Wonderful post!
I find it extremely disappointing that instead of having confidence in Myazaki's vision and nurturing him as the talented young director of the Souls series, FROM and Namco Bandai have cast him aside.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dark Souls II (PS3/360/PC) - Edge Magazine details (Prepare yourself)
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
I find it extremely disappointing that instead of having confidence in Myazaki's vision and nurturing him as the talented young director of the Souls series, FROM and Namco Bandai have cast him aside.
Yes. Great post and co-signed. The feeling that total strangers all come together in a crisis type, apocalyptic scenario to help one another is what makes Souls series so great. Everyone of value works together to overcome insurmountable odds, and the casual gaming bunch is too soft to make it. This is when the true Souls starts here.
Picking apart the news bit by bit. I've also gathered some news from elsewhere;
Sounds okay. I'm more concerned about the art style over the actual graphical prowess. Dark Souls is a pretty low budget looking game by most of today's standards, but the artstyle was so rich and well realized I rarely noticed. At the same time, the huge focus on artstyle over state of the arts graphics might be why the game as a whole was as good as it was. The only thing graphics related I'm really concerned about is the framerate, which was one of Dark Souls' big weaknesses.
The art style in the trailer struck me as very off. I don't know how to put it. It felt much less like the Berserk-esq dark fantasy of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls and much more like a standard fantasy affair. I think I compared it to Skyrim, but that never felt right either.
I do have to say that the concept art looks fantastic. It's definitely has the dark fantasy edge we're used to, so my faith in the art style is a bit restored. I think they just picked an armor set that doesn't appeal to me as the new Dark Souls General, like if they went with Solaire's set instead of the Elite Knight Set when promoting Dark Souls 1.
This news has me worried. I was fairly concerned about the change in directors and now I think I'm officially off the hype train until we start seeing gameplay.
I think it's safe to say that the Souls series wouldn't be what it is today without Miyazaki's unique sensibilities. That he isn't that involved worries me. When reading interviews, it's very clear just how much of the games is a direct result of his direction.
Very interesting.
As I said before, I don't like the idea of "more accessibility." Dark Souls is very reminiscent of the Metroid games. It doesn't have the permanent upgrades, but the world design and the general feel is very similar. These games are all based around lots of secrets, some small, some major, and exploration. I love how inaccessible a lot of the secrets are. When the game was released I had so much fun browsing the wikis and forums seeing all the speculation, and people speculating, spreading rumors and sharing secrets. I played through the game more times than I can count and I'm still not sure I know about all the secrets and loot in the game.
I do feel covenants could use some revamp. While I do want some of them to be well hidden, I want all of them to be comparable in rewards and the lore you're given. There were a lot of useless covenants, and some odd nonsensical lore ones like the Gravelord Servants. I also want to see picking a covenant to be a huge, game long commitment. I don't like how you could theoretically join a covenant, obtain all their rewards and immediately ditch them for the next covenant in the game. I like the idea of covenants having a big influence on the "Firelink Shrine" of the game like what NPCs are there, and perhaps even changing the look of the area.
I'm very happy about this. Despite having DLC and patches, I was still very satisfied with Dark Souls. It very much felt like a complete game, despite the game breaking bugs and the Prepare to Die Edition.
Good.
It seems like From Software knows a cash cow franchise when it sees one. They've been making Souls games nonstop since Demon's Souls went into production.
I have no interest in vehicles. The only way I would be happy with one is if it's a boat used like elevator's in Dark Souls 1; just a quick way to get you somewhere that is auto piloted. It could actually be really interesting if you do something like that. You arrive at a blood red lake, blanketed by a sea of skeletons. A thick fog hangs over the area. At the docks is a ferry run by an unsettling looking undead who will take you to an island in the middle of the lake for a fee.
Anything other than something like that. Yeah, no thanks. One of the best things about Dark Souls is how fluid the game design is. There is only really one game play style you have to get used to. Aside from movement speeds and rolling, your character always controls the same. You never have to switch to a new character with a radically different move set and game play feel.
Sounds okay. I'm more concerned about the art style over the actual graphical prowess. Dark Souls is a pretty low budget looking game by most of today's standards, but the artstyle was so rich and well realized I rarely noticed. At the same time, the huge focus on artstyle over state of the arts graphics might be why the game as a whole was as good as it was. The only thing graphics related I'm really concerned about is the framerate, which was one of Dark Souls' big weaknesses.
