Developer dances sadly as streamer roasts him for his shitty game - General

poor dude finished the game as an homage to his friend and got shit on publicly

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51486458]Twitch probably doesn't give a shit, and rest either don't know or don't care enough to sue. Most companies/people won't sue over a fedora image[/QUOTE] what about a wok image :wok:

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51488841]poor dude finished the game as an homage to his friend and got shit on publicly[/QUOTE] Doesn't make the game less shit. Like I'm sorry for his loss but we shouldn't be giving free rides out of pity.

the game looks bad but to make a humiliating public display like that while the guy's doing his livestream is fucking horrid. that kid is a little shit, an arrogant little fuck pumped up on monster energy, and that little disclaimer thing he throws in at the end doesn't make up for his cuntred

[img]http://i.imgur.com/EMOxrwG.png[/img] really they're charging money for this really

[QUOTE=gk99;51489655][img]http://i.imgur.com/EMOxrwG.png[/img] really they're charging money for this You fight streamers as bosses really[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Firetornado;51489695]You fight streamers as bosses[/QUOTE] The premise isn't what I'm concerned about

[QUOTE=geogzm;51489503]the game looks bad but to make a humiliating public display like that while the guy's doing his livestream is fucking horrid. that kid is a little shit, an arrogant little fuck pumped up on monster energy, and that little disclaimer thing he throws in at the end doesn't make up for his cuntred[/QUOTE] The dev actively wanted the kid to review the game and chose to stream that the kid's review. I don't think the very shitty game should not be called out for being very shitty just because a dev is trying to, let's be honest here, piggyback off some streamer for free publicity. If you make a garbage game like that, charge $20 for it, and then try to get a streamer who shits on bad steam greenlight games to review it then you deserve everything you get. I don't get how the fact that the dev is there, when he chose to be there, when he actively sought out being there, when he actively restreamed it, should mean that the dev's shitty game shouldn't be called out for being shitty. He has made a very poor game, stole assets for it, and charged $20 for it. He has zero right to expect respect from reviewers.

[QUOTE=geogzm;51489503]the game looks bad but to make a humiliating public display like that while the guy's doing his livestream is fucking horrid. that kid is a little shit, an arrogant little fuck pumped up on monster energy, and that little disclaimer thing he throws in at the end doesn't make up for his cuntred[/QUOTE] Dreaded cone is a nice guy, the dev out right asked for him to look at his game and cone tried to be nice but then the dev started the rampant defense of things like the copy past google images.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51489821] He has made a very poor game, stole assets for it, and charged $20 for it. He has zero right to expect respect from reviewers.[/QUOTE] I'm gonna be honest; if I ever decide to make a game on my own, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be using assets that aren't mine, even if I'm using a very simplistic art style (since I can't draw, model, or texture worth a shit) so my question is, when is this acceptable? I guess I'd probably be prototyping and then pay someone else to do the art?

[QUOTE=The Robster;51489891]when is this acceptable?[/QUOTE] When you pay for it Just be ready for your game to most likely look like ass if you cobble together whatever you can find in asset stores instead of paying someone to make something for you specifically

Alos the game would have been more interesting if streamers actually had a role or voice in it rather then just a cut-out photoshop image where you shoot stuff at