|
Avenging Dentist posted:TNG gets off to a really rough start; it's basically TOS except with less charm until it finds its footing. DS9 has way better characters though, and I like that it shows some of the negatives of the Federation. I could do without the Bajorans though. Basically TNG takes off after Roddenberry died e: Or after he left the show, I guess. Apparently he was a big problem for the writers because he demanded that there be no conflict between characters ever
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
Shadin posted:I always thought the fact that people in Firefly that left Earth speak English and Chinese was a pretty realistic representation of the future. Maybe if they used Chinese for anything except US-Censor friendly cursing
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Not a viking posted:What are the details? I refuse to read the 40k thread, but I love GW drama It's a mixed bag. The first book is a campaign book for the fall of Cadia. It has some good stuff in it--a new list for combined SoB/Black Templar armies, which helps both and makes enough sense, some mediocre stuff--there's finally a detachment for taking both types of AdMech+Knights, but you have to buy three loving books to do it, and some bad stuff--there's a new deck of cards you can play with that has WACKY WARP STORM EFFECTS every turn that no one will ever bother to play with. Supposedly they're moving away from codexes and more toward just doing a bunch of campaign supplements that update armies along the way. It's not the dumbest idea ever, but it'd be insanely expensive to buy them all, since each release is another $60 book. The rumor is GW isn't going "full sigmar" on 40k, but probably taking some cues for it when 8th edition releases at some point this year.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:30k already works this way and they're not very good at it. It'd work better if they covered more armies with each supplement, but so far they're only doing two at a time and one of them is always space marines
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Saint Drogo posted:welp, doesn't sound like they're doing anything about the rules bloat and enormous codex/rulebooks tax for new and returning players. I guess all they learned from Sigmar is that nerds dislike shouting FOR THE LADY or cramming bloodletters up their assholes for a +1 hit bonus but love points and loving space marines. Yeah they definitely aren't scaling back the number of books, but nothing in the new supplement is essential. The rules basically cover 3 new characters and 2 new ways to play existing armies. I have no idea if any of the rules are any good. But then, there's the rub--if they're good enough that you need them, they're forcing you to buy yet another $60 book. If they aren't, then they are wasting everyone's time with lovely rules. This wouldn't be so bad if the core rules and codexes were free or at least much less expensive; then I could get behind repeated purchases of campaign books, which tend to age much better than the codexes/rulebooks. TTerrible posted:I can't believe they're going through with it after the reception end times and AOS got The general feeling/rumor scuttlebutt is that they aren't willing to go whole hog with 40k like they did fantasy, because it's a much bigger part of their business and they're terrified of losing players. But even if things have gotten better of the last year or so, the game itself is still bad enough that I'm not sure there *is* a change that would cause the remaining gamers to stop playing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
4th edition Blood Angels were loving ridiculous. Half the army would pop out of rhinos and assault you on turn 1, then sweep into the second half of your army on turn 2
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I should probably stop lumping 3e and 4e together because it seems like they undid a lot of the good 3e started. Nah, 4th was a big improvement on 3rd. It had its own issues, but it introduced more detailed codexes with good variety and it improved the game's assault rules. 5th was better than 4th. 6th was a dumpster fire. While they weren't necessarily successful, the designers during 4th at least put forth a legitimate effort to give players more legit options for each army that would allow for flavorful and powerful lists. The Tyranid, Chaos, and IG codexes were the best examples of this. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jan 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:But didn't the scope of the game start to change by 5e so that the number of figures you needed to play was way more? Nah, that happened in 3rd when they dropped the cost of most models by half. Space marines went from 30 ppm to 15, for example. It wasn't *that* big a deal at the time though, because the game got about 4x faster in the transition, thanks to simplified movement, squad-based focus, and streamlined shooting/combat resolution. Things have slowly inflated from then.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:That's not quite what I meant. 