[QUOTE="Pedro"]

Didn't Rare made a Zelda clone called Starfox Adventure and noone talks about that game. I think folks buy Zelda games because of Nostalagia and not necessarily for its quality.

dvader654

And I am the one with the warped point of view. Good job proving your point. :|

[QUOTE="Pedro"]Didn't Rare made a Zelda clone called Starfox Adventure and noone talks about that game.c_rake

People tend not to talk about Star Fox unless its Star Fox 64. Plus, I heard Adventure has dreadful padding in the form of collectathons throughout, and that undoubtedly doesn't help it in the least.

Dreadful padding? It wasn't as bad as Skyward Sword.

Didn't Rare made a Zelda clone called Starfox Adventure and noone talks about that game. I think folks buy Zelda games because of Nostalagia and not necessarily for its quality. Games like Darksiders succeeded because they combine multiple elements from a varietyof games and does not try to be simply a clone.

lol, huh? No story, shallow & basic combat......not the best game ever.

Just my opinion.

ristactionjakso

I share this opinion.

Not sure if anything will come of this, but Nintendo has licensed the Unity engine for internal and external use, so a theoretically a lot of indie games could pop up on it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-19-nintendo-licenses-unity-engine-for-wii-u-both-in-house-and-out

In the social and mobile gaming corners of the world, Unity is massive - more than a million people are registered to use it. That means there are loads of games powered by Unity that |could be, through some tweaking here and there, converted for Wii U.

CarnageHeart

Well thats positive.

Well for one a numeric rating is a stupid approach to something that is not quantifiable.What is the real difference between a game rate 8 vs 9 or 9 vs 9.5 (which is even more stupid that the previous comparison)?

Hmmm

Demon Souls

Dark Souls

God of War 3

Ninja Gaiden 2

Those games come to mind.

Sad but true. I know there are people who believe that the lack of creativity in most retail games is due to the length of the console generation but IMHO the real problem is ever increasing costs. Indies are becoming ever more important commercially and creatively. Talented young developers who don't want to spent years modeling Mario's hat or CoD's guns are choosing instead to make their own games and a lot of fed up veterans are following their example.CarnageHeart

Very true. Thats why its kind of sad that so many want a new gen with "better" graphics. I don't think most people understand the time and cost for "better" graphics. The higher the fidelity the greater the time and cost. However, most folks aren't willing to pay for this higher graphical fidelity and most companies are not willing to dump more money than they are already dumping into new franchises especially if its on a newwer system with a significantly smaller user base.

If were are refering to Gamespot reviews, then its a waste of time guessing since their reviews have been proven to be practically useless.

I don't think he will. Most designers don't push the limits of the current gen of hardware because they live within the confines of licensed engines (overwhelming UE3.0) but more powerful hardware will allow those engines to take massive leaps forward. Of course, its not just about texture detail, its about AI, physics, lighting, level geometry, enemy count, the mallebility of a level (which includes but is not limited to destructibility) and animation.

CarnageHeart

I am sorry that makes little sense. You are claiming that the software is the keep back but newer hardware would solve that problem? And I don't know where folks are getting this idea of MASSIVE leaps or SIGNIFICANT improvements graphically.