• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

American McGee starting to work on a pitch for 'Alice: Asylum' to be presented to EA

humansarehorses said:
I'll add you to the list of people who can't read too.

He says in his facebook post:

A game in which the player controls scantily clad women playing volleyball? Well, that's bad. Can't have it.

That is, that there are people who maintain the position that the option to produce and consume this type of game should not be available to anyone.
Click to expand...

He follows that statement with talking about banning or blacklisting people who buy it. That would be an odd comment to make if his sole concern was over whether it could be available to anyone. This contextualizes what he means by "can't have it". He means "you can't have it and be morally acceptable to individuals and businesses who may choose to disassociate".

This is again what I mean by his argument being muddled. It allows for ambiguity and jumps around at different levels of focus. Also, if you include an ad-hominem again, I'm not going to continue to respond. Not that you necessarily care, just a heads up.
 
Kinsei said:
A harassment campaign against women in the games industry.
Click to expand...
Colin_Farrel-Disgusted.gif
 
Garlador said:
But isn't that the gist? That bucking back against calls to ban or blacklist people who buy or sell games is in the end a bad idea that stifles creative works? He's not calling for those people complaining to be censored either... he's asking them to engage with the other side and the dissenters, something he's advocating for a long time. To open the floor to discussion and debate, where censorship on EITHER side is a bad idea.

He's "objecting" not to objection, but to the objectionists who want to make a clean break from that form of medium entirely and only permit things that they are comfortable with that reinforce their own views, even if those views are altruistic and positive. He's saying there should be a place for negativity in the discussion, and his complaint is that BOTH sides need to listen more. Criticism is not a call for censorship. He doesn't want the moral grandstanders to shut up... he wants them to engage with the other side and recognize not everything is about them or for them.

Because, as you said... he's right. We tolerate a TON of offensive content in the west so long as it's violent and gory and cheer for the next awesome kill or fatality, while freaking out over Dead or Alive Xtreme and what Quiet is wearing.

That doesn't mean that Quiet isn't offensive as a design. Rather, he advocates she still has the right to exist, and for the critics just going "shun shun shun" - of which there ARE several - to be a bit open-minded in engaging with those that enjoy such content without demonizing the other.

There was a time when Alice and DOOM were on the receiving end of this same conversation. I'm old enough to remember it and experience it. That moral panic is surreal to me now.

Again, I don't agree with a lot of McGee's worldviews... but I also think he'd be open to hearing me out and engaging in a conversation about it from his very unique perspective versus my own. In fact, I'd really love to hear from him on the subject. Would be a fun debate and discussion because, as I said, I don't entirely agree with him, but he clearly has some interested opinions on the merits of art in all its forms, both hideous and lovely.
Click to expand...

Then he needs to speak with more precision. He doesn't make a clean break between criticism and censorship. Western journalists not liking things are placed in close argumentative proximity to government-sponsored crackdowns. His objections muddle the lines between both.
 
Garlador said:
A bit, yes.

I always try and look at the perspective of the other guy, their experiences, and what shaped their thinking. Alice was a game that was deemed "offensive" once upon a time, that he was told by CEOs and people in authority was moral garbage and disgusting filth, and I like how he says those discussions are almost "quaint" in our current gaming climate of God of War gore and Witcher sexuality.

I feel like he bats for the "other side" perhaps a bit too much, but that's my opinion, since he he does have a more "South Park" approach to seeing flaws in both sides, and I know outright that GAF leans heavily into one side over the other. I do as well, but I try to be self-aware of it.

But he's also not entirely incorrect at the hypocrisy that one side claims to be the more "enlightened" and morally upright side, and they rarely engage with the dissent directly. Many of us would prefer not to give the other side a platform whatsoever, while he'd love to hear what they have to say, even if he wouldn't agree with them. Again, within reason.

He's staunchly against suppression of free speech, safe zones, or efforts to restrict gaming or art from being experienced by others. Inevitably, that has him defending OFFENSIVE ART and the people who ENJOY offensive art, and that's... offensive. I have been offended before myself, and sometimes that is the emotional reaction that was intended. Sometime's it's not. For as much as something like, say, OTHER M offends me and I wish it hadn't been made, I am glad it COULD be made, even if the end product is something I wish, on a personal level, had been done differently.

Because Alice itself has been through this portal before, and before that he worked on DOOM, which my mother once forbid my brother and I from playing because it was "satanic". He's been through the looking glass of attempts to legitimately stifle developer creativity, and lived in the country where such tactics are rule of law.

