We need more examples of EA being sucky?
I do.
But not for any one platform, sadly. Except maybe PC, if I dig through an old box of CDs if I still have any.
I'm pretty close w/ PS3, counting digital PSN, PS3, PS2 and PS1 games.
Connor's problem was not that he sucked, or that he failed to be "perfect"--or even good. His problem was inconsistent characterization and a lack of character development.
Childish naivete can only carry a story forward so far.
@PopRocks: well, as I said--those games can certainly be very good, but they do not (and to my mind, cannot) achieve the elusive quality of "greatness."
Few games do.
But, as many of the younger N4G denizens constantly remind me, I have high standards.
I disagree. I don't think a multiplayer game can ever be great, at least relying solely on multiplayer elements.
Starcraft and Diablo II were both great games that had massively popular online elements... yet their greatness was only possible due to their equally strong single-player elements.
The reason why a game without multiplayer cannot achieve the "greatness" that games without singleplayer cannot achieve is, I think, due to the fact that...
"Confirmed with multiple trusted sources" translates to "not confirmed."
Wake me up when we get an official announcement. This is Square-Enix, after all. It's stupid to get your hopes up for those nitwits.
I've never seen anyone claim that Nintendo did any of those things first.
The only "firsts" I've seen attributed to Nintendo are 1) the first use of a lock-on mechanic in an action/adventure game with Ocarina of Time, and 2) first use of a quest journal in an RPG/adventure game with Majora's Mask.
I have no idea if either is true.
I see plenty of complaints like this, and similar to this, with regard to Kickstarter.
I just don't understand any of them.
I'm sure there are legitimate criticisms of crowdfunding from a developer's perspective, but a consumer?
You're essentially pre-ordering the game. No more, no less. You may be wary of pre-ordering titles so far in advance, but many consumers are not. Several people, for example, have had Final Fantasy gam...
It's easy to "make headlines" when anyone can write up some drivel about anything and post it to N4G.
You should really consider playing "Soul Reaver 2," I think.
Fun fact: the only people who care about terms like "hardcore gamer," "real gamer," etc. are casual gamers.
The fact that they're even discussing this speaks of a deep bias.
What a pile of fanboyish tripe.
First off, there's not need to paint the 3DS as some saviour for Nintendo. They're doing quite well in spite of the Wii U. And, seriously, who in their right mind would try to paint the 3DS as innovative? 3D images being "pretty" are not innovation. The 3DS is among the least innovative consoles of all time, as it is almost line-by-line an NDS with a few superfluous extras that have no real effect on gameplay.
I don't want to see anything big.
-More pointed narrative
-More focused thematic elements
-More, bigger expansive environments
-DO NOT OUTSOURCE BOSS FIGHTS
-More RPG elements
I'm not sure I'd classify any Zelda game as a prequel. A prequel has to involve the same characters as the original story... it doesn't simply mean any supplementary story set prior in time to the original.
...And, in general, I can't think of many prequels, games or otherwise, that are done well.
Most recently, Tomb Raider is a good example. But that's about equal parts Prequel, equal parts Reboot. And beyond that... I don't know. The...
If you don't have that much time for gaming, why are you bothering with the tedium of getting 100% trophies/achievements?
When my PS3 breaks, I'll buy another PS3.
Because of lack of backwards compatability, I won't even consider (ever) buying a PS4. IMHO, it's really only in the past year or two that the PS3's library got strong enough to stand on its own w/out b/c titles. The Wii and 360 (IMHO) never got there.
Luigi, Mario and Link really aren't characters, though. They're player-avatars, blank-slates, hell, Samus falls into the category, too, for most games--save that one Metroid game everyone hated.
You mean vein. Vain has to do with vanity.
It wasn't ME3's ending per se.
Rather, ME3 as a whole, specifically the bit where the developers specifically and repeatedly lied about the content of the game prior to release.
It wasn't a, "Boo hoo, you suck because I didn't like the ending," thing. It was a, "You spent years consistently misrepresenting and lying about your product," kind of thing.
The quality of the game was immaterial. That it ended up...