Hardstuck-Platinum said:
Soundwave said:
Not really. If it didn't have the GTA license it would likely fail to recoup its development cost. If what you're saying is true then Hellblade 2: Senua's Saga should be a top 10 seller this gen and Alan Wake II should also be ... and that's not even close to being reality. Senua's Saga is a flop and Alan Wake II is struggling just to break even. Other games with high end graphics have also put up middling/mediocre sales (Avatar, Star Wars Outlaws). None of the "graphics showcase" games this gen have really lit up the sales charts. If you need a billion dollars to make a big leap forward, that isn't feasible for 99% of developers even big ones and you're treading into a territory that is just stupid frankly. There's exactly 0 games on the PS5/XSX that would give me the same feeling of going from PS1 to PS2 honestly, the PS4 to PS5 leap has not been great, doesn't even feel like a real generational leap. It feels like what used to be inter-generational jumps, like going from PS2 (2000) to the original XBox (2001). That's honestly what console generations feel like now. There's nothing that really feels like a full generation beyond the last God of War or Horizon Forbidden West. If GTA6 does it, that takes a billion dollar budget to pull it off, that's just not feasible for most devs and how then are devs supposed to top GTA6? 2 billion budget? Looking at the poll, that's a pretty lopsided result to boot. Also sure there are lots of games to play, but that doesn't mean I want just random games to play. If I'm a Zelda fan or something it does suck waiting 10 years in between games. |
Zkuq said:
Hard disagree. I'm as sure as I can possibly be that GTA would be successful even with somewhat oudated visuals technically, as long as its visual design was spot-on. Even kind of realistic-looking games seem to have a lot of wiggle room in terms of visual design, and I feel like it's probably greatly underutilized. Maybe a game like GTA would suffer if it went back a full gen, but it will absolutely not need to be among the most advanced games out there. In fact, GTA V is probably a great example of this: it was stunning when it was released, but the majority of its sales must have come at times when it hasn't been a top-tier game technically. |
The problem with these stances is, is that you're basically saying that all of Rockstars had work in making it the most graphically and technically advanced game was just a waste of time and money because "it would have been successful anyway". They know what they need to do to make the most successful game possible, more than the people on this forum do. |
It would probably be 'the most successful game' even with lesser investment in visuals because it's GTA. Of course investing even more into the visuals is going to make it even more popular, but it's probably also coming at a huge cost. Note that I'm making no claims about whether it's worth the cost, because I honestly don't know. I'm just saying that as long as they don't really screw it up, the game's going to absolutely huge almost regardless of what exactly they do.
JRPGfan said:
Its like people that play Counter strike at 400+ fps.
What is the point? Like if you don't even have a 144hz monitor? I don't get it.... and I'm not into shooters anyways. |
I think in at least CS:GO framerate had a significant impact on how the game felt to play, so for maximum competitive advantage, you'd need a really high framerate, even much higher than your monitor supports. I think they improved that in CS2 and you don't need as high framerate anymore, but I don't know how well that panned out. I don't really play CS so I'm not familiar with the details.