And then his family possibly experienced the very dark backlash of someone who disagreed with him.

I don't even fully agree with him either. I think it's fine to be critical of art and offense is neither a positive or negative response; just a reaction. There's much I dislike and I can articulate why while acknowledging it's not for me at all while wishing things had been done differently.

But as an artist, I can understanding the right to be offensive, nightmarish, vulgar, disgusting, screwed up, insulting, and negative. Art is not always beautiful; it's often ugly. And American often goes to bat for the ugly ones out there that we are offended by.
Click to expand...

Good post. Thanks for the reasonable point of view.
 
humansarehorses said:
Should a complaint or a protest about what's included in the game lead to government censorship?
Click to expand...

No, but those and trends with Google, Facebook, and SJW culture are the dots American is connecting.

We're not talking about the viability of the games in the free market in this case anymore. We're talking about people who react negatively about a game and are trying to change it through government intervention.
Click to expand...

That's a strawman informed by his current ills with China and trends in Western free market/free speech. He prefaced that statement about Ministry of Culture with a paragraph about Western journalism. "Can't have it" isn't in quotes. It didn't come from anyone. It's rhetorical. Was DOA Beach Volleyball banned in the west? No -- maybe Germany? We have two sequels, so it doesn't seem to be threatened.

I don't know why I'm asking you this question. It's not like I'm going to get a smart response from you. You ducked my last question. A scenario that implied the game developer would make something different i.e. that he would change the product by his own volition. A scenario that McGee would have absolutely no problem with.
Click to expand...

Ducked which question? I don't know why you're being so insulting.
 
Danjin44 said:
Okay this might sound really stupid but what WTF is Gamergate?
Click to expand...

You'll need to clear some time.

Lime said:
Context is key. Latching onto 'free speech' arguments in the context of Gamergate is fucking toxic and is in no way defensible. It also means that you egg on the harassment campaign while you simultaneously throw people like Sarkeesian and Alexander under the bus while you're complaining about SJWs.
Click to expand...
Funny this is brought up, because I feel a lot of your statements are seriously LACKING context for what he's saying, when he's saying it, and why he's saying it. It's the same sort of generalizing that lumps everyone in together, like how a Christian guy must be a scumbag because a group of them hate gay people. Equating his advocacy for free speech - which LONG precedes Gamergate ever being a thing - is to diminish the actual context of his platform.

Lime said:
It's so clear that the dude is part of the group that complains about feminazis and that you can't be bigoted without consequences. The whole free speech thing isn't about free speech, it's about silencing women and those in the margins to voice their criticisms whenever you're being a dick towards them. Gamergate and the rest of the fragile failsons who react strongly when a minority criticizes something just invoke free speech as a form of domination and shutting down any form of conversation.
Click to expand...
I don't think he has a membership card or anything. There's a litany of interviews with other people and players of his past and history championing for better portrayals of women, and his own heroine Alice, often against the marketing muscle of CEOs who demanded she be sexier or flash more flesh. He's keenly aware than the Alice games have a substantial female following as well. He's said he agrees with Anita on many things (and she has ALSO used Alice as a great example of a heroine in games), while disagreeing with her on other things (he doesn't like her advocacy for what he described as "blank slate" style heroines to emulate, etc.).

But... he's never been shy about saying he's open to the discussion. It's ridiculous to say he wants to "silence women" when every work he's done and every comment he's made opening the door to discussion is still here for us to see.


Lime said:
I don't see the need to follow harassers, bigots, and racists like the ones I mentioned.
Click to expand...
"Know they enemy" and also figure out what's happening in the cultural zeitgeist. I follow Trump's feed too and loathe the man, but I'm far less shocked by many here by the things he's doing. I see many coming a mile away. More importantly, I don't just know WHAT the harassers and bigots and racists are doing, but I can better understand WHY they're doing it. Nobody is born with their beliefs set in stone. They're shaped that way.


Lime said:
Dude complains about SJWs and feminazis and free speech and concurrently follows MRAs, fascists, bigots, gamergaters, and the rest of the far-right shitpile that wants to dominate other people. I mean, you have to be pretty oblivious and naive if you think the politics of such a person is not affiliated with such crazy people. But keep apologizing and rationalizing his actions, I guess.
Click to expand...
I don't think he complains about free speech, considering that is THE thing he's been advocating (including speech you're offended by or that makes you feel bad). You selectively ignore the fact he ALSO follows feminists, liberals, anti-Trump groups, LGBT friendly groups, etc.

