Post by: Luigi Dude on December 26, 2006, 03:56:36 PM
In early 2007 Capcom will be releasing this many titles on each system.
PS2 - 33
PSP - 21
DS - 10
XBox360 - 6
PS3 - 3
GBA - 2
XBox - 1
PC - 1
Wii - 0
So even after the DS has had one of the most successful years in the history of gaming, Capcom is still giving more support to the PSP. Nice to see the company is still being run my monkeys.
Wait, actually I think a monkey would run Capcom better then the people who are really making the decisions.
Post by: Blue Plant on December 26, 2006, 04:05:39 PM
But really, that is bull. Has there been any change of members in their boardroom since these silly decisions have started?
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 26, 2006, 04:19:01 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 26, 2006, 05:40:33 PM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on December 26, 2006, 05:51:43 PM
Post by: Arbok on December 26, 2006, 06:04:48 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 26, 2006, 06:43:46 PM
Post by: Arbok on December 26, 2006, 07:00:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
This list is for "early" 2007..
Oh crap, my eyes skimmed right past that and just to "2007"... sorry about that.
Post by: Ghisy on December 27, 2006, 12:27:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Luigi Dude
In early 2007 Capcom will be releasing this many titles on each system.
PSP - 21
Wii - 0
21 games = 20 ports and 1 original game (maybe?).
And 0 for the Wii, seriously? is Capcom living under a rock? or on another planet?
Post by: darknight06 on December 27, 2006, 03:22:39 AM
"It's almost like... they want Sony to succeed. "
Which is why I find all of this interesting considering that Sony a big reason as to why their 2D division is pretty much nonexistant now.
Post by: Ceric on December 27, 2006, 03:27:05 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 27, 2006, 04:02:39 AM
But yeah, someone at Capcom is clearly DEEP in Sony's pocket. Funny that Sony couldn't buy the same loyalty from Square...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 27, 2006, 05:47:43 AM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on December 27, 2006, 09:14:33 AM
Post by: Requiem on December 27, 2006, 09:18:33 AM
They could make a Wiimake of RE4 and we would all gobble it up like beans on rice....
Post by: WuTangTurtle on December 27, 2006, 09:20:32 AM
I hope someone gets an interview with one of the Capcom bigwigs and asks them to explain in their own words why they are supporting Sony and Microsoft so much.
So why the heck did Nintendo let Capcom make Minish Cap for?
Post by: Athrun Zala on December 27, 2006, 10:06:27 AM
Quoteit has been more like Capcom < Sega lately....
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Capcom = Sega
Post by: Luigi Dude on December 27, 2006, 12:41:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: WuTangTurtle
technically we got Street Fighter II: The World Warrior on Wii's Virtual Console.....
I hope someone gets an interview with one of the Capcom bigwigs and asks them to explain in their own words why they are supporting Sony and Microsoft so much.
So why the heck did Nintendo let Capcom make Minish Cap for?
Actually I think this might be one of the reasons why Nintendo themselves is making Phantom Hourglass. Capcom was allowed to make both Oracle games, the Link to the Past Remake/Four Swords game and then Minish Cap. But now Nintendo is suddenly making the next handheld Zelda again after they allowed Capcom to do it for several years.
Anyone else think Nintendo got fed up with Capcom screwing them over and finally said "**** You!" and that's why EAD is making Phantom Hourglass instead of Flagship?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 27, 2006, 01:33:19 PM
=D
Post by: Kairon on December 27, 2006, 05:03:23 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Rob91883 on December 27, 2006, 06:19:28 PM
They aren't total morons, Dead Rising sold a lot.
Post by: Svevan on December 27, 2006, 07:09:49 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 27, 2006, 07:48:12 PM
QuoteGood thing too. The Oracle games/Minish Cap were cut-and-dry 2D Zeldas, but if Capcom made PH with touch-screen controls, there's a good chance they'd screw it up..
But now Nintendo is suddenly making the next handheld Zelda again after they allowed Capcom to do it for several years.
Post by: Luigi Dude on December 28, 2006, 12:24:43 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 28, 2006, 03:08:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Luigi Dude
I never played the Oracle games but I agree on Minish Cap. Which is why I'm happy Nintendo took back the handheld Zelda series. Now if only they'd do the same with the Star Fox series.
Wasn't Star Fox DS made by Nintendo?
Post by: Caterkiller on December 28, 2006, 07:51:24 AM
With the SNES and N64 Nintendo pretty much perfected 2D and 3D Mario, Zelda, and Star Fox. Nintendo probably felt they went as far as they could with the franchises like Zelda in 2D, and Star Fox, and decided to lend them out to other developers because of that, as well as to strengthen relationships. Now with all these zany new control schemes, Nintendo must have so many great ideas to implement into our franchises, and im sure that they will all be taken back.
Look at Jungle Beat, those drums came around and Nintendo took DK back and made a killer game with it. Well its not like Rare was around to make the game any how, but you know what I mean.
As soon as Capcom announces the PS3 Six! thats when we know we will get at least 4 ports, all updated for the wii. No worries. Then the original titles will follow.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 28, 2006, 08:37:26 AM
Capcom's moves are not that surprising, I agree with Svevan on that...the company's affinity for PSP is still a little puzzling, but to be fair there are like 20 million of them out there - that's comparable to GameCube. A lot of the games are developed cheaply and there's probably not as much competition as on DS. If Capcom keeps this up for another year, then I'll be surprised.
Post by: hudsonhawk on December 28, 2006, 08:41:53 AM
The Gamecube and N64 were both badly hurt by the lack of third-party support, so they needed to be able to expand their capacity - in other words, they needed to be able to have more games in the pipe at once. Especially now with the DS requiring original titles (versus the port machine that is the GBA), Nintendo has to be putting out more new games per year than ever.
It's probably an ecomically derived decision as well - it's outsourcing, plain and simple. And I think that it's trending upward, not downward - there's been more outsourced Nintendo games than any other year before.
It's too bad though, I feel like it's really hurting their quality. With the exception of the Retro games, I don't feel like the 2nd party games have been living up to the Nintendo brand lately.
Post by: IceCold on December 28, 2006, 08:01:25 PM
Post by: Hocotate on December 28, 2006, 09:49:54 PM
Anyway getting back on topic, I never really had a problem with Nintendo outsourcing their franchises. I like Donkey Konga, F-Zero, and Minish cap was a worth while game too imo. And Capcom supporting the PSP is very odd... but somehow not surprising.
All I want from Capcom is Street Fighter 4... I don't care what console (as long as its an arcade release), heck at this point I don't even care if its good, I just want it. >< Too bad it won't happen... at least not at the rate Capcom has been going.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on December 29, 2006, 01:16:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Luigi DudeQuote
Originally posted by: WuTangTurtle
technically we got Street Fighter II: The World Warrior on Wii's Virtual Console.....
I hope someone gets an interview with one of the Capcom bigwigs and asks them to explain in their own words why they are supporting Sony and Microsoft so much.
So why the heck did Nintendo let Capcom make Minish Cap for?
Actually I think this might be one of the reasons why Nintendo themselves is making Phantom Hourglass. Capcom was allowed to make both Oracle games, the Link to the Past Remake/Four Swords game and then Minish Cap. But now Nintendo is suddenly making the next handheld Zelda again after they allowed Capcom to do it for several years.
Anyone else think Nintendo got fed up with Capcom screwing them over and finally said "**** You!" and that's why EAD is making Phantom Hourglass instead of Flagship?
I hope so, Capcom is stoopid and doesn't realize that most people aren't going to shell out 600 to play their games. they aren't like square-enix or nintendo. capcom doesn't rank up there with best overall games, they slipped several years ago and haven't recovered. Their crap to great ratio leans heavily to crap.
Post by: segagamer12 on December 29, 2006, 04:47:43 AM
Also Capcom is also doing what Activision did with GC, by being the only major developer besides Ubi and EA Activision set them selves up where it was pretty much just thier games or Nintendos to chose from and that insured they had better sucess after everyone else adandoned teh cube, Cacpom is doing the same thing here, by making the most PSP and PS3 games they are pretty much saying its them or nothing so the people who do get those systems have a bigger reason to get the games. Plus Capcom still makes other games besides megaman, re and vj, that sell pretty good on the sony systems but crap on Nintendo systems.
However I am not going to bring up the idiotic comments how now all of the sudden Oracle sucked when back when it came out it was praised as bringing new life to Zelda handhelds, cuz I dont feel like stirring up any trouble.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on December 29, 2006, 05:20:57 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 29, 2006, 05:28:58 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 29, 2006, 05:34:04 AM
Post by: Hocotate on December 29, 2006, 04:00:15 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 29, 2006, 08:49:29 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on December 30, 2006, 12:47:50 AM
Resident Evil 2 Dog Saliva
Resident Evil 3 Dressed Skank
Resident Evil 1 Deadly Silence Remake Deadly Serious
Phoenix Wright Soccer
Stock Trader Shun
Stock Trader Shun Soccer
Street Fighter 2 Touching Emotion Battle (forced touch screen control)
Resident Evil Dynamite Soccer
P.N.03 Shake That Ass (music game played much like Elite Beat Agents)
Resident Evil Gun Survivor Soccer
Post by: KDR_11k on December 30, 2006, 07:45:07 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 31, 2006, 02:50:28 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 31, 2006, 11:54:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Just chiming in to say that Minish Cap was awesome, and is the best game on the GBA. The oracle games were also fantastic. Capcom's Zelda games always had a different vibe to them not felt in Ninty's own titles; it wasn't necessarily better, but it was definitely refreshing.
Also known as formulaic and generic.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 31, 2006, 12:22:18 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 31, 2006, 09:27:25 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on January 02, 2007, 04:30:45 AM
Back to how stupid Capcom is - I'm not surprised that the company is slow on the Wii uptake, but porting Okami to 360 and not Wii would be ultra-stupid.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2007, 05:22:09 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 02, 2007, 06:49:16 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on January 03, 2007, 03:08:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Dunno, stupid retconning fanservice-happy storylines do seem to be Nintendo's standards.
Not up to Nintendo's Zelda standards? Or are you dumping on Capcom's job of Minish Cap for no reason?
Post by: JonLeung on January 03, 2007, 03:40:59 AM
Maybe some of these guys would like to see certain games for certain platforms but the ultimate decision comes down to one guy or a particular part of the company and you can't blame the company as a whole or the actual developers if they don't.
(On a side note I always thought it was weird that some well-known developers have names similar to their company's name. Miyamoto and Nintendo are both eight-letter multi-syllabic names that end with O, Mikami and Capcom are both six letters and have "COM" pronounced in their name, and Kojima and Konami are both six letters and are almost anagrams of each other...)
Post by: KDR_11k on January 03, 2007, 04:27:55 AM
Post by: JonLeung on January 03, 2007, 05:36:38 AM
Perhaps people that aren't keen on it probably had too-high expectations for it, since The Legend Of Zelda is often cited as the greatest game series of all time, even though Minish Cap came out with much less fanfare than most other Zelda games. I'm guessing the same people probably also don't like Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures (besides the fact that they fit in the same continuity of sorts).
There are the CD-i haters, the Four Swords haters, and the Majora's Mask haters (shame on you, MM haters!)...just about everything else is loved. Or, sorry, there are some Zelda II: Adventure Of Link haters. And the picky-about-a-particular-version-of-Twilight Princess type of people. And how could I forget the shallow people who still refuse to play Wind Waker? I guess you can't please everyone when your series becomes such a hit that expectations run high for every one.
Back on topic, I wonder if Capcom/Flagship is still involved with Zelda? Do they still have the rights and/or plans for any more Zelda games? If they truly aren't well-received, and since Capcom seems to love the PSP more than the DS, maybe not.
Post by: segagamer12 on January 03, 2007, 06:54:22 AM
So does Cacpom even make traditional MM games anymore or are they all those wired network games now?
And how come Ds doesnt have any MK or Sf games on it?! Or any fighting games for that matter. Whast the deal people. MK has been on every single handheld made by Nintendo except VB so whats the hold up I think Midway is getting dumber than capcom. damnit I need to start shooting off some more emails to those bastards till I geta resonse. I want MK games on DS damnint and ragular Mega Man games too!
Post by: couchmonkey on January 03, 2007, 07:32:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I'm saying Minish Cap has such a stupid storyline and includes characters and locations from OOT for no reason and that's stupid. However, Nintendo tends to do the same. WTF is Tingle doing in Wind Waker?
Tingle is omnipresent! Ha ha, I see your point, Tingle doesn't bother me that much because it's just one character making a cameo, but Capcom's games take the cameos to extremes.
Anyway. I'll shut up on that subject for now.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 03, 2007, 08:15:20 AM
I don't like the cameos though. Here you are in a world different from Hyrule and suddenly Malon and Talon show up? And they don't know Link? So are these different people that just happen to look the same and have the same name? I also completely ignore those games when thinking about the overall Zelda timeline. They don't fit too well but since they're made by a different developer I think it's easy to consider them non-canon pastiche.
Regarding Tingle I thought he was fine as an oddball in Termina where oddballs are a dime a dozen. He was also a minor character. Later on he became a more major character crucial to the plot and that is when I got sick of him. In Four Swords Adventures his tower is in every world. You can't avoid the guy! It would be like if the runny nose kid from Wind Waker suddenly became a main character.
Post by: Requiem on January 03, 2007, 08:19:36 AM
Does anyone think they'll actually make the controls decent for this game?
I mean, we all know the potential of an RE 4 like control scheme in combination with the Wiimote and Nunchuck, but will Capcom stop being the little bastard that they are and actually give us what we want?
Post by: JonLeung on January 03, 2007, 08:21:52 AM
Didn't other characters in Ocarina Of Time's Hyrule also show up in Majora's Mask's Termina? Like the runner/mailman, off the top of my head, but weren't there others? And OoT and MM are one of the most-connected pairs of Zelda games there are.
I say forget about continuity. Or at least forget about taking it too seriously.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 03, 2007, 08:36:10 AM
EVERYONE does, in some form. Everyone.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 03, 2007, 08:44:13 AM
Yeah but Termina is supposed to be some parallel world where nearly everyone resembles someone from Hyrule. Note that the characters don't have the same name. Hell Ingo was turned into twins and Malon turned into two sisters that resembled her as a child and adult. Honestly it's a flimsy excuse to reuse the models from Ocarina of Time (which I assume was needed to get a new Zelda out so fast) but at least there's an explanation so it makes sense. The Capcom Zeldas don't have explanations. Existing characters are just there.
Post by: darknight06 on January 03, 2007, 09:29:32 AM
Quote
And how come Ds doesnt have any MK or Sf games on it?! Or any fighting games for that matter.
They wouldn't be easy cash in ports, that's why. Something like SFA3 Max is a no brainer on PSP, just take code and graphics from an existing version, work around the PSP a little, and BAM, instant low cost port. I doubt either company has a 2D team worth talking about anymore, and Midway probably couldn't be bothered reworking models for an exclusive DS MK. It's easier to cut down models than it is to make new low poly ones from scratch that look good.
Post by: segagamer12 on January 03, 2007, 12:34:35 PM
Post by: JonLeung on January 03, 2007, 01:13:36 PM
QuoteLOL, I couldn't see that image at work. What's that from? Then again, it doesn't matter, it's funny regardless.
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Post by: Luigi Dude on January 03, 2007, 05:10:44 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 03, 2007, 09:36:38 PM
ZX fits the bill (well, it's more of an MMX game than a MM game but the difference is small). While it has less "weapons" than a traditional MM game they have much more effect on the game. Unfortunately they're badly balanced so you'll never want to use any of the add-on weapons in a boss fight.
I'm not saying Minish Cap is a bad game but it has a horrible story. If it didn't use completely new sprites it'd be possible to mistake for a hacked ROM by some fan who wanted to add every character that ever appeared in a Zelda game.
Post by: JonLeung on January 04, 2007, 04:08:27 AM
I haven't seen much of Star Force but it seems too similar to the Battle Network series. Therefore, I'm hesitant to call ZX and Star Force two new Mega Man "series" yet.
Remember when people joked that Capcom couldn't count to 3 because of the seemingly countless Street Fighter IIs? Now it's like they can't count to 9 because both MM (Classic) and MMX have stopped at 8.
(If anyone thinks Mega Man X means Mega Man 10, they deserve a charged Mega Buster to the crotch. I'm surprised that even Penny Arcade made that error.)
Last I counted, there are over 60 Mega Man games among the various series (not counting Mega Man cameos in other games). Capcom themselves have claimed to have over 100, but I'm not sure how they got that high, even if they probably count remakes as more than one (like Mega Man & Bass on the Super Famicom and GBA as two separate ones), and maybe they are also counting some cameos. At over 60 games in just under 20 years, that means on average there's a new Mega Man game every few months, but it doesn't ever seem that way since they'll probably do something like release two versions of the next Battle Network game each year like they have for the past few years. They'll get to Battle Network 8 soon enough, in a year or two, and then what? That's okay, if Capcom's phobic about the number 9 they could continue Zero, XZ, Star Force, or *gasp* Legends...
For the record, I really liked Mega Man X: Command Mission (an RPG in a platforming series) and Mega Man: Network Transmission (a platformer in an RPG series). People complain about Mega Man getting stale but then they don't even play the games where they mix it up. Hypocrites.
Post by: couchmonkey on January 04, 2007, 04:25:55 AM
I do wish I'd tried Command Mission, it looked pretty good, but as I recall there were a lot of good games available at the time and now it's nearly impossible to find.
Post by: Galford on January 04, 2007, 04:36:35 AM
It's beatable if you rent it twice.
