Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Adrock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 289
Jebus, broodwars, put down the hatchet. You're so anti-IGA that you're altering the narrative just to hate on the guy.
My issue with Igarashi is that he's always struck me as an incredibly lazy developer. All his Castlevania games are permutations on the same damn formula, and most of those use stock sprites from far older Castlevania games.
Not sure it's fair to place the blame entirely on IGA. Konami set the budget. Hindsight is 20/20. Look at what Konami is doing today.
So yeah, when it comes time to go to the internet and beg people for money because no one wants to give you a job (because no one thinks you're reliable or noteworthy), I expect to see some goddamn effort. Instead, all his Kickstarter is is "hey, look at me! I was relevant once! Give me money because of that, and because **** KONAMI!!" He even has the sheer ego to call the game an "Igavania", as if he and he alone were creative enough to add RPG elements to the Metroid formula.
He's admitted to having trouble finding a publisher though this seems to be due to lack of interest in the project rather than unreliability. He made moderate hits for Konami on a limited budget and short deadlines. And I wouldn't say he's necessarily begging for money on the Internet as that sounds worse than it actually is. From a Gamasutra interview:
"All I can say right now is that after over a year of talking with just about every publisher out there, I was able to secure funding for about 90 percent of the game with the condition that I prove the market still wants an Igavania game."
Kickstarter is a really good asset for what he needed to do. The reception has been astounding. People want this game.

And from the same interview regarding "Igavania"
"If we felt it would have been okay with Nintendo to use a name like "Metroidvania" in an official capacity like this, we probably would have. But we wanted to be sure to respect them. When building out the campaign, we needed a new genre name that would help describe this specific type of game, and one of the team members suggested "Igavania." I worried it sounded vain, but assumed it was a temporary placeholder and didn't pay much mind. So yes, now I feel quite a bit of pressure"
My guess is that he didn't want to ruffle any feathers at Nintendo (who may even have turned down the project when IGA was searching for a publisher) since the game, rightfully from a business perspective, was initially skipping Wii U.
He has nothing to show after all these years of working on nothing since leaving Konami.
Years? He left Konami last year. His last game was released in 2011 (which I don't really think is that long ago). Eventually, Konami began shifting toward mobile games. He joined a mobile team and it didn't work out. From a Wired interview:
“Two, maybe three years ago, Konami had slowly shifted its culture, as well as its business model. They started to have major success in the mobile space, and that was starting to be seen by the company as the future.”

No, I'm not giving him that. He hasn't made a game in ages, when he did make those games it was largely with recycled assets as old as Rondo of Blood, and it was with an entirely different development team. Plus, the gaming landscape since his last copy & pasted Castlevania game has greatly changed: games of this style are now incredibly common in the Indie scene, so what's Bloodstained going to do that I can't get from games already on the market? How is it going to stand out, aside from having the name of a developer associated with regurgitated sequels? Hence why I want to see proof of concept footage of the actual game he wants to make. Instead, his entire Kickstarter pitch is focused on his legacy, not what he's going to be doing for us lately. It's smoke & mirrors of the highest caliber.
It sounds like your issue is that you didn't like IGA's Castlevania games to begin with (or at least the later ones) which is your right. I'm not arguing that. However, it doesn't seem like a proof of concept would have changed your mind anyway. This project is, for all intents and purposes, the Castlevania game Konami refuses to make because "mobile is the future" or some other such nonsense. It isn't even continuing the Lords of Shadow reboot (though I'm glad since the last installment was subpar). As previously stated, I haven't backed the project yet. If I decide to, I, personally, don't need a proof of concept. I'm not an IGA super-fan, but I've played his games. I have a pretty good idea of what to expect. It kind of seems like you do too which is what makes this unappealing. What makes this stand out? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but what I really want is Castlevania. I can't get that anymore so this is probably as close as I'm going to get.

Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night is officially billed as 2.5D and built on Unreal Engine 4. Last I checked (which admittedly was a while ago), Unreal Engine 4 doesn't support Wii U, and Epic's official line is if a developer wants to use Unreal Engine 4 on Wii U, it can port the engine itself. Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night is also higher budget than pretty much all of IGA's sprite based Castlevania games since it's in HD and he can't reuse assets from previous games. That said, I don't think the port is going to be quite as easy as you're making it out to be, but I hope Armature Studio figures it out all the same.

