Bayonetta 2 Discussion Mega Thread

[Ben]

Namecalling came after the fact. Get it right. Saving face and backtracking really doesn't do you any justice.Laughable really..

I didn't backtrack at all. I am repeating the same points I've been saying since the beginning.

And yes you couldn't prove me wrong otherwise on your banal attempt to point out the STG being involved when the work was done mostly by Next.

Okay, I admitted to you that an outside developer did "most of the work." Again (and I repeat) that doesn't excuse the poor quality of the game. Sega failed in their efforts to port Bayonetta because they put it in the hands of an incapable developer and didn't fix the problems before releasing it.

 

Third ACM was a con job from GBX from the very beginning. So blaming Sega for everything like you like to do won't cut it. Keep repeating that fact, anyone knows anything about the production knows that GBX was hardly upfront about the situation.

Gearbox could be as un-upfront as they want. Sega should have been supervising the project carefully. When most companies publish a game, that's what they do. They have staff regularly checking up on the game to make sure all's going well.

You call it a "relaxed attitude." That's no excuse, lol.

"Hey boss, I can't do my job because I have a relaxed attitude today."

See how far that gets you.

(With as much money as Sega had tied up in this project, the last thing they should have had was a "relaxed attitude.")

But heads rolled after that game made release including Hayes who was told his position was no longer tenable.

Wrong again, Mike Hayes was let go in June 2012, long before the release of Colonial Marines (which was February 2013). If anything the final straw for Mike Hayes was probably Binary Domain.

[ROJM]

I didn't backtrack at all. I am repeating the same points I've been saying since
the beginning.

No you were backtracking.

Okay, I admitted to you that an outside developer did "most of the work." Again
(and I repeat) that doesn't excuse the poor quality of the game. Sega failed in
their efforts to port Bayonetta because they put it in the hands of an incapable
developer and didn't fix the problems before releasing it.

Its not an admission you were wrong end of. Backtracking to save face.Who is excusing the quality of the game? Next has a good reputation as a developer up to that point and they worked with Sega on various projects in the past. Again you're genralising here

 

Gearbox could be as un-upfront as they want. Sega should have been supervising
the project carefully. When most companies publish a game, that's what they do.
They have staff regularly checking up on the game to make sure all's going well.

Yawn you can do all the checking you want if GBX is deliberaty hiding the game and showing you mock demos its hardly a fair assement. Again you are blaming the wrong guy but since you have a history of criticising Sega either here or the sega forums i'm not suprised.

You call it a "relaxed attitude." That's no excuse, lol.

Like i said Sega has a history of not being a dictator to second party developers. That doesn't mean they won't check to see how the game is coming along. It means they won't intefere with the creative vision. 

"Hey boss, I can't do my job because I have a relaxed attitude today."


See how far that gets you.

Ridiculous and has nothing to do with the point. Yet again why bother follow a company for so long if you have no clue on how they operate.geez..you wanna be a fan of some company then go away and bother someone else in their forum...

(

With as much money as Sega had tied up in this project, the last thing they
should have had was a "relaxed attitude.")

Oh they checked the game but like i said GBX was far from forthcoming. Which is COMMON KNOWLEDGE....so you are basically trolling the subject and going into your favourite pastime... "lets bash Sega..."

Wrong again, Mike Hayes was let go in June 2012, long before the release of
Colonial Marines (which was February 2013). If anything the final straw for Mike
Hayes was probably Binary Domain.

No shadow legend  i'm not wrong again since you haven't proved me wrong in anything...
 
Games companies work in a particular schedule and titles ready to go are usually seen before they are ready for mass market release schedule. ACM was meant to come out in 2012 then it got put back. So 2012 was its release. that's when heads rolled..games got canned and Hayes got sacked. So you can argue that Sega shouldn't have released the game when they did finally see it. But considering the situation at the time and with the license in particular they had no choice. He didn't get sacked because of BINARY DOMAIN either..

[Team Andromeda]

GBX is deliberaty hiding the game and showing you mock demos its hardly a fair assement

If you are producing a game then you should be playing the game and approving every part of it . There's a huge difference between showing a mock demo to the press, to letting  the producers the game play the game.


SEGA did sort of know what was happing and did threaten Gearbox with court action at one stage . But I think with Gearbox track record they all thought it would come together.     

[Ben]

Who is excusing the quality of the game? Next has a good reputation as a developer up to that point and they worked with Sega on various projects in the past. Again you're genralising here

And again, Sega approved the game and released it, even with its technical issues, so yeah they do bear a good portion of the game. Next either didn't have enough time or they were in over their heads; either way, Sega should have corrected the problem before release.

