|
Post by Nam on Apr 29, 2012 23:31:43 GMT
- Ditto Ratchet and Clank. I'd like Quark, too. Quark's been confirmed as being in the background of a Ratchet & Clank based level. Fighting something from God Of War... yeah the backgrounds are apparently just as much a mishmash, with the Jak & Daxter level being merged with a gold course. Thing is, they could bolster this list with a few villains. If Smash Bros can include Bowser and Ganondorf, there's no reason not to have the likes of Dr Nefarious and ... err, yeah the bad guys from the other games.
|
|
|
Post by Samface on Apr 30, 2012 10:10:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Juliett. Bravo. Alfa. on Apr 30, 2012 10:28:52 GMT
The funny part is that Sega did put a car in a fighting game. And it was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Samface on Apr 30, 2012 10:34:23 GMT
D'you know, I'd forgotten that!
|
|
|
Post by Juliett. Bravo. Alfa. on Apr 30, 2012 10:38:57 GMT
And I'll say this: For some reason the cars in the new Twisted Metal can turn into giant robots and I think that is one of Sweet Tooth's super ultra moves.
So yeah, Penny Arcade, step it up. HACKS.
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Apr 30, 2012 19:06:06 GMT
That Penny Arcade is [censored]ing hilarious, I wish I could have a tenth of their talent. Panel two, [censored]ing christ I'm still laughing
|
|
|
Post by Tanner / Ogilvie on Apr 30, 2012 19:30:48 GMT
That Crash Bandicoot is on no one's wishlist makes me a sad panda. Very, very sad. Did you fall asleep for a decade in 1994? I never really took notice, but Sony always seemed more decentralised than Nintendo is with its games. Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, Metroid, etc. all seem pretty solidly in Nintendo's pocket, whereas all the big whigs of Sony I can think of - Snake, Crash, Jak, Ratchet, Spyro, etc. - are associated with other companies. It might just be misinformation on my part but it looks to me like Nintendo's got a more solid grip on things than Sony does. Which makes sense - Sony produces all sorts of hardware, whereas Nintendo is pretty solidly a gaming company.
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on Apr 30, 2012 19:35:49 GMT
I never really took notice, but Sony always seemed more decentralised than Nintendo is with its games. Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, Metroid, etc. all seem pretty solidly in Nintendo's pocket, whereas all the big whigs of Sony I can think of - Snake, Crash, Jak, Ratchet, Spyro, etc. - are associated with other companies. It might just be misinformation on my part but it looks to me like Nintendo's got a more solid grip on things than Sony does. Which makes sense - Sony produces all sorts of hardware, whereas Nintendo is pretty solidly a gaming company. I've not done much research myself but you're not wrong. Most of the stuff more commonly associated with the PlayStation's success had nothing to do with Sony. I don't think that was a bad decision or a sign of Nintendo having more of a grip on their brands, though, more that the two companies had (and have) different priorities. Which is partly why this game baffles me somewhat. At the end of the day it does look fun, but I do question the decision-making that went into this.
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Apr 30, 2012 20:51:10 GMT
I never really took notice, but Sony always seemed more decentralised than Nintendo is with its games. Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, Metroid, etc. all seem pretty solidly in Nintendo's pocket, whereas all the big whigs of Sony I can think of - Snake, Crash, Jak, Ratchet, Spyro, etc. - are associated with other companies. No, that's not what you said. What you said was: Again - 1994 until the 360's release? All Playstation, all the time. The Xbox and Gamecube were [censored]ing footnotes by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 30, 2012 21:30:29 GMT
That Crash Bandicoot is on no one's wishlist makes me a sad panda. Very, very sad. I'd be swayed by the inclusion of some big names attributed to the success of the PlayStation, even if they weren't exclusive. Spryo, Crash Bandicoot, Lara Croft, Claude from GTA 3, Cloud from Final Fantasy VII, to name the ones that spring to my mind. Spryo, Crash Bandicoot, Lara Croft, Claude from GTA 3, Cloud from Final Fantasy VII
|
|
|
Post by Tanner / Ogilvie on May 1, 2012 7:33:24 GMT
Again - 1994 until the 360's release? All Playstation, all the time. The Xbox and Gamecube were [censored]ing footnotes by comparison. I'm not talking the Playstation, which is a piece of hardware. I'm talking the actual games themselves. How many of them actually belong to Sony, rather than just play on their console? By contrast, I'm pretty sure Nintendo holds the rights to all the big Nintendo names. That is what I mean by a gaming company in the context of this, that you actually own the games rather than simply supply the medium they are played on. ...curses. I must have skimmed over that somehow. You win, good sir. I've not done much research myself but you're not wrong. Most of the stuff more commonly associated with the PlayStation's success had nothing to do with Sony. I don't think that was a bad decision or a sign of Nintendo having more of a grip on their brands, though, more that the two companies had (and have) different priorities. Not terribly surprising. Sega decided the console business wasn't for it so went into software. Sony likewise has probably decided making/owning/etc. videogames isn't really for it either; why would it invest so much in one subsection when they have their fingers in so many other pies? Heck, if one looks at what Sony and Nintendo are classified as, Nintendo is classifed as electronics and video gaming, whereas Sony has telecommunications, semiconductors, broadcasting, and a ton of other things in addition to the forays into video gaming. "If it works well for another game, why not rip it off? " - the logic of many a video game designer. Smash Bros. very simple means of gameplay, as I recall, was what made it so appealing over other fighters, never mind that it had so many titans of videogaming rolled into one enchilada. Between gameplay and the brand recognition, such a formula was bound to work. At the very least they didn't steal the percentage damage meter. I'm not quite sure how the bars and such work, but it looks like as you deal damage the number you have grows. I assume this builds up to some sort of special attack. At the very least, that's different from Smash Bros., which is a good sign. My question is, how the heck do they measure victory? While some stages have a clear means of ringouts due to no walls, it doesn't look like there's a knockout feature, which means some of those stages have no means of victory, as they are sealed shut(barring the background). While seeming graphically like Smash Bros., I think they will be able to separate it gameplay-wise if they play their cards right. --- Also huh. I just realised that you can see Sandover Village from Jak 1 in the video. Dear developers: Please don't have the Lurker Shark as a hazard. Oh please God do not.
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on May 1, 2012 16:45:07 GMT
I'm not talking the Playstation, which is a piece of hardware. I'm talking the actual games themselves. How many of them actually belong to Sony, rather than just play on their console? By contrast, I'm pretty sure Nintendo holds the rights to all the big Nintendo names. That is what I mean by a gaming company in the context of this, that you actually own the games rather than simply supply the medium they are played on. I still don't understand what the contrast is.
|
|