Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Angel of Fires Gate

Will Brutal Legend have a SEQUEL?

Recommended Posts

rawr rawr rawr we all know what you think

now shut up and let everyone else fantasize about how awesome a sequel would be

Most sequels are awful.

And don't tell me to shut up. I have every right to ask for people's opinions on why they think something

Super mario Bros 3.

Mass Effect 2

Splinter cell Chaos theory

Final Fantasy 4 and 12

Assassin's creed 2

Burnout 3

Devil May Cry 3

Star Wars Battlefront 2

Sly cooper 2

Some of the best games in a series are the sequels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't quote me on it, but I think Schafer expressed interest in a sequel to BL.

Or was it Psychonauts?

With four years of work just on the multiplayer and so little on the story, and so much cut, Tim said a sequel would interest him. But even though EA basically got a free IP, the sales of BL were ass on modern standards.

To be fair, it recently past a million in sales, and did better than Psychonauts, but the LOL RTS word of mouth, combined with a lot of anti-marketing hurt BL badly (a whole lotta Jack Black Jack Black Jack Black and not enough Sequel to Sacrifice Sequel to Battlezone Action RTS Awesomeness). But the reviews were very high and word of mouth began to work in BL's favor over time.

I speculate with all the work put into the ONLY multiplayer game of this type on a console, that they'll either make a sequel, or apply the mechanics to another IP if it continues to sell over time. I want a sequel just for the multiplayer.

No way did that multiplayer take 4 years of development, unless the development team was like one dude, who slept half the day.

Also to answer metroid, he has expressed interest in both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't quote me on it, but I think Schafer expressed interest in a sequel to BL.

Or was it Psychonauts?

With four years of work just on the multiplayer and so little on the story, and so much cut, Tim said a sequel would interest him. But even though EA basically got a free IP, the sales of BL were ass on modern standards.

To be fair, it recently past a million in sales, and did better than Psychonauts, but the LOL RTS word of mouth, combined with a lot of anti-marketing hurt BL badly (a whole lotta Jack Black Jack Black Jack Black and not enough Sequel to Sacrifice Sequel to Battlezone Action RTS Awesomeness). But the reviews were very high and word of mouth began to work in BL's favor over time.

I speculate with all the work put into the ONLY multiplayer game of this type on a console, that they'll either make a sequel, or apply the mechanics to another IP if it continues to sell over time. I want a sequel just for the multiplayer.

No way did that multiplayer take 4 years of development, unless the development team was like one dude, who slept half the day.

Its what they started with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way did that multiplayer take 4 years of development, unless the development team was like one dude, who slept half the day.

Yes, it did.

Kodiak, I would like a second game because so much felt left out in this one, and I don't think it's easily feasible to use DLC to fill in all the blanks. For instance, the plot holes in the single-player campaign, like the promised rescue of Bladehenge which never came about. And what about a segment detailing how Ophelia came to command the Drowning Doom? You can feel the absence of these things as you play through, though for me, they didn't spoil the experience. I just wish they were there.

There is also plenty they could do with the multiplayer, which might actually be possible via DLC, but which EA almost certainly won't back them on due to BL's lackluster full-price sales performance. EA is very profit-oriented. As multiplayer stands, different kinds of objectives could easily be incorporated into the experience. Also, I think it would be very cool to see multi-faction warfare - not just 2, boards much larger than the current ones with 4 stages instead of 2 and the opportunity for 4 different players to battle. Alliances could be made to try and see through to victory (not to mention dedicated teams play, like a larger-scale version of what's there now) and then dissolved for the final struggle. The only hardship to such large battles is that they would probably take a long time.

All this said, I think a lot of the reasons people want a sequel can simply be boiled down to: we like BL enough to want more of it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way did that multiplayer take 4 years of development, unless the development team was like one dude, who slept half the day.

Yes, it did.

She said that we started MP first so that means that MP was in development for 4 1/2 years, the entire length of the game since we never stopped working on MP once we started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way did that multiplayer take 4 years of development, unless the development team was like one dude, who slept half the day.

Yes, it did.

