That pretty much says it all.Originally Posted by Sovieto
Monster Hunter 3 is going to be good because it's a sequel to an extremely highly rated game on the PS2 that had over 70 hours of gameplay. It's been in development for a long time and they're putting a large amount of work into it. It's also going to have online co-op, and they're just adding onto Monster Hunter 2. The chance of failure is quite small.Originally Posted by Godwind
As for FFCC, it looks promising, it's been in development since the Wii was announced and it has quite a vast world. Though, until I hear more about it it's hard to say. It better not have been in dev for so long just for a -40 hour adventure with little incentive to replay.
When I said 80+ hour games, I did mean single-player. Oblivion, fallout, several RPG titles (and btw, the wii doesn't even have a well-rated RPG yet.)That happens to be what you value in a game. A lot of people will disagree with you. Some people are even upset with the idea of Multiplayer online getting rid of Single Player gameplay. Some people will argue that multiplayer should be a simple addition instead of the core focused package.
As for those gamers upset with multiplayer being the core component of games, that's the fault of the gamer, not the companies themselves. Gaming businesses realized that most people play the first level of a game's single-player campaign to get the hang of the controls and immediately launch the online and leave the single-player to collect dust.
CoD4, for example, has an excellently done single-player with an interesting storyline, amazing mapping and cutscenes, and overall you can tell from a glance they put a lot of effort into it and it doesn't have that generic "Stop talking and let me start shooting" storyline every other war game seems to have, as well as hidden items for unlockables and variety in missions.
Now ask how many players even got through the first two missions before they went online and never touched the single-player again. Companies noticed this trend and stopped putting as much effort into single-player, as they saw it as a waste. It's also just plain logic. Single-player can only last so long, multi-player can be infinitely replayable when it's done right.
About the conduit.
It's an FPS, on the Wii, that takes advantage of its online capabilities, takes FULL advantage of its controls, and doesn't look like a dreamcast game *cough CoD5 cough.*(For GOD'S sakes take that with a grain of sand, it's an exaggeration.) The Wii should've had about 10,000 of these by now, and I see the Conduit as more of a gate-opener than the Wii's halo. Nonetheless, the chances of it sucking are low.As I said before, what will make sure they are actually good?