Spider-Man: Edge of Time - Part 1

[Anno_Domini]

Why do you single out "hardcore fans"? I'm pretty sure anyone who played the game had certain things they did and didn't like about it. Just saying. Like the wall crawling? That was horrible, and I'm pretty sure nobody liked it. Beenox has already said that they were working on fixing that for us. As for the web weapons... I actually liked those. Why didn't you? (Just out of curiosity )

I'm not answering the first paragraph in your reply, because I have stated my answer twice on what should have been different with EOT. Too much explanation and it may only confuse more. But...the web weapons were ignorant and stupid and pointless, imo. Besides, Spider-Man uses web cartridges and he can create giant hammers or fists? That's silly and far-fetch. I wish we finally get a game of Spidey having no more webbing to use to make it more of a challenge. 2099, Noir and Ultimate were awesome in SD, but Beenox seemed way too lazy with 616.

Why didn't SD 'deserve' a sequel? Sequels don't have to be the same story line, you know. Of course they wouldn't have made another game that involved breaking the tablet of time.

When it's called 'Shattered Dimensions', then you can only do so much to keep it fresh, but so much can still be too little, thus a sequel isn't/wasn't needed. And you even said so yourself, a tablet of time can only be used once...so why would we need all of those realities to team up if time isn't the problem anymore?

And again, EOT isn't a sequel, otherwise the name would've been Spider-Man 2: Edge of Time.

No thats not what I meant, I meant that eot and sd where on the table at the same time and Activison went with SD.

Even if that's the case, Beenox didn't do enough to work on EOT. As with SD, they didn't have a script until later. They did the same process as they did with SD, as in they picked villains first.

Well I guess if you weren't satisfied with that, then you should just pretend there are no new Spiderman games coming out. You can ignore all of that nonesense (you know, since they all apparently suck) and go back to replaying all the old sandbox Spidey games that had even less development and thought put into them. You can play those a few more times, to remind yourself why you should be thankful there are any new games with decent quality coming out at all. I mean if you're not going to be grateful for it, than why waste $60+, right?

The immaturity in this post, lol.

Hey, I've said I liked Shattered Dimensions(mostly because of Noir...they actually did wonders with those levels), so, Beenox did a decent job, but, will Beenox ever make a Spidey game to be compared to Arkham Asylum? Nope, or at least not until someone smacks the hell out of Activision and then tells Beenox to find someone to create a story/script first, THEN pick which villains to use second. And it wouldn't hurt to give us the entire NY and not just a building.

Also, don't worry...no chance I'll be wasting $60 on this game. If anything, I'll rent it early 2012.

**** activision they are what we should be whing and throwing fits about not beenox.

The way I see it...

Activision - Sony
Beenox - Sam Raimi

Both at fault, but Activision deserves a little more.

 

[spider13]

The story is in the hands of a great writer so as far as the story goes I don't think we have anything to worry about in that aspect.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

The story is in the hands of a great writer so as far as the story goes I don't think we have anything to worry about in that aspect.

Well didnt people say that last time?

 

[spider13]

who wrote the game last time.

 

[OmarBatGeek]

@Anno: Well I like the web attacks, I think they're great and they bring me to Spidey's humorous side. I think that was the point, too, since they had to differentiate the fighting from dimension to dimension.

Again with the sequel thing... It doesn't have to be the exact same story. Just because SD is about what it is about doesn't mean that it's sequel would have to be another four dimensions. And the name? Are you seriously trying to tell me that it's not a sequel if the number two isn't in the title? That's an ignorant statement if I've ever heard one. How about Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City? I don't see a 2 in AC's title, do I? Let's take some movies. Aliens? Alien: Ressurection? Predators? Friday the 13th: Jason X? Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince? Lord of the Rings: Return of the King? I mean the list goes on and on.

Okay so we're all in agreement, then, that Activision needs to simmer down and allow Beenox a couple of years to develop a better game than they can in just a year. However... You're saying they should write a story before they choose a villain? What sense does that make? The villains involved in a story affect what happens in the game so much it wouldn't really make sense to think up a story before you add in the villains.

