I think Sloclap did it best. They are a somewhat small studio but they didn't aim for a grand AAA release with Sifu and it did fairly well. CDPR with Witcher 1 also comes to mind. They did enough to achieve success and further refined it with Witcher 2 and had breakout success with W3.
So many strange decisions. - Bad and even awkward advertising - 70, 80 bucks price tags - Extremely low internal resolutions. - No Quality 30fps mode (absolutely necessary on Series S as the game is almost unplayable due to low resolution.) - Minimum RTX 2080 Super... - ...for very poor performance and rather unimpressive graphics. - Denuvo Add that people doesn't like EA very much, and that the game was a new IP. If at least they went with reasonable pricing or reduce requirements to a much more common GPU like the RTX 3060, avoid spending unnecessary money on Denuvo, people would have at least seen them with better eyes. They acted in a very unlikable way like their game was the biggest thing ever that absolutely required Denuvo and RTX 4090s and people should cope with it. and here we hare. kind of a sad situation. ain't that surprised though.
I keep hearing each iteration of UE is making games easier to develope for smaller studios. It's difficult for me to wrap my head around how if game engines; well UE 5 at least; are making the development process more streamlined and easier; why is the price going up? There's some kind of contradition between engine creators and publishers. I'd like to think new IPs like Immortals could exist and play the long game; hoping for sales over time vs an intial massive burst while not hurting the studio.
let me explain. if we try to make Halo 3 at the SAME quality today (lets pretend said engine got all of the new features/tools) We would be able to make said game faster or easier. the issue is... instead of keeping their Bar at the same level or moving that focus to "Gameplay" they smoke Crack and think that We want CGI graphics. so now games takes 3X longer to make while 90% of that time is spent making Assist instead of Gameplay/bug fixing. aka... Games cost more to make because of Devs, Mismanagement, and people focusing on the WRONG aspic.
720p, blurry, professional actors that aren't needed, linear, can't bo back to different zones after completion, short game, no replay value, full price?They pretty much did everything people dont want. Listen to consumer's and make what we want. Big names dont matter. Good acting and story telling are. I dont have the game itd just all i seen over and over.
Let's be fair, even if the game was a winner in sales, a lot of staff would have been made redundant That's just the way western game studios work, especially in the EA "family".
Yeah that's why it's weird that we keep acting like it's not normal and expected every time it happens Why don't the news outlets like DF mention this as part of the story
Its a big difference if the studio is owned by EA (and they do the layoffs) or if it was an EA Partner title or what they call it. Its basically that the studio or other investors hire EA to do publishing . In that case, EA has nothing to say about the studios future. The investors have in a way though 😔. If it's investor funded and they need to pay a certain amount back by a certain time , laying off people to compensate for lower sales is a quick way to get out clean and continue with what you have left.
Been playing this game since the FSR update. Never played it before that, but it runs smooth, looks beautiful and is extremely fun. The gameplay is original (as original as a fast paced shooter game can be). That slow beginning is actually a benefit if you take into account that the game provides an immersive story. That tailored beginning is useful for story directives. This developer disserves acclaim for this game. Its just a shame fsr didn't release before the game did. They pushed the visuals so high, that the FSR framerate boost was all it needed. Imo
I'm gutted by the news of all those layoffs. Immortals of Aveum is exactly the kind of game that we needed. It's a fresh, new IP that leverages new technology, it's only on current gen consoles (no PS4/Xbox One ports to hold it back), and it's not a rehash of anything we've seen before. The game is competent, with a good story, fun gameplay, and is wildly entertaining even if it's not "Game of the Year" material. It's something that deserved support. Yet everyone looked at it and yawned without even giving it a chance. This is why we keep getting soulless sequels with the same tired cliched mechanics and actual new AAA experiences are so few and far between.
Apparently fixed the dlss upscaling blurriness that could occur. Anyway, the game on pc feels really snappy and fast. Somehow I keep returning to it. Like Rich said , once it gets its actually a nice game . I do get the community opinion that the game is heavy for the graphical return you get, but that being said it is not bad looking. And my 3060 plays it fine. It uses heavy tech that doesn't always show itself in the final product in an impressive way. Maybe the workflow was awesome for the dev team, but for us as end consumers I expected more. But again, what IS there isn't bad at all and really enjoyable .