The art style in the trailer struck me as very off. I don't know how to put it. It felt much less like the Berserk-esq dark fantasy of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls and much more like a standard fantasy affair. I think I compared it to Skyrim, but that never felt right either.
I do have to say that the concept art looks fantastic. It's definitely has the dark fantasy edge we're used to, so my faith in the art style is a bit restored. I think they just picked an armor set that doesn't appeal to me as the new Dark Souls General, like if they went with Solaire's set instead of the Elite Knight Set when promoting Dark Souls 1.
This news has me worried. I was fairly concerned about the change in directors and now I think I'm officially off the hype train until we start seeing gameplay.
I think it's safe to say that the Souls series wouldn't be what it is today without Miyazaki's unique sensibilities. That he isn't that involved worries me. When reading interviews, it's very clear just how much of the games is a direct result of his direction.
Very interesting.
The interconnected, nonlinear world was one of my favorite things about Dark Souls and I'm very excited about it making a return.
I was perfectly happy with Dark Souls' combat system.
As I said before, I don't like the idea of "more accessibility." Dark Souls is very reminiscent of the Metroid games. It doesn't have the permanent upgrades, but the world design and the general feel is very similar. These games are all based around lots of secrets, some small, some major, and exploration. I love how inaccessible a lot of the secrets are. When the game was released I had so much fun browsing the wikis and forums seeing all the speculation, and people speculating, spreading rumors and sharing secrets. I played through the game more times than I can count and I'm still not sure I know about all the secrets and loot in the game.
I do feel covenants could use some revamp. While I do want some of them to be well hidden, I want all of them to be comparable in rewards and the lore you're given. There were a lot of useless covenants, and some odd nonsensical lore ones like the Gravelord Servants. I also want to see picking a covenant to be a huge, game long commitment. I don't like how you could theoretically join a covenant, obtain all their rewards and immediately ditch them for the next covenant in the game. I like the idea of covenants having a big influence on the "Firelink Shrine" of the game like what NPCs are there, and perhaps even changing the look of the area.
I'm very happy about this. Despite having DLC and patches, I was still very satisfied with Dark Souls. It very much felt like a complete game, despite the game breaking bugs and the Prepare to Die Edition.
Good.
It seems like From Software knows a cash cow franchise when it sees one. They've been making Souls games nonstop since Demon's Souls went into production.
I have no interest in vehicles. The only way I would be happy with one is if it's a boat used like elevator's in Dark Souls 1; just a quick way to get you somewhere that is auto piloted. It could actually be really interesting if you do something like that. You arrive at a blood red lake, blanketed by a sea of skeletons. A thick fog hangs over the area. At the docks is a ferry run by an unsettling looking undead who will take you to an island in the middle of the lake for a fee.
Anything other than something like that. Yeah, no thanks. One of the best things about Dark Souls is how fluid the game design is. There is only really one game play style you have to get used to. Aside from movement speeds and rolling, your character always controls the same. You never have to switch to a new character with a radically different move set and game play feel.
Snapshot King
Member
After reading the article myself, I gotta say, all this alarmism is ridiculous. Game sounds like it'll shape up great, and all those scary quotes make perfect sense in context.
One of the directors being response for one of From's worst games doesn't help. And it's very easy to imagine something like Dark Souls being wrecked with for mass appeal, especially in recent years where it's been getting really bad.
The change of directors is bad thing, not necessarly because of the act of changing directors itself, but because of the fact that Namco got involved on the decision, it tells us that that the decision was likely made with a focus other than "making a better game".
The fact that the directors are from early on talking about things usually not associated with the Souls franchise, in my view to try and appeal to a more broaden audience, seems to indicate this. Their speech reads as a planned statment to try and sell the game to the people that were afraid of touching Dark Souls while trying to ease their core base worries.
This confuses me, Dark Souls was a game that sold itself mostly via word of mouth, based on the idea of being a hard game that didn't relent.
Starting the marketing of a sequel by trying to ease out that preconceived notion that people have of the franchise seems counter-productive. The mass market won't view Dark Souls II as an accessible game regardless of what Namco does, the franchise as already been labeled as otherwise, so those people are very unlikely to touch DSII.