And you want all of New York? So you want ANOTHER sandbox game? Really? Don't you think those have been done to death, kind of like Venom has been? Plus, whenever you make the studio focus on creating a huge map for you to play on everything else goes to ****. The graphics get worse, the story has less thought put into it, the characters get less time to shine and make their point, everything just goes out the window because so much space on the disk is being devoted to the huge map and all the buildings. So no, actually, I really do NOT need another sandbox game.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Well didnt people say that last time?

Exactly, lol. The mediocre fans are always going to argue and say 'Activision/Beenox will show us all this time!', lol.

who wrote the game last time.

Another writer. Don't know his name though.

@Anno: Well I like the web attacks, I think they're great and they bring me to Spidey's humorous side. I think that was the point, too, since they had to differentiate the fighting from dimension to dimension.

Still...stupid. The humorous side of Spidey comes from his wisecracks, not how he fights.

Again with the sequel thing... It doesn't have to be the exact same story. Just because SD is about what it is about doesn't mean that it's sequel would have to be another four dimensions.

Well, when it deals with 'shattered dimensions', then, yes, you'd expect multiple realities. EOT is playing on the elements of the more-important incarnations from SD, but again, not SD's true sequel.

That's an ignorant statement if I've ever heard one.

Ignorant, huh? Well, okay then...let's go...

How about Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City?

'Arkham' is the key word.

I don't see a 2 in AC's title, do I?

Brotherhood and Revelations belong to Assassin's Creed II, thus they're not AC III or AC IV. You'd know that if you do some research besides calling what I say ignorant and instead making yourself sound ignorant.

Let's take some movies.

Yes, shall we?

Aliens? Alien: Ressurection?

They're still real sequels though. Not something entirely new that gives fans headaches by wishing they were sequels to the original film.

Predators?

As a homage to 'Aliens', but, while being a sequel, not using a '3' because it doesn't follow Predator 2.

Friday the 13th: Jason X?

X is the Roman numeral of ten. Lol, you call me ignorant.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince? Lord of the Rings: Return of the King?

A series of books. Show me a book series that uses numerals instead of subtitles.

Dude, just let it go...Edge of Time is NOT a sequel to Shattered Dimensions. Good freaking gosh man. Give it the eff up and learn what Roman numerals are or something.

Okay so we're all in agreement, then, that Activision needs to simmer down and allow Beenox a couple of years to develop a better game than they can in just a year. However... You're saying they should write a story before they choose a villain? What sense does that make? The villains involved in a story affect what happens in the game so much it wouldn't really make sense to think up a story before you add in the villains.

Do you think an amazing director, such as Nolan, would create a story around a villain? No, he thinks of the story and uses a villain or villains around the story. That's what Raimi did with Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 as well.

And you want all of New York? So you want ANOTHER sandbox game? Really? Don't you think those have been done to death, kind of like Venom has been? Plus, whenever you make the studio focus on creating a huge map for you to play on everything else goes to ****. The graphics get worse, the story has less thought put into it, the characters get less time to shine and make their point, everything just goes out the window because so much space on the disk is being devoted to the huge map and all the buildings. So no, actually, I really do NOT need another sandbox game.

Wow....so, obviously you must think Arkham Asylum wastes all of their characters and focuses just on the map and sandbox feel of the game? Lol...your arguments are of a fanboy and nothing more. You can create an amazing gaming atmosphere while also caring about the characters.

 

[spider13]

arkham asylum is not a sandbox game.

So the writer of sd was a nobody then. Not the case with eot its peter ****ing david.

 

[Anno_Domini]

arkham asylum is not a sandbox game.

So the writer of sd was a nobody then. Not the case with eot its peter ****ing david.

It's more of a sandbox than linear because it was wide open. Arkham City builds upon that and makes it more of a sandbox with the regular sandbox limits and non-limits.

The writer was another comic book writer though, and supposedly a pretty good one. People loved him and loved the idea and said the exact same things you are saying now. If anything, EOT will only be as good as SD.

 

[spider13]

Well I agree therer but arkham a was more linear compared to games like spider man 2 and infamous.

Well the writer of sd must not be anywhere close to as good as peter david (I went looking for the writer of sd just a couple of min ago and could not find him)

 

[OmarBatGeek]

Lol...your arguments are of a fanboy and nothing more.

