Shades of Darkness - Discussion — Shades of Darkness

Adagio

13 years ago

Auto-translated

Have the developers still not come to their senses? It's already starting to be scary.

Judging by the feedback from participants in the testing, the main problem with the expansion is the imbalance between the factions; Dungeon is very strong. There is currently no information about fixing the software bugs in the original game.

Maybe it would be better to focus all efforts on a new installment?

Mostly, this kind of suggestion is made on foreign forums. People don't see the point in releasing expansions for a game with a very inflexible engine and complex coding. The developers themselves admitted that it (the engine) does not allow them to implement a random map generator and simultaneous turns. But it has already been announced that "Shades of Darkness" is the completion of the sixth part. So, next will be either the seventh, or nothing at all.

Barnabas

13 years ago

Auto-translated

imbalance between factions

This was to be expected, even without any testing.

So, either the seventh installment will be released, or nothing at all.

It seems we'll have to rely on purchasing this DLC. If it proves profitable, we can expect a seventh installment, but if not... it's better to have nothing than this.

Adagio

13 years ago

Auto-translated

Looks like we'll have to rely on buying this DLC.

They've gone all out – it's a full-fledged expansion. Or a boxed version, as they say. Meaning it's a serious undertaking.

If it pays off, we can expect a 7th installment, but if not... then it's better to have nothing than this.

They should just leave "Heroes" alone... They've already burdened themselves with all sorts of "Duel of Champions," "Raiders," "Heroes Online"... "Heroes" really needs a serious approach. And the development of such a large-scale project should take not two and a half years, but two or three times longer.

Barnabas

13 years ago

Auto-translated

Such a large-scale project should be allocated more than two and a half years for development.

Why not 4 years? To create a decent game, you can allocate two years or even one, but only if the team actually works and doesn't just pretend to. Also, you need to maintain relationships with all fans, not just a select few.

So, it's serious.

I'm not willing to pay that much for just three weapons and one race. They could have added something else, instead of a panther, a CH-CD unit, and something else insignificant.

Adagio

13 years ago

Auto-translated

Why four years? To create a good game, you can allocate two years or even a year, but only if the team actually works and doesn't just pretend to. Also, you need to maintain relationships with all the fans, not just a select few.

Four years is not enough. For perfect execution. Eight or ten years would be ideal. There's no need to rush, and the wait should be worth it. And in the case of the sixth installment, no one was just going through the motions; people were really working. "Black Hole" is a small company, and it clearly needed more than two years to create such a large project.

tomatovv

13 years ago

Auto-translated

Colleagues, I've read everything you've written here... It's sad, of course....
But maybe it's not all that bad? Let's wait for this sequel and see! I didn't mind paying 399 rubles for the sequel. I did it specifically to show the developers that there is interest in their project, and maybe, just maybe, they will continue...

Adagio

13 years ago

Auto-translated

I did this deliberately so that the developers would see the interest in their project, and perhaps, just perhaps, they would continue to develop it...

But is it really necessary? Look at how the rushed development affects the project: hastily drawn, terrible city screens that don't quite match the content that was previously in the game; messing around with complex, third-party code and, as a result, eliminating software bugs by replacing them with other bugs; a noticeable difference in quality between the "original" and new graphical elements... The project is finally turning into a second-rate product. And it's really better to end it with this expansion than to continue the meaningless accumulation of content. IMHO, of course.

Barnabas

13 years ago

Auto-translated

8 or 10 years – that's just about right.

In that time, one can even die)))
You can spend 10 years developing a game and not achieve the desired effect, or you can abandon it after 4 years and create an excellent game. It all depends on the developers.

«Black Hole»

But here, the blame lies not with them, but with Ubisoft itself. They should have understood that the company was small and not capable of handling such large-scale development. They could have involved someone else, like Limbic, and then they might have achieved something.

so that the developers could see the interest in their project, and perhaps – continue...

