Support NeoGAF

[Sosokrates]

To this day I still play l4d and l4d2 split screen on xbox 360. The first one has a better balance and I like it more but #2 has the melee weapons which feel great to use.

I’d love it MS did a game boost update to make it 60fps on series condoles.

Why u play it on 360? Its BC on xbox one/series. It is resolution enhanced too.

 

[Shits_McGiggles]

Kind of makes me wonder why B4B is so much worse, bland, and generic compared to L4D, a game that came out what, 14 years ago? I'm not going to blame the change in engine on this fully, because it is definitely capable of a lot more if you actually put the work in.
Is the staff that much worse and less talented compared to Turtle Rock back in 2008? Clearly the writers are a lot worse based on the characters in Back 4 Blood.

 

[Sosokrates]

Kind of makes me wonder why B4B is so much worse, bland, and generic compared to L4D, a game that came out what, 14 years ago? I'm not going to blame the change in engine on this fully, because it is definitely capable of a lot more if you actually put the work in.
Is the staff that much worse and less talented compared to Turtle Rock back in 2008? Clearly the writers are a lot worse based on the characters in Back 4 Blood.

Could be a lot of things, from what I've heard from game devs, game development is extremely challenging.
I would imagine theres a lot of fakers in the game industry who talk the talk, but are full of shit and that talented or really know what they are doing.
And there theres all the egos and internal pollitics its a fertile environment for a lot fuckery.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Everything he pointed out were the things I noticed almost immediately in B4B, and it was disappointing as hell. I admit, I gave in to initial hype because L4D 1/2 were some of my favorite games. But then everything changed when I got access to a beta.

With and after Evolve, I wanted to continue to like TRS, because it felt like they wanted to try and do some neat things. But B4B just felt so incredibly passionless, forced, and lazy. Very cash grab-like. I still somehow played the game to completion, and it felt like a complete chore.

I don't plan on giving TRS my money ever again after this, lol.

To be fair, L4D would be worse if it was made by Valve today too. It’s a different era where fun takes a back seat to monetizing or grinding gameplay.

I'd agree with this, but after playing Half-Life: Alyx, it's hard to. I was never really into VR, but that game is a quintessential VR game IMO.

 

[GymWolf]

This video is the poster child for why good hit reactions, gore and ragdoll and physics are so important when it comes to gunplay\combat.

I would love if days gone had this stuff instead of disabling fucking everything when the horde was on screen because the cpu was shit, maybe in the sequel...OH WAIT.

 

[Shits_McGiggles]

Could be a lot of things, from what I've heard from game devs, game development is extremely challenging.
I would imagine theres a lot of fakers in the game industry who talk the talk, but are full of shit and that talented or really know what they are doing.
And there theres all the egos and internal pollitics its a fertile environment for a lot fuckery.

Oh yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that game development is incredibly difficult. Do you think the fakers are more prevalent these days? I wouldn’t be surprised if companies are just unable to find people who are as talented as those who worked in the industry in the past these days. Game companies have become so soulless that a lot of talent has been driven out it seems.

 

[Clear]

Oh yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that game development is incredibly difficult. Do you think the fakers are more prevalent these days? I wouldn’t be surprised if companies are just unable to find people who are as talented as those who worked in the industry in the past these days. Game companies have become so soulless that a lot of talent has been driven out it seems.

The reality is game-dev during a global pandemic is even slower and more difficult than normal. The time aspect is especially problematic as until the game gets released you're stuck trying to meet payroll using advances and milestone payments originally intended to fund a shorter cycle. Tough choices need to be made, and if the publisher decides they want to play hardball (which is not unusual as they have investments of their own like marketing) with the launch timing, then you have to get something out of the door come hell or high-water.

People outside the industry don't seem to grasp how time is money in game-dev, and what that means consequentially. Teams don't crunch because they want to, its because in many instances they have to, in order not to find themselves out of a job due to their employer running out of cash.

Its funny really, in most situations when you're paying a contractor to do a job for you, and it ends up taking substantially longer than was first anticipated due to unforeseen circumstances, you'd expect to end up paying more for the extended labour. With games though, the expectation is that the customer pays the same regardless of how much a project overruns and that they are owed some sort of apology or restitution for the delay on top!

