Pokemon flops =(

So RPGamer, do you believe the battle system itself derserves more change? Or even the capturing aspects of monsters? Or do you think there's more? I kind of agree in some sense if you agree to the two statements I said. Aside from just changing the graphics, I think the battle system could have more depth and perhaps even be something like say a Real time, or quasi type real time akin to FF's ATB system. I

also think having badges that make any monster a certain level listen to you is kind of ridiculous, and IMHO I think it'd be best if you had to earn the trust of a pokemon to have it listen to you, similar to the anime series was in some way. I mean... an all powerful pokemon like Mewtwo listens to me, just cause I have a badge... :| A pokemon who was bent more on destroying mankind, because it hada problem being a cloned pokemon and it won't mind listening to a man like me cause I have a badge that says so. :|

yoshi_64

Badges keeps a balance since you can gain a Pokemon at extremely high levels from a friend/previous game and blast through the game without worry. Complicating things with a deep "trust" system slows the pace of the game down.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

Season 1 of the show and the early manga was great! I think there are plenty of old school fans who are itching to run into Ash, Misty, Brock, Jesse, James, Professor Oak, and Gary in the game. It might not be as story driven now, but the TV show, videogame, and card game all went hand-in-hand during the cult-hit era of Pokemon.

For the most part it's not *as* important - I was into the game before I stared watching the show - but I remember wanting to catch certain Pokemon in the game because I'd see them in the show.

Redmoonxl2

I personally hated the show. After being raised on anime that I had to get on Starz, the Action Channel, Saturday Morning Sci Fi Channel and Canadian TV, Pokemon just felt tame. I'll give it it's props, however, since it help further public exposure to Anime in America.

[QUOTE="yoshi_64"]

So RPGamer, do you believe the battle system itself derserves more change? Or even the capturing aspects of monsters? Or do you think there's more? I kind of agree in some sense if you agree to the two statements I said. Aside from just changing the graphics, I think the battle system could have more depth and perhaps even be something like say a Real time, or quasi type real time akin to FF's ATB system. I

also think having badges that make any monster a certain level listen to you is kind of ridiculous, and IMHO I think it'd be best if you had to earn the trust of a pokemon to have it listen to you, similar to the anime series was in some way. I mean... an all powerful pokemon like Mewtwo listens to me, just cause I have a badge... :| A pokemon who was bent more on destroying mankind, because it hada problem being a cloned pokemon and it won't mind listening to a man like me cause I have a badge that says so. :|

-RPGamer-

Yeah, starting with the battle system. I wouldn't mind a more action oriented (Star Ocean/Tales) representation. Imagine controlling the creatures in a 3D represented battle field, where you're flying type is soaring over some bushes where an insect type is waiting in ambush. Imagine actually controlling them, not just menu attacking with them.

As for capturing, I'm sort of ok with that, I mean the concept of throwing a ball can only be done so many ways (maybe it would be fun to throw the ball with the Wiimote though?).

I don't like the whole concept of add another 100 and it's a "new" experience, this is horribly flawed in my opinion. To add to this flaw in design the added pokemon aren't rare hard to find things in areas where people don't live... no, instead many of them are overly common pokemon living in your back yard. Further more, somehow these additional Pokemon essentially negate the existance of some of the older Pokemon. (This is not in reference to the new types they add).

As for having them listen, it should more of a relationship based thing. Also, the main character could have detailed stats on what type of trainer he/she was (kindness, strictness, leadership etc.), which could in part determine which pokemon are more likely to listen to him/her.

That's what Monster Rancher on the PS1 did... there was a relationship with each monster, and it could ignore your commands in combat. That could get pretty frustrating though. 

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

The formula has been working, but it's old. I mean with that mentality we might as well not even have rtied half of the leaps in gameplay we've had in gaming. It's not like the past iterations were broken for these advancements in design, it's just that someone finally realized things can change and change for the better,

You statements remind me of a sayig, "if it's not broken don't fix it." In other words become stale, turn your back on evolution and progress. I prefer the saying, "change is good."

I never said the story needs to change, really don't care if it does. Pokemon as a whole has a ton of room for advancements in design. And these minor "refinements" don't make up for the overall lack of growth for me.

