I agree with publishers hindering innovation. But, even that game idea wouldn't be enough to justify the need for a new system because that kind of game could already be made on the current systems if someone had the will to do it. Hell, the first Bioshock and the Borderlands games already have a similar theme to them as that idea.
I wouldn't say we've seen everything yet. But I do think, at the rate we're changing hardware, we aren't likely to see the kind of game changing, genre defining innovations that make you say, "This could only be done on next gen systems." And that, in my eyes, immediately dulls the "wow" factor. I could be wrong, but I don't see many tech dependent advancements occuring soon that aren't related to graphics, or the amount of stuff that can be put on screen at once.
What did we seriously expect? The time of new generations of hardware providing entirely new ways to play games or new mechanics for established genres seems pretty much over. The tech is to the point where all we'll most likely see is more detailed and vast environments and bigger, more impressive cinematics. I hope I'm not saying this out of ignorance of the moment, but I think videogame tech is already to the point where there's little we're going to see that will really wow us like previous generations have. But, then again, maybe Sony has something up their sleaves.
@NTM23 I'm afraid, it'd be hard to go any further with the more adult themes and violence of the Arkham series without it really just being for shock value for the most part and looking like they're trying too hard.
The same thing happened for the ps3 in it's first year on the market. The install base is not big enough for some publishers to think it worth risking the cost of porting, or even more costly, building from the ground up.
It's not necessarily a bad sign this early on in the system's life cycle. Now if major publishers are saying the same thing a year or two from now, then it'll be a bad sign.
I'm a conlficted on this one. I can understand the desire to just go crazy with your ideas and really come up with something completely absurd. I'd envy the opportunity to work on a game like this if I were a dev. But as a huge fan of the direction SR1 and 2 were going, I'm a bit disappointed at how the series has changed. I thought the tone of SR2 was perfect and the amount of extra stuff to do (side games/challenges, buying up business, car and character customization, and the whole city takeover process) and the level of polish and explorability to the city were second to none imo. That's what really stood out imo that made the series great early on. SR2 was like an open world gamer's paradise.
Sure SR3 was a good game, but it seems like the focus is being put more on making the whackier aspects of the game even whackier instead of finding ways to build on the already great depth of gameplay elements the series was establishing. I'll play SR4 because, just like SR3, it'll most likely be a fun game. But if it's much like SR3, from a gameplay depth pers[ective, I likely won't be buying it.
And with that, I'm off my soapbox. Have a good day everybody.
@salvucci91 After COD: Declassified and Resistance: Burning Skies, I'm sure most vita fans, myself included, are willing to overlook the cheesy commercial so long as the game ends up as awsome as it looks.
Poncho_Hachacha's comments