 

[Boneless]

Great video, so much love in L4D that you take for granted. Back 4 blood truly is the equivalent of the cheap chinese knockoff product. Let's not forget, L4D1 came out in 2008, the downgrade is almost unbelievable.

 

[winjer]

Its funny really, in most situations when you're paying a contractor to do a job for you, and it ends up taking substantially longer than was first anticipated due to unforeseen circumstances, you'd expect to end up paying more for the extended labour. With games though, the expectation is that the customer pays the same regardless of how much a project overruns and that they are owed some sort of apology or restitution for the delay on top!

This is a terrible comparison. Gamers don't contract a company to make a game.
It's a publisher that contracts a studio to make a game, financing it, with the expectation that the game will sell enough to cover the costs and then provide profits.

 

[Shits_McGiggles]

The reality is game-dev during a global pandemic is even slower and more difficult than normal. The time aspect is especially problematic as until the game gets released you're stuck trying to meet payroll using advances and milestone payments originally intended to fund a shorter cycle. Tough choices need to be made, and if the publisher decides they want to play hardball (which is not unusual as they have investments of their own like marketing) with the launch timing, then you have to get something out of the door come hell or high-water.

People outside the industry don't seem to grasp how time is money in game-dev, and what that means consequentially. Teams don't crunch because they want to, its because in many instances they have to, in order not to find themselves out of a job due to their employer running out of cash.

Its funny really, in most situations when you're paying a contractor to do a job for you, and it ends up taking substantially longer than was first anticipated due to unforeseen circumstances, you'd expect to end up paying more for the extended labour. With games though, the expectation is that the customer pays the same regardless of how much a project overruns and that they are owed some sort of apology or restitution for the delay on top!

Even without the pandemic, I don't think B4B would have been a radically different product. The game doesn't really feel like a rushed project, it just feels like a project that completely misunderstands the fundamentals of what makes Left 4 Dead popular even to this very day.

 

[Clear]

This is a terrible comparison. Gamers don't contract a company to make a game.
It's a publisher that contracts a studio to make a game, financing it, with the expectation that the game will sell enough to cover the costs and then provide profits.

Its not the developer who's the one charging the money for the product, unless they are also the publisher.

The point is that the expectation of higher than expected production costs are always absorbed by the vendor(s), and not the consumer. Which is not something you see with most other goods. Especially not high-cost goods.

Extending a dev-cycle by 6-12 months is adding literally millions onto the production cost. Especially when the end-stages of production are often by neccessity the most labour and cost expensive periods.

You need to understand that Covid induced delays are exacting a severe financial cost. And as most on the consumer end wouldn't react well to being asked to pay a direct premium for the additional work, that money has to found somewhere else at all stages of the pub-dev pipeline.

In the case of B4B, its actually a remarkably primitive game technologically by modern standards. All the things that are highlighted in the video are beneficial, no doubt, but none of them are strictly essential to the function of the product. So yeah, straight impulse+rag doll versus blended canned animations are a cost and time saver. Almost no physics/destruction in scene objects is a cut-back. Losing raycast shadows, less complex audio cues etc...

Point being none of these elements are at all remarkable for a UE4 engine product. Its not that implementing them would be problematic from a technical perspective, its that for one reason or another they decided simply not to bother with these aspects.

 

[FearlessBelgian]

The ending is perfect.

 

[Great Hair]

ok tell that to me just finishing a game of it on pc. me 1 you 0

Now you're just projecting

Are you saying that everyone who played it, did not understand the game-mechanics? and every critique towards it is not warranted? The Dreamcast and PS2 had bettter Arena Shooters.

Chasing a monster around in circles, over and over again gets boring really fast. See PlayStations Predator ... fun for an drunk evening and not more. You enjoyed it. Most did not. The game is objectively and subjectively bad.

Let just agree that we disagree. I got no time for a debate over a shitty game from 2013.

 

[winjer]

Its not the developer who's the one charging the money for the product, unless they are also the publisher.

The point is that the expectation of higher than expected production costs are always absorbed by the vendor(s), and not the consumer. Which is not something you see with most other goods. Especially not high-cost goods.

Extending a dev-cycle by 6-12 months is adding literally millions onto the production cost. Especially when the end-stages of production are often by neccessity the most labour and cost expensive periods.