Kodiak, I would like a second game because so much felt left out in this one, and I don't think it's easily feasible to use DLC to fill in all the blanks. For instance, the plot holes in the single-player campaign, like the promised rescue of Bladehenge which never came about. And what about a segment detailing how Ophelia came to command the Drowning Doom? You can feel the absence of these things as you play through, though for me, they didn't spoil the experience. I just wish they were there.

There is also plenty they could do with the multiplayer, which might actually be possible via DLC, but which EA almost certainly won't back them on due to BL's lackluster full-price sales performance. EA is very profit-oriented. As multiplayer stands, different kinds of objectives could easily be incorporated into the experience. Also, I think it would be very cool to see multi-faction warfare - not just 2, boards much larger than the current ones with 4 stages instead of 2 and the opportunity for 4 different players to battle. Alliances could be made to try and see through to victory (not to mention dedicated teams play, like a larger-scale version of what's there now) and then dissolved for the final struggle. The only hardship to such large battles is that they would probably take a long time.

All this said, I think a lot of the reasons people want a sequel can simply be boiled down to: we like BL enough to want more of it. :)

Fair enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way did that multiplayer take 4 years of development, unless the development team was like one dude, who slept half the day.

Yes, it did.

Kodiak, I would like a second game because so much felt left out in this one, and I don't think it's easily feasible to use DLC to fill in all the blanks. For instance, the plot holes in the single-player campaign, like the promised rescue of Bladehenge which never came about. And what about a segment detailing how Ophelia came to command the Drowning Doom? You can feel the absence of these things as you play through, though for me, they didn't spoil the experience. I just wish they were there.

There is also plenty they could do with the multiplayer, which might actually be possible via DLC, but which EA almost certainly won't back them on due to BL's lackluster full-price sales performance. EA is very profit-oriented. As multiplayer stands, different kinds of objectives could easily be incorporated into the experience. Also, I think it would be very cool to see multi-faction warfare - not just 2, boards much larger than the current ones with 4 stages instead of 2 and the opportunity for 4 different players to battle. Alliances could be made to try and see through to victory (not to mention dedicated teams play, like a larger-scale version of what's there now) and then dissolved for the final struggle. The only hardship to such large battles is that they would probably take a long time.

All this said, I think a lot of the reasons people want a sequel can simply be boiled down to: we like BL enough to want more of it. :)

Does EA truly believe BL's sales have nothing to do with their demo and

in the midst of shining reviews?

They could have shouted HEY CHECK OUT THIS MULTIPLAYER a liiiiiiiitle bit louder. Yes I found it here and there. It's what swayed me to purchase it, but Joe the Gamer threw their little LOL RTS tantrum.

Multiplayer previews did a much better job of conveying the magic of the game than all the commercials, Jack Black skits, and trailers in the world. Those previews are OLD. From before the game came out, and if you look at the comments and responses, and the tone of their respective authors, there is a ton of enthusiasm for the multiplayer. Instead of people going "It's an RTS, I'm outta here!" They're going "It's like they combined an action game with an RTS!"

I saw a video of Brutal Legend at PAX, and it's just the same demo, and Tim Schafer is being interviewed, and he's just going, "yeah, it's an action game, man!" Would it have hurt so much to add a competitive multiplayer demo with a tutorial on Battered Bluff or Bleeding Coast so that players can cut each other to ribbons? That's what Vivendi got when they were first introduced to the game...

Ugh. Double Fine must have been squirming with the lack of multiplayer marketing focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way did that multiplayer take 4 years of development, unless the development team was like one dude, who slept half the day.

Yes, it did.

Kodiak, I would like a second game because so much felt left out in this one, and I don't think it's easily feasible to use DLC to fill in all the blanks. For instance, the plot holes in the single-player campaign, like the promised rescue of Bladehenge which never came about. And what about a segment detailing how Ophelia came to command the Drowning Doom? You can feel the absence of these things as you play through, though for me, they didn't spoil the experience. I just wish they were there.

