Capcom is slow

[RetroRain]

This is not meant to be a rant or anything, but Capcom has gotten slow with making games. I remember 2-3 years ago, when they had their old site layout, their release dates list was long, they had a lot of games they would be releasing throughout the year. Now, they are just so slow. Maybe because they are using almost everybody in the company to get Resident Evil 5 done by March? Who knows. But, every other company seems to have games on the shelf, and Capcom just doesn't have anything. I could be wrong, but this is what I see.

[Biohazard EX]

Welcome to the 21st century. It's not just Capcom. The cost and the amount of work spent on making games has greatly increased.
It's not like PS3 graphics can be created in the same amount of time as PS1 graphics.
Metal Gear Solid 3 came out in 2004, Metal Gear Solid 4 came out in 2008, that's 4 years.
It's like that with every company, not just Capcom.

[Helegad]

Games are way more mainstream. They're in the same "reputation" as music and movies now. 20 years ago they were looked upon as not a serious pasttime.

[missvalentine]

can't wait til PS4, when it takes an average of 6 years to make a single game because the graphics arejust so unbeleivably detailed yet the gameplay is far inferior to something on the PS1.

[Member_of_STARS]

I dont remember which forums it was but I read a long post from a mapper for a BF2 mod, talking about how much the workload has gone up with modern games, compared to when everything was less advanced. Basically, something one could have created in a day, now may even take weeks.

It also depends on the engine one is using and the development tools available. But all in all, unless its an expansion pack, expect 3-5 year development cycles.

[Biohazard EX]

I dont remember which forums it was but I read a long post from a mapper for a BF2 mod, talking about how much the workload has gone up with modern games, compared to when everything was less advanced. Basically, something one could have created in a day, now may even take weeks.

It also depends on the engine one is using and the development tools available. But all in all, unless its an expansion pack, expect 3-5 year development cycles.

Or a sequel. If it's something that was created on the same engine and uses the same framework, it might take less time. Like Resistance 2.

[Carnivol]

Yup.

In this day and age, graphics takes more time than ever to put together, troubleshooting/bug fixing takes more time than ever too thanks to more complicated stuff getting layered, more performance tweaking/adjustments required and many other fantastic little things to deal with.

But Capcom getting "slower"?
I feel like Capcom's been on a pretty solid run lately with some pretty excellent stuff. (Although there's a lot of outsourcing and such going on, it's still the Capcom name. 'cause the remaining guys from 20 years ago are not capable of handling all next gen productions while also managing a company at the same time, I guess.)

[Member_of_STARS]

Or a sequel. If it's something that was created on the same engine and uses the same framework, it might take less time. Like Resistance 2.

Indeed.


Even sequels are a subject to the same problems though. People expect *OMFG MOAR MOAR MOAR* from a sequel, and rightfully so. This means new and/or updated textures, improved OpFor, something innovative and a progression in a story that wouldnt let down.

Even Gears2 took 2 years at the very least (I suspect they started on GoW2 before GoW was released). And they had all the right stuff. Unreal 3 engine is incredible and without any shred of doubt, the easiest engine to work with. With already planned out story, fleshed out characters and set gameplay, one only needs to work a lot on level design and graphics. I guess thats where most of the 2 years went to.

Still, Gears Unreal3 engine shouldnt be compared to whatever CAPCOMs got. And thats where I think, most of that time difference comes into play.

[Biohazard EX]

Frankly, all I care about in a sequel is an update to the storyline and something different visually. If there were gameplay problems with the original, then obviously I'd want those problems fixed. But I don't care about, "Oh, something innovative and new and different."

[Member_of_STARS]

Frankly, all I care about in a sequel is an update to the storyline and something different visually. If there were gameplay problems with the original, then obviously I'd want those problems fixed. But I don't care about, "Oh, something innovative and new and different."

This is exactly the mentality that ran RE series in exactly the same manner for nearly 9 years.

Technological advancements should be implemented, if possible (without compromising the core of the franchise).