3e's design goal was to get the size of games that people had been trying to play with 2e's mechanics to be manageable and it was largely successful on that front. Yes, the battles were a larger scale than what 2e was designed for, but they still weren't that big, especially since most games seemed to be played around the 1500-1750 point range, with 1000-1500 point games not being uncommon. But something changed between 3e, where it was common to take a couple of squads, a single tank, a walker, and a transport or two, to where things are now where the table is completely flooded with models. I'm still pretty sure that you are mistaken. People continued to play the same points-value games from 2nd ed to 3rd ed out of habit, but the number of models doubled from 2nd ed to 3rd ed because their points costs literally got cut in half. Some costs didn't--vehicles eventually got a bit cheaper, but the change from 2nd to 3rd is primarily when that happened, and since them some units have gotten even cheaper over time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I'm not mistaken. This has been an ongoing discussion involving the changes in 40k over the years. The game did get bigger going from 2e to 3e, but it was still fairly small scale. I don't know what to tell you, man. Points costs for infantry were halved from 2nd to 3rd. If you don't see how that doubles the size of armies, we can just leave it there
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:With their 4e codex they could make a powerful list, but it certainly wasn't flavorful. Everyone worth their salt took 2x daemon princes with Lash, min troops, plague marines in rhinos, and 3x defilers. Nothing else was even close to being viable. I'm talking about the early 4th ed book/late 3rd ed book, that was used for most of 4th and had legion rules and not the late 4th/early 5th book that stripped out everything cool. quote:You might be thinking of the 3e BA book which was indeed busted (and more or less stayed that way through the first half of 4e). BA only got a 4e WD list which was overpriced and not that great. Probably. The edition distinctions for codexes from 3rd-4th-5th get weird because the blood angels codex stayed legal through a large chunk of 4th. Likewise, chaos got an early 3rd codex, a late 3rd/early 4th codex, and a late 4th/early 5th codex
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:They came in during 6th actually, with the Necron codex. kind of? The Necron codex was the last 6th ed codex and the first 7th ed codex. Formations showed up before that though, with some of the campaign books at the end of 6th edition. The Sanctus Reach campaign had them. It was basically right around the start of 7th
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:Dramatis Personae is an actual term, it's not GW doing fake latin and loving it up. It refers, collectively, to the main characters of a play, book, whatever, typically dramas. lot of real cultured types in this thread, you can tell
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:They seem to at least be trying in good faith to some extent now. The prices are still bullshit, and the rules are still cruddy, but they're apparently using the recent board games to gauge fan consumer reactions to possible changes to the main game. Using dice besides D6es and that sort of thing. They've also been reducing costs to entry through somewhat sneaky means--the new start collecting boxed sets, transport boxed sets, and board games that incorporate existing minis (such as that game with two knights and a bunch of terrain) all give significant discounts. Their product is still on the expensive side, but if you had a hard-line policy against lowering prices, it's a smart way to get around it. Drone posted:Correct me if I'm wrong because I know jack poo poo about 30k, but doesn't it effectively squat several really popular factions (Tau, Necrons, Tyranids) by virtue of them not really existing in the year 30,000? Are you surprised that there are many GW fans who would rather play 40k with only space marines? On the upside, 30k doesn't have formations (yet), and it's more balanced, because every army is basically space marines
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I thought the profits boost was almost entirely due to licensing revenue, and that model sales were still not doing very well? that was definitely true last quarter. the new half-year report shows a significant increase in non-royalty revenue, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Shadin posted:Guilty. same, except for the "enjoying hanging out with you guys" part
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
they'll probably unfreeze employee salaries at some point. That doesn't seem like something a company can sustain forever
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I'm guessing you're european I should have said "that doesn't seem like something GW can sustain forever." Obviously Walmart and McDonald's can, but even they're subject to increases in the minimum wage* *will not apply for the next 8 years
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
are those real? Jesus those are awful
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:Hey nerds did you hear the news: so dumb. how does GW not own "Eldar"? Isn't that a name unique to their IP
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:It's from Lord of the Rings. Yes, this is how unoriginal GW is. Ohhhh right hahahaha gently caress that's dumb Though with regard to originality, let's be real: They're just following the long tradition started by TSR