There is also plenty they could do with the multiplayer, which might actually be possible via DLC, but which EA almost certainly won't back them on due to BL's lackluster full-price sales performance. EA is very profit-oriented. As multiplayer stands, different kinds of objectives could easily be incorporated into the experience. Also, I think it would be very cool to see multi-faction warfare - not just 2, boards much larger than the current ones with 4 stages instead of 2 and the opportunity for 4 different players to battle. Alliances could be made to try and see through to victory (not to mention dedicated teams play, like a larger-scale version of what's there now) and then dissolved for the final struggle. The only hardship to such large battles is that they would probably take a long time.

All this said, I think a lot of the reasons people want a sequel can simply be boiled down to: we like BL enough to want more of it. :)

Does EA truly believe BL's sales have nothing to do with their demo and

in the midst of shining reviews?

They could have shouted HEY CHECK OUT THIS MULTIPLAYER a liiiiiiiitle bit louder. Yes I found it here and there. It's what swayed me to purchase it, but Joe the Gamer threw their little LOL RTS tantrum.

Multiplayer previews did a much better job of conveying the magic of the game than all the commercials, Jack Black skits, and trailers in the world. Those previews are OLD. From before the game came out, and if you look at the comments and responses, and the tone of their respective authors, there is a ton of enthusiasm for the multiplayer. Instead of people going "It's an RTS, I'm outta here!" They're going "It's like they combined an action game with an RTS!"

I saw a video of Brutal Legend at PAX, and it's just the same demo, and Tim Schafer is being interviewed, and he's just going, "yeah, it's an action game, man!" Would it have hurt so much to add a competitive multiplayer demo with a tutorial on Battered Bluff or Bleeding Coast so that players can cut each other to ribbons? That's what Vivendi got when they were first introduced to the game...

Ugh. Double Fine must have been squirming with the lack of multiplayer marketing focus.

Dude, Double Fine prides itself on their characters, settings, humor, writing and overall story telling skills. The way you are saying it is like the whole multiplayer is better than the single player. Which I don't think is true, it's pretty much the single player without the awesome story and mostly unskippable (and sometimes horrible *cough* TC stage *cough*) music. Also I enjoy almost every aspect of this game, but you seem to throw away the entire single player experience which is what Tim Schafer is known for which is why it was the focus of most of the marketing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does EA truly believe BL's sales have nothing to do with their demo and
in the midst of shining reviews?

Much laughter. Believe it or not I had never seen that. I really, really, really do not watch much TV.

I would agree with Seniormeld that any kind of serious marketing effort for the game shouldn't just throw out the SP experience. I honestly enjoyed it quite a bit; I just got my Metal God Cheevo, so technically there's no more reason for me to play SP at all, but... I like it. I like driving around in the World of Metal and running across some vista I remember from the campaign, or for that matter one I never really noticed when I went by it previously. I like seeing IH dudes duking it out with some TC minions and jumping in the middle of it just for old times's sake. I really like replaying certain cutscenes (now that I can without losing all my progress towards Metal God), like when Doviculus creates that three-headed beast in the final battle. That's one of the coolest final-boss intros I've ever seen, for all that it should be happening somewhere else than Drowned Ophelia's backyard. I just... I dunno, dude. I love MP, no doubt, but I wouldn't have the emotional attachment to the characters that I do if I hadn't played through all the SP storyline and watched them interact. SP is integral, it really is awesome, and I think it deserved marketing focus. Show a little 12 to 15 second segment at the end of that clip introducing MP, sure, but don't just drop SP off the map.

There is just so much more that could be done with the story of SP. SO. DAMN. MUCH. Like Ophelia and Drowned Ophelia. Why, when most people who drink from the Sea of Black Tears just go insane, did Ophelia effectively create a duplicate of herself? Something that had all her memories and pain, but "wasn't" her? Was it really not her? What if it really was all her pain - at losing her parents, having no dependable friends because everyone suspected her of being a Tear Drinker, and finally losing Eddie - the one person who told her he trusted her, no matter what? What if Drowned Ophelia is really just Ophelia's dark half? That would mean Drowned Ophelia isn't really dead - just dormant in Ophelia's overarching personality. And why did Ophelia have the powers she did at all? Is there more about her family's history that she doesn't know? Is she a distant descendant of Aetulia herself?