In regards to this comment I'd like out to point out a couple of things. First off, I'm a fangirl, not a fanboy. And I've only played a few Spiderman games and haven't beaten any of them because I'm really just more of a Batman fan.

Arkham Asylum is more based on story. While yes, you can roam around, the map changes as you progress and the story sends you to specific places. So it's not level based, but it's not a sandbox either. It's kind of in between.

I can see we're just going to have to agree to disagree as far as the whole sequel issue goes. xD

 

[Anno_Domini]

Well I agree therer but arkham a was more linear compared to games like spider man 2 and infamous.

Well the writer of sd must not be anywhere close to as good as peter david (I went looking for the writer of sd just a couple of min ago and could not find him)

AA isn't as sandbox as Infamous or S-M 2 or Prototype, no, but it's as close as we'll see in a Batman game until Arkham City.

And...the writer is Dan Slott: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Slott

In regards to this comment I'd like out to point out a couple of things. First off, I'm a fangirl, not a fanboy. And I've only played a few Spiderman games and haven't beaten any of them because I'm really just more of a Batman fan.

Arkham Asylum is more based on story. While yes, you can roam around, the map changes as you progress and the story sends you to specific places. So it's not level based, but it's not a sandbox either. It's kind of in between.

I can see we're just going to have to agree to disagree as far as the whole sequel issue goes. xD

Honestly, you sounded like an obsessed fanboy. My apologies on the gender mistake though.

And a sandbox game can be about stories as well. Prototype. Infamous. Red Dead Redemption. L.A. Noire.

Plus...there shouldn't be a "agree/disagree" argument in the first place because it's already been said Edge of Time ISN'T a sequel. To say otherwise is just stupid and would definitely create arguments.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

arkham asylum is not a sandbox game.

So the writer of sd was a nobody then. Not the case with eot its peter ****ing david.

Dan Slott wrote SD.

edit: Anno already answered that.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Plus...there shouldn't be a "agree/disagree" argument in the first place because it's already been said Edge of Time ISN'T a sequel. To say otherwise is just stupid and would definitely create arguments.

Well its not a sequel in that it has nothing to do with Shattered Dimensions, but its borrowing a LOT from the last game. Same animations, same gameplay, same voice actors etc. I mean calling it another SD isnt that much of a reach.

 

[OmarBatGeek]

Well its not a sequel in that it has nothing to do with Shattered Dimensions, but its borrowing a LOT from the last game. Same animations, same gameplay, same voice actors etc. I mean calling it another SD isnt that much of a reach.

That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to tell you it IS a sequel, because as you have stated it isn't. All I'm saying is that it MIGHT AS WELL be a sequel, since they're using the same engine and the stories are similar and whatnot.

Back to the sandbox debate... Yes sandbox games revolve around stories, just like level based games. If they didn't no one would ever want to play them. But just look at the sizes of the maps. Compare L.A. Noire's map to AA's. Look at AC's, RDR's and SM2's maps. They're all massive. AA is, again, in between a sandbox and level based game because it doesn't have definitive levels, but it's map isn't large enough to be called a sandbox game. Plus there's really nothing you can do in the other parts of the map other than where you're supposed to be for the story. There are riddles and trophies, sure, but not enemies to fight unless the story brought you to a certain part of the map.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Back to the sandbox debate... Yes sandbox games revolve around stories, just like level based games. If they didn't no one would ever want to play them. But just look at the sizes of the maps. Compare L.A. Noire's map to AA's. Look at AC's, RDR's and SM2's maps. They're all massive. AA is, again, in between a sandbox and level based game because it doesn't have definitive levels, but it's map isn't large enough to be called a sandbox game. Plus there's really nothing you can do in the other parts of the map other than where you're supposed to be for the story. There are riddles and trophies, sure, but not enemies to fight unless the story brought you to a certain part of the map.

Saying

The graphics get worse, the story has less thought put into it, the characters get less time to shine and make their point, everything just goes out the window because so much space on the disk is being devoted to the huge map and all the buildings.

doesn't add up to the point that you were trying to make beforehand...a developer can make a sandbox game and still make it interesting. AA proved that, Infamous proved that, Prototype proved that, RDR proved that and so did LA Noire, and most likely, so will AC.