You need to understand that Covid induced delays are exacting a severe financial cost. And as most on the consumer end wouldn't react well to being asked to pay a direct premium for the additional work, that money has to found somewhere else at all stages of the pub-dev pipeline.

In the case of B4B, its actually a remarkably primitive game technologically by modern standards. All the things that are highlighted in the video are beneficial, no doubt, but none of them are strictly essential to the function of the product. So yeah, straight impulse+rag doll versus blended canned animations are a cost and time saver. Almost no physics/destruction in scene objects is a cut-back. Losing raycast shadows, less complex audio cues etc...

Point being none of these elements are at all remarkable for a UE4 engine product. Its not that implementing them would be problematic from a technical perspective, its that for one reason or another they decided simply not to bother with these aspects.

None of that is relevant to your argument that the consumer is responsible for financing a project.
The only responsibility the consumer has in the matter is to choose which product to buy.
Companies are the ones who have to make a product and convince consumers theirs is the better one.

 

[Clear]

None of that is relevant to your argument that the consumer is responsible for financing a project.
The only responsibility the consumer has in the matter is to choose which product to buy.
Companies are the ones who have to make a product and convince consumers theirs is the better one.

You're missing the point, the consumer is going to end up paying one way or the other as a consequence of global conditions.
Its really that simple, and there's no right and wrong about it. It just is.

It just amuses me the way a lot of gamers only want to factor in changing economics when it suits their interests, and not when it stands against them.

 

[winjer]

You're missing the point, the consumer is going to end up paying one way or the other as a consequence of global conditions.
Its really that simple, and there's no right and wrong about it. It just is.

It just amuses me the way a lot of gamers only want to factor in changing economics when it suits their interests, and not when it stands against them.

The consumer can just choose not to buy a game.
Unlike other products, games are not essential commodities.

Regardless, the comparison you made between contractors and consumers is still wrong.

 

[AlteredForms]

Most of the people who laid the foundation went on to work at Valve and the studios is still updating the games.

while the Turtle Rock Studios now comprises of only selected individuals who worked on L4D games, but a larger part are new hires who previously worked on Evolve.

Well it’s understandable most people went to work for Valve as there was more money working with a large publisher than winging it by yourself. As for the current landscape of Turtle Rock, I’m not sure most of the founding members are still there.

 

[GymWolf]

Lol of course reee hates the video because crow is racist and the video is unrespectful...

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Well, this is an interesting example of how a decent game gets attacked by trying to imitate another series. It's a bit of a shame, truth is, there are a billion "just ok" games every year, but if you hit the right genre at the right time with middling scores, you will have a horde of youtubers just aching to make a video describing how terrible you are.

I didn't really like the game much but it's not what some people make it out to be.

Hate and negativity gets more clicks.

 

[Clear]

The consumer can just choose not to buy a game.
Unlike other products, games are not essential commodities.

Of course.
But the suppliers can choose to charge what they want and include what features they want, and people will complain and still end up buying them.

The beat goes on.

Regardless, the comparison you made between contractors and consumers is still wrong.

No its on-point and correct, its just you don't want to accept what I'm saying is true and especially that there's nothing, nothing. You can do about it.

 

[Max Payne’s Baretta]

Back 4 Blood is just simply not on the same technical level as its decade old spiritual predecessor. Really shows how we've pivoted in the wrong direction with gaming, waaaay too much emphasis on boring things like graphics and barely any gameplay advancements over 20 yrs pathetic.

 

[winjer]

No its on-point and correct, its just you don't want to accept what I'm saying is true and especially that there's nothing, nothing. You can do about it.

In no way are consumers contractors.
Consumers don't finance the a product before it's released.
Investors provide the capital. Consumers only provide a return on investment, and only if they buy the product.

 

[Clear]

In no way are consumers contractors.
Consumers don't finance the a product before it's released.
Investors provide the capital. Consumers only provide a return on investment, and only if they buy the product.

Again, missing the point. The contract may be exclusively between the supplier and the distributor, but the distributor is under no obligation to subsidize unexpectedly high supply costs and will therefore (in order to recoup their loss) pass the cost onto the consumer.

In this specific instance the contractual relationship between the developer and publisher is such that time/cost is primarily regulated through variances in content and quality control. Because the publisher is looking to take a "hit" either way, and they know the optics of raising retail price would likely stand against them, what option squares best with their interests?

