|
Rocksteady Announce Suicide Squad Game
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ee0cqKBW...g&name=900x900
More details to come at DC Fandome https://twitter.com/RocksteadyGames/...20790447136768 |
I read the thread title preview as "Rocksteady announce Suicide," and I was like... "my condolences to Bebop's family."
|
Quote:
|
How odd that it appears to be Superman in that picture, considering he's only barely Squad-adjacent, generally speaking. Huh.
They make good games, I'll keep my eyes open. I've been longing for a good super-hero game that isn't Batman or Spider-Man for just, like, the longest time. |
I would love a good X-men game with missions all over the world.
|
With the "target" on his head, I'm assuming he's gonna be the main antagonist. It's just my guess, but I hope I'm wrong. It's been done enough in the Injustice games.
|
Not a bad guess.
I love the Injustice games, but I agree. I'd rather finally have a new Superman game than yet another "we're making him the de facto heel because programming him as the protagonist is more work than we feel like doing" situation. I hear all this chatter for years now about how hard or "impossible" it is to make a decent Superman game, and it's such total nonsense. Maybe none of them have ever been fantastic but I can think of at least four that were "Pretty good, would have been great with a little more time in the oven." Few of the Superman games were ever fundamentally broken; only Superman 64 was ever really busted from the ground up. I feel like that game's reputation taints the entire catalog of Superman games. Most of them are at least playable. "Superman Returns" was on a good track, but being tied to the movie really hurt it. When it ignored the movie trappings, it showed potential; with another six months of development, a better targeting system, and an actual ending, it would have been pretty good. But even "Superman: The Man of Steel" from like 2001 wasn't terrible; if you remove the horrible timed missions that give you less than five seconds to complete your objective, the rest of the game is pretty good. Pretty hard, but they got pretty close on the whole. "Shadow of Apokolips" was good. Even "Death and Return of Superman" was a perfectly serviceable beat-'em-up, it just broke no new ground and suffered from a severe lack of enemy variety. It was still fun to play, though. Point being, if with most games based on a character the worst you can say is, "I wish it had been in development for six more months," that's not really very damning. They've repeatedly been on the right track only to run out of time or money or both, but I don't understand how that translates to "It's impossible to make a good game where you play as Superman for the duration." The same thing used to be true for Batman games. Same thing could happen for Superman, someone would just need to really apply themselves. But yeah, as far as this game is concerned he's probably be the Big Bad the Squad gets assigned to. Either he's possessed/gone rogue or someone just wants him out of the way. I can see it. I'unno, we'll see what transpires. I'm curious. There's like no super-hero games anymore when we used to be drowning in them, so I'm hopeful and optimistic about getting something fun that isn't Batman for a change. It's like I really like most of the Batman and Spider-Man games that have come out in the last 10+ years, I just hate that that's all we really get nowadays. |
Yeah, pretty clearly it's going to be a "We gotta take down Superman!" kind of thing.
Eh. OK. I'll play it. Not what I was hoping for from the next Rocksteady game. I was thinking either just a fourth Batman game, a straight up Superman game (I was hoping most for this), or the "World's Finest" thing that was rumored that might have things toggle back and forth between Batman and Superman. Or maybe a full-on Justice League game. Suicide Squad? Well, fine. Not super exciting to me, though. |
I was in doubt, whether it is Superman or not, because, I know that Superman is not really related to Suicide Squad. But it is seems to be the case.
