Kajex

@ Finite

By your reasoning, a movie like Die Hard would face similar backlash because it deals with a potentially realistic dangerous setting where man civilians could be found and be harmed. And the director, producers and entire cast should know better, that it might give a person ideas.

I respect that you can see several sides of the issue, but what you're referring to is a game setting based upon an actual location, and not an actual event, and the fact that it was designed on the basis that the game they were playing was NOT real- and the fact that the people who rushed to judgement on the matter didn't know any better. I'm sorry, but ignorance is never an excuse when it comes to this. A mistake was made here, and the LEAST they could have down was bit the bullet and say "yeah, we screwed up". But what the kid's getting instead is "yeah... well, not enough people showed up to admit their mistake, so... too bad."

People are going to be mightily disppointed... it's not based upon the New Line Cinema flicks, and that's what people tend to think when they think The Lord of the Rings. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with showing a different viewing interpretation, but given the popularity of the movies...

Cringer speaks the truth. The bulk of many innovations in ways to play a game comes from Nintendo- the bulk of many ideas put into tangible format to enjoy those modes of play comes from the games.

So Sony? What do they have? They have a console selling for $600 with a mode of gameplay that looks to rip off the Wii, added it with the fact that it puts its faith in Bluray and cell processing, two concepts that anybody has yet to comment on or for with realistic results implemented into an actual gaming console. Then add in that the presentation at E3 made its developers look like Deep-pocket ass munches on the basis that THEY can afford it, so why can't anybody else? Not that there has been much going for it BESIDES the 3rd party games and Guiter Heroes, but the features they tried to implement into the previous console did not shine brilliantly (or at all)- Free Online play for $40 and a tenuous connection at best with just about nothing on it, and a DVD player that nearly unseated Regional DVD players from their Throne of Sorriness.
Am I saying Sony won't have much else going for it? No- they certainly have had their share of admirable 3rd Party games.

Now... the Wii. Apart from giving it a name that many people might scoff at, the jury is still out on the remote controlled gameplay- certainly, tennis seemed to be well received, but E3 also proved that there are just some games out there that it's not meant for. Certainly, though, Nintendo intends to stay in the game as long as it can through innovation, and it seems they are going about it in the best way they can think of. Nintendo has been in business over 100 years in various markets, and while some of their franchise have sunk (Love hotels, taxi service), they've always had new ideas. Say what you want, but as it was said- gaming would be NOWHERE had Nintendo not been there to save the industry. Atari nearly brought the damned thing to it's knees.

Microsoft's (Bill's) stance on this seems reasonable. It does seem to be a policy of making the best out of what they do best before doing their best on other peripheral (to them) aspects. It may not be innovation the whole way through, but they do have at least a firm grasp on a few of the things gamers would like to have, including multiplayer, customization (hell, I like the idea of playing my own music while playing DoA4) and online content- it's comparable to having new stuff available to PC gamers.

And before anybody goes on to bash PC games, gamers, or a PC as a console...

When was the last time you played an actual good RTS on a console, hmm?

It's spelt "Baelrog". In English-land. *shot at*

As I heard once in Guild Wars...
"Arguing over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics- even if you win, you're still a retard."

I'll bother only in the discussion by saying that Obvious has no idea what he's talking about and that neither do the people who are arguing agaisnt him- since nobody's played the game yet, there's no real way to know how solid a title it'll be, so defending or attacking it is useless. I figure I'd take an unbiased approach to this by saying that while I'm wary of the system itself, the concept seems promising, and that while it may not be spectacular graphically, such things don't matter much.

You have to remember- Nintendo has been in business for over 100 years; founded in 1889 with Hanafuda cards being their product. Yes, they had a taxi service and "Love Hotel" in the 60's, and both of them went down the drain, but they've been in business long enough probably to know when something is or isn't a good idea. They own the Seattle Mariners, a team that has been more or less solid. Nintendo was and still is king of the handhelds, something on which alone could sustain them. Anybody remember when DS was introduced? People flipped over the touch screen. Now it's a hit with innovative games, ensuring a strong hold on the handheld market.

I wouldn't go nuts for more 3rd party characters to join- mind you, it might be possible to see a few new faces, but there may be a limit. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for someone from Bungie running up to Nintendo demanding Master Chief's presence in the game, and I'm certain everyone knows how far a longshot that would be. Does that mean there won't be any other 3rd party characters? No, but it doesn't mean there will be, either- we'll just have to wait and see.