Redmoonxl2

Some formulas don't need growth to still succeed as a strategic and deep game, however. Would you consider games like chess, poker, pool, Magic the Gathering and other games "stale" due to their lack of growth? These games are perfect examples of games with very little growth yet popular because their core remains solid and deep.

The fact is that the first game laid down the foundation while new installments expand the strategy. New pokemon equals new team combinations, new individual builds and makes for deeper battles. With so much effort put into the metagame of Pokemon, the game does grow after each installment. There is no need to toss out what has been working. If you want a combat system similar to Tales or Star Ocean, you've missed the point and this game is definitely not for you. 

Again with that mentality why should game designers even try? I said it before, and I'll say it again, "if it's not broken don't fix it." Why are all of your references not videogames, or originate as games? They're perfect examples of non-videogame related games.

I didn't miss the point of Pokemon, and I've enjoyed them so I don't see where you come off saying the games aren't for me. I would call the growth that Pokemon has had merely steps on minimalistic growth rather than leaps of game altering growth.

[QUOTE="yoshi_64"]

So RPGamer, do you believe the battle system itself derserves more change? Or even the capturing aspects of monsters? Or do you think there's more? I kind of agree in some sense if you agree to the two statements I said. Aside from just changing the graphics, I think the battle system could have more depth and perhaps even be something like say a Real time, or quasi type real time akin to FF's ATB system. I

also think having badges that make any monster a certain level listen to you is kind of ridiculous, and IMHO I think it'd be best if you had to earn the trust of a pokemon to have it listen to you, similar to the anime series was in some way. I mean... an all powerful pokemon like Mewtwo listens to me, just cause I have a badge... :| A pokemon who was bent more on destroying mankind, because it hada problem being a cloned pokemon and it won't mind listening to a man like me cause I have a badge that says so. :|

Redmoonxl2

Badges keeps a balance since you can gain a Pokemon at extremely high levels from a friend/previous game and blast through the game without worry. Complicating things with a deep "trust" system slows the pace of the game down.

I'll take a complicated trust system which would also negate cheating over obtaining an all power item that some hwo allows access to control more powerful pokemon.

I'm not particularly happy with the effect it had on anime in America. Did we really need it to spawn Digimon, Pokemon Whatever (cannot keep track of what is on air now), and all the American / Canadian made shows they pretend are anime on Fox and whatnot? The best influence on anime in America was ultimately early Adult Swim - when it showed stuff like Evangelion, Outlaw Star, Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, et cetera.
subrosian

I disagree since the popularity of Pokemon initially influenced the appearence of those "mature" anime to show for those interested in the art but crave something deeper. Lets face the facts: Adult Swim's anime showing lacks the ability to influence anything since the ratings are very low. The only Adult Swim anime that actually succeeded was FMA. Toonami did a better job in the anime field than AS.

That's what Monster Rancher on the PS1 did... there was a relationship with each monster, and it could ignore your commands in combat. That could get pretty frustrating though. 

subrosian

That's a design flaw. It should probably be a boolean. Like they either trust you enough to battle for you, or not.

8.5 is a flop? Anyways, scores never mattered for Pokemon anyways.

one4damoney

Yes, its all about sales, and Pokemon versions are some of the best selling games ever.

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Good!

I personally hope it does even worse here. ;)

subrosian

Why would you hope for a game to get a worse review here?

B/c the series is so stuck in the past. It doesn't really deserve the scores it's been getting even with recent iterations IMHO.

I disagree. Personally the formula works and will continue to do so since I consider the battle system/collection system similar to that of a TCG. It's been already be pointed out that the story is not important since Pokemon is not a story driven franchise. It's very similar to a MMO in that the game's worth depends on how much energy you are willing to put into it.

Anyways, that's how I feel about the game. In any case, I prefer it to stay the way it is with added refinement in every addition.

Season 1 of the show and the early manga was great! I think there are plenty of old school fans who are itching to run into Ash, Misty, Brock, Jesse, James, Professor Oak, and Gary in the game. It might not be as story driven now, but the TV show, videogame, and card game all went hand-in-hand during the cult-hit era of Pokemon.

For the most part it's not *as* important - I was into the game before I stared watching the show - but I remember wanting to catch certain Pokemon in the game because I'd see them in the show.

