21 Replies Latest reply: Mar 18, 2013 12:29 PM by PunyParker RSS

How come no one liked Web of Shadows?

I don't get it. I see a lot of negativity aimed at this game. I thought it was one of (if not) the best Spider-Man game I ever played. But not that many people were into it and then they never made a sequel and skipped ahead to two other titles and a movie based one (which is fine since I knew it was going to happen anyway). So, what's the deal? Where did the game go wrong for people?

  • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
    PunyParker

    What? i loved the game!!

     

    Nearly everybody say WOS SM2 and Ultimate are the top 3.....

    • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
      NewsLad

      This is one of the issues you can encounter on the internet: certain communities may agree on one thing, while another community thinks the opposite. Since like-minded people gather to discuss things, it's not so weird, but it does make for some "culture shock" when one person who has a good impression of Thing A strolls into an area where everyone is hating on Thing A. 

       

      That's a big reason why we (the HeroHQ staff) maintain separate presences in multiple places online: the comments you hear on the message boards don't always match what you hear on social networks like Facebook, and Activision studios also do in-person playtesting before games are released so they get the opinions of people who may like the games but not be online.

       

      Community managers and dev teams will also regularly read through articles, reviews, comments, and message boards on sites we don't control just so we can get a broader sense of where everyone's "head is at."  

       

      Whoops, sorry for the derail there -- this is just an interesting topic to me.   What were some of your favorite features of WOS?

      • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?

        WoS is my favourite Spidey game.

             The gameplay was great, especially the combat. You could really mix up the combos and get creative with the 3 types of combat. The extra layer of switching suits on the fly got me just beating up the thugs for hours. Spider man should be able to dance around his enemies. That was one thing i didn't like about TASM game. Spidey isn't all business like Batman when it comes to combat so the battle system felt out of place.

             The web swinging was good (although not as good as Spidey 2). When I saw web rush for the first time I challenged myself to do those tricks in WoS and imo it looked and felt better. There was a lot of things that you could do while swinging besides hold RT the entire time.

             The voice acting was way better in TASM but that was really the only area that is better. The story in WoS wasn't great but at least it was more than 5 hours to complete and more than 15 to 100%.

             I just want more control in my Spidey games because pressing a button and watching the game play itself is not fun and not worth $60. That said I can see the potential for a good game when I played TASM.

    • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?

      Not everyone hated it

      it was a 50/50 game where some really loved it while others really hated it

      I loved the game but Ill just show you some reviews on why some people hate it or just had some gripes

      IGN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVwkiy0bZX8 who I mind u if u really pay attention to the gameplay in their video they suck at the game lol

      xplay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gG_zB5E1Dw

      UltimateChance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkgqVZHz0M8 now this is 8 minutes long but he talks about his 1st gripe in the intro and and around 1:50 and this guy loves the combat

      gamesweasel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDohXMLu31o

      and last but not least the gaminggoose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQNqllyad2g

  • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
    Voidy

    I thought WOS was great for its gameplay. However, it failed in almost every other aspect. The general idea behind the plot of the story was great but the way it was carried out was dissapointing. The missions were all very same despite the choices you made in the game. Sure, maybe you talked to a different character to get them or maybe you got to see a different cutscene, but that was it. Also the voice actor for Spidey made me want to punch my screen. Shattered Dimensions got it right when they they used the voice actors from the old shows. My point is that WOS had great gameplay. The Combat, webswinging, the graphics, and random crime all made it worthwhile as a video game. However, it didn't capture the ideal spiderman experience. That is what kept it from being great.

    • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?

      when I first heard his voice I was like

      who is this Spider-Man or the abandoned chipmunk from Alvin and the Chipmunks?

      but I started to not care as the story progressed

       