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:Tell that to Nintendo fans. Nintendo has been GWing it up since the 90s. (Except they usually make some good games in between being dickholes with terrible product launches.). N64-Switch. Don't cry for Zelda fans. They are already gone. Nintendo gave up on Metroid before the Gamecube; Prime was outsourced to a no-name studio and then took an interest when the game turned out to not be poo poo. We're lucky prime 1 and 2 were good The Switch looks bad but I'd be interested if it's going to replace the 3DS
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I love the Nintendo revisionism some people are so obsessed with, like it's still 1995 and they're wearing their faded SEGA shirt. Unlike GW, Nintendo is fairly transparent and we also have sales data and know roughly what kind of costs go into making a game. We also have a pretty good window into their decision making. Sure, I can believe that Metroid undersold. But they only farm stuff out that isn't a high priority. Advance Wars was a big hit and it wasn't some huge departure to have that studio work on Fire Emblem. And honestly nothing GW has done will ever compare to the mistake Nintendo made by loving Sony over at CES in 1991
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Retro was the company behind Metroid Prime, the same first party Nintendo team behind Donkey Kong Country Returns and who also helped with Mario Kart 7 and who are still making games. Other M was done by Team Ninja, a third party studio with a fairly good record up until that point. Intelligent Systems is not owned by Nintendo though they are closely affiliated and they were behind Fire Emblem and Advance Wars. Game Freak does Pokemon and they're not owned by Nintendo either, though the IP is shared between three companies including Nintendo. Basically they farm out major properties all the time. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I know all this; none of it changes the fact that Nintendo didn't think Metroid was a big enough priority to work on it in-house. Retro hadn't released a single game at the time they made the decision to license their IP to them. Ultiville posted:Probably true, but also pretty false equivalence since GW does absurd things regularly right now as opposed to a decision from 25 years ago. Sure, I guess? It's hard to top "literally creating your biggest competitor by backing out on a major deal and embarrassing them on a global stage"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Nintendo regularly uses first and third party studios to develop flagship games. Handing it off to a new studio is not a big deal. That studio has not made a bad game since being given an opportunity to work on the franchise and so I can't see how Nintendo made a mistake here. I'm sure there were meetings and Retro had to make a demo to show Nintendo what they were capable of before Nintendo gave them the greenlight and funding to make the whole game. Nintendo regularly does this now, but it was a big deal back in 2000. Most of their third party studio use was limited to Gameboy games. The game preceding Metroid Prime was Super Metroid (though Fusion would end up coming out around the same time), to massive critical acclaim, though too late in the SNES' hardware lifespan to generate massive sales. It's still widely considered one of the greatest games of all time. Handing off development of the new Metroid game to a third-party was a big deal. It obviously wasn't a mistake to farm it out to Retro in hindsight--the first two Prime games were great and sold very well--but that wasn't a guarantee, given that it was the studio's first game. My point was never that handing the series off to Retro was a mistake, my point was that Nintendo handed it off to Retro because they didn't consider the property to be that important. We (and they) are lucky that the move paid off--it was far from a sure thing. It didn't go so well with Other M. It is insane that Nintendo feels like they cannot make a profit off the Metroid franchise, to the point that we haven't even seen another handheld game for the series. Atlas Hugged posted:Retro was literally started so that there would be a team of people to develop Gamecube games aimed at older gamers and Nintendo specifically staffed it with people they trusted with that task. This is what I mean by revisionism. Nintendo didn't arbitrarily throw Metroid at some random company that hadn't done anything. Nintendo owned Retro and had very specific goals for them in mind. No, Retro was founded by the guy who founded Iguana. Nintendo bought in much later on. The studio had worked on a bunch of prototypes and nothing had been released by the time they saw Retro's FPS engine, and then they were like "hey you should make a Metroid game with this" e: Their goal *was* to work with Nintendo to make GC games targeted to older folks, but they were a third-party developer that Nintendo didn't own TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