The thing with 7/10 games is that games are expensive and most people only have a limited amount of time to play. So no one wants to waste their time and money on a mediocre game.
Exactly, I've put about 30h into RDR2 and it took me like 5 weeks. I have queued up a couple of other "good" games, so what's the point of buying mediocre games. Even if I really wanted to play this particular mediocre game I can happily wait for a sale because I have other games to play which will take me another year or more to complete.
Revisiting this now, Hellblade 2 seems to really highlight the impact properly optimising a UE5 game can make. No complaints from me about UE5 anymore, just complaints about corporate asswipes pushing games out the door before any real optimisations can be made lel
It looks great and plays smooth on my ps5 slim with a 4k 60hz tv. looks like 60fps and no drops after 15 hours playing. No crashes either. It's a bit puzzle heavy, but the combat is fun and I like the characters and dialogue. A good one to play on PS+.
What we are seeing now is UE5 hurting game studios. It's a bad engine for this generation. I wouldn't touch a game that runs below 1080p on XSX/PS5. Did these companies really expect us to go back to xbox360 resolution? On pc it's even worse. The high-end segment is just a fraction of the console business and there is pirated games too. I feel for the devs getting laid off but companies releasing sub 1080p games or 30fps games in 2023 need to wake up.
UE5 and its new features have both a learning curve and are still being polished. Devs could easily make games that run great on consoles with UE4, but there's not as much incentive if you're trying to stay relevant with current technologies. It's more that the consoles can barely handle UE5 on a hardware level and no nothings keep screaming for 4k ultra @ 60fps on console. More frames less fidelity.
Yeah I played the trials and wow it was bad, then bought it for Series X and the FPS are just all over the place, causing my head to hurt. While playing Doom or the Finals etc I've never had that issue. Then again they weren't trying to push boundries like this game. So it would be very GOOD imo if they didn't worry about image quality and focused on FPS. Makes it unplayable imo. Sadly
I have just bought this on Epic and is there any reason that runs as a stuttering mess on my 4090 (other than the obvious that it is still not optimised properly)?
maybe if they played the games on consoles before they released them i mean this game would have done good if not for the absolute blur in the graphics
I don't think the problem was the reviewers.. This game just wasn't that very compelling compared to All the other options on the market It's just some random UE5 FPS shooter that ran at an insanely low resolution and looked very.. generic... They came out of nowhere and nobody even knew it was coming out. No idea what they were thinking trying to aim for the most cutting edge game possible for such a generic IP like this in a small studio.
Some of the best games of the past 20+ years have come from independent studios. So much so that AAA studios have copied and pasted their ideas and used a lot of their gameplay mechanics. Independent studios are the ones actually making a difference, because they can experiment without too much retribution. Whereas, AAA Studios go for the easy dollar and stick with what’s popular and what sells. Taking very few chances due to their inflated budget and ridiculous amount of staffing. It’s amazing to me that an independent studio can put together a AA or close to AAA game, that is better than 90% of the AAA studios… working with a staff of 20, can make a game for $100,000 or slightly more… Whereas the big studios have a staff of 100 to 1000 or more… and can’t get it done for under $100 million. it just shows the waste of resources and over staffing that bloats these huge studios.
How was it broken? It ran as well, if not better than the Matrix Demo, and about as well as Fortnite with Lumen and Nanite enabled. The nature of these technologies means it's doesn't matter if you take UE4 assets and throw them into UE5, they will still be very demanding.
@@eugkra33 If you target very high end specs is there really a surprise that you barely get any sales? The console version performance was very poor and extremely blurry with low resolution.
I'm enjoying the game play and the performance has been pretty good for me. RX6950xt and Ryzen 5 7600x 32gm ddr5 5600m/ts memory. `1440p getting over 100fps on high settings. With the latest update with FSR 3 and optimisation it runs even better. Paid $60 cad for it.
That's so sad. Hopefully the people can bounce back. This is the kind of events that prevent a young studio to go out of the safe trendy path everyone follows unfortunately.
