Jump to content

Cliff Bleszinski to return to games development


Recommended Posts

Everyone likes money, everyone needs money - that's fair enough - but now is the second time he makes a bigly announcement of wanting to do a straight up imitation of whatever happens to be the trending success right now. Instead of you know, having an idea of his own or a genuine drive to make a good game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

Everyone likes money, everyone needs money - that's fair enough - but now is the second time he makes a bigly announcement of wanting to do a straight up imitation of whatever happens to be the trending success right now. Instead of you know, having an idea of his own or a genuine drive to make a good game.


Third time. Lawbreakers was a clear attempt to try and cash in during that brief period when everyone thought Overwatch-alikes were the future of the industry. Before PUBG came out and everyone started hopping on the battle royale bandwagon.

 

Anyhoo, from the sounds of thing he’s trying to flog his autobiography so expect a bunch of ‘CliffyB says...’ articles in the next few weeks as he try’s to drum up interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I typed 'Fall Dudes' as a bit of a pisstake then googled it for a funny image

 

CscWwEu4cQzwHFrf2lTQk0yS4_0XdUgMnz7BCxQB

Fall Dudes (Early Access) - Apps on Google Play

Play against 39 other opponents in this chaotic physics-based game in the quest to win and to be crowned the ultimate winner! Fall Dudes lets you compete in a ...

 

Oh.

 

Either Cliffy works fast or nothing is sacred :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawbreakers was apparently a good game and wasn’t actually anything like Overwatch to play, so the quick cash in criticism seems unfair. 
 

It fell into the vicious cycle of no one wanting to buy it because no one was playing it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Harsin said:

Anyhoo, from the sounds of thing he’s trying to flog his autobiography so expect a bunch of ‘CliffyB says...’ articles in the next few weeks as he try’s to drum up interest.

"The CliffyB-ography: Gears 'n Tears"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HarryBizzle said:

Lawbreakers was apparently a good game and wasn’t actually anything like Overwatch to play, so the quick cash in criticism seems unfair. 
It fell into the vicious cycle of no one wanting to buy it because no one was playing it. 

It was the Dark Souls of competitive shooters. His words not mine.

Valid point though, Lawbreakers was not a greedy cash grab, that was Radical Heights.

 

Crowbcat did a nice short insight video on it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the annoying thing about him is that his name will always get him a nice big budget to waste, despite it having been quite a while since he had any interesting new ideas. Also the quotes in that article really don’t suggest that he’s understanding where things went wrong last time given that he blames his team for Lawbreakers, seems to think indie games are some new phenomenon, mentions Minecraft which must already have been huge last time he was around and finally tries to defend Radical Heights rather than acknowledging it was a bad idea. 
 

Mostly though he reminds me of a talk I went to with the Oliver twins. They laid out their strategy for success on the Spectrum, which was basically to rip off whatever was popular at the time but with better graphics. Then they got a bit grumpy about how their Minecraft rip off with better graphics had been cancelled. I think there was a time when graphics were advancing so fast that you really could just be the newer, prettier version of something popular and that was enough to grab people’s attention. But now graphics just aren’t improving fast enough that it’s an inbuilt advantage to be a few years newer.

 

I guess maybe twitch and YouTube affect this too. People are far more widely aware of what a game is, and why people like it, so it’s much harder to just be the version of that indie game that a big studio made without everyone knowing that’s what your game is. Or to take someone’s multiplayer mode and make it the main mode or whatever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, robdood said:

I don't even get why he became such a "name", Gears isnt even that good. 

Captive audience. 2006-2008 was the golden age for workmanlike action/adventure games (Gears, Bioshock, Dead Space etc.) that just needed to look nice at 720p and didn't have to worry about being a pale shadow of RE4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. Isn't that like saying that 1993 - 96 was the golden age of workmanlike first person shooters? There were plenty of mediocre examples around, but it was also the period when the modern first person shooter was invented. The same goes for 2006 - the die was cast then, by Gears of War. With a lot of inspiration from Resident Evil 4 (and Kill.switch and Warhammer and etc) admittedly, but the end result is not really very much like RE4 in the way it plays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a lot of... what's the opposite of sugar coating? Shit coating? I think there's a lot of shit coating going on in this thread. Cliffy B is a fairly annoying character, true, but as K said his team took what games like kill.switch and Resi 4 were doing and turned it into the dominant genre for third person shooters for around 10 years. Resi 4 is better than any of the Gears games, yes, but its controls simply wouldn't have worked in a fast paced action games. Then Gears of War comes along and tweaks everything so that from the minute you start playing it feels fast, fun and fluid, and works away from the more static and purposely fear inducing world of Resi.