I for one want that. Or at least only the orginal 150 pokemon 

Again with that mentality why should game designers even try? I said it before, and I'll say it again, "if it's not broken don't fix it." Why are all of your references not videogames, or originate as games? They're perfect examples of non-videogame related games.

I didn't miss the point of Pokemon, and I've enjoyed them so I don't see where you come off saying the games aren't for me. I would call the growth that Pokemon has had merely steps on minimalistic growth rather than leaps of game altering growth.

-RPGamer-

Pokemon as a game is simply different than any other game. It's more akin to other forms of gaming than just a video game.

"if it's not broken don't fix it." is my mantra and I'll stick with it since the game itself benefits more from expanding than completely changing. If you are wanting something completely different from the series, yes, you are missing the point. If you are complaining about the battle system, expecting it to be drastically different, you are missing the point. If you are hating the game's "progression" as a series because you want something outside what the series was built for, you are missing the point. 

I understand you want changes but those changes are better suited to a spinoff, much like what Mysterious Dungeon did. Personally, I want new advancements in the battle system such as expanding the the moves list and more environmental influences. Ripping out the battle system and replacing it with something you enjoyed from another game is simply not a good idea. How would you feel if Final Fantasy from now on was a Devil May Cry clone? How would you enjoy Metal Gear Solid's next installment if it changed from a stealth game to a RTS series? Changes is not always good, especially if the change doesn't make sense.

As I stated before, you simply don't get Pokemon at all. It's basically utilizing a system similar to a TCG where you build a team (Deck) with Pokemon (Cards) who need a proper build to get things working (Deck type). Adding in an action element eliminates the need to build a proper team, especially if it becomes twitch based. What would be the point of carefully creating a team if it's nothing more than a fighting game with needless types? 

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Again with that mentality why should game designers even try? I said it before, and I'll say it again, "if it's not broken don't fix it." Why are all of your references not videogames, or originate as games? They're perfect examples of non-videogame related games.

I didn't miss the point of Pokemon, and I've enjoyed them so I don't see where you come off saying the games aren't for me. I would call the growth that Pokemon has had merely steps on minimalistic growth rather than leaps of game altering growth.

Redmoonxl2

Pokemon as a game is simply different than any other game. It's more akin to other forms of gaming than just a video game.

"if it's not broken don't fix it." is my mantra and I'll stick with it since the game itself benefits more from expanding than completely changing. If you are wanting something completely different from the series, yes, you are missing the point. If you are complaining about the battle system, expecting it to be drastically different, you are missing the point. If you are hating the game's "progression" as a series because you want something outside what the series was built for, you are missing the point. 

I understand you want changes but those changes are better suited to a spinoff, much like what Mysterious Dungeon did. Personally, I want new advancements in the battle system such as expanding the the moves list and more environmental influences. Ripping out the battle system and replacing it with something you enjoyed from another game is simply not a good idea. How would you feel if Final Fantasy from now on was a Devil May Cry clone? How would you enjoy Metal Gear Solid's next installment if it changed from a stealth game to a RTS series? Changes is not always good, especially if the change doesn't make sense.

As I stated before, you simply don't get Pokemon at all. It's basically utilizing a system similar to a TCG where you build a team (Deck) with Pokemon (Cards) who need a proper build to get things working (Deck type). Adding in an action element eliminates the need to build a proper team, especially if it becomes twitch based. What would be the point of carefully creating a team if it's nothing more than a fighting game with needless types? 

I'm missing the point b/c I want change? Yet again where get off saying that? I'm not missing the point of something by expecting it to actually take some risks and evolve. I don't view being pleased with the same old same old over and over as "getting the point".

And it doesn't have to come from some other game, I was using those two series as more a reference of more action oriented gameplay but still in the bounds of an RPG. Yet again you're analogies are flawed, is DMC a RPG like FF? No. Is MGS a RTS? No. I was still in the realm of RPGs, you're taking it to the extreme and taking things that have very little in common in terms of gameplay.

I get Pokemon, I find it amusing how you are telling me what I don't get, despite me owning and having enjoyed the past iterations. Properly adding action oreiented battles doesn't negate team building, it only does if done wrong. You're assuming that it would be bad simply b/c it would be done wrong. At this time the saying, "people fear change" comes to mind.