Ignoring one sect to reinforce your point is precisely the type of "dismissing the opposition" criticism he's been critical of.

And it's pertinent to mention the very REAL impact this debate had on his family. Ignoring THAT context is galling. As I said earlier, this is a lot messier than many dismissed it as.

Personally, I don't agree with many of McGee's stances, but I also am very understanding of where they come from and how shockingly understated they are compared to many others... even here.
 
thumb said:
He follows that statement with talking about banning or blacklisting people who buy it. That would be an odd comment to make if his sole concern was over whether it could be available to anyone. This contextualizes what he means by "can't have it". He means "you can't have it and be morally acceptable to individuals and businesses who may choose to disassociate".

This is again what I mean by his argument being muddled. It allows for ambiguity and jumps around at different levels of focus. Also, if you include an ad-hominem again, I'm not going to continue to respond. Not that you necessarily care, just a heads up.
Click to expand...

Yep, he does. Because those are actions taken to incentivize/enforce censorship in some form and nothing else. That's not free speech, it's an attempt to restrict free speech.

Really, his argument isn't hard to follow whatsoever.

I'm also not including an ad hominem. I'm insulting you while attacking your position. Get it straight.
 
thumb said:
Who is actually advocating for this though? Any major organizations? Any people with a great deal of influence? And beyond social influence, any people with formal power: senators, presidents, representatives? American had a chance to quote anyone advocating for this, but instead he talked about Western journalists not liking objectification, and implied it could turn into the Ministry of Culture.
Click to expand...
humansarehorses said:
Currently they do have the freedom. And he's addressing people who have the view that those companies SHOULDN'T have the freedom to do so. This is just a simple difference between positive statements and normative statements.
Click to expand...

(1) One type of argument: Developers shouldn’t make design choices X, Y and Z, because those design choices are objectionable, for reasons A, B, and C. The aim of this type of argument is to persuade decision-makers within the game industry to make different choices about what goes into their games (and/or to persuade consumers to make different choices about what games they purchase). Arguments of this kind, which are entirely persuasive in nature (as opposed to coercive), are to that extent entirely unobjectionable.

(2) A different type of argument: Developers shouldn’t have the FREEDOM to make design choices X, Y and Z. The aim of this type of argument is to persuade individuals in law-making positions to employ the coercive power of the state to prohibit and prevent game developers from making design choices X, Y and Z. Arguments of this kind can therefore themselves be considered coercive in nature.

However, outside of the Chinese context to which American frequently refers, it is not clear that there are any notable instances of coercive arguments being made, to any extent that would warrant Mr. McGee’s concerns:
thumb said:
Hot Coffee, your most recent example, was 13 years ago. The proposed legislation was to legally enforce the ESRB's existing rules. It was never passed. Jack Thompson wanted more draconian censorship, and was roundly dismissed. If there are current legal threats in the US that American was reacting to, he should have brought them up.

As far as I can tell, American was responding to Koei-Tecmo not wanting to sell the latest Dead or Alive game in the US due to a smaller anticipated market. This was subsequently attributed to the actions of "SJWs", AFAIK because Play-Asia said as much. But Koei-Tecmo's actions, to my knowledge, were a pre-emptive response. There were no calls for the game to be banned and no outcry at its existence.
Click to expand...
thumb said:
Then he needs to speak with more precision. He doesn't make a clean break between criticism and censorship. Western journalists not liking things are placed in close argumentative proximity to government-sponsored crackdowns. His objections muddle the lines between both.
Click to expand...
Yes, it appears that American may be attributing coercive arguments to individuals who are making persuasive arguments.
 
Danjin44 said:
Okay this might sound really stupid but what WTF is Gamergate?
Click to expand...

To be honest I'm not really sure either, besides a vague idea of misogynism in gaming culture and threats made against women in the industry. I could never get the hang of what it was all about when it happened. Either way, I don't really see anything in his posts promoting that kind of behaviour. All I see is someone advocating the right to free speech.
 
Lime said:
Seriously, you people, dude is throwing SJWs around and free speech arguments and censorship bullshit about anime titties, and people are seriously still not realizing what he's on?









Context is key. Latching onto 'free speech' arguments in the context of Gamergate is fucking toxic and is in no way defensible. It also means that you egg on the harassment campaign while you simultaneously throw people like Sarkeesian and Alexander under the bus while you're complaining about SJWs.