Oh, well, I hope Rocksteady will make the game where you play as villains or anti-heroes, instead of using old tired "Superman is evil" crap. On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past them to do so: Superman is white fit and healthy heterosexual male, so in the eyes of the "dumbgressives" he might as well be literally Hitler. And big developers LOVE to fit in with the Twatter crowd. |
Quote:
The Batman games were great but I'm over it. Let someone else have a turn at the plate, dammit. I have zero doubt that for all their "We just don't think we could do it well" nonsense, if they applied themselves they could make a great Superman game. I've played good Hulk games, "Ultimate Destruction" in particular; just take the strength and "indestructible" elements and the interactive, smash-able environments, add the flying from "Superman Returns" (which was awesome and the best part of the game by far) and some heat vision and you've more or less nailed it already. Everything these people swear "can't be done" in a Superman game has already been done very well in other games! They've just never been assembled into one package, mostly for time/budget reasons. Well, then do that! Don't tell me "We can't figure out how to make the character super-strong and mostly-invulnerable without breaking the game", when there's a really awesome Hulk game that lets you rip cars in half and use them as boxing gloves. Don't tell me "We can't figure out the flying" when even a mediocre game like "Superman Returns" had incredible flying mechanics. Games from 15 years ago already did all the stuff they swear "can't" be done properly! Don't f*cking lie to me you lazy hacks! You just don't wanna put the work in! I'd definitely settle for a "World's Finest" game if I had to, though, sure. If for no other reason than a game where they fight and/or team up really hasn't been done yet, but should have been by now. Even if the movie wasn't to everyone's taste, BvS would have made an awesome, awesome video game. It's a real shame they didn't bother. I get why, they're expensive, but ignoring that, it could've been perfect, speaking purely hypothetically. I'd love a Superman/Batman team-up game, I really hope someone gets around to it one day. We're also long overdue for another Justice League game. I know that "Justice League Heroes" didn't do so hot, but people weren't really fair about it, either. It came out after both X-Men Legends games, was a fair bit shorter and only had two on-screen characters at once instead of four, so everybody said it felt like a half-baked rip-off, but I don't think that's fair at all. Sure, if they had another six months to pad the length, added more missions and managed to put four playable characters on-screen, that would have been nice, but the game as it exists is still perfectly fine and a lot of fun to play, especially with the New Game + feature. It is short, and rather easy, and it's missing a lot of the side content like Flashback Missions and Danger Room/Training stuff which made the X-Men Legends games so stellar, but it was also their first swing. I was really hoping for a sequel so we could get some of that stuff, but alas, it never happened. But it SHOULD have, because it was a good game. The two "Injustice" games might be my two favorite fighting games - they're definitely up there, although I admit I'm hardly a hardcore fighting game guy - but I can't believe that it's 2020 and the only thing developers can think to do with the DC pantheon of characters is stick 'em in a fighting game. Christ, Wonder Woman never even had a solo game, how sh*tty is that to realize? Granted, she maybe wasn't popular enough before to carry one, but surely she could now. DC has all these amazing characters but they still only really do Batman stuff for video games, mostly. Very frustrating. I know "money talks", but geez, man, you're leaving money on the table, here. Quote:
|
This is probably bullsh*t, but I saw either somewhere or someone say that the subtitle was Kill the Justice League. My guess is, this will either spin-off into a Justice League game, which was once rumored to be what Rocksteady was working on, or they're simply reusing Superman from their cancelled game and working him into the story. Regardless, I would have much preferred a Superman game.