Corners get cut in terms of content or QA, monetization gets dialled up, and any and all rough edges that might stand in the way of mass acceptance and volume sales get ruthlessly shaved off. Hence the user experience of the product suffers. Hence the user ends up "paying" anyway, even if not in direct monetary terms.

 

[winjer]

Again, missing the point. The contract may be exclusively between the supplier and the distributor, but the distributor is under no obligation to subsidize unexpectedly high supply costs and will therefore (in order to recoup their loss) pass the cost onto the consumer.

In this specific instance the contractual relationship between the developer and publisher is such that time/cost is primarily regulated through variances in content and quality control. Because the publisher is looking to take a "hit" either way, and they know the optics of raising retail price would likely stand against them, what option squares best with their interests?

Corners get cut in terms of content or QA, monetization gets dialled up, and any and all rough edges that might stand in the way of mass acceptance and volume sales get ruthlessly shaved off. Hence the user experience of the product suffers. Hence the user ends up "paying" anyway, even if not in direct monetary terms.

That only refers to the user experience.
You are making convoluted excuses to pretend the consumer is the contractor.

 

[Boy bawang]

Holy shit that video made me want to replay l4d

 

[StateofMajora]

Why u play it on 360? Its BC on xbox one/series. It is resolution enhanced too.

I don’t have an series console yet (I would only want one for emulation of xbox/360 games) and me and my friend prefer the 360 controller.

 

[Clear]

That only refers to the user experience.
You are making convoluted excuses to pretend the consumer is the contractor.

No, you failed basic reading comprehension.

I wrote this in post #115:

You're missing the point, the consumer is going to end up paying one way or the other as a consequence of global conditions.

What did you think I meant by "one way or the other?"

Especially as it was follow-up to this comment:

Its funny really, in most situations when you're paying a contractor to do a job for you, and it ends up taking substantially longer than was first anticipated due to unforeseen circumstances, you'd expect to end up paying more for the extended labour. With games though, the expectation is that the customer pays the same regardless of how much a project overruns and that they are owed some sort of apology or restitution for the delay on top!

In the first sentence I describe the relationship between developer and publisher, which is the same regardless of whether these two entities are separate businesses or one and the same. The second sentence describes the relationship between pub/dev and the consumer.

Unless you are directly funding production (via kickstarter or traditional investment/stock-holding) as a consumer your actual relationship is with the publisher, not the developer. If you ever felt conned or ripped off, your beef should *ALWAYS* be with the publisher, not the developer. Because they simply cannot argue that they didn't "know" that the product was substandard or unfit for purpose, when they were happy enough to put it up for sale with their name on, and reap the financial rewards for doing so.

That they are then likely contractually obligated to kick back a portion of that revenue to the developer is irrelevant, because in the final analysis its their deal, they made it and need to abide by it. At no point was the consumer/licensee/end-user party to its formulation and therefore the buck must stop with them alone. Funding/publishing product is their function, they set the terms to both ends of the chain.

 

[winjer]

No, you failed basic reading comprehension.

I wrote this in post #115:

What did you think I meant by "one way or the other?"

Especially as it was follow-up to this comment:

In the first sentence I describe the relationship between developer and publisher, which is the same regardless of whether these two entities are separate businesses or one and the same. The second sentence describes the relationship between pub/dev and the consumer.

Unless you are directly funding production (via kickstarter or traditional investment/stock-holding) as a consumer your actual relationship is with the publisher, not the developer. If you ever felt conned or ripped off, your beef should *ALWAYS* be with the publisher, not the developer. Because they simply cannot argue that they didn't "know" that the product was substandard or unfit for purpose, when they were happy enough to put it up for sale with their name on, and reap the financial rewards for doing so.

That they are then likely contractually obligated to kick back a portion of that revenue to the developer is irrelevant, because in the final analysis its their deal, they made it and need to abide by it. At no point was the consumer/licensee/end-user party to its formulation and therefore the buck must stop with them alone. Funding/publishing product is their function, they set the terms to both ends of the chain.

You are just making stuff up to pretend that consumers are the same as a contractor.
A kickstarter is the only way that a consumer could be compared to a contractor.

 

[Alexios]

You are just making stuff up to pretend that consumers are the same as a contractor.
A kickstarter is the only way that a consumer could be compared to a contractor.