MM:NT is another good game. It's kinda hard, but it's a nice blend of action rpg and platformer.
The best RPG based Mega Man is Legends 2. It's dark with some decent action set pieces in it.
Post by: JonLeung on January 04, 2007, 05:45:09 AM
Heck, a DS version of anything must sell better than anything on the PSP.
Like we said, Capcom must hate money.
Post by: segagamer12 on January 05, 2007, 03:38:56 AM
I do not play GBA games anymore but I always forget I have a GBplayer so I could find the good ones for GBA and play them on my TV as I dont play protable games that often.
It sucks that consoles must have 3d games and handhelds MUST have 2d games, why cant they make good 2d games for a console. I mean if Sega Saturn had the ultimate 2d capabilities why cant the newer systems do amazing 2d games? Is it cuz the gfx cards arent made for it? I knwo that hurt the N64 cuz it really was hard to turn 3d games into 2d because of the gfx card.
I know Sony has a hatred of 2d games but Nintendo embraces them so I think they could convice Capcom to make some good MM games in 2d for Wii. Or at least open up the VC vault and give us the x2 and x3 games that are rare as hell no matter what system you get them on.
So It was said that Wii couldnt do Dead Rising becaus eitc ant handle all the onscrean characters right? Well who said that Wii cant handle it? As far as I know they never released the specs but I heard teh CPU was suposed to be preey powerful even thought he graphics chip was what was lacking. They might lose some details or cut down on the numbers a bit but I think it can be done and look pretty good. Spartan had hundred of charcaters on screan at once and it wasnt too bad. Wii can do better than that did.
Post by: couchmonkey on January 05, 2007, 03:58:21 AM
I forgot about Legends - I did play Mega Man 64, and it was fairly good (so I guess the last new MM game I played was about 6-7 years ago). I'd like to see Capcom try another Legends game.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on January 05, 2007, 04:05:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
It sucks that consoles must have 3d games and handhelds MUST have 2d games, why cant they make good 2d games for a console. I mean if Sega Saturn had the ultimate 2d capabilities why cant the newer systems do amazing 2d games? Is it cuz the gfx cards arent made for it? I knwo that hurt the N64 cuz it really was hard to turn 3d games into 2d because of the gfx card.
Because 3rd parties and now first parties tend to make 3D games on consoles that are capable of doing 3D. The graphics card has nothing to do with it every console was capable of doing 3D was capable of 2D games it was just that 3D was becomming more mainstream and companies followed suit. There will always be 2D games on consoles they are considered niche since how many games like metal slug, ikaruga, chaos field, viewtiful joe and alien hominid were out there in the GCN/PS2/Xbox era.
Quote
I know Sony has a hatred of 2d games but Nintendo embraces them so I think they could convice Capcom to make some good MM games in 2d for Wii. Or at least open up the VC vault and give us the x2 and x3 games that are rare as hell no matter what system you get them on.
Capcom will probably just exactly do that and rerelease the NES and SNES megamans on the VC but for me thats useless since I have the compilation discs. Sony's hatered of 2d has more to do with Sony's obvious arrogance since Sony wanted 3D games on the PS1 and 2 just to show the power of those console, but now since Sony is not top dog anymore for now I wonder what will happen.
Quote
So It was said that Wii couldnt do Dead Rising becaus eitc ant handle all the onscrean characters right? Well who said that Wii cant handle it? As far as I know they never released the specs but I heard teh CPU was suposed to be preey powerful even thought he graphics chip was what was lacking. They might lose some details or cut down on the numbers a bit but I think it can be done and look pretty good. Spartan had hundred of charcaters on screan at once and it wasnt too bad. Wii can do better than that did.
Well its not just all the characters its that developers have to put AI in each character and RAM + processing power to keep the framerate stable. Comparing Spartan to Dead Rising is like comparing apples and oranges. Spartan has more in common with dynasty/samurai warriors than Dead Rising. Also if Capcom would want to port it to Wii (I highly doubt it since Capcom might keep it 360 exclusive) they would have to dumb the game down a bit and redo the whole control scheme and since we all know Capcom likes to be so direct port happy I can expect the only Capcom game we will see on Wii for a while is Resident Evil : Umbrella Chronicles.
Post by: JonLeung on January 05, 2007, 04:19:34 AM
I like Mega Man (Classic) too but I held off on playing the Game Boy games (which seemed to be remixes of the NES games, except for Mega Man V with all-new planet-based bosses) since I was waiting for the GBA collection.
The later X games got too dark and ridiculous in places (is it really a spoiler that Zero dies every other game?) but I would still like to play X 7 and X 8 (I've been looking for them for the PC for a while). Funny how X 3 is on the most platforms (Super NES, PlayStation, Saturn, PC) but considered the most rare somehow.
Zero is even darker than X (or at least I get that impression, but I've only played Zero and Zero 2), which only makes me want to play more of the original series.
Post by: Athrun Zala on January 05, 2007, 07:20:46 AM
Quotewell, ZX sold like crap so you'll probably never hear again from it either...
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
When faced with the choice between Mega Man ZX and Scruge: Hive, I'm going to pick the game that I'll probably never hear from again.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 05, 2007, 07:24:56 AM
Depends on your playstyle. If you fall for the trap that is the saber due to its higher damage output you're playing a Zero game but if you're like me and prefer the buster's huge range for low-risk kills it's more like X (I often use the Leviathan armor in unknown territory for easier navigation and its big saber swipe that hits almost everything near you). Since you don't need good ranks to get your upgrades it's really closer to X than Zero (especially since later X games allowed you to play as Zero) as there's no rush to get things done.
That's okay, if Capcom's phobic about the number 9 they could continue Zero, XZ, Star Force, or *gasp* Legends...
Isn't Star Force essentially EXE X? Zero is over unless they want to pull YET ANOTHER Zero revival (not that they wouldn't do that, Zero had so many "irreversible deaths" by now he's got frequent dier miles and can ressurect for free. I guess that's what 1ups are good for). Legends isn't really Megaman, it's more like a Metroid/Zelda combination.
When faced with the choice between Mega Man ZX and Scruge: Hive, I'm going to pick the game that I'll probably never hear from again.
Interesting logic, you'd pick Grabbed By The Ghoulies over Zelda, then?
Like we said, Capcom must hate money.
No but they respect Inafune while completely shitting all over Mikami. I wonder if Inafune is related to the CEO or something? That guy gets way too many free passes.
Overall I'd say ZX is less dark except of course for the evil guys actually killing people instead of just wiggling their eyebrows and putting 8 robots somewhere.
Post by: segagamer12 on January 10, 2007, 01:31:37 PM
Post by: SixthAngel on January 10, 2007, 04:57:30 PM
Isn't this a bad time to release a game since it is right after christmas? Wouldn't a company want to wait a little bit for people to get sick of their christmas games first?
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 11, 2007, 05:01:56 AM
Post by: vudu on January 11, 2007, 06:03:38 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 11, 2007, 06:09:15 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on January 11, 2007, 08:37:17 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on January 11, 2007, 03:55:31 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on January 12, 2007, 03:36:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Athrun ZalaQuotewell, ZX sold like crap so you'll probably never hear again from it either...
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
When faced with the choice between Mega Man ZX and Scruge: Hive, I'm going to pick the game that I'll probably never hear from again.
In retrospect this might be so, but looking at Mega Man's history, I made the right choice at the time.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 12, 2007, 03:51:49 AM
Post by: JonLeung on January 12, 2007, 04:01:38 AM
Post by: MarioAllStar on January 12, 2007, 05:04:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
I think Mega Man: Powered Up would've been a better fit on the DS. Come on, the touch screen would be good for the stage editor. And did they really think the demographic that the PSP is attempting to sell to would like superdeformed cutesy Mega Man bosses? Sure, some would, nothing wrong with that, but it would've sold better had a DS version come about.
Heck, a DS version of anything must sell better than anything on the PSP.
I never understood how the PSP gets games like Mega Man, Lemmings, and various game compilations that the DS doesn't, especially when the game would be better suited to the touch screen.
Lemmings is kind of an oddball in that the PSP's wide screen is good for viewing the level, but the DS' touch screen would be far superior for controlling the game. In the end, they should have made a DS version. I know it is not a Capcom game, but it still makes no sense to me.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 12, 2007, 05:11:38 AM
2. They're marketted toward a starving audience.
3. They don't have to compete with Nintendo's non-games.
Post by: couchmonkey on January 12, 2007, 08:19:41 AM
Quote
I don't know about you but I consider Megaman ZX better than Scurge.
Quote
As do I. I had high hopes for Scurge: Hive thinking it was like an isometric Metroid but I didn't get very far before giving up on it. I might try it again sometime later but I certainly enjoyed Mega Man ZX more than I thought I would.
You're probably right, but that's just the oddball way my brain works: I've played tons of Mega Man before, and I figured I'd have plenty more chances later, so Scurge was the more interesting option to me. I think N64 bred this persepective: it was a system with tons of original IPs and few popular sequels. I had to play Mischief Makers instead of Mega Man and Space Station: Silicon Valley instead of Street Fighter, and now I'd rather play a brand-new game than a sequel, even if the sequel is better.
Of course the amount of better-ness and price come into the equation too. If Future Tactics had been a full-priced GameCube game, I probably would have skipped over it. Since it was about half price, I picked it up. Sigma Star Saga turned out to be a mistake at full price, I should have waited for reviews, but you win some and lose some.
Post by: segagamer12 on January 18, 2007, 09:10:07 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on January 19, 2007, 03:08:17 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 19, 2007, 03:37:34 AM
Post by: Artimus on January 19, 2007, 04:15:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MarioAllStar
Lemmings is kind of an oddball in that the PSP's wide screen is good for viewing the level, but the DS' touch screen would be far superior for controlling the game. In the end, they should have made a DS version. I know it is not a Capcom game, but it still makes no sense to me.
Sony bought the developer so they own the rights. That's the reason it went to the PSP.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 19, 2007, 06:23:51 AM
Post by: JonLeung on January 19, 2007, 06:34:38 AM
EDIT: My bad, Psygnosis was the original publisher.
Post by: segagamer12 on January 19, 2007, 07:16:50 AM
Post by: Jin-X on January 19, 2007, 12:04:52 PM
Post by: segagamer12 on January 22, 2007, 05:27:51 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 22, 2007, 05:41:11 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 22, 2007, 05:55:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Everything is false until there's a big Dragon Quest 9-style press conference.
Agreed.
I fully expect it to be yet another sh*tty turn-based Megaman.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 22, 2007, 06:16:24 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 22, 2007, 07:05:05 AM
Post by: Extra Terrestrial on January 31, 2007, 04:11:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
well I played the demo of Lost Planet and the game is pretty cool so far. So I do hope it gets ported to Wii so I can wait on getting a 360.
Both Dead Rising and Lost Planet are Xbox 360 exclusives so there is no chance of your wishful 'port' on the Wii especially considering Capcom will have to work backwards and dumb/knock down the graphics department to make it run smoothly and suitable for the Wii.
Post by: Ceric on January 31, 2007, 04:23:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Extra TerrestrialQuote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
well I played the demo of Lost Planet and the game is pretty cool so far. So I do hope it gets ported to Wii so I can wait on getting a 360.
Both Dead Rising and Lost Planet are Xbox 360 exclusives so there is no chance of your wishful 'port' on the Wii especially considering Capcom will have to work backwards and dumb/knock down the graphics department to make it run smoothly and suitable for the Wii.
Are they truly exclusive or are they exclusive like the Gamecube games? Capcom has already set a precedent of doing just that. Porting from more powerful hardware down to lower hardware.
Post by: Extra Terrestrial on January 31, 2007, 04:28:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Are they truly exclusive or are they exclusive like the Gamecube games? Capcom has already set a precedent of doing just that. Porting from more powerful hardware down to lower hardware.
You know that Microsoft hosted their own tradeshow for the Xbox (360) called X06 last autumn?
It was then that Capcom confirmed that their two Xbox 360 games - Dead Rising and Lost Planet - are exclusives but then again, look at what happened when Capcom decided to bring Killer 7, Resident Evil 4 and Viewtiful Joe 1 & 2 over to the PlayStation 2 a few years ago so anything is a possibility at this rate.
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 31, 2007, 08:33:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Extra Terrestrial It was then that Capcom confirmed that their two Xbox 360 games - Dead Rising and Lost Planet - are exclusives but then again, look at what happened when Capcom decided to bring Killer 7, Resident Evil 4 and Viewtiful Joe 1 & 2 over to the PlayStation 2 a few years ago so anything is a possibility at this rate.
Anything is possible, but I'd personally rather see something new built from the ground-up on the Wii than ports of existing games with Wiimote functionality shoehorned in.
Also, Lost Planet wasn't that great (played the demo, meh) but beating down zombies in Dead Rising with a Wiimote would kick some SERIOUS ass...
Post by: KDR_11k on January 31, 2007, 06:34:13 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 01, 2007, 12:20:51 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 01, 2007, 05:11:38 AM
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 11:29:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
YOU ARE WRONG! Lost planet was GREAT. It kinda reminded me of Jet Force Gemeni, only better in some ways. That is one of the MUST HAVe 360 games on my list. Wii can handle that I am sure so lets all cross our fingers for it. Dead Rising would rock on the Wii, who cares if it loses some zombies it can handle its elf enough I am sure it wont be that many less.
Comparing a game, any game, to GFG is a bad idea if you ask me. It was a fun game, for about 5 minutes, but when you realized that you were going to be spending a lot of time shooting at enemies that you couldn't even see because the camera totally sucked you got over that "fun" really quick.
You shouldn't mention that comparison again, you're just going to kill sales and as we all know Capcom doesn't need any more help in that department.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 01, 2007, 11:43:09 AM
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 12:43:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
why? it plays the same. It felt exactly the smae, I dont care abotu camera controls for crying out load, Mario 64 had the WORST camera controls in history none complains about that. Lost PLanet was fun, I thought so anyways, to me it felt like Jet Force Gemeni, another game I thought was fun and felt similar. I didnt say they were the same game just it reminded me of it. if you dont like it whatever but its stilla fun game.
O...kay. First you basically say it's the exact same game, then you say it just "reminds" you of it. I don't know if I even want, or need, to say anything more.
And Mario 64 had a great camera. It did what you needed it to do for the type of game that it was. It's certainly leaps and bounds beyond what other developers have been able to do, even today. It wasn't perfect though. Nothing is perfect. The camera in GFG, even if it was an exact replica of Mario 64, would completely blow because it's a different kind of game and needs a different kind of camera to make it work. In the end though, the camera did blow. I spent so much time in FP mode in that game simply because I couldn't even see the bad guys unless I did that. Otherwise all I could do was basically shoot wildly off camera and hope I hit something.
If that's fun for you then that's your bag. Most people that I know though tend to like actually being able to see what's going on.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 01, 2007, 03:29:11 PM
shut up, that was my original quote where does it say exactly the same, you obviously cant read.
also Mario 64 had terrible camera controls hwta planet are you form. it forced you to go what angle it want, they only let you move it just to move it right back. the GAMEPLAY was fun the actionw as fun s rwe cameras if you CANT enjoy a game cz of camera controls I feel sorry for you.
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 04:08:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
>>It kinda reminded me of Jet Force Gemeni<<
shut up, that was my original quote where does it say exactly the same, you obviously cant read.
also Mario 64 had terrible camera controls hwta planet are you form. it forced you to go what angle it want, they only let you move it just to move it right back. the GAMEPLAY was fun the actionw as fun s rwe cameras if you CANT enjoy a game cz of camera controls I feel sorry for you.
Bad camera's ruin a number of games. I'm sorry but you can whine about me not liking a game because of graphics or music or really anything else, but camera? Camera issues have almost singlehandedly murdered Sonic in 3D... almost. Sonic Team did their best to kill him as well. Without a good camera how do you expect to actually see and/or play the game?
Sometimes Mario 64 would kick the camera around when you didn't want it to but for the most part, if you knew how to handle the system, it worked great. I used to be so good with it that I could pan the camera around Mario while still having complete control over myself within the environment. Besides, it was the first game of it's kind. Did you really expect it to be perfect from day one? It still ended up laying the foundation for almost all of 3D gaming singlehandedly. Even the team behind Tomb Raider stated that they had no idea how they were going to implement the camera until they saw Mario 64.
As for you response to my statement regarding your comparison, thanks for the "shut up", it made me laugh. I was just picking on you anyway.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 04, 2007, 05:46:17 AM
Post by: Artimus on February 04, 2007, 08:09:36 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 04, 2007, 08:23:35 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 05, 2007, 08:54:57 PM
They should be making DS games and they are not, thus they hate money.
In editing this i have come to the conclusion that my statement is flawless in its logic and therefore capcom should read this and immediatly begin work on a DS game... now.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 05, 2007, 11:32:24 PM
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 06, 2007, 04:42:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I bet you wouldn't have been as upset had they supported the GC more.
Nah, other than DMC i got all the capcom games i wanted on the cube.
I just want them to make more 2D games, and thus support the DS.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 06, 2007, 05:35:28 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 07, 2007, 05:58:27 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 07, 2007, 01:10:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
Not at all true, as the only MAJOR dev on PSP capcom gets ALL the money which is why they chose that strategy. Same reason why Activison was *the* developer on GC
I don't think i've seen any of the capcom made games (ports) for the psp ever break into the top 10 in japan. And i assume japan is where they'd have more clout, so in america, i think they barely made a dent. Konami i understand, portable ops sold pretty well, it'll match or surpass vice city stories WW, maybe come near liberty city stories. Also Metal gear acid 1 solid decently. We love kamtari is a PS2 game as well, so they sequeled to the sister system and not the DS. They also had a bunch of games in developement for the psp before it was launched, because they bet on the wrong pony.
