@AlmostHaslem Im aware. People on this site and others keep talking about Red Dead Redemption 2. The only logic behind that is Redemption was completely developed by Rockstar whereas Revolver started at Capcom and Rockstar bought the base developed game and took it over. Im just saying id rather they name it Red Dead "blank" then start doing numbered sequels.
I dont care how long their games take, they are quality. Didnt get into any GTA other than GTA3, but enjoyed Bully and Red Dead is my favorite game of this generation. ENough so that i am looking forward to GTA V. Also, bring on a new Red Dead. People keep saying Red Dead 2...I hope they keep the franchise as Red Dead, and use a different last work, Revenge, Rampage, or something other than an R.
@junor69 The majority of gamers are older than 24 now. That means the bulk of the first day sales are made to people post college age with jobs...we dont have time for 300 plus hours of gaming. What we want is a quality experience. I dont care if a game is a 8 hours (though I would say 15 to 20 is better) if its a rollercoaster ride. 300 hours, just not happening, polls and surveys show that less than half of all gamers finish most games (even the good ones) so why make a game 300 hours long if most people wont play a third of that. They cant all be Skyrim.
@nini200 for the record, thy farmed OOT 3D out to a third party. They put money into Zelda and Mario because they sell. Star Fox...would sell well, FZERO maybe, Uniracers and Stunt Race, to most people those might as well be new IPs. Also, racing games in general dont sell that well, each system has the one big seller (Forza, GT, MK, respectively) and im guessing Need for Speed sells well, hence why there arent as many racing games on the market anymore
@nini200 I love earthbound, but it never sold particularly well in the west, I have a feeling it wouldnt sell that well now either. More of a niche title, but with a massive translation cost. Those that know it, love it, but not enough know it. And honestly I havent played it since it came out (did beat it) I have no idea how it holds up.
@MindwalkerX such a shame, putting pokemon on the system would guarantee a massive install base. It would make it must own for me, but it would help the masses.
@wexorian there is no such thing as Source 2, let alone 3. Source doesnt get incremental numbered improvements as Valve is constantly evolving it. But source is a tweaked engine and has its origins in id Tech 2. You can read interviews with Gabe Newell and he says you find elements of Quake 2s code in Half-life 2. That doesnt take anything away from the fact that source is a brilliantly designed engine.
@buying1999 Ridiculous. Games only run better on the 360 over ps3 because the 360 architecture makes it easy to port and scale games over to 360. It remains the lead console sku so games are generally developed on the 360 and tend to be optomized for it. The ps3 is a stronger console in terms of power, but its not quite cut and dry due to how the two are designed. In some ways the 360 is stronger, but over all the ps3 is a more powerful console. God of War 3, Uncharted 2 and 3, hell even MGS4, simply could not be done on the 360 and not just because of storage problems with dvd vs blu ray. I cannot stand fan boys. There is plenty of reasons to prefer the 360 over the PS3, but stop all this mindless "360 is teh bestest console ever" garbage (and like wise to any ps3 fanboys reading this).
Bigbudd0045's comments