• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

SEGA reveals Hyenas by Creative Assembly

There's a trend, this game tick all boxes

1) cartoony colorful purple? check
2) battle royale and other today's trendy done to death stuff? check
3) bland characters? check

Diablo 4

1. Multiplayer gamers don't care about art style. They're mechanics and design driven. So this point is moot.

2. Battle Royale has been done to death...only no it hasn't. There have been two higher profile BR misses in a sea of smash successes. Arena shooters have fizzled (been done to death for the last 20+ years). Battle Royale is still in its prime.

3. Bland characters? Again, you don't play multiplayer due to the character design. Leave that silly stuff to single player. Multiplayer is mechanics and design driven, not aesthetics driven.

BONUS: You don't find the irony in stanning for DIABLO 4, while dumping on a brand new IP?

Again, we all agree that CGI reveals are lame because they don't show gameplay. Let's be consistent that the rule applies to multiplayer every bit as much as single player.
 

Arachnid

Member
There's a trend, this game tick all boxes

1) cartoony colorful purple? check
2) battle royale and other today's trendy done to death stuff? check
3) bland characters? check

Just like Arena Shooters were trends from 99 to mid 00s, this is now the current trend and its tired by this point just like the genre I metioned, only Fortnite and Apex Legends are alive and that's because the devs were on time and knew what people wanted, even Blizzard at their current awful state at least managed to show Diablo 4 for a positive reception and the latest trailer for OW2 was at least something well done to walk through the graveyard it has been the last two or three years.

I'm a very open person, but I know when it gets too much "out of touch" and getting a very comittee feeling done for an attempt to have a security finance position, which honestly CA doesn't need to do it like that as their Total War games franchise are major yearly pillars for Sega. Devs keep missing what made success cases... successful.
Spot on. This is just more trash in a sea of trash.

What waste of Creative Assembly. First Arkane is wasted on Redfall, now this? Come on.
 

Dane

Member
1. Multiplayer gamers don't care about art style. They're mechanics and design driven. So this point is moot.

2. Battle Royale has been done to death...only no it hasn't. There have been two higher profile BR misses in a sea of smash successes. Arena shooters have fizzled (been done to death for the last 20+ years). Battle Royale is still in its prime.

3. Bland characters? Again, you don't play multiplayer due to the character design. Leave that silly stuff to single player. Multiplayer is mechanics and design driven, not aesthetics driven.

BONUS: You don't find the irony in stanning for DIABLO 4, while dumping on a brand new IP?

Again, we all agree that CGI reveals are lame because they don't show gameplay. Let's be consistent that the rule applies to multiplayer every bit as much as single player.
Everybody criticized Diablo 3 artstyle back when it was announced, I vivid remember that, Diablo 4 had a much more positive reception for bringing back the dark gritty artstyle. And yes, BR has been done to death with many failing, Arena shooters as we know died out by 2007 with only Halo remaining, it went towards grounded more slow paced and "tactical" gameplay from COD and Battlefield.

Again, i'm very open to new stuff, but this one ticks all boxes that people are tired to see, and the marketing definetely didn't help either, look at what Redfall is perceived despite being Dishonored in modern times with a coop option.
 
Last edited:

8BiTw0LF

Gold Member
I stand corrected on this one, but weren't The Cycle and Scavengers to very mixed reception?
Sure, but they also has a very slow paced gameplay and a survival element to them. Hyenas are fast paced max 20 min. rounds (usually 10-12 min.) and a movement oriented game like Apex Legends. The Cycle and Scavengers are more like PUBG.
 

Halo is Back

Gold Member
So Instead of Alien Isolation 2, we get this garbage?!

 

Halo is Back

Gold Member
There is no "trend" as you see it.

We all complain about CGI trailers because they all tell us so little about the gameplay. However, as soon as it's a CGI trailer for a multiplayer game we hear the moaning of casuals because their magic 8 ball apparently understands how it will play.

Also, I find it hilarious to hear the "market tested, corporate driven" design complaint as if that isn't just as prevalent in the AAA single player space. As if the 200 million dollar single player games are all made by French auteurs.
Bitch please, this looks like a generic Ubisoft game chasing the lame-ass puck rock aesthetic.

