The Game's Development Story Discussion

[Prime113]

I too hope SEGA sues Gearbox, but I also hope that is a wakeup call for the gaming press. We've seen numerous articles now about the false advertising of the game, let's see this have consequence on the future dealings Gearbox and Pitchford have within the gaming industry. I want to see websites like IGN and Gamespot refuse to print previews for Gearbox games.

Let this be an end of 'bullshots' and have the gaming press develop a backbone. No more embargos too.

Not gonna happen. Those same websites will be sucking his dick over Borderlands 3 in a year or so, knowing that if they don't bend over they won't get any exclusive interviews, early previews etc. etc. So many Gearbox fanboys/Borederlands sheep will buy their next game no matter what because "yay Borderlands/BIA" that this will ultimately have little to no impact whatsoever on Gearbox or the industry as a whole.

Just look at this time, when people were never going to trust them after DNF.

Unless I completely missed understood what you wrote, people should be excited as hell for Borderlands 3, if they were fans of 1 and 2. Calling them sheep for buying a gearbox game, because of what happened to ACM, who a lot probably won't play, is kind of silly.

[Elicas]

I too hope SEGA sues Gearbox, but I also hope that is a wakeup call for the gaming press. We've seen numerous articles now about the false advertising of the game, let's see this have consequence on the future dealings Gearbox and Pitchford have within the gaming industry. I want to see websites like IGN and Gamespot refuse to print previews for Gearbox games.

Let this be an end of 'bullshots' and have the gaming press develop a backbone. No more embargos too.

Not gonna happen. Those same websites will be sucking his dick over Borderlands 3 in a year or so, knowing that if they don't bend over they won't get any exclusive interviews, early previews etc. etc. So many Gearbox fanboys/Borederlands sheep will buy their next game no matter what because "yay Borderlands/BIA" that this will ultimately have little to no impact whatsoever on Gearbox or the industry as a whole.

Just look at this time, when people were never going to trust them after DNF.

Unless I completely missed understood what you wrote, people should be excited as hell for Borderlands 3, if they were fans of 1 and 2. Calling them sheep for buying a gearbox game, because of what happened to ACM, who a lot probably won't play, is kind of silly.

I'm calling them sheep for following a bad developer that f**ks up 1 in every three games they release, and of those released only one could be called 'great', and that is debatable (Borderlands 2 is their only game with an average rating of 90+). Lets have a look at the FPS games they've developed (because comparing other games quality to a fps in useless in the discussion of A:CM) and disregard games they've only ported such as Halo PC (because they didn't actually make said games). (all scores taken from metacritic for PC, console shooters are a whole different kettle of fish)

Opposing Force - Mid 80's
Blue Shift - mid 60's
007 Nightfire - mid to high 50's
BIA - mid 80's
BIA-EIB - low 80's
BIA-HH - low 70's, with an accompanying pre-release preview demo that had close to 0 gameplay from the final version, around three months before release.

Borderlands 1+2, notorious for their DLC skimming, highly rated for their MP coop, two of the worst single player shooters ever. Generally received favourably, personally I hate them, but enough people rate them highly for them to be seen as good. Borderlands sits in the low to mid 80's and Borderlands 2 sits on 90 exactly.

DNF - low to mid 40's, with the excuse they did next to no work on the game despite having it for at least a year (some sites have reported two years) before release.
A:CM - low to mid 40's, with an accompanying pre-release preview demo that had close to 0 gameplay from the final version, still being shown as of october 2012, around three months before release. Screenshots of which, are still on the Steam Store page!

What we can see is four games in the 80's, good but not great. One game bang on 90, the borderline between good and great. Two games in the sixties/seventies which comes up as average but flawed. Three games in the 40's/50's (coincidently two being their last releases). That's an exact split of 5 good 5 bad games, two of them known as the f**king worst FPS games to have been released in the last decade at least, if not the worst since Daikatana.

Pre-ordering on a 50% chance to get a good game, with a 10% chance of getting a great game? Yes, anyone who does that is a sheep.

Also: Borderlands 1 and 2 were f**king shite.

[ikarop]

http://www.destructoid.com/developer-gearbox-lied-to-sega-2k-over-colonial-marines-245986.phtml

[Deathly_rYaN]

I've watched Aliens again last night, and what i noticed...they failed to make Ripley's Duct taped PR/FT movie accurate.

None of the images were reveres ed at all

[SM]

I'm shocked.

[Cal427eb]

Is that sarcasm SM? 

[SM]

I'm sure I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Deathly_rYaN]

Is that sarcasm SM? 

Im sure Ripleys face is ow shocked SM is

[Nightlord]

I've watched Aliens again last night, and what i noticed...they failed to make Ripley's Duct taped PR/FT movie accurate.

None of the images were reveres ed at all

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc397/Deathly_rYaN/ACMWrong.png

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=45518.0

They had five months and they never fixed it, big suprise.

[Prime113]

I too hope SEGA sues Gearbox, but I also hope that is a wakeup call for the gaming press. We've seen numerous articles now about the false advertising of the game, let's see this have consequence on the future dealings Gearbox and Pitchford have within the gaming industry. I want to see websites like IGN and Gamespot refuse to print previews for Gearbox games.