The type of message that Namco and From are passing does however create worry among the franchise core base, which in turn creates bad word of mouth. This can already be seen by this very thread.
The fact that the directors are from early on talking about things usually not associated with the Souls franchise, in my view to try and appeal to a more broaden audience, seems to indicate this. Their speech reads as a planned statment to try and sell the game to the people that were afraid of touching Dark Souls while trying to ease their core base worries.
This confuses me, Dark Souls was a game that sold itself mostly via word of mouth, based on the idea of being a hard game that didn't relent.
Starting the marketing of a sequel by trying to ease out that preconceived notion that people have of the franchise seems counter-productive. The mass market won't view Dark Souls II as an accessible game regardless of what Namco does, the franchise as already been labeled as otherwise, so those people are very unlikely to touch DSII.
The type of message that Namco and From are passing does however create worry among the franchise core base, which in turn creates bad word of mouth. This can already be seen by this very thread.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
We're in for bad shit now, Big Money's involved.
because there is only one good way to continue developing that idea
Manmademan
Member
I missed out on pyromancy entirely, because I hit the pyromancer in the barrel instead of rolling into it. then I had to kill him, and no pyromancy flame for me.
Wolf Akela
Member
.
Phonomezer
Banned
lol
Good.
Lost Fragment
Obsessed with 4chan
I am extremely worried by what I read and by the decision to change director.
As I said in another topic, I sounds to me like they ask Ridley Scott to make the sequel of Mulholland Drive... and Scott would say: "I am gonna make it more exciting thanks to my experience in action movies!" Sounds just bad.
And the things the new directors say tend to confirm my worries: they talk about them more than the Dark souls heritage. Nothing they say makes me think they understood the strenghts and singularities of the serie.
the guy says his experience in action games will help? Come on man! No other game on the planet nails "action" like DS! It just redefined the way you play: transforming every encouter in a duel that is worth taking serioulsy, that forces you to respect every ennemy as every enemy can kill you ! And if he does, it's ALWAYS your fault! You can never blame the game mechanics as they are so coherent.
The weight, the inertia, the counter system, the pace,...everything is absolutly perfectly tuned. The bosses are legend... At least aknowledge it and say you will respect these aspects..instead of pretending your past experiences will help taking the game to better levels.
We've seen this happening too often in videogames: new directors who try too hard and take someone else's vision to wrong directions.
What the fuck is wrong with japanese devs these days? If a decison can be wrong, you can be sure they ll make it!
But that one is so obviously wrong it's not even funny...
As I said in another topic, I sounds to me like they ask Ridley Scott to make the sequel of Mulholland Drive... and Scott would say: "I am gonna make it more exciting thanks to my experience in action movies!" Sounds just bad.
And the things the new directors say tend to confirm my worries: they talk about them more than the Dark souls heritage. Nothing they say makes me think they understood the strenghts and singularities of the serie.
the guy says his experience in action games will help? Come on man! No other game on the planet nails "action" like DS! It just redefined the way you play: transforming every encouter in a duel that is worth taking serioulsy, that forces you to respect every ennemy as every enemy can kill you ! And if he does, it's ALWAYS your fault! You can never blame the game mechanics as they are so coherent.
The weight, the inertia, the counter system, the pace,...everything is absolutly perfectly tuned. The bosses are legend... At least aknowledge it and say you will respect these aspects..instead of pretending your past experiences will help taking the game to better levels.
We've seen this happening too often in videogames: new directors who try too hard and take someone else's vision to wrong directions.
What the fuck is wrong with japanese devs these days? If a decison can be wrong, you can be sure they ll make it!
But that one is so obviously wrong it's not even funny...
RyougaSaotome
Member
Honestly, my biggest concern comes from my experience with ACE:R. I only spent 1000 yen on it, but it was an absolute piece of garbage that still somehow managed to feel like a waste of money despite its bargain bin price.
Admittedly, I've never touched the other ACE games, so I can only speak about my experiences with R.
Keeping my hype and expectations low for the time being.
Admittedly, I've never touched the other ACE games, so I can only speak about my experiences with R.
Keeping my hype and expectations low for the time being.
teh_J0kerer
Member
Yeah, sadly Im putting this game in my guilty until proven innocent pile..
Call me a pessimist, but I really smell another DmC. Another classic franchise ruined by "new blood".