It was never hyped AAA to begin with,but that;s not to say it won't sell in the millions...because they always do.

Pokemon has been the only franchise that hasn't really changed at all yet remains a million seller. 

Oh no! what shall we ever do? Our Pika Pika has flopped.BioShockOwnz

:O! some one else who listens to the human abstract  hella tight sig dude :D

Anywho this isn't gonna stop me from getting it, love pokemon 

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

The formula has been working, but it's old. I mean with that mentality we might as well not even have rtied half of the leaps in gameplay we've had in gaming. It's not like the past iterations were broken for these advancements in design, it's just that someone finally realized things can change and change for the better,

You statements remind me of a sayig, "if it's not broken don't fix it." In other words become stale, turn your back on evolution and progress. I prefer the saying, "change is good."

I never said the story needs to change, really don't care if it does. Pokemon as a whole has a ton of room for advancements in design. And these minor "refinements" don't make up for the overall lack of growth for me.

Redmoonxl2

Some formulas don't need growth to still succeed as a strategic and deep game, however. Would you consider games like chess, poker, pool, Magic the Gathering and other games "stale" due to their lack of growth? These games are perfect examples of games with very little growth yet popular because their core remains solid and deep.

The fact is that the first game laid down the foundation while new installments expand the strategy. New pokemon equals new team combinations, new individual builds and makes for deeper battles. With so much effort put into the metagame of Pokemon, the game does grow after each installment. There is no need to toss out what has been working. If you want a combat system similar to Tales or Star Ocean, you've missed the point and this game is definitely not for you.

I honestly think the issue with Pokemon isn't the core gameplay at all, it's as deep (deeper) than ever. THe issue is the superficial layers of the game, the premise if you will. The idea of going around getting badges and all that. They need to change it so that the deep gameplay remains but the new premise doesn't get in the way of that gameplay (like lack of wild fights or the GC games' shadow pkmn aspect).

 Maybe the much wanted MMO premise? As long as it's easy to raise and battle Pkmn with the same deep system then the rest is immaterial.

[QUOTE="Riviera_Phantom"]TC, either you are an ******. Or have never ever seen any Pokemon reviews ever.Zhengi

wavedash then shine, repeat with good timing. 

I'm missing the point b/c I want change? Yet again where get off saying that? I'm not missing the point of something by expecting it to actually take some risks and evolve. I don't view being pleased with the same old same old over and over as "getting the point".

And it doesn't have to come from some other game, I was using those two series as more a reference of more action oriented gameplay but still in the bounds of an RPG. Yet again you're analogies are flawed, is DMC a RPG like FF? No. Is MGS a RTS? No. I was still in the realm of RPGs, you're taking it to the extreme and taking things that have very little in common in terms of gameplay.

I get Pokemon, I find it amusing how you are telling me what I don't get, despite me owning and having enjoyed the past iterations. Properly adding action oreiented battles doesn't negate team building, it only does if done wrong. You're assuming that it would be bad simply b/c it would be done wrong. At this time the saying, "people fear change" comes to mind.

-RPGamer-

Fine, whatever, "I fear change" despite me saying that I want several things expanded on. However, I don't want a complete makeover, which is why I chosen to pick extreme changes to illustrate my point. Nevertheless, I will continue to say that taking risks just for the sake of taking risks when something continues to work well is not what I would call "smart".

Pokemon was never an action game, it's been a slow paced and strategic game. Adding action because you want action is akin to adding action to a game of chess. Just imagine what would happen if chess required you to move in real time instead of turn based.

We're never going to agree and you can feel right about your opinion all you want since I still feel that I prefer things the way they are with some aspects altered and expanded on. Still doesn't change the fact that I will enjoy Diamond/Pearl, even if you don't.

Cheers. 

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

I'm missing the point b/c I want change? Yet again where get off saying that? I'm not missing the point of something by expecting it to actually take some risks and evolve. I don't view being pleased with the same old same old over and over as "getting the point".

And it doesn't have to come from some other game, I was using those two series as more a reference of more action oriented gameplay but still in the bounds of an RPG. Yet again you're analogies are flawed, is DMC a RPG like FF? No. Is MGS a RTS? No. I was still in the realm of RPGs, you're taking it to the extreme and taking things that have very little in common in terms of gameplay.

