That Badowski response is what we here in Russia are calling Slav Damage Control.
Textbook example, really. I couldn't even begin to unpack this answer.
Textbook example, really. I couldn't even begin to unpack this answer.
Sad thing is, that fans validated their actions. I have seen a lot of " the game is mostly fine, it just crashed about 50 times" and explains all the bugs, crashes and glitches, "but the game is good apart from all said problems".Wow it's crazy how they can't just say "Yeah we fucked it up big time, we're sorry" and instead double, triple, quadrupling down on "The game is actually near perfect and we didn't see any issues, sorry that you do?". And hell I even really enjoyed the game on PC, but the technical and design issues are all RIGHT THERE.
I think their hands were completely tied when it came to the police system. I don't think anyone involved knew that the police would spawn in next to the player regardless of context and thought, "This is realistic enough."What blows my mind is the police system being put in at the last minute.
Like...how did they not realize that people would catch on to this bullshit?
And its a futuristic world, they COULD have had their cops transmat/transport/teleport in with some cool visuals and sound effect and it would have been fine. But no, they decided just popping in is realistic enough.
what the fuck were they thinking.
Yeah I agree with this. I think it's the only point he made that was a reasonable defense, though.It's very common in every job I've ever worked, and I'm not based in a country where English is not the native language. It's certainly othering and feels exclusionary, but for the two Bulgarian speakers I work with, it's communal for them and almost ritualistic. Good look getting natives not to speak to another in their native tongue with some kind of formal rule. I agree with Badowski's comment: moving to another country where you do not speak the language and do not come from the culture IS hard. That is a risk you take. CDPR clearly tried to correct for it.
BTW CP2077 is bad, so I am not defending them, but that criticism is odd.
It's typical for Slav Damage Control tho.The part where he cites the 9/10 reviews is sooooo comically defensive and pathetic.
About the transphobia, did you know it's a 9/10 and 10/10 game in some popular websites?Considering the company never attempted to do anything about the game's transphobia it's not a shock that they also spin heavily on this stuff too.
And they only got those scores because of being incredibly deceiving too with bonuses tied to the overall scores, them changing this policy speaks a lot as to their actions and how they know their game was perceived by the end. He picks only select few arguments, doesn't even get into the worst of the critiques, the forced crunch, the low pay, the general mismanagement talks, etc.Wow...that response is just not a good one, better to stay silent. Love how he brought up 10/10 reviews as if it meant anything to the people whom disappointed with the game.
It's more of a selective choices of which arguments to talk about to try make a "point". A lot of people are focused on the "fake demo", but you've already mentioned this yourself that it's more of how wasteful the whole demo was. The article is about mismanagement, waste of resources and time, and the fake demo was another major example of focusing too much of their outward appearance than actual development of the game, that's what the points are meant for and that point is more diverting of the problem being address. Example he talks about It's hard for a tradeshow game to not be a test of vision, but why are they doing this in the first place because clearly internally, a lot of skepticisms into the value of wasting months making such a demo when what it sounds like everything is on fire. That's not even getting into the core problem of the demo itself which also a lot of problems with what he says, Like he says " demo is a work in progress" sure, and things changed but then by that point, if the changes are happening and features are getting cut, then why isn't the marketing reflecting this. Why are people finding this out at launch. "The ambush was in the game", yeah at one scripted sequence that's never to be seen again like the video mentioned dynamically. That employee response is terrible too, 20 is a good size sample and given the current state of the games, it clearly was not meant for 2020 and clear it was 2022.While his response is really not great, he has 2 points:
vertical gameplay slices for demos are never 100% fake , nor are they 100% real.
They are usually a branche from the base, polished to perfection and scripting in everything they want to show that is still not in.
Is it wastefull? 100%. this team could have worked on implementations of features in the real game.
Someone throw him a shovel I'm sure he can dig even faster.
Jason was the first journalist to break the news about CDPR's shit working practices. Let him have his pound of flesh.So basically he's repeating everything that we've already known. like seriously there's literally nothing new in here. It just seems like he wanted to get his pound of flesh against CDPR and he wrote a long article to do it.
Yeah this was not a good response Adam is also suggesting we are all blind idiots in that response, by claiming the final product looked better than the 2018 demo which clearly is not true.
Yep. Completely unprofessional.
He sounds like all those restaurant owners on Kitchen Nightmares who are in complete denial... "Eh, microwave-defrosted calamari? It ain't so bad! I don't see the problem with it! Customers say they love it!"
That Badowski response is what we here in Russia are calling Slav Damage Control.
Textbook example, really. I couldn't even begin to unpack this answer.
Yeah, not much against it. Only: from a company perspective hype and marketing are things to think about. The main point is not making a great game, but making a successfull game. I dont like it, but thats our system, the more money is invested, the more people are behind it that are only interested in the success. Do we have a sign that those demoes are really a net negative (in the marketing effectiveness sense) after the cost they have on the development?It's more of a selective choices of which arguments to talk about to try make a "point". A lot of people are focused on the "fake demo", but you've already mentioned this yourself that it's more of how wasteful the whole demo was. The article is about mismanagement, waste of resources and time, and the fake demo was another major example of focusing too much of their outward appearance than actual development of the game, that's what the points are meant for and that point is more diverting of the problem being address. Example he talks about It's hard for a tradeshow game to not be a test of vision, but why are they doing this in the first place because clearly internally, a lot of skepticisms into the value of wasting months making such a demo when what it sounds like everything is on fire.
Again, youre right, from a consumer perspective. He can't admit to all (investors, legal ramifications, etc), and within the market frame they are operating it they are just trying to adhere to competition. Mentioning that things got cut, and deflating the hype is legaly (till now) not mandatory, people are either forgetting stuff or are not aware of the situation with the next game they release (usually, CP kinda fell to hard to far for the usual course). He cant argue from the consumer perspective, since then he opens hinself up to attack from investors.That's not even getting into the core problem of the demo itself which also a lot of problems with what he says, Like he says " demo is a work in progress" sure, and things changed but then by that point, if the changes are happening and features are getting cut, then why isn't the marketing reflecting this. Why are people finding this out at launch. "The ambush was in the game", yeah at one scripted sequence that's never to be seen again like the video mentioned dynamically.
100%. Laughable excuse, i dont even know what he could have said about that that would not seem morally reprehensible, should have kept his mouth shut.That employee response is terrible too, 20 is a good size sample and given the current state of the games, it clearly was not meant for 2020 and clear it was 2022.
From someone that worked in different sectors and differently sized organisations, and some with mixed nationalities:I'm not sure exactly what the language part was meant to address but my guess in the the article, it explains that the studio expanded to hard and fast " CD Projekt wasn't accustomed to such a size, people who worked on the game said their teams often felt siloed and unorganized" and this part was an extension of not letting people knowing what people were getting into when being hired, employee's who are more comfortable in their own language, difficulty of communications that made things even worse.
Even after this talk, it makes it seem like the roadmap is even more unrealistic as if that 2022 date was bad enough, their refusal to acknowledge problems with the base game itself and nowhere near addressing the worst, basically selective point making to make it seem he may have a point.