If Activision ever realizes that, then we can definitely get a great sandbox for us to explore New York and also have an AA-caliber game to deal with.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to tell you it IS a sequel, because as you have stated it isn't. All I'm saying is that it MIGHT AS WELL be a sequel, since they're using the same engine and the stories are similar and whatnot..

Oh yea I agree completely. IMO, this is Shattered Dimensions 2, regardless of what Beenox says. I mean it has all the familiar symptoms of a sequel.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

EDGE OF TIME ISN'T A BLOODY SEQUEL TO SHATTERED DIMENSIONS. That's exactly like saying The Incredible Hulk is a sequel to Hulk

No, it isn't, because again, they were made by different people. It is more like saying Prototype is a spiritual sequel to Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, or MUA is a sequel to X-Men Legends 2. Essentially, in creative design, it IS a sequel, or if different wording makes it easier to understand, the 2nd installment in the Beenox series. Saying they don't deserve to make a second game is pretty unfair too, because with the restrictions Activision puts down, who could possibly make a perfect Spidey game straight outta the gate? If they did some things right in SD, which you yourself admitted, why not give them a chance to build on the weaker aspects?

 

[Wolvieboy17]

doesn't add up to the point that you were trying to make beforehand...a developer can make a sandbox game and still make it interesting. AA proved that, Infamous proved that, Prototype proved that, RDR proved that and so did LA Noire, and most likely, so will AC.

Wasn't Prototype Activision anyway?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

The "it's a sequel/It's not a sequel" debate reminds me of Avi Arad telling fans to consider The Amazing Spider-Man an Untold Tale within the first movie trilogy when there are things saying "Two different dimensions"
This game story has Miguel from 88 years in the future on the same Earth, that game has Miguel as a character from an alternate dimension, it can't be a sequel

Do you mean the Spider-Man games being in somewhat the same continuity as far as visual appearance? At least thats what I've been picking up in the previous posts.

Dude, you play Final Fantasy? None of the games is on the same continuity, they're completely off
Only that pathetic FFX-2 is on the same continuity with the great FFX

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Sorry Aziz, but that logic is flawed. If you believe in the theory of multi-dimensions, there are an infinte number of dimensions filled with an infinite number of situations, so theoritically, an alternate universe 2099 could co-exist with a 2099 future of the same dimension.

Also, calling someone else out on whether they played Final Fantasy, did YOU play SD yet? :P

 

[Oscorp]

IMO, EoT seems to have alot more thought put into it than SD.

SD didn't really have a story at all, basically. The only "story" was a reason for you to battle 12 random villains. There was no character developement at all. However, EoT seems to actually put in villains that make sense this time (Anti-Venom being the killer actually makes perfect sense). I think Beenox listened to many of the complaints about the lack of story in SD.

However, it's unfortunate that they haven't taken away those silly web attacks.

Anyway, I don't get all the complaints about the graphics. You don't see any difference? I think the Amazing Spider-Man version has much better graphics now than in SD. And Spidey's suit has changed for the better too imo. Also, the cutscenes look MUCH better this time. The graphics are fine, they shouldn't change that just because of change.

Dude, you play Final Fantasy? None of the games is on the same continuity, they're completely off
Only that pathetic FFX-2 is on the same continuity with the great FFX

This is hilariously ironic beyond compare.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Sorry Aziz, but that logic is flawed. If you believe in the theory of multi-dimensions, there are an infinte number of dimensions filled with an infinite number of situations, so theoritically, an alternate universe 2099 could co-exist with a 2099 future of the same dimension.

Also, calling someone else out on whether they played Final Fantasy, did YOU play SD yet? :P

Twice already

This is hilariously ironic beyond compare.

I don't know why.
Tell me why?

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Sorry, did my logic confuse you? I could make a youtube video for you...

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

While I'm excited for Edge of Time (more than before), the fact that Activison wants yearly Spider-Man games has me concerned. Look what happened to the Guitar Hero franchise.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I didn't realise Activision wanting yearly Spider-Man games was a new thing.