So, let's cover what we know.


Solid Snake was originally released on the MSX and THEN later Nintendo, a property of Konami and a popular game in its time. Hideo Kojima comes up practically begging Nintendo to put Snake into it, and it seems like they agree, which, while it may seem out of place, isn't exactly the case, as Snake was a part of Nintendo for a while, having a couple of games come out on its systems, including the Gamecube.

So, in that sense, it does fit. It's not stealing. When somebody approaches you and says "I'm giving you the opportunity to put this character in your game because it looks like the most bitchin'est thing EVAR," and you agree to, it's NOT stealing. =P If anything, resorting to a form of gameplay found on a similar console would fall under "copy-cat"ing rather than stealing, but I'm not here to chide the hell out of the PS3.

Nintendo adds Pit from Kid Icarus, Sir Meta Knight from the Kirby universe, Wario, and Samus in her Zero suit. The graphics look substantially better, and in essence it looks like the same hectic SSB game we've come to love and enjoy. For a company that has been in business for over a hundred years (not a joke, they began business in November 6th, 1889, selling Hanafuda cards), and introducing a slew of memorable characters that even a PS or MS fanboy can remember having enjoyed at some point or another.

As for the Wii, while it may sound like a funny and "don't take me seriously" name, it's already popular, and is bound to become moreso with this trailer, with rather interesting comments like "I just Wii'd myself in happiness", or "My Wii just got hard from that trailer." The fact that somebody like Hideo Kojima loved the concept of the console and that it may become alot more stable and realistic than some people believe is at least SOME indication that someone with whom alot of people have come to respect as a noted creator of a popular game series has enough faith in Nintendo and its creation to at LEAST give it the chance to put one of his characters in it. This may (or may not) be good indication, but sufficient to say that someone likes the idea enough.

As for whether or not Snake actually belongs in the game is up for debate, but consider that the idea may not be the fact that there are dozens of Nintendo characters brawling it out on a single screen, but that the concept behind this move is the idea of bringing together all the characters and aspects of gaming that people from all over have come to enjoy, making them available to the player, and then duking it out for the hell of it. I'll add here that anybody who hated the series because of the fact that it had no plot behind it are idiots- it's not SUPPOSED to make sense, it's just supposed to be FUN.

Meanwhile, yes, that was Samus in the Zero Suit and the wicked looking blaster-turned-lightsaber. Pit looks nifty, and Meta Knight seems to fit pretty well.

My thoughts?

This is going to get very, VERY interesting.

Darkstalker definitely- J. Talbain, Morrigan and Felicia ftw. And I did love Battletoads.

Eragon is a good book, but the problem is that it's an idea that has been toyed with. I used to write. I had an idea that was almost completely the same idea as Chris' idea, with notable differences. The point being that it's the kind of story anyone could come up with. What makes it unique is that he extends beyond the unoriginality of the idea by giving Saphira (Eragon's dragon) a character depth of her own, something you don't see too often with draconic characters. Having a sentient being whose thoughts and feelings you can read and decipher while maintaining a connection that allows that being to do the same thing (and allows for perfect communication) isn't a normally used concept- much less it it used on a being whom might be considered a beast or monster by most fantasy authors. He does get the concept of dragons being something close to being feline pretty well. Eragon himself turns into the typical hero, with access to good swordplay and magical abilities, but is extended beyond that by being warned constantly that taking sides without the free will to do so is an invisible enslavement of sorts- doing the right thing will maintaining your own free will is never an easy thing, and Paolini does illustrate that through the writing.

So in the end, the basics of it are very unoriginal, but the complexity past that makes it original.

...

I will admit that the trailer captions are trite and unoriginal. "A boy, his dragon, a world of adventure..." C'mon, how many times have we heard that crap before in Disney movies? Or cartoons?
I will admit, though- if the game is good, it'll be because of the gameplay, not the story- the story is better read and viewed, rather than watched. We shall have to see. But one thing's for certain- Paolini's gonna be very very stinkin' RICH.

I remember that Phantasy Star Online had a contest for the best couples, and when it was heard they would be getting married, Sega had a special in-game marriage for the couple, and gave copies and accounts to the family members so they could attend. XD Funny as hell, but kind've sweet and all. Most people oculd say that it's not real, but hey- getting married on a Star Trek set isn't real either- it's the idea behind the marriage that counts.