Regardless of the quality of the gameplay, this is not the type of game I want to play, period.
 
Last edited:

Dane

Member
Sure, but they also has a very slow paced gameplay and a survival element to them. Hyenas are fast paced max 20 min. rounds (usually 10-12 min.) and a movement oriented game like Apex Legends. The Cycle and Scavengers are more like PUBG.
I hope that the game will be better when truly shown, but honestly, most games nowadays aren't actually trash tier, but were talking around 7/10 on the whole conjuncture effort on flopped games that could have handled much better.
 

Keihart

Gold Member
This thread is so cringe.

People freaking out over a non gameplay trailer because...checks notes...multiplayer + art direction.

Casual status building.
Dev/publisher releases trailer focusing on the aesthetics, people comment on it. What did you expect?
They could have released something showcasing more gamplay than just "concept" cinematics if that was a better representation of the game, but clearly they think the aesthetics are the selling point.
 

8BiTw0LF

Gold Member
I hope that the game will be better when truly shown, but honestly, most games nowadays aren't actually trash tier, but were talking around 7/10 on the whole conjuncture effort on flopped games that could have handled much better.
Absolutely. What I don't like about paid (retail) multiplayer games, is that a lot of people will be locked out of content cause they either can't afford it or jumped on the game too late and couldn't find a decent match, cause they're locked out of content pack 1,2,3 etc. There's also very few people who want to pay full price for an multiplayer only game.

F2P is the way to go and then earn income from skins, season pass and other needless things, so players can support with what they want.
 
Last edited:
Dev/publisher releases trailer focusing on the aesthetics, people comment on it. What did you expect?
They could have released something showcasing more gamplay than just "concept" cinematics if that was a better representation of the game, but clearly they think the aesthetics are the selling point.

That entire presentation was designed for the casual audience. Destin Legarie asking the developer about story / lore is for the casuals who thinks any of that stuff is relevant. It's not.

I assumed the population here would understand that the quality of a game can't be assessed based on...a CGI trailer. Yet, we're getting statements from people who don't understand multiplayer about how this is apparently a soulless, market researched cash grab, despite it actually doing new things in the multiplayer space.

Diablo 4 is copy paste design. This is not.
 
Last edited:

MiguelItUp

Gold Member
Diablo 4 is copy paste design. This is not.
I think it's way too early to say such a thing, at least without gameplay.

But what that trailer alluded to, and interviews, did not sound like anything "unique". If anything, it's a "unique" combination of mechanics in games we've already seen before, some more than once.

I'm still reserving full expectations until I see gameplay, but nothing about this so far has me hyped. Or makes me feel like it's wholeheartedly unique.
 

Robb

Gold Member
I actually think this looks pretty good but it’s yet another multiplayer shooter so I’m not interested. Seems doomed to fail given all the other high profile multiplayer games that take up peoples time these days.
 

Keihart

Gold Member
That entire presentation was designed for the casual audience. Destin Legarie asking the developer about story / lore is for the casuals who thinks any of that stuff is relevant. It's not.

I assumed the population here would understand that the quality of a game can't be assessed based on...a CGI trailer. Yet, we're getting statements from people who don't understand multiplayer about how this is apparently a soulless, market researched cash grab, despite it actually doing new things in the multiplayer space.

Diablo 4 is copy paste design. This is not.
how can you assert all this good faith on it? did you played it, or watched something we didn't?
The only thing to talk about are aesthetics and gameplay "concepts"

Where is all this "casuals" talk coming from? i don't think you understand as much as you think you do about game design really.
 

gamer82

Member
Wheres the single player games at lol i cant get into multiplayer stuff aint got the time for it.

Same with all these horror games coming out as multiplayer what a waste . I love them but give is single player storys not just bots ,
 

IDKFA

Member
I can't see this being a hit. I'm not the target audience, but I my 14 year old son plays a lot of multiplayer online games. I showed him the trailer and asked him if he was interested.

The look on his face was the equivalent of if he had caught his mother and I having raw sex. A look of utter disgust and discontent.

I'll put money on this game will be as successful as Hyper Scape.
 