It's so clear that the dude is part of the group that complains about feminazis and that you can't be bigoted without consequences. The whole free speech thing isn't about free speech, it's about silencing women and those in the margins to voice their criticisms whenever you're being a dick towards them. Gamergate and the rest of the fragile failsons who react strongly when a minority criticizes something just invoke free speech as a form of domination and shutting down any form of conversation.



I don't see the need to follow harassers, bigots, and racists like the ones I mentioned.



Dude complains about SJWs and feminazis and free speech and concurrently follows MRAs, fascists, bigots, gamergaters, and the rest of the far-right shitpile that wants to dominate other people. I mean, you have to be pretty oblivious and naive if you think the politics of such a person is not affiliated with such crazy people. But keep apologizing and rationalizing his actions, I guess.
Click to expand...

siW5jpS.gif
 
Lime said:
Context is key. Latching onto 'free speech' arguments in the context of Gamergate is fucking toxic and is in no way defensible. It also means that you egg on the harassment campaign while you simultaneously throw people like Sarkeesian and Alexander under the bus while you're complaining about SJWs.

It's so clear that the dude is part of the group that complains about feminazis and that you can't be bigoted without consequences. The whole free speech thing isn't about free speech, it's about silencing women and those in the margins to voice their criticisms whenever you're being a dick towards them. Gamergate and the rest of the fragile failsons who react strongly when a minority criticizes something just invoke free speech as a form of domination and shutting down any form of conversation.
Click to expand...

The ACLU would disagree. There is no such thing as a good-will or bad-will Free Speech argument beyond what has already been defined by many Supreme Court cases over many decades. American's defense of a GG's spokesperson's right to speech is literally the exact argument the Supreme Court would make. Freedom of Speech is defensible under nearly any context, and will be defended and upheld by courts, unless it is directly inciting violence or hate. HOWEVER, this is strictly from a governmental perspective. If private citizens come together to protest GG and put pressure on a company to fire a GGer, this is also legal, free speech. Especially when most states can fire people at-will. Or to even pressure a company to not release a game. That company is under no legal agreement to not release it, so if they bow to public pressure, this is literally the power of free speech in action.

If one wants to take away free speech rights for distasteful causes like GG on a governmental level, then yes that would have a direct effect on decreasing harassment.
But keep in mind the reality of who's in charge once you expand the banning of "hateful" speech beyond it's current neutrality.

It is high time that the ACLU moved onto the right side of History and abandoned the "narrow reading" of the First Amendment that is the result of 50 years of unanimous Supreme Court precedent. In lieu, it must focus on working toward more diverse and productive ends, such as giving Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump the robust censorship powers that they so richly and urgently deserve. The United States federal government is now run at every level by Republicans. So, indeed, are the lion's share of the governors' mansions, statehouses, and localities. If the ACLU really knuckles down, it can ensure that these figures — and not pernicious "neutral" principle — determine the edges and contours of America's civil society.
Click to expand...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...tack-on-free-speech-in-modern-history/537468/
 
Oh man, I really hope this can happen. I'll be there day one and buy as many special editions and season passes you want.

As for the GG stuff, I don't really care. I can separate art from artist.
 
humansarehorses said:
I'm also not including an ad hominem. I'm insulting you while attacking your position. Get it straight.
Click to expand...

Based on this response, I'm choosing to disengage with you. It is most certainly an ad-hominem argument, as it is attacking an attribute (literacy and reading comprehension) so as to motivate others to devalue my argument, irrespective of its content. That is not your sole argument, but it is included for additional weight.
 
dlauv said:
No, but those and trends with Google, Facebook, and SJW culture are the dots American is connecting.
Click to expand...

Congrats. You're arguing a normative position which is independent of what is true about whether complaints/protests lead to censorship.

That's exactly what he's doing.

dlauv said:
That's a strawman informed by his current ills with China and trends in Western free market/free speech. He prefaced that statement about Ministry of Culture with a paragraph about Western journalism. "Can't have it" isn't in quotes. It didn't come from anyone. It's rhetorical. Was DOA Beach Volleyball banned in the west? No -- maybe Germany?
Click to expand...

A strawman suggests that he's misrepresenting someone's position, but here you're saying that the quote doesn't come from anyone meaning he's not misrepresenting anyone's position. So it can't be a straw man, can it?

