What is the point of making 4 games with an identical formula?
After DR1 there wasn't really anywhere more you can take this gameplay mechanic, I would have much preferred an optimized port of DR1 that fixed the long load times and bad AI rather than DR3 or DR1 Christmas Edition.
I appreciated the addition of Co-Op in Dead Rising 2. The weapons combinations were also a neat idea and gave a purpose to gathering some of the more useless items.
After that though I have no idea. The existence of Off the Record and anything past is so strange to me. I mean, Off the Record was pretty cool and Frank was great in it, but it was really fucking redundant.
The same could apply to Grand Theft Auto or pretty much any franchise ever.
Multi player was all they could really add and they could have done that in a theoretical DR1 remake, DR2 was still worthwhile but the franchise was fully milked after that.
People complained about no Frank.
The core mechanic of DR is very limited compared to most other games, "shepard bad AI to a safe space within a limited time" doesn't really hold up as well as an open world game like GTA. DR tried to pivot to open world to fix this but then it stops being DR.
Off the Record is what Dead Rising 2 should had been.
should I turn on updates for windows 10, so I can play this when it comes out?
...
OTR is just a pointless rerun of DR1, at least DR2 tried to shake it up a bit by taking away the camera.
yes
Works out allright for Nintendo.
Nintendo games generally have emergent gameplay, something like DR is very railroaded (which isn't necessarily bad).
To make it less and less clunky and in general make additions and adjustments to the mechanics, I imagine. The first game was stiff as fuck. Otherwise, I dunno. Fucking money maybe?
Despite the first games problems, it is still the best one and easily one of the best of that generation. Its clunky gameplay, AI, UI and so on was part of its charm. DR2 was a worthy successor but still couldn't match up, OTR was good but just more of the same. 3 was a trainwreck so I have little hope for 4.
Really, they nailed it the first go. Only a remake could work, but even then you likely ruin what made DR1 special.
More content? I don't mind if a game uses the game formula as long as it gives me a lot of stuff to do.
Because a franchise shouldn't stray from its formula, dumb OP, just improve.
but why?
What is the point of making 4 games with an identical formula?
What is the point of making over 9000 games with an identical formula?
I don't know ask pokemon how it worked out.
Fuck you faget and your stupid fucking mindset
Dead Rising is one of the only video games series that isnt fucking dead to me yet because of that very reason
What is the point of making 10 games with an identical formula?
What is the point of making 4 games with an identical formula?
I don't understand why people liked Dead Rising. It seemed like it'd be a really fun game, but the time limit completely ruins it. Seriously, why the fuck would you put a time limit on a sandbox type game? If it was removed, the game would be improved infinitely.
How new are you fags to gaming?
Nintendo makes the same 3 games for like 30 years and you see retards on this site drooling for the next rehash.
A part of the fun is seeing how much stuff you can do against the clock, plus time changes things as it go on
like
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
It was removed in the third game, user, with an optional mode with the timer imposed.
I wish I was autistic enough to learn that game
...
Its called Making Sequels, you faggots.
And when sequels stop selling, they don't make them anymore.
The timer adds a fun sense of urgency. Almost all of them have a free roam mode too if you're a fag
Yeah I'm the dumb one, NERD
Except trying to improve or add to the formula?
1. Time limit adds a sense of urgency to the game, so you actually have to go complete the objectives
2. It's pretty lenient most of the time unless you're a complete shitter
3. First two games had unlockable timer-free modes so you could fuck around to your heart's content
4. 9 times out of 10 the timer doesn't even matter because you'll be spending your time grinding to death until you've got enough health/strength/weapons to plow through the bosses
There was no sense of urgency in Dead Rising. It was a light-hearted joke game for fucking around in. The time limit did literally nothing but hinder that.
Why is playing the game like it feels like it was meant to be played an unlockable?
I hear ya OP.