Let this be an end of 'bullshots' and have the gaming press develop a backbone. No more embargos too.

Not gonna happen. Those same websites will be sucking his dick over Borderlands 3 in a year or so, knowing that if they don't bend over they won't get any exclusive interviews, early previews etc. etc. So many Gearbox fanboys/Borederlands sheep will buy their next game no matter what because "yay Borderlands/BIA" that this will ultimately have little to no impact whatsoever on Gearbox or the industry as a whole.

Just look at this time, when people were never going to trust them after DNF.

Unless I completely missed understood what you wrote, people should be excited as hell for Borderlands 3, if they were fans of 1 and 2. Calling them sheep for buying a gearbox game, because of what happened to ACM, who a lot probably won't play, is kind of silly.

I'm calling them sheep for following a bad developer that f**ks up 1 in every three games they release, and of those released only one could be called 'great', and that is debatable (Borderlands 2 is their only game with an average rating of 90+). Lets have a look at the FPS games they've developed (because comparing other games quality to a fps in useless in the discussion of A:CM) and disregard games they've only ported such as Halo PC (because they didn't actually make said games). (all scores taken from metacritic for PC, console shooters are a whole different kettle of fish)

Opposing Force - Mid 80's
Blue Shift - mid 60's
007 Nightfire - mid to high 50's
BIA - mid 80's
BIA-EIB - low 80's
BIA-HH - low 70's, with an accompanying pre-release preview demo that had close to 0 gameplay from the final version, around three months before release.

Borderlands 1+2, notorious for their DLC skimming, highly rated for their MP coop, two of the worst single player shooters ever. Generally received favourably, personally I hate them, but enough people rate them highly for them to be seen as good. Borderlands sits in the low to mid 80's and Borderlands 2 sits on 90 exactly.

DNF - low to mid 40's, with the excuse they did next to no work on the game despite having it for at least a year (some sites have reported two years) before release.
A:CM - low to mid 40's, with an accompanying pre-release preview demo that had close to 0 gameplay from the final version, still being shown as of october 2012, around three months before release. Screenshots of which, are still on the Steam Store page!

What we can see is four games in the 80's, good but not great. One game bang on 90, the borderline between good and great. Two games in the sixties/seventies which comes up as average but flawed. Three games in the 40's/50's (coincidently two being their last releases). That's an exact split of 5 good 5 bad games, two of them known as the f**king worst FPS games to have been released in the last decade at least, if not the worst since Daikatana.

Pre-ordering on a 50% chance to get a good game, with a 10% chance of getting a great game? Yes, anyone who does that is a sheep.

Also: Borderlands 1 and 2 were f**king shite.

I...Are you seriously calling games with 80's only good? Come on, man. Come on. Nightfire and BlueShift are really the only games backing up your cause, except for DNF, which was f**ked from the start, and ACM, I'll give you that one.

Also, I was only talking about Borderlands 3.

[Elicas]

Yes, 80's are only 'good'. Since when is good a bad thing?

50-59 is barely above average, 60-69 is good but significant flaws, 70-79 is good but flawed, 80-89 is good, 90+ is great.

I don't f**king understand why so many people seem to think getting a game that is 80+ means they're great or must buys. They're not, they're solid titles, good titles even, but that doesn't make them great. Even PCGamer follows the same system, where anything up to an 85% is labelled as "Good", with 85-89% as excellent and 90+ exceptional. Even following that logic Gearbox have only had one game, ever, rate above good. PCGamer are generally looked down on for being over kind to many games as well, like the DA2 debacle.

Perhaps saying 5 good games and 5 bad games was over exaggerating. It should really read 5 bad games, 4 good games and 1 great game. That still makes them a hit and miss developer.

[RedHood]

Last week, a supposed Gearbox developer responded to fan backlash regarding the poorly received Aliens: Colonial Marines. That alleged dev claimed via Reddit that Gearbox shifted focus to the successful Borderlands, stunting Aliens: Colonial Marines' development in the process. Today, a new mystery source's testimony echoes previous reports, while adding new insight to the game's messy creation.

Destructoid's anonymous source, who claims to have worked on the game between 2007 and 2008, says Gearbox pulled team members off Aliens: Colonial Marines to have them work on the first Borderlands. He or she also says Sega nearly canceled development on Aliens: Colonial Marines sometime in 2008 after catching onto Gearbox's supposed misappropriation of studio resources. The source also says Gearbox continued collecting payment for work on Aliens: Colonial Marines and lied about the number of team members working on the game.

We've reached out to Sega and Gearbox for comment on the anonymous sources. Sega says the company "...won't be commenting on this topic at the moment." We've also contacted the Destructoid editor to clarify whether this is a different developer than the one from the aforementioned Reddit post. Keep in mind this is all hearsay from one side of the story at this point. We'll keep you updated as more develops.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/02/19/report-anonymous-aliens-colonial-marines-dev-says-gearbox-misappropriated-resources.aspx

[EmptyVector]

This pretty much guarantee's I will never buy another Gearbox game again.

[Elicas]

A supposed developer and a discreet 'source', is still rumour, speculation and hypothesis until we get something concrete.

[RedHood]

A supposed developer and a discreet 'source', is still rumour, speculation and hypothesis until we get something concrete.

Oh come on... Everybody loves a little gossip.