| makingmusic476 said: I think a lot of people are misunderstanding me here. I'm not trying to say the game won't be that good, or that reviews are all spot on with their knocks about the story (lol CoD) or anything of the sort. I think the game will be damn good. However, I think that extra development time is what would've been needed to make it the next Uncharted 2, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed II, or Halo: Reach. Only two of those games managed such quality within two years, and in one case, the game was made by one of the absolute best developers in the industry, while in the other case over 450 people were working on it. I think the game would've benefited from more development time, and more importantly I think it deserves that extra time. |
To be fair though, a lot of the issues you raised in your first post are unlikely to have benefitted from extra dev time. The cut-scene transition and cut-scenes where the player feels they should have control (like in Half-Life 2) were design decisions (typically made fairly early in development). I don't think they'd have benefitted at all from extra time. I often had the same complaints when playing Killzone 2, but they may not have wanted to change the system for Killzone 3.
I think the game will be great and a definite improvement over KZ2 (based on the demo), but I doubt time would have made a huge difference.