El Estrago Bonito posted:Also lol if after seeing the Switch reveal if you think the 3DS is going away. I don't, which is why I'm not interested in the Switch.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Serious maybe, personal no. Nintendo has made some good decisions and some seriously bad ones and I have no personal stake in their success. I just find the GW comparisons to be absurd and a lot of the flak they get to be unjustified. I just like keeping perspective and being critical of actual mistakes rather than perceived ones. I agree that the GW comparisons are absurd; GW is still the market leader in a niche market, while Nintendo is fighting to stay relevant in a massive growing market. And GW's game products are much, much worse than Nintendo's games. But I never said that Nintendo handing off one of its 3 biggest franchises to Retro was a mistake, just that it was emblematic of the amount of regard they had for the franchise--that would never have occurred with a major console mario or zelda release (again, handhelds are a different story). Nintendo was pleasantly surprised by how Prime turned out and even more surprised when it turned out to be one of the best-selling games on the Gamecube. You're framing this as some calculated move that Nintendo always knew would pay off and not what it was--Nintendo didn't view the Metroid franchise as a huge asset following less-than-blockbuster sales for Super Metroid, so they were comfortable farming it out, and that's also the reason why we haven't seen a real new Metroid since Other M ruined things for everyone. Otherwise, Nintendo's flak is completely justified--they've spent the last 20 years throwing gimmick after gimmick at their hardware, hoping something would stick but their real success has continued to be making amazing first-party games that everyone can enjoy. This is why even when the Wii sold a billion units, no one bought any games for it outside of 3-4 excellent first-party titles. You'd be hard-pressed to tell me that sticking with cartridges, red 3d, two screens, motion controls*, 3D, or the soon-to-be-abandoned second gamepad were big hits and great ideas. They've continued to stay in the game because of their amazing first-party titles and we'd all be better off if they dropped console development from their repertoire and just worked on first-party titles and handhelds. *The most hilarious success of the Wii may have been convincing Microsoft and Sony to sink millions of dollars into the development of failed motion control products
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Two screens is actually cool and good. I love it. Look at how tiny one screen is when our phones have become larger for more screen space. Having two screens is nice, but it is completely unnecessary. Most of the time all you get on the second screen is a persistent menu. Also it's hard for me to not think about the fact that DS/3DS games will one day need to be emulated on devices that have a single screen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Retro and Metroid Yeah, fair enough. quote:I don't disagree on your assessment that Nintendo has been unsuccessful in getting most of their gimmicks to stick, but I think some of them actually do improve the gaming experience. Their first real gimmick was the dual screen on the DS which I honestly think has been successful. I'm kind of dreading the Switch replacing the 3DS because I really like the clamshell design and the functionality you get with 2 screens. A lot of the early DS games didn't quite know what to do it with it, but almost everything I've played on the 3DS uses it well. Likewise, I am super in love with the gamepad and the functionality you get with it. I think it could have been a permanent addition to Nintendo console gaming if they hadn't bungled the Wii U's marketing so badly. Some of the features like being able to watch Netflix or play games on a smaller screen when I need to be away from the TV are going to stick around because of the Switch's portability, but losing a secondary display is a step back for a lot of franchises and you lose ways to interact with games and the TV without it. The clamshell design wasn't exclusive to the DS/3DS, nor did it require two screens--I still think the Gameboy Advance SP is the finest handheld Nintendo ever made (except for that baffling decision to remove the headphone jack), and it had a clamshell design. The functionality of the two screens for me would be more compelling if I felt that the second screen really got used in interesting ways. I wouldn't be upset if it was a permanent addition to Nintendo portable console gaming, but 95% of the implementations, including those on major first-party titles, are do-able without a second screen and in a way that wouldn't detract from the experience. The gamepad always felt flimsy to me and as it wasn't really portable, its major function with regard to "gaming on the go" was being able to play Wind Waker HD while pooping. Which was pretty cool, I guess. I have a phone and a tablet already, so the portable Netflix functionality isn't something I need a console for. quote:Having a dozen buttons on a controller is nice but completely unnecessary. When it's used right it greatly improves the gaming experience and removing it is a loss that I'm sad about. It varies by game, though. The reason you put 12 buttons on a controller is because many games can make use of them. Some games don't need them, but you want to be able to cover a wide variety of playstyles. I see your point, and I think the second