It has been over a decade since we were shown the beautiful and horrific corpse of the dystopian metropolis Rapture in Bioshock. Three years later, we returned to Rapture in BioShock 2, to once aga…
Danish from eXputer: "The Witcher's upcoming sequel needs to overhaul the series' combat system if it wants to make a big splash among gamers."
Saad from eXputer: "After suffering from massive financial hits, Square Enix & Bandai Namco appear to be turning over a new leaf but I'm still unconvinced."
I was talking about games with some Japanese guys here in Japan, and it seems like around here Bandai Namco has a fame of making low-quality games, with the occasional gem.
About Square Enix, I believe they lack the capacity to improve. They should learn with Capcom (although even Capcom still makes some bad mistakes), but I don't think they ever will. They keep chasing whatever is new at the time (blockchain, AI...) to say "we innovate", without considering the public perception and if these things actually improve the games or not. Them releasing too many small games with no advertising also shows a lack of trust in its own products. Even with their biggest games, like turning FF into an action game with XVI and the very divisive plot changes regarding whispers and timelines in VII Remake, shows them trying to attract a new generation of gamers without understanding what made the series so big in the first place.
I don’t know why NOW they decide on this, but I guess later is better than never.
With confirmation that Larian Studios will not develop another Baldur's Gate game, the fourth entry has a major challenge on its hands.
Larian had big shoes to fill themselves. Hopefully another studio can pull off the same miracle, but uphill battle is an understatement at this point. It feels impossible that BG3 even exists and accomplishes what it does.
I doubt anyone will attempt a Baldur’s Gate 4 for minimum a decade. It took about 20 years to get a third one for a a reason.
I'd just copy every single thing larian did obviously with different story and characters. Sometimes innovation isn't needed at that particular time.
The second and third games were far worse than the original so I'm not sure another one is jeopardizing anything.
“If they don’t visit either Rapture or Columbia, then where else are we going to go? They can’t make another underwater city or floating metropolis, so I don’t know if they can do any other setting”
Really?
“There’s always a lighthouse, there’s always a man, there’s always a city”
Just because two worlds, the main world, Columbia, which burst into some many altered possibilities tied in with another world, Rapture where the overall Booker/Elizabeth story ended doesn’t mean it’s finished completely. That story has split into a multiverse of different possibilities so a new game can do anything with any time period after the year Booker was baptised anyway since that decision is what made Comstock and set everything in motion splitting up in altered universes.
A city on a secret Island
Built around a Volcano
Underground near the Earths core
North Pole
Space station
On the moon
On Mars
In a pocket dimension
On the side of some cliffs
On regular land but invisible (like Wakanda)
Hidden within the rain Forrest
Is actually El Dorado
Is actually Atlantis
Is actually the city of Ubar
...So on
They could tell so many stories with new themes, different powers, technology and city architecture.
I would not be disappointed with another Bioshock announcement.
Loved Bioshock 1 & 2 and infinite was ok but not like the first 2 installment something about the sea and little sisters that made me love the first 2 Bioshock games
Another Bioshock game could jeopardize the franchise...
No new Bioshock means the franchise is dead...
If something is dead then there is nothing jeopardize...
If there is nothing to risk jeopardizing, there is nothing to gain...
If there is something to risk, then the IP lives...
Take a risk, save a life.