      For me however the missions never got boring for me because of the combat but thats just me and the other side of people who really liked the game. I was one of the few people who wasnt hoping for something big from Spidey during the time because I just wanted to play a new Spidey game with a new combat system and this delivered for me. Im also not saying people should'nt be dissapointed with the game either because some people want different things than others. Well besides, maybe I also didnt mind as much because of the fact Im a fighting game genre type person anyway. Like how MvC is less story more fighting but technically theres a story behind it. Dont get me wrong I want to see a full packaged Spidey game experience in the future because I'm also a big Spidey fan. It was just that in 2008 my PS2 broke and Spider-Man 3 was all I had on my 360 and I didnt like it that much so I was like please give me a spidey game with different bad guy types and better combat. In the end its 2012 and I play Spider-Man Web of Shadows more than I play Batman Arkham City even though clearly Batman has the better full packaged experience. but its after you beat the game and all the side missions I was talking about. Because Spidey had a wider environment and the whole place is filled with symbiotes to fight. Like I said just my opinion

       

      The only thing I wished he did during side mission or free roam combat was for him to use quips during battles, he only did it on the main storyline.

  • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
    Rei_Entri

    I can only speak for myself, I'm not sure what anyone else thought. I thought:

     

    The Good:

    -There were a lot of Marvel references and characters, this was good because it made the game feel like it was in a Marvel Universe.

    -The boss battles were diverse. For example, Wolverine quized you on how much of a fan you were of the comics. That was a very cool concept and very fun to play.

    -Summon characters. A great idea for how to implement a team up into a Sandbox game.

    -A serious tone. People died in that game, and serious concepts were implied like death, murder or sex.

    -A lot of different things to do in the game. You go from fighting gangs, to rescuing flying ships, to breaking into prisons.

     

    The "Meh":

    -I liked some of the voice actors. Spider-Man sounded really annoying sometimes.

    -Why couldn't we get Venom in his classic suit?

    -Why was Symbiote suit Spider-Man more purple than black?

    -The plot didn't really make sense, nor was it explained well.

     

    The Bad:

    -There were more characters in the PSP version.

    -The game felt like there were more things going to be included, and that they were cut out. I can't go into detail about it all, but things like enemies spawning beyond where you could go. Or certain areas, seeming reachable, but blocked off for no reason.

    -Wait so Venom could create more symbiotes at mass numbers and did so for no real reason? After doing it, he kills himself because he couldn't control all of the symbiotes that he created? But weren't all the symbiotes part of him? If the main motivation of the main villain doesn't add up, that was something they should have noticed LONG before even beta testing the game.

    -SOO many glitches

    -No replay value. As in no infinite crime, and the city is destroyed anyway by the end of the game.

    -No replay value. As in, once the story is completed, nothing new happens in terms of plot. And the "choices" don't change it up enough to warrant a second play through as Spider-Man doesn't act "evil" just less compassionate.

    -No replay value. As in no DLC. Like extras characters or missions.

    -Practically no costumes or extras.

    -MJ is mad at Peter throughout most of the game, even if you pick good choices. For seemingly no other reason but to create drama.

    -"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." Wouldn't that mean ensuring your wife's safety before trying to save the rest of the city? Likewise, wouldn't it mean not taking power(the black suit) if it will make you unresponsible?

    -You can beat WOS without ever using the Black Suit. For a game built on choice, wouldn't it have made more sense to give you an option to continue to wear the Black Suit or to remove it?

    -Spider-Man says he knows what it is the whole game, but never really tells anyone until it's too late. Based on conversations with Luke Cage and Wolverine, this Spider-Man exists in a timeline somewhere just before Civil War. So he's no kid and he's no idiot...Why didn't he tell someone?

  • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
    TheNewSuperHero

    Ok I just downloaded this game from XBL (having sold off my disc copy back in '09) and I have to say there is a surprising amount of detail that went into this game (the ways spidey moves all thoughout the city, destructible environment, trivia questions, optional conversations, etc.). After playing this game again in so long here's how I felt about it:

     

     

    1.Movement---------- There is a real sense of weight/realism when it comes to web-swinging (for once I actually moved the camera to see if the web was attached to anything and behold it was!). Not to mention the variety of different ways spiderman could move through the environment by wall crawling, wall running, wall sliding, wall jumping, web zipping, dual web zipping, vertical pole swinging, horizontal pole swinging, web yo-yo, crawling up a web line.....the different animations go on and on. Only a couple of things were missing; a sprint button, the over the shoulder camera angle from TASM (I can't stand the camera being so far back in all the previous spiderman games) and the precision of "web-rush" to make the movements much more fluid.