He might be arguing against a position that no one in the West holds, but even that's probably not true.

dlauv said:
Ducked which question? I don't know why you're being so insulting.
Click to expand...

If a game doesn't align with my sensibilities, I simply don't purchase it -- no more, no less. Let's say everyone is like that. If enough people don't purchase a game for that reason to the point that its developer no longer finds developing games like that viable, do you really think McGee has a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Anyway, I'm getting sick of responding which is mostly why I'm being insulting. This is my last response to you.

Schopenhauerian said:
(1) One type of argument: Developers shouldn't make design choices X, Y and Z, because those design choices are objectionable, for reasons A, B, and C. The aim of this type of argument is to persuade decision-makers within the game industry to make different choices about what goes into their games (and/or to persuade consumers to make different choices about what games they purchase). Arguments of this kind, which are entirely persuasive in nature (as opposed to coercive), are to that extent entirely unobjectionable.

(2) A different type of argument: Developers shouldn't have the FREEDOM to make design choices X, Y and Z. The aim of this type of argument is to persuade individuals in law-making positions to employ the coercive power of the state to prohibit and prevent game developers from making design choices X, Y and Z. Arguments of this kind can therefore themselves be considered coercive in nature.

However, outside of the Chinese context to which American frequently refers, it is not clear that there are any notable instances of coercive arguments being made, to any extent that would warrant Mr. McGee's concerns:
Click to expand...

He's pointing to a normative position that he believes leads to censorship which is coercive. Maybe no one in the West holds that position, but he doesn't have to point to notable instances of such coercive arguments to write posts about his concerns over that position.

thumb said:
Based on this response, I'm choosing to disengage with you. It is most certainly an ad-hominem argument, as it is attacking an attribute (literacy and reading comprehension) so as to motivate others to devalue my argument, irrespective of its content. That is not your sole argument, but it is included for additional weight.
Click to expand...

I really couldn't care less if others devalued your argument. I insulted you because I thought you earned the insult through your own merits.
 
I hope the game gets greenlit, the first Alice was such a great game and I enjoyed the second one as well, though it got a bit repetitive as it went on.
 
The works of Lewis Carroll are in the public domain. McGee could always make a new Alice in Wonderland influenced game without involving EA. It doesn't really seem like the type of product they would be interested in these days.
 
I missed the previous games and they seem kind of a hassle to get nowadays. I wouldn't mind some decent 3d platformer, so good luck to him.
 
Lime said:
I've lost all respect for the guy after his Gamergate allyship. What an inconsiderate and unemphatic dude.

Besides, it was probably Spicy Horse and the talented Chinese artists that made Madness Returns so beautiful.
Click to expand...
Reading Garlador's posts does seem to change the situation.
 
humansarehorses said:
Congrats. You're arguing a normative position which is independent of what is true about whether complaints/protests lead to censorship.

That's exactly what he's doing.
Click to expand...

The normative statement was informed by the positive statements --- the statements I'm mostly criticizing -- although I'm criticizing the normative statement a bit too. In other words, it's not independent unless you're making a point to discuss nothing of substance at all.

A strawman suggests that he's misrepresenting someone's position, but here you're saying that the quote doesn't come from anyone meaning he's not misrepresenting anyone's position. So it can't be a straw man, can it?
Click to expand...

Firstly, this is the strawman:

"We're talking about people who react negatively about a game and are trying to change it through government intervention."

Secondly, your insistence on "Can't have it," in terms of having any relevance to the italicized quote, was what I was criticizing. It can be a strawman even if you or American believe that is the argument these trends in Western free market/free speech are ultimately making, rhetorically stated or not. It's easier to attack something paraphased as such rather than actual statements.

If a game doesn't align with my sensibilities, I simply don't purchase it -- no more, no less. Let's say everyone is like that. If enough people don't purchase a game for that reason to the point that its developer no longer finds developing games like that viable, do you really think McGee has a problem with that?
Click to expand...

I did respond to this but not directly:

"American believes people should be able to react negatively to something without trying to change or harm a product."

Mainly because it wasn't my issue at all and you seemed lost; I thought I'd recalibrate.

Anyway, I'm getting sick of responding which is mostly why I'm being insulting. This is my last response to you.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I wish I could say you were insightful or something. You're not really arguing whether or not American is criticizing aspects of free speech/the free market anymore, which was what I was saying and many agree here. You're insulting others about nothing that anyone disagreed with exactly, and nothing anyone cares about. "Censorship is bad. Those who seek to censor are bad. Could free speech/free market trends lead to censorship?" Yes, yes, and not my point. I'm just trying to find out why you're disagreeing anymore.
 
