Well, this is certainly relevant.
Anyone happen to know if GB2 had better gameplay than the first game? I love the concept of the game, but GB1's gameplay was so bad I'm super-hesitant about BG3.
Some random dude no one cares about from a random website no one cares about.
And you should care because his random list of games is just as valid as every other random list of games from people and websites people do care about.
"If they can't do folders...."
If they can't do folders, which have been a fundamental aspect of UI design since 1985, Sony should close up shop, because they're clearly too incompetent to make it in the tech industry.
Not at that price.
Solid visuals, gameplay is a bit of a mess.
Innovation is not the same thing as invention.
Analog control sticks, for example, existed long, long, LONG before Nintendo... but it was the N64 controller that made them industry-standard.
...I think people in general are giving Nintendo way too much credit.
Odds are this is just Koei-Tecmo adding in a female character... because fanservice is their bread and butter.
My favorite is when people say they absolutely object to the option of Link ever having a gender option, because his "established character" is male.
Because, you know, having a penis between his legs is such an integral part of Link's personality.
I mean, why else would he give a flying **** about Zelda?
Last I checked, innovation was exactly Nintendo's chief appeal. It sure as hell ain't a diverse library of third party games, a versatile digital platform, or impressive hardware.
Fact of the matter is that the biggest innovations in gaming history all come from Nintendo.
Do you like what is now the traditional gamepad layout?
Thank Nintendo.
Do you like analog sticks?
Thank Nintendo.
Do you like rumble feedback?
Guess what?
If you seriously have a problem with female characters existing in a video game... you do, in fact, seriously have a problem.
...But not necessarily a problem to boast about on the Internet.
It happens because Nintendo realizes the strongest part of their brand is their first-party software. They *know* the people who buy Nintendo platforms do so in order to play Nintendo games, they don't lower the prices for their games because their games sell consistently (therefore they don't need to), and they don't flood their market with extra copies because doing so would rapidly devalue their software.
There's a reason why Sony and Microsoft's first-...
Welcome to Every Nintendo Platform Ever.
It sucks. We know. It happens to *every* game worth playing.
Just be glad every WiiU game also gets a digital copy. That kind of thing is very nice, even if Nintendo's digital platform sucks all kinds of ass.
Yeah. That's pretty stupid.
And, of course, knowing N4G, I'm not even a little surprised you found someone to disagree with an entirely objective, factual statement.
This article would be much more relevant and valuable if it wasn't the same thing we've seen every week for the past six years.
I doubt it. PS3 has a much bigger install base, especially in the West.
And anyway, at the recent stockholders meeting two of the big three points were the surprisingly good sales of PC games overseas (basically Trails in the Sky being a runaway hit on Steam) and how well they'd polished their pipeline to make porting Vita games to PS3 (and/or vice versa) quickly, efficient tly and easily.
The audiences are not the same. Do you not realize that it is physically impossible to live in both Europe and North America simultaneously?
Of course, it *also* stands a chance of not being localized... especially if they don't do a PS4 port.
Given that we're talking about 2017/2018 at the earliest.
PSV base game, ported to PS3 definitely, and possibly to PS4 as well.
Falcom has stated that they don't like the idea of breaking apart a series on different platforms, so Vita and PS3 versions are all-but guaranteed.
I don't really see why it matters. Whether they release the game sooner in multiple installments or later in one fell swoop... it won't affect the potential quality of the game one way or the other. This is Square-Enix, after all.
(And no, fanboys, that is *not* a vote of confidence).
The simple fact of the matter is that Square-Enix is absolutely incompetent at game development. They don't know how to manage their projects, they don't know ho...
Wasn't the latest news (like from just last week) that 2016 would still see the game in the "planning" stage?
And even if that weren't the case, LMFAO at anyone dumb enough to think Square-Enix competent enough to get a Final Fantasy game out quickly.