 

Then they take these tools and systems go and make Gears 2, one of the best action games ever made. The very fact that there were so many copy cat drab cover shooters should show how talented he and his team were to make something that stands out as much as Gears of War 2 does. I never played Lawbreakers but from what I heard it played brilliantly, it was just a slightly drab art style and bad marketing that let it down. If he can find some of the old magic that gave us Unreal Tournament and Gears and tweak it around the current zeitgeist I'm willing to give Cliffy another chance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who had 2 years in the pool? I think I thought 3.

 

Seriously, though, it was probably a rude awakening to go from being a former king of one field into something different (producing on Broadway, iirc), and discovering that your reputation in one industry means very little in another. Does anyone know if he actually produced any shows in the end? I hope he had a worthwhile time in the theatre biz, anyway. Despite Lawbreakers and Radical Heights not setting the world on fire (I was a bit 'errrrrrr' about the part of the news story that talked about Lawbreakers' unique art style), it was a shame to lose him, so I do hope he comes up with something new rather than trying to ape Fall Guys/Among Us/the next big thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember buying the special edition of Gears 2 and it came with an art book with a foreword by him and my main impression was that the version of the games he thought he was putting out actually differed a lot from what people were actually enjoying about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, robdood said:

I don't even get why he became such a "name", Gears isnt even that good. 

 

Gears essentially created the cover shooter, a system which is still used today (I know there was one other more obscure game that did it before). I don't enjoy Gears either but at the time of 1 + 2, it was hugely influential. Eeeeeeveryone was on that train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gears of War (the first one) I really loved. The gameplay felt like a proper evolution of Resi 4 but stuff like the hefty snap to cover, roadie run and blindfire were all exciting additions that hadn't been done anywhere near as well before. Even the reload mechanic was engaging and something new. The horror overtones , chunky gore and creature designs were excellent and really way ahead of everything else in 2006.

 

But i didn't like any of the sequels. They bought nothing new to the table in gameplay terms and the horror overtones were thrown out the window and it was all a bit yo-bro silliness. The maria stuff in 2 and dom stuff in 3 was just laughable cheeze presented as serious storytelling. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gears was great, though I’m also in the camp of not having enjoyed any of the sequels, and the idea of the story being taken seriously is still quite funny. 
 

Maybe Cliffy has a bit of a Molyneux/John Romero thing going on. When he was a designer working under producers he was pushed to make cool stuff, and had interesting ideas to expand genres like the arena shooter and cover shooter. But once he got his own studio he overestimated his degree of skill, and didn’t do a great job of choosing projects or steering them. If his return involves him doing design work under another producer then it might produce something decent, but if it’s him directing everything again it will probably not go too well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Down by Law said:

Gears of War (the first one) I really loved. The gameplay felt like a proper evolution of Resi 4 but stuff like the hefty snap to cover, roadie run and blindfire were all exciting additions that hadn't been done anywhere near as well before. Even the reload mechanic was engaging and something new. The horror overtones , chunky gore and creature designs were excellent and really way ahead of everything else in 2006.

 

But i didn't like any of the sequels. They bought nothing new to the table in gameplay terms and the horror overtones were thrown out the window and it was all a bit yo-bro silliness. The maria stuff in 2 and dom stuff in 3 was just laughable cheeze presented as serious storytelling. 

 

 

It's almost as though they were ashamed of how gamey it was and felt the need to somehow make it more worthy and portentous in the sequels, where all we really wanted to do was blow the shit out of enemies in cool environments. No one wanted or needed all the story guff, it was laughable and got in the way of the game. The less story in games like Gears the better, its gameplay was good enough to carry it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Uncle Nasty said:

 

It's almost as though they were ashamed of how gamey it was and felt the need to somehow make it more worthy and portentous in the sequels, where all we really wanted to do was blow the shit out of enemies in cool environments. No one wanted or needed all the story guff, it was laughable and got in the way of the game. The less story in games like Gears the better, its gameplay was good enough to carry it.


It’s amazing how many games fall into this trap. See also: Halo sequels and Doom Eternal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harsin said:


It’s amazing how many games fall into this trap. See also: Halo sequels and Doom Eternal.

 

Original Doom story: bad guys from hell. Something about a bunny. Kill everything. 

 

Ok, I'm on board. I'm all in. That's all I need. 

 

Doom Eternal: what even is this shit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.