So konami i get. Capcom I don't. I doubt they broke into the top 10 of any charts ever with a psp game. I doubt they are making anything. If all else, i think capcom is trying to keep sony happy, as right now sony is probably begging for PSP support. Of course sony wants fresh IPs and new games, and developers want quick cash from ports.
I'm sure capcom would benefit a whole lot more publishing games for the DS then the PSP, even with the PSP's lame picks. Regardless, once PS3 hits the wall in projected sales after next year, PSP will officially start its long death, where i imagine it'll be on and off life-support until 2009-10.
Capcom still hates money though and will support it then too.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 07, 2007, 03:14:43 PM
You know as well as I do that Capcom had a lot of PS2 games and Ps1 games and those are the BULK of what gets ported to PSP because they are ALREADY MADE FOR IT. Its that simple. So A) the are cheaper to make than DS, and B) since there isn't alot of competition let alone anything else to chose from they get more sales.
Now I dont disagree Capcom should make more games for Wii and DS, but see thats IT they ARE making games for Wii and DS so whats the point again? I dont know about sales numbers but didnt Dead Rising do pretty good? Plus Wii is getting another RE game and plenty of VC love so where is all this hating money coming from? I dont get it, they seam to be one of the few devs able to stay independant and make money so I dont see it. I knwo they make less money than some devs but at least they arent getting bought out liek others. Its only a matter of time before we know how well Lost Planet is doing but I already know quite a few people who got it and plenty mroe who want it.
Post by: EasyCure on February 08, 2007, 06:52:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
ok first why does a game have to be in the top ten to make money? explain that to me?
You know as well as I do that Capcom had a lot of PS2 games and Ps1 games and those are the BULK of what gets ported to PSP because they are ALREADY MADE FOR IT. Its that simple. So A) the are cheaper to make than DS, and B) since there isn't alot of competition let alone anything else to chose from they get more sales. .
it sounds like what you're saying is that since capcom is the only dev pushing a bunch of games out for psp that they make plenty of sales due to the fact that there is little else to choose from. wouldnt that make them top ten (or close to it) by default anyway?
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 08, 2007, 09:23:11 AM
Yeah, i understand that it cheap to do a port for the psp. On the flip side, not many poeple are buying, i don't think psp games even stay in the top 50 for more than a week unless they broke into the top 10, thats why i mentioned the top 10. Launching in the 30th spot, then next week dissapearing, means your not selling well at all. You might make a meager profit, but that might give you insentive to make something good so maybe more people would buy, instead of all this porting nonsense.
Besides, Capcom has alot of PS1 games they could port. But they decided to release RE1 for the DS, i'll bet some money that Deadly silence sold better then most of their PSP ports. And if it did, then it makes no sense for them to port to the psp rather then reconstruct for the DS.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 08, 2007, 02:10:44 PM
I dont event hink that DS is gettign neglected either I just think that if you look at how DS games they DO release are made *for* DS, even RE
S was a remake, it shows that they are spending more resources on DS than PSP so it makes sense they would rather go through extra trouble to make DS games *better* and just release quick cash in ports on PSP. And to Easy Cure, not exactly I am not syaing the are the *only* dev just that with fewer to chose from it makes sense they woudl stick it out as they have the most to gain and the least to lose. Plus The games that are top ten are usually Sony games and multiplatform ports from what I have seen. See I think you got me all wrong I wasnt trying to argue I was just trying to show the other side of it. If that makes sense.
See I am glad they are putting extra money into making DS games better and fine with PSP getting quick cash in ports. Now if PSP was getting original stuff made from the ground up and DS wa neglected altogether Id start to worry about them, but you gotta see the big picture here. They likely *are* putting money into DS projects but when you look at how much product they do release and how small they are you have to figure that is aprt of why they release so many ports now so they can fund the big stuff on DS latter. At elast thast who I figured it I could very well be wrong but it seams to me *that* makes more sense than they hate money and are neglecting DS.
If I was in charge of Capcom I would be doing the same thing because its safer and since they are so small its harder for them to take big risks. Plus DS gets plenty of original Mega Man stuff, even if it sucks there are people who like it.
Post by: JonLeung on February 09, 2007, 02:19:09 AM
DS:
Gyakuten Saiban 4 (J)
Kabu Trader Shun (J)
Mega Man Battle Network 5: Double Team
Mega Man Star Force: Dragon (J)
Mega Man Star Force: Leo (J)
Mega Man Star Force: Pegasus (J)
Mega Man ZX
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice for All
Resident Evil: Deadly Silence
Rockman ZX Advent (J)
Viewtiful Joe: Double Trouble
PSP:
Breath of Fire III
Capcom Classics Collection Reloaded
Capcom Classics Collection Remixed
Capcom Puzzle World
Darkstalkers Chronicle: The Chaos Tower
Devil May Cry
Finder Love: Hara Fumina - Futari no Futari de... (J)
Finder Love: Hoshino Aki - Nangoku Trouble (J)
Finder Love: Kudou Risa - First Shoot wa Kimi to (J)
Gundam Seed: Rengou vs. Z.A.F.T. Portable
Mega Man: Maverick Hunter X
Mega Man: Powered Up
Monster Hunter Freedom
Monster Hunter Portable 2nd
Power Stone Collection
RockMan Dash 2
Street Fighter Alpha 3 MAX
Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins
Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble
Mega Man Legends (cancelled)
12 DS games and 19 PSP games (obviously, I'm not counting the cancelled MML).
Breakdown:
On the DS...are the three Mega Man Star Force games similar to the Mega Man Battle Network and Pokémon games in that they're different versions of essentially the same game? That cuts down the real count of distinct games by two, and MMSF is a spinoff of MMBN from what I gather. MMBN5 is too similar to the GBA game, the Phoenix Wright games are ports of the first two Gyakuten Saiban (J) games on the GBA, and RE: Deadly Silence is another Resident Evil remake. That leaves us with a spinoff and its sequel (Mega Man ZX and ZX Advent), a sequel/spinoff (Gyakuten Saiban 4), a spinoff (VJ: Double Trouble), and whatever the heck Kabu Trader Shun (J) is.
On the PSP...remakes and ports include Breath Of Fire III, Mega Man: Maverick Hunter X, Mega Man: Powered Up, Street Fighter Alpha 3 MAX, and Ultimate Ghosts and Goblins. I would guess that Devil May Cry, Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble, and and the cancelled Mega Man Legends are as well. I'm not sure if Darkstalkers Chronicle is a remake or a compilation. Compilations include Capcom Classics Collection Reloaded, Capcom Classics Collection Remixed, Capcom Puzzle World (I think), and Power Stone Collection. That leaves us a few, including three Japanese Finder Love games. What are they? They sound like a dating simulation, and I'd guess they were very similar, like Mega Man Star Force on the DS. I don't know what the Monster Hunter games are about, RockMan Dash 2 sounds like a sequel to yet another Mega Man spinoff.
Points:
-both handhelds have several remakes. Three of the four DS remakes are upgrades from the GBA, and therefore don't require much upgrading, they're more like ports. However, the Phoenix Wright games could be considered new for North Americans. The PSP's remakes are much more upgraded but typically are of more classic games.
-most of the other games are sequels and spinoffs. Very few original games or new franchises on either handheld.
-the PSP has more games overall, and considering that the PSP also has four or five compilations, it has even more.
Conclusion:
Capcom likes the PSP and that is evident by them producing more games for it, but does very little that is actually new for either handheld. Boo!
EDIT: Stupid smilies in Resident Evil and Viewtiful Joe's titles when abbreviated... >_<
Post by: KDR_11k on February 09, 2007, 04:09:13 AM
Post by: IceCold on February 09, 2007, 04:31:56 PM
QuoteClick "Do not parse emoticons" under "Reply" next time.
EDIT: Stupid smilies in Resident Evil and Viewtiful Joe's titles when abbreviated... >_<
Yeah, looking at that list, Capcom really doesn't care about handhelds.. though the DS success hopefully changes this.
Post by: Mikintosh on February 09, 2007, 09:15:38 PM
I'm glad for Capcom's output on both systems (especially since I just got a PSP and like my retro games on the go while I'm at college), but I kinda view the company itself as a soulless zombie of its old self. How many creators of its series have they fired? The guy from Street Fighter, the guy from Resident Evil, Clover Studios...I mean, they even sold the Street Fighter name to Capcom USA they had so little faith in their own franchise! Very sad when I heard that.
Financially, I'm sure they're set, but creatively, they're riding on Mega Man and Resident Evil, it looks like.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 10, 2007, 06:39:45 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 10, 2007, 01:52:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mikintosh
Darkstalkers Chronicles is a port of a Dreamcast game, apparently. I liked it.
I'm glad for Capcom's output on both systems (especially since I just got a PSP and like my retro games on the go while I'm at college), but I kinda view the company itself as a soulless zombie of its old self. How many creators of its series have they fired? The guy from Street Fighter, the guy from Resident Evil, Clover Studios...I mean, they even sold the Street Fighter name to Capcom USA they had so little faith in their own franchise! Very sad when I heard that.
Financially, I'm sure they're set, but creatively, they're riding on Mega Man and Resident Evil, it looks like.
Don't forget the creator of Devil May Cry was also let go. I don't even know if the original creator of megaman is with them. Most of their series don't have their original creators working on them.
On a plus note, everyone who enjoyed final fight 3 on the snes should play GOD HAND. First 3d brawler that doesn't suck in my opinion. If your wondering why the camera is RE4 behind the shoulder style, its cause the RE creator basically designed this game. It's good fun though.
Post by: Adrock on February 10, 2007, 02:58:15 PM
The only one who has really left Capcom is Yoshiki Okamoto (Street Fighter). Even Shinji Mikami is still around... guess he didn't cut off his head after RE4 was released on PS2.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 10, 2007, 04:14:13 PM
Once devs are stripped of their talent, they become shells.
Just look at modern day Rare compared to what it used to be...
Post by: KDR_11k on February 10, 2007, 06:35:52 PM
Post by: Mikintosh on February 10, 2007, 11:06:24 PM
Capcom's worse because they're still using the same franchises as before, but despite what Adrock says, they don't seem to have the same spirit behind them as they did when they started.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 11, 2007, 03:15:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
And? They don't seem any worse than before.
Play their SNES/N64 games, then try a game like PD0 and Grabbed by the Ghoulies or the Conker remake.
I used to be a pretty big Rare fan, but after playing their latest offerings, I can safely say that the ingenuity which made their games great is long gone.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 11, 2007, 03:31:29 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 11, 2007, 03:45:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
You said that like Capcom has become worse,
Actually, I just meant in general, on the subject of developers and the talent who works there.
I don't play many of Capcom's franchises anyway so I wouldn't be in a position to judge if they've become better or worse.
Though, RE4 was a dramatic improvement over all former RE games.
Post by: Mikintosh on February 11, 2007, 04:23:36 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 11, 2007, 05:16:56 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 11, 2007, 06:20:45 AM
Um, do you even look at the games Capcom makes? They make loads of new "franchises" (well, universes because it's not a franchise if it's only one game) every year in the hope that one gets big. Last gen alone saw Viewtiful Joe, Killer 7, P.N.03, Gotcha Force, Okami, Devil May Cry, Monster Hunter, God Hand, Onimusha, Steel Battalion, Nano Breaker, Chaos Legion, Darkwatch, Crimson Tears and a few more. How many new "franchises" did Nintendo create in the same time? Sure, not all of these were good but at least they're trying.
Post by: Mikintosh on February 11, 2007, 07:35:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Capcom was known for being innovative 15 years ago, but now they can't seem to be bothered to introduce a new franchise more than once every 4-5 years or so
Um, do you even look at the games Capcom makes? They make loads of new "franchises" (well, universes because it's not a franchise if it's only one game) every year in the hope that one gets big. Last gen alone saw Viewtiful Joe, Killer 7, P.N.03, Gotcha Force, Okami, Devil May Cry, Monster Hunter, God Hand, Onimusha, Steel Battalion, Nano Breaker, Chaos Legion, Darkwatch, Crimson Tears and a few more. How many new "franchises" did Nintendo create in the same time? Sure, not all of these were good but at least they're trying.
Well, Nano Breaker was Konami, but anyway how many of these got sequels? Since, in the gaming context, sequels usually represent an attempt to improve on the original game as opposed to simply cashing in on the first like movie sequels (not that this doesn't happen a lot with games), the fact that only Viewtiful Joe, Killer 7 (kinda), Onimusha and Steel Batallion got sequels shows that they were simpy throwing ideas out there that audience weren't connecting to. Is anyone really going to put Final Fight and Gotcha Force in the same category?
Game studios are required to turn out new product regularly to stay afloat; the fact that Capcom still does so isn't impressive. It's just disappointing that it's wasting much of its resources turning out games that they have no intention of supporting or improving while ignoring a large back catalogue that they could easily draw from for new games. Seriously, a Soul Calibur-quality Street Fighter IV would demonstrate that they take their position in the minds of their audience seriously. P.N.03 and Gotcha Force are not what Capcom should be, they're what Capcom is like these days, and it's sad.
This post was much too long.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 11, 2007, 07:48:50 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 11, 2007, 08:19:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Wait, Killer7 had a sequel?
If you consider "No more heroes" a sequel...
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 11, 2007, 08:29:34 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 11, 2007, 08:36:49 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 11, 2007, 08:58:44 AM
Didn't you just complain that they are making too many sequels?
Post by: Mikintosh on February 11, 2007, 11:06:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Well, Nano Breaker was Konami, but anyway how many of these got sequels?
Didn't you just complain that they are making too many sequels?
Maybe I should have said "were objectively good enough to get sequels?"
Hmmm....*backtracks*...maybe I should substantial sequels. The Zelda series built on itself with each game, as did the Mario series; Mega Man was basically the same game with different maps and powers. Resident Evil did have an ongoing story, but the gameplay itself remained pretty much the same until RE4, which is so far an anomaly. Same with the Street Fighter franchise; over 15 years and every pretty much every game they made for the series was based on Street Fighter II or Street Fighter Alpha, with minor changes/additions. Most of the games listed didn't have enough to substance for Capcom to retool as sequels.
What I'm getting at is that Capcom may be prolific, but is what they're putting out going to be remembered in 10 years?
Post by: KDR_11k on February 11, 2007, 06:22:50 PM
What I'm getting at is that Capcom may be prolific, but is what they're putting out going to be remembered in 10 years?
Not much of it but few games get remembered that long. How many games were there during the Atari 2600, NES and SNES days? How many of them are still remembered?
Post by: segagamer12 on February 12, 2007, 09:27:40 AM
Mega Man X and regualr MM series ahd plenty if similarities and plenty of differences to distinguish the two. They arent all the same game with new levels. They add a lot each game they imrpove alot, the increase the challenge they make new bosses they doa lot to maek the games bigger and better, at the same time they have to stay within the formula to an extent otherwise its a whole different series.
Zelda is basically the same game everytime, it gets bigger and better and more impressive but its basically they same game every time you play it. The story changes just enough but its not something anyone can deny, especially when people have complained about it. Not that I do I LOVE Zelda as much as Mega Man, but I wont put down one over the other for not changing enough when they both are quit guily.
Sometimes a game is great enough all you have to change is the bg and powerups to keep people playinh. SOmetimes you dont have to change anything just add more story.
So what if Re plays all the same? whats the point? Its a fun game for people who like it, it sells really well and it has plenty of squels and has two prettyg ood movies based on it as well.
I dont think Capcom is the best game developer out there by no means, but they are ONE of the best and they sure as hell make better games than some people give them credit for. A games sales are never a measure of how good it is sales can be affected by a number of factors, sometimes things noone can control. What makes a game great is the expeirence. If you play it and you had a pleasant or memorable experienc that means it was a great game.
To be fair Capcom actually takes more risks than most other game devs and they push things more than most other devs also. The Capcom five maybe didnt go over to well, but the games that arouse from it were mostly pretty good, RE4 is always going to be rememebred as one of hte GC BEST games, probably the best 3rd aprty game even to some people.
I dont blame any compnay for covering thier bases either, they all want to make money after all and the best way to do that is to make your products available to as many people as possible. I think the real reason so many people complain isnt because Cacpom isnt making great games but its because they aren't sticking to Nintendo only, even though out of all 3rd parties Capcom has stood closer to NIntendo than any other defv out there and I dont blame them for making descisions that would make them money because I respect Capcom and actualy play a *lot* of thier games, hell for the most part if it has thier label on it I know I will at least try it cuz I havent been let down all that often when it comes to them.
its the same old argument Nintendo fans hate a series or company when they dotn make games for Nintendo or when they do things that are in thier best interest and not Nintendos, but when that game series or company backs Nintendo 100% then Nintendo fans back that game series or company.
I can go through and dig up all the old posts if it was worth it to me but i wont bother. The fact is most, not all but most, Nintendo fans will rag on anything if it isnt made by Nintendo or benefit Nintendo. If RE 4 HAD stayed Exlcusive noone would say adamn thing about Capcom I think a lot of people were so hurt by that they wotn forgive or forget. Thats shame too because yoru gonna miss out on some great games when you think like that. Its funny people bash Dead Rising cuz its a 360 game But if it had been a Wii exclusive it would get all kinds of praise. Espoecialy because it is a fun game and deserves the praise it gets anyways but it dont matter to nintenod loyalists cuz it wasnt made on or by or for nintendo.
Post by: Darc Requiem on February 12, 2007, 12:25:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MikintoshQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Well, Nano Breaker was Konami, but anyway how many of these got sequels?