I get Pokemon, I find it amusing how you are telling me what I don't get, despite me owning and having enjoyed the past iterations. Properly adding action oreiented battles doesn't negate team building, it only does if done wrong. You're assuming that it would be bad simply b/c it would be done wrong. At this time the saying, "people fear change" comes to mind.

Redmoonxl2

Fine, whatever, "I fear change" despite me saying that I want several things expanded on. However, I don't want a complete makeover, which is why I chosen to pick extreme changes to illustrate my point. Nevertheless, I will continue to say that taking risks just for the sake of taking risks when something continues to work well is not what I would call "smart".

Pokemon was never an action game, it's been a slow paced and strategic game. Adding action because you want action is akin to adding action to a game of chess. Just imagine what would happen if chess required you to move in real time instead of turn based.

We're never going to agree and you can feel right about your opinion all you want since I still feel that I prefer things the way they are with some aspects altered and expanded on. Still doesn't change the fact that I will enjoy Diamond/Pearl, even if you don't.

Cheers. 

Making the battles more action oriented isn't a complete make over, hence why I pushed back with your extreme examples. They don't illustrate the changes I hoping for at all. like I said I stayed within the bounds of the genre Pokemon already exists, you took it many levels further by disregarding genres in your examples. I'm not saying they should take risks just to take risks either. Your viewing of my statements like that kind of fits into those saying I quoted earlier.

Pokemon when it originated couldn't have been much of an action RPG when it was released originally. Yet again videogames can evolve much more than say a non-videogame based game such as chess. And is it that hard for you to imagine controlling Pokemon in real time? Honestly, these are creatures that supposedly swim, fly, sprint and yet we see absolutely none of that.

BTW never said I wouldn't enjoy Diamond and Pearl did I?

Cheers.

Bah, blah, blah ... (Since I'm done with the argument)

BTW never said I wouldn't enjoy Diamond and Pearl did I?-RPGamer-

Hoping that a game would flop doesn't really paint the picture of anticipation, now does it? 

Anyways, I hope you do enjoy the game and I'll see you online. 

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"] Bah, blah, blah ... (Since I'm done with the argument)

BTW never said I wouldn't enjoy Diamond and Pearl did I?Redmoonxl2

Hoping that a game would flop doesn't really paint the picture of anticipation, now does it? 

Anyways, I hope you do enjoy the game and I'll see you online. 

I've had the game reserved, I don't need to eat up and support the rut the series has been in. Going against it doesn't mean I don't like or won't like it, I just expect more.

Just because you hyped it AAA doesn't mean that everyone hyped it AAA. Plus, AA games are good games too. Everyone acts like a game that scores 8.0-8.9 are bad games :roll:Zhengi

:lol: I know, I don't get that.  

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"] Bah, blah, blah ... (Since I'm done with the argument)

BTW never said I wouldn't enjoy Diamond and Pearl did I?-RPGamer-

Hoping that a game would flop doesn't really paint the picture of anticipation, now does it?

Anyways, I hope you do enjoy the game and I'll see you online.

I've had the game reserved, I don't need to eat up and support the rut the series has been in. Going against it doesn't mean I don't like or won't like it, I just expect more.

However, that's your view of things. Just because I prefer certain elements to remain the same doesn't mean I "eat it up." Bad mouthing it gives an impression of dislike, even if you plan to pick it up.

By the way, aren't we kinda hostile with our words? Seems like a silly thing to be hostile about.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"] Bah, blah, blah ... (Since I'm done with the argument)

BTW never said I wouldn't enjoy Diamond and Pearl did I?Redmoonxl2

Hoping that a game would flop doesn't really paint the picture of anticipation, now does it?

Anyways, I hope you do enjoy the game and I'll see you online.

I've had the game reserved, I don't need to eat up and support the rut the series has been in. Going against it doesn't mean I don't like or won't like it, I just expect more.

However, that's your view of things. Just because I prefer certain elements to remain the same doesn't mean I "eat it up." Bad mouthing it gives an impression of dislike, even if you plan to pick it up.

By the way, aren't we kinda hostile with our words? Seems like a silly thing to be hostile about.