Like Leo said, the whole "Superman can't work as a video game" narrative is complete bullsh*t. When I see games like the new God of War and Anthem, I can't help but imagine them reskinned as a Superman game and just go from there. I was literally telling my brother yesterday that God of War-esque combat would fit a Superman game because he's more of a brawler and he hits hard. I even thought of a way they could balance his strength by implementing a power meter, which you can build up through combat and let's you unleash some of Superman's strength with some hard hitting blows that create sonic booms and can also be depleted by unleashing a devastating heat vision blast. You don't want Superman to feel overpowered but you don't want to feel weak either, which is completely doable. I don't get how Superman has been in stories for over 80 years and people still view him as this impossible character who is just too strong and powerful for his own good like if that's what's really holding him back from having a good video game and not just their lack of knowledge and imagination. The only problem I can really think of is the scope of the game, which seems less and less impossible these days since ideally, you'll want to fly across large reaches of land and space since confining Superman to just Metropolis would be kind of boring. But I can't help but wonder if the only reason we haven't gotten a Superman game is the same reason we haven't gotten a sequel to Man of Steel. We only got Batman: Arkham Asylum because they failed to make a game for The Dark Knight and there's been rumors about a Suicide Squad game for a long time which was no doubt meant to coincide with the 2016 film since it was set up in Arkham Origins. A Justice League game was even rumored at some point but probably ditched because the movie flopped. So to hear they also dropped a Superman game in favor for Suicide Squad just when a new movie is about to release does seem rather suspicious. Rocksteady has been really silent and haven't released anything for over 5 years, and if the reason is because WB has them fumbling through multiple projects based on film success, then that's really sh*tty. We already know they use the animated DC films to test the waters for interest in potential live action films, so I really wouldn't be surprised if this is how they're treating their gaming division. |
I mean, you're right about how it could be a problem of scale and scope, and how just being in/around Metropolis can be boring, or confining, but both the "Man of Steel" game from the early 2000s as well as "Superman Returns" both addressed that problem fairly well. In the former, there were SO many different environments to play through based on whatever missions you were doing, from Metropolis to Deep Space and even The Phantom Zone. So that's all been done already rather easily. And with the latter, even though the SR game was 99% set in Metropolis, they made Metropolis f*cking HUGE to compensate for it. It took a good amount of time even flying at full-speed to get from one edge of the map to the other. I can't even imagine what they could do now, with modern technology and programming skills, to take the better parts of those two games and make something grand.
Like, the scale of Metropolis and the random event missions and having to keep the city from sustaining too much damage or else you'd lose, were all things about the SR game that were highly praised by just about everyone. It's just the game didn't actually give you a ton of things to really DO, the enemy and mission variety in that game were rather mediocre, there weren't enough good Boss fights, so all of that space wasn't really put to great use. Were they on the right track, though? Definitely, definitely. I like the game that's there, it just feels like it was only half-done. The targeting and hand-to-hand combat wasn't great but some things were like totally, "Yeah, that's how that should be done." I like your combat ideas. I also liked in "Hulk: Ultimate Destruction" how you'd be able to level-up and get cooler, more powerful attacks that used more of the environment and things. I feel like all of that could be combined into something that totally fits Superman perfectly. They already had stuff like him using cars and boulders and statues as projectiles, and lamp posts as baseball bats and stuff like that, but just imagine him doing some of the stuff from the Hulk game, that would be so epic. He also has some standard "Finishing Moves" or "high spots" he often uses when fighting the real bruisers that would be awesome to see and control. Stuff like punching people across the sky a'la Zod in "Man of Steel", flying someone high up into the lower atmosphere and then slamming or German suplexing them into the ground, the super-speed "Giant Swing", dragging someone face-first across the ground (or again, like Zod in MoS, across the side of a building) at high-speed... to actually be the one pulling off those moves would be absolutely incredible. Nobody throws down like Superman, and with good reason... who else is gonna get in a fistfight with f*cking Darkseid? I mean he's generally not considered "a fighter" by a lot of people since most stories he's in require him to use other powers to come up with solutions to whatever issue he's facing, but when he DOES fight, it's with a power and fury that makes everyone witnessing it take pause and be glad they're not the one he's mad at. The "Injustice" games do a good job recreating that, so I feel that a regular action