Yawn you can do all the checking you want if GBX is deliberaty hiding the game and showing you mock demos its hardly a fair assement. Again you are blaming the wrong guy but since you have a history of criticising Sega either here or the sega forums i'm not suprised.

Gearbox hid the game from the press. But they shouldn't have been able to hide the game from Sega. As publisher, Sega should have had a day-to-day (or at least weekly) presense in the game's development. This is how it works, and why people from the publisher are often credited as Producers on the games they publish.

That doesn't mean they won't check to see how the game is coming along. It means they won't intefere with the creative vision. 

In CM's case, wouldn't you agree that they should have?

Oh they checked the game but like i said GBX was far from forthcoming. Which is COMMON KNOWLEDGE....so you are basically trolling the subject and going into your favourite pastime... "lets bash Sega..."

Again, Sega should have had their own staff actively participating in the game's development, like every publisher who puts this type of money into a game does.

Games companies work in a particular schedule and titles ready to go are usually seen before they are ready for mass market release schedule. ACM was meant to come out in 2012 then it got put back. So 2012 was its release. that's when heads rolled..games got canned and Hayes got sacked. So you can argue that Sega shouldn't have released the game when they did finally see it. But considering the situation at the time and with the license in particular they had no choice. He didn't get sacked because of BINARY DOMAIN either..

We don't know why he got sacked but it wasn't due to Aliens:Colonial Marines. The game wasn't even out yet and at the time had been getting very positive feedback from the press.

If you are producing a game then you should be playing the game and approving every part of it . There's a huge difference between showing a mock demo to the press, to letting  the producers the game play the game.

Yes, thank you.

[Team Andromeda]

Gearbox hid the game from the press. But they shouldn't have been able to hide the game from Sega. As publisher, Sega should have had a day-to-day (or at least weekly) presense in the game's development. This is how it works, and why people from the publisher are often credited as Producers on the games they publish.

No they shouldn't and the producers on the game play the most important part of the role : They are the ones that pick and assign the team , control the budgets and then pass on to the higher ups if the game needs more staff, more money or more time and so on .

And again, Sega approved the game and released it, even with its technical issues

Yes but I bet they was pressure from the higher up's and also for the likes of Fox just to bring the game out  - When you pay Gearbox top dollar you don't expect to have such a poor product in the end .

[ROJM]

No they shouldn't and the producers on the game play the most important part
of the role : They are the ones that pick and assign the team , control the
budgets and then pass on to the higher ups if the game needs more staff, more
money or more time and so on .

Yet they did. That's been estabilshed now that the money went on two other titles rather than ACM.

And again, Sega approved the game and released it, even with its technical
issues

Yes but I bet they was pressure from the higher up's and also for the likes of
Fox just to bring the game out  - When you pay Gearbox top dollar you don't
expect to have such a poor product in the end .

He's talking about BAYONETTA..not ACM...Trademark mistake 101...

[Team Andromeda]

He's talking about BAYONETTA..not ACM...Trademark mistake 101...

Well in that case I blame Platinum just as much as SEGA tbh  if not more so - They were paid for a multi platform game . Though SEGA should have given next more time to get the PS3 code right , more so with a game like Bay -where frame rate is really important to the battle system

 

[ROJM]

And again, Sega approved the game and released it, even with its technical
issues, so yeah they do bear a good portion of the game. Next either didn't have
enough time or they were in over their heads; either way, Sega should have
corrected the problem before release.

The way Platinum coded the game i'm not really suprised. But research the subject before you actually know what you 're talking about..Things in development aren't as simple as blaming one company to another..

Gearbox hid the game from the press. But they shouldn't have been able to hide
the game from Sega. As publisher, Sega should have had a day-to-day (or at least
weekly) presense in the game's development. This is how it works, and why people
from the publisher are often credited as Producers on the games they publish.

Don't be silly. No publisher does that.Again you're living in a fantasy world.

In CM's case, wouldn't you agree that they should have?

Again what reason would they have needed? GBX was a respected publisher at that time...Sega wasn't to know how it was going to turn out. After the first cancellation they should have concentrated on it a bit more...but really that was Sega west's mo not Sega japan...

Again, Sega should have had their own staff actively participating in the
game's development, like every publisher who puts this type of money into a game
does.

Not every publisher does.

We don't know why he got sacked but it wasn't due to Aliens:Colonial
Marines. The game wasn't even out yet and at the time had been getting very
positive feedback from the press.