I feel much the same way. I've supported a few Kickstarter projects, but only one game: Shantae: Half-Genie Hero. I probably could have waited to buy it upon release, but having followed the character and the company for so long, I appreciate how long Wayforward has been trying to support Shantae and I wanted to help the team. Having played a Shantae game in the past, I considered that a proof of concept. I know it isn't the same thing. I just have very little doubt the game won't be familiar. And that's all I want from the project. I want a new Shantae game with HD sprites.

I have similar feelings toward Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night though I haven't committed to backing the project. Proof of concept? There are six of them. This game is Castlevania in all but name only. Odd as it sounds, I'd be more skeptical if IGA was pitching a non-Metroidvania game. He has made a career of making the same kind of game. As far as Castlevania is concerned, he's only struggled when stepping away from the formula (e.g. Lament of Innocence, The Dracula X Chronicles). I'm interested because he's pitching the only type of game he's excelled at making. Still, the Kickstarter is meant to show interest in the project as IGA has a very vague "backing investment." Additionally, the project has crushed its initial goal. The team doesn't need my money, but I don't think that's the right attitude to have.

The nice thing about backing a game by creators of games you loved is that you have an idea of what to expect. It's the exact reason I backed Half-Genie Hero. I'm not normally one for taking chances. With Shante and Wayforward, I believe in the IP and I believe in the people making the game. It was an easy choice, especially for $15.

I'm on the fence regarding Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night. I thoroughly enjoyed IGA's Castlevania games even if they often devolved into grinding to get rare items. I thought the series was in good hands before Lords of Shadow 2 screwed everything up. It's nice to get an unofficial Castlevania since it isn't like Konami is interested in making games anymore. Order of Ecclesia came out a long time ago so I'm eager for a new game. I expected to support this Kickstarter once a Wii U version became available, but realistically, this won't be released until 2017 when I will likely have moved on to NX. If I support this Kickstarter, I'm leaning on getting the PS4 version but not until the Wii U version is confirmed. Five of IGA's Castlevania titles were on Nintendo platforms. It didn't sit well with me that Nintendo was being left out.

Koji Igarashi's Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night officially has a Wii U port as a stretch goal (as was hinted by the "basement goals"). I'd like to know if the team offers a physical copy for the Wii U version because it's the only physical copy I would actually care about.

TalkBack / Re: NWR TV - Kim, Becky and Splatoon!
« on: May 22, 2015, 08:20:33 PM »
Ideas on what Nintendo can do to expand its online multiplayer: universal voice chat, don't launch software missing key online features, stop policing the Internet/being afraid of potential backlash when idiots abuse the system AKA just make the best online experience that can be had. Ultimately, don't punish the many because of the poor behavior of the few. Sometimes people are 100% a dick. It happens. Deal with it. Everyone else does.

Alright, I'll subscribe. I need more things to watch/listen to at work.

I rate this video an 8/10. Docked points for lack of ninjas.

I would support the Bloostained: Ritual of the Night Kickstarter if there was a Wii U version, particularly if it also had an option for a physical copy. Considering this probably won't be out until 2017, I wonder if there will be an option to switch which version to get. It might be safer to just get the PS4 version even though I currently don't own a PS4 yet.

TalkBack / Re: Nintendo and the Post-Release Patch
« on: May 17, 2015, 11:35:36 PM »
Nintendo's been on record saying that the reason they never put the missing dungeons from Wind Waker back into the game is because those axed dungeons were adapted and moved into Twilight Princess.
And I'm on record (in the post you quoted) saying "it could have easily inserted additional content" which is distinctly different from saying "it could have easily completed and inserted the removed content from the original version." Nintendo repurposing those dungeons is common knowledge among Zelda fans. That said, Nintendo could have created new dungeons for Wind Waker HD if it really wanted to correct the pacing issues in that way. However, in the same interview Eiji Aonuma admitted to using Wind Waker's removed dungeons in other games, he admitted that not adding new dungeons was a conscious choice to stay true to the original version. The entire point of bringing this up is that Nintendo doesn't consider Wind Waker to be incomplete. Conversely, it does consider Splatoon to be incomplete, and is correcting that with a post-release patch.

I'm pretty sure Nintendo owns Eternal Darkness.