game could find a way to do it as well. The one big problem with the combat in most Superman games is that he never feels much stronger than whoever he's fighting. But those kinds of balance issues can always be easily fixed with more time and testing. As you said, games like God of War do a great job of making the player feel like an invincible, unstoppable bad-ass. I haven't played the newest one, but when I played the original trilogy, I never felt so absolutely empowered before from any action game. And even though I rarely if ever died or whatever, I had nothing but fun the entire time. In the year 2020, I don't think we can anymore equate a "balanced" game with "risk of dying/losing" or whatever. Games like "Force Unleashed" are almost impossible to actually "lose" but they're still a lot of fun. If the point of the game is, "The protagonist is an Unstoppable Badass", then your job as a developer isn't necessarily in trying to create "challenge", it's to recreate that "Unstoppable Badass" feeling and make the game Fun. Nobody who ever played any God of War game ever said, "This was awesome, EXCEPT it was too easy and I didn't die enough." You're too busy having fun to even notice that it's kind of easy. That's the point! When developers are like, "We can't do Superman because we don't know how to create sufficient challenge or make him vulnerable", it shows that they're taking a wrongheaded approach to the material. "He's too strong for the Bad Guys." So work around it. "He can't be killed." Work around it. Maybe don't think about ways to backdoor some cheap deaths in, or adding 5-second time limits to missions as a way to create "challenge". Maybe it doesn't need to be incredibly challenging, and it can "just" be non-stop fun? Maybe have him fight Darkseid, and have to beat him in part by using his entire skillset as well as the environment to avoid his Omega Beams and turn them back on him. Maybe have him need to fight his way through literally thousands of Parademons, "Dynasty Warriors" style, and have that be a level or mission, with Bonuses awarded for style and using different attacks. There's so many incredible things that can be done, once you get past the "Well, how can the player 'lose' the game if the main character is indestructible?" hangup. If I'm playing as "Superman", the absolute LAST thing I wanna do, is lose a mission because of a stray punch from some generic mook, or fail because the mission has a 5-second time limit. The developers put that stuff in past games to "create a challenge" and all it did was make them not fun. Maybe making the game constantly "challenging" isn't the right way to execute a Superman game, and it should just be incredibly empowering with you the player constantly doing amazing and over-the-top things instead of worrying about time limits and cheap deaths? Food for thought. I go on, I know. :lol: I just play so many goddamn video games, and love Superman so much, that obviously this is something I think about all the time. Like "WHY can't they just do THIS and slap a red cape on it?" Every day. It's frustrating. I know someone will crack it one day, it's just... it's been 15 years since the last game. 15 years! Superman hasn't gone 15 years without his name in the title of a game for as long as video games have been around. That's f*cking horrible. |
Why can we not get a TMNT game like this??? :ohwell:
I will probably getting this day 1. I loved all the Rocksteady Arkham games. |
I called it a while back that Rocksteady was working on a game with Harley Quinn as a playable character since Arkham Knight was testing waters with her DLC and also due to her popularity in recent years.
Though I am curious about the plot. This doesn't seem like the kind of mission Waller would assign for them despite her odds with the Justice League. Playing as the villains sounds more interesting than playing as anti-heroes so this does sound like it could be fun. I also heard rumors of an Injustice 3 and WB Montreal working on the next Batman game which honestly as much as I love the Arkham games, I can kinda go without another one. Though port the Arkham games to the Switch and that'll be a Day 1 purchase for me!:D |
Don't know how to feel about this yet. It's just a CG trailer and it's still years away, so the announcement seems a bit premature. Though the way they're highlighting Metropolis and Superman just really makes me sour because I get the feeling they just repurposed their Superman game into Suicide Squad.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Priorities". |
Yeah...I'm gonna need to see gameplay as it's hard for me to get too excited without one. It looks like it'll be fun to play as these characters though especially Harley. 2022 is so far away and I for one am glad that it'll be releasing only for the next-gen consoles.
|
Judging by the way Superman looked in the trailer it seems he and other Justice League members are under some sort of mind control.
Given that the title is Kill The Justice League. Are they actually gonna kill all of them? Or the title is just a metaphor? Another thing to keep in mind is that this game takes place in the Arkham universe. So its cool to see it opening up to show more of this world. |
It?s early yet. People are complaining over cgi cutscene like they did Avengers game lol.
It?s by the Arkham developer so I have faith they will deliver. Quote:
They should?ve made TMNT Arkham Asylum style. Spiderman PS4 did it and it?s successful. |
Sadly, after 90s TMNT is no longer a powerhouse it was once.