Spaceman292

Member
1. Multiplayer gamers don't care about art style. They're mechanics and design driven. So this point is moot.

2. Battle Royale has been done to death...only no it hasn't. There have been two higher profile BR misses in a sea of smash successes. Arena shooters have fizzled (been done to death for the last 20+ years). Battle Royale is still in its prime.

3. Bland characters? Again, you don't play multiplayer due to the character design. Leave that silly stuff to single player. Multiplayer is mechanics and design driven, not aesthetics driven.

BONUS: You don't find the irony in stanning for DIABLO 4, while dumping on a brand new IP?

Again, we all agree that CGI reveals are lame because they don't show gameplay. Let's be consistent that the rule applies to multiplayer every bit as much as single player.
So in your mind people play these games with their eyes closed?

This thing will be dead in two months.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure this trailer was made by the team who made that visually stunning episode from Love, Death & Robots, right?

Love the artstyle from the trailer, but dont know how much of it will be translated to gameplay

Looks cool. But It would have to be amazing to fill the void that Alien Isolation left, and it wasn't.
I thought the same. The guy who did The Witness and Jibaro. (Jibaro is an instant classic masterpiece).

If this game was an action single player, i would buy day 1. Looks beautiful, fantastic!
 
Last edited:

Kikorin

Member
To me looks like the market is already over saturated with this kind of multiplayer games. To have some chances of not beeing dead on arrival I guess they at least have to try beeing out on smartphones from day-one.
 

Wildebeest

Member
That entire presentation was designed for the casual audience. Destin Legarie asking the developer about story / lore is for the casuals who thinks any of that stuff is relevant. It's not.

I assumed the population here would understand that the quality of a game can't be assessed based on...a CGI trailer. Yet, we're getting statements from people who don't understand multiplayer about how this is apparently a soulless, market researched cash grab, despite it actually doing new things in the multiplayer space.

Diablo 4 is copy paste design. This is not.
Not really sure that you understand what this younger market wants from a multiplayer game. They want fun or chill vibes to hang around with their friends in. They want to be able to tell a story over the course of a game session. The value of pure "challenge" or "competitive gaming" is less to them than in previous generations. This is the minecraft generation, not the quake generation or the dota generation.
 

Dane

Member
Dev/publisher releases trailer focusing on the aesthetics, people comment on it. What did you expect?
They could have released something showcasing more gamplay than just "concept" cinematics if that was a better representation of the game, but clearly they think the aesthetics are the selling point.
And Cel shading aspect is focused on art direction than technical.
 
Not really sure that you understand what this younger market wants from a multiplayer game. They want fun or chill vibes to hang around with their friends in. They want to be able to tell a story over the course of a game session. The value of pure "challenge" or "competitive gaming" is less to them than in previous generations. This is the minecraft generation, not the quake generation or the dota generation.

And yet...Valorant is a smash success. I wonder if the people burying this game based on its CGI trailer were praising the art direction and concept of Valorant when it was first revealed?

Actually, I don't. I suspect we're dealing with a population who attempts to ridicule every multiplayer only title, and then gets real quiet when it finds an audience.

You can't believe CGI trailers are a waste and then automatically assume they have worth when they're used to debut a multiplayer title.

So in your mind people play these games with their eyes closed?

This thing will be dead in two months.

I guess Minecraft, PUBG, and Fortnite got so big because the art direction from those title were so brilliant? Multiplayer games live or die based on quality of gameplay, not art direction.

"X will be dead in two months" doesn't mean anything from people who say that about every multiplayer game and get quiet when they're proven wrong. I have a hunch you don't have a sterling track record when it comes to predicting a multiplayer games potential success?
 

Ywap

Member
They must have expected this dreadful reception since the majority of gamers interested in this reveal were most likely single player fans.

Good thing we have The Callisto Protocol, Dead Space Remake, ill and the upcoming Capcom games to look forward to.
 
Last edited:
I'm not normally one to shit on a dev's team work, but what a derivative, vapid, useless piece of garbage this game looks like. It reminds me of when the movie Pulp Fiction came out and every director wanted to be the next Tarantino and so a bunch of shitty crime movies came out trying to one-up each other.
 

