Otherside Entertainment, please do not do SS3.


#22

Please do not harass other members to respond to you.

To follow up from jtr7’s response, all of SS3’s production has been done in Austin Texas separately from Boston’s work on Underworld Ascendant. It is quite literally a different team.

The production style was also very different. SS3’s has been far more stable, with a publisher since the beginning and a steady amount of time to work out the design and mechanics in a proper pre-production, while UA ran into issues right after the Kickstarter that prolonged development.

That being said, I think it’s a legitimate question to ask about how OSE as a company handled the titles. A lot of missteps from UA’s development has allowed the Shock3 team to understand where things went wrong. Obviously I’m excited about SS3 and think it will do well, but I would admit that my concern right now is that without funding, there is a chance of SS3 launching too early or making a deal with a publisher under terms we cannot fulfill with our current resources. That’s the worst case scenario.


#23

Wait, what ? Funding of SS3 is now at risk ? The last interviews from Warren Spector were saying that funding was secure, that everything was fine and that UA sales were good enough. Can I ask clarification on the financial status of the company, especially in relation to the completion of SS3 ?


#24

Sorry if I scared you; long-term, yes, SS3 would ideally be picked up by a publisher for better funding and to place the studio in a better position. If OSE needed to self publish SS3, that would most likely extend our development cycle by quite a bit as we sought to secure other avenues of funding and most likely took on other projects.

It’s always safer to have more money lined up JUST IN CASE for extra development time and/or if something goes wrong. Currently there’s no such backup.


#25

Gah. This is crazy talk. “Extend our development cycle by quite a bit.” That’s what you did last time and look how that turned out.

No OtherSide, if you fail to secure funding for a game, you cancel it. Or put it on hiatus, or however you want to call it. You don’t string us along for years feigning progress.


#26

Hiatus definitely sounds safer, and what I would imagine the Shock3 team doing if that were the case.


#27

Sam, you make it very difficult to be pointed because you are often very reasonable…that’s a complement, btw :slight_smile:

But, I’m going to imagine you’re someone else and pick at some of what has been said…

Otherside do not currently carry a reputation that’s good enough to win benefit of the doubt, either with the public or (as I imagine it) inside the industry. Perhaps a few obvious bad-apple critics make it easy to rationalise a lot of the criticism away, but the bulk still applies.

The last thing anyone needs is a similarly-loved property getting a similar treatment. The stuff about ‘lessons learned’ is also hard to verify this side of the fence. Some of the pronouncements about SS3 ring the same alarm bells that some of us remember right through the last dev cycle.

Actually, I’d say that most of the criticisms of the original dev practices have turned out to be true for the patches, too. And the QC element has just not been good enough - all the way through - especially on the game-play front. Even with Upd4 we’re looking at a shell still waiting for its game. The Warren quote about ‘wanting to make something different’ can still be ignored as wishful thinking.

I’d agree that you cancel, if the extra funding’s not there…even a much better game than UA is not going to do justice to SS3. It needs to be better than just about ok. Also, I worry that not much has been learned from the UA mess…sadly, goodwill on the back of the SS games is not enough to carry it through.

If the next game was a new property with nothing riding on it, and no history, I’d say fine. But I don’t think anyone can take another UA…


#28

At this point, I agree backers and fans of the series have every right and reason to be cautious.

Wait for SS3 to drop and see what the reviews are like, or try it blind for yourself.

I’d say some of the greatest upsides to the production of SS3 so far has been that the focus has been entirely on the game, and less so on making builds for events and trailers during crucial points of development. I remember that was a real blocker for UA, on top of fulfilling the Kickstarter rewards. The studio has a better sense of its limits now, which I think is good, and honestly necessary.


#29

That’s understating it. The fans are not cautious, they’re downright cynical; and sceptical, and many are not afraid to say so. It’s not just here, or on Steam - that’s the default attitude of many, I think, from magazine reviewers on down (or up, depending on your view).

…side-builds are a necessary hazard, but not fatal in themselves…more a symptom of problems elsewhere if they’re causing that much upheaval…

The real failure of UA, apart from all the obvious ones we’ve all been over a million times…is that it’s pastiche, like a copy of a copy, with no true story character. This is an imaginative failure, not just a production and dev competence failure. SS3 could easily repeat this failure, if it doesn’t truly get to grips with what made the originals so good (which is some ways is very similar to what made UU so good).


#30

Without demos or refunds, we still don’t have an ethical way to try a game without someone buying it first.