So instead of Madden and COD every year we get a souls game every two years
Sorry for double post.. But is Demon/Dark souls worth the buy? Was told that its possible to die in the tutorial, has me intriged/I love challenges, except those that make you break your TV. [Co-op] Battletoads, Ninja Gaiden 1-3 to name some.
In Demon Souls... I've not played it but I've heard that even if you somehow manage to beat the tutorial boss that's meant to kill you, something else kills you instead, but its because the game wants to show you the Nexus.
In Dark Souls, yes, you can die in the Tutorial, although to be fair you'd need to be trying to die or panicing. The game is hard, but only if you don't treat it with the right amount of respect. Not enough and it slaps you silly, too much and it slowly pushes you off a cliff.
This is more intense than that time I forgot how to DO A BARREL ROLL!
Then I remembered to press Z or R twice.
If they release a DS game every 2 or 3 years, that's actually not that bad. If you're thinking Madden or CoD, you're thinking annualy (as in every year), which really is a bit much.
So long as the basic system is down, it's not actually that big of a leap to be able to make a game in a shorter time if you use that template and design the world around it's functions. That's commonly why there are a lot of annual titles like CoD or Madden (they're basicly cut and paste). With another year or two to work on things, they have the time to try out new ideas and polish the things they have.
Honestly, 2 or 3 years is not a bad window between Dark Souls iterations. One every year begins becoming mindless, but every couple of years is reasonable.
You can't really compare almost twenty year old games with todays games. Developing times back then were a lot shorter.
A game every two year isn't automatically bad, but the games tends to suffer after a couple of releases, as the devs aren't given enough time to add anything substantial. It's usually good for a number two in a series, because the devs usually has a lot of ideas they didn't have time for when making the first, but after that they are running out of easy to implement ideas, and they don't got enough time to do anything big.
Just take a look at Assassin's Creed II. Brotherhood was good, and included several elements the devs wanted in ACII. Then comes Revelations, and it's obvious that the devs really didn't have any good new ideas.
Bottomline is, DSII can turn out dissapointing if the devs don't get enough time to do much more than a rehash in a new environment. I'm pretty sure they've done all the wanted with Dark Souls, which probably doesn't leave many ideas for DSII. Maybe that's why we got a change of director.
LuminousAether posted...You can't really compare almost twenty year old games with todays games. Developing times back then were a lot shorter.
Honestly, Dark Souls wasn't much more than a re-hash of Demons Souls' systems either. Some changes were made for balance sake, but the overall gameplay wasn't effected in a major way.
Still, like I have said, we don't know now, so we shouldn't be pissing and moaning over it until it comes out (or at least closer to the release date than just after it's been announced).
On that Lost Odyssey note, I need to find that one story with the girl who has some illness. Was a story related to some little girl at an inn but I just can't remember. I know it always had me in tears though.
I think this is the one you mean:
In case anyone is up for some manly tear shedding. :'|
GT - Dex Pyromaniac
http://www.youtube.com/user/Dexpyro <===== Dark Souls stuff
All that changed is what's a given a new area to explore.
But, how is that a bad thing?
Yea, if you're going to revamp the entire thing, why even call it a sequel? Also, video games can be art if you want them to be. No one should be able to decide what is and isn't art, it's entirely based on opinion. And just because someone creates something to make money doesn't mean the product is incapable of being art. If for-profit products can't be art, then the vast majority of music, movies, and books are not art. A little silly, huh?
Do keep in mind that most (not all, most) games that are in development for years and years tend to not have any groundwork to go off of in terms of visuals. When you don't have to do that (as in you aren't making a jump in graphics and you already have the basis of your visuals) you cut out a rather large chunk of the development and can get to the meat of the game that much sooner.
For example, Super Mario Galaxy 2. It came out way quicker then it took to make Galaxy 1 because they were able to use the groundwork from Galaxy 1 for a lot of it, but despite that it's seems to be universally agreed that Galaxy 2 is better then Galaxy 1.
So yeah, it could be like CoD or Madden where the sole purpose is to push out a game as quickly as possible to make a quick buck. Or it could be a great game. Don't sit there an assume it's garbage just because it's being released relatively quickly.
UMvC 3 Team:
The development time is no indication of quality. Most likely use same engine so saves times. Story most likely started development with first one. 2 years is plenty time to out out quality game..and a game I enjoy.. why wouldn't I want more.
If development time meant quality game then d3 and duke nuken forever would be the greatest games..
If good things come to those who wait - arn't they just the leftovers of those who got there first?
There is not good or bad, just perspective and opinion.
Quality > Quantity.
Chrono Trigger/Cross ftw.
Time spent developing a game is not always indicative of quality, but it's a lot more difficult to push something out every single year that isn't a mediocre at best recycled turd.