Didn't you just complain that they are making too many sequels?
Maybe I should have said "were objectively good enough to get sequels?"
Hmmm....*backtracks*...maybe I should substantial sequels. The Zelda series built on itself with each game, as did the Mario series; Mega Man was basically the same game with different maps and powers. Resident Evil did have an ongoing story, but the gameplay itself remained pretty much the same until RE4, which is so far an anomaly. Same with the Street Fighter franchise; over 15 years and every pretty much every game they made for the series was based on Street Fighter II or Street Fighter Alpha, with minor changes/additions. Most of the games listed didn't have enough to substance for Capcom to retool as sequels.
What I'm getting at is that Capcom may be prolific, but is what they're putting out going to be remembered in 10 years?
You mustn't have put any sort of time in the Street Fighter series. You could have. There is a divide amongst SF fans over the "minor" differences in the game play of the different series. I mean just taking the SFZ/SFA part of the series. The gameplay differences between SFA1, SFA2, and SFA3 make jumping in between those sequels with the same play style not possible. Especially which incorporated various SF isms with in its gameplay. Even so, those ism didnt play exactly like the games that inspired them. Then SF3, even with out the parry system plays nothing like the SFA series. It harkened back to the spirit of SF2, kind of like FFIX channeled the SNES FF games, but even then it doesn't play like SF2.
Post by: denjet78 on February 12, 2007, 01:17:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
its the same old argument Nintendo fans hate a series or company when they dotn make games for Nintendo or when they do things that are in thier best interest and not Nintendos, but when that game series or company backs Nintendo 100% then Nintendo fans back that game series or company.
I can go through and dig up all the old posts if it was worth it to me but i wont bother. The fact is most, not all but most, Nintendo fans will rag on anything if it isnt made by Nintendo or benefit Nintendo. If RE 4 HAD stayed Exlcusive noone would say adamn thing about Capcom I think a lot of people were so hurt by that they wotn forgive or forget. Thats shame too because yoru gonna miss out on some great games when you think like that. Its funny people bash Dead Rising cuz its a 360 game But if it had been a Wii exclusive it would get all kinds of praise. Espoecialy because it is a fun game and deserves the praise it gets anyways but it dont matter to nintenod loyalists cuz it wasnt made on or by or for nintendo.
You'll find the same situation with Sony and MS gamers. Or haven't you heard all the Nintendo hate from them? Mario sucks. Zelda is just rehashed over and over again. All Nintendo systems are for kids. It's part of the human condition and Nintendo gamers are not immune to that.
But as for whether RE4 remaining exclusive to GC or not would have made me feel better about Capcom? Not in the slightest. They're still not showing any real support for the Wii. All we have announced so far is Umbrella Chronicles, which will probably turn out to be a really bad spin-off, while the real next title in the franchise is going to both the PS3 and 360. They've even announced DMC4 for the PS3 as well as a number of exclusive 360 titles. Where's the REAL Wii support? They say wait, it's coming, but in the mean time watch them announce all of their big name franchises for everyone else. All that will be left for Wii will be the crumbs.
If they're really interested in bringing new IPs to the Wii then not only do I expect to see these new games soon, but I also expect them to put some EFFORT into them. As I've already stated before, if UC turns out to be Gun Survivor will Wii pointer functionality, I think we can all already see exactly the kind of support Capcom really has in store for the Wii.
Post by: SixthAngel on February 12, 2007, 01:33:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
Capcom doesnt have a reason to change anything about SF it was perfect when it was made and it continues to be the staple for fighting games. ALL fighting games are built off what SF did. Thats a weak weak weak argument. All Mario games are bsaically the same just new levels and new pwerups too, that doesnt make them any less special or magical.
Mega Man X and regualr MM series ahd plenty if similarities and plenty of differences to distinguish the two. They arent all the same game with new levels. They add a lot each game they imrpove alot, the increase the challenge they make new bosses they doa lot to maek the games bigger and better, at the same time they have to stay within the formula to an extent otherwise its a whole different series.
Zelda is basically the same game everytime, it gets bigger and better and more impressive but its basically they same game every time you play it. The story changes just enough but its not something anyone can deny, especially when people have complained about it. Not that I do I LOVE Zelda as much as Mega Man, but I wont put down one over the other for not changing enough when they both are quit guily.
Sometimes a game is great enough all you have to change is the bg and powerups to keep people playinh. SOmetimes you dont have to change anything just add more story.
So what if Re plays all the same? whats the point? Its a fun game for people who like it, it sells really well and it has plenty of squels and has two prettyg ood movies based on it as well.
I agree with a lot of what you said segagamer and I would like to add about the sequels to games. The reason Nintendo sequels tend to be special is that there are not nearly as many released. Zelda games are maybe 2 a generation tops and the same usually goes for Mario and the other big franchises such as Metroid.
Megaman and more recently GTA seem to have lost a lot of their specialness, at least to me, because they released so many games in such a short time. There were basically 5 GTAs released this generation if you include the psp games that made it to the ps2. When the older games are fresh in your head and the the second sequel is released with the usual tweeks and basically the same graphics it gets old. Nintendo games have had not just improvements per generation but the change to 3d that has kept them fresh. There have only been 4 3d Zelda games spreading over the n64 to the end of the gc. Megaman released that many on just the nes, GTA more on just the PS2. Releasing too many sequels really keeps me from gettting excited for the next one because the old games still seem so fresh.
Post by: Ceric on February 12, 2007, 01:37:32 PM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 12, 2007, 07:00:38 PM
Back in the 16 bit era you had plenty of great games by both 1st-3rd party devs on both systems so if you wanted ot enjoy everything you *had* to own them both. TG16 you could live without because the handful of decent games it did have either got ports, or werent good enough to justify the purchase.
Never in gaming histroy has one console had every game made by every dev and there never will be thats a fact of life. DMC4 makes sense on PS3 because its a very graphic intense game and really deserves to be on the highest end system, that may or may not warrent a purchase but still.
Heres something to consider, about the delayed porting. Even back in the 16 bit days and early 32 bit days, there were games that got ported to the low end systems just to make a quick buck, but the high dolalr sysetsm that diudnt have a chance in hell at winning still got some of the high end games.
Take this into consideration, Capcom released Super Street Fighter II for the 3DO! They did it because they wanted the ARCADE PERFECT tarnsaltion. They knew it wasnt going to save 3D0 from doom, but it *did* have a big impact and became one of, if not the best selling games on that platform, again proving my pont they like to take risks and its justfyable because they have vision and they do what is best to see that achieved and dont ever follow market leader. If they gave a crap about who was number one and who sold more systesm Saturn wouldnt have had more games than N64. Cacpom has always done its own thing. They even stated the *only* reason Saturn got all those games was to piss sony off so they could get 2d games on PSx.
I just dont get all the hate and I guess I never will. I can understand Nintendo fans hating Sega, but not capcom who has been Nitendos strongest supporters for as long as they have been around. Hey at elast they tried to make GC gamew work, you cant blame them for goiong multi plattorm with games that didnt have a strong chance to sell. People think RE4 announced for Ps2 canablisied GC sales? BS, they game came out way too late in GCs life to matter and nothing since then has sold at a high enoughr ate to be consdiered a hit ut sdie Nintendos own stuff.
Post by: Mikintosh on February 12, 2007, 09:25:26 PM
And the PS2 Resident Evil 4 did hurt the Cube version sales, and while that wasn't a huge hit for either company, it lost them a great opportunity to show that a mature game could sell well on a Nintendo system.
Post by: JonLeung on February 13, 2007, 02:20:06 AM
QuoteI'm surprised the EX series got up to 3 instalments (just like the original series as well as the Alpha series). From what I've played, the original EX was crap, and the minor changes in the sequels never really made it close to appealing as the 2D games were. Well, maybe, MAYBE they're better than the first Street Fighter, but not by much. The 3D never felt right.
Originally posted by: Mikintosh
It's like they half-assed Street Fighter EX (from what I heard) then never tried a 3D Street Fighter again, and it could've worked.
And the PS2 Resident Evil 4 did hurt the Cube version sales, and while that wasn't a huge hit for either company, it lost them a great opportunity to show that a mature game could sell well on a Nintendo system.
There have always been rumours that for the 20th anniversary of Street Fighter that Capcom would release a Street Fighter IV, in 3D done better. It wouldn't be the EX series, but actually just Street Fighter IV. No difference to me, really, III was so different from II in terms of characters. I would really prefer a Street Fighter Alpha 4... Anyway, it's just rumours. Nothing more.
Mature games have been on Nintendo consoles, but people probably see it as the exception rather than an expected number as the rule. Even though the PlayStations have more Bob the Builder and Barbie games, the PlayStation isn't seen as being for kids as much. People in general are irrational and go with image and vibe.
Post by: Ceric on February 13, 2007, 09:59:54 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 13, 2007, 10:09:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
Take this into consideration, Capcom released Super Street Fighter II for the 3DO! They did it because they wanted the ARCADE PERFECT tarnsaltion. They knew it wasnt going to save 3D0 from doom, but it *did* have a big impact and became one of, if not the best selling games on that platform,
Wow... Segagamer12... you should be given a medal for keeping track of 3D0 sales figures.... *awe*
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: segagamer12 on February 13, 2007, 11:03:32 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 14, 2007, 03:03:46 AM
Um, you hate companies for releasing games on more than one system? WTF? If they refused to release them on the GC I could understand but making them accessible to MORE people?
Post by: segagamer12 on February 14, 2007, 09:31:17 AM
I dont thing SF in 3d is a bad concept, but i havent tried it yet. Firtua Fighter set a pretty high standard for 3d fighting games and tekken and sc seam to be the only was who can mathc VF in qualtiy. not saying VF is now what it once was. but it still set the standard.
Even MK fans had to adjust to 3d, MK Gold was fine, DA seamed to take it to extremes, and Deception/Armageddon started to get back to the original formula but still not close enough. Its a fact of life things chance, we dont always like change but it is always necesarry.
Post by: JonLeung on February 14, 2007, 10:17:38 AM
QuoteThere's nothing necessary about dumping ALL 2D games, which are still functional and enjoyable games. Nothing about having the capability to render polygons should say that sprites are finished.
Originally posted by: segagamer12we dont always like change but it is always necesarry.
Post by: denjet78 on February 14, 2007, 10:29:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
After they pulled that junk with Exclusives, I stopped liking them.
Um, you hate companies for releasing games on more than one system? WTF? If they refused to release them on the GC I could understand but making them accessible to MORE people?
The whole Capcom 5 situation was incredibly idiotic. Capcom came out and made MASSIVE promises that they most likely knew they weren't going to keep. Out of all of them, only one remained exclusive. Would that have happened to Sony? HELL NO! Would that have happened to MS? Again, a resounding no. The point was the deal was huge for Nintendo, and then they backed out of it. Respect means nothing to them, and they obviously don't respect their customers either.
When the PS2 port of RE4 was announced a few short weeks before the "exclusive" game was set to debut on the GC that showed just how little respect they have for Nintendo gamers. They couldn't even wait until the game came out to announce a port that was almost a year away. And to top it all off, I don't remember hearing anything about any heads getting chopped off.
The timing of the announcement was most definitely bad business and almost certainly a dig at Nintendo on Sony's behalf. If you can't see that then you're obviously not paying attention. Besides, I have the right to hold these companies to whatever standard I want. I'm a customer and without me, they make no money. The whole purpose for their existence is to please me. They better get their act together soon though because they've got a long was to go.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 14, 2007, 11:07:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78 Besides, I have the right to hold these companies to whatever standard I want. I'm a customer and without me, they make no money. The whole purpose for their existence is to please me. They better get their act together soon though because they've got a long was to go.
Well said.
In the end, I acknowledge that my expectations may be a bit much, but Nintendo generally doesn't have a hard time holding to some morals when it comes to loyalty and customer satisfaction so why can't 3rd parties?
Post by: KDR_11k on February 14, 2007, 07:35:41 PM
Management doesn't care what employees promised, if they see money they'd sell their own grandmother. Lesson learned: Never believe a company that promises anything. I do seem to recall even Nintendo making promises they wouldn't keep (region free Wii, anyone?)
When the PS2 port of RE4 was announced a few short weeks before the "exclusive" game was set to debut on the GC that showed just how little respect they have for Nintendo gamers.
You mean Nintendo fanboys because a normal gamer doesn't care whether a game is exclusive.
Besides, I have the right to hold these companies to whatever standard I want. I'm a customer and without me, they make no money. The whole purpose for their existence is to please me. They better get their act together soon though because they've got a long was to go.
You're not the only customer in the world and I doubt exclusivity to please random fanboys is profitable.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 14, 2007, 08:34:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
When the PS2 port of RE4 was announced a few short weeks before the "exclusive" game was set to debut on the GC that showed just how little respect they have for Nintendo gamers.
You mean Nintendo fanboys because a normal gamer doesn't care whether a game is exclusive.
That is definately a load of crap, gamers do care about exclusivity whether it be on a Nintendo system, Sony or even a MS system. Exclusivity has always been a big thing for not only the console manufacturers but the customers as well (arguably it matter more to the manufacturer). Some of it is because of status of the gamer ::I'm so cool because I own PS2 with these EXCLUSIVE games::, others to justify their purchases. Not to say it is right or anything, but to box Nintendo fans as being the only ones is naive and quite insulting, I see it all the time for every system. Why do you think there are system wars still going on today if exclusivity didn't bother the average gamer?
Regardless I think was was trying to be said is that Capcom arguably screwed Nintendo over by announcing RE4 for the PS2 since that most likely had an impact on sales. This in turn potentially hurt Nintendo's image more amongst the gaming industry because of the lower sales, and further pigeon holing Nintendo owners as "kiddie". Granted it can't be proven, but Capcom announcing RE4 as multiplatform to a once exclusive game before it even came out may have had a snowball effect that is also hurting the Wii.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 14, 2007, 09:19:00 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 14, 2007, 09:22:44 PM
"Care" as in "f###, it's not on a system I own"?
Capcom announcing RE4 as multiplatform to a once exclusive game before it even came out may have had a snowball effect that is also hurting the Wii.
I don't see the Wii hurting at all. Everyone's making games for it.
Post by: Ceric on February 15, 2007, 04:22:59 AM
Now on Exclusives. They are very important in any form of marketing. If you don't believe that then you are mostly liking living in a world I am not. Lets take cars for example. You have a Truck and a SUV. They both get you where you are going. They both take gas. You have a family of 6. SUV has the feature of holding 6 peoples and the Truck only features 2. So are you going to buy the Truck? No, even though you can modify the Truck to carry 4 more people, it makes more sense to go with the SUV where that feature is initially exclusive to it.
Why do I own a Wii instead of a 360? Because it exclusively has Nintendo.
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 15, 2007, 04:59:14 AM
The fact is that Capcom is a very risk-averse company, to a fault. They'll keep pumping out sequel after sequel, driving a franchise into the ground if possible. They shamelessly reuse the same resources, engines, and designs and they will avoid taking a chance on new platforms that would require new code and tools to develop for. That's why the PSP is such an easy choice for them - even the original titles they've released on it likely contain a lot of recycled code from past projects.
As far as the Gamecube exclusives thing goes... I can't fault them for it. Frankly, Nintendo failed to deliver a large enough install base to make exclusive games a profitable venture. And besides, most (all?) of the titles were still exclusive in the same sense that GTA and Splinter Cell were exclusive to the PS2 and Xbox - short periods of exclusivity followed by multi-platform releases.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 15, 2007, 04:59:46 AM
If Capcom were to port their PSP exclusives to the PS2 I could play them and I wouldn't think one minute about all the poor, heartbroken PSP gamers that can no longer claim that they're the only ones who get to play the games.
Multiplatform titles are better for the publisher and the customer, exclusives are good only for the console manufacturer.
Post by: vudu on February 15, 2007, 06:03:54 AM
QuotePretend for a second that you only had a PS2 and not a GameCube. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if you went out and bought a GameCube just so you could play RE4 and then a couple months later Capcom announces that the game is going to be ported to PS2? I know I would.
Originally posted by: Ceric
Ok, for me it's about respecting the customer. If you don't respect me then I won't respect you. Capcom with that little stick relegated all the forgiveness that I had built up for them over the years. It's gone. Back to scrutinizing them like I do every other brand I know nothing about.
Capcom pissed off Nintendo and lot of Nintendo fans by announcing the port before the GameCube version came out. They also averted a potential situation where a lot of PS2 owners were pissed off at them for "making" them go out and buy a $100 console they had no interest in.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 15, 2007, 07:04:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Multiplatform titles are better for the publisher and the customer, exclusives are good only for the console manufacturer.
Multiplatform games, especially 3 way ports, are notorious for not only spreading development resources thin and making a worse game overall but ALSO ensuring that the graphical quality of the game is only up to par with the least powerful of the three platforms.
I can probably count on one hand the number of titles that were 3 way ports and were still AAA titles last gen. When a company gets the chance to focus on one specific hardware type, it generally means the game itself will be infinitely better than if the company were forced to retrofit the game to two other hardware types. When you have one dev team developing for three different consoles, quality becomes an afterthought.
That's why the Wii's unique controller is probably a godsend for the console because it generally forces companies to think so differently about it that they need to set aside development resources specifically for the Wii.
For example, Sonic and the Secret Rings is easily the prettiest Wii title to date. However, if the Wii had just received a port of the 360/PS3 STH, the game would more than likely look like ASS and would have a bad shoehorn of the Wii controls.