     

    2.Art Style--------Graphically the game is good. I feel that it tries to blend the style of the comic book-based games in with the realism of the movie based games. Its an effective medium that tries to distinguish itself from the realistic aesthetic of most other games without going for a straight up cartoon/cel-shaded look. The visuals of WOS (from the characters to the city) seem to pop more than the visuals of TASM which looked fairly flat and uninteresing. The developers may want to continue with this "stylized but not cel-shaded" art style in future spiderman games, other games that seem to use the same sort of graphics include Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite. But if they could get a spiderman game running on the Unreal Engine, then graphics are the last thing you'd have to worry about in future titles.

     

    3.Voice Acting/Dialogue-------Almost everyone except Spiderman and MJ sounded fine (which is sorta ironic since their the main characters). There's a lot of emotion to Spiderman's voice but its almost too much to the point where he starts to sound unbearable and MJ just sounded dull. But this little issue can easily be fixed by simply using the voice cast from any of Beenox's 3 Spiderman games like Shattered Dimensions, Edge of Time,or TASM (you gotta give credit to Beenox for knowing how to pick fantastic voice actors).

     

    4.Story---------Basic set up of Spiderman needing to save New York from his arch-nemesis. The only problem being that it was never fully explained why spiderman was able to steal part of the symbiote away from Venom and control the black suit's influence. They also didn't explain why the city got infected from Spiderman's encounter with Venom in the first place. But the more serious tone that Rei_Entri mentioned was a definite plus to the games credit (characters dying, the sexual tension with Black Cat and lets not forget Spidey ripping Wolverine in half).

     

    5.Missions---------They tend to get a bit repetitve after a while, fighting street thugs, fighting Kingpin's mercenaries, fighting symbiotes. Most of it was combat based, so there wasn't much variety to the gameplay aside from beating up enemies. Which isn't at all bad considering most games pride themselves on their combat, it's just that the combat in WOS isn't as expansive as it could be.

     

    6.Combat----------Being able to transition from ground, to air, then wall combat all seamlessy was fun and engaging (not to mention true to character), though it suffers from over-use of the web-strike and general button mashing. I much prefer the free-flow combat of TASM over WOS, but I feel that the developers need to combine the free-flow style of TASM with the "transitioning" combat of WOS. Only with Spiderman could a game pull off the excitement and adrenaline of a hybrid fighting system like that, doing something that the Batman/Assassin's Creed games can never do.

     

    7. Replay Value------After you beat the story missions there's nothing to do (not even any unlockable costumes/concept art). You can play the game again to experience all 4 different endings but once you do then like I said there's nothing to do. I guess the developers forgot to include free-roam mode after you played through the story. Games like Assassin's Creed, Batman Arkham City, Infamous, Prototype, GTA, etc. all have a free roam mode aside from the story-driven missions where you can endlessly beat up enemies and traverse the open world. I don't get why any of the spiderman games have yet to include this, just repeatedly spawn enemy types all over the map and call it a day.......that's pretty much all their is to making free-roam mode....... all open world games do this.

     

     

    In truth this game is an under-rated gem of the spiderman franchise thats only problem was bad timing. There was a LOT of hype surrounding the release of Spiderman 3 and it was disappointing (movie and game). Spiderman 3 the game had numerous technical flaws that made it almost unplayable so the general reception for the game was negative. People still had a bad taste from spiderman 3, so when WOS was released only a year later it's not surprising that the reception was negative once again (the release of Batman:Arkham Asylum shortly afterward certainly didn't help either). Web of Shadows was the game that should of been released instead of spiderman 3. It felt like Activision's apology given how similar it was to the overall theme of the movie game; spidey fights Venom while struggling under the influence of the black suit. If Shaba was allowed more time to work on WOS it could've been almost perfect, rather than releasing the game in 08' they should've released it in 09' or 10'. That's partly the problem Beenox seems to of had, rather than to release TASM a year after Edge of Time in an attempt to "apologize" for its poor perfomance they should of just focused all teams on the release of one title (whether Edge of Time or TASM) rather than to split teams and try to make both.

     

    Honestly I gotta say that I'm very glad to have this game again because now I realize how amazing it is to play.

    • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
      Rei_Entri

      I mostly agree with TNSH. My fixes to the game?

