do you think the designers of shit games like Sonic Boom look back on their creations like “we really fucked up” or “nobody appreciates our hard work”
Game developers know when a game is shit. They worked with it for years, they know it inside and out. For a game like Sonic Boom, there was a TV show tie-in, so it was likely rushed by the higher-ups. The devs might try to focus on where they succeeded (small victories, like maybe a certain character’s animation or something), but they know it overall sucks and probably would avoid putting it first in their resume (unless it sold well).
How about games where it isn’t quite black and white whether a game was good or bad. Like… like when Luigi’s Mansion just came out, and nobody really liked it, but it later became a time-honoured classic. Or when a game is objectively pretty bad, but still sells a fuckton of copies. Or a game that seemed good at the time but aged about as well as milk in hind-sight.
… I suppose that would be different for every individual developer… Shit, I just answered my own question.
Oh, some developers will make a series of shit games and claim that the games are the best games ever and nobody is giving it a chance. They will just say that it’s too deep for gamers to understand. I’m talking about developer david cage who made such steaming piles of shit as indigo prophecy, heavy rain and beyond two souls. He’s the one who said “game overs area failure of a game designer” and can’t design a decent game for his life because he tends to ignore raging plotholes, refuses to give players controle of their character and fails to do basic research on what’s being used in his games. He makes shitty games and is like “nobody appreciates our hard work”