The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well would you look at this. The fellow Nintendo monkeys running around crying because they wanted to see Revolution.
You were told before the show it wasn't going to be there. Why the surprise.
It's the PS3 and X-box 360 show. In fact it is pretty much just the PS3 show. Hence the reason Microsoft did that silly MTV party thing.
What can overshadow the biggest console announcement ever?
No... Nintendo cannot do that.
X-box's gimmick is customisable games, complete with snap on facias. Sony, ultra-realism.
Great ideas but they come at a price. And that price is ours. EA have already stated game prices could rise to as much as £60. And that publishers will have a hard time this generation.
Nintendo's suggestion is different. For starters they haven't cranked up the graphics to a pointless notion that most games developers (sorry all) won't be bothered to meet. But most importantly, Online is free.
The console, games, and online service will be as cheap as a cheap thing that is very cheap. And that's cheap.
Nintendo plan for a 2006 launch alongside Sony. Nintendo are working very hard to reach that. But they don't have anything to show us yet. They don't have time to order their minions to mock up videos and demos. They haven't even finalised the sodding controller yet.
Yet Nintendo fans. Us. Are once again throwing a fit because there wasn't anything concrete on show.
It just isn't the time. It really isn't. Maybe a September Spaceworld will do. But trust me, it makes sense, why show a console that will be overshadowed and ignored because Sony have announced theres.
Nintendo are talking about online plans. They've showed the greatest Zelda demo ever. A handfull of new Gamecube and DS games. And even a new, if slightly pointless, Gameboy... to further attack the PSP.
But still not happy.
The reason why the conference didn't have the impact of last years is because there isn't actually anything to show. I'm not surprised. I'm not happy but nor am I dissapointed. Nintendo's spotlight is still to come.
And I await with baited breath.
Dringo.
You were told before the show it wasn't going to be there. Why the surprise.
It's the PS3 and X-box 360 show. In fact it is pretty much just the PS3 show. Hence the reason Microsoft did that silly MTV party thing.
What can overshadow the biggest console announcement ever?
No... Nintendo cannot do that.
X-box's gimmick is customisable games, complete with snap on facias. Sony, ultra-realism.
Great ideas but they come at a price. And that price is ours. EA have already stated game prices could rise to as much as £60. And that publishers will have a hard time this generation.
Nintendo's suggestion is different. For starters they haven't cranked up the graphics to a pointless notion that most games developers (sorry all) won't be bothered to meet. But most importantly, Online is free.
The console, games, and online service will be as cheap as a cheap thing that is very cheap. And that's cheap.
Nintendo plan for a 2006 launch alongside Sony. Nintendo are working very hard to reach that. But they don't have anything to show us yet. They don't have time to order their minions to mock up videos and demos. They haven't even finalised the sodding controller yet.
Yet Nintendo fans. Us. Are once again throwing a fit because there wasn't anything concrete on show.
It just isn't the time. It really isn't. Maybe a September Spaceworld will do. But trust me, it makes sense, why show a console that will be overshadowed and ignored because Sony have announced theres.
Nintendo are talking about online plans. They've showed the greatest Zelda demo ever. A handfull of new Gamecube and DS games. And even a new, if slightly pointless, Gameboy... to further attack the PSP.
But still not happy.
The reason why the conference didn't have the impact of last years is because there isn't actually anything to show. I'm not surprised. I'm not happy but nor am I dissapointed. Nintendo's spotlight is still to come.
And I await with baited breath.
Dringo.
Page:
Meka Dragon wrote:
> My thoughts entirely. They spoke of the controllers, and I thought
> they were coming, but no. Entirely new ways to play games? I don't
> see it.
Not yet.
> As Microsoft and Sony already have their consoles ready to go - ie
> games in development etc, they'd hardly go back on all that to rip
> off Nintendo's ideas now, would they? Nintendo no doubt think what
> they have will be excellent, but come on, remember the way they
> refused to show any of Mario Sunshine, then it turns out the amazing
> hidden gameplay detail was that he had a water-pack? (And when people
> didn't think it was the greatest game ever, suddenly it wasn't Mario
> 128, that was something else?)