Even that is very different and most likely in that case the devs are far more eager to avoid the responsibilities that come from being an actual contractor contracted for a given work (and hell that's why they go to crowd funding instead of a publisher, outside publishers just not being interested).

 

[Clear]

You are just making stuff up to pretend that consumers are the same as a contractor.
A kickstarter is the only way that a consumer could be compared to a contractor.

Fuck me...

Learn to read. You're literally re-stating stuff I wrote in the post you directly quoted, and explained the relevance of.
You don't need a direct contractual relationship for costs to trickle down to you as a consumer.

 

[R6Rider]

Didn't realize L4D and L4D2 were on sale for 2 bucks on Steam until finishing the video. Never played them myself, but have seen lots of videos on them and know 2 has a very active community. Just bought 2 and Black Mesa (also on sale, 5 bucks).

 

[Bartski]

wow that was brutal

 

[PSlayer]

Jesus that ending is savage.

Also, i hate this industry trend of lets sacrifice physics and AI for shinny visuals.

I miss that 2007-ish era of games like Far cry 2,Crysis and left 4 dead with insane attention to details and interactivity.

 

[Gamezone]

Jesus that ending is savage.

Also, i hate this industry trend of lets sacrifice physics and AI for shinny visuals.

I miss that 2007-ish era of games like Far cry 2,Crysis and left 4 dead with insane attention to details and interactivity.

It's possible to have both.

 

[Ribi]

Now you're just projecting

 

[winjer]

Fuck me...

Learn to read. You're literally re-stating stuff I wrote in the post you directly quoted, and explained the relevance of.
You don't need a direct contractual relationship for costs to trickle down to you as a consumer.

A company making a bad product does not make the consumer a contractor.
That is pure nonsense. You clearly don't understand the mere concept of a contractor and of a consumer.
Just making vague associations does not make them the same.

 

[Decontamination Silo]

L4D looks a full gen ahead of Back 4 Blood

 

[ClosBSAS]

B4b Is complete and utter trash compared to l4d.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Brutal takedown.

Now I just want to play co-op L4D & L4D2.

 

[Green_Eyes]

evolve as a game is good

I think you mean 'as a concept' (to which I would agree), because it's obviously a game.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

The trailblazing Left 4 Dead and its 2009 sequel redefined cooperative shooters, carving out a new path in the genre that later paved the way for countless co-op-centric experiences. Despite their best efforts, though, no development team could recapture the unique thrill of zombie killing in the Valve-owned franchise; as such, the company’s decision to cease regular support on Left 4 Dead 2 marked the end of an era. A much-coveted Left 4 Dead 3 wouldn’t reinvigorate things either, leaving other studios with the task of carrying the torch. But the likes of Killing Floor 2 and World War Z, while admirable in their own right, arguably paled in comparison to that which came before. With the industry still itching for a comparable zombie experience, Left 4 Dead’s original creators took it upon themselves to revisit the genre through the lens of a new IP—Back 4 Blood.

Billed as Left 4 Dead’s spiritual successor, Back 4 Blood followed the same basic structure—pitting up to four playable heroes against zombie hordes in campaign and competitive modes. However, developer Turtle Rock Studios switched gears in some respects, crafting more capable protagonists, introducing card-based progression, and updating the classic L4D formula with modern systems.

The anticipation ahead of Back 4 Blood’s debut suggested the beloved zombie series had truly returned via another name, yet the former’s October 2021 release left much to be desired. Content-related shortcomings and a handful of technical woes plagued Turtle Rock’s new property during its first few months on the market, resulting in a rapidly declining user base that never returned to full strength.

This is the tragedy of Back 4 Blood.

Intro 0:00
The Tragedy of Back 4 Blood 3:42

 

[hyperbertha]

Damn, I appreciate L4D so much more now.

I've never wanted to play it but after watching this I might give the original a shot. Legit looks like a masterpiece.

 

[hyperbertha]

I'm confused about the video title. Turtle Rock Studios laid the foundation in the first game and Valve built upon it in the second. How did Valve "carry" the franchise exactly?

That should have been obvious from the video

 

[syvalta]

so where's the tragedy? they made a bad product and it failed

 

[hyperbertha]

Hate and negativity gets more clicks.

this makes no sense. After watching the video is beyond obvious how trash b4b is. Yea this isn't it.

 

[hyperbertha]

Jesus that ending is savage.

Also, i hate this industry trend of lets sacrifice physics and AI for shinny visuals.

I miss that 2007-ish era of games like Far cry 2,Crysis and left 4 dead with insane attention to details and interactivity.

Back 4 blood doesn't even look much better than l4d. Really shoddy texture work, art direction and out of place specular on objects.

 

[VN1X]

this makes no sense. After watching the video is beyond obvious how trash b4b is. Yea this isn't it.

It's not trash though. Obviously for L4D purists it doesn't hold a candle to the franchise it took its main inspiration from but me and a buddy have been going through the campaigns, on various difficulties, and am almost at a point where I clocked in more hours than Valve's zombie shooters (combined). It's been a lot of fun.

I honestly think this game has gotten far too much negative hyperbole and obviously the Crowbcat video was one that sparked much of the exaggerated hate. Again, I can see why those who put hundreds of hours into L4D would be put off by B4B but as someone who has only ever played these games casually B4B has been more than fine. It has a ton of customization in terms of playstyles and overall remains a perfectly serviceable co-op shooter. Despite the higher graphical fidelity it still runs great on older hardware and with all the bells and whistles turned on it boasts a very sharp presentation, which I like. Is it as good as L4D? Probably not but I if you're itching to play a more modern take on the formula then you can do a whole lot worse than Turtle Rock's latest offering imo.

 

[64bitmodels]

Back 4 Blood is the best L4D advertisement campaign Valve has never payed.

genuinely true. B4B made me buy a copy of L4D2 both on Steam and Xbox. Congrats

 

[MiguelItUp]

It's not trash though. Obviously for L4D purists it doesn't hold a candle to the franchise it took its main inspiration from but me and a buddy have been going through the campaigns, on various difficulties, and am almost at a point where I clocked in more hours than Valve's zombie shooters (combined). It's been a lot of fun.

I honestly think this game has gotten far too much negative hyperbole and obviously the Crowbcat video was one that sparked much of the exaggerated hate. Again, I can see why those who put hundreds of hours into L4D would be put off by B4B but as someone who has only ever played these games casually B4B has been more than fine. It has a ton of customization in terms of playstyles and overall remains a perfectly serviceable co-op shooter. Despite the higher graphical fidelity it still runs great on older hardware and with all the bells and whistles turned on it boasts a very sharp presentation, which I like. Is it as good as L4D? Probably not but I if you're itching to play a more modern take on the formula then you can do a whole lot worse than Turtle Rock's latest offering imo.

I think calling it trash is a bit much as well. But as someone that was originally really excited about it (I adored L4D 1/2) I was extremely let down. There were just so many mechanics that paled in comparison IMO. The end result (to me) felt like a husk of what L4D 1/2 was. I KNEW it wasn't going to be L4D, because it wasn't meant to be. But I thought they'd create a product that'd feel the same (if not better), and build on whatever short comings L4D 1/2 had. But that didn't happen. At all. Much like all games, it was enjoyable with a pal/pals, but I felt myself just wanting to rush through it to be done with it, and then never looked back once the campaign was done.

I'm glad people enjoyed it, but I personally know more that didn't than did.

 

[STARSBarry]

I think calling it trash is a bit much as well. But as someone that was originally really excited about it (I adored L4D 1/2) I was extremely let down. There were just so many mechanics that paled in comparison IMO. The end result (to me) felt like a husk of what L4D 1/2 was. I KNEW it wasn't going to be L4D, because it wasn't meant to be. But I thought they'd create a product that'd feel the same (if not better), and build on whatever short comings L4D 1/2 had. But that didn't happen. At all. Much like all games, it was enjoyable with a pal/pals, but I felt myself just wanting to rush through it to be done with it, and then never looked back once the campaign was done.

I'm glad people enjoyed it, but I personally know more than didn't than did.

It should be an expectation that a more modern game is superior to an older title, not just graphically but in terms of mechanics and content.

Games like Back 4 Blood simply highlight that outside of a higher minimum level of graphical fidelity games are quite simple worse beneath it.

Their not the only one, and for younger gamers this won't be a problem because there is no comparison point for them, but for older gamers you can easily notice the slide back in quality compared to prior titles.

It shouldn't be acceptable, but it is.