Developers have a certain budget and a deadline,and if you "waste" money and time only to understand how to push polys,how to do good textures,how to implement,for example,a bump mapping engine,you have less money and time for more important things=innovative game-play,longevity,lenght...it\'s my point...
You made such a well thought out post the first time around and now it sounds a lot like broken English. Can you please put effort into
all of your posts in the future so they are easier to understand? Thank you.
As for what you said in relation to what I said, different TYPES of games do not need to be longer. The games you mentioned are big examples of this. There needs to be a balance of just how long a game is and just how much you can actually take of it. Devil May Cry is but one example of a fine game, but imagine doing that same hack and slash routine not for a mere 7 hours of gameplay, but instead for 25. 25 hours of the same attacks over and over and over again. There are many people out there who absolutely hate shooters because of the simple fact that it is the same crap over and over. Beat-em ups suffer from this as well as certain action games. You want longer games yet you do not stop to think just how boring those games would be if they were any longer. There is another solution to this however...
Maybe you just spend too much time playing games. You admitted to beating all those games in a day and that\'s what, 10, 12 hours of straight gaming? Then you complain that it wasn\'t long enough? People I know beat FFX in three days and complained it was too short even though their timers clocked in at 50 hours. Maybe you should just pace yourself and enjoy it rather then dive in head first and expect it to last for three months.
The only game in recent memory that served the whole longevity and replayabilty category you are looking for is Grand Theft Auto 3 and that was a PS2 game. Oh well, to each their own.
Ryu...I don\'t bash a console for what I see in the first 3-4 months...I give a console the time it needs...at least 2 years...
...Halo is great,but not "revolutionary",you\'re right...but it\'s a launch game,and I\'m impressed...I\'ll wait for Doom3,Project Ego,Brute Force,Ninja Gaiden,etc etc before delivering a substantial judgement on the XBox...I\'ll give this console and even GC the time they need...and then,in case,I\'ll "bash" them!
"Bash"? I never said anthing about bashing anything. I never even bashed the Xbox. No need to be so defensive, it\'s unwaranted here. I merely pointed out that the things you crave with the PS2 are also lacking with the Xbox even though you seem to think that it is the end all be all of consoles. You want longevity and ingenuity with gaming, the most technically impressive console does not guarantee that and you should understand that point. Hardware encourages new things, but money encourages motiviation and the most money is made with the most userbase.
As for the games you mentioned, we don\'t know anything about them to judge a console by them. You claim so much about the Xbox, but the games you use to say how great it is aren\'t even out yet. Reminds me of the big-ass Sony fanboys who posted here when the PS2 first launched.
This is getting a bit off-topic though, Sony being a monopoly really has nothing to do with the Xbox, I fail to see why it was brought up in the first place. You\'re just barking up the wrong tree here.
I\'ve just answered you...great games need great dev and a lot of time...they\'re not self-programmed!
You still give the Xbox the benefit of the doubt regardless, enough to where you proclaim the PS2 to be a gaming failure and the Xbox to be some type of gaming messiah. It\'s weird and uncanny.
...about the DC,it\'s the only one console which has lived up to my expectations...and now are Microsoft and Nintendo on duty!
"And now are Microsoft and Nintendo on du..." WTF are you talking about?