It's insanely rare that multiplatform releases are also AAA titles or even coming anywhere close to it. I agree that consumers benefit in some ways, but there's no question that exclusivity almost always increases the project quality and that in turn guarantees more sales. Look at what Gears of War is doing for MS: it sold 900,000 copies in Dec. alone. Do you think the combined multiplatform sales would have equaled 900k had it been on three different consoles and suffered from 3 way port syndrome?
Post by: Ceric on February 15, 2007, 07:27:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuotePretend for a second that you only had a PS2 and not a GameCube. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if you went out and bought a GameCube just so you could play RE4 and then a couple months later Capcom announces that the game is going to be ported to PS2? I know I would.
Originally posted by: Ceric
Ok, for me it's about respecting the customer. If you don't respect me then I won't respect you. Capcom with that little stick relegated all the forgiveness that I had built up for them over the years. It's gone. Back to scrutinizing them like I do every other brand I know nothing about.
Capcom pissed off Nintendo and lot of Nintendo fans by announcing the port before the GameCube version came out. They also averted a potential situation where a lot of PS2 owners were pissed off at them for "making" them go out and buy a $100 console they had no interest in.
Personally, if I was so into a game that I would be willing to shell out the cash to get another game system just to play that game, I would want the original version because that is the one that should be superior. I know I'm rare but it's a risk and one that in that case I was obviously willing to take. If I ever wanted to buy Gear of War, lets say, enough that I was willing to get a 360 and tomorrow it was announced for Wii. I probably still want to go ahead and get the 360 version because it is the original version and how it was originally envisioned. Same games wouldn't warrant that sort of devotion and I agree. Like Tetris, I mean personally I wouldn't buy a system for Tetris. The core gameplay remains mostly the same.
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Multiplatform titles are better for the publisher and the customer, exclusives are good only for the console manufacturer.
Multiplatform games, especially 3 way ports, are notorious for not only spreading development resources thin and making a worse game overall but ALSO ensuring that the graphical quality of the game is only up to par with the least powerful of the three platforms.
I can probably count on one hand the number of titles that were 3 way ports and were still AAA titles last gen. When a company gets the chance to focus on one specific hardware type, it generally means the game itself will be infinitely better than if the company were forced to retrofit the game to two other hardware types. When you have one dev team developing for three different consoles, quality becomes an afterthought.
That's why the Wii's unique controller is probably a godsend for the console because it generally forces companies to think so differently about it that they need to set aside development resources specifically for the Wii.
For example, Sonic and the Secret Rings is easily the prettiest Wii title to date. However, if the Wii had just received a port of the 360/PS3 STH, the game would more than likely look like ASS and would have a bad shoehorn of the Wii controls.
It's insanely rare that multiplatform releases are also AAA titles or even coming anywhere close to it. I agree that consumers benefit in some ways, but there's no question that exclusivity almost always increases the project quality and that in turn guarantees more sales. Look at what Gears of War is doing for MS: it sold 900,000 copies in Dec. alone. Do you think the combined multiplatform sales would have equaled 900k had it been on three different consoles and suffered from 3 way port syndrome?
I agree for the most part. My experience when it comes to ports that yeah as a single system owner I like some games to come out for my system ,*cough*Monster Rancher*cough*, though the majority of the time I find that when a game wasn't specifically designed with your system in mind it tends to be glitchy and a let down. Everyone has different experience with different things. Like I prefer Hatchbacks over Sedans because I can fit more in them. Thats been my experience.
I just find games that don't have to worry about supporting different platforms come out better and have more easter eggs and the like in them.
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 15, 2007, 10:03:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
That's why the Wii's unique controller is probably a godsend for the console because it generally forces companies to think so differently about it that they need to set aside development resources specifically for the Wii.
I think it's waaaayyy too early to tell if that will be a bastion or a boon for the Wii. 3rd-party publishers are saying all the right things right now, but I think you're just as likely to see weak last-gen ports with Wii controls hastily tacked on as you are groundbreaking, original titles. Only time will tell, obviously we all hope it will be the former.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 15, 2007, 11:40:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
That is definately a load of crap, gamers do care about exclusivity whether it be on a Nintendo system, Sony or even a MS system.
"Care" as in "f###, it's not on a system I own"?
Capcom announcing RE4 as multiplatform to a once exclusive game before it even came out may have had a snowball effect that is also hurting the Wii.
I don't see the Wii hurting at all. Everyone's making games for it.
The Wii is still hurting because 3rd parties (like Capcom) are still reluctant to release Mature rated games. In regards to your comment, you see that same mentality with most systems, I'm sorry its the truth, it is a way 1 system only owners like to justify their purchases, but on the flip there are many that would like to play games on others systems and that INCLUDES Nintendo fans. It is a stupid generalization because frankly I've heard the same thing regarding people not interested in Nintendo games because they are "kiddie", don't tell me you haven't either.
Post by: Ages on February 15, 2007, 12:26:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
there absolutley is something necessary about staying competitive and keeping up with the times. just because we can watch movies on dvd doesnt mean we cant make movies for vhs right? thast how ludiscious your argument sounds to me.
You do realize that DVD rentals just started outpacing VHS movies just last year right?
Post by: dack25 on February 15, 2007, 12:51:04 PM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 15, 2007, 03:22:42 PM
Post by: Ages on February 15, 2007, 04:01:26 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 15, 2007, 04:17:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: AgesQuote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
there absolutley is something necessary about staying competitive and keeping up with the times. just because we can watch movies on dvd doesnt mean we cant make movies for vhs right? thast how ludiscious your argument sounds to me.
You do realize that DVD rentals just started outpacing VHS movies just last year right?
Actually from what I've read that is wrong, back in 2003 is when DVDs started to outpace VHS.
DVD outpaces VHS
In fact DVDs have been wasting VHS for a year and a half.
DVD beating the crap out of VHS from July 2005
Post by: segagamer12 on February 15, 2007, 04:40:44 PM
Even if a FEW companies hold onto VHS, it only PROVES my point because they are the *minority* and it si THE SAME WITH 2-D, that was what I said and there is NO WAY you can argue that logically without showing facts to back it up. VHS is NOT profitable for major companies and the MAJORITY does NOT suppoort the format anymore because DVD is what is accepted NOW. HDDVD and Blu Ray are both TO NEW to matter at the moment so that still holds true. When 3D gaming was NEW it wasn't the standard and itw asn't as profitable because it wasn't the NORM and it wasn't expected to be profitbale.
Whyc an't you see that? Why do you ALWAYS have to argue even when yoru OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 15, 2007, 05:35:37 PM
I know you don't like them but EA Sports alone goes over that limit.
Post by: Adrock on February 15, 2007, 05:37:54 PM
There's too much chocolate in this world to be getting this bent over videogame debates....
Post by: Kairon on February 15, 2007, 06:11:10 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ages on February 15, 2007, 06:17:29 PM
Post by: denjet78 on February 15, 2007, 06:40:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Management doesn't care what employees promised, if they see money they'd sell their own grandmother. Lesson learned: Never believe a company that promises anything. I do seem to recall even Nintendo making promises they wouldn't keep (region free Wii, anyone?)
Do you honestly believe that management wasn't involved in that deal? You think that their employees got together and just decided to announce that RE was going to be exclusive to the GC last generation? OR was it management that brokered that deal. And this situation was a little more definite than the whole "region free Wii" thing that no one was even able to confirm nor deny for weeks after the original quote. I didn't believe it when I heard it anyway. But, the RE announcement had it's own event! How can you even compare the two except to try and find any supporting evidence for your perspective no matter how much you have to stretch the truth.
Quote
When the PS2 port of RE4 was announced a few short weeks before the "exclusive" game was set to debut on the GC that showed just how little respect they have for Nintendo gamers.
You mean Nintendo fanboys because a normal gamer doesn't care whether a game is exclusive.
Regular gamers care. A lot of gamers just don't know though and didn't know that RE4 was being ported to the PS2 until it actually came out. However, the outcome hurt Nintendo in the eyes of the industry. Other developers were very much privy to what happened. It's not just about the gamers, it's also about the industry as a whole. Capcom pulled a MAJOR whammy on Nintendo. If you don't think that mattered, how about you poll developers and see what they thought about it?
Quote
Besides, I have the right to hold these companies to whatever standard I want. I'm a customer and without me, they make no money. The whole purpose for their existence is to please me. They better get their act together soon though because they've got a long was to go.
You're not the only customer in the world and I doubt exclusivity to please random fanboys is profitable.
Okay, sure they can never keep all of their customers happy all of the time but what happens after you piss them all off? This was a major blow and it did piss off Nintendo gamers. What's more, how do you prove to Sony and MS gamers that the same situation isn't going to happen to them? If, actually when Capcom's big name titles on the PS3 start getting ported around you are going to start to hear a lot of bitching and whining from Sony fans. Why? Because it hurts the PS3s image for exclusive games to go multiplatform. And as someone else stated, exclusive games are VERY important in this industry. If they weren't why do Sony and MS blow massive amounts of money to gain and then maintain them? Why are both companies eating up developers left and right? Exclusive games dictate your platform. Ports are just filler.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 15, 2007, 07:12:42 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 16, 2007, 01:34:18 AM
Regular gamers care. A lot of gamers just don't know though and didn't know that RE4 was being ported to the PS2 until it actually came out. However, the outcome hurt Nintendo in the eyes of the industry. Other developers were very much privy to what happened. It's not just about the gamers, it's also about the industry as a whole. Capcom pulled a MAJOR whammy on Nintendo. If you don't think that mattered, how about you poll developers and see what they thought about it?
You said regular gamers care and went on to prove that developers do with no further mention of gamers. I still don't see why the average gamer would appreciate exclusivity.
Okay, sure they can never keep all of their customers happy all of the time but what happens after you piss them all off? This was a major blow and it did piss off Nintendo gamers. What's more, how do you prove to Sony and MS gamers that the same situation isn't going to happen to them? If, actually when Capcom's big name titles on the PS3 start getting ported around you are going to start to hear a lot of bitching and whining from Sony fans. Why? Because it hurts the PS3s image for exclusive games to go multiplatform. And as someone else stated, exclusive games are VERY important in this industry. If they weren't why do Sony and MS blow massive amounts of money to gain and then maintain them? Why are both companies eating up developers left and right? Exclusive games dictate your platform. Ports are just filler.
I doubt anyone but a fanboy cares if a game that's on a console they own is available on other consoles, too.
Post by: Ages on February 16, 2007, 03:14:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Nintendo World Report Forums FAQ
Don't post in ALL CAPS. All caps is considered shouting, or at least, very rude. And you're likely to get your post deleted and yourself banned if you do it more than once.
Do your best to use proper grammar and spelling. It's just annoying for us to have to try to read your shorthand and lazy typing. Take your TIME, check your spelling (write your messages in a word processor or e-mail program, if it helps), and use full sentences. If you write a five word post with little to no relevance to the topic, it's probably going to get deleted.
Show respect to your fellow forum members. We're all gamers, and there's no excuse for insults and rudeness. Just because you're "anonymous" doesn't mean that we can't find out who you are. Ask some of the folks that have not only been banned, but have had their accounts closed with their ISPs. Unless you go through the exercise of "spoofing" your IP before you post, your IP address tells us what ISP you came from, and the timestamp tells your ISP who was using that IP. Even so, we have other tools at our disposal.
It's a miracle you havent been banned again yet. Get a handle on your anger and stop feeling like everyone is attacking you.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 16, 2007, 05:38:43 AM
Now I wasn't yelling so why did you quote the rules to me? I ephasised a few sentances but my pos wasnt at all yelling. I capitalise letters for ephasis not to shout. But whatever. Ill try and use itailic smroe if that will work for you, I wasn't losing my temper I just can't beleive you wouldn't get the point, in my mind it shows arogance and stupidity, not trying to call yo names but if you CANT realise VHS isnt profitable and CANT reliase that in todays market 2d fighting gaems arent profitable then I cant help you.
I know its not the exact same but the ignorant comment before my post is why I used that analogy. the point was Street Fighter sucks in 3d, DUH other games have set a standard they cant live up to. The SF series set the standard for 2d fighting, so it makes sense that in a time, regradfless of vision and all that BS that ahs nohting todo with my statemetns, but ina time when 2D fighitng gaems just ARENT popular and DONT sell it MAKES sense to STOP making a game series in 2D and if that series DOESNT translate into 3d it MAKES sense to CANCEL that series BECAUSE it is NOT profitable. THAT was my point, so I used an analogy that WASNT perfect BUT still illustrated the POINT and you STILL refused to accept that by nitpicking the loopholes when thast WASNT necasary adn you ONLY niutpicked for the SAKE of doing so because you ALWAYS do that no matter HOW right or WRONG I may be and you NEVER get the point and ONLY want to argue.
There was NOTHING erronoues in my post but when YOUR errors were pointed out YOU ignored that and contunied to argue without even TRYING to get the point. PERIOD.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 05:52:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I know you don't like them but EA Sports alone goes over that limit.
Huh? Since when are EA sports titles considered AAA? I thought gamers widely regarded them as the armpit of the gaming industry...
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock There's too much chocolate in this world to be getting this bent over videogame debates....
I have a new quote...
Post by: segagamer12 on February 16, 2007, 06:11:41 AM
Post by: vudu on February 16, 2007, 06:37:14 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 06:39:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
but, but I hate chocolate.
OMFG COMMUNIST!!!!
Post by: KDR_11k on February 16, 2007, 07:13:31 AM
They are AAA in every definition of the term except yours. They rate highly, they sell VERY well, they are high priority projects for their developer (which I think is what AAA really means) and they have huge budgets. Of course they aren't AAA to people who would complain about a game being available to people who own other consoles but I don't count fanboys as sane, reasonable or people for any purpose.
Rat, calm down. We don't want SUPER banning you again.
Speak for yourself, I would welcome that.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 07:30:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k They are AAA in every definition of the term except yours.
I'm talking about games which are being built from the ground up and are sharing their development resources across three consoles.
I don't count EA's sports titles because they aren't even new games. They're roster/graphic updates being rehashed. How often does Madden see a full-blown engine update? I'd guess not since 2001.
In the case of NEW games being made multiplatform from the ground up, they typically ALWAYS suffer from glitches and quality issues due to development resources being spread so thin.
Even big name games which likely had a multi-million dollar budget (like Sonic Heroes, for example) suffer dramatically from being made for three platforms at once.
So yes, I will be FAR more likely to buy an exclusive title because it has, in my experience, a VASTLY better chance of being an all-around better game than most multiplatform releases. It has nothing to do with fanboyism. It's not wanting to get burned on my $50 investment by a crap game (which I have been in the past).
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 16, 2007, 09:24:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I'm talking about games which are being built from the ground up and are sharing their development resources across three consoles.
I don't count EA's sports titles because they aren't even new games. They're roster/graphic updates being rehashed. How often does Madden see a full-blown engine update? I'd guess not since 2001.
In the case of NEW games being made multiplatform from the ground up, they typically ALWAYS suffer from glitches and quality issues due to development resources being spread so thin.
Even big name games which likely had a multi-million dollar budget (like Sonic Heroes, for example) suffer dramatically from being made for three platforms at once.
Sorry, but, that's a terrible definition. Whether or not games suffer due to being multi-platform is largely conjecture.
Few games are built from the ground up, using brand new, original engines anymore. Development is largely about reuse now - and you'll see that more and more and more in order to curb rising budgets. Look at Ubisoft in the last generation - or the current for that matter. Splinter Cell, BG&E, POP all use the exact same 3d engine. Even Nintendo does this - Mario Sunshine, both Zeldas, likely the majority of their 3d games use the same engine. Both companies reuse a lot of textures and resources across products.
It would be stupid, in fact, for Madden to not reuse the same code from version to version within a generation. It's a AAA title in every sense of the term, to the point where it's absence was a factor in a lot of people I know not buying the Dreamcast.
Quote
So yes, I will be FAR more likely to buy an exclusive title because it has, in my experience, a VASTLY better chance of being an all-around better game than most multiplatform releases. It has nothing to do with fanboyism. It's not wanting to get burned on my $50 investment by a crap game (which I have been in the past).
That's a philosophy that stems directly from you owning a console that isn't the market leader. The vast majority of exclusive PS2 titles are shovelware. I'd venture a guess that the formula is the exact opposite of what you're proposing - that non-exclusive titles are the ones that are of higher quality - the high investment in multi-platform development means the developer can't risk releasing a low-quality title (except in cases where the strength of the license will do the selling for them).
Post by: Ages on February 16, 2007, 09:27:01 AM
And another thing, I admitted I was wrong when I had made the DVD claim. I even awknowledged it in my next post when I said "Once again with the name calling. I guess that's all you're good for huh Rat? I'll admit i was off a couple years on VHS outpacing DVD, but that does not change my point about DVD and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD."
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 10:03:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk Sorry, but, that's a terrible definition. Whether or not games suffer due to being multi-platform is largely conjecture.
No, it's a quantitative certainty. It's not even a question: if you have 15 people working on a game, you will not be able to convince me that the game would not turn out better if all 15 of them were working with the same hardware and the same code instead of three teams of five all trying to adapt the code, graphics, sounds, etc. to three completely different platforms.
I accept the fact that sh*tty developers will violate this rule, but decent developers who spread their resources across three platforms undoubtedly have their games either suffer or at least never meet their TRUE potential.
Take a console like the GC, for example: a game like RE4, which was built from the ground up for it, took advantage of a plethora of graphical capabilities which most people were STUNNED that the GC even possessed. Had RE4 been developed on all consoles right off the bat, there's no way in HELL the dev team would have taken the time to explore the GC's graphical prowess to the extent that they did.