Batman stayed strong throughout the years, TMNT went somewhat niche. I wish someone made a big TMNT game on a high budget, but I don't think it is in the cards. |
Quote:
Sigh, I remember those days when TMNT games were the talk of the town. |
Quote:
The Batman Arkham games were huge and VERY expensive to make. Yes, the Batman license costs even more than the TMNT license BUT many million more people will buy a Batman game than would ever buy a TMNT one. Thus, if you make a Batman game, you're almost guaranteed to make some kind of profit back no matter how much the game costs to develop. Has nothing to do with developers being fans of TMNT or having a love of the property. It was very obvious that the team behind "Mutants In Manhattan" were big fans with a lot of love; they just didn't have the money or the time to make a game that was any bigger or better than what they came up with. That's always how it's gonna be. There's simply not gonna be a TMNT version of "Arkham" and it all comes down to money. Them's the breaks. Since I don't like to pine for things that are impossible, I'd settle for a TMNT game like Mutants In Manhattan with a little more polish. That's plausible. Anything beyond that, though, it's silly to even wish for. It just can't happen, period. |
The Platinum Games deal was completely blown. That was seriously a match made in heaven, and they even based it off the comics.
Can't believe they rushed it. |
It's fine, there's just not a lot to it. BUT, it has more "meat" on it than any other TMNT game and it's not like it's not fun. I find that most of the criticism towards it comes from people comparing it to other, bigger/better action games which isn't entirely fair considering it was a licensed game made for a small budget and released at a budget price.
Every few months I'll mess with it for a weekend and it's always a good time. Conversely, I've lost some of my shine for the supposed "best" TMNT game, "Turtles In Time", simply because I've had bowel movements that take longer to complete than that game does (don't judge me, I don't get enough fiber! :lol:). Given how MiM is essentially "the best TMNT game" by default, I confess that it bugs me how easily dismissed it is by many people. It's merely "Just Fine", but that still makes it the best game in THAT series, regardless of how low that particular bar is. But it just stands to reason that if "Arkham" is the bar we're forever gonna compare TMNT games to, well, that road leads to nothing but disappointment so people probably shouldn't do that. Better to grade TMNT games on a curve, I think, and enjoy what's in there without pining for things that can't ever be. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't make the "rules", but it sure seems like "The Rules" for action games presently state that "If you're not 'Arkham', just stay home." I agree, that's not fair and it shouldn't be that way. But apparently it IS that way. Because people are spoiled rotten. |
I haven't played it myself so I can't judge the game but, yeah, expectations suck.
|
In my case, I could never get into the Arkham games. Just give me a fun game I can pick up and play without having to learn a zillion in-game mechanics and BS.
I loved Mutants in Mahnattan and loved the IDW comics feel. It was a pretty good and fun game, and ironically if it was TMNT Arkham, then I would have had to have passed on it. Most I would do is hope a friend has it and I'll watch them play it, like I do with the Arkham, NuLara and Uncharted series. |
Ahhhhh, give Arkham another shot one day brutha. Takes a little practice but it eventually gets SO intuitive. I felt a little intimidated the first time but after a short while I couldn't believe how immersive it was. Really great "Batman Simulator" down to the last detail.
Set aside a weekend to mess with the first one sometime, you'll figure it out. :) |
Quote:
It's like watching a new episode of TAS. I was all kinds of thrilled with it. |
There's definitely a lot of mechanics involved but it gets butter-smooth after too long. But I can see how some folks might be overwhelmed at the first jump.
It happens. I had some problems with the first Assassin's Creed controls so I got distracted by something else and never went back to it. But I got like six of the games on my shelf so I'm kinda mentally committed to giving it another shot one day. :lol: I don't even remember what tripped me up with that one. I was probably in a mood. |
Yeah, Arkham raised the bar and expectations are high. Why shouldn't they be?