I thought it was fantastic. Nintendo haven't said it's about stealing ideas. It's about the fact what the controller will look like and play like hasn't been fully developed yet. Give it time.
> So when is it going ot launch? 2006. After May then, I'd guess, if
> it's not even ready to show anything yet. So unless they do
> Spaceworld (unlikely) it won't release until Autumn 2006, as no one
> in their right mind would release a console in the middle of Summer.
Nintendo might do a simple press release. "The Nintendo Show" like they did over here. Present it at TGC or ECTS. Any number of things.
> What the heck am I going ot play until then?
Zelda :)
> My thoughts entirely. They spoke of the controllers, and I thought
> they were coming, but no. Entirely new ways to play games? I don't
> see it.
Not yet.
> As Microsoft and Sony already have their consoles ready to go - ie
> games in development etc, they'd hardly go back on all that to rip
> off Nintendo's ideas now, would they? Nintendo no doubt think what
> they have will be excellent, but come on, remember the way they
> refused to show any of Mario Sunshine, then it turns out the amazing
> hidden gameplay detail was that he had a water-pack? (And when people
> didn't think it was the greatest game ever, suddenly it wasn't Mario
> 128, that was something else?)
I thought it was fantastic. Nintendo haven't said it's about stealing ideas. It's about the fact what the controller will look like and play like hasn't been fully developed yet. Give it time.
> So when is it going ot launch? 2006. After May then, I'd guess, if
> it's not even ready to show anything yet. So unless they do
> Spaceworld (unlikely) it won't release until Autumn 2006, as no one
> in their right mind would release a console in the middle of Summer.
Nintendo might do a simple press release. "The Nintendo Show" like they did over here. Present it at TGC or ECTS. Any number of things.
> What the heck am I going ot play until then?
Zelda :)
gerrid wrote:
> Oh and their problem is with the bridge texture. The game isn't
> finished, though, and graphics are always improved as the game moves
> along.
That's true.
Not that it matters. It still looks very nice and as their are so many enemies on screen at once and the game is filled with promise from these early shots.
It has already won my Game of E3 award.
But hey... it always was.
> Oh and their problem is with the bridge texture. The game isn't
> finished, though, and graphics are always improved as the game moves
> along.
That's true.
Not that it matters. It still looks very nice and as their are so many enemies on screen at once and the game is filled with promise from these early shots.
It has already won my Game of E3 award.
But hey... it always was.
gerrid wrote:
> The fact that they call it Revolution but
> have yet to reveal what makes it so revolutionary is what makes it
> disappointing.
My thoughts entirely. They spoke of the controllers, and I thought they were coming, but no. Entirely new ways to play games? I don't see it.
As Microsoft and Sony already have their consoles ready to go - ie games in development etc, they'd hardly go back on all that to rip off Nintendo's ideas now, would they? Nintendo no doubt think what they have will be excellent, but come on, remember the way they refused to show any of Mario Sunshine, then it turns out the amazing hidden gameplay detail was that he had a water-pack? (And when people didn't think it was the greatest game ever, suddenly it wasn't Mario 128, that was something else?)
So when is it going ot launch? 2006. After May then, I'd guess, if it's not even ready to show anything yet. So unless they do Spaceworld (unlikely) it won't release until Autumn 2006, as no one in their right mind would release a console in the middle of Summer.
What the heck am I going ot play until then?
> The fact that they call it Revolution but
> have yet to reveal what makes it so revolutionary is what makes it
> disappointing.
My thoughts entirely. They spoke of the controllers, and I thought they were coming, but no. Entirely new ways to play games? I don't see it.
As Microsoft and Sony already have their consoles ready to go - ie games in development etc, they'd hardly go back on all that to rip off Nintendo's ideas now, would they? Nintendo no doubt think what they have will be excellent, but come on, remember the way they refused to show any of Mario Sunshine, then it turns out the amazing hidden gameplay detail was that he had a water-pack? (And when people didn't think it was the greatest game ever, suddenly it wasn't Mario 128, that was something else?)