I bad mouth a lot of things I enjoy. I have lists of things I would change about many games I play, doesn't mean I don't enjoy them. I've been that way with games for a long time. This isn't the first time someone I've talked to here thought I dislike a game I like either.

I didn't think you were being hostile, I've seen far worse. No hard feelings, just a debate. :)

[QUOTE="Zhengi"][QUOTE="Riviera_Phantom"]TC, either you are an ******. Or have never ever seen any Pokemon reviews ever.-RPGamer-

Looks like wave dashing.

I bad mouth a lot of things I enjoy. I have lists of things I would change about many games I play, doesn't mean I don't enjoy them. I've been that way with games for a long time. This isn't the first time someone I've talked to here thought I dislike a game I like either.

I didn't think you were being hostile, I've seen far worse. No hard feelings, just a debate. :)

-RPGamer-

Well, you can't expect me to pick up on how you feel about certain games by reading what you wrote, especially when I don't know you at a personal level to be able to fully understand your mentality.

Also, I've been around SW long enough to experience far worse debates than this current debate we were having. I was merely questioning the merit of arguing and getting pissy over this issue. Doesn't really matter, though since Pokemon is what it is. No hard feelings, of course, since I learned to take SW with a grain of salt, especially on debates based on personal preferences.

This thread flopped (at least, its original intentions) far more than Pokemon did, or will.Jandurin

So...De La Hoya or Mayweather? :)  

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]This thread flopped (at least, its original intentions) far more than Pokemon did, or will.Redmoonxl2

So...De La Hoya or Mayweather? :)

*looked it up* Ah, some sort of fight.  

I looked up tickets for fun.  Anywhere from 100 to over a thousand.  *mind boggles* 

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]This thread flopped (at least, its original intentions) far more than Pokemon did, or will.Jandurin

So...De La Hoya or Mayweather? :)

*looked it up* Ah, some sort of fight.

I looked up tickets for fun. Anywhere from 100 to over a thousand. *mind boggles*

I used to train as a fighter as a kid so things like boxing still interest me. :) 

Figured I'd ask you an "out of the blue" question is all. 

I used to train as a fighter as a kid so things like boxing still interest me. :)

Figured I'd ask you an "out of the blue" question is all.

Redmoonxl2

I took it to mean:  How 'bout them Mets.  It's just funny that you chose more.. relevant (in terms of time, anyhow) sports occurrence. 

A more debate worthy question would have been:  "What'd you think of Grindhouse?" 

I'm teh king of understanding randomness.

I took it to mean: How 'bout them Mets. It's just funny that you chose more.. relevant (in terms of time, anyhow) sports occurrence.

A more debate worthy question would have been: "What'd you think of Grindhouse?"

Jandurin

Funny thing, I have yet to find time to see Grindhouse. The theaters around where I live either shows the movie too early or simply too late. 

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]

I'm teh king of understanding randomness.

I took it to mean: How 'bout them Mets. It's just funny that you chose more.. relevant (in terms of time, anyhow) sports occurrence.

A more debate worthy question would have been: "What'd you think of Grindhouse?"

Redmoonxl2

Funny thing, I have yet to find time to see Grindhouse. The theaters around where I live either shows the movie too early or simply too late.

[QUOTE="Redmoonxl2"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]

I'm teh king of understanding randomness.

I took it to mean: How 'bout them Mets. It's just funny that you chose more.. relevant (in terms of time, anyhow) sports occurrence.

A more debate worthy question would have been: "What'd you think of Grindhouse?"

Jandurin

Funny thing, I have yet to find time to see Grindhouse. The theaters around where I live either shows the movie too early or simply too late.

I'm waiting for it to hit DVD. Rodriguez and Tarantino should have pulled a Kill Bill and separate it into two parts. Over 3 and a half hours is asking too much from anyone, especially when it comes to a theater requiring you to make it at a set time.

I'm waiting for it to hit DVD. Rodriguez and Tarantino should have pulled a Kill Bill and separate it into two parts. Over 3 and a half hours is asking too much from anyone, especially when it comes to a theater requiring you to make it at a set time.

Redmoonxl2

if you got a gamespot link and says under tripple a it  fails

:roll:

if ign is not a faliure

god