Is this coming from the guy who says tmnt fans accept any old thing? Now, hold on, I know you're actually referring to complete and total crap...objectively speaking...when you say that, but still, how can you argue against fans having a high standard? Arkham-level is a bit much to expect, but it's not like Mutants in Manhattan is anywhere close, so I think it's reasonable fans expect more. It's exacerbated by the fact that the same developers are capable of so much more, as seen in games like Metal Gear Rising. Simply porting over those mechanics to TMNT would have blown the balls off of fans. But okay, I don't mean to pick on the game. It's not trash, but it didn't live up to it's potential, which is a fair critique. |
It's because when TMNT fans say wishful things about video games, they act like all things happen in a vacuum, or on a level playing field, and that all it would take for a TMNT game to be "Arkham-level" is for someone to have the idea. Like some developer merely NEVER even thought of it and that's why it never happened. :roll: "I don't know why they don't just Do This!" Well, Because Reasons, that's why, at some point just get over it.
The fact is, it can't happen, because any developer who'd be involved immediately blows half the budget just acquiring the TMNT license, and I hate to have to say this as often as I do but TMNT is not as popular as TMNT fans like to THINK it is. So a TMNT game is NEVER gonna have an Arkham-level budget, never gonna have the team in place, or the time, OR the money necessary to make that dream a reality. Because TMNT games aren't guaranteed million-sellers. So no publisher would EVER allocate a Triple-A budget and team on a TMNT game. It's simply not happening, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. That's reality. I'm all for aiming high, but y'know what? I've said this before, at SOME point it's "Wish in one hand, Sh*t in the other, see which one fills up first." People can cry forever about not getting something that's not even possible in the first place, OR, when something that's at least Good comes their way, they can spend less time trashing it for not being as good as their hypothetical, impossible Other Thing they'd rather have, and just realize "Okay, this ain't bad, and it's better than we've ever had or likely will ever get," and they can be appreciative. That's not "settling", it's just being realistic. "Potential" is a funny thing, because even that is susceptible to a lot of variables. Like in THEORY, could a TMNT game be developed by someone that hits the gameplay marks of something like Arkham or MGS? Sure, and "In Theory" I could give Alexa Bliss the night of her life, but neither of those things are ever gonna happen for more reasons than I can count. Therefore, I try not to judge things based on arbitrary criteria mostly grounded in Wishful Thinking. I try and limit my hopes and aspirations to, "So how likely is this thing to ever ACTUALLY happen?" and go from there. "Potential" simply means "Might Happen." Well, what MIGHT happen is very rarely what WILL happen. So I don't like to even dwell on it too much, it's not healthy. The "potential" of any TMNT game is inherently limited by the fact it's always going to be a series of budget-priced games aimed at younger kids. So, no, wishing a TMNT game could be Arkham or MGS or anything like that simply isn't realistic. That's like comparing the "potential" of a one-armed baseball player to Hank Aaron; the one-armed guy might hit great "for a one-armed guy", but he's still handicapped by factors outside of his control and the field will never, ever be equal. That guy needs to be graded on a curve, it's that simple. Based on the last 20 years of TMNT games, I'd honestly say that MiM far exceeds the standards and "potential" as established by the franchise before it. They were low standards, but they're about what could be expected given the very real limitations set upon them. If the "potential" for the TMNT video game brand is limited by, "Kids games we can sell for under $40," then I'd honestly say something like MiM is about as good as one could or should ever reasonably hope for. Not that it's a perfect game. It just does a lot more right than wrong, it's probably the best TMNT game that exists from any objective standpoint, and when MOST of the hate it gets is because "Well, there's much better action games (that cost a lot more money than this one did to make)", well... that's not entirely fair criticism. I feel like if more people played it for more than 20 minutes - which the "professional" critics who tell everyone how to think obviously did not - and weren't trying to compare it to some impossibly high standard, they'd have enjoyed it more. Like, put simply, I don't expect my wife's little niece to do Picasso-level work with her finger paints. Likewise, I know what to expect from anyone who gets the TMNT video game license, and I'm going to grade their work on a curve because they're not working under the same conditions as the people who make Triple-A games. It's not fair to apply those standards to people making budget games for kids. And meanwhile, I can still point out what worked and what didn't, while at the same time realizing that "Well, this is probably as good as it gets for this license". There's "settling for less", and there's "Recognizing that some things have a limit on how good they can ever possibly be in the first place, and being appreciative that they at least come close to hitting those limitations." I, personally, don't have a problem with a game just being Pretty Good. I