• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What do you prefer?

SNG32

Member
Now with gaming cycles being longer it seems like we got get 1 game for a major franchise instead for sequels for each generation. Example last gen we only had Tekken 7, In the PS3 gen you had Tekken 6 and Tekken Tag and in the PS2 you had Tekken tag, Tekken 4 and Tekken 5. I know DLC has made its way to for developers not to do that anymore but didn’t you like it better seeing the transition of the sequels getting better visually and noticing improvements in the gameplay mechanics. Instead of getting all this DLC instead.

So my question is do you prefer the short gaming cycles where you could get a sequel of franchises? or the long cycles where you get dlc overtime.
 
Last edited:

Crayon

Member
Idk if fighting games are the best example. I think the live service model has been great. Like most I think, I do leave older ones behind when the successor comes. Even if I don't like the successor I'll jump to another game that is current. Ditching the old multi-release updates has been more good than bad.

Otherwise, the long development times are also more good than bad. Those blockbusters however you feel about them are impressive and you see the money and time on-screen. Their infrequent releases make room for all this cool shit in between. Stuff that is up to par with full price releases back in the PS2 days.

Like Overload. The unofficial sequel to descent that I feel like plugging right now. Please take a look at Overload.
 

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
I would love if devs scaled down on technical aspects and game size a bit and started giving us more games like those you could find in the PS2 and PS3 eras. Those didn't take so long to develop and still were very fun to play.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
I like them long and deep, do it once and be done with it.
Sassy Oh No GIF by Nickelodeon
 

BossLackey

Gold Member
Fighting games are kind of unique. This is what they've always wanted to do, but had to settle for version releases for new characters and balance patches. Now they don't have to do that and it's better for everyone. You no longer have split playerbases, balance patches are easier and more plentiful (therefore more balanced games), and new characters can be introduced in smaller batches or even one at a time rather than all at once with new versions.
 

Daneel Elijah

Gold Member
Great game like Uncharted 4 + great DLC like lost legacy is the way to go. The question is with all the cross gen games that will probably be the norm in the future will more publishers use differents teams like for COD to milk the IP better or really embrace the Nintendo model of 1 mainline game per big IP per console?
 

Kokoloko85

Member
When it comes to Capcom and there fighting games. I prefer the PS1/PS2 days.
Supposedly 2D sprites are sooooo hard to make, yet they produced:

1991 - 2001:
Street Fighter 2’s - Turbo Super Etc
Street Fighter Alpha 1,2,3,
Street Fighter 3’s, 3rd Strik etc
Darkstalkers 1,2,3
Rival schools
Red Earth
Pocket Fighters
Jojo Bizarre Adventure
PowerStone 1-2
X-Men Children of the Atom, Marvel Super Heroes, the Mavel VS Capcom/Street Fighter games with some new characters and sprites.
SNK Vs Capcom 1-2

All in 10 years with smaller teams and less advanced tech…


Yeah I’ll take that instead of 1 or 2 capcom fighting games a decade…. The 2D looked better, played better and more variation. And clearly was easy enough to do back in the 90’s with much smaller studios and less advanced tech.

I don’t care if its all about 3D and online and its easier for 3D models to have alternative customs and Add ons. Change the colour and be done with it

Tekken on the other hand, probably 1 a generation is ok. Same as Soul Calibur etc
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom