"Not including Steam units"! I find it incredible that we still only count boxed sales from retail outlets. There's a strong possibility that Portal 1's Steam sales outstripped even the physical retail figures, and if not then it's got to be a pretty significant proportion of the overall tally.
@cfstar @UltimatePhoenix Ordinarily I would assume it was a dry joke, but there have been other people saying almost exactly that in full seriousness, saying it'd be considered good up against HL1/UT1, etc. It becomes hard to tell whether you're talking to someone who's making a joke or a serious defence, but point taken!
@philMcCrevis @fbgbdk4 I've seen developers defend their work. I've never seen a developer actually grade themselves before. And this, this is the corker: http://www.darkartzentertainment.com/about/ "One man… One vision… One future game of the year…"; "Kevin’s future goals are to help Dark Artz Entertainment become a billion dollar business"; "Her future goals include the purchase of a new Dodge Challenger so she can drive to Dark Artz Entertainment in style"... and so on.
This is naked hubris. They are modders at best, and they're bad at it. Unlike other modders, they're taking people's money. This is why people are so keen to give them a slap.
@fbgbdk4 Generous, but you could have given these people ten more years and it would still be rubbish. Their level builder Ken Danforth believes this deserves 8/10 (as he stated when pretending to be a customer on a review site), and on the game's SPUF one of the project leaders insists this is a 7/10 game. The lot of them are textbook Dunning-Kruger cases.
@UltimatePhoenix In 1995? Sure it would, except nobody's computer would be able to run it.
This is such a strange argument - "17 years ago, this would be considered good" - and it's false anyway. The gameplay was better in the early days of fully 3d multiplayer FPS games. The level design was better. Even the AI was better in the late 90s.
@s4dn3s5 @Johnny-n-Roger I think this game is a perfect example of why they should introduce a quality standard, but as s4dn3s5 says, it's probably not enforceable. The makers of R2012 paid for the engine, and part of that package is that you get a certain amount of hands-off advisory assistance from Valve.
All they can do is hope that this kind of thing doesn't happen too often. Otherwise, what can Valve do? They would have to set a boundary - "Your game must be at least as good as [Bad Game X]" - and then appoint judges to arbitrate. We'd still be talking about a minimum standard, so there would still be bad products on Steam. There's not a lot of difference between "extremely underwhelming" and "absolute turkey" to a customer who just paid £10 for a game he/she will never play again.
I had a look on Google for more reviews. I was shocked to find one review giving the game 6.5 http://www.newgamernation.com/?p=4967 and even more surprised to see a commenter below the review claiming to have just bought it and loved it, saying it deserves 8 out of 10.
"That name, Ken Danforth, looks familiar," I thought. It should. He's the Technical Level Builder of Dark Artz Entertainment: http://www.newgamernation.com/?p=4967
@danielmbg In all seriousness, I think this one needs the video review most. Walking Dead is getting a decent reception, whereas if this game sells one copy then that's one too many. Everyone must be warned.
DoubleclickTF's comments