screen helps, but unlike those buttons it also significantly increases the cost, weight, and fragility of the console, while also reducing its battery life. Look I love my 3DS but as a piece of hardware, I don't think there's much that it does that my Vita couldn't also do. The difference is that the 3DS has an amazing library and Sony forgot the Vita existed 6 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I play a lot of RPGs and having the second screen is really useful for that genre specifically. I'm sure you could do Etrian Odyssey without it, but it just wouldn't be the same. I also really liked using the gamepad as a scope in the handful of games that experiment with that. Tokyo Mirage Sessions did some cool immersion stuff by having it act as the mobile device of your player character. The game would have been basically the same without that, but it's touches like those that I think justify the console experience over the PC experience and it's why the PS4 and XBone don't have any appeal to me. I agree on the touchscreen. That one's definitely going to stick, but that's also because well, phones. I don't particularly care for the scope implementation, since without some kind of stability compensation it ends up being a chore to get precision, which ended up being a pain in the rear end when I played the HD Zelda re-releases on the Wii U, and on handhelds it means I need a shitload more space to play than I'd prefer. I didn't play Tokyo MIrage Sessions but that sounds like a cool implementation. But one or two cool implementations don't justify the whole thing for me. Yeah it's cool to have that real estate on another screen in RPGs, but also unnecessary. But again, I like the second screen, I just wouldn't call it a resounding success or a massive step forward in portable gaming. It's cool, but if you didn't have it the 3DS would still be an amazingly good handheld. I suspect the reason most of these failed (and why I think VR will be a dud) is because they have so little connection to the total gaming experience--it's like 3D in movies--a movie being good or bad is completely independent of whether it is in 2D or 3D. It's hard to come up with a list of more than a couple of games that would have been genuinely good or bad if they had/didn't have touch controls, 3D, a second screen, voice controls, motion controls, etc. You can play a game like Half-Life 2 with a mouse and keyboard or a controller or in VR and it's still a great game. The precision of controls--being able to translate your intent into action--is more important than the method for doing so. Drone posted:Except the Switch doesn't have touchscreen functionality when it serves as a console. Since it's confined to the dock. Wait, gently caress I hadn't even considered this but of course. Hahaha oh my god what the gently caress Drone posted:It's almost like the Switch is an ultimately directionless and stale console from a company that has no idea what its non-Japanese market actually wants, and a futile attempt to capture lightning in a bottle like they did with the original Wii. It's weird to look back on the Wii now. On the one hand yeah, it was a huge success in terms of hardware sales. Nintendo grew the market by selling consoles to people who had never bought a console before. On the other hand, the game library for it was terrible, and beyond first party titles, Wii owners seldom bought games for it. It had abysmal attach rates throughout its lifespan. This was exacerbated by the fact that all those first-time console owners treated the Wii like they'd treat a board game--something you break out for a diversion occasionally, then put back on the shelf and don't think about. They weren't super-interested in buying a bunch of extra games for it and they *definitely* weren't interested in buying a new, updated version of it when the Wii U came out. Is it possible to look at it as a successful failure? That's kind of how I view the Wii. It's like the Avatar of game consoles TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Ugleb posted:I think VR has longer legs and if the current crop of headsets makes enough money to fund a next generation then we may be on to something. I think it ultimately suffers the same challenge as motion tech though, you need more space/specific conditions to use it well. Anything that involves getting out of a chair means you need more open space in your home than most of us have, and if you are wearing an immersive headset then that space needs to be made safe and kept clear otherwise you walk into something painful or tread on the cat/dog/small child that decided to get in the way. Even if you arent getting out of the chair, being cut off from the world with cats/dogs/small children about could lead to issues. I'm not convinced VR will amount to anything more than 3D did, as it only really has applications in gaming and pornography to begin with. On the gaming side, the experiences you can actually create in VR are very limited, based on both the restrictions of space (you don't want people wandering around their living rooms, tripping over poo poo) and potential motion sickness issues--moving and looking can cause disorientation and motion sickness. Racing games and flight games are fine, because you have a fixed position, but something simple like walking around a house causes issues when you don't move how your body expects. This is why a lot of the VR games we've seen so far resemble on-rails experiences or roller coasters, to mitigate this (Interesting story: A friend of mine was working on a VR game where you play as a person in a wheelchair, to mitigate this effect). While this can likely be fixed over time (and there are workarounds I've seen with zero-gravity movement), there's a real question as to whether or not you want to pay $600 for a device that has these limitations. The porn will stick around, though