I'm starting to get the feeling that Zelda "will" be there in spite what Nintendo has said. Something tells me the winds are blowing in a new direction. Unless what ever new announced game are also open world type games then yeah Zelda will be there.
This could be one of those instances when Nintendo says a game won't be at E3 then it's shown at an after-hours press event/developers roundtable.

I'd still rather not see the game until Nintendo is ready to release it.

TalkBack / Re: Nintendo and the Post-Release Patch
« on: May 17, 2015, 09:22:30 PM »
But they weren't, during the Gamecube era Nintendo was rushing games out in order to meet dates for that system as well.  Nintendo made it clear over a decade ago they will rush games out if their system is struggling and needs games.  I agree it's sad much of the industry is releasing unfinished games that they just fix later but Nintendo releasing unfinished games to help fill their schedule isn't really a new thing.
I don't know, man. You mentioned Wind Waker in your previous post, and called it "incomplete forever." Nintendo updated the game a year and a half ago, and if it considered the game incomplete, it could have easily inserted additional content outside of tweaks like the swift sail. I suppose it's possible that, given Wii U's obscene lack of first party titles at the time, Wind Waker HD was also rushed, giving that game the unique distinction of being rushed twice.

When I said, "Nintendo was like the last holdout," I was specifically referring to the oh-we'll-fix-that-later attitude that has become common in this industry. Every game has content cut for a variety of reasons. Comparing Wind Waker to Splatoon is problematic due to the kind of content they're missing. I would have loved another dungeon or two in Wind Waker, notably instead of Jabun giving Link Nayru's Pearl. However, I'd argue that Splatoon's post-release patch is content the game shouldn't release without given the type of game it is. I'd hate for this to be the first step in Nintendo eventually deliberately releasing a broken game with the intent of patching it later.

TalkBack / Re: Nintendo and the Post-Release Patch
« on: May 17, 2015, 09:37:38 AM »
I don't think the debate is whether a company should finish a rushed game via patches. I believe most people would agree if a company rushes a game, it should make sure its game is the one promised to consumers, not a working game missing key features or at worst a broken, incomplete mess. Rather, the debate is whether a company should rush an incomplete game to market in the first place. It means a company is beholden to release dates rather than the state of its products. This is becoming a common theme in the industry. Nintendo was like the last holdout, and it's a shame that even Nintendo couldn't continue to fight the good fight in this regard, either by choice or the demands of the market.

TalkBack / Re: Nintendo and the Post-Release Patch
« on: May 16, 2015, 07:25:53 PM »
I'm confused. It sounds like you're correcting me, but then you just reiterated what I said.

I appreciate Nintendo's honesty (and the fact that it's offering the update free of charge), but willingly releasing an unfinished game is still shitty, and Nintendo is doing that more and more frequently as of late. Splatoon looks like a really great game to buy in a few months.

TalkBack / Re: Nintendo and the Post-Release Patch
« on: May 16, 2015, 06:28:56 PM »
I was never a fan of patches, particularly day one patches. However, I now see them as necessary evils. Games have gotten more complex and more difficult to develop. I was a strong advocate of "make it right the first time," and I'd still like to see the effort so I only bemoan patches on a case by case basis.

That said, I can't really support what is being done with Splatoon. The game is very clearly being rushed. Nintendo has a history of offering free DLC, but these aren't merely nice bonuses. They're major features and substantial parts of the game still being worked on, and Nintendo is releasing the game anyway to fill a massive gap in its release schedule. Nintendo should be mildly commended for not charging extra (since, let's be honest here, most companies would), but I don't think Nintendo should get a pass.