Sadly, I'm in the same camp until I see extended gameplay, impressions from fans and overall vision. Hearing what Miyazaki has to say about it would be enlightening, I doubt he'd have kind words about the switch.
I think that's an exageration, unlike DmC this game is still being created by From with a lot of members that worked on Dark Souls, so I expect an enjoyable game at worst.
That does hoewever represents a lowering of expectations, I think Dark Souls II will be enjoyable but will fails to reach their franchise core base as well as the broaden base that they might be after.
"New Blood" isn't necessarly a bad thing, but the reasons why this game is getting "new blood" as well as the particular choices they made (people with backgrounds from outside the franchise whose past work doesn't really seem to particularly fit with Dark Souls) make me doubt the end result.
Thing is, it looks like the decision was made by the board, not by Miyazaki... I can't see this as a good news for a director to watch your creation passed to someone else... especially when the creation is so original.
No creator would appreciate this imo. I don't expect much involvment from him. Would anyone help people who take your creation from you?
No creator would appreciate this imo. I don't expect much involvment from him. Would anyone help people who take your creation from you?
That's the thing though. The whole "new blood" gibberish is just a kind way a saying "the current head of direction doesn't fit in with our financial and appeal approaches, so we axed him to plant directors willing to do what we want, when we want it". Plain and simple, there would literally be no other reason for Miyazaki to step aside, not with his proven vision that fans adore and chops in direction and design. It's just a corporate usurping for broad appeal for financial gain, Scamco see's a potential next "AAA dev with a potential Skyrim-like financial promise" to pedigree and isn't about to let Miyazaki's niche vision get in the way.
That's how I see it, bottom line. There would be zero reason to not beg Miyazaki to stay on otherwise. We know enough about Miyazaki to know he wouldn't be a person to compromise the series vision for "broad appeal", or be a yes man for corporate, so they simply replaced him with directors that would, once the cash started really sparkling in their eyes.
Castor Krieg
Banned
This right there. It pains me as someone with a management position to see so many bad managers in their jobs. You are right, the franchise has already been labeled as difficult. Skyrim crowd is looking forward to next Elder Scrolls games, not Dark Souls 2.
I do not mind some thing to be explained better, mostly via an expanded tutorial. However, the EDGE article makes it sounds like they want to change too many things at once, with usual PR damage control that the series will still "retain its soul", whereas the article is indicating the opposite.
The thing is - this is not Scamco's doing. FROM retains publishing rights in Japan, which tells you that the IP still belongs to them. Moreover, FROM is a private company, not part of Namco Bandai. In my opinion the decision came from FROM management, not Namco's.
It looks like they co-own it actually, as even on the Japanese site NBGI shows up in the copyrights. That does mean it wouldn't be all their call though, they clearly had a debate over it and decided to hand it to new people. And as noted given when development started they had already decided to hand it over before the original was even sold.
Kind of wonder if they may be looking into something similar to Call of Duty actually, albeit not with annual releases? Let Miyazaki do his thing, then rope him back in for Dark Souls III regardless of how well like Shibuya's game is.
I honestly believe it was a collective decision on both parts, but yes ultimately the decision was made by FROM management. But I think one could reasonably assume both the pub and dev heads decided it was in both their interests (financial and commercial expansion) to axe Miyazaki and nerf the game.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but all signs point to this road.
Or they just wanted to shake things up, and free Miyazaki up for other projects that they want to do well.
I know this example doesn't inspire confidence, but with DMC2, Capcom didn't ask Kamiya what he'd do with it and then pick a different director. They just started development on the sequel without asking him.
If you have a really talented designer, as a publisher you'd want them to make lots of different successful IPs. It takes a lot more vision to create something brand new than to iterate on something that already exists, so they may want Miyazaki's talents to be more widely utilized. Those seeds he sprouts can then be nurtured by other developers in the studio.
Until we actually see some actual examples of the game being played, I'd prefer to remain positive, instead of criticizing From and Namco for invented issues based on vague quotes.
That's the attitude I take as well. I can't believe there's so much negativity around even though we haven't even seen a single picture of the game.
Agreed. But instead I'll stay silently pessimistic.