Then there's Doviculus. I can easily see him not really being dead after that "DECAPITATIOOOOOOOOOON!" I can see him coming back, pissed and ready for more. I can see Drowned Ophelia taking on a half-life of her own, independent of human Ophelia, and forging a terrible alliance with Doviculus to allow her to possess human Ophelia and assume her full powers. I can see massive, epic battles between the reborn Ironheade, and possibly a new fourth Faction (feeding seamlessly into the thought of 4-Faction MP battles as I suggested above), against that alliance of doom. And I can see an incredible final struggle between Ophelia and Drowned Ophelia, in which human Ophelia overcomes her dark twin... only to realize Drowned Ophelia can never be truly destroyed. Human Ophelia embraces her darker self, unlocking her full powers as an equal to Eddie, and then commands the reborn Doom alongside Ironheade in a final titanic struggle against the Tainted Coil (backed up by monsters that would only appear in SP campaign, to make it harder and more memorable), eventually overthrowing Doviculus' rule once again. But the victorious humans know that like almost all greater demons, Doviculus can never be truly destroyed, only banished... to come again another day. And so is formed the Alliance of Rock, the Dark (Doom) and the Light (Ironheade), and perhaps that new fourth Faction, to guard against the rebirth of the Tainted Coil and keep humans safe.

I know it sounds corny and overblown - I could write it rather more compellingly but it's late at night and I'm tired as hell - but seriously, you could go places with the above. It's the bare bones of a story you could flesh out into something enjoyable. I would so, so pay $60 for a game like that (normally I never buy full-price games). I would tell my friends to go pay $60 for that. You listening, Tim? Eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just hit me who that fourth Faction could easily be, too, without having to write too much crazy new story to explain them. Fletus - good old Fletus - mentions there is another whole race of demons which are "shunned by the Coil" because they are "too ugly." And Fletus himself has wings, just like any Avatar. You never see him use them, but they are definitely there. So... a race of vehicle-oriented, Scottish demons? You could so make an army out of that. Like Ironheade, they'd have vehicular units at every tier. I'd say their prime advantage on the battlefield could be speed, rather than buffs or debuffs. Their enhancement solo would increase their units movement speed (like a superior version of Martyrdom that doesn't self-damage the Avatar). Their Limiter solo would slow down the enemy Avatar, not taking away their flight ability but making them so slow even in the air that they might not escape a fight. Their nuke solo could do moderate damage but slow down everything it hits for a brief time. They could be seriously bad-assed if you did it right, without being unbalanced. Fletus himself could be the Avatar, since he's already been introduced as a character and we know he and Edie have a history. It sets up an uneasy alliance between the High Riders (provisional name) and Ironheade, with the Drowning Doom coming in as allies late in the story for the final fight. Wow, I may just try to make a fanfic out of this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way did that multiplayer take 4 years of development, unless the development team was like one dude, who slept half the day.

Yes, it did.

Kodiak, I would like a second game because so much felt left out in this one, and I don't think it's easily feasible to use DLC to fill in all the blanks. For instance, the plot holes in the single-player campaign, like the promised rescue of Bladehenge which never came about. And what about a segment detailing how Ophelia came to command the Drowning Doom? You can feel the absence of these things as you play through, though for me, they didn't spoil the experience. I just wish they were there.

There is also plenty they could do with the multiplayer, which might actually be possible via DLC, but which EA almost certainly won't back them on due to BL's lackluster full-price sales performance. EA is very profit-oriented. As multiplayer stands, different kinds of objectives could easily be incorporated into the experience. Also, I think it would be very cool to see multi-faction warfare - not just 2, boards much larger than the current ones with 4 stages instead of 2 and the opportunity for 4 different players to battle. Alliances could be made to try and see through to victory (not to mention dedicated teams play, like a larger-scale version of what's there now) and then dissolved for the final struggle. The only hardship to such large battles is that they would probably take a long time.

All this said, I think a lot of the reasons people want a sequel can simply be boiled down to: we like BL enough to want more of it. :)

Does EA truly believe BL's sales have nothing to do with their demo and

in the midst of shining reviews?