HYPE
Alice: Madness Returns is one of the few AAA Western games to grab my attention. Would love to see more. Also mostly unrelated, but this guy's Twitter avatar and wallpaper are rad. Makes me wonder what kinda anime this guy likes.

Anyways, signed. Showing my support.
 
Ban Puncher said:
The works of Lewis Carroll are in the public domain. McGee could always make a new Alice in Wonderland influenced game without involving EA. It doesn't really seem like the type of product they would be interested in these days.
Click to expand...

The original books are, but the games and designs used in the EA published titles are not.
I believe the current situation is He can't make anything even vaguely inspired by the prior two games without EA at minimum giving permission.
 
Loved Alice: Madness Returns. Some levels were overly long but the sheer variety in the level art was amazing for a next-gen game. Some corners were cut here and there, but still, great stuff.
 
Maxinas said:
Would be cool if it happens. Lmao at the gamergate comments. Is that still a thing?
Click to expand...

It stuns me that in today's current state of social woes and politics, people still make these statements implying that some form of bigotry is no longer an issue simply because the person making the statement has not personally encountered and/or isn't paying it any mind to it.

Dat ivory tower. Still standing firmly.
 
ItIsOkBro said:
people throwing around gamergate accusations had me thinking mcgee was out here harassing women or some shit.

his actual words, that i still disagree with, combined with past life and works, makes this a bit more complicated for me to just say 'screw that guy'
Click to expand...

Mhm, skimming the thread, it's a more complex and nuanced issue with aspects that I agree with and don't. But the accusations had me thinking something else entirely worse, so ironically I'm relieved a bit
 
I think the first Alice game is a fucking masterpiece. Madness Returns was fun, but lacked some of the charm of the first game IMO.

Still I'm super excited for any new Alice projects he's working on.
 
I read the whole thread, and I don't see a big problem?
I don't agree with some of his stances, but I don't see any evidence on him actually supporting GG.

I love Alice Returns, and would play another.
 
Linkstrikesback said:
The original books are, but the games and designs used in the EA published titles are not.
I believe the current situation is He can't make anything even vaguely inspired by the prior two games without EA at minimum giving permission.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, you can't just use an established IP without permission no matter it's origins but you can create a new one based on the same public domain works.

McGee could not freely use EA's Alice as much as he could not use Disney's version. Or all the other derivatives out there. But he can always start from scratch if he was set on doing another AiW inspired game.
 
Azure Phoenix said:
Actually I don't, because I purposefully don't look at or follow anything relating to GG in any capacity and haven't since whenever it started. But thanks for the blind assumption, it's a decent example of what I mean about jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Okay so thanks for your input regarding something you admit you don't know anything about I guess?
 
I haven't seen Otherlands but apparently it was disappointing. AMA works better as a game series anyway. Looking forward to a potential third game in a wonderful series.
 
Madness Returns had a lot of potential and played wonderfulyl the first hours but turned into such a repetitive mess that it was a chore to actually play through, sadly. Don't see EA going for this at all.
 
SilentRob said:
Madness Returns had a lot of potential and played wonderfulyl the first hours but turned into such a repetitive mess that it was a chore to actually play through, sadly. Don't see EA going for this at all.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how much they change the aesthetic of the level it doesn't change the fact we were mostly doing the same type of platforming over and over again.

If they going to make another game they better bring someone that knows how make interesting Platformer.
 
I loved the first two games so much despite their flaws. I try not hope for a sequel or even think about it cuz I know EA ain't greenlighting another one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alice Madness Returns creator American McGee is making a spiritual successor, and he's not worried about EA
Opinion Game Dev 
30
1K
John Bilbo replied
EA Reportedly Wanted Alice: Madness Returns To Be ‘More Sexy,’ So Its Developer Put Dildos On A Snail
Opinion Game Dev 
30
520
Darkmakaimura replied
American McGee Claims id Software "Scowled" At Him After Saying "Wow" To Half-Life Sizzle
Opinion Game Dev 
14
376
Hudo replied
  • Poll
Is it time to start giving people a break for starting woke slop threads?
4 5 6 7 8
357
2K
WoJ replied
Layoffs Have Started at EA Too, Reportedly
2
54
506
uncreativename replied
Top Bottom