So when is it going ot launch? 2006. After May then, I'd guess, if it's not even ready to show anything yet. So unless they do Spaceworld (unlikely) it won't release until Autumn 2006, as no one in their right mind would release a console in the middle of Summer.
What the heck am I going ot play until then?
gerrid wrote:
> Oh and their problem is with the bridge texture. The game isn't
> finished, though, and graphics are always improved as the game moves
> along.
well, yes, but I thought the trailer was crap too.
I couldn't "feel" the atmosphere or how 'dark' it was.
My reaction can be summed up as:
"oh"
> Oh and their problem is with the bridge texture. The game isn't
> finished, though, and graphics are always improved as the game moves
> along.
well, yes, but I thought the trailer was crap too.
I couldn't "feel" the atmosphere or how 'dark' it was.
My reaction can be summed up as:
"oh"
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=25[/URL]
Stunning
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=26[/URL]
moody, dark, mysterious.
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=30[/URL]
REALLY interesting. Traditional forest temple.
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=32[/URL]
Stunning.
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=35[/URL]
Stunning.
That'll do I think.
Stunning
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=26[/URL]
moody, dark, mysterious.
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=30[/URL]
REALLY interesting. Traditional forest temple.
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=32[/URL]
Stunning.
[URL]http://www.cube-europe.com/screenshot.php?gid=zelda2&nr=35[/URL]
Stunning.
That'll do I think.
The-IronFlame wrote:
> Erm [URL]http://cube.ign.com/articles/615/615045p1.html[/URL]
some of them look very good, some definitely don't.
I'm going by the trailer which I was thoroughly unimpressed by.
> Erm [URL]http://cube.ign.com/articles/615/615045p1.html[/URL]
some of them look very good, some definitely don't.
I'm going by the trailer which I was thoroughly unimpressed by.
The-IronFlame wrote:
> Now that's just silly are you spoilt with all the "nice
> grafix" from the X-Box 360 videos cos this is this gen not next
> also the so far I've read that the PS3 vid was not conclusive they
> are yet to have proper time with their dev kits.
Sniper your lack of writing ability never ceases to amaze me. Well done on blabbering on in an edit by the way! Cheers!
Anyway, no I'm not spoiled by "nice grafix" (good one!) as you put it, but when it comes down to a choice between graphics and, well, nothing, graphics will win every time. Yes, I said that you'd probably enjoy it if you were a fan anyway, but all I was saying was that the trailer was’nt "beautiful" or "stunning" because there have been many other games to look as good, and when the standard for game graphics rises, you cant just go around saying that that's better just because it's Zelda.
> Now that's just silly are you spoilt with all the "nice
> grafix" from the X-Box 360 videos cos this is this gen not next
> also the so far I've read that the PS3 vid was not conclusive they
> are yet to have proper time with their dev kits.
Sniper your lack of writing ability never ceases to amaze me. Well done on blabbering on in an edit by the way! Cheers!
Anyway, no I'm not spoiled by "nice grafix" (good one!) as you put it, but when it comes down to a choice between graphics and, well, nothing, graphics will win every time. Yes, I said that you'd probably enjoy it if you were a fan anyway, but all I was saying was that the trailer was’nt "beautiful" or "stunning" because there have been many other games to look as good, and when the standard for game graphics rises, you cant just go around saying that that's better just because it's Zelda.
Oh and their problem is with the bridge texture. The game isn't finished, though, and graphics are always improved as the game moves along.
Dringo wrote:
> What's wrong with the black and white Manga effect... last seen in
> Wind Waker?
I was looking at the awful texturing on the bridge and the fact the character is 'floating' over it, rather than standing on it.
> What's wrong with the black and white Manga effect... last seen in
> Wind Waker?
I was looking at the awful texturing on the bridge and the fact the character is 'floating' over it, rather than standing on it.
Erm [URL]http://cube.ign.com/articles/615/615045p1.html[/URL]
Page: