I feel like I missed some, but here we go again!
1) Could Consoles Do a Yearly Model?
One, this is like a duh yes and a duh no question. Cause first off, yeah, a new console every year would be hell for developers…but don’t we get new versions of consoles like every two or three years? I heard that Sony is releasing a super slim PS3, when I feel like the slim just came out. We have a 3DS XL only like a year after the launch of the 3DS. I don’t the frequency, but I know we had a lot of PSP models. I’m not saying that Marcus isn’t right that if we were to get the Wii U for example, and that it would each year a new feature would be included in a new model developers would absolutely hate it. Also, the PS1 to PS3 three year analogy is stupid and doesn’t make any sense because I don’t think it really tackles the issue being asked. Yes, MAJOR leaps in technology would be hell for business but at that rate HOLY CRAP that would be amazing. This may be nitpicky, but I think my Wii U analogy is a lot more appropriate and doesn’t really take into account that drastic leap in technology which renders each console obsolete because that wouldn’t happen (it’d be like jumping from a lan line to a iPhone 5 in one year), but rather smaller updates and new ways to use slightly better technology (like jumping from an iPhone 4S to an Iphone 5).
2) Bayonetta 2 on the Wii U.
Oh sure, Bayonetta 2 you didn’t like, it wasn’t for you but you respect the ones that do but Skyward Sword was a piece of crap Zelda game (he says that in the last video I posted of him). Marcus, you make me want to bang my head into a wall.
Okay, apparently SEGA is still working on this game as advisors, but otherwise is being published by Nintendo. I didn’t know that so when Marcus talked about how this was a good move for SEGA I was like “wuh?”. Nintendo has long since realized that they need the “hardcore gamer” to situate dominance in the market and while I think they knew this all along (some early Wii games were clearly meant to grab the attention of the hardcore gamer), turned out that many gamers were pretty shallow and would rather have shiny over substances. Now, a Nintendo console is not only on even terms with the others, they have surpassed them with new inputs. This means that developers no longer have to compromise size and appearance for innovative ideas, this means we can get a Conduit with Halo Reach style graphics, a larger more open Red Steel, all that fun stuff. IF anything, the “Wii” version will no longer be synonymous with the less version but now with the more version, since extra features are abound thanks to the control pad.
Got to be honest though, I just can’t grasp why people hate Nintendo. I mean, I understand it when you’re like, 12, but as you get older, shouldn’t you grow out of that phase? Hell, I love the Xbox. Don’t own one, but I believe that it is better than the PS3 in terms of how it operates and when comparing Kinect to Move, but I only think that because I have access to both (I own a PS3 mainly for free online play). So while I get that people might now have liked the Wii because it didn’t have the power to compete, now what’s the reason to? Do you hate having more?
3) Unfinished Games
While I know a lot of people have complained about the PS3 version, mine ran pretty well. I’ve heard tales of Skyrim taking like, forever to load but I think a couple of minutes is the longest for me and a few crashes but that sometimes happens on any game.
Also, I’d imagine that the more time you work on a project the more money it would take. I wonder if Bethesda even could take like that 12-14 months to “fix” the PS3 version (which I played and had very little problems with, though I got it a few months after it released) while the other 2 just sat there collecting dust or just on the market. I think it just turns into cutting losses, fixing things thorough patches for them. I’m condoning this practice for other developers, but I’d imagine Sony wouldn’t make much money off of Skyrim a year after it releases though I’d admit I don’t know how all that works. But ultimately, if the games are as unplayable and unfinished as everyone makes them out to be, then really whole project should have been scrapped.
And I am just playing Devil’s advocate here, of course I don’t want a buggy game and all versions of Skyrim had some interesting bugs in it. I can understand Bethesda because they make huge games, with a lot of things going on at once, that even if you encounter a silly bug like a companion never following you again after you dismiss her or Aela the Huntress constantly talking to you, you would still look like the ass to call them lazy for it.
And finally *point point point* Marcus likes finger pointing. I mean, maybe because I’m lucky or something, but I never run into any bugs in first-party release titles. Even the infamous Nintendo ones in Other M and Skyward Sword are caused by some really specific and odd thought-processed back tracking. But either way, I don’t like all this finger pointing that Marcus does because I feel like it isn’t a solution, but a reiteration of the problem. “Developers fix your stuff”. Like all things I know money is at the heart of the issue, but when some of these titles are suppose to be known for their quality, I just don’t know what Marcus is talking about.
But one thing we can agree on. Reviewers. He thinks reviewers need to stop being so lazy and I agree (though I wouldn’t mind if they all just exploded or something less graphic but to a similar effect). And it’s more than just reviewing the 360 version for the PS3 version of Skyrim, there’s a whole lot of problems with gaming journalism that I think can only be solved by either more people taking a stand to fix it, or just by obliterating the whole thing and starting from scratch.