A sequel to WOS would of not only redeemed the first game but possibly the entire franchise after the dissappointment of SM3. Instead someone decided to release Friend or Foe a year later, I can't even begin to understand what even happened during the development of that game. I think the people who made Friend or Foe are the same developers that made Iron Man 2 the game-----the second worst game I've ever played on any console.
WoS was released in 2008.....Friend or Foe,was released in 2007....
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/Dick, 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.