REviews are coming in....sort of....


#21

gamereactor.eu: Mixed

https://www.gamereactor.eu/reviews/712903/Underworld+Ascendant/


#22

Truth be told, the reason I consider you to be the one steering the flagship, is the simple and relentless fact. One that you have already agreed with yourself on:

Each and every time, as each passing fire came and was “put out”/discussed exhaustively/forgiven/etc, as the crowds began dwindling and then inevitably disappeared, at worst for many months, with no solace, there was but one sound lingering on as night once again fell upon the horizon’s vast seas… the distant foghorn of that old curmudgeon ship.


#23

Brutal: https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/underworld-ascendant-review-going-under/1900-6417042/


#24

Ugh.


#25

Sandro … Foghorn, you mean :smiley:

… Or holding on for grim death…

The thing is, it proves a point. We were never really on th de running as any sort of force for change… more like useful nose generators. This stings a little, though not so much as the game itself. No self pity strings attached… It’s just a shame it had to be this s property.

The Gamespot review is par. It’s not as if they have much of a choice.

Reading some dev comments, I’m not sure everyone fully gets it, or wants to get it. There’s always been this sense of unreality, and some of it survives even now.


#26

He also yells when he shoots the bow. Granted, pointless and stupid when trying to sneak…


#27

Honestly I think it would be much better if they just scrap the game and learn from this. Unless they spend years patching this nothing is going to make it what it should/could have been. I think its just a waste of time and effort patching this. Scrap the game, take the tech fix it, create the game that it should have been and forget about this. Once out with version 2.0 of this game give it to anyone that bought/backed this one.


#28

I had hoped there be something like this. maybe not a full ditching but a living and “learning” dungeon. one that would have DLC and grow and change and correct with the times.


#29

… I’m not sure that’s possible, or desirable. Even if the will/money is there (and I don’t think either are) then you are still left with the problem that it is never going to be an Underworld game, no matter what is said about modernisation and ‘emergence’. You can’t make apples into oranges just by painting them and calling them oranges.

They should patch it up a bit and move on. I think this is what they’ll end up doing. If it had been better received there may have been more incentive. But it has been plucked, cooked, and carved up.


#30

OOF: https://techraptor.net/content/underworld-ascendant-review

Even if you can get past the countless technical issues, Underworld Ascendant is a poorly designed abomination that ruins the Underworld series even to those who never heard of it. This is the final nail in the Immersive Sim™ coffin. Bury it and salt the earth.

#31

Hard to disagree.


#32

Seems like an emotional overreaction from the TechRaptor writer.

I don’t really blame the writer that much. Many of the criticisms were fair. I share the writer’s concern that some design choices of UA, and releasing it before it was entirely polished, may put some developers with deeper pockets off of supporting immersive sim aspects in their games.

But I don’t think it helps anything to express those views in the kind of hyperbolic, even moralistic language that’s games journalism du jour. I’m somewhat disappointed with UA, too. Like others, I’ve been a Looking Glass zealot since UU’s original release; my appreciation for that kind of game is strong. I also wish intensely that OSE had had the time and money to emphasize dynamics as they did, only in a game that was structured more like the incredible original UU/UU2. But what good comes from being emotionally invested in things I can’t control? Why does anyone believe that if they just fling outrage loudly enough for long enough, they can make developers do something?

I’m at the point of thinking that if OSE hadn’t announced who some of their veteran members were, and UA hadn’t been described as a sequel to UU/UU2, this game still would have caught some flak for its implementation but nothing like the upset commentary it’s gotten for not being a proper sequel. The good parts – and there are good parts – could have stood out more than the unmet expectations.

But all OSE can do is go from here. Upset reviews are obviously undesirable, but unless someone has a time machine all the team can do is try to clean up UA as much as they can before moving on. (And hope that Warren and the Austin team are making a more conventionally structured game.)

I imagine the conversations with 505 must really be something lately…


#33

I don’t know if this studio is going to get a second shot at all after UA (I hope so), but if they do, doing the same sh*t again with SS3 would definitely end their careers.

I hope they are listening, and I do believe they will in fact change course.


#34

“A strangely essential development disaster”: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-11-24-underworld-ascendant-review-a-strangely-essential-development-disaster


#35

Man, that guy is a good writer.


#36

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/11/29/underworld-ascendant-review


#37

“Underworld Ascendant is a buggy, repetitive, and boring mess.”


#38

…but what about the bad points…? :smiley:

(j/k)

I think it’s safe to say by now that the reviews have reached a concensus. In fact they’ve pretty much dined-out on this.

Btw, Flatfingers…agree with you on the preachy, sermon-on-the-mount stuff (hey, that’s my job). It’s one thing to be angry and disappointed, it’s another to go all cod-psychological. Plus, things line-up more readily with hindsight.

We still don’t really know why things took the turns they did (though various dev posts recently hint at serious fractures along the way perhaps)…any more than we really knew what the game was going to be all the way through dev…it was always ‘concentrate on the future, not what’s happening now.’. That was always a signal thing, and contributed to the uneasiness.


#39

But here’s the problem with UA: everybody is now in distrust and will be extremely wary of their other projects, like SS3.

As for me, I can promise one thing: unless SS3 gets stellar reviews ( 8/10 or above ), I’m not gonna buy it. Even if it’s barely above average ( 6 or 7 ), then it’s a no. My good will and support of the company was exhausted with UA. I’m ready to buy SS3 if it stands on its own merits, but I’m gonna gonna support another mediocre game, no matter what. And I’ll wait for reviews before I even touch it - no more blinding trust. That’s what you get for rushing UA.

Fool me once…


#40

…I think that view will be widespread, if you are one of the endangered species that rate this game highly.

Even if you like UA, you can see the gaping chasm between what was talked about and what was delivered (even allowing for the fact that things always change a lot as reality sets in).

I agree, they have some work to do before trust is re-captured. One thing that doesn’t re-ignite trust is letting the PR depts take all the flack, even if it’s part of the job description. I know some senior devs are tightly-bound by legal/contractual stuff, but they can still signal certain things (and no, to the argumentative catflaps among us, that is not a get-out-of-jail free pass being given to the devs…it’s just reality). We’ve had some of that already, but maybe not enough to really register yet.

Besides, it’s still early days for fixes (had to laugh when some wags suggested they’d simply buggered off on holiday at the first opportunity…have you ever heard of 70hr crunch weeks…or Thanksgiving…or ‘families’…or ‘outside’…?)