewing and make ads that are of the actual game.
I'll give you that - SEGA should have kept a much better eye on this game and Gearbox. Development hells are often born from devs having too much freedom without keeping in mind what is actually feasible.WanderingFool said:
Still, I wouldn't say SEGA wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Game development takes a lot of time - sometimes more than five years on a AAA game, which ACM was. Even though they would have to fight the whole "why weren't you keeping a better eye on the game" issue you brought up, they still would have something to go on with Gearbox constantly taking their money to supposedly work on ACM and insisting that they were working on the game the entire time (something that can easily be argued against). It wouldn't be a cakewalk of a case by any means, but it is there nonetheless.
They're just as guilty. It's not the first time they put out a worse version of the game compares to the demo. Remember Sonic '06?RicoADF said: