Soleron said:
Exile1987 said:
Soleron said:
JustThatGamer said:
Soleron said:
Then expect it to be a short game that's on rails. That's the only way this could be possible on a realistic budget. |
Well their last game came out late 2010, although they did develop the GoW: Origins Collection in 2011 but that probably didn't take no more than 3 months to create. With The Order 1886 looking to have a late 2014 release we can assume that it will have 3+ years in development which means it's a very large budget game and will be a good 10-12 hours long.
Also the game will not be as linear or 'on-rails' as the Uncharted games for example, If I remember correctly Ready at Dawn said they were inspired by Naughty Dogs 'open-linear' design in The Last of Us, so even though The Order 1886 is a linear story driven game it is by no means on rails.
I think it's going to be an amazing game, everytime I read or hear anything new about the gameplay, visuals, story & characters I get more excited.
|
Well..... then they'll lose LOTS of money when it doesn't sell the 6-8m they're obviously projecting.
|
Where have they projected that?
|
If it has better than the trailer graphics in a 10h relatively open world game, it must be created by a huge team, and therefore require 6m+ sales to make the money back. If it doesn't cost that much, it can't be one of that quality, that length or that open.
For a rough benchmark on quality vs budget vs projections, Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs lost money because they projected 6m+ sales and sold less, that's direct from their financial reports.
|
Uh, you dont need a large team NOR budget to create a good looking game. You need talent.
Witcher 3 is an open world game and is one of the best looking next gen games so far, and it only costs around 10 million to make.
Metro Last Light on PC ultra settings is probably the best looking game overall at the moment, and it was made by 60 people or so. Also, Resident Evil 6, not very appealing game to the eye, was mde by 600 people.