They could have shouted HEY CHECK OUT THIS MULTIPLAYER a liiiiiiiitle bit louder. Yes I found it here and there. It's what swayed me to purchase it, but Joe the Gamer threw their little LOL RTS tantrum.

Multiplayer previews did a much better job of conveying the magic of the game than all the commercials, Jack Black skits, and trailers in the world. Those previews are OLD. From before the game came out, and if you look at the comments and responses, and the tone of their respective authors, there is a ton of enthusiasm for the multiplayer. Instead of people going "It's an RTS, I'm outta here!" They're going "It's like they combined an action game with an RTS!"

I saw a video of Brutal Legend at PAX, and it's just the same demo, and Tim Schafer is being interviewed, and he's just going, "yeah, it's an action game, man!" Would it have hurt so much to add a competitive multiplayer demo with a tutorial on Battered Bluff or Bleeding Coast so that players can cut each other to ribbons? That's what Vivendi got when they were first introduced to the game...

Ugh. Double Fine must have been squirming with the lack of multiplayer marketing focus.

Dude, Double Fine prides itself on their characters, settings, humor, writing and overall story telling skills. The way you are saying it is like the whole multiplayer is better than the single player. Which I don't think is true, it's pretty much the single player without the awesome story and mostly unskippable (and sometimes horrible *cough* TC stage *cough*) music. Also I enjoy almost every aspect of this game, but you seem to throw away the entire single player experience which is what Tim Schafer is known for which is why it was the focus of most of the marketing.

Tim Schafer is definitely known for story, characters and setting. On their own the demo and trailers do their job of depicting those. But with a multiplayer like that, it could use a little more hype and explanation. Which is why they could have benefited from a tutorial multiplayer part of the demo as well as the demo we have now. Could have done both.

As we speak the Blur matchmaking demo is doing Bizzare Studios wonders and is swaying people away from Split/Second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, that's better for your argument, since before it sounded like the SP shouldn't have counted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my fault. I'm coming from a different place. When I bought the game:

1. I was fully informed on the multiplayer, via interwebs.

2. I bought it specifically for the multiplayer.

3. I predicted the single player would be short like Psychonauts.

And so I burned through the single player specifically so I could learn MP and just play that. And when I was asking friends to get online, what were they doing? They were:

1. Furious the game changed from generic brawler to action strategy. Suddenly they can't tell it apart from Halo Wars (but pretty sure it's therefore bad.)

2. Unwilling to try multiplayer, unwilling to learn strategies that set it apart from an RTS game.

3. Achievement farming so they can move on to something else.

4. Telling others to avoid it because "It's a shitty console RTS in disguise LOL!1."

When I wrote the guide, and put up lots of videos explaining the premise in excruciating detail, I was able to turn some people around. Furthermore, pretty much everyone with a console who recognized the gameplay from Battlezone and Sacrifice got really exited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only people that didn't really know about the Multiplayer were people that didn't follow the game at all, cause I had heard about it from a few sources, namely X-play when they got a preview of it like 7 months before the game came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Furious the game changed from generic brawler to action strategy. Suddenly they can't tell it apart from Halo Wars (but pretty sure it's therefore bad.)

2. Unwilling to try multiplayer, unwilling to learn strategies that set it apart from an RTS game.

3. Achievement farming so they can move on to something else.

4. Telling others to avoid it because "It's a shitty console RTS in disguise LOL!1."

stop characterizing people who didn't realize this game had such a large rts component as petulant children. i'm a fairly regular reader of gaming news and i still didn't realize how rtsy this game is (the demo had some fault in this, yeah).

I agree.

The game is an effing RTS. I don't see why realizing this is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rawr rawr rawr we all know what you think

now shut up and let everyone else fantasize about how awesome a sequel would be

Most sequels are awful.

And don't tell me to shut up. I have every right to ask for people's opinions on why they think something

Unfortinitly.... he does have a point that he has every right...... though I wish he didn't sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the only people that didn't really know about the Multiplayer were people that didn't follow the game at all, cause I had heard about it from a few sources, namely X-play when they got a preview of it like 7 months before the game came out.