But yeah, that's what I hope is happening with Miyazaki, but at the end of the day I hope the "spread the new IP talent" doesn't destroy Souls for the sake of it. Just look at who they've appointed as directors, not exactly the cream of the crop, nor do they seem to echo what falls in line with fans.
But speculation aside, I'm looking forward to how this shakes out.
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of "walking slowly with your shield up"? If i'm reading that right, you would assign some timing feature to the simple act of blocking, blending it with parrying?
That part about Nier sounds very interesting (And Alpha Protocol!). I played through Walking Dead 1, and some of 2, but I didn't really enjoy it -- I rarely play games for the story.
And no, not all games - but most titles in recent years (Specifically talking about console games; the ones that come in a plastic Xbox 360 or PS3 game box with cover art, quotes from the popular sites/magazines on the cover in some cases, and a bit of information on the back of the cover with a PR spin.
) have been trying to replicate the mediocre Hollywood movie experience. There are certainly other aspects of gaming, and of course other types of stories being told -- that's not my point, though.
More and more games are focusing (Or atleast have more and more elements of.) on story, set elements, scripting, and the kind of stuff that developers seem to think makes the game more "Hollywood" -- it's becoming more and more common.
It obviously started as a way to cushion the risks of extremely high budget movies/games; make the story as generic as possible so ads, marketing can reach a lot of people -- a niche story might be upsetting, or extremely boring for some people, or many people.
Generic stories have the benefit of, most likely, not being ignored by the majority of people who hear about it.
But, now, it seems like more and more people are incorporating more and more elements of that "design" into their games, or movies even.
Anyhow, people watch the "Hollywood, popcorn" flicks for that fill -- games are supposed to fill something else. Gameplay is king, not the story, and certainly not these "Elements of Hollywood" game stories.
I may have exaggerated a bit, but it really is a problem, and there are loads of such games out there.
The story in any of the Uncharted games is basically the definition of the Hollywood mediocrity I'm talking about. The cliches, how they set up the story, how the arcs go, the overall structure in mediocre Hollywood popcorn movies is very similar to the storytelling in these types of games.
And I play a lot of different games -- currently I'm mostly scouring the net for independant PC game titles and such, but I still like to complain about the way these million dollar games are being handled.
Red Liquorice
Member
I read the article, I was interested most about the talk of vehicles. I can't imagine how they would impliment vehicles in the series, my only idea would be like Resident Evil 4's minecart section with QTE's which would be TERRIBLE. But reading the article, I don't know if vehicles would be anything more than this, but it sounds like maybe this reaper type character on the chariot could be human controlled, a la the Old Monk.
If that is so, I think it sounds awesome and the lack of an Old Monk type boss in DS was something a lot of people lamented.
We know there will be an underground level, a mad scientist - probably a boss - areas by the sea (reminded me of 4-2 in Demon Souls) this sounds like there might be wind and waves that might hinder your progress, sounds cool. And sounds like there might be a level on a ship - possibly a ghost ship knowing the series? Again sounds great.
I think there is more to be excited about than worried about here, the article did not dampen my enthusiasm at all.
If that is so, I think it sounds awesome and the lack of an Old Monk type boss in DS was something a lot of people lamented.
We know there will be an underground level, a mad scientist - probably a boss - areas by the sea (reminded me of 4-2 in Demon Souls) this sounds like there might be wind and waves that might hinder your progress, sounds cool. And sounds like there might be a level on a ship - possibly a ghost ship knowing the series? Again sounds great.
I think there is more to be excited about than worried about here, the article did not dampen my enthusiasm at all.
They haven't cast him aside. From the article it sounds like they've thought from a business point of view that the Souls series is now established enough that they want to take it's creator away to see if he can stamp his magic on something else.
Yeah I was thinking that too but I have another theory would be vehicles is another way to replace the Lordvessel traveling system.
Which it seems is not something he wanted, or is happy with. And neither are most people in this thread.
They didn't confirm the existence of vehicles. I'm sure they're throwing around all kinds of ideas at this point. Hopefully those don't make it in.
As I said, I want to be optimistic, but the main thing that concerns me is that they were brought in with the explicit instruction to shake things up and take the series in a new direction. That's a difficult thing to do, and it's the sort of task that often leads developers into fixing systems that aren't broken.
We'll see where they wind up in the end.