The franchises that have succeeded for more than 10 years, have proven that this concept works.

[Biohazard EX]

Well, it's not like I didn't like the evading system in RE3, or the defense item system in the REmake.
But as soon as you say, "Okay, we need something new, something innovative, something unique because otherwise the critics are gonna shit on us," you completely abandon the idea that some things should be conserved.
And then you get Japanese RPGS with a crappy hack and slash system instead of polished turn based combat.
You get 'survival horror' games that don't have a survival OR a horror aspect...
Out of good 2D platofrmers, you get crappy 3D platformers. (Earthworm Jim 3D anyone?)

[missvalentine]

Frankly, all I care about in a sequel is an update to the storyline and something different visually. If there were gameplay problems with the original, then obviously I'd want those problems fixed. But I don't care about, "Oh, something innovative and new and different."

i totaly agree, i hate it when games drastically change, i don't mind tiny little samll changes but i mostly like them to stay the same, just with an update to the story and a new location or something, and then people may say but after a while it would get boring, but i say,no it wont cause unless you plan on milking you can actuallyend a series whenever you want you know, you don't have to go on forever.

[Member_of_STARS]

Well, it's not like I didn't like the evading system in RE3, or the defense item system in the REmake.
But as soon as you say, "Okay, we need something new, something innovative, something unique because otherwise the critics are gonna shit on us," you completely abandon the idea that some things should be conserved.
And then you get Japanese RPGS with a crappy hack and slash system instead of polished turn based combat.
You get 'survival horror' games that don't have a survival OR a horror aspect...
Out of good 2D platofrmers, you get crappy 3D platformers. (Earthworm Jim 3D anyone?)

Evading in RE, aswell as defense items should have been there in RE2, not 6 years later. Furthermore, the concept of 3rd perspective roaming and over the shoulder engagement (RE3.5) should have been there since RE went on PS2. Im not talking about complete redefinition of the series, you missed the point entirely. Im talking about not standing still until the series have been milked dry.

RE is about its techno-thriller roots, zombies, science and Umbrella and survival horror. If these are kept, why not utilizing advantages in the AI development, environment interaction, some freedom of choice and a more fun engagement system?

Im not saying they didnt try. Dead Aim and Survivors were noble experiments, but they were either done half-as5ed (Dead Aim) or too early (Survivor).

[Biohazard EX]

Evading in RE, aswell as defense items should have been there in RE2, not 6 years later. Furthermore, the concept of 3rd perspective roaming and over the shoulder engagement (RE3.5) should have been there since RE went on PS2. Im not talking about complete redefinition of the series, you missed the point entirely. Im talking about not standing still until the series have been milked dry.

RE is about its techno-thriller roots, zombies, science and Umbrella and survival horror. If these are kept, why not utilizing advantages in the AI development, environment interaction, some freedom of choice and a more fun engagement system?

Im not saying they didnt try. Dead Aim and Survivors were noble experiments, but they were either done half-as5ed (Dead Aim) or too early (Survivor).

I think that dramatic camera angles are a part of the Survival Horror genre. And that's something that shouldn't have been changed. At least not glued to the back of the character like it has been.
If the camera isn't fixed, then it should be at least like in Silent Hill 2. But not glued to the back of the character.

[Member_of_STARS]

I think that dramatic camera angles are a part of the Survival Horror genre. And that's something that shouldn't have been changed. At least not glued to the back of the character like it has been.
If the camera isn't fixed, then it should be at least like in Silent Hill 2. But not glued to the back of the character.

Fixed camera angles are just rudiments left from days when technology was crippled and limited. It doesnt have to be fixed on the player, but its not part of survival horror either. Survival horror is about setting and limited resources. Fixed camera angle is a great and simple tool to create a claustrophobic setting, but is not the only thing that can accomplish this.

Like I said, RE3.5 pulled it off the best. Horror and claustrophobia in roaming and fun and user dependant engagement in "L1" mode.