It was. Sega saw the game back in 2012. That was when it was meant to be released. Sega also wasn't pleased with the progress of any of the western console titles were doing. They were putting in a lot of money and not seeing much returns. Same reason Jeffery was let go he was commited to tons of projects but they weren't going anywhere and they canned all of those games along with Jeffery as well. Just because the press sees one thing doesn't mean anything..

[ROJM]

Well in that case I blame Platinum just as much as SEGA tbh  if not more so - They were paid for a multi platform game . Though SEGA should have given next more time to get the PS3 code right , more so with a game like Bay -where frame rate is really important to the battle system

 

Which is why i don't blame Next..Platinum repeated the problem with VANQUISH but Sega at least sent people who could handle it. Like i said before PG gave Sega quite a headache when it came down to some of their games when it was near the publishing stage.

[Ben]

Well in that case I blame Platinum just as much as SEGA tbh  if not more so - They were paid for a multi platform game . Though SEGA should have given next more time to get the PS3 code right , more so with a game like Bay -where frame rate is really important to the battle system

Platinum developed an Xbox 360 game. It was Sega who opted to create the PS3 version, I guess because they didn't feel that the 360  version alone would sell in Japan.

Platinum's mistake apparently was trusting Sega to do this, and they've admitted since that they regretted the decision.

Yet they did. That's been estabilshed now that the money went on two other titles rather than ACM.

Again, wouldn't have happened if Sega kept a closer eye on the game and where the money was going.

Don't be silly. No publisher does that.Again you're living in a fantasy world.

Not true at all. Look at the credits for LA Noire; the Houser Brothers are credited as producers. The game was developed by an outside team in Australia and Rockstar had staff supervising the project; and when it was in development hell Rockstar sent in their team to fix it.

Nintendo put a couple of their staff into Retro Studios when they began developing Metroid Prime, and they reported regularly to Miyamoto. Producers from Epic Games were credited for Gears of War Judgment even though that too was outsourced. That's how it works, dude. No publisher in their right mind throws 20 million+ into a game and lets that money go completely unsupervised.

Except Sega, I guess, you're saying.

Which is why i don't blame Next..Platinum repeated the problem with VANQUISH but Sega at least sent people who could handle it.

Both versions of Vanquish were developed in-house at Platinum.

[ROJM]

Platinum developed an Xbox 360 game. It was Sega who opted to create the PS3
version, I guess because they didn't feel that the 360  version alone would
sell in Japan.

PG always knew the game was going to be multiplatform..they make a game as a lead platform before its ported to the other system. VANQUISH was made on the PS3 before ported for 360...

Platinum's mistake apparently was trusting Sega to do this, and they've admitted
since that they regretted the decision.

Platinum says things that aren't necessarly true either.With the money they were getting they weren't complaining...

Again, wouldn't have happened if Sega kept a closer eye on the game and
where the money was going.

But it did because of GBX underhand tactics..

Not true at all. Look at the credits for LA Noire; the Houser Brothers are
credited as producers. The game was developed by an outside team in Australia
and Rockstar had staff supervising the project; and when it was in development
hell Rockstar sent in their team to fix it.

Nintendo put a couple of
their staff into Retro Studios when they began developing Metroid Prime, and
they reported regularly to Miyamoto. Producers from Epic Games were credited for
Gears of War Judgment even though that too was outsourced. That's how it works,
dude. No publisher in their right mind throws 20 million+ into a game and lets
that money go completely unsupervised.

Not really proof just a hand ful of publishers..and its hardly checking every day of the week either...

Except Sega, I guess, you're saying.

Sega checks their games but they don't go overboard with it. I said relaxed that doesn't mean no checking at all...

Both versions of Vanquish were developed in-house at Platinum.

As usual missing the point. I'm talking about when the game was ready for publishing.Thats when problems arose.

[Ben]

I hadn't read about any problems relating to Vanquish's development. Whether the PS3 version was the main development version or not didn't really matter, as both games played and looked pretty much identically. That's how it's supposed to be done.

Why anyone at Sega thought that the PS3 version of Bayonetta was okay to release is mindboggling.

But it did because of GBX underhand tactics..

And again, if Sega kept in close contact with Gearbox and supervised the project throughout development, Gearbox wouldn't have been able to use these tactics. You can't hide from regular progress checks/testing sessions/regularly visiting Sega staff.

Not really proof just a hand ful of publishers..and its hardly checking every day of the week either...