@Dregomz02 I did not get the chance to play it but the studio was seemingly the 1st to use the full UE5 toolset. This can't be an easy task to be the 1st to deploy a whole new set of tools on somewhat recent platforms
No one wants to play with magic finger guns. Couple that with a forgettable look and bad name and you basically could see this game was dead before it even launched.
If the game development is getting easier, there's NO reason other than CORPORATE GREED for games to be $70, especially with all the PREDATORY microtransaction, dlc and other play to win crap, they put in the game. If you want to make money than make a game that is of quality. in my opinion quality would be the following. •Fun and engaging gameplay •No gamebreaking bugs or glitchs •Minimal Crashing •Optimized to fully ultize the hardware given. •Has support for all the major upscaling vendors (ie: DLSS, FSR, XeSS, TSR) •Runs well (1080p 60fps) on mid range hardware (ie: RTX 3060ti, RTX 4060, RX 6700, RX7600, Arc A750, etc) •No predatory/pay to win microtransactions, loot boxes or DLC •Consoles have a quality and performance option •Ability to adjust/turn off motion blur, depth of field, chromatic abbrehation, field of view. •PC versions should have a graphics menu that is concise and shows the effects of the given settings.
The game is just terrible on Series X... from graphics to gameplay to audio... it's just not good. I played Titanfall 2 last week - a 7 year old game - and it looked, played and sounded way better and was way more fun.
lol alright so let's see. All the devs make the game, it releases, sales aren't what the CEO's and investors wanted.... so near half the positions required to create and deliver the game become 'redundant' ??? How? This sounds like corporate speak for "We want the majority of the profits for ourselves, so we are firing half the staff. We will figure it out, or just kill the studio and move on."
There were no profits, that’s the whole problem. The game peaked at like 900 concurrent players on steam, and I don’t think it did substantially better on console either.
The game looks cool but stutters on PC so I won't touch it, but just because a game is very demanding doesn't mean its bad and for nobody. Maybe I can't run it on a 70 or 60 class card now without compromises to image quality or framerate. But I could next generation or when current high end gets cheaper.
Searched this out after seeing that immortals was on sale. Thanks for the video. It really isn’t impressive on console. It’s a cool game that looks great on PC though.
Guys when a corporation makes a product that is defective either required it back and fix it either loose the trust from the crowd. The lay offs is on the company 's hand.
@phant0mdummy gaybox series x fanboys are just salty because everything plays best on the ps5. Not to mention outselling the gaybox series x by a huge margin.
6:06 this is where it starts
I think Sloclap did it best. They are a somewhat small studio but they didn't aim for a grand AAA release with Sifu and it did fairly well. CDPR with Witcher 1 also comes to mind. They did enough to achieve success and further refined it with Witcher 2 and had breakout success with W3.
So many strange decisions.
- Bad and even awkward advertising
- 70, 80 bucks price tags
- Extremely low internal resolutions.
- No Quality 30fps mode (absolutely necessary on Series S as the game is almost unplayable due to low resolution.)
- Minimum RTX 2080 Super...
- ...for very poor performance and rather unimpressive graphics.
- Denuvo
Add that people doesn't like EA very much, and that the game was a new IP. If at least they went with reasonable pricing or reduce requirements to a much more common GPU like the RTX 3060, avoid spending unnecessary money on Denuvo, people would have at least seen them with better eyes. They acted in a very unlikable way like their game was the biggest thing ever that absolutely required Denuvo and RTX 4090s and people should cope with it. and here we hare. kind of a sad situation. ain't that surprised though.
I keep hearing each iteration of UE is making games easier to develope for smaller studios. It's difficult for me to wrap my head around how if game engines; well UE 5 at least; are making the development process more streamlined and easier; why is the price going up? There's some kind of contradition between engine creators and publishers.
I'd like to think new IPs like Immortals could exist and play the long game; hoping for sales over time vs an intial massive burst while not hurting the studio.
The price is going up because publishers want money.
@@moonknightishbasically this
Publishers are greedy. It’s really straightforward
UE5 is overhyped and gamestudios has been fooled by Epic. Surely they did expect games to be 720p on PS5/XSX.
let me explain. if we try to make Halo 3 at the SAME quality today (lets pretend said engine got all of the new features/tools) We would be able to make said game faster or easier.
the issue is... instead of keeping their Bar at the same level or moving that focus to "Gameplay" they smoke Crack and think that We want CGI graphics.
so now games takes 3X longer to make while 90% of that time is spent making Assist instead of Gameplay/bug fixing. aka... Games cost more to make because of Devs, Mismanagement, and people focusing on the WRONG aspic.
