I think the corporate world really needs just take a step back when these games are getting developed. I understand there is a long ROI on games, but rather then extremely unobtainable goals and ridiculous expectations just let the dev team do it's work. I'm fine with the model of servicing games for years on end rather than seeing a new iteration after new iteration that doesn't really evolve all that much. I'm perfectly fine with a game that comes out with some deep quality content and have to wait some time for it. Rather, then be misled and given a half assed product just for the sake of releasing it. If they want to have a huge ambitious open world game so be it. Let the devs take care of it and come out as a quality product. Otherwise, find a new philosophy in how you approach a huge open world environment.
@CRAPCOM1926: No, you completely misunderstood what he was saying. He was saying that marvel created a particular way of doing things with comic book movies. Hellboy didn't follow that suite and because it took a different path of doing it it's being creatizied as such.
@playstationzone: Tomb Raider is a different game with different expectations. Why anyone feels that one game gets a certain score another game should receive the same is beyond me.
@tom_cat_01: Unfortunately, with the gaming world it is very difficult to please people. Not speaking of you, but in general in answering your question about massive open world gameplay. Assassin Creed games even going back to Number 2 had a lot of game time involved. Sure, the story was about 20-25 hours if you just did that itself, but doing all the side stuff, collectables and what have you took a great deal of time. A decently long campaign and plenty to do has always been AC's staple. I honestly can't think of an AC game aside from the first one where there wasn't a TON to do. With that being said, single players games aside from the COD's of world normally have decent sized campaigns with a lot of extras. As a gamer you should want these large games. After all, it doesn't come cheap. To get to my original point if Ubisoft went shallow with the game length they would have gotten shit for it seeing how they went big with it probably was the safe bet and we should be applauding them for it.
@p1p3dream: I just find it hard to believe that with Activision essentially acquiring Blizzard and knowing what they make for games and have been one of the most successful developers out there with mmo/rpgs etc. With that model in mind that they would go ahead and handcuff Bungie from accomplishing that same success. Does that make much sense to you?
@TerrorRizzing: The mechanics are the only thing good about this game. I guess I will give the environments and worlds a thumbs up because they do look beautiful. Other than that this game is just BAD. Once again, no customization, shaders are used once, you have these awesome exotic pieces but guess what? Their can only be one equipped at once. The missions got better a little more in depth (Just more steps and some dialog from the NPC that you are doing the work for), no crafting, level design is bad in some cases, but its ok, but really in the end, the end game sucks. There is just isn't enough substance. Its just rinse and repeat with capped progression each week. Just a shitty design. Its need to either be an MMO/RPG or just be a regular campaign with its multiplayer like Halo. All the other shit is just filler for the sake of being there and adds no value to the game except time. Choose what genre you want to be and get on with it. If they did that we could get rid of these ridiculous loading times in watching a ship fly that we have no control over.
@p1p3dream: Is this really Activision though? I could have sworn that they pretty much have total control over the game. I mean after all this was why they left MS because they felt they didn't have freedom to do what they wanted. I can't blame this all on Activision considering Bungie is the one creating the game.
xscrapzx's comments