The GC had plenty of bells and whistles when it came to graphical capability, but this ability was seldom tapped into because, when a developer is making the game for two other consoles as well, it's time constraint-prohibitive to bother to write code to take advantage of them.
As for "AAA" titles, the term can easily apply to games that DON'T sell well but are still critically acclaimed, like Okami. I'm not talking about a game's selling power or dev budget, I'm talking about it being an absolutely stellar game, and those tend to come more often from exclusives than not.
Quote
That's a philosophy that stems directly from you owning a console that isn't the market leader. The vast majority of exclusive PS2 titles are shovelware. I'd venture a guess that the formula is the exact opposite of what you're proposing - that non-exclusive titles are the ones that are of higher quality - the high investment in multi-platform development means the developer can't risk releasing a low-quality title (except in cases where the strength of the license will do the selling for them).
I understand what you're saying, and while I do believe it to be the case that it's years of GC ownership which brought me to this conclusion, it's still advice I'd highly suggest people follow.
Yes, there's less risk developing for the market leader, but at a certain point, the market leader will have a flood of games so immensely huge that games need to rise to a certain level of quality to even be noticed at all.
Obviously, reviews are a godsend for this reason, but take a game like Sonic and the Secret Rings: if this were coming out on all three consoles on the same day, I wouldn't have it reserved right now. Since it takes specific graphical advantage of the Wii and was built around the idea of the Wiimote, I have a great deal more faith in the potential quality of the game and the reviews and impressions coming out now all indicate that I haven't been led astray by my assumptions.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 16, 2007, 03:00:03 PM
Smash_brother, I hate to tell yout is man but Madden is a *GOOD* game weather you like it or not. It is never just a roster update they change a *lot* each installment. EA takes thier sports very seriously and I respect them for that. A lot of people bash them because they rehash code, as was pointed out *all* devs do that so that is not even a valid point.
I understand that some people just don't like sports games, ok fine you don't have to. But demeaning a games quality based on your own personaly feelings is not very fair to that game, especially if it is acclaimed, wins lots of awards, sells millions each year and has a *massive* userbase. I am not a very big football fan and in general I don't like sports, but I still recognise the quality of the EA sports games, the authenticity, the detail, the graphicaly powere behind them, the attention to detail, the realistic playing fields, the umberof extras, the number of players, the multiplayer aspects, pretty much everything that goes into a sports game.
Let me put it this way, even if *all* EA did was update the roster on all 32 NFL teams each year, lets do tha math a little. Now I suck at math so correct me if I am wrong, but there are 32 Teams in the NFL, there are 8 players on Offense and 12 I think on Defense and then there are back up players and subsitutes (not the right term I know) and the coaches and captains. Now I think on average an NFL team is made up of like 24 players total, times 36. Each players had Yards recieved, yards ran, rushing yards, points scored, turn overs, passing yards, and a few other stats but thsoe are the ones I can think of. Now they have to update *all* those stats for *all* those players every single year. Thats *still* a lot of work, and a lot of attention to detail.
Now there are also the individual players to keep track of as well as the classic players/teams to put in there. So when you seem how much really goes into just a football game you start to earn more respect for the dev teams responsibe for those games. Now I am not trying to maek an argument all i am saying is that there is a lot more involved ina Madden game then what you think.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 03:22:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12 Smash_brother, I hate to tell yout is man but Madden is a *GOOD* game weather you like it or not. It is never just a roster update they change a *lot* each installment. EA takes thier sports very seriously and I respect them for that. A lot of people bash them because they rehash code, as was pointed out *all* devs do that so that is not even a valid point.
The point is, every successive Madden title isn't a new game developed from the ground up for all three consoles. In fact, it's more like an "update" to the previous game, and much of the code is reused from game to game.
It's not a question of whether or not it's a good game: it's the fact that the game isn't subjected to the same development difficulties and expenditures as games which are being made without the luxury of having 60% of your game completed already when you begin.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 16, 2007, 04:18:25 PM
How much change do you tink there is from one Mega Man to the next? or resident evil? What about Street Fighter, Mario Party? Most sequels, no matter WHO is making them are going to reuse a lot of the same content every time, there are a lot of reasons for that. EA doesnt just make Madden BTW, they also make NFL Street, Arena Football, NCAA, and a few other football games and they are all different from each other. They do alot more than you are giving them credit for. You say its ok for Nintendo or Capcom to reuse the same code over and over but NOT EA, why?
Ok for the sake of keeping the peace, JUST anwer *this* question. Is your beef with Madden NFL Football specifically or Ea in general? That is all I want to know.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 04:32:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12 Ok for the sake of keeping the peace, JUST anwer *this* question. Is your beef with Madden NFL Football specifically or Ea in general? That is all I want to know.
It's not a "beef" at all: I have no problem with the Madden games.
My comparison isn't intended to slight the Madden games. It's intended to point out the difficulties that developers face in bringing a game to three consoles at the same time under normal development circumstances.
Madden doesn't count in this comparison because Madden A) does have content recycled from one game to the next and B) multi-million dollar budgets for each game.
Again, I'm not RAGGING on Madden, just saying that it's the exception to the rule because of extenuating circumstances regarding its development.
When I say that it's rare that a dev house can bring a AAA title to all three consoles, I mean a project without a multi-million dollar budget and one which is being developed from the ground up for all three of those consoles.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 16, 2007, 04:48:36 PM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 16, 2007, 04:50:34 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 16, 2007, 11:13:12 PM
S_B, I don't think you know how multiplatform development works. You don't split your team equally over the platforms, that would be developing three exclusives with a similar design. You use cross-platform libraries and code and encapsule all the platform-specific code. Most engines are written to be platform independent these days. Your 12 people team would have all people work on one version that runs on all consoles (with occassional testing to make sure there are no platform-specific bugs). The expense for going multiplatform is trivial compared to the expense of making a game even for the cheapest platform involved.
Even if you count each EA Sports series as one game per generation you still have NFL, NHL, FIFA, NBA, Tiger Woods, SSX, Bond, Need for Speed, Burnout, Timesplitters, etc as cross-platform AAA titles. And that's just EA. Start adding Ubisoft, Activision, THQ, Take 2, etc and you get a large number of AAA cross-platform titles.
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 17, 2007, 06:12:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
BG&E and PoP were Unreal Engine? Because I'm pretty sure Splinter Cell was UE and if they were using the engine those would be UE, too.
Whoops, you're absolutely correct.. BG&E and the PoP games use the Jade engine, Splinter Cell uses Unreal. That interview talks in some detail about exactly what code and tools were shared between the Splinter Cell and PoP games though - basically lighting and physics, which is why they look and feel so similar to one another.
I agree with KDR though, S_B. You're presenting a false choice there - multi-platform developers don't say "Okay, we want to develop on 3 platforms so let's divide our staff of 15 into 3 teams of 5," they more likely say "Okay we want to develop on 3 platforms so we'll need 3x as many developers." That's why it's so much more expensive, and why the strategy is usually to develop natively on one platform and then have outside teams port that code to the other platforms.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 17, 2007, 10:59:29 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 17, 2007, 12:56:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Even if you count each EA Sports series as one game per generation you still have NFL, NHL, FIFA, NBA, Tiger Woods, SSX, Bond, Need for Speed, Burnout, Timesplitters, etc as cross-platform AAA titles. And that's just EA. Start adding Ubisoft, Activision, THQ, Take 2, etc and you get a large number of AAA cross-platform titles.
Let's back up here a second: FYI, I don't consider any of those AAA titles. Let me lay down a definition for an AAA title, because that's clearly what's missing in this discussion...
An AAA title is a game which you remember for years afterwards, a game which never leaves you. It's the type of game which pushes limits and changes something fundamental about the way you see gaming after playing it. It's a game which makes you want your friends to see it, to play it for themselves. It's a game which went the distance and did so in such a way that you will not be able to deny that the director the game wanted you to feel or think a certain way after playing it and you understand that, indeed, this is now the case after finishing it.
The phrase "a large number of cross-platform AAA titles" is an oxymoron. By their very definition, these games are rarities in the world of interactive electronic entertainment.
A game can sell a billion copies and not be a AAA title. Again, sales do not designate quality, they do not determine the heart and soul of a game. Okami was heralded by NWR's own editors as pure GOTY material, even beating out Zelda in the minds of some, and yet it only sold 200k copies.
I understand that you may not agree with that analysis of gaming, but if you have a different definition for AAA titles, we're not using yours: we're using mine.
Quote
S_B, I don't think you know how multiplatform development works. You don't split your team equally over the platforms, that would be developing three exclusives with a similar design.
I'm aware, but the end result of the truth and my analogy are identical, and the truth is, I have a difficult time recalling many 3rd party games which I would consider AAA, but let me give you an example.
Resident Evil 4 was, through and through, a AAA game. It is evident in every facet of it that Capcom went above and beyond the call of duty to make this game everything it could be and even more. They pushed the GC to its limit, ensuring to make use of all of its graphical bells and whistles.
Had RE4 been made for all three consoles at the same time, they wouldn't have done this. The incentive of making use of the unique graphical features of a particular console just doesn't exist when you'd need to do it for all three consoles in order to be "fair".
So yes, like I said from the start, console exclusivity can greatly benefit the customer by the way of all-around better games. I'm forced to deduce that either A) there are increased difficulties in developing for three consoles simultaneously or B) developers creating games for all three consoles feel that quality isn't their top priority.
In either case, the end result is the same: I trust exclusive games more so than I do multi-console games. Truthfully, I don't think I've ever played a multi-console game which I'd really consider AAA material. PoP came close, but even that felt a bit rough around the edges.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 17, 2007, 03:15:47 PM
. You do make some points I never thought of and that is what makes a AAA title and you are definately right, there are few, and definately even FEWER that are multiplatform. Probably the only AAA multiplatform games outside of something like RE4 are MAYBE PC games ported to console but even then they are lacking.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 17, 2007, 04:18:29 PM
The PS2's RE4 graphical downgrade speaks volumes for my argument as well.
Also, something which might come as a shock, but I don't think TP was AAA. It was an excellent game and while I enjoyed it very much and found it a memorable experience, it just didn't have that edge which made me say to myself "I'm going to remember this game forever." like OoT did.
I expect the first native Zelda Wii title has a good chance of making it into the AAA category for me, especially since it will likely provide some new experiences via the Wiimote.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 17, 2007, 05:54:24 PM
Resident Evil 4 was, through and through, a AAA game. It is evident in every facet of it that Capcom went above and beyond the call of duty to make this game everything it could be and even more. They pushed the GC to its limit, ensuring to make use of all of its graphical bells and whistles.
Had RE4 been made for all three consoles at the same time, they wouldn't have done this. The incentive of making use of the unique graphical features of a particular console just doesn't exist when you'd need to do it for all three consoles in order to be "fair".
That sounds like you're saying a game can't be great if its graphics aren't the absolute best your system can output. Last I checked there's more to a game than graphics and many popular games get away with pretty weak graphics. Take e.g. GTA3, most people consider that a truly great game yet it's ugly as hell and looks like PS2 on all systems.
Also, something which might come as a shock, but I don't think TP was AAA. It was an excellent game and while I enjoyed it very much and found it a memorable experience, it just didn't have that edge which made me say to myself "I'm going to remember this game forever." like OoT did.
I didn't feel OOT would be a game I'll remember forever either. Well, leaving aside that I rarely forget about a game and I'm not more likely to remember a good one than a bad one. Killer 7 is a game you'd remember, for example, same for Project Zero. Neither is the pinnacle of gaming but both are very unique and as such more easily remembered. How much you remember a game depends on its impact on you which isn't necessarily because of its quality. E.g. a kid would remember even a pretty bad game just because he can't afford that many games and was playing it for a pretty long time anyway.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 17, 2007, 06:05:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Killer 7 is a game you'd remember, for example, same for Project Zero.
I'll forever remember Killer 7 as well, as an overly hyped "hardcore" game with poor controls, linear gameplay paths, and some of the most repetitive enemy designs around.
BTW I have to disagree about Zelda: TP, the game is memorable no matter how you look at it. Regardless though it wasn't the like the game was always multiplatform, that came into effect later on (like Resident Evil 4).
Post by: Kairon on February 17, 2007, 06:09:44 PM
... Just my two cents, heh. Here, let me make it four:
A triple-A title is any title that has good production and marketting values well suited to its goals(both GoW and Wii Sports qualify), reaches a sizable audience of a couple hundred thousand and upwards, and is also possessing of a decent attempt at quality gameplay.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Arbok on February 17, 2007, 07:45:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Even if you count each EA Sports series as one game per generation you still have NFL, NHL, FIFA, NBA, Tiger Woods, SSX, Bond, Need for Speed, Burnout, Timesplitters, etc as cross-platform AAA titles. And that's just EA. Start adding Ubisoft, Activision, THQ, Take 2, etc and you get a large number of AAA cross-platform titles.
Let's back up here a second: FYI, I don't consider any of those AAA titles.
Time Splitters 2 is a AAA title, period... it's not up for debate...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 17, 2007, 08:29:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Even if you count each EA Sports series as one game per generation you still have NFL, NHL, FIFA, NBA, Tiger Woods, SSX, Bond, Need for Speed, Burnout, Timesplitters, etc as cross-platform AAA titles. And that's just EA. Start adding Ubisoft, Activision, THQ, Take 2, etc and you get a large number of AAA cross-platform titles.
Let's back up here a second: FYI, I don't consider any of those AAA titles.
Time Splitters 2 is a AAA title, period... it's not up for debate...
I personally thought all the Time Splitter games were overrated and did not live up to standard I had hoped for the series,since they were designed by ex-Goldeneye team members. Not to say it was a bad game, it was in fact pretty good, but not sure about it being AAA.
Post by: oohhboy on February 17, 2007, 10:09:53 PM
PD and GE are games I still go back to play now. Even with the poor frame rates, those two are still better games.
TS 2 does have a varity of levels, when it comes to the look of them. But they all pretty much played the same.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 18, 2007, 09:16:42 AM
Doesn't play nearly as well as Zelda in any respect, but TP was more fanservice than merit.
OH, DID I JUST HIT THE HORNET'S NEST?
Post by: Artimus on February 18, 2007, 10:27:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Killer7 is more memorable than TP.
Doesn't play nearly as well as Zelda in any respect, but TP was more fanservice than merit.
OH, DID I JUST HIT THE HORNET'S NEST?
No. You just made yourself look silly by trying to provoke people who...DON'T RESPECT YOU AND DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK IN THE FIRSTPLACE.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 18, 2007, 11:12:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Killer7 is more memorable than TP.
Doesn't play nearly as well as Zelda in any respect, but TP was more fanservice than merit.
OH, DID I JUST HIT THE HORNET'S NEST?
How people can like a severely flawed shooter with poor controls, repetitive enemy designs, and a severely limited and linear path is beyond me. But to each their own. This is a great example of a game that I think people like more for its "uniqueness" over how it plays and how fine tuned or polished it is. Once the charm wore off I had no reason to go back to the game.
Post by: Ceric on February 18, 2007, 01:57:34 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 18, 2007, 02:31:49 PM
And that's supposed to make a 30+ hour adventure worth the dev time and wait?
K7's controls were very functional; enemies are repetitive inherently, even in Zelda, so that's non-issue (i think zelda's enemies took less work to deal with too, since just a simple wait-then-swipe-swipe to the end); and the game doesn't litter your world with details at odd angles, so there's little point in having the freedom to run about, just a simple matter of getting where you needed to be, and it's just about as linear as RE4: you're either running straight ahead or following loops for some backtracking. You give the impression the game should be knocked for not being open and abitious enough. The game's directness is apparent, so it's no wonder that all the core adventure details come your way in due time, without wasting time running off to insignificant corners.
I'll go ahead and knock TP for falling short of the standards set by the three 3D predecessors. It's a lovely adventure with widespread sprinklings of great elements, but it relies too much on old elements while thinly employing "new" elements that don't clearly set it apart other than acting very much like an expected Ocarina of Time sequel catered to the crybabies who yearned for the Zelda Spaceworld Demo.
It's fanservice.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 18, 2007, 03:01:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
TP is full of "been there, done that" and "why was this so easy?" and severely under-utilized weapons and sword skills.
And that's supposed to make a 30+ hour adventure worth the dev time and wait?
K7's controls were very functional; enemies are repetitive inherently, even in Zelda, so that's non-issue (i think zelda's enemies took less work to deal with too, since just a simple wait-then-swipe-swipe to the end); and the game doesn't litter your world with details at odd angles, so there's little point in having the freedom to run about, just a simple matter of getting where you needed to be, and it's just about as linear as RE4: you're either running straight ahead or following loops for some backtracking. You give the impression the game should be knocked for not being open and abitious enough. The game's directness is apparent, so it's no wonder that all the core adventure details come your way in due time, without wasting time running off to insignificant corners.
I'll go ahead and knock TP for falling short of the standards set by the three 3D predecessors. It's a lovely adventure with widespread sprinklings of great elements, but it relies too much on old elements while thinly employing "new" elements that don't clearly set it apart other than acting very much like an expected Ocarina of Time sequel catered to the crybabies who yearned for the Zelda Spaceworld Demo.
It's fanservice.
HAHA, Zelda TP is one of the most brilliantly designed games in years. Killer 7 is a joke in comparison, you cannot compare the polish, variety and expansive nature of Zelda to a stylistic wannabe lightgun shooter with poor controls, and yawn tastic enemy battles. Killer 7 is one game that is severely wrong with the industry, the "Hardcore" prefer "pretty lights" and "artistic" graphic designs over fundamental game mechanics. I would not be the least surprised if the severely limited nature (RE4 may be linear but it is not Killers 7s almost on rails design) of the game was because of budget restraints and they felt they could get some techno geeks that will drool over the game because it looks "stylish" when behind the pretty is a below average shooter with some "neat" but flawed additions. Not to mention having to search for your enemy with your scanner is ridiculous and not necessary as well (most likely artificially increase the challenge).