720p, blurry, professional actors that aren't needed, linear, can't bo back to different zones after completion, short game, no replay value, full price?They pretty much did everything people dont want.
Listen to consumer's and make what we want. Big names dont matter. Good acting and story telling are.
I dont have the game itd just all i seen over and over.
The title/name felt like it came from a focus group.
It's one of the best next-gen titles that I've played since GOW Ragnarok and Spider-Man 2
Let's be fair, even if the game was a winner in sales, a lot of staff would have been made redundant That's just the way western game studios work, especially in the EA "family".
Yeah that's why it's weird that we keep acting like it's not normal and expected every time it happens
Why don't the news outlets like DF mention this as part of the story
Its a big difference if the studio is owned by EA (and they do the layoffs) or if it was an EA Partner title or what they call it. Its basically that the studio or other investors hire EA to do publishing . In that case, EA has nothing to say about the studios future. The investors have in a way though 😔. If it's investor funded and they need to pay a certain amount back by a certain time , laying off people to compensate for lower sales is a quick way to get out clean and continue with what you have left.
Been playing this game since the FSR update. Never played it before that, but it runs smooth, looks beautiful and is extremely fun. The gameplay is original (as original as a fast paced shooter game can be). That slow beginning is actually a benefit if you take into account that the game provides an immersive story. That tailored beginning is useful for story directives. This developer disserves acclaim for this game. Its just a shame fsr didn't release before the game did. They pushed the visuals so high, that the FSR framerate boost was all it needed. Imo
I'm gutted by the news of all those layoffs. Immortals of Aveum is exactly the kind of game that we needed. It's a fresh, new IP that leverages new technology, it's only on current gen consoles (no PS4/Xbox One ports to hold it back), and it's not a rehash of anything we've seen before. The game is competent, with a good story, fun gameplay, and is wildly entertaining even if it's not "Game of the Year" material. It's something that deserved support. Yet everyone looked at it and yawned without even giving it a chance. This is why we keep getting soulless sequels with the same tired cliched mechanics and actual new AAA experiences are so few and far between.
They did a lot of stupid decisions when making this game, that’s what killed it’s sales.
All these fools want is CoD , Madden, 2K you can thank casual gamers for the current state of the industry and fake gamers on metacritic
@@crimson-foxtwitch2581you made a lot of stupid decisions posting this thinking you know anything
yes and i liked the aesthetic a lot, kinda felt like a disney storyline with a more mature arc..
Just picked this up for £7 on eBay. Hope it's worth it😊
Apparently fixed the dlss upscaling blurriness that could occur. Anyway, the game on pc feels really snappy and fast. Somehow I keep returning to it. Like Rich said , once it gets its actually a nice game . I do get the community opinion that the game is heavy for the graphical return you get, but that being said it is not bad looking. And my 3060 plays it fine. It uses heavy tech that doesn't always show itself in the final product in an impressive way. Maybe the workflow was awesome for the dev team, but for us as end consumers I expected more. But again, what IS there isn't bad at all and really enjoyable .
The thing with 7/10 games is that games are expensive and most people only have a limited amount of time to play. So no one wants to waste their time and money on a mediocre game.
Only if it comes to gamepass or any other subscription. In that case why not.
Exactly, I've put about 30h into RDR2 and it took me like 5 weeks. I have queued up a couple of other "good" games, so what's the point of buying mediocre games. Even if I really wanted to play this particular mediocre game I can happily wait for a sale because I have other games to play which will take me another year or more to complete.
@@dmytrosoboliev935 7 months from the future and yes its on gamepass lol
Is there an option to turn the resolution down to what it was at launch? I’d rather have the lower res with more consistent frame rate.
Im trying to play it in my ps5 with 4k 120hz tv, and its all blurry with 30/20fps drops, its unplayable for me
It plays smooth for me on my ps5 slim and 60hz 4k tv. Looks like a solid 60fps and very crisp image. I'm 16 hours into it.