I wasn't a big gamer before and I still heard about the multiplayer. Of course it could also be because my friends are game nuts. I need to get more into it since thats where my studies are taking me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to find online matches in BL nowadays, and it's only been out for about 6 months. I love Double Fine and all their work, but they aren't popular enough to support multiplayer, which brings one solid massive tear to my eye. Finding new original stories and gameplay mechanics within games is the thing that separates Double Fine from a regular game company. A sequel would tarnish that fact, and I for one would not like to know what Tim Schafer is working on ahead of time; I don't want Double Fine to be predictable. That would just be silly, and it would bring a solid massive tear to my other eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIVE has people playing in the US and Europe. PSN is a wasteland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know who it is but one of the creators of Sacrifice worked on Brutal Legend's Stage Battles. (Brutal Legend's most recent ancestor is Sacrifice.) Maybe his/her role in the next game will be a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said this before, but I followed the game almost daily from the time it was announced, through the publisher limbo, until the time it was released and I never ever thought it would be as RTSy as it turned out to be, I knew the multiplayer would be RTS heavy and I figured the RTS parts would be like the boss battles of the regular game, and the rest would be more Zelda like. But no, its 90% RTS. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind RTS and I love how they did Brutal Legends RTS, they point being that they didnt let the public know just how much of an RTS game it was going to be. I think the game would have fared better, sales wise, had there been more instances of "solo" Eddie play, like the Spider Queens Layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have said this before, but I followed the game almost daily from the time it was announced, through the publisher limbo, until the time it was released and I never ever thought it would be as RTSy as it turned out to be, I knew the multiplayer would be RTS heavy and I figured the RTS parts would be like the boss battles of the regular game, and the rest would be more Zelda like. But no, its 90% RTS. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind RTS and I love how they did Brutal Legends RTS, they point being that they didnt let the public know just how much of an RTS game it was going to be. I think the game would have fared better, sales wise, had there been more instances of "solo" Eddie play, like the Spider Queens Layer.

Thank God there are developers who still care more about making games than selling them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have said this before, but I followed the game almost daily from the time it was announced, through the publisher limbo, until the time it was released and I never ever thought it would be as RTSy as it turned out to be, I knew the multiplayer would be RTS heavy and I figured the RTS parts would be like the boss battles of the regular game, and the rest would be more Zelda like. But no, its 90% RTS. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind RTS and I love how they did Brutal Legends RTS, they point being that they didnt let the public know just how much of an RTS game it was going to be. I think the game would have fared better, sales wise, had there been more instances of "solo" Eddie play, like the Spider Queens Layer.

Thank God there are developers who still care more about making games than selling them.

...Is this sarcastic? I haven't seen such a stupid comment on the internet in a long time. Marketing is as important as developing the game, if you market the game wrong people are going to be angry. We were told for a long time that Brutal Legend was going to be levels like the part in the mines with ocassional stage battles. What did we get? A game that was awesome at delivering just that for the first half until it started being pretty much just stage battles and escort missions. It's like marketing a product to have the alcoholic content of beer and instead giving you a bottle of whiskey. Sure some people will be happy, but the general reaction will be "What the f*ck!" It's sad that if the game had more levels like the part at the Screaming Wall and others and kept the multiplayer, everyone would be happy right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have said this before, but I followed the game almost daily from the time it was announced, through the publisher limbo, until the time it was released and I never ever thought it would be as RTSy as it turned out to be, I knew the multiplayer would be RTS heavy and I figured the RTS parts would be like the boss battles of the regular game, and the rest would be more Zelda like. But no, its 90% RTS. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind RTS and I love how they did Brutal Legends RTS, they point being that they didnt let the public know just how much of an RTS game it was going to be. I think the game would have fared better, sales wise, had there been more instances of "solo" Eddie play, like the Spider Queens Layer.

Thank God there are developers who still care more about making games than selling them.

...Is this sarcastic? I haven't seen such a stupid comment on the internet in a long time. Marketing is as important as developing the game, if you market the game wrong people are going to be angry. We were told for a long time that Brutal Legend was going to be levels like the part in the mines with ocassional stage battles. What did we get? A game that was awesome at delivering just that for the first half until it started being pretty much just stage battles and escort missions. It's like marketing a product to have the alcoholic content of beer and instead giving you a bottle of whiskey. Sure some people will be happy, but the general reaction will be "What the f*ck!" It's sad that if the game had more levels like the part at the Screaming Wall and others and kept the multiplayer, everyone would be happy right now.

