Viewing Thread:
"Revolution - Any basic info?"

Anyone give me a link (or answers) for the following info:

1. Any idea of launch date/price etc?
2. How will the whole backwards compatibility work?
3. Will it purely be for games or play DVD's etc?
4. Any form of online play planned?

Cheers :-)

Hedfix wrote:

> 2 of which are current generation games. Hardly fitting for a
> next-gen console to get cast-offs.

You obviously miss the Revolution's point.

In terms of graphical power, yes you are right, they are last generation games. But of course that doesn't matter, all that matters is successfully implementing a new control system for it and re-launching a far superior version of the game.

But you knew that.

And ID have sided with Microsoft... right okay that means nothing hedfix. Do you follow the industry? Games publishers work on all systems. Right now it is easier for them to develop titles for the 360. That's great. But Nintendo can persuade them to publish titles for the Revolution if they want to. And development studios, wanting to be at the front of game design, should want to create an FPS for Nintendo.

I don't see how you figure that because they make games for Microsoft they'll never make games for Nintendo. They are third party. Like Capcom, Namco, Square etc... they can start making games for companies they never used too.

Look at Konami and Acclaim, once major Nintendo supporters, now (and before acclaim went bust) they stuck mainly to sony's machine.

Damn good in co-op though.

I'd say in hard mode you had to plan your approach a lot more carefully and pulling off moves on the fly to win a battle is a lot more satisfying in the tougher environment.

I disliked the fact the story sucked, but for the most part it was quite fun.

Just it never was as good as it could and should have been - i.e, those awesome temples on the huge lakes, and the ravines etc you fought through... never as fun as it could have been.

I was dissapointed with the vehicles though, that was probably my favourite part about the first one. Mostly the lack of available Banshees.

I found hard mdoe more about having better reflexes than outsmarting anything. It seems on hard mode you just die in 2 shots and they take 3 times as many shots, so you just have to be quicker at ducking behind cover and dodging explosives.

I didn't like Halo 2 as much but in fairness I played it on quite an easy setting so it wasn't much of a challenge. I'm going to go through it again at somepoint on a higher difficulty because outwitting the AI's the best bit really. :)

I didn't really like the Covenant missions, the stealth seemed tacked-on and didn't make for interesting play.

I can't really stomache it. I managed the original twice but after completing Halo 2 and starting again, I just lost the will to pick up the controller by the 3rd or 4th stage.

Any FPS is fun in multiplayer with your mates really, it's a hard thing to screw up. We still enjoy a good old blast on Quake III Arena. The lack of bots in both Halo's made me cry :(

I agree that co-op is good though. Co-op games are so few it's always great when a developer adds that feature in.

Except in multiplayer which Nintendo have let slip since the 64.

Co-op's rather good too.

Infact I'd have to say the whole thing's great fun.

Ain't very hard to beat Halo really. The first was a little over average and the second was a snorefest.

Dringo wrote:

> Namco, Capcom and SquareSoft used to be in bed with Sony. Now they
> are major supporters of Nintendo.

Some staff/ex-staff of which are developing RPGs for the 360, Rockstar has been persuaded to publish on MS's machine along with others.

>
>
>
> The fact is the Revolution could see new versions of Doom 3, Half
> Life 2, Quake 4

2 of which are current generation games. Hardly fitting for a next-gen console to get cast-offs.