Revisiting this now, Hellblade 2 seems to really highlight the impact properly optimising a UE5 game can make. No complaints from me about UE5 anymore, just complaints about corporate asswipes pushing games out the door before any real optimisations can be made lel
They should have just added a quality mode locked to 30 fps with increased resolution and should have left the 60 fps mode as it is
It looks great and plays smooth on my ps5 slim with a 4k 60hz tv. looks like 60fps and no drops after 15 hours playing. No crashes either. It's a bit puzzle heavy, but the combat is fun and I like the characters and dialogue. A good one to play on PS+.
might need a new pair of eyes. try looking for donor's.
@@puntybrah I have 20/20 vision. The game looks great. After 30 hours, zero crashes or issues on PS5.
dude this game killed mid tier pc gaming and that's not what you want to do.
What we are seeing now is UE5 hurting game studios. It's a bad engine for this generation. I wouldn't touch a game that runs below 1080p on XSX/PS5. Did these companies really expect us to go back to xbox360 resolution?
On pc it's even worse. The high-end segment is just a fraction of the console business and there is pirated games too.
I feel for the devs getting laid off but companies releasing sub 1080p games or 30fps games in 2023 need to wake up.
UE5 and its new features have both a learning curve and are still being polished. Devs could easily make games that run great on consoles with UE4, but there's not as much incentive if you're trying to stay relevant with current technologies. It's more that the consoles can barely handle UE5 on a hardware level and no nothings keep screaming for 4k ultra @ 60fps on console. More frames less fidelity.
Yeah I played the trials and wow it was bad, then bought it for Series X and the FPS are just all over the place, causing my head to hurt. While playing Doom or the Finals etc I've never had that issue. Then again they weren't trying to push boundries like this game. So it would be very GOOD imo if they didn't worry about image quality and focused on FPS. Makes it unplayable imo. Sadly
Immortals of Aveum is a bad game. The writing is so cringy, level design is poor. It's sad that the staff got laid off but this a 5/10 game at best.
dont half ass your games and rely on amd lol
At least the game is somewhat original. I liked it I'm just waiting for the FSR 3.0 patch bring it to gamepass
I have just bought this on Epic and is there any reason that runs as a stuttering mess on my 4090 (other than the obvious that it is still not optimised properly)?
ya it drops below 60 on a 4090 in certain spots n thats with frame gen on
mind u im playing at 1440p
it was a crap idea ,that is why it Failed
maybe if they played the games on consoles before they released them i mean this game would have done good if not for the absolute blur in the graphics
I don't think the problem was the reviewers..
This game just wasn't that very compelling compared to All the other options on the market
It's just some random UE5 FPS shooter that ran at an insanely low resolution and looked very.. generic...
They came out of nowhere and nobody even knew it was coming out.
No idea what they were thinking trying to aim for the most cutting edge game possible for such a generic IP like this in a small studio.
Star citizen type funding?
Some of the best games of the past 20+ years have come from independent studios. So much so that AAA studios have copied and pasted their ideas and used a lot of their gameplay mechanics. Independent studios are the ones actually making a difference, because they can experiment without too much retribution. Whereas, AAA Studios go for the easy dollar and stick with what’s popular and what sells. Taking very few chances due to their inflated budget and ridiculous amount of staffing.
It’s amazing to me that an independent studio can put together a AA or close to AAA game, that is better than 90% of the AAA studios… working with a staff of 20, can make a game for $100,000 or slightly more… Whereas the big studios have a staff of 100 to 1000 or more… and can’t get it done for under $100 million. it just shows the waste of resources and over staffing that bloats these huge studios.
Yea,…would rather play this than starfield,..game is underrated damn shame.
This is what happens when founders of companies have zero business and marketing skills. No QA was done at all.
Well the game was broken and they wanted to be "impractical".
How was it broken? It ran as well, if not better than the Matrix Demo, and about as well as Fortnite with Lumen and Nanite enabled. The nature of these technologies means it's doesn't matter if you take UE4 assets and throw them into UE5, they will still be very demanding.
@@eugkra33 If you target very high end specs is there really a surprise that you barely get any sales? The console version performance was very poor and extremely blurry with low resolution.
@@eugkra33no it doesn’t, Fortnite runs with those features at near 1440p 60
I'm enjoying the game play and the performance has been pretty good for me. RX6950xt and Ryzen 5 7600x 32gm ddr5 5600m/ts memory. `1440p getting over 100fps on high settings. With the latest update with FSR 3 and optimisation it runs even better. Paid $60 cad for it.
That's so sad. Hopefully the people can bounce back. This is the kind of events that prevent a young studio to go out of the safe trendy path everyone follows unfortunately.
But that game was a safe path and that's why it failed.
@Dregomz02 I did not get the chance to play it but the studio was seemingly the 1st to use the full UE5 toolset. This can't be an easy task to be the 1st to deploy a whole new set of tools on somewhat recent platforms
@@kapt980 nah, it was just the blandest game in last 15 years, with pretty dated visuals and absurdly horrible performance.
I'm playing it for the first time and I think that it's an amazing game
No one wants to play with magic finger guns. Couple that with a forgettable look and bad name and you basically could see this game was dead before it even launched.
If the game development is getting easier, there's NO reason other than CORPORATE GREED for games to be $70, especially with all the PREDATORY microtransaction, dlc and other play to win crap, they put in the game. If you want to make money than make a game that is of quality.
in my opinion quality would be the following.
•Fun and engaging gameplay
•No gamebreaking bugs or glitchs
•Minimal Crashing
•Optimized to fully ultize the hardware given.
•Has support for all the major upscaling vendors (ie: DLSS, FSR, XeSS, TSR)
•Runs well (1080p 60fps) on mid range hardware (ie: RTX 3060ti, RTX 4060, RX 6700, RX7600, Arc A750, etc)
•No predatory/pay to win microtransactions, loot boxes or DLC
•Consoles have a quality and performance option
•Ability to adjust/turn off motion blur, depth of field, chromatic abbrehation, field of view.
•PC versions should have a graphics menu that is concise and shows the effects of the given settings.
Playing it free with ps+ constant framrate drops, unoptimized garbage
The game is just terrible on Series X... from graphics to gameplay to audio... it's just not good. I played Titanfall 2 last week - a 7 year old game - and it looked, played and sounded way better and was way more fun.
lol alright so let's see.
All the devs make the game, it releases, sales aren't what the CEO's and investors wanted.... so near half the positions required to create and deliver the game become 'redundant' ???
How?
This sounds like corporate speak for "We want the majority of the profits for ourselves, so we are firing half the staff. We will figure it out, or just kill the studio and move on."
There were no profits, that’s the whole problem. The game peaked at like 900 concurrent players on steam, and I don’t think it did substantially better on console either.
This game was nothing but a not so impressive tech showoff.
Immortals of Failium for sure, because the majority of us gamers don't have 4080s, 4090s, 7900 XT or XTX to get playable framerates.
The game looks cool but stutters on PC so I won't touch it, but just because a game is very demanding doesn't mean its bad and for nobody. Maybe I can't run it on a 70 or 60 class card now without compromises to image quality or framerate. But I could next generation or when current high end gets cheaper.
3060 / 5800x3d plays it fine with almost-locked 60. Can even get 1440p out or it be going below quality-DLSS.
@@jorismak Thanks for the heads-up 😉
Searched this out after seeing that immortals was on sale. Thanks for the video. It really isn’t impressive on console. It’s a cool game that looks great on PC though.
Guys when a corporation makes a product that is defective either required it back and fix it either loose the trust from the crowd.
The lay offs is on the company 's hand.
The poor sales has everything to do with their min pc requirements
A gtx 1070 and a ryzen 2600x?
Get with the times, those specs aren't a very high bar.
What do you expect with woke nonsense like this
Alex is so fake lol
What do you mean?
Plays best on ps5!
Gaybox series x fanboys takes another MEGA L!!!!!
In your opinion, where do you think your development went wrong?
wow, this is wild if this comment is 100% legit.
You're embarrassing.
@phant0mdummy gaybox series x fanboys are just salty because everything plays best on the ps5. Not to mention outselling the gaybox series x by a huge margin.
Great, another screaming 10 year old.