|
Forum: Games Topic: Franchise Games started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Mar. 06 2014,06:55
I'm going to quote myself from another thread just to put this question into perspective:QUOTE I was reading today that Kojma believes young people are losing interest in AAA titles. People on the Twitters immediately disagreed saying it has nothing to do with how big a title is, but the quality. One of the main complaints of folks there was the trend of a new entry in a franchise every year. I agree, and the Batman franchise has reached that point. Here's a pro tip to developers: If you are releasing a new game in your popular franchise, and the previous game's price is only now dropping because of this new game, then it's too soon for a sequel. Sports games don't even need to be annual. They just need a patch to correct rosters. What do you prefer? Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2014,07:47
I like a little time between games to let them breathe. Also, they run the risk of becoming a WE NEED TO HAVE THE NEXT GAME RELEASED IN 12 MONTHS... ANYBODY GOT ANY IDEAS???
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,07:51
Where's "I don't care, as long as the games are good?"
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 06 2014,08:31
I don't want HL:Ep3 wait times, but I do fall on the Blizzard side of the scheduling argument. "We will take the time we think we need to get it right. Fucking period. If it means another six months, then it's another six months." But if you don't draw the line somewhere reasonable, you get development hell and you'll never recoup those losses.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 06 2014,08:48
(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2014,10:51) QUOTE Where's "I don't care, as long as the games are good?" I don't think that applies for this question. I believe it to be assumed that one doesn't want to purchase a shitty game. If you want rushed games, you're obviously going to get lower quality and less content. Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,09:12
I liked how they did Assassin's Creed with Assassin's Creed II. They wrote a kind of "next chapter" using the same characters and era and engine. It wasn't an expansion, but it wasn't an entirely new game, either. I think they popped out all three of those within 3 years. So that made it feel less rushed to come out.A lot of it comes down to how we trick our brains :-) Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,10:00
(Leisher @ Mar. 06 2014,11:48) QUOTE (TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2014,10:51) QUOTE Where's "I don't care, as long as the games are good?" I don't think that applies for this question. I believe it to be assumed that one doesn't want to purchase a shitty game. If you want rushed games, you're obviously going to get lower quality and less content. See, that's the problem. I want good games as often as they can make them. I don't care whatsoever if that is 3 days or 3 years. If they can churn out good games (again, not lower quality or content), go for it. Posted by Leisher on Mar. 06 2014,10:31
QUOTE I want good games as often as they can make them. I don't care whatsoever if that is 3 days or 3 years. If they can churn out good games (again, not lower quality or content), go for it. The problem is for AAA titles, it doesn't work. Even the sports titles annual additions are often criticized for adding nothing or being rushed, etc. Valve came close with the HL episodes, but obviously that failed. Even CoD or Battlefield or MoH, whichever one does the annual releases, has a reputation of "every other one sucks", and they use multiple developers! Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 06 2014,11:05
Every year, EA has to say how much last year's edition of Madden sucked so they can tout the new one.
|