But the best Spider-man stories have thier DNA ripped from romantic comedies even down to small tropes like the meet cute. Spider-man out of all the Silver Age marvel stuff pulled the most from when Stan Lee's work on romance comics a decade prior. Even with the Amazing movies the best parts are the Pete/Gwen dynamic which for better or worse is nothing but a rom com.
I'm not sure The Amazing Spider-Man series is the best example to use considering it was collectively considered such a failure that Sony is rebooting Spider-Man again, and handing the keys over to Marvel. That said, my point was in a movie called Spider-Man, the focus should be on Spider-Man. Not that the Peter Parker scenes can't or shouldn't also be good, but Spider-Man is the entire point. The same principle applies to Supergirl. And I don't even outright dislike the romantic comedy genre. I just don't think it's the right thing to dedicate most of the trailer to. If they want to make Kara Zor-El Takes National City, make that show instead.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have any aspects of romantic comedies whatsoever. The Supergirl trailer was just dripping of it so it seemed excessive. Granted, trailers are typically handled by the marketing department, but if this is the tone they want to invoke, it doesn't inspire much confidence in me. Still, I may be pleasantly surprised. If the trailer is just supposed to get women to tune in with the hope of hooking them, then the trailer was clearly not meant for me, someone who is already a fan of the character. Maybe they just expect me to be there when the show premiers.
As for Captain Marvel I wasn't referring to her but a related character named Ms.Marvel
My bad. You mentioned Ms. Marvel in the same sentence as Supergirl and Spider-Man, and since there's no Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan) movie/TV show coming out, I thought you were referring to Captain Marvel.
Also using the always the bridesmaid Carol Danvers is hella patronizing to the source material seeing as what works for one character doesn't work for another and in KSD run which the film is going to crib a lot from Carol has only dated War Machine and most of her supporting cast is just her family and mother figure.
You're reading too far into it. I made a throwaway rom-com joke. The "always a bridesmaid" thing is one of the most obnoxious and overused tropes in the genre. I rather like Carol Davers as a character (even if I wanted to sacrifice Davers to give Rogue her powers before I knew who had the rights), and outside of Captain America: Civil War, I'm looking forward to the Captain Marvel movie the most in the MCU.
As for Arrow it might be a romantic comedy but seasons 1 and 2 are incredibly soapy and has alot in common with a show like the Young and the restless or the bold and the beautiful.
I don't like that direction either.

I know there have been comparisons to the Black Widow trailer but frankly that's dumb. The SNL skit really didn't fit the character of Black Widow which was apart of the Joke, however making more of a romantic comedy works for other younger characters like Supergirl, Ms.Marvel, and Spider-man to be frank.
The overarching joke was that Marvel doesn't understand how to write female superheroes which is at least partially why Marvel isn't releasing its first movie with a female lead for another three and a half years. The skit uses Black Widow mainly since Scarlett Johansson was the guest, but it works because Black Widow is the most prominent female character in the MCU who is notably without a solo film. Marvel currently has one female lead (Agent Carter) and then only AKA Jessica Jones and Captain Marvel slated to be released.

And if Marvel turns Spider-Man and Captain Marvel into romantic comedies, I might just give up on the Marvel Cinematic Universe entirely. I'm more familiar with the former, and it has never struck me as anywhere close to that genre. If the focus is going to be on their alter-egos' romantic relationships, don't even call the movies "Spider-Man" and "Captain Marvel." Call them "Peter Parker" and "Always the Bridesmaid: Carol Danvers." Might as well add a laugh track if they're going to stray that far from the source material.
To Ad's rock's compliant he says make a good show first but their isn't any thing inherently bad about the trailer
I think there is. As previously stated, it's appealing to the lowest common denominator. Arrow and Flash weren't made into romantic comedies so it's especially problematic here. We only have a trailer to go on regarding Supergirl, but the superhero stuff seemed to take a backseat which is like the opposite point of making a Supergirl show. My issue with it is the same issue I had with the way Supergirl was written out of the DCAU: she travels to the future to fight evil then stays for a boy. It's a shame because all the Supergirl stuff was handled pretty well before that. When writers don't know what to do with a character, they fall back on tropes and stereotypes which ultimately hurts the character and the story. Maybe the show will prove me wrong, and I'm willing to give it a chance because I really like Supergirl as a character, but right now, I don't like the direction it seems to be taking.
Also the problem with saying using what makes supergirl as a character great is there's like 8-9 iterations of the character going on about twenty if you decided to include powergirl.  They seem to be cribbing alot from different versions of the characters
I believe they've admitted as much, and the problem with it is that means they outright chose the bits that could be used to make Rom-Com Supergirl. Why not pick bits that don't pander to a specific audience?

The best thing I can say about the Supergirl trailer is that it was better than the Jem and the Holograms trailer. Supergirl looks like it could be okay, but it's like the Saturday Night Live Black Widow parody... except meant to be serious. My issue with Supergirl is that it's as if the producers decided, "Oh, we have a female lead. Let's target a female audience. They like Devil Wears Prada and Gossip Girl, right? We'll make that but with super powers!" Well, no. Start with making a good product. Focus on what makes Supergirl a good character. That trailer is like a romantic comedy checklist with some superhero stuff thrown in. I'm a big Supergirl fan (obviously), and the sheer amount of cliches in that trailer is insulting. It's the lowest common denominator for a female superhero story.

