| teigaga said: In regard to sequels name one time this gen that a remaster has visibly delayed a new game? Dark Souls 3 is obviously going to happen but it was never going to be a 2015 title, same for DMC. I really don't think theres is a single instance right now where you can say we would have had X game, if it wasn't for a remaster. Its really not a conversation worth having unless there is a distinct lack of new games being released, that obviously hasn't been the case for the last 6 months and won't be the case moving forward (unless everything gets delayed to fall 2015/ Q1 2016) |
Saints Row 4. It adds an expansion that uses the same graphics that Saints Row 3 and 4 had, pushing out this shoddy remaster and the small expansion. If you want for visibility, Saints Row 4 released in August 2013. Saints Row 3 released in November 2011. That's only a year and 10 months? So where is Saints Row 5, or atleast the Saints Row 5 announcement? I mean if it doesn't release in three months then it's pretty clear there's a longer time between releases than SR3 and 4, right?
Btw. Just because a delay isn't visible, doesn''t mean that other games didn't get pushed back because of an remaster. You have no idea if a game is being developed until it's announced, and if it's delayed from pre alpha production, of course they're not going to announce it, they don't even have much of a game. I mean whenever most games are announced in the industry, they atleast have quite a bit of content put into them. The games aren't complete but they've got playable sections. When Skyrim first announced, it was days later that we saw videos showing off gameplay. Same with Saints Row 3 and 4, etc. Just about every game. When Battlefield Hardline was leaked months before E3, it was under the code name Omaha with a video showing off the games content. Rarely is a game announced with just a name and a logo, and a lot of the time, even if it is just a name and logo, it's not too long before we see some actual content.