As I said, I want to be optimistic, but the main thing that concerns me is that they were brought in with the explicit instruction to shake things up and take the series in a new direction. That's a difficult thing to do, and it's the sort of task that often leads developers into fixing systems that aren't broken.
We'll see where they wind up in the end.
Snapshot King
Member
Man, this is getting a DmC level reaction, over like 1% of the actual change. What cause is there to flip your shit already? I read the article, game seems like it'll be interesting. Maybe we remain cautiously optimistic until we have solid reasons not to?
Andrea23
Member
Update: the central frame is also prerendered.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45482452&postcount=612
've fun
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45482452&postcount=612
've fun
Using Miyazaki on Dark Souls II right now would mean we would have to wait until 2015-2016 to get next-gen Souls. I'm completely convinced that what he is working on right now is a new Souls title for next gen, be it one with a new name, or even perhaps Sony threw megamoney at From to get him to head up a Demon's Souls sequel for PS4. Who knows.
It seems that he's expressed disappointment that he can't be more involved with Dark Souls II, but of course he feels that way... it's a sequel to his game. That doesn't mean that what he's working on right now isn't Souls, though. I think Dark Souls II is just From's experiment to see if the series can be handled by other directors with any success, and so that they can sell one more PS3/360 title while the true Souls director is focused on new hardware.
It seems that he's expressed disappointment that he can't be more involved with Dark Souls II, but of course he feels that way... it's a sequel to his game. That doesn't mean that what he's working on right now isn't Souls, though. I think Dark Souls II is just From's experiment to see if the series can be handled by other directors with any success, and so that they can sell one more PS3/360 title while the true Souls director is focused on new hardware.
Phonomezer
Banned
've fun
Looks fine to me considering how early it is into development.
I agree.
In general, I can't really understand the "personality cult" that particularly fans of japanese games often seem to exhibit. Where they are completely hyped or utterly negative on a game simply because of one or two people involved. Modern games are very much a team effort, and I just don't see how one or two people make such a huge difference. Even for the few developers I know by name and have a lot of respect for (eg. Avellone, Sawyer) I still don't think any game they touch would automatically turn to gold -- and conversely, someone I never heard of working on a game doesn't mean that it won't be great.
H_Prestige
Banned
He said he's working on a happier feeling game. Doubt that means Demon's 2.
Happy Souls?
Durante said:
It's like a Tarantino movie without Tarantino.
Heck, he already said the feeling of vagueness to feed your imagination is based on his personal experience. The new directors want nothing to do with that and will force feed us some stupid pilgrimage plot or something. While keeping a few things secret, thinking that's all they need to keep the core of Souls intact. Absolutely disgusting.
I'm curious to know if the people against a Sony developed Demon's Souls 2 are okay with a Namco developed Dark Souls 2. Because that's basically what this game is.
Maybe the thought that his vision isn't being changed in the game he's working on now is what's happier about it.
A lot of ideas seem to come directly from Miyazaki's life experiences and peculiar vision.
So a very particular game like Dark Souls, seems so very dependent on that particular directorship, that a shift like this is worrysome.
BUT, as i said earlier, in the actual article they go out of their way to point out that they established with DeS and DkS, the very basis for these games, know what the fans like and aim to please.
That is like saying only Miyasaki has had life experience's that could translate to gameplay elements. Who knows, the new Directors could bring some awesome new elements to the game, without sacrificing the true root of the game.
Until we see the game and what changes they have made, it seems a bit early to call anything. We have a good year of dev time to see what they do and praise/deride those choice.
Fried Food
Banned
so getting a chance to work on a brand new game all your own(its not going to be souls related) is considered being cast aside?
Namco wanted new people leading DS2 just so they could have their asset( Myazaki) create new experiences that could some day reach a third title.
No, it's saying that it appears to be a very personal and authorial franchise, despite being a team effort.
It doesn't mean someone else's vision coming in, is necessarily a mess, but it's easier for them to "miss" what's so good about it, as opposed to a more traditional, straight forward, focus group based AAA title.
They can or cannot bring in a lot of good stuff, but there's a difference in taking off from someone else's very personal vision and starting off with your own.
As for the waiting to see more: Well that's a given and i doubt they'll stop development for a couple of kneejerk opinions on message boards.
We're here to argue and discuss, often with little to no material to go on, so of course it'll be all very abstract speculation, one way or the other.