I think it’s important to consider that, if you had some aim to release something annually, but without taking any oblique compromises on quality, how would you announce this to people without pissing them off? Because a lot of people are going to hear the word ‘annual’ and just immediately seize.

I think, and I’m not saying this is true per se, but I think that they’re signaling an aim or a hope, and not that there will be a CI pipeline that auto releases the next Assassin’s Creed to stores no matter what state it’s in.

If they can’t keep pace with yearly releases, the language used tells me they’re willing to slow down, kind of exactly like how Resident Evil has.

I will be disappointed if it turns out Konami can’t keep their cock in their pants, of course, but SH2, SHf, and what I think I’ve heard about MGS3 all tell me that there is some effort to produce things that are worth seeing here, which I’m fine with.

Um, the part where it was fun and creepy? And drenched in symbolism. I don’t know what you’re asking.

I think you’re implying that they made a game called f and then called it Silent Hill f, but I don’t think that’s even remotely true. I don’t even know where to go with that.

We may as well ask if Ocarina of Time isn’t a good Zelda game because the 3D elements stray too far from the core experience of having crazy pink hair. Would it have mattered if that game was instead called “Golden Billy Wets His Willy in Medieval Japan”?

Hard disagree.

Not that I clicked on the article, but the quote given by OP actually doesn’t worry me too much. It feels too me like there is an appropriate level of caution here. I don’t get the impression they’re trying to do an Activision.

Resident Evil was near annual for a bit, and only the 3 remake do I really hear people complain about.