DR1 is still my favorite game of the series. Admittedly if a game is based on a gimmick it's rather hard to replicate the feeling in a sequel, and all those added features in DR2 and further aren't as appealing to me.
It's not like GTA which can be expanded and it makes it more fun.
What
Unless you skipped every single cutscene in the game, it was pretty dark and dreary.
If anything, it was a prototype for Dead Island in terms of dissonance between narrative and gameplay.
Only 4? Nintendo laughs quietly in the corner.
Dead Rising 1 is a real diamond in the rough. It's one of those games that you learn to appreciate the more time passes. There is a weird sense of dissonance in that game that I've never experienced before or after, even shitty parts of the game like the dumb as fuck AI getting stuck in doorways or the not exactly stellar boss fights.
It's really hard to even explain the appeal for me. I remember really hating the game when I was a bit younger, it was so slow and the timer sucked all of the enjoyment out of it. But revisiting it last year, I had a grand time. It's a wacky sandbox simulator filled with dreary atmosphere and a pacing that seems to favour clear, thought out plans over random decision making.
What I'm getting at is, great game, great soundtrack. Really should try the 2nd game one of these days.
Shit, meant to say
even shitty parts of the game like the dumb as fuck AI getting stuck in doorways or the not exactly stellar boss fights just kind of worked. Everything kind of blended together, but in a good way.
Not really. For the story, yeah, but you likely will never be able to beat the story on your first time without much difficulty, you just save that for your second playthrough.
Ask Nintendo. They could tell you.
You should. Arguably, Chuck is no Frank West, but the game made a lot of improvements on the formula, the weapon combo system is fun (if a bit stilted in favor of fire axe + sledgehammer), the bosses feel much better, the friendly AI is better, and co-op play it pretty fun.
Avoid 3 though, that one was shit.
I don't remember much about it, but I sure as hell don't remember anything serious. For god's sake, you can run around in children's clothes and beat people to death with toys. It was not a game meant to be taken seriously.
that's what i always said about learning math
but its useful in helping improve general thinking processes and logic
No, and you're fucking retarded for considering it.
Well technically it's the same formula but dumbed down for gimmicks nobody asked for.
Ratchet and Clank has changed quite a bit, though I'll agree that it's getting stale nowadays. In particular the four games on the PS2 made big changes with each title. GC added weapon leveling and strafing and made the game a much better shooter. UYA concentrated on the shooter elements more and added in online versus modes. Deadlocked completely changed how you go through the game and added campaign co-op. All of them added in plenty of other things like new weapons, new minigames, or the mods in Deadlocked. They were really trying to push the bar with each of the games.
Tools of Destruction changes the target audience, the art style, the style of humor and starts an "epic" story for the series. Crack in Time doubles down on the story and cinematic experience planets and allows to you explore solar systems and the small planets on them. A lot of the stuff these games changed really doesn't work (especially the shitty plot and awful new characters), but they certainly did changes the series. After that the series does become stagnant with Into the Nexus and probably the new remake too, except for maybe making the art style even shittier.
I think the PSP games and PS3 spinoffs do enough new stuff too, though whether or not they're good is another question.
So yes, R&C is certainly stagnant now but it took quite a while for it to happen.
I've been seeing the trailer of 4 and it isn't look as bad as you guys are telling me it is.
It is a shame it has a crappy distribution.
Dead Rising actually bears quite a bit of a resemblance to Dark Souls beneath either of their superficial differences.
It would be easy to revitalize DR by copying DaS but distinguishing it by having no fog doors, and putting an emphasis on keeping an inventory of scavenged improvised weapons with perishability as opposed to adhering to the use of a single weapon.
Wut, no it didn't. Maybe 2 did, but 1's "survival" mode constantly drained your health.
If Microsoft can fix UWA+UWP I could see myself buying quite a few of the games they have shown. I know Ill probably buy DR4 anyway. what can i say, I have the disposable income.
Get off NEETbux faggots.
Because most of the time it works?