don't demand Greatness from everything just because someone else made a Perfect game. It's not a level playing field, and "just" Pretty Good should still be allowed. Especially when circumstances won't ever let you even aspire to "greatness" in the first place. I don't know, man. I've often said, people would enjoy more things to a greater degree if they weren't constantly hanging onto their own, rather-unrealistic expectations. I'm also getting more philosophical in my old age; I could enjoy what I'm given and find what's good in it, OR I can spend my entire life wishing I had better things. And I just feel like the latter isn't a great way to live. I mean I've said this before, but it kills me that we haven't gotten, and won't ever get, a truly "great" Superman game. I understand that nobody's going to spend the money or the time in making one. I understand that "It's Not Batman" so nobody'd buy it. I KNOW all of that. And it kills me, but y'know what? I stopped ever expecting it. It's not happening, and I have to accept it as an impossibility and move on with my life. It's not worth clinging to or wishing for when it's just not ever happening. I mean, at the end of the day they're just video games. |
Y'know, I see what you're saying, but I just can't line it up with the way you speak about other franchises sometimes. You present it as a philosophy you stick by, but it seems to me more like you apply it where you choose. Other times it seems that your philosophy is that if we support products aimed at kids, such as this game, then we have only ourselves to blame for continuing to get that.
Now, I agree with this, but it doesn't seem like it applies here and that's what confuses me. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate, so it's not a big deal. Not like you have to explain yourself but that's my two cents. I agree that potential is a loaded word. Again, I dont expect Arkham from TMNT, it's not realistic. But when you have a developer that is capable of much more, even when doing a stich-up, rush job such as Metal Gear Rising, it's fair to expect a certain level of quality and be disappointed by the untapped potential. Mutants in Manhattan is okay, but it could have been more, in a way that the ingredients were all on the table for a great game. Just needed a slightly bigger budget. TMNT are actually quite popular in the videogame space- they have roots. Platinun games is a popular developer. A bigger budget and better game could have been justified. I'm glad it worked for you though. That's all you can really hope for. |
I feel like a lot of my positions are a bit more nuanced than anyone really recognizes but I'm not inclined to go into it very deeply.
In brief, though, it's like, with something like a TMNT cartoon show, or a movie, it's different from a video game. They're obviously going to keep making those things no matter what, but what we choose to support and ignore makes a difference in the sense of, "If people watch ____, they'll make more of ____." Thus, it matters. If people support "kids stuff" by way of TV or movies, they'll never try and make their TMNT version of "Batman Begins" or whatever, but they WILL always keep making more cartoons and movies. But the budgets, prep time, all of that is the same either way, whether they go G-Rated or R-Rated. So if people want more of X, they can very easily and loudly plead their case to that. With a TMNT video game, there really is no chance on getting a $100 million budget and a crack dev team on the case. Those are not realistic expectations. So if a good game like MiM comes out, and it's "just" good but not great, and people don't support it despite it being good, the thinking behind the scenes is not, "Well, maybe we SHOULD try spending more money and getting a Triple-A team to make it next time," they're just gonna say "Well, TMNT games don't sell" and not make any more, period. Which is exactly what happened (I don't include mobile games in my video game discussions so I don't count that stuff). A Good game came out, people ignored it for not being a "Great" game, and now they just don't make TMNT games at all because they figure there's no money in it. I can't help but feel like it could have gone differently, and we might have gotten a better sequel that addressed the first game's issues, IF people weren't just dismissing it and saying "Yeah, I'll wait for a TMNT game that plays like Arkham" when they're not ever gonna get that anyway. But yeah, I don't know, there's different standards in play to a point for different situations. I always want people to aim high, but I also think it's implicitly understood, or should be, that some things should have a certain cap put on the expectations. Just for the sake of being realistic and not setting one's self up for disappointment. I mean, if we want consistency, I am quite "consistently" an opponent of both Hope and Wishful Thinking, as I think they're very foolish things to cling to. :trazz: Other things may vary case-by-case but that's pretty much set in stone. And I think that's ultimately what's important. Other things, less so. |
While I 100% agree with all your points about Mutants in Manhattan, I don't buy the notion that TMNT isn't popular enough to sell millions when all it takes is one critically acclaimed triple A title to get people to suddenly be interested in the property like they were with the Arkham games and even the latest Spider-Man game. No one gave a crap about their games for a long time either until the right people finally decided to invest in them and started moving millions.