Oh let's see what else? How about you can't duck or move like any other light gun shooter. Nothing was more frustrating than being stuck on rails as those exploding freaks came running at me. Regenerating enemies I can handle, but in this game it is already an annoyance to take them out the first time and the second time around as your backtracking is no better. Also if I recall it had comic book esque cutscenes instead of using the game engine, yet another poor feature of the game. Let's see not much else to say, the game seemed to me to be a patience test and frankly I lost my patience, it wasn't fun and I really didn't care about monster clone "red, blue, green, pink purple, rainbow, gold".
It is great when art and gameplay mesh together, but Killer 7 is not that game. To accuse Zelda: TP of being a retread is pathetic actually, yes it takes elements from previous games but adds a whole new dimension to the series (I'm sorry but where did you turn into a wolf in OOT?). Zelda has better designed levels, variety, characters, and enemies (there is quite a bit of variety in Zelda's characters, especially the bosses)
Post by: Artimus on February 18, 2007, 03:03:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
TP is full of "been there, done that" and "why was this so easy?" and severely under-utilized weapons and sword skills.
And that's supposed to make a 30+ hour adventure worth the dev time and wait?
K7's controls were very functional; enemies are repetitive inherently, even in Zelda, so that's non-issue (i think zelda's enemies took less work to deal with too, since just a simple wait-then-swipe-swipe to the end); and the game doesn't litter your world with details at odd angles, so there's little point in having the freedom to run about, just a simple matter of getting where you needed to be, and it's just about as linear as RE4: you're either running straight ahead or following loops for some backtracking. You give the impression the game should be knocked for not being open and abitious enough. The game's directness is apparent, so it's no wonder that all the core adventure details come your way in due time, without wasting time running off to insignificant corners.
I'll go ahead and knock TP for falling short of the standards set by the three 3D predecessors. It's a lovely adventure with widespread sprinklings of great elements, but it relies too much on old elements while thinly employing "new" elements that don't clearly set it apart other than acting very much like an expected Ocarina of Time sequel catered to the crybabies who yearned for the Zelda Spaceworld Demo.
It's fanservice.
LOL. No one asked? Were you really so eager to try and get some attention that you had to spill your guts anyway? No one asked you to elaborate so why did you? Geesh. NOBODY CARES that you need attention. NO ONE.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 18, 2007, 08:18:54 PM
Who said "like"? It's memorable. It's something you don't forget about easily.
Also if I recall it had comic book esque cutscenes instead of using the game engine, yet another poor feature of the game.
You may be remembering Max Payne there because K7 used the engine for most cutscenes.
Speaking of Zelda, style and Capcom, it's uncanny how many ideas Okami and Twilight Princess share. TP is slightly less in-your-face with its puzzle solutions than Okami (Issun should have half his dialogue cut from the game, period) but Okami has slightly more difficult combat (requires a bit more action though I tend to take less damage in Okami than Zelda).
As for TP I'd say it's a nice game but not the best it could have been. Dungeons after the desert one neglected the wolf form entirely and later enemies could have dealt MUCH more damage. I think it's actually harder during the early dungeons where you have only very few hearts than the later ones. The bosses mostly sucked, I realize item use is slower in 3d than 2d but still these guys were nowhere close to the bosses found in the 2d games where you had to use the item, your sword and your skill to win instead of just spamming the item and occassionally drawing out your sword. Aonuma, LERN 2 PLAY! If the player feels insecure (like me) he can bring almost five full life bars to the battle with his bottles. Bosses should be more than just a puzzle to find the right spot to spam the dungeon item at! I realize you wanted to nerf difficulty a bit from OOT but you nerfed it in so many places it makes the player feel like that evil was lucky it didn't trip and die in the street.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 18, 2007, 08:37:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
How people can like a severely flawed shooter with poor controls, repetitive enemy designs, and a severely limited and linear path is beyond me.
Who said "like"? It's memorable. It's something you don't forget about easily.
Also if I recall it had comic book esque cutscenes instead of using the game engine, yet another poor feature of the game.
You may be remembering Max Payne there because K7 used the engine for most cutscenes.
Speaking of Zelda, style and Capcom, it's uncanny how many ideas Okami and Twilight Princess share. TP is slightly less in-your-face with its puzzle solutions than Okami (Issun should have half his dialogue cut from the game, period) but Okami has slightly more difficult combat (requires a bit more action though I tend to take less damage in Okami than Zelda).
As for TP I'd say it's a nice game but not the best it could have been. Dungeons after the desert one neglected the wolf form entirely and later enemies could have dealt MUCH more damage. I think it's actually harder during the early dungeons where you have only very few hearts than the later ones. The bosses mostly sucked, I realize item use is slower in 3d than 2d but still these guys were nowhere close to the bosses found in the 2d games where you had to use the item, your sword and your skill to win instead of just spamming the item and occassionally drawing out your sword. Aonuma, LERN 2 PLAY! If the player feels insecure (like me) he can bring almost five full life bars to the battle with his bottles. Bosses should be more than just a puzzle to find the right spot to spam the dungeon item at! I realize you wanted to nerf difficulty a bit from OOT but you nerfed it in so many places it makes the player feel like that evil was lucky it didn't trip and die in the street.
Considering Okami from what I heard is basically a rip off of previous Zelda games it is no surprise it shares many similar things (Oh but way it is memorable because it has pretty colors). Regardless I found TP to have intuitive puzzles and the boss fights were above all else FUN, maybe not the hardest around but really none of the bosses were that hard in OOT either. I think most of us have experience in the Zelda series and the difficulty of TP is at about the same level of OOT, in fact many reviews have commented on this. I agree though the bosses in LTTP were much tougher, but frankly I thought many of them were frustrating ::shudders at the thought of the fast worm that tries to knock you off and you have restart::.
TP has the right balance in difficulty, it doesn't rely heavily "damage" to make it challenging but instead focuses more on solving puzzles. The game is perfectly paced in my opinion, just like OOT was. The exploration and puzzles in the game are brilliant, the diversity in weapons (especially the new ones). These last few posts bring to mind what I hate most about the "hardcore" gaming community they are snobs when it comes it comes to challenge. If a game isn't cheap, or aggravating it is not any good since it is not up to their high and mighty standards (whatever those are, I've found most challenging games to be that way because of poor design choices or relying more on "twitch" reflexes instead of using your mind).
Post by: KDR_11k on February 18, 2007, 09:27:01 PM
No, I mean the parts that were introduced to Zelda in TP. Areas covered in darkness until the local guardian is revived? Check. Wolf that can dash and dig? Check. Flying plants to attach your "grappling hook" to? Check. Bridges that get turned by applying wind to them? Check.
Regardless I found TP to have intuitive puzzles and the boss fights were above all else FUN, maybe not the hardest around but really none of the bosses were that hard in OOT either.
They didn't feel that interesting to me. Felt really dumb most of the time. There's no way TP is as difficult as OOT, the only thing resembling difficulty is fighting a darknut and those were pretty rare while in OOT a simple stalfos already poses more of a challenge (though maybe because you meet them earlier and thus have fewer hearts). Its lower HP is made up for by the lack of all those "occult techs" you get in TP that practically let you dance circles around your opponents. TP bosses were almost zero threat to Link and once you figured out what to do it was just repetitive to deal those additional hits you need to kill it. I got hit by almost every attack the shadow world boss (forgot his name) put on me yet I wasn't even close to death. I think that adjusting to a boss's pattern and learning to evade its attacks should be a necessary step for fighting the boss, not just something you can do when you're bored. If I wanted only puzzle solving I'd grab one of those point and click adventures, in an action adventure I'd expect to need some amount of action skill, too (which compensates for the much easier puzzles).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 18, 2007, 10:11:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Considering Okami from what I heard is basically a rip off of previous Zelda games it is no surprise it shares many similar things
No, I mean the parts that were introduced to Zelda in TP. Areas covered in darkness until the local guardian is revived? Check. Wolf that can dash and dig? Check. Flying plants to attach your "grappling hook" to? Check. Bridges that get turned by applying wind to them? Check.
Regardless I found TP to have intuitive puzzles and the boss fights were above all else FUN, maybe not the hardest around but really none of the bosses were that hard in OOT either.
They didn't feel that interesting to me. Felt really dumb most of the time. There's no way TP is as difficult as OOT, the only thing resembling difficulty is fighting a darknut and those were pretty rare while in OOT a simple stalfos already poses more of a challenge (though maybe because you meet them earlier and thus have fewer hearts). Its lower HP is made up for by the lack of all those "occult techs" you get in TP that practically let you dance circles around your opponents. TP bosses were almost zero threat to Link and once you figured out what to do it was just repetitive to deal those additional hits you need to kill it. I got hit by almost every attack the shadow world boss (forgot his name) put on me yet I wasn't even close to death. I think that adjusting to a boss's pattern and learning to evade its attacks should be a necessary step for fighting the boss, not just something you can do when you're bored. If I wanted only puzzle solving I'd grab one of those point and click adventures, in an action adventure I'd expect to need some amount of action skill, too (which compensates for the much easier puzzles).
I'm really sure Nintendo was watching Okami and was stealing all the ideas it presented, more like Okami raped and pillage OOT, Wind Waker and Majora's Mask (I also believe TP has been in development longer than Okami, though I could be off). In regards to OOT it is not that hard, I had no problem beating it what so ever when I came back to it and the game doesn't have near the depth TP has in scope, variety and characters (The only real challenging bosses were Ghost Ganon and Twin Rova). Regarding the bosses, there is strategy to fighting them, and I'm sorry but you need to memorize their patterns and evade it. One boss that comes to mind that I LOVED was the skull boss, that was one of the slickest boss fights around.
I'll state it once again, just because you find Zelda: TP easy doesn't mean everyone feels the same (and in fact they don't, just read some reviews of the game), and not everyone on par with your supposed skills on such a pathetic game. From what I hear Okami is not some great challenge either, so that probably should suck to you as well if you wish to be consistent. I'm sick and tired of elitists like yourself condemning a game based on challenge, there is so much more to a game than that. Thankfully others do appreciate Zelda: TP for the adventure gem it is, instead of trying to play "Look at me I'm not a Nintendo fanboi because I am bashing Zelda".
Post by: KDR_11k on February 18, 2007, 11:30:48 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 19, 2007, 04:51:00 AM
The term AAA title is subjective, hence why I suspect we'll never be able to agree on its definition for the purport of the point I was trying to make.
I guess that's that. I still maintain that games focused solely on one platform have a higher potential for quality, but it might just be because companies who commit to one specific platform only do so when there's something about that platform they like or are more free to take advantage of platform-specific advantages.
No idea why, in the end, but it always seems to be the case.
Also, why are we comparing TP to Killer 7? That's like comparing apples to running shoes: they don't even serve the same function.
TP WAS an excellent game. I credit it for giving LoZ the dark and dire storyline it deserves. It also introduced several new items and gameplay aspects that I hope we'll see in future LoZ games. IMHO, the horseback combat sequences were absolutely awesome. I wish there was a minigame which just allowed you to ride around and fight monsters incessantly. I also liked how Link was much closer to the NPCs in the game than previous games, and how his emotions carried his character so much further than any LoZ game in the past. That said, the game was a bit on the easy side, but I'd still recommend it as an awesome gaming experience for anyone.
K7 was a different type of beast entirely. It's a game designed to be so hard and in many ways hard to love that you nearly need a masochistic edge to truly delve into it. But I can definitely respect what Suda was going for as well as his ideas and storytelling prowess. I still maintain that the game would have sold a great deal better had the cutscene immediately following the first chapter preceded the chapter instead. I'm guessing many gamers and critics alike started playing, had no clue what the hell was going on and came to immediately dislike the game (as I did at first as well). The game reminded me of an esoteric anime: the kind which you need to watch 2-3 episodes of before you stop saying "WTF?". The problem with that formula is that, in an anime, you can sit there and the answers will eventually come to you. In K7, you needed to literally force yourself into the game before you started seeing answers and, for many people, that wasn't something they were willing to commit to.
But K7 was a game which was meant to be disliked by many but absolutely adored by a select few. That's why comparing TP and K7 is literally beating your head against the wall: I can't stand by and watch without trying to intervene.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 19, 2007, 05:44:40 AM
OOT hell even OOT was easy cuz that dumb fairy told you exactly what to do to kill the boss everytome, all yo had to do was make sure you had the item reguired to beat it. No Zelda game has ever been hard in the fighiting sense, I know way too many five year old who have BEATEN every zelda played to consider it a hard game. They *are* kids games, through and through, the challenege is always solving puzzles. TP had some of the harder puzzles because the stupid witch didnt tell you what to do, just that *you should know what to do" and soe time you actually had to think a little, but most puzzles are easy enough if you just think back tot he previous games. I disagree fully with Pro, ALL Zeldas have the same style and gameplay that is what makes them Zelda, there are certain things you come ot expect, if tose are miosisng than its not Zelda. Take Adventure of Link, one of my favorite Zelda games, but the least like Zelda there was.
Ok now back to Capcom, nothing enw to report so Im good there.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 19, 2007, 05:48:33 AM
Post by: Ceric on February 19, 2007, 06:13:51 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 19, 2007, 06:34:23 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 19, 2007, 09:15:24 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 19, 2007, 09:19:51 AM
Post by: vudu on February 19, 2007, 09:41:10 AM
QuoteOut of curiosity, can I compare the budgets of the two?
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
HAHA, Zelda TP is one of the most brilliantly designed games in years. Killer 7 is a joke in comparison, you cannot compare the polish, variety and expansive nature of Zelda to a stylistic wannabe lightgun shooter with poor controls, and yawn tastic enemy battles.
I'm sure Nintendo spent more on Twilight Princess than Capcom spent on Killer7.While I freely admit to not having the slightest clue what each company spent on their respective games, I'd like to ask some rhetorical questions. How much of Twilight Princess could have been completed on Killer7's budget? What could have Grasshopper Studios have done with Killer7 if they had the budget (and development time) EAD had for Twilight Princess?
Post by: segagamer12 on February 19, 2007, 10:14:52 AM
Vudu makes a good point also. Ok going back and reading the posts about AAA Multipaltofrm stuff, how does Kilelr & and Zelda TP even fall intot hose catagories? Killer &, was far as I knew, was built from the ground up for GC and Ported to PS2, and TP was built for GC and ported to Wii. So which versions are people comparing? I kinda got lost when Pro started abshing TP because it was too easy.
Post by: Luigi Dude on February 19, 2007, 10:19:25 AM
I'd say Twilight Princess, while easy is actually the hardest of the 3d Zelda's because it contains the best puzzles of the series that require you to really think sometimes. To me it's all about the puzzles that give the 3d Zelda's their difficulty. The 2d ones got it from combat since they had some fast moving enemies that would just keep ramming you like crazy.
Here's how I'd rank all the Zelda's I've played in terms of difficulty.
1. Links Adventure
2. Original
3. Link to the Past
4. Twilight Princess
5. Majora's Mask
6. Links Awakening
7. Ocarina of Time
8. Wind Waker
9. Minish Cap
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 19, 2007, 10:39:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteOut of curiosity, can I compare the budgets of the two?
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
HAHA, Zelda TP is one of the most brilliantly designed games in years. Killer 7 is a joke in comparison, you cannot compare the polish, variety and expansive nature of Zelda to a stylistic wannabe lightgun shooter with poor controls, and yawn tastic enemy battles.
While I freely admit to not having the slightest clue what each company spent on their respective games, I'd like to ask some rhetorical questions. How much of Twilight Princess could have been completed on Killer7's budget? What could have Grasshopper Studios have done with Killer7 if they had the budget (and development time) EAD had for Twilight Princess?
That may be true, but like most things the final product is what matters most, not "Hey look what I did for 50$". It may be an admirable ahievement to create a game with a low budget, but that does not change the fact that it may have less polish or less depth than another game. That is why the final product should be judged instead of the budget, because frankly you are playing the game and what you get out of that game is what should matter, not how well they budgeted their money!
Post by: KDR_11k on February 19, 2007, 06:43:29 PM
Bull. I've played OOT after Wind Waker and still found it MUCH more difficult. TP is much easier than OOT.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 19, 2007, 06:57:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
On the issue of Zelda difficulty, I agree with alot of what segagamer12 said. If the people that complain about Twilight Princess would go back and replay the older ones they'd see that the older Zelda's were just as easy and some even easier. The only reason Twilight Princess seems easier to alot of people is because they've already mastered playing 3d Zelda's so of course Twilight Princess is going to be easy since you know how things work and what to do.
Bull. I've played OOT after Wind Waker and still found it MUCH more difficult. TP is much easier than OOT.
Funny that so many professional reviewers disagree with you. Then again if you say it enough it must be true right?
Post by: WuTangTurtle on February 19, 2007, 07:09:35 PM
Seriously though its all a matter of opinion, for instance I would say Wind Waker is the easiest by far (yet not the shortest) and Ocarina of Time the toughest due to it being the first 3D Zelda, that brought us new puzzles and ways to do complete them for the first time. I could also say Zelda II because i had a tough time dealing with the 2D side scrolling.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 20, 2007, 03:33:39 AM
Perhaps they're either misevaluating their skill gain since OOT or don't fall into the bracket that can beat TP easily but cannot deal with OOT? I've had severe trouble in dealing with OOT to the point of frustration but I had almost zero problems with TP. I don't know about the difference between WW and TP, after all WW was my first 3d Zelda so I wasn't used to it yet but I did find WW pretty easy.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 20, 2007, 06:01:35 AM
Post by: JonLeung on February 20, 2007, 06:45:39 AM
For the most part, every game after that is a cinch to finish, I'm only missing certain unnecessary-for-completion-of-the-story type of things like catching the Hylian Loach in Ocarina Of Time and some Kinstone match-ups in Minish Cap.
