By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jay520 on 09 July 2011
Edit Thread
psrock said:
Jay520 said:
psrock said:
Because the 3 year cycle games are better?


Not necessarily, but some devs would benefit from it I'm sure.


You can't make a sucky game better, you can release new content, new items, but the core can never be changed. Sony games don't have a issue being released too quickly, they actually take too long. 

Look at forza Vs GT, how's the quality of each games, how's the cycle helping each games.

I don't mean games that suck at the core. I mean a game like Killzone 3. It was pretty good , but it was sort of lacking in the content side. I haven't played inFamous 2 yet, but some people feel that the game could have been better with more dev time. Now, a game like SOCOM 4 was just bad at the core, and no delays would have changed that. 

My plan is wrong because I say that all devs should follow a three-year cycle when in actuality it varies with each developer. I should change my OP to suggest that Sony gives it's devs more flexibilty as opposed to just giving them more time.

As for Sony games taking too long. I agree to a certain point. But I think Sony gets a bad rep for its dev length and delays. GT5 and TLG are really the only games that really took a long time to release. 

I don't know about GT vs Forza, haven't played much of either. I can't really comment. I do know it was a disappointment to many. It had problems with its core rather than its content. The main complaint was it being too bland I believe.