TMNT is well known and well liked enough that people who don't normally seek out TMNT would get back in for a game that looks worth their money, especially if all their friends are playing and talking about it. All video games are expensive to make today and consumers have gotten greedy with what games are worth their money based on longevity, which is why everything is either open-world or free to play today. Double A games are a dying breed unfortunately, but Ninja Turtles is a much safer IP to invest in than an original one, but it's currently in who's hands at the moment? Is it still Activision? It's not like they can't do anything amazing with it, which was also true about Ubisoft, but they're both terrible companies who rather stick to their annual cash cows. Spider-Man used to be stuck in that situation, and while the games they churned out weren't half bad and sometimes even good, they weren't setting the world on fire because they were still rather mediocre investments to the average player and still mostly played by kids. It may be wishful thinking to think we'll someday get an "Arkham" caliber TMNT game, and maybe we never will, but crazier sh*t has happened, including the very existence of the Arkham games amongst many other things that were once considered wishful thoughts. Hell, I remember someone on this very forum telling me once that I couldn't have my cake and eat it too for wishing for a Spider-Man game with both an open-world and linear levels, which we got in 2012 so... |
Quote:
"Out of the Shadows" and "Mutants in Manhattan," the last two big games both hit with a thud. |
Quote:
I feel like there's more people in the potential pool for who'd ever play a Batman or Spider-Man game, than for who'd ever play a TMNT game. And I feel like there were a lot of people pre-Arkham who were Batman fans who were like, "I love Batman so much I'd gladly play a GOOD video game based on him, I'm just waiting for that to happen because 'Dark Tomorrow' wasn't good." With TMNT, a ton of the fans don't play video games anyway, even if they turn out good or better, and it's not like every single Batman fan plays video games either, but from the start you're working with an exponentially larger fanbase to begin with. So not all things are equal. Nah'mean? I mean, I know for a fact that an extra million TMNT fans who don't normally play fighting games, or video games period, didn't all suddenly jump to buy "Injustice 2" just because they were in it. And they SHOULD have, that's the thing. It's a great game, an easy game, and even people with stumps for hands could figure out how to have a good time with it. And I'm sure the TMNT DLC moved the needle a bit but I know I saw a ton of people going "Well, that's awesome, and I love TMNT but I don't play video games/fighting games, soooo..." That's the kinda thing that leads me to believe that the market of TMNT fans who will ALSO rush to support a video game with them in it, even a good to great one, really just isn't large enough to make much difference. Maaaaybe I'm wrong, sure, but history suggests that I'm right. I kinda doubt that there's all these people who've just never bought a TMNT game because they're waiting for Just The Right One before they dive in. I personally just think the number of people who'd ever buy a TMNT game, period, simply isn't that large to start with. I mean, even the "good" and most famous ones from back in the era of the Konami games didn't make HUGE money compared to most of their contemporaries. They did good business but they weren't world-beaters. If it didn't happen Then, it's not gonna happen Now, that's how I see it. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.