Marketing is NOT as important as developing games. Never was, never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shouldnt have a sequel, no a prequel, about Eddie's dad experences in the black tear rebellion. No knowning no one knew the power of the fans back then, I have a feeling that the RTS elements should not be put in there. Now if they, by all means I could care less. Now I would like to see the Zelda elements put in there, exploring the land of metal was a big part of the game...but yet since this is way back in time, the land is different and then we will finnally see what Succoria looks like! The game title shouldn't have Brutal legend in the title. Anyways~ I really feel strong about a prequel, in fact I really want it to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have said this before, but I followed the game almost daily from the time it was announced, through the publisher limbo, until the time it was released and I never ever thought it would be as RTSy as it turned out to be, I knew the multiplayer would be RTS heavy and I figured the RTS parts would be like the boss battles of the regular game, and the rest would be more Zelda like. But no, its 90% RTS. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind RTS and I love how they did Brutal Legends RTS, they point being that they didnt let the public know just how much of an RTS game it was going to be. I think the game would have fared better, sales wise, had there been more instances of "solo" Eddie play, like the Spider Queens Layer.

Thank God there are developers who still care more about making games than selling them.

...Is this sarcastic? I haven't seen such a stupid comment on the internet in a long time. Marketing is as important as developing the game, if you market the game wrong people are going to be angry. We were told for a long time that Brutal Legend was going to be levels like the part in the mines with ocassional stage battles. What did we get? A game that was awesome at delivering just that for the first half until it started being pretty much just stage battles and escort missions. It's like marketing a product to have the alcoholic content of beer and instead giving you a bottle of whiskey. Sure some people will be happy, but the general reaction will be "What the f*ck!" It's sad that if the game had more levels like the part at the Screaming Wall and others and kept the multiplayer, everyone would be happy right now.

Marketing is NOT as important as developing games. Never was, never will be.

Strange, me and most of my fellow gamers seem to get just as excited at this time of year as we are at Fall when most games are coming out. We must've been confused for these past fifteen years. (If you don't know what event I'm referring to, look at any website dedicated to video games.) *ends debate due to off-topicness*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have said this before, but I followed the game almost daily from the time it was announced, through the publisher limbo, until the time it was released and I never ever thought it would be as RTSy as it turned out to be, I knew the multiplayer would be RTS heavy and I figured the RTS parts would be like the boss battles of the regular game, and the rest would be more Zelda like. But no, its 90% RTS. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind RTS and I love how they did Brutal Legends RTS, they point being that they didnt let the public know just how much of an RTS game it was going to be. I think the game would have fared better, sales wise, had there been more instances of "solo" Eddie play, like the Spider Queens Layer.

Thank God there are developers who still care more about making games than selling them.

...Is this sarcastic? I haven't seen such a stupid comment on the internet in a long time. Marketing is as important as developing the game, if you market the game wrong people are going to be angry. We were told for a long time that Brutal Legend was going to be levels like the part in the mines with ocassional stage battles. What did we get? A game that was awesome at delivering just that for the first half until it started being pretty much just stage battles and escort missions. It's like marketing a product to have the alcoholic content of beer and instead giving you a bottle of whiskey. Sure some people will be happy, but the general reaction will be "What the f*ck!" It's sad that if the game had more levels like the part at the Screaming Wall and others and kept the multiplayer, everyone would be happy right now.

Marketing is NOT as important as developing games. Never was, never will be.

Strange, me and most of my fellow gamers seem to get just as excited at this time of year as we are at Fall when most games are coming out. We must've been confused for these past fifteen years. (If you don't know what event I'm referring to, look at any website dedicated to video games.) *ends debate due to off-topicness*

You're not confused, you just like talking about games more than playing them. *ends debate due to off-topicness*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not a sequel, a Brutal Legend Black Label would be nice. With everything that got cut, and all the DLC on one disc, plus extra stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...