Source: www.analoghype.com
Ever since this past E3, where we were shown God Of War III for the first time, people have profusely salivating over it. Kratos's bloody path quenches the thirsts of gamers everywhere as they long to rip someone in half for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The game is looking great, there's no questioning that, but should it be worried about stiff competition? Ever since the series first debuted on the PlayStation 2, it was long believed that this is how third person action titles were supposed to be done. It had all of the necessary pieces, seemingly: a bad ass main character, bad ass supporting characters, bad ass sex, a bad ass story, bad ass demons, blood, orbs, combos, de-limb-eration (that's not a word, I just don't like using dismemberment: that's reserved for Dead Space) and everything else you can think of.
I pose this question because I've seen a lot of comments (across various message boards around the web) expressing general distaste for the lack of progression with the God of War series. Having not played the E3 demo myself, I cannot say whether or not the game is a huge step above God of War 2. The feeling, though, is that, while the series as a whole has never been bad, some players feel like they've been there and done that.
Dante's Inferno has long been dubbed a God Of War clone, with some even going as far as saying that it surpasses God Of War in terms of gameplay and original boss battles (I cannot comment on this, as I've not played the game). If I were to use my better judgment, however, I'd be inclined to say that it does seem similar to God of War. Does that make it better? No. Does that make it worse? Absolutely not. If this game does indeed turn out to be better than God of War 3, what does that mean for its success on the PlayStation 3? Surely, if Dante's Inferno steals thunder away from the game early on, will casual gamers (God Of War is still largely seen as a cult classic) set the title up for failure? Failure, of course, is dependent on what you believe comprises a game's success, but if we are comparing the 2, then the game that does worse than the other would generally be seen as a failure by the general public (as history would dictate with other franchise battles).
It's no coincidence that Dante's Inferno is coming out in the very same quarter (possibly weeks ahead) of God Of War III, and I'm certain EA's desire for success with this title isn't limited to just the prospect of how much money they can rake in. We see EA revamping their profile, rejuvenating their portfolio, and refreshing the market with great titles being released in nearly every single genre you can think of (Dragon Age on the RPG front, Battlefield Bad Company 2 for your First Person Shooter, and games like Assassin's Creed 2, all of their sports titles, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, and so on). You get the point. EA is looking to dominate the game market almost ENTIRELY, and this is just judging off of the sheer variety that they now offer in this new age of gaming.
This isn't to say both companies aren't measuring their own success, however. God of War III may hit a certain point and the critics will consider it a financial success (unfortunately critical success, while important, has very little weight in the gaming world these days), and EA will gauge their own in similar ways, but you've got to think EA wants to shut down all competitors in every genre that they've stepped foot in, and God of War III most certainly won't be an exception. Does Sony have competition? Yes. Will it matter in the long run? Maybe. We won't know for sure until both titles are released, but at least we'll all be able to experience both of these great looking games soon enough.
