Starfield?I don't think some of you understand what 12 years of dev time by a literal army-sized developer on an unlimited budget will do for a game.
Fixed and agreed.I don't think some of you understand what127-8 years of dev time(depending on when RDR 2 was internally done) by a literal army-sized developer on an unlimited budget will do for a game.
It was also 7-8 years and started without the funds of MS behind it.Starfield?
Uh let’s see:Exactly my thoughts. I'm confused with everyone saying how unbelievably good it looks, how it will need a 5090 etc... It looks good but the trailer did nothing particularly groudbreaking for me. At this point it kind of seem like an echo chamber where everyone exagerate it.
Yeah, because Zenimax is so poor...Fixed and agreed.
It was also 7-8 years and started without the funds of MS behind it.
And the characters move like it's from a 10 year old game : DDD or have some severe neck pain or sumthin.Exactly my thoughts. I'm confused with everyone saying how unbelievably good it looks, how it will need a 5090 etc... It looks good but the trailer did nothing particularly groudbreaking for me. At this point it kind of seem like an echo chamber where everyone exagerate it.
-Starfield's development budget was $400m (you can google this for proof).Yeah, because Zenimax is so poor...
MS funds =/ Xbox studios funds
For all we know, Xbox could have given it a smaller budget, because there would be no Playstation release from the start and they knew it was going straight to gamepass much earlier.
What I'm saying is that massive budget, army of devs and long development times don't always mean the result is a 95+ metacritic game and people should control their hype.-Starfield's development budget was $400m (you can google this for proof).
-GTA 6 development budget is heavily rumored to cost somewhere between $1B and $2B.
Hey man, I like Starfield myself, but GTA 6 would be anywhere from double to quadruple the cost in this case. I'm not sure if Zenimax pre-MS would make that gigantic of a gamble on a new property, considering the value of their company compared to Rockstar. Bethesda was the smaller titan here.
Starfield?
What of it? Bethesda is nothing but dirt under Rockstar's boots.
There's literally only one way I see this game disappointing. Single Player content locked behind a live service.What I'm saying is that massive budget, army of devs and long development times don't always mean the result is a 95+ metacritic game and people should control their hype.
It's better to be surprised in a good way than disappointed.
Pretty much this, it look incredible but not unbelievable, especially when you take into account 10+ years of development and the 2 billions budget.It does not look visually impressive enough to be skeptical. Not saying it looks bad, just doesn’t look unbelievable. That, coupled with their track record.
People say RDR2 looked realy good when it released, and it does, but it graphically it was in the same leage as other AAA games at that time.
I'm not too concerned that it won't be vastly improved. For 2013, GTA 5 combat was decent enough for an open world game. It's too bad Rockstar couldn't have added more Max Payne 3 mechanics in GTA 5 but those games were being made simultaneously, so it was probably difficult. And now that Rockstar knows that online and PvP is such a goldmine, I'd be shocked if they skimped on the gameplay. Even in the gameplay leaks there seemed to be vast improvementsI'm sure it will look nice. GTA 5 on the PS3 was amazing for the time. The PS4 Pro remaster was astounding for its time.
I'm just worried about gameplay. I think the combat in GTA 5 / Online sucks pretty badly. It's janky and feels annoying. I want to see a complete modern revamp in that department.
Why should i control my hype, if there is only one game to be hyped about it is Rockstar projects, and certainly any new GTA.What I'm saying is that massive budget, army of devs and long development times don't always mean the result is a 95+ metacritic game and people should control their hype.
It's better to be surprised in a good way than disappointed.
12 years is a bit overexaggerated, they worked on RDR II between V and VI. Not saying VI wasn't being worked on in some shape or form before RDR II came out, but I would say most of the workforce shifted to VI only after RDR II released.I don't think some of you understand what 12 years of dev time by a literal army-sized developer on an unlimited budget will do for a game.
Do they also have creative accounting in games or that's only a movie thing?-Starfield's development budget was $400m (you can google this for proof).
-GTA 6 development budget is heavily rumored to cost somewhere between $1B and $2B.
Hey man, I like Starfield myself, but GTA 6 would be anywhere from double to quadruple the cost in this case. I'm not sure if Zenimax pre-MS would make that gigantic of a gamble on a new property, considering the value of their company compared to Rockstar. Bethesda was the smaller titan here.
Assassin's Creed Unity on Jaguar CPU?Here you have hundred people