       

      -Like he said, pop in some random crime. The city doesn't have to be magically repaired. In fact, I'd have loved to see a recovering NYC. SHIELD is around to monitor repairs, more and more people returning to work, etc.

      -More characters. Activision obviously had the rights, because there are more characters in the PSP version. So we could have got "episodes" or "missing chapters" via DLC.  With more characters, that means new summon characters and new bosses.

      -Fix certain bugs or bad gameplay elements. Like if you're purposely not fighting enemies or doing anything but trying to have your own fun, flying enemies will still chase and attack you. And sometimes they spawn near you, so it's not like you can always avoid them.

      -Along with adding "missing chapters", more of the story could be explained. SHIELD was experimenting on Brock? That's why he could duplicate himself and the symbiotes? Parker could control his because maybe the real symbiote was attached to him, while Brock had yet another duplicate? Something to make the story make more sense.

       

      I think that would have been enough to redeem the game.

  • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
    Rei_Entri

    A sequel would have been amazing. And yes, would have absolved it entirely. I honestly think that they're not trying to make "the perfect Spider-Man game". If we just look at, like you said, their choices or compare them with other companies. Rockstedy, for example, actually said that they were doing their best to give players the best experience possible.

     

    Rocksteady made a game with amazing graphics. A story that TOTALLY fit the main character, main villains, secondary villains, location and tone of the game. The gameplay made sense to that story, but was based on the main character and gave players a sense of being that character. The world was sandbox, but made linear enough so as not to confuse. With plenty of easter eggs included into gameplay and mini-games (Riddler's trophies).

     

    The sequel just added to that pattern. With more famous characters, more mini-games and side-quests and even adding in other playable characters. Mind you, not odd playable characters like Bob Kane(Stan Lee equivalent) or Croc(Rhino). No. They gave fans Robin/Tim, Nightwing/****, and Catwoman/Selina. Fan favorite playable characters. That's like giving fans Venom/Brock, Venom/Thompson and Black Cat to play as!

     

    Spider-Man 3 and then Friend or Foe, like WOS, could have been infinitely better with just some changes. Friend or Foe was intended to be a child friendly game, so that didn't even need MANY changes...

    • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
      TheNewSuperHero

      The perfect spiderman game is going to take a long while to ever accomplish (in fact its 100% certain that it will never be accomplished because there is no such thing as a perfect game), Batman:AA and Batman:AC are really good but even those aren't what you would call the perfect Batman game. Though when looking at the batman games you can tell that they are definately on the right track to making a better Batman game, they've managed to successfully figure out a formula for what exactly a Batman game is supposed to be. The free-flow combat, stealth, detective mode, etc. are all staples of the franchise that their not going to axe away for no clear reason. The spiderman games have experimenting with what works and what doesn't, their still trying to figure out whether or not the games should be free-roam and that should be an obvious answer. There's no need to keep experimenting when you have at least 6 solid spiderman games each with it's own individual assets. At this point all you need to do is bring them all together and boom. You'll finally have the formula for a better spiderman game.

  • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
    Rei_Entri

    I agree and disagree. Perfect is a word, and in this use of the word, yes, it's something of an embellishment. As a phrase, "The perfect x game", is something achievable and real. The Arkham games are the best games would possibly get for Batman at this time. They have great realistic graphics (which relate to the comics, films, etc), a large assemble of characters, great characters, and have implemented famous areas of the city without pushing the boundaries of what the engine can handle. So a full sandbox Gotham? Probably would not have worked out? Arkham City works with the plot and was even directly hinted at in the first game through secret files. To be the best game we could possibly get meets the criteria of the phrase.

     

    So without arguing semantics or phrasing, we can both agree that what's needed is very obvious. The experiments and trials don't need to continue. Whether it's achievable, or just a concept....They should be trying to make it regardless.

     

    If the professor gives me an assignment or project, I try to make the best one in class. I don't know what my classmates aren't going to do or what ideas they have, but I do the best I can with what I have. I don't think Activision is necessarily doing that.

    • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
      TheNewSuperHero

      No developer sets out to make a bad game (why bother to waste the time and resources). Believe it or not Activision is certainly trying to make the "best spiderman game ever" otherwise they would of dropped the license years ago and never would've bothered to continue wasting time and money on the franchise, they're are plenty of superhero licenses out there they could of picked up but instead they decided to stick with the ol' webhead. So just because we haven't seen a spiderman game that trumps what Arkham Asylum/Arkham City has done doesn't mean they aren't trying. A spidey game is very different from a batman game (even though the two are remarkably similar), possibly the most obvious being that the spidey games are open-world while the batman games have yet to reach that point (Arkham City doesn't truly count as an open-world game, it's a linear game with a big map). I don't believe I've ever seen an open world game running on the Unreal Engine looking like Gears of War, that is simply too much for the current generation of consoles to handle (Spiderman WOS didn't look half that good and it was still very buggy). TASM is the highest peak a spiderman game will be able to max out on the current crop of consoles and I gotta say I'm glad it ended on that note so that when the next generation spiderman games come out they can vastly improve upon that. Clearly Rocksteady wants to go open-world with their Batman franchise but the problem is that their limited by current-gen tech. Activision has done the best they can with what they have it's just that as the fans we want more and more, most of which is just not possible on current-gen software. So we'll simply have to wait to see what is actually "affordable" in a next-gen spiderman game.

      • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
        Rei_Entri

        Certainly, you make some valid points. No company tries to make drama or problems. Nor is it about the graphics..I think you missed where I was going with that. It doesn't have to be a top of the line game to be the best it could be. I'll get into that later. Though, I'm not going to be as optimistic for Activision as you seem to be.

         

        There are several reasons to continue with a franchise without trying to make it the best it can be and great examples of companies who have done so (see below). Also, Activision is a publisher not a developer. My argument here is that they don't seem as if they care to make "the perfect spider-man game".

         

        They seem to be in this for the cash. Shaba, Treyarch, etc have worked hard to make some pretty great games. I'm not bad mouthing the developers or teams. Just that there were some ideas and concepts that Activision should have definitely questioned. And other directions or things that Activision should have been more on top of, if they cared about their franchise.

         

        Activision switches dev teams and doesn't seem to be working toward anything with the franchise. The Batman games are tied together, for example. We will probably never see Whitney Chang again, even in a sequel. Look at the continuity between the previous movie games. Or how they went out of their way to explain that Edge of Time and Shattered Dimensions were NOT a sequel. Why wasn't it? Continuity is one of the ways that makes buying several games from a franchise legitamate.

         

        I'm not saying Activision is anything negative, I'm just saying that they don't seem to be trying to get that perfect game out there. Reason: Money. Spider-Man is the most popular Marvel character and has been so for decades. Have the licensing rights to his games means you can make money every few years without having to put much effort out.

         

        Examples of continuing a franchise without trying to make it the best it could be:

        Almost anything by Electronic Arts.

        Call of Duty series (who publishes that?)

        Street Fighter almost really any Capcom game for that matter. They are one of the companies I was directly thinking of, when I talked about a company continuing a franchise without trying to make the games the best they could be.

        WWE games

        ----------------------

        In my examples, I mentioned games that have almost universal acceptance. High reviews, heavy fandom, etc. Each company is different in how they're not trying to make the game the best. Some are reproducing the same game with trivial differences. Things like upgreated graphics or "more weapons/maps". When you look at it that way, it becomes very clear why there isn't a more definite structure to this franchise.

         

        I owned and played both Modern Warfare 2 and MW3 (yup already took it back). I think people have tried to claim those to be some of the highest selling games ever. They were the same game. Different maps? More guns? You're not making the best game you can if you're just releasing the same game. You made one good game, and now you're re-releasing it under different banners for cash. It makes sense. Just sucks for the fans.

         

        Activision, through different devs...Has basically been remaking Spider-Man 2: The Movie Game. Just like Capcom with Street Fighter 2 and SF2: Turbo, Hyper,Tournament, etc etc etc..Where the original game didn't even play like that and the other games (sequels and all), have been desperately trying to be SF2. Going so far as bringing the final boss back from the dead (at least once). Likewise, it's just been "free roam Spider-man, go!" for Activision. There's no progress, no direction, nothing to make each new game the best it could be. "The perfect Spider-Man game".

