metroid and zelda too. elebits is a great little game and im excited about No More Heros ( iwas a huge killer7 fan) but they do need more games, however, they have a handful of great games in 1 year. notable mentions, i've hear rabbids, warioware, umbrella chronicles are fun games too...and RE4 was great (i never played it originally so it ws new to me).
This is one of the reasons why I think things could change a bit in the US (regarding overall rankings). There still aren't many games in these genres (let alone good ones), so if the PS3 can get fans of these genres to buy a PS3, then it might be enough to put the PS3 ahead of the 360 in the US. A lot of these games may not hit until 2009 though, so it might take a while if this does happen. IOW, expect another year of solid PS2 SW sales. You need to start adding Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn to your list of good Wii games. The voice acting in that game was some of the worst I've ever heard though...but that just made it more entertaining.
i know its an rpg but whats the play comparable too? I dont play enough to get into some deep rpg game with minimal action.
It's a strategy rpg. I'd say a faster paced final fantasy tactics with minimal character customization. There really isn't much out there like it.
joan d arc is like a faster paced fft lite which would be similar to fire emblem i suppose. great game, but not enough side quests or replay value after you complete the game. definitely worth my $30.
I will say Fire Emblem leans more on the strategy side than the RPG side. It is basically like FFT, but it doesn't let you do some of the more RPG-esque that FFT would do (mostly fighting battles on your own to level up characters, earn money, pick up more items, etc.). Some people might like this since it definitely adds more strategy to the game, although I really didn't like those design aspects of the game. I would of preferred it if a few things were changed, although I still really enjoyed the game (definitely would have been in my top 5 or so of 2007 if I played it earlier).
Blasphemers! You two obviously have no appreciation for great co-op games! "Shallow, boring gameplay?" Heck no! Do you have any idea how much work you have to put in to get really good at Strikers? The original, anyway, I haven't played the new one. One of the all-time 4-player games, man. Nothing quite like playing Strikers with 4 people. Metal Gear? Yeah, Metal Gear is great, like I said. But it's the kinda thing I play once, MAYBE twice, and I'm done with it. Strikers I can play forever given enough people. It's all about the replay value. For me something like Rainbow Six: Vegas or Gears of War has more replay value than MGS. That's just my personal preference.
Co-op is the only way the game is entertaining because it cannot hold up on it's own at all. I had a better time playing ice hockey(NES).
Resistance 2: 60 player battles 8 plater co-op 2 full campaigns You know the graphics/audio/gameplay will be pumped up to 11 I'd say Sony has their first official PS3 exclusive must have (besides MGS4)... Release Q4 '08
Well yeah, but it's worth-it for co-op alone. I'm the same way with GRAW. GRAW single-player campaign bores me to tears. So do the multiplayer vs. matches. But co-op campaign mode is awesome.
If you thought Resistance 1 was mediocre, what makes you think Insomniac will be able to deliver on Resistance 2 (especially if they're under the impression that Resistance 1 was far from mediocre)? I hope things like coop or 60 player MP aren't changing a mediocre game into a must have game. Can't remember if I said this before, but I hope Insomniac doesn't start off the game slow like they did in the original. That part of the game was a bit average (maybe slightly above average), and it turned off a lot of people, making them think the whole game was like that. The article mentions something about a change in this area, so hopefully that won't be a problem. They could have awesome gameplay, graphics, audio, etc., but a lot of people will miss out on that if they get bored in the first few hours (or whatever). While this didn't affect me, it is probably my biggest complaint about the original.
Well only if it runs in 60 fps. then it's **** right? I can see how these bothered you. I did not like how big the maps were at first when i went online but I think it was cause I just wasn't used to it. I ended up really liking hunting for people and being able to ambush other players while they were fighting. Maps that large reward the skilled players since you won't just keep getting thrown near guys, when you see a guy you need to kill him or it's going to be another 45 seconds before you have another opportunity. As for vehicles, again I can see why that would bother you but I thought it fit the game better to avoid putting Hale in a big machine for a big chunk of the time. I think it would take away at the anomaly of what Hale is and what he alone can achieve. This fits in more with the story but everyone puts a different priority over that. I think you are going a bit far with the Tank war request. You're asking something from the game that it never claimed to be. That doesn't even sound fun. those things more a few feet a second. You're right though, the enemies were really similar and if they weren't you knew they were going to be a boss. I thought when they started adding the giant walkers though the game just exploded (the last quarter maybe) there was so much going on in the battlefield and so many different types of ways the enemies were coming after you. Blood is always a great motivator. I can't remember ever noticing any at all but I'm sure it was just subtle. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the game was lacking detail. The only thing that ever really bothered me about it when when they added the Chimera to multiplayer. A lot of people liked it because there are more crappy players than good ones. It really equalizes out the playing field since all someone has to do is hit you with a tag and shoot away. It's why I stopped going online with it.
I didn't really think the enemies were that similar. Hybrids, Advanced Hybrids, Hardfangs, and Steelheads were similar I guess (although each had different weapons and most employed different tactics against you IIRC). The Crawlers, Leapers, and Rollers were sort of similar too, but the rest were pretty unique IMO (Menials, Howlers, Titans, Slipskulls, Widowmakers, Stalkers, Gray Jacks, and Angels). Sort of like what HL2 does (multiple types of Combine soldiers, headcrabs/zombies, antlions, etc.). Now that I think about it though, 90% of the enemies you faced were probably in the first few categories, especially if you ignore the last few hours of the game. The game would usually send a large groups of Hybrids (or similar enemy) at you, maybe freshening it up once in a while with some Crawlers (or similar enemy). Outside of the Menials and maybe the Gray Jacks and Slipskulls, I'm trying to remember if you even fought as many as 20 or so of the other enemy types in the whole game (you'd probably go through 20 or so of the other enemies every 10-20 minutes or so). In HL2, IIRC you'd end up facing a lot of combine soldiers during one section, a lot of zombies in another, then a bunch of antlions, etc. Insomniac could probably balance that more, although I can understand the thinking of focusing on a bunch of hybrids, which are like their infantry I guess. Better to send 40 hybrids than 5 Titans (or whatever). I'm using the following FAQ for the enemy names BTW: http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps3/file/928399/48119
Because they decided to use that power on large scale battles (EX: more enemies), better AI, better graphics, etc., not to mention keeping the framerate rock solid so that few would even know the difference. They probably could have released the game at 60 FPS, but it would have dipped below that frequently (assuming they didn't make any compromises to the game), which wouldn't be acceptable to Insomniac. FWIW, I have my doubts that R2 will be 60 FPS, especially if there will be 60+ enemies on the screen. Maybe they can add some motion blur (ala Killzone 2 or Uncharted). If there was anything else you didn't like about R1, it wouldn't surprise me if R2 was more or less the same as well (although some things will definitely be different). I'd certainly be skeptical, similar to how people are/were skeptical of KZ2, and at least we've seen video of the changes they've made over the original.
Dang Assassin's Creed sold a lot. It was a good game, but I think they can make a lot of improvement to part 2 to make it really sick.
