Loved Dungeon Siege 1 and 2, but, honestly, I'm very wary of anything Obsidian is attached to--I've yet to play a game of theirs I'd call decent. I wonder how much input, exactly, Square Enix is having... give me Dungeon Siege III with a 360 controller, equal or greater quality to Dungeon Siege 2, and a bit of a JRPG aesthetic and I will be very happy.
'Course, I'm still a bit miffed that katanas were cut from DS2.
but this doesn't look like it.
"The impressive movie showed the game's trio of characters--a human wizard, an elven archer, and a dwarf warrior"
Sounds about as shallow and cliched as it could get. Plus, setting it in the north removes it from most of the interesting parts of trilogy. Actually, ALL of the interesting parts. If they're going to give us a third age game, let us play as Gandalf, Elessar and Frodo--not some generic archetype...
Yeah, it looks nice... but I didn't think it had much depth to it. Would much rather see a nice, current-gen version of, say, Odin Sphere.
Don't really care about any MMOs.... TESV might be cool, but I've lost all faith in Bethesda... and, honestly, the TES franchise in general. The next game NEEDS to have more combat variety--more combat animations, at least--and better monsters. Bigger monsters. Things of that sort. And, I suppose, some sort of half-way competent writer, but knowing Bethesda that's likely too much to ask.
The only big things to my mind, to look forward to, are the super-awesome seq...
Only when Kutaragi said so, everyone assumed he was lying to try and justify the PS3's poor performance versus the 360 and Wii. Well, maybe not everyone--but certainly the fanboys, whose opinions, I imagine, make it into the board room far more often than those of the typical gamer.
The PS3 is a perfect example of a superior product selling well. There's not manufactured obsolescence, no microcurrency, and (at least when Ken was top dog) there weren't any blatant ...
...I really get the feeling Yahtzee didn't play more than an hour.
They've got the engine. They've got the script. All they have to do is build the world and animate it. It's not THAT much work, and it's much, MUCH less work than designing a new game.
Hell, they could take FFVII, redraw the backgrounds in HD and replace the character models and it'd be awesome for fans AND hugely profitable.
Corporate mediaspeak can be very confusing. I think it's quite apparent that most of you failed to fully comprehend what, exactly, Square-Enix means by saying their announcement will make anyone "do a double take."
Allow me to translate.
Square Enix' announcment will *not* make *anyone* do a double take, and will indeed be lucky to raise a single eyebrow.
But, ultimately, I'd say LoK: Defiance had the worst cliffhanger, as the franchise died there.
But then again I thought the two Coles thing in InFamous 1 was pretty stupid, too.
Enslaved is the one game I'm really looking forward to this fall. I'm a huge fan of the book, so I'll either love it or hate it, depending on just how much they borrow or try to rely on the original classic.
At this point, there hasn't been a single game based on, or inspired by literature that's been any good.
Put in Dragon Quest VIII disc, ran beautifully. Put in my Gundam Alliance vs ZAFT II+ disc, which had never worked well on emulators... and now it runs perfectly. Very nice.
Should be the same era. That's the only way you'd get the perfect intersection of Western powers, gunpowder units, while still having the setting for roughly a century of Japanese civil war AND Hideyoshi's absolutely brilliant invasion of China.
Here's hoping they ditch Empire's strat map, though. And bring back those awesome ninja movies.
And give us more than Japan. Shogun was awesome and all, but I'd love to see China and Korea, too.
About what I expected. I expect that this game will get some decent pre-release reviews, then a whole lot of post-release criticism.
Crap stories like this have popped up before every big game show since the PS3 was launched, and virtually every "big secret exclusive" has been some minor title no one cares about.
Yet each time people assume it's going to be something big and awesome.
From my experience, 2-3 years development time seems to be the best. If games take longer (Dragon Age Origins, Final Fantasy XIII, both 5+ years) they tend to suffer for it. Generally because long development times are the result of lack of direction, major difficulties/issues, or trying too hard to polish a turd, so to speak.
RDR would appear to be an exception proving the rule. It is one imminently polished game. Though with 5 years of development, there shouldn't be an...
Even the premise is absurd.
None of the locations look very accurate. Well, that's to say Rome and Russia looked like generic set-pieces you see in games ten years older... I can only vouch personally for Taipei... which looks nothing like how they depicted it. It's like a very crude image of northeast China... from the nineteenth century.
...for ANY game?