I think you'll find that most publishers do this, man. Picture if you were a publisher and you were pouring $20 million+ into a project that you're outsourcing...you're keeping a close eye on that project. This is how the vast majority of publisher-developer relationships work.

Especially in the age of digital communication dude, it's not that hard to check up on a game regularly. It's not even like we're still in the 90s when a publisher had to physically drop by.

[ROJM]

I hadn't read about any problems relating to Vanquish's development. Whether the
PS3 version was the main development version or not didn't really matter, as
both games played and looked pretty much identically. That's how it's supposed
to be done.

Because its not common knowledge that's why you won't find anything on it.But you can thank Sega west's team for saving that game..

Why anyone at Sega thought that the PS3 version of Bayonetta was okay to
release is mindboggling.

It isn't that bad compared to ACM. Stop over exaggerating...

And again, if Sega kept in close contact with Gearbox and supervised the project
throughout development, Gearbox wouldn't have been able to use these tactics.
You can't hide from regular progress checks/testing sessions/regularly visiting
Sega staff.

Sega had too many projects going on at the time so that would have been part of the reason.Obsidian had trouble too with ALPHA PROTOCOL and their ALIENS RPG but Sega decided to can that game mainly because they thought they couldn't market that title..shame..

I think you'll find that most publishers do this, man. Picture if you were a
publisher and you were pouring $20 million+ into a project that you're
outsourcing...you're keeping a close eye on that project. This is how the vast
majority of publisher-developer relationships work.

Again not all..

Especially in the age of digital communication dude, it's not that hard to check
up on a game regularly. It's not even like we're still in the 90s when a
publisher had to physically drop by.

And you don't think Sega didn't do that..again GBX was stalling Sega from the beginning.Again blame GBX and not sega because you are way too keen to blame Sega for many things....

[Ben]

And you're apparently keen to not blame Sega for anything. You also clearly have no idea how video game publishing works.

I'd love to know where your "super secret" Vanquish info comes from but I guess it's probably not worth discussing further, I think we're probably nearing the end of this, don't you?

It isn't that bad compared to ACM. Stop over exaggerating...

It isn't that bad compared to a piece of dog crap on the sidewalk either, lol, what does one have to do with the other? Bayonetta on the PS3 was a bad port that was bad to the extent that it had to be scored differently due to its inferiority. That's not how you do a multiplat release.

But of course, Sega bears no blame for it, right? Afterall, they only commissioned its development, published it, and approved the final product....

And no I don't "blame Sega for everything." But as publishers, yes, absolutely, they play a major role in the quality of the games they release. Just like any publisher.

[ROJM]

And you're apparently keen to not blame Sega for anything. You also clearly have
no idea how video game publishing works.

I do. You obviously DON'T. You have NO clue that each company works differently and have their own company culture in doing things. Trying to use the likes of EA and western studios as an example really is pathectic when it doesn't apply to japanese studios and in particular Sega. Some do, some don't. Like i said anyone in the industry KNOWS and i repeat KNOWS GBX was pulling a fast one with Sega. I could give at least half the details on it but again you'll use it to critcise Sega.
 
Now someone who is supposedly a fan of Sega and is a writer but DOESN'T know that Sega has a relaxed second party system..which isn't an insider secert either needs to do BETTER research.

It isn't that bad compared to a piece of dog crap on the sidewalk either, lol,
what does one have to do with the other? Bayonetta on the PS3 was a bad port
that was bad to the extent that it had to be scored differently due to its
inferiority. That's not how you do a multiplat release.

The game got high scores. Again its only you that really has a problem with it.

But of course, Sega bears no blame for it, right? Afterall, they only
commissioned its development, published it, and approved the final product....

No Shadow....I just don't want to lend more credence in your campaign of sega bashing which you always tend to do.

I'd love to know where your "super secret" Vanquish info comes from but I guess
it's probably not worth discussing further, I think we're probably nearing the
end of this, don't you?

I wouldn't tell you anyway. You will more likely copy and paste my info anyway and pass it off as your own just like you did when i was here ages back and mentioned that Sega canned a ton of games for 2012 before anyone else said it. Guess what?A few months later, i come back and see you peddling the same info. Gimme a break. And yes your right this subject isn't worth going further with someone who doesn't have a clue what he's on about using TWO extreme situations and trying to make out that Sega is neligable. End. I'm not going to waste my time and energy on a wannabe any longer...

And no I don't "blame Sega for everything." But as publishers, yes, absolutely,
they play a major role in the quality of the games they release. Just like any
publisher.

GBX made it.End of. Next made it. End of.