Why are we talking about Zelda? I thought we were complaining about Capcom. I'm guessing someone started this by complaining about Minish Cap or something.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 20, 2007, 07:02:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix Funny that so many professional reviewers disagree with you. Then again if you say it enough it must be true right?
I have to step in for KDR here: I wouldn't trust the combined weight of all the "professional" reviewers in the world to barricade a door, let alone believe that their opinions and mine would stand coterminous.
I loved TP, but I think my biggest letdown for the game was that the bosses were all silly easy (even the last bunch).
Maybe I'm a bit of a masochist, but I've come to love Castlelvania's boss style where you basically need to learn through trial and error how to defeat it before you'll be victorious.
But I also think there's merit in the "You've done this before" argument, since I fully agree that I figured out how to kill all of these bosses almost immediately as though I knew how the developers had designed them beforehand.
I think the last boss made the difference for me in calling the game AA and AAA. IMHO, defeating the last boss should be an ACCOMPLISHMENT, something you'd be proud to say you managed to do, and I just didn't get that from this one.
Post by: vudu on February 20, 2007, 07:32:41 AM
QuoteWhile I completely agree with this statement, I can't help but feel the slightest bit bad for folks like Ian who never beat Metroid Prime 2 because he couldn't beat Emperor Ing.
I think the last boss made the difference for me in calling the game AA and AAA. IMHO, defeating the last boss should be an ACCOMPLISHMENT, something you'd be proud to say you managed to do, and I just didn't get that from this one.
QuotePortrait of Ruin had some pretty darn good bosses. Dracula was especially hard in Old Axe Armor mode; Richiter mode was also quite a challenge.
Maybe I'm a bit of a masochist, but I've come to love Castlelvania's boss style where you basically need to learn through trial and error how to defeat it before you'll be victorious.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 20, 2007, 08:27:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I think the last boss made the difference for me in calling the game AA and AAA. IMHO, defeating the last boss should be an ACCOMPLISHMENT, something you'd be proud to say you managed to do, and I just didn't get that from this one.
So wait Zelda TP is not a AAA title either? Wow, just wow. All because the final boss wasn't frustrating? There is a heck of alot more to Zelda games than the bosses, they are just one of many parts that make up not only TP but every Zelda game. Guess what, I didn't feel Ganon in Zelda: OOT was that hard either, so I guess if I adopted your logic that would be only be AA? Pretty sad that bosses have to be frustrating or reflex intensive to be good, because I had more fun with Zelda: TPs bosses than about any boss fights since OOT. Zelda: TP is one of the most polished and deep games released in quite sometime.
Post by: Kairon on February 20, 2007, 08:32:46 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 20, 2007, 08:33:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
On the issue of Zelda difficulty, I agree with alot of what segagamer12 said. If the people that complain about Twilight Princess would go back and replay the older ones they'd see that the older Zelda's were just as easy and some even easier. The only reason Twilight Princess seems easier to alot of people is because they've already mastered playing 3d Zelda's so of course Twilight Princess is going to be easy since you know how things work and what to do.
Bull. I've played OOT after Wind Waker and still found it MUCH more difficult. TP is much easier than OOT.
Let's see I beat OOT in about 20 hrs give or take a couple of hours, and I am close to the end of TP (I am saving the last two dungeons) and am on track to beat it in less than 40 hrs. From what I can remember I died rarely in OOT besides the Twin Rova boss, and Ganon. Besides those two bosses there was rarely much fear of dieing. In regards to TP bosses, I have a died a couple of times (I forget which ones), but on the flip side I've enjoyed more of the boss battles in TP. Probably my favorite boss fights in OOT were limited to Dodongo, Phantom Ganon and Ganon. In TP so far the only boss I didn't care much for was the boss of the forest temple, the rest I loved (especially the skull boss and the eel).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 20, 2007, 08:34:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
This whole AAA label is ridiculous. End of story.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
I know what you mean, I honestly don't know anymore what game would be AAA if TP isn't.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 20, 2007, 08:43:01 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 20, 2007, 08:45:03 AM
Quote
Doesn't play nearly as well as Zelda in any respect, but TP was more fanservice than merit.
That is what started it, talking about Killer 7.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 20, 2007, 08:50:08 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 20, 2007, 06:07:31 PM
HOLD THE EFF UP.
You haven't beaten it?
Don't come back until you have.
Your NWR priviledges have been revoked. Get the blue form to the right to re-apply.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 21, 2007, 06:05:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix I know what you mean, I honestly don't know anymore what game would be AAA if TP isn't.
For me, Mario 64 was AAA for two primary reasons:
1. It completely reinvented the genre.
2. It was an EXCELLENT, fun and enduring game.
OoT gets those props as well, but every Zelda after that is basically building on the same formula as OoT and the amount of innovation in each title is reduced each time.
I give AAA to RE4 because the game reinvented 3rd person shooters and was likewise an insanely good game with tons of excellent gameplay ideas, and even some classic clichés redone into the RE4 world, like the "elevator ride while enemies jump on" and "mine cart ride while enemies jump on" clichés, which were awesome.
TP was an EXCELLENT game, but I blew through it, puzzles and bosses alike, largely because it was the same formula which I've seen in all previous Zelda games, and it's a SOLID formula, just not one which can wow and re-wow me every time another game is released.
It's like I said, the NEXT Zelda game on the Wii will very likely hold AAA status in my book because I expect it to completely reinvent the franchise, just like OoT, Mario 64 and RE4 did.
Furthermore, I'm not asking you to share my opinion on the subject, but in my mind, a AAA title should include a fair amount of innovation if not a complete reinvention of the franchise or genre which works so insanely well that you can't help but love it.
As I said previously, it's an impossible argument to make because we all have different ideas of what "AAA" denotes. It's fundamentally wrong to ask anyone to adhere to my opinion on the subject.
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 21, 2007, 08:18:57 AM
“My personal definition of a AAA title is driven by these factors even if I don’t want it to be. It’s the equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster, basically–and much as we would like to think that it means a great game, it doesn’t necessarily mean that.” -Ralph Koster
Post by: segagamer12 on February 22, 2007, 07:12:59 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 22, 2007, 07:46:58 AM
Post by: Ages on February 22, 2007, 07:49:16 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 22, 2007, 08:15:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
Frankly though, SB, your definition of "AAA Title" is waaaaaaay more restrictive than anyone else's.
Excellent. I would like nothing more than to be known as the toughest critic when it comes to these kinds of things.
Furthermore, if I start doling AAA ratings out to games like Madden, then I need to start using the AAAA rating for games like RE4 and OoT.
For me, AAA is TOP OF THE LADDER, the best of the best, no ranking above, period.
I ain't gonna hand that rating out to a game because it sold copies or lots of people liked it: I hand it out to games which change the way I see gaming and what gaming can do to my mind.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 22, 2007, 08:23:57 AM
Let me see if I understand what SB is trying to say.
The triple A rating is give to games that:
- Reinvent gaming or the franchise in general
- Is excellently designed
- Is very polished in nearly every area
So for example...GTA III, in theory, is a triple A title since it was the first of its kind back in the day and it was good, while Vice City and San Andreas are mainly extensions of that...
I'm still confused...What confuses me is what if the game is excellently designed and presented, but has a few problems. Would it still be considered triple A?
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 22, 2007, 08:38:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
For me, AAA is TOP OF THE LADDER, the best of the best, no ranking above, period.
I ain't gonna hand that rating out to a game because it sold copies or lots of people liked it: I hand it out to games which change the way I see gaming and what gaming can do to my mind.
You're missing the point. AAA is an industry term for a high-budget game with lots of marketing muscle. It's not necessarily a statement of quality, although games with those quality have a tendency to be high quality. In fact in some circles each A correlates to how many millions of copies of that game they expect to sell. B games sell under a million, A games a million, AA games 2 million, and so on.
There's a term for what you're describing, and it isn't "AAA Game". It's "a great game" or "a timeless classic".
In closing, here is a short play to illustrate what you're doing.
Some dude: Hey, nice shoes. I really like those.
Some other dude: Thanks, I got them at Foot Lo-
Smash_Brother: What!?! Dude, those aren't even shoes!
Some other dude: Huh? They go on my feet, and I tie them, and -
Smash_Brother: No, no, no. See, to me, shoes are those things with four wheels that people drive around in. And those, sir, are not shoes!
Some dude: You mean... a car?
Smash_Brother: No, a shoe.
THE END
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 22, 2007, 08:40:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Restrictive? It's confusing as hell!
Let me see if I understand what SB is trying to say.
The triple A rating is give to games that:
- Reinvent gaming or the franchise in general
- Is excellently designed
- Is very polished in nearly every area
So for example...GTA III, in theory, is a triple A title since it was the first of its kind back in the day and it was good, while Vice City and San Andreas are mainly extensions of that...
I'm still confused...What confuses me is what if the game is excellently designed and presented, but has a few problems. Would it still be considered triple A?
I still would consider TP one of the top games of all times, the only thing it didn't do was completely reinvent the Zelda series (which I do NOT want to see). Not sure I would include Resident Evil 4 though by your definition Smash, it kind of built off the more arcadey nature of RE3, and really was not the most innovative game around either.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 22, 2007, 08:57:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: pap64
Restrictive? It's confusing as hell!
Let me see if I understand what SB is trying to say.
The triple A rating is give to games that:
- Reinvent gaming or the franchise in general
- Is excellently designed
- Is very polished in nearly every area
So for example...GTA III, in theory, is a triple A title since it was the first of its kind back in the day and it was good, while Vice City and San Andreas are mainly extensions of that...
I'm still confused...What confuses me is what if the game is excellently designed and presented, but has a few problems. Would it still be considered triple A?
I still would consider TP one of the top games of all times, the only thing it didn't do was completely reinvent the Zelda series (which I do NOT want to see). Not sure I would include Resident Evil 4 though by your definition Smash, it kind of built off the more arcadey nature of RE3, and really was not the most innovative game around either.
To him, I think, RE 4 re-invented the franchise since...
- It fixed the clunky controls from the earlier games
- Used the GC's graphical powers to its maximum potential
- It was cinematic without sacrificing gameplay
- It was challenging and even nerve wrecking at times
- It was a brand new perspective on the RE universe
In short, RE 4 did many, MANY things right and to SB, that's triple AAA right there.
Post by: vudu on February 22, 2007, 09:07:43 AM
Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Metroid are not.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 22, 2007, 09:07:57 AM
A game which is AAA to one person may not even be considered decent by another.
Let's just leave it at that and allow it to die, please. This discussion could go on until the end of time and nothing would change or be accomplished.
It is not possible to argue opinion. It just does NOT work.
Post by: hudsonhawk on February 22, 2007, 09:14:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
It's subjective. It's ALL subjective.
A game which is AAA to one person may not even be considered decent by another.
Let's just leave it at that and allow it to die, please.
But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.
You're coopting a term used to describe one thing and using it to describe another.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 22, 2007, 09:14:49 AM
*Goes off to console S_B
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 22, 2007, 09:22:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.
According to who, and more importantly, why should I care?
This is what I consider the term "AAA" to mean. It is, simply, the "highest possible rating". In DDR, AAA is the highest rating one can receive on a song (without using the marvelous step).
That's all it is, and I don't know what else I can say to convince you that what OTHER PEOPLE define as "AAA" has absolutely no bearing on what I define as "AAA". I run a podcast and its entire focus is trying to get people to wake up and realize that "adhering to popular standards" is the worst possible way to live your life because decisions like the ones people routinely allow popular standards to make for them are too important to not be making themselves.
This is what "AAA" means in my book, and someone doesn't like that, they're just going to have to learn to DEAL with the fact that not everyone sees the world the same way they do.
Post by: vudu on February 22, 2007, 09:30:38 AM
QuoteAccording to Wikipedia.
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.
According to who, and more importantly, why should I care?
Quote
The term AAA is sometimes used to refer to a video game reviewer's score of 9 through 9.9.
Post by: oohhboy on February 22, 2007, 09:32:38 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 22, 2007, 09:33:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteAccording to Wikipedia.
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.
According to who, and more importantly, why should I care?Quote
The term AAA is sometimes used to refer to a video game reviewer's score of 9 through 9.9.
The keyword being SOMETIMES.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 22, 2007, 09:35:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu The term AAA is sometimes used to refer to a video game reviewer's score of 9 through 9.9.
So Wiki doesn't define it as "a game with a big budget, high sales, etc.". Wiki defines it "a game which people give high reviews."
Imagine that: I'm not the only entity who feels the term is subjective.
Not that I truly care, but since you, Hudson, seem hellbent upon bending others to the "definition" of AAA, you should probably note that Wiki's definition is far closer to mine than your own.
Out of curiosity, where did you get the "high budget, high sales, etc." definition for the term, anyway?
Post by: Kairon on February 22, 2007, 09:39:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawkQuote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
It's subjective. It's ALL subjective.
A game which is AAA to one person may not even be considered decent by another.
Let's just leave it at that and allow it to die, please.
But... it's... not... subjective. It's not a term used to describe quality. It's a term to describe budget, marketing, and sales. These are quantifiable things.
You're coopting a term used to describe one thing and using it to describe another.
I actually consider you right hudsonhawk...
Except that people don't seem to want to use AAA to describe games in those terms for some strange reason. If everyone operated on your definition, we'd be fine, but people are just all over the place with how they use it, which is why I think the AAA label is pretty much ridiculous as used today.
Also, everyone please take notice of how hudsonhawk's definition lacks any mention of QUALITY...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Mikintosh on February 22, 2007, 11:45:01 AM
Gamasutra: Capcom VP of Marketing on Stuff
Yay for Phoenix Wright optimism!
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 22, 2007, 01:26:23 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 22, 2007, 01:32:39 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 22, 2007, 01:37:55 PM
And the Wii is just begging for a forensics/detective game...
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 22, 2007, 01:59:32 PM
But I agree, Atlus took Trauma Center and turned it into a rock solid Wii game, why can't Capcom do the same with Phoenix?
Post by: Ceric on February 22, 2007, 02:24:48 PM
Post by: SixthAngel on February 22, 2007, 05:07:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Told you so, S_B.
But I agree, Atlus took Trauma Center and turned it into a rock solid Wii game, why can't Capcom do the same with Phoenix?
Why? Besides the "console games are the best games" mentality the DS is a perfect home for Ace Attorney. With games like Dragon Quest coming to DS expect the console first idea to die, especially in Japan. Unless you just want ports like Trauma Center (and the current Ace Attorney games now that I think about it.)
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 22, 2007, 05:08:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Damn...
And the Wii is just begging for a forensics/detective game...
Hey, I'm sure the Wiiventures will come...There's word that CING is working on a Wii game, after all...
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 22, 2007, 05:17:41 PM
I still need to play Hotel Dusk, but I liked Trace Memory (except for the non-obvious things you had to do to unlock all of Dee's memories, bah).
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Told you so, S_B.
Told me what? You know how bad my memory can be...
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
Why? Besides the "console games are the best games" mentality the DS is a perfect home for Ace Attorney. With games like Dragon Quest coming to DS expect the console first idea to die, especially in Japan. Unless you just want ports like Trauma Center (and the current Ace Attorney games now that I think about it.)
True, but a version of the game made for the ground up for Wii has some serious potential.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 22, 2007, 05:35:01 PM
That statement confirms what I said.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 22, 2007, 05:39:22 PM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 23, 2007, 01:31:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Well that's faulty logic...I bet if someone told you "Hey, it'd be cool if Squenix brought the main Dragon Quest series to the DS" back before the DQIX announcement, you would have said "Nah, the series is console-based." =3
Yeah, that's true. But some developers are rather stubborn and only want the series to be platform based, either because of loyalty, ease of development or laziness. In Capcom's case, it is easier to port the PW games to the DS than to make a new one for the Wii.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 23, 2007, 04:53:34 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 25, 2007, 11:22:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Honestly, with Capcom's track record, we're lucky they haven't moved the series over to the PSP.
Seriously. I'm surprised Konami hasn't moved castlevania over to the psp...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 25, 2007, 11:30:03 AM
Post by: Luigi Dude on February 25, 2007, 11:57:10 AM
Everything else though has been a miserable failure. Which is why Capcom's decision to give more support to the PSP over the DS just defies logic. Which is the exact reason I named this topic, "Looks like Capcom still hates money."
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on February 25, 2007, 12:19:12 PM
Post by: Athrun Zala on February 26, 2007, 02:36:43 AM
Quotetrue, they're AAAA
Originally posted by: vudu
RE4 is AAA.
Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Metroid are not.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 26, 2007, 03:11:29 AM
Post by: darknight06 on February 27, 2007, 02:54:42 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 27, 2007, 05:16:24 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 27, 2007, 08:37:11 AM
The only reason Metal Gear works is because they have a radar system that allows you to see where you are, and where you enemies can see.
But several other games rely on you guessing how enemies will react when they spot you. It is frustrating...but worse when you add in the concept of endless enemies coming to kill you. That should never be the case...it should be set amount of guards in that area period.
Oh well, I guess some people enjoy those games though.
Post by: mantidor on February 27, 2007, 12:32:13 PM
Post by: mantidor on February 27, 2007, 12:32:13 PM