Mossybrew

Member
1. Multiplayer gamers don't care about art style.

3. Bland characters? Again, you don't play multiplayer due to the character design.

Men you are really going to bat for this game, not gonna piss on your crusade here but I think these statements are totally misguided. Maybe *you* don't care about these things, but a lot of people do (uh, see Overwatch) - a cool art style and interesting characters will get a lot of people in the door, actual mechanics and gameplay will be why they stay of course, but with soooo many options for multiplayer these days, you need to appeal to aesthetics and character design to drive player interest.

And yeah that trailer looks like tryhard poop, sorry.
 

Wildebeest

Member
And yet...Valorant is a smash success. I wonder if the people burying this game based on its CGI trailer were praising the art direction and concept of Valorant when it was first revealed?

Actually, I don't. I suspect we're dealing with a population who attempts to ridicule every multiplayer only title, and then gets real quiet when it finds an audience.

You can't believe CGI trailers are a waste and then automatically assume they have worth when they're used to debut a multiplayer title.
Valorant is basically a Counter Strike clone, which is a game type that seems to have attracted many generations of new players. But why is Valorant eating CS's lunch, the first real challenger in the west in many, many years, despite CS having a more professional competitive scene and more realistic looking graphics? Valorant has characters and world building. It is brighter and more colourful. Movement and gun control is less skill intensive. Abilities are flashy and fun. If Valve had much desire to compete with Riot, they would take this all in and would have started seriously working on Team Fortress 3.
 
Men you are really going to bat for this game, not gonna piss on your crusade here but I think these statements are totally misguided. Maybe *you* don't care about these things, but a lot of people do (uh, see Overwatch) - a cool art style and interesting characters will get a lot of people in the door, actual mechanics and gameplay will be why they stay of course, but with soooo many options for multiplayer these days, you need to appeal to aesthetics and character design to drive player interest.

And yeah that trailer looks like tryhard poop, sorry.

You can't look at the history of successful multiplayer games and draw any kind of parallel between art direction and quality. Certainly not a strong one.

I'd argue this is currently the best looking multiplayer game on the planet, with top tier art direction...



No one plays this trash. Valheim looks like an N64 game and it already sold over 10+ million copies.

Multiplayer gamers are fundamentally different animals than single player gamers. We care about design and mechanics first and foremost while art direction is way down the list.

I have no idea if Hyenas will be good because all we've seen is a CGI trailer and descriptions from the developer themselves.

I'd bet with a high degree of certainty that the vast majority of people dumping on this game in this thread are single player gamers who resent the rise of multiplayer. It's the only plausible explanation.
 
Valorant is basically a Counter Strike clone, which is a game type that seems to have attracted many generations of new players. But why is Valorant eating CS's lunch, the first real challenger in the west in many, many years, despite CS having a more professional competitive scene and more realistic looking graphics? Valorant has characters and world building. It is brighter and more colourful. Movement and gun control is less skill intensive. Abilities are flashy and fun. If Valve had much desire to compete with Riot, they would take this all in and would have started seriously working on Team Fortress 3.

Counter Strike is more popular than Valorant, further proving my point.
 

Spaceman292

Member
I guess Minecraft, PUBG, and Fortnite got so big because the art direction from those title were so brilliant? Multiplayer games live or die based on quality of gameplay, not art direction.
Minecraft PUBG and Fortnight look bland and inoffensive, like most wildly popular things. This looks obnoxious.
 
Last edited:
Minecraft PUBG and Fortnight look bland and inoffensive, like most wildly popular things. This looks obnoxious.

People were ridiculing the art direction of all 3 prior to release. They were all obnoxious and unappealing in their own way.

We (not me) forget that because all 3 have become institutions in the industry.

This game won't live or die based on its "obnoxious" art style. It'll live or die based on how fun it is to play...as all multiplayer games do.
 

Rat Rage

Member
But then this forum and other social media sites wouldn't pay attention to their projects or worse yet, call their hard work 'a waste of time' or 'filler' during big showcases. There's no winning either way.

Why do you think so? Most of the video game marketing happens online these days anyway, which means it's way easier and way cheaper for independant developers and their projects to generate publicity and become known.
 
Top Bottom