I’ve Played Dreadmoor… I’m Still Not Convinced | Unpacked

Yeah I had a weird reaction to this video for sure. Hopefully what I'm sharing is taken constructively. I played Dreadmoor back at PAX East in March and was really delighted by what I experienced because I had no exposure on the game before so I was like "Oh this is really neat! Wonderful aesthetics, the mechanics are definitely janky but this doesn't look like some massively funded game, could be a first time dev experience so that's all right. I want more of this cause some of it (like the crab shack) feel genuinely inspired." So seeing this video at the outset had me worried. With the front half of the video concerning itself initially with a trailer from last year that isn't being honest I was worried that was all you were getting at. I appreciate the pro-consumer warnings you're covering here: The publisher has funded and supported a game that didn't go anywhere despite wanting more support from players and has even removed itself from listing; that's really bad! But when you (Second Wind, not the reader/viewer) lay out the facts, the timeline can have a couple different conclusions here. 1. Digital Vortex could be a publisher doing a poor job at picking out games and helping devs on their development timeline and instead just throwing money at devs without really checking the work in progress. 2. Dream Dock could instead be the ones pulling a fast one, since Dreadmoor's trailer that can mislead people was out in April of last year and Digital Vortex entered the picture six months later, it could've been a way to secure funding by a publisher that wasn't looking close enough at the progress. 3. Digital Vortex could be a publisher that preys on developers for a funding deal and then forces them to deliver on a really poor timeline that results in a bad product. This point might have more water too because Digital Vortex was also showing Bylina at PAX East, a game that was out a month later that had a soft lock bug in the demo they were showing, and it has come out to middling reviews critiquing bugs. Bylina though was made by a totally different dev. I don't think you're actively being malicious or anything in this video, but I think the approach of the information and the short length stops you from being able to lay out the facts in a way that communicates to me, "Hey here's a video game coming out. I played the preview, it seems okay, but there's other causes for alarm. Let's talk about them without completely writing this off." Instead this video feels like it's communicating to me, "Hey this game had a trailer that was fake. They haven't disowned it. While the gameplay is real, I wasn't amazed by it. This looks like something as bad as 'The Day Before', which we covered that. Here's the rest of the facts that implicate this game is one of those all over again. I'd be surprised if this game can make a Q4 ship date." (no joke: I too would be surprised by a Q4 ship date!) I'd say the line about "if all you're looking for is atmosphere and some fishing..." is a little throwaway but that's just me. Comparing this immediately to other recent grifts that were much larger stories like The Day Before just makes the video feel a little alarmist when this isn't the same people who handled The Day Before (If it is then sound the alarms of course!) So yeah, nice video, I appreciate being informed that there's a reveal trailer out there that was misleading of this game's dev state because it could mean Dreadmoor sees a similar fate as Bylina. But I was able to put that together doing a little more digging and by my own knowledge of having played Bylina from the same publisher. I think the video would do better to use this game as an example for what people should look to to better understand how to spot *potential* grifts and the importance of being cautious without writing things off entirely. I get the vibe you're trying to do that, and I'm not professional so I can't quite place it, but it feels like this video isn't managing to get that information across without some degree of assumptions not being recognized.

This video essay just didn't work for me. The middle section is supposed to show how the alpha gameplay doesn't live up to the trailer correct? How so? I rewatched the middle section twice trying to figure out what was not up to par. I'm still not sure. Graphics? Gameplay? Atmosphere? Overall cohesiveness? And then he briefly mentions how the same company launched Railgods, their first game in an unfinished state and abandoned it. Talk about burying the lead! Seems like that should have been way more up front. Finally, doesn't this game owe a LOT to Dredge, almost to a point of ethical/legal dubiousness? Is that an issue at all? Still loving this series and Nick's focus on actual gaming journalism. This one just didn't work for me (in the sense that I didn't get what the author was trying to communicate).

Shouldn't it be *cough* "Ubisoft, sorry KC." *cough*

Where is the moor?