Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Just seems like an odd combination (and you took me too seriously) Kojima is NOT that great of a gameplay designer though is arguable good at cinematics. I dunno they seem to be an odd pair to compare to each other!Well, he continually redefines a genre he created himself. He deserves some props. In any case, I wasn't comparing them. Dennis Dyack has been quoted several times as having learned so much from Miyamoto and Kojima after working with them on Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes respectively.
I agree that game length isn't the end-all be-all, but after all the hype and a decade of development... c'mon, 10 hours? The whole reason this game even got on everyone's radar back in the day was because it was promised to be an absolutely massive 80 hour game.That (8 year old) article also states that you play as John Franks, a cop whose partner was killed by a cyborg. OMG, "This massive game will fit on four discs." FOUR DISCS! And, it looks just as good as Final Fantasy VIII.
Eternal Darkness had an excellent camera, which in 2003 was like finding a unicorn.
It's ironic, considering that one of my favorite "sanity effect" tricks that (ahem) Eternal Darkness pulls on you is when the game suddenly stops after a few hours and you see a message that reads something like, "Thank you for playing! Continue your adventure in Eternal Darkness 2, coming soon." Five years later, Too Human does the same thing -- except seriously.
Well, more than anything, I just wanted to use the description "groing grabbingly."MM9 better be groin grabbingly old school difficult.Why? Other then the first Megaman, all the other ones on the NES weren't that difficult. Yeah the others all had some area's that could be tricky at first but nothing too hard like what MM1 had.
Makes no sense IMO, why make two games with the same design goal just so two different consoles have exclusives for the same type of game? Why not make one game and port it? Konami has no interest in making the Wii succeed, they only want to make money themselves. Developing two almost identical games for different platforms is a waste of money, one of them could be declared a sequel and both get released on the same system (thus selling more because the fans of that gameplay are more likely to own the system) which would also allow using the same team so the games turn out consistent. If they really wanted to get a 2d Wii Cv they would do that instead of the DS game.How does it not make sense? A main series entry would sell more than a spin-off. Guarunteed. Konami would make more money. Isn't that the bottomline?
Hopefully when this game bombs and the third DS does well, IGA will get the message that the Nintendo fans on the Wii want an ACTUAL Castlevania game on the Wii, and not some half assed spinoff crap.I won't go as far as labelling this crap (yet), but it does seem set to bomb at retail. The Castlevania series already isn't a huge seller. It's a series produced on the cheap that sells enough to its fanbase to turn a decent profit. Judgement, as a spin-off, already alienates some of that fanbase and doesn't necessarily appeal to the rest of the Wii audience. I hope after this game sells its one copy (to me, in all likelihood) that someone, regardless of console affiliation, palms IGA in the face and pushes it away when he tries to PR spin poor sales to hardcore games not selling on the Wii.
They're already making another 2d Cv for the DS, what else should they have done? Make two different 2d games?To be honest, yes. That's exactly what they should have done. The fans want it and if they didn't already have a Wii, many would buy one for a new 2D Castlevania on a home console. That's the nature of a fanbase. Spin-offs, on the other hand, are fanbase splitters. You can already expect some people to pass because it's not their cup of tea.
They've done this before with the GBC.Gameboy was out for like 11 years before Nintendo released Color. It'd be kind of the same thing if Nintendo released GBC in 1992. And adding a color screen is different than adding hardware functionality like motion controls or something. How do you even begin to explain that to millions of casual gamers?
Everyone knows SOTN rocks. Everyone generally seems to like the DS incarnations. Why in the **** would you not want to pursue that inherent fanbase?True, but I won't kick up a fuss unless a 2D game is announced for PS3/X360. A 3D game will sting, but a 2D game is like bricking in every Nintendo fan's mouth.
DS revision in 09. It won't be mandatory for all games, it will have some games that can only be played on it. Built in new hardware functionality, but basically still a DS.Can't see that happening though I guess that depends on what hardware functionality is added. Nintendo runs the risk of confusing consumers with games that can only played on a revision of existing hardware which is a big no-no in their quest to appease casual gamers. Added functionality can potentially offer exclusive content to a game, but the game itself can't be exclusive to a revision without essentially splitting the audience. Anything that does not directly affect gameplay, however, is fair (i.e. MP3 support, larger screens). In any case, Nintendo is better off holding out on new functionality that affects gameplay for their next portable.
