Haven't played the original game so I may very well buy a Vita for this. Discovering just now the Shin MegaTen/Persona games (thanks to Persona 3 FES on PSN) and lovin' each one of them.
Sony did fair better in my eyes for one thing, and one thing only: they were bold enough to start and end their shows not only with exclusive IPs, but *new* ones at that. Nintendo came close, and considering that Pikmin didn't get a game last *generation*, it's almost as fresh as a new IP.
And Microsoft? For some bizarre reason, they got Halo 4 out of the way too soon and let a third-party title steal the show at the end. That was very strange, come to think of it. It doesn't matter how many copies CoD or any other game sells - Halo is a flaship IP, it does sell millions too, and Halo 4 isn't a far-flung title, it'll come out in a few months. By all accounts it should've been placed at the end.
I know this seems nitpicking but it was a disturbing trend on MS's presentation. Just notice how its other IPs also didn't get as much time as Splinter Cell, Tomb Raider or Resident Evil 6 - and while it's understandable in the new Gears game case, as it won't be out this year, how come we haven't seen anything new from Fable, and how come Forza Horizon got so little time? Both are coming soon too!
People bothered about all the entertainment content, but they're being obtuse about that - this is a press conference, they need and will show everything they've got, and like it or not LIVE today is used more for Netflix and apps than for gaming. But when it comes to the gaming part, it was like MS was saying 'hey, we have IPs, but that's not the most important thing, the important thing is that you can play third-party games on the Xbox.' THAT was way more worrisome.
@billlabowski Ah, now there's more like it. Lots of offenses and hyperboles and incorrect information (obviously, with no source linked). Spoken like truly PC Master Race. *clap* *clap* *clap*
Now back to the regular schedule, where normal people talk about normal things like video games...
Even if you factor in Steam/Origin sales I doubt any of those sold more than 2 million on PC, specially considering the high specs required.
You want to play PC master race, go ahead, but at least get your facts straight and play the role properly.
[SPACE RESERVED FOR REPLIES STATING THE EXACT CONTRARY NOW, THAT THE GAME SOLD BETTER BECAUSE IT WAS DUMBED DOWN - NO MATTER IF THE ORIGINAL ALLEGATION WAS THE EXACT CONTRARY, THAT DUMBED DOWN MEANT LESS SALES]
"The most surprising thing is that you take the role of Prophet, alive and well 20 years after his death in Crysis 2. How he survived eating a bullet was not explained."
Play the game again. It's right there at the end of it. :)
I was wary that this could turn into an old-school/old fart whining fest (and take note, I'm 39) where all I'd read would be complaints about how better things were during the SNES era, but it's @Kevin-V, and therefore it's very well-thought. I had the same impression about Splinter Cell - the saving grace is that it seemed close enough to Conviction for me to believe the stealthier approach will still be an option (and if you believe Conviction is a pure action game, sorry, YOU played it that way willingly; there's plenty of incentives to play the game 'properly').
And after the first two paragraphs I was sure he would mention Watch Dogs. I was amazed about the trailer/demo, but it didn't cross my mind that the fact it's all about (very intriguing) gameplay had a LOT to do with it. I mean, I love the Quantic Dream material - as a company with highly cinematic games, although not the Michael Bay type - and Beyond left me very curious, but there's hardly any gameplay in that trailer, so no wonder why Watch Dogs was more impressive to me. So I'd like to say 'thank you' to @Kevin-V for pointing that out.
I remember one Hotspot episode where either Kevin pointed out how sometimes the designers must create the game we don't *know* we want, as opposed to what they *believe* everyone wants. Watch Dogs is pretty much that, and Kevin's just done something similar in his own way - as a journalist/critic, he pointed out what I didn't know I liked about that trailer/demo. Kudos!
@tightwad34 You know what? Recent evidence may show that this whole idea that all game franchises are hurt if released in yearly installments is debatable and should not be taken as a blanket argument. Time is a factor for quality but far from the only one. Competence, extra resources, boldness and ideas can compensate for it very easily.
Look at Diablo III. By that logic it should've been crazy good, the game of a generation, as Blizzard had it 12 years in the making. Now no matter how good you think that game is, you'd need to be a diehard fanboy to say that it adds much to what II did before - on the contrary, some things were even left out (tweaking stats, for example). It is also plagued with all sorts of lag-related problems the previous game didn't have, not to mention the dreaded always-on DRM.
Comparatively, AC: Brotherhood added multiplayer, the Borgia Towers system and the assassin training/supportive use mechanic. Again, you can diss these as much as you want but they show that Ubisoft was able to add a lot more novelties to a year-later sequel than Blizzard did in Starcraft II and Diablo III combined. And Brotherhood doesn't feature any particular bug or problem new to the series. At the most one may not feel the additions are worth it, buy you can't accuse Ubisoft of being sterile, or say that the small development window lead to lack of novelty.
Now if we're talking about player/audience saturation, not game quality per se, that's another matter. I started Revelations and I can see it does have its own surprising novelties (first-person platforming and tower defense mechanics), but after playing 80+ hours of Assassin's Creed games in less than two years before Revelations, I needed to step back a little from AC. Even if AC III proves to be the best game in the franchise, I don't know if I'll be willing to play it right away even if I finish Revelations before it. THAT is a problem. Game quality and boldness are not.
@chilly-chill At a minimum it isn't less true than a random internet entity's opinion no one cares about. Anyone would half a brain knows who gets the more qualified opinion.
Unless we're talking IGN. Than I'm with the random internet entities, thank you.
RealFabioSooner's comments