         

        Think about it: The first game with a serious attempt to break that chain was Shattered Dimensions. And critics enjoyed that game.

         

        I understand if you don't see it that way. I just don't think Activision has a reason to try to take that step in molding the series in a specific direction. They're paid to just keep making Spider-Man games to keep the character relevant. Cross promotion for other media. And it works.

         

        Let's make a COD game every year. Why not? Check this out.

        • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
          TheNewSuperHero

          I don't want to get in a whole Activision and the "evil" corporations of videogames debate here (it's a hipster argument if anything else, no offense).

           

          You can't say that you don't want to bad mouth the developers when you claim that they don't care about the products they make, no one and I mean NO ONE gets into the videogame developing business for money only (the time and effort it takes is not worth it at all). The people behind these games have a real passion for the medium that goes beyond just a mere paycheck at the end of the job (anyone who's ever done serious animation would fully understand this). As the fans and customers it's extremely easy to sit back in our seats and type out all these ideas for everything the next spiderman game should have, but the fact is not a single one of us truly understands what it means to make games for a living. Anyone can be a game developer on a message board, but in practice it's an entirely different story. There are limitations/restrictions one has to deal with in terms of deadlines, funding, proper equipment and not to mention the huge sacrifice of time it takes to make these properties (why else do gamers think that when the credits start rolling there is always a shout-out to the developers friends and families for putting up with them being away for so long). That's why I say again the "perfect spiderman game" is not and will not be achieved due to the limitations/restrictions these developers have (there is no "perfect" anything, the batman games are good their REALLY GOOD but their not perfect and never will be). To expect a spiderman game to include all of the things we've listed in these forums would take decades worth of time and money (again if anyone's ever done animation you'd get why I say this). To say that these games aren't progressing would be a gross misunderstanding and we're in no real postion to say whether or not each entry in the franchise wasn't the best it could be considering that none of us has ever worked on a spiderman game. As the fans it's understandable that there are certain things we'd like to see added/improved in the franchise and it's always good to listen th customer feedback, however these people are not forced to work on these games in any way, shape or form (regardless if it's cross promotion or not). If the "fans" continue to make it seem that the feel the developers know nothing about what their doing and that they can do better, then what will happen is that there will be no more spiderman games to be released. If someone wants to spend their time and money to make these games then they'll finally have the chance, but considering that Spiderman and Batman are the only licensed superhero games on the market (out of the dozens of other popular superheroes) it's highly unlikely you'd see a game adaptation anytime soon if the development was left to us. Where's the superman games at? or green lantern? or iron man? or wonder woman? These franchises would be lucky enough to even get a movie tie-in, never to mention a stand alone game. Spidey is lucky enough to of had several non-movie based games and most of which have been pretty good, so we should be grateful that any company would even bother to spend their time and their money on a franchise whose sales must pale in comparison to the AAA game releases. COD gets made every year because the sales are ASTRONOMICAL every year, regardless of what the "internets" say.  It's just smart business practice to do so, but this message board isn't about COD so I will get back on topic.

           

          Bottom line, I'm not optimistic for Activision I just have respect for the development process it takes to make these games even half good, because it seems that "gamers" these days have no clue what it really takes to make a successful game (not to sound mean). I don't expect a perfect spiderman game because I know a perfect spiderman is simply not possible. The perfect spiderman game would have to be a device that would allow me to literally enter into the Marvel Universe and become Spiderman in a wierd Matrix/Inception kind of way (I know it sounds crazy but that is the perfect spiderman game). What I do expect is what've I always expected "a good fun game to play that hopefully improves upon what was done last time". Right now it's far too early for me to tell whether or not I can say that for the next spiderman game considering I haven't seen or played it (but I won't bash the developers/publishers in the meantime.) You're just setting yourself up for disappointment if you expect a perfect spiderman game or most of the other features we've discussed in these forums implemented. If after the next console generation has ended and there has been literally no change from TASM then I concede to you that you were right about Activision all along.

          • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
            Rei_Entri

            "Hipster argument"? What does that even mean? Corporations and marketing have existed long before a bunch of guys decided to start drinking Pabst and wearing hoodies. I can say that I'm not bad mouthing them, because it's not a crime to try to make money. You know the process behind many animated tv shows from the 80's? How can we sell action figures. If Timmy likes a show and wants a toy based on it, he'll buy practically anything we make. Playmates didn't "not care" about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they just knew that I and many others was still buy a "Undercover Donatello", even though I had three other figures of the same character.

             

            I'd rather not have this slide from a discussion into an argument, but you sound somewhat naive about these companies. Saying that everyone involved in gaming loves gaming is false. Objectively false. We can argue about Activision trying their hardest, or being about cash, for days. Until it comes to light, it's a useless argument.

             

            As for perfection? I already explained that you're arguing semantics, and yet you're still trying to argue that a perfect game can not exist. No it can't, not with that attitude. If you need literal phrasing in order for discussion to continue, then that is a problem. It's not a hard concept. "A perfect game" refers to something being the best it could be. Something where the nitpickers and complainers are ignored and overall, it's considered great. Like Street Fighter 2, Spider-Man 2 or COD:MW.

             

            My complaint is complacency. Those games come out and then companies do nothing more than to reitterate those steps. Yes, there are literal changes between SF2 and SF4, overall, though...it is very clear that Capcom is just trying to make another SF4. Why? It's easy money. That's Capcom's point. That is THE point, TNSH. I doubt you have any more understanding of the developement process than I, Tim or many others on here have. Your respect for that process has nothing to do with why the process is there. They're a company. They're not your friends.

             

            "The proof is in the pudding" as they say. I don't need 10+ for your validation, I can see that I'm right, now. You tell me how Edge of Time did not try to replicate the success of Shattered dimensions. Or the directionless sandbox spider-man games aren't trying to be the next SM2. If you can't see it, as I said, it's not my problem.

             

            The sad truth of the world is that it is all for money. Everything is marketing. Everything is about money. They're not making games because they think it's cool and want to change the world. They want to pay their bills, and many hope to become someone like Jason Rubin. They may like what they do, but they like getting paid a lot more. Though, now I'm going to just start repeating myself.

            • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
              TheNewSuperHero

              If you firmly believe you're right then more power to you. At the end of the day all that truly matters IS whether or not you enjoy the games and will proceed to buy them (there's no reason why you or anyone for that matter should be coming onto message boards seeking validation of their opinions with complete strangers). And if you know that you're being cheated into buying mere remakes of the same game you've played over and over again then the best way to voice your complaints is to simply not buy them (companies take a lot more notice when their sales figures drop). The fact that the consumer consciously buys a product they feel is just the same repackaged item they recieved last time tells the developers that clearly the person likes this product and that if they continue to make them then the customer will continue to buy them. And it goes without saying that businesses like Activision are out to make money (we all are) but if you feel that they are incompetent to handle the franchise for any longer then by all means do whatever you think is necessary to change that but as I said before it's real easy for us to make a couple of posts in a forum when we're not the actually having to put in any sort of work toward making these products (that's what I meant by respecting the devs/publishers). Regardless of all that I'm going to squash this potential internet "debate" (which I have neither the time nor interest for), the bottom line is whether or not we choose to buy these games (whether it progressed the franchise, set it back, or hasn't done anything at all and is just the same thing being made over and over),no further explanation or reasoning is needed after that.

               

              Since this thread is on the topic of Web of Shadows and we've been discussing a "perfect spiderman game" here's a thought, combine all the features that Web of Shadows had (combat, decision making, serious tone, etc.) with everthing that TASM has (web-rush, stealth, up-close camera angle, etc.) and we should get an exceptional spiderman game (it won't be exactly perfect but at least they're on the right track), ff not then at least it'll still be fun to play.

  • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
    MaxCash

    I also love Web of Shadows and I play it from time to time. In my opinion WoS had the potential to be the BEST SPIDER-MAN GAME OF ALL TIME. Great controls, decent graphic style and a huge city. If they just included the side missions, multiple story lines and day-night-cycle  which made Spider-Man 2 so great it would be my favorite Spider-Man game.

  • Re: How come no one liked Web of Shadows?
    Spiderhero128

    The game was pretty good in structure, it just REALLY needed to be ironed out. I should also point out that there WAS a sequel in development at some point before it got canned.