Dgc1808 said:
axumblade said:
Dgc1808 said:
GodOfWar_3ever said:
EncodedNybble said:
Kantor said:
I really don't see why people were so attached to inFamous 1's Cole. He was ugly, his voice was more gravelly than Batman, he had no personality whatsoever, his animation was terrible, and he looked plain ridiculous when he became evil.
inFamous 2's Cole looks much better. I don't care if he isn't a regular human with superpowers. He's actually a semi-decent character this time around.
|
I thought the VA in inFAMOUS was great and he did have personality (this one might too, who knows). The animation could have been better but that's not really the issue.
If they cleaned up the animation, improved graphics etc, that's understandable. I mean they changed mario from SMB -> Mario Galaxy but it is still Mario. He still had the same basic shape, hat, etc. They made him a little more round, but overall, still mario and anyone could tell.
If I showed you a screen shot of this "new" Cole without telling you it was Infamous 2 and the screen shot didn't involve lightning, and asked "Which character is this from a PS3 exclusive?" I doubt you'd say Cole McGraph. That is the issue, it's just not the same character. He may be a better character, who knows, but it's not the same character and that is a large disconnect to me. I preordered the original, I don't think I'll even buy this one (I'm serious) unless they give some reason plot wise (that isn't lame) why the look changed.
|
That is just crazy. Gameplay is what matters boy. There will (obviously) be no explaination.
Get over it. For some reason, people hate change. Look at the hate on VGC 3.0, which has now grown on me. Everytime Facebook changes, people form groups to get it back to what it was.
JUST GET OVER IT !
If they try to explain why the look changed, THAT will be extremely lame.
We'll play inFAMOUS 2 (which sounds far superior to inFAMOUS 1 based on the Game Informer preview) without you.
If you really were an InFAMOUS fan, you will probably end up buying inFAMOUS 2 anyway, so no worries. 
|
That is just crazy. This isn't mario where no on cares about the story because Nintendo never bothers to put one in. inFamous had a story that many people enjoyed. To see the main character--the key part of that story-- completely altered in the sequal is a major turn off. If GoW3 started with Kratos suddenly in Egypt with yellow paint instead of red, a full head of hair and going after the titans for some reason the dev's will not explain to you, how would you feel about that? I'm guessing you wouldn't care because they're not changing the gameplay... or does GoW's story matter to you?
If gameplay is all that matters to you then what difference would it make if SuckerPunch suddenly understood why people were pissed about the character change and switched Cole back? Heck, why do you bother to acknowledge those that complain about the change if it means nothing to you. Furthermore, why do you compliment his new look? BECAUSE IT MATTERS.
People become fans of something for many different reasons. There are members on this site that care about nothing but gameplay. There are members here that won't even touch an RPG unless it has a brilliant story. Heck, there's a guy I can think of that praises his games based on how the characters looks... Not everyone sees things your way.
|
Apparently you are the same way...
I honestly think he most likely got the renovation because Sucker Punch now are getting enough money to design the game they wanted to in the first place......Lets face it, Sucker Punch had to prove themselves by making infamous into a really good game. They've always been in the shadow of Naughty Dog and Insomniac and so when the game was a success, Sony became a little more friendly with the money they'll support them with. Not to mention, I have a feeling they are getting some pointers from ND and Insomniac as well as other Sony studios this time around.
|
The first highlight: No... I'd like to see how you even back that up... My concern about the changes has always been about how it will effect the story, not just how the dude looks.
The second highlight: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/25/gdc09-an-infamous-interview-with-sucker-punchs-brian-fleming/
"It's a long project for us. It's, you know, we're not the biggest team and when we wanted to do this we kind of knew where the budget was going to fall, and we actually asked Sony if it was okay to do a smaller team, three-year plus thing rather than a "let's try and cram it out in two years and get big."
I think, for us, it was the right choice.
I mean, for a big, open environment we didn't outsource the art -- we didn't. We made this game -- our studio."
Rather than have a large team that can handle a project like infamous in two years [or in short, naughty dog's style of development they used for the uncharted games, and likely the Jak games considering the very little time between the second and third entry], SuckerPunch TURNED DOWN resources from SONY to handle the project the way the were comfortable with. Then said they were HAPPY with the results.
|
