Yeah ok Volition, just like when Maxis said Simcity couldn't work without internet connection
I wish devs would stop the BS and just tell the truth
Oh yes it is!
You guys are really dumb.
It looks copy and pasted from what ive seen so far, stop kidding yourself volition.
Would it even matter if they made it all from scratch? I mean, it's not like the DLC got released for SR3 anyways.
You guys are all basically dismissing an already known fact, they've stated this already a really long time ago, way back when they announced that Enter the Dominatrix isn't going to be released, way back then they had already said that it's going to be instead integrated into Saints Row 4, how does it suddenly turn into a lie now?
[quote]He also added that the studio had to "totally gut" and redo the story for Enter the Dominatrix to make it fit in the new game.[/quote]
Uh, no thanks. I don't think anyone actually wanted the Dominatrix idea as a separate game in the first place. I want gangs, not aliens.
[QUOTE=simkas;40005106]You guys are all basically dismissing an already known fact, they've stated this already a really long time ago, way back when they announced that Enter the Dominatrix isn't going to be released, way back then they had already said that it's going to be instead integrated into Saints Row 4, how does it suddenly turn into a lie now?[/QUOTE]
It's a practice in DOUBLETHINK.
Volition are really cool people.
You guys need to pull your heads out your asses and see that not every developer besides Valve are a bunch of cockhead corporate thugs. Saints Row 2 looked just like Saints Row 1 when they first started showing footage.
[QUOTE=Dead Madman;40004991]Yeah ok Volition, just like when Maxis said Simcity couldn't work without internet connection
I wish devs would stop the BS and just tell the truth[/QUOTE]
Wow can you see into the future? What's it like? Do you stop being an idiot or does that continue?
After the horrible DLC for SR3 you can't really fault people for expecting half-assed content again.
[QUOTE=spekter;40005567]After the horrible DLC for SR3 you can't really fault people for expecting half-assed content again.[/QUOTE]That was because THQ was nearing bankruptcy and were trying to make money any way they could.
And now they're gone.
apparently a lot of the devs who've seen it so far like it.
[QUOTE=Killer900;40006612]That was because THQ was nearing bankruptcy and were trying to make money any way they could.
And now they're gone.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.destructoid.com/saints-row-iv-will-have-a-very-robust-dlc-plan--249353.phtml[/url]
who the hell cares. 90% of the DLC they'll release will just be some cosmetics and useless but entertaining weapons and vehicles. it's just something to make a quick buck. There are people out there willing to pay for stuff like that, so they'll keep doing that. it's not affecting you in any way.
If this has more than two-player co-op, I will be a very happy camper.
Let's be honest with ourselves, we know [i]nothing[/i] about what the Dominatrix would have been besides the general idea. I don't think we're in a position (yet) to say they're lying.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40006894]You almost had a valid argument there, then you realize that Saint's Row 4 is being released in less than six months and that the game is pretty much final at this stage.[/QUOTE]
Uhm...
SRTT: November 15, 2011
SR4: August 20th, 2013
That's a year and 9 months, number 1.
And 5 months till release is not "final stage."
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;40007338]Uhm...
SRTT: November 15, 2011
SR4: August 20th, 2013
That's a year and 9 months, number 1.
And 5 months till release is not "final stage."[/QUOTE]
Plus they mentioned working on Saints Row 4 for 2 months before SRTT came out.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40007556]That's not even close to a enough time to make a proper sequel, it's going to be rehashed garbage.[/QUOTE]
If it's on the same engine (which it appears they are) than yeah. They aren't making it from scratch this time. A lot of the basics are already there.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40007556]That's not even close to a enough time to make a proper sequel, it's going to be rehashed garbage.
5 months before release is practically the final stage for games like this, there's no time left to make major changes unless you want them to be rushed and awful.[/QUOTE]
your a fucking retard.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("you're* + flaming" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40007556]That's not even close to a enough time to make a proper sequel, it's going to be rehashed garbage.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it is actually. For a relatively average sized developer (Volition is), 2 years is a pretty average turnaround for making a sequel to a game. Especially if they already had a rough idea what they wanted to do, and in the case of SR4, begun work as SRTT went gold.
2 years is plenty of time to make a new game, sure it won't be 100% new content, with a massively reworked engine and hundreds of new ideas, but sequels rarely are. That isn't what a sequel is, that's a brand new IP and they tend to be canned constantly. Some sequels are in development for years, Deus Ex: HR was, largely due to how long it had been since Deus Ex: IW, GTA IV was, but Rockstar were starting from the ground up there. SR4 already has a (fairly) proven engine, and some semblance if story ready.
2 years is fine. Stop being a cock.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40007556]That's not even close to a enough time to make a proper sequel, it's going to be rehashed garbage.
5 months before release is practically the final stage for games like this, there's no time left to make major changes unless you want them to be rushed and awful.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_2:_Sons_of_Liberty][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6a/Metalgear2boxart.jpg/256px-Metalgear2boxart.jpg[/img][/url]
Right.
Say that again.
It started development in January of 1999.
Released November of 2001.
[editline]23rd March 2013[/editline]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Arkham_City#Development][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/Batman_Arkham_City_Game_Cover.jpg[/img][/url]
Serious development started in february 2009.
Released october 2011.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40007720]You're comparing games not only made in different decades, but for different hardware.
Games were easier to make back then, they took less resources and time than most modern games.[/QUOTE]
Reload the page.
Arkham City.
In every aspect better than the original.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40007720]Games were easier to make back then, they took less resources and time than most modern games.[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking serious
Games "back then" were, more often than not, groundbreaking tech demos in at least some regard (obviously not many games were actual tech demos, but they were still pushing hardware to its limits). They were extremely hard to develop especially considering shit like UDK and Unity3D didn't exist
Also, you realize MGS2 was a really fucking early PS2 title right?
They hadnt even tested the waters of the console at the time.
And MGS3 took about 3 years to develop, same console.
[editline]23rd March 2013[/editline]
Another few examples:
GTA 3, San Andreas, and Vice City.
GTA 3: 2001.
GTA VC:[b] 2002.[/b]
GTA SA: 2004.
Earlier games were also harder to develop in certain aspects. Today's hardware gives us a lot of clock cycles and RAM, developers can get lazy without noticing issues thanks to that. We overuse memory, waste a cycle here or there, but the game still looks great.
A PS1 era, or even PS2 era game, doesn't have that luxury, the hardware lives little room to get lazy, making developing a playable game a lot harder. Not counting the lack of SDKs for commercial engines and common APIs between platforms.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