On a more positive note, her costume looks a lot better in sunlight. I still would have preferred a unitard because the skirt just seems impractical for crime fighting.

TalkBack / Re: Nintendo Announces E3 Plans
« on: May 13, 2015, 08:26:06 PM »
There's also this (to the right):

TalkBack / Re: Nintendo Announces E3 Plans
« on: May 13, 2015, 07:40:51 PM »
Why? It had the sense of humor to allow Nintendo of America to enlist both Mega64 and Robot Chicken to help with E3 last year. I find both to be hit or miss. However, it showed Nintendo has some self-awareness.

I could give or take Fred Savage showing up. I rather like Jenny Lewis (and Rilo Kiley) though.

General Chat / Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
« on: May 13, 2015, 12:39:48 PM »
Avengers: Age of Ultron (spoilers)
I saw this last Wednesday. I've been too lazy to do a write-up. It was okay. I may have hyped myself out of enjoying this movie to its fullest. I only saw the three trailers, and avoided most articles leading up to release. I remember reading that Joss Whedon wanted to make a different kind of movie than first one, and I didn't really get that impression. It was a bunch of big action scenes loosely connected with exposition, much like the original. I heard Whedon was asked to cut like an hour from the run time so that might have something to do with it. Scenes like Thor's cave bath felt disconnected which I figured was due to cuts.

Age of Ultron felt like it was largely setting up Phase Three, rather than acting as the culmination of a phase like the original (I realize Ant-Man is technically closing out Phase Two). Some additional thoughts:

1. Hawkeye is so lame. He's the first and only Avenger taken down in the opening scene. He was being mind-controlled in the first one. In this one, he's the only one who isn't incapacitated by Scarlet Witch yet he was still useless. Iron Man has to take down Hulk on his own. "Ooh, look, I have a farm." And he totally gets Quicksilver killed. Pietro should have used Hawkeye as a shield. Terrible.

2. Speaking of Quicksilver, I feel like he was killed off because Fox also uses Quicksilver (who was also cooler). They didn't even really address it either though I attributed that again to cuts. The main problem is that he didn't do a lot in Age of Ultron so his death didn't have the weight that Agent Coulson's did (which was ruined by resurrecting him for Agents of SHIELD). Quicksilver is apparently not being brought back. I'm not entirely convinced. We'll see whenever the Time Gem is finally addressed and used in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It'd be swell if it was used to bring back Ronan the Accuser.

3. The movie could have used more Ultron. He didn't do as much as I expected. I also got the impression that The Vision removed Ultron's access to the internet (more aptly, send his memory/"consciousness" online when he's about to be destroyed). I guess, unlike comics, they can't just keep reusing the same villains, but Ultron's ability to copy himself and return is one of the most important parts of his character. It's what made him such a good villain.

4. I realize it's difficult to do an Ultron story without The Vision, but introducing such an important character in the third act caused some problems. I didn't think The Vision did that much. He ultimately destroyed Ultron at the end (and may be how to bring him back since Ultron uploaded half of himself into The Vision's body).

I think I'll stop there. I didn't hate the movie; I just didn't like it as much as I wanted or expected.

I like how Nintendo has no delusions over titles with in-game purchases and openly calls them "free-to-start."

Nintendo Console Discussion / Re: Official Sales Thread
« on: May 13, 2015, 05:28:33 AM »
I search The Google and I found this which I presume you're referring to.

I've heard people make the connection and say they want a Mario-mode, but this is the first I've heard of or seen the actual timeline, obviously mocking Zelda's messed up split. Jebus, I am living in the past.

General Gaming / Re: What is your most recent gaming purchase?
« on: May 13, 2015, 05:18:17 AM »
Aww, yeah. Thrustmaster.

I'll go now.

I snagged an Indigo GameCube controller. It's in good condition. I have all the colors I want except this rare-ish Japanese-only one.

Nintendo Console Discussion / Re: Official Sales Thread
« on: May 13, 2015, 04:21:29 AM »
But Splatoon is Super Mario Sunshine 2 in the "Failed Mario" timeline.
Am I the only one who thought this was funny?

+1 for you, Nile.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 289