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Actually, VR has educational and industrial uses that 3D never did. I know a guy who worked on VR software for industrial processes, that they then successfully adapted into teaching software for developmentally challenged children, and this was before Rift even had a devkit headset out for backers. Yeah, that's a good point. I had forgotten about educational uses. Def see an application there. Not convinced it'll be an every-household or even most-households tech, though
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Is Metroid really one of the three biggest though? Its held in good regard, but its never really been a big seller. I feel like Kirby, Animal Crossing, these days Fire Emblem, and even new IPs like Splatoon are way bigger contenders for that throne. Today? definitely not. In 1998? Yeah. You could make a case for Donkey Kong Country being #3 following the DKC revival on the Super Nintendo, though. It was dead before that. I think it was still a bigger deal than Kirby for a long time and Animal Crossing didn't show up until 2001.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Very true, a lot of mine pulled from more recent sources. Although I figured it was always the case that Metroid never moved much in Japan, despite the franchise being quite great. Nah, you're right about that--it was way more popular in the US. The exception was Super Metroid, which just came out too late in the US--it came out like 5 months before the PlayStation launched. But after that, Metroid killed it in the US and ate poo poo in Japan, which is probably why they don't give a poo poo about it anymore. Some sales numbers Metroid (NES): US: 1.35 million, Japan: 1.04 million, Europe: 340k, total: 2.73 million units Metroid 2: RoS: total: 1.72 million units Metroid 3 (Super Metroid): US: 460k, Japan: 780k, Europe: 180k, total: 1.42 million units Metroid 4 (Metroid Fusion): US: 980k, Japan: 180k, Europe: 230k, total: 1.39 million units Metroid Prime: US: 1.47 million, Japan: 120k, Europe: 560k, total: 2.15 million units Metroid Zero Mission: US: 473k, Japan: ~80k
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:The lack of new Metroid and F-Zero games is basically why I gave up on Nintendo. I mean Mario is great but when I have a hankering for Mario I just load up SMW or Mario 64. the lack of even a 2d metroid on the 3DS astounds me. F-Zero was cool, but there's a glut of good racing games out there. The new mario games have been good, though. Did you play Mother 3? I thought it was amazing. Itoi isn't going to do another, though
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
LordAba posted:Metroid: Other M was the only game that I bought that I traded in after a day. If there's ever a textbook written on how to kill a videogame franchise, Metroid: Other M should be like the first loving case study. Everything about that game was wrong and bad
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:40K really does need a massive mechanical overhaul and an entire new game with no backwards-compatability in codices and rules. It definitely needs this, but I don't fault GW for not wanting to invalidate three dozen $60 rulebooks sold over the last few years. They're pretty deep down the rabbit hole with that poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Yeah GW would never do that. I didn't say they wouldn't; just that I would understand why if they didn't. Do you want them to invalidate everything or not?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:When has GW ever produced a good game (by modern terms)? Some of their games were good for their time, but that was an era when games of this sort were very poorly designed because no one really knew what they were doing. Presumably that shouldn't stop them from being able to make a good game for its time now, but in order to do that, you'd have to invest much more into design and playtesting than they currently do. And also develop a strong digital strategy. Hell, even their supposedly "good" competitors have p. poo poo digital strategies e: But there's still no getting around the bad will you'd create from invalidating that many expensive books overnight. Could be mitigated with free digital releases, but you'd have to have those all ready to roll out of the gate, and they'd have to be better than the AoS free nonsense because holy gently caress those were bad
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I mean, we assume you're aware they literally did that to Fantasy, but I'll mention it just in case it somehow slipped your notice. TheChirurgeon posted:I didn't say they wouldn't; just that I would understand why if they didn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 19:34
|
|