I can say that the developers were counting on this. People would be willing to pay two or three times for this DLC, but only if the project isn't shut down. Then the developers will make something else, and the players will swallow it again. This system is well-known.

Adagio

13 years ago

Auto-translated

You can even die during that time)))
You can spend 10 years developing a game and not achieve the desired effect, or you can abandon it after 4 years and create an excellent game. It all depends on the developers.

“Diablo III”, for example, took about ten years to develop. The result is very good.

But it's not their fault, it's Ubisoft's fault. They should have understood that the company is small and not capable of handling huge developments.

And this looks like a financial manipulation.

They could have involved someone else, like Limbic, and then they might have succeeded.

They did involve them. “Limbic” was involved in the development even before the game was released.

Barnabas

13 years ago

Auto-translated

They were involved. “Limbic” was involved in the development even before the game was released.

I didn’t know that. I thought that Limbic was involved later, not from the very beginning.

Adagio

13 years ago

Auto-translated

In general, if it weren't for "Limbic," patch 1.3 would have been released only in the fall, at best. There were people who could take over the process of updating the game; they at least had some familiarity with the code.

Zybr

13 years ago

Auto-translated

I did this on purpose so that the developers would see the interest in their creation, and perhaps, just perhaps, they would continue working on it...

Actually, when it comes to prompting action, it's more likely to be triggered by a lack of demand for the product than by high demand. If there's good demand, why would the developers bother? Their game has already been bought! But if there's no demand, they might start thinking about it.

4 years is not enough. For perfect execution. 8 or 10 years would be ideal. There's no need to rush, and the anticipation should be worth it.

No, it doesn't depend on time. The longer they work on it, the higher the chance of success, of course, but success is still not guaranteed.

And in the case of the sixth installment, no one was just putting on a show; people were really working. "Black Hole" is a small company, and it clearly took them more than two years to create such a large project.

It was clear from the very beginning that the game was aimed at extracting money, that its main selling points were the marketing campaign + visually appealing graphics + maximum simplification of the game to make it as accessible as possible to various segments of the public.

Adagio

13 years ago

Auto-translated

No, it doesn't depend on time. The longer they work on it, the higher the chance of success, of course, but success is still not guaranteed.

Of course, success is not guaranteed. But I think that in ten years, they can still manage to conduct more tests, catch almost all the bugs, and polish the game more thoroughly than in two or four years.

Barnabas

13 years ago

Auto-translated

But if there is no demand, they might reconsider.

There are two sides to this. If people stop buying, the project will be shut down, but if they don't stop, they will continue to extract all the money from the project. It's not ideal. We could write a letter to the developers and collect signatures, but nothing good will come of that idea. Although some smart developers do listen to people.

than in two or four years.

You can look at the 5th installment. It is definitely one of the best parts. And it didn't take 8 years to develop.

that the game is aimed at extracting money

I would still like to know the number of copies of the game sold. Ubisoft is keeping this information secret. They compare it to the sales of the 3rd installment and say that it sold just as well.

Adagio

13 years ago

Auto-translated

I would still like to know about the number of copies of the game sold. Ubisoft is being secretive about this. They compare it to the sales of the third installment and say that it sold no worse.

Around five hundred thousand copies have already been sold worldwide. I saw the statistics on some specialized foreign website.

You can take a look at the 5th installment. It is definitely one of the best parts. And it didn't take 8 years to develop.

Oh no, I prefer not to look at that nightmare... The programmers at "Nival" are definitely stronger than their colleagues at "Black Hole," so they certainly didn't need that much time. However, the game was also not released in a perfect state.

Maybe I should go to France? Take control of the brand and devote all my efforts to the seventh installment. :smile04: We would then be working on it for about twenty years, knowing my meticulousness...

Added 24 minutes later
I found the website, here it is. My memory is, of course, excellent; I sold twice as many copies. :smile04:

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Shades of Darkness - Discussion

Statistics

Library

Users Online 6 users 1300 guests

Today's Visitors 13