I saw a demo of Zelda on Kotaku I think, and the sword did seem to move 1:1 without any problems - worked way better than it did in the presentation anyway.
Haha, it's on Gametrailers as "Microsoft's E3 highlights". The more I see of Kinect the more I think it's going to fail. You have to remain standing to play the games? That's strictly party game territory right there.
Did you see the part in the Nintendo conference where they announced the developers for the 3DS? "Hideo Kojima!" {cheeeers}, "Level-5!" {cheeeers}, "THQ!" {laughter}
Nintendo had a couple of other laughable/cringeworthy moments too, (aside from Miyamoto shooting himself in the legs with arrows). After the Wii Party trailer was shown, ONE PERSON clapped.
"After the Wii Party trailer was shown, ONE PERSON clapped"
Lol! I noticed that. Also noticed some guy making Michael Jackson noises everytime the audience applauded.
Edit: Wait the MJ memorial service was held there last year! Love how where Michael Jackson's coffin was last year, there were now Wii stands with playable demos of Zelda
Originally Posted by nim Originally Posted by -Adam- Thankfully the reports coming in about Zelda are positive. It didn't look 1:1 AT ALL when Miyamoto demonstrated it. I'm warming up to the art style now too. I just hope there's a left-handed option or I'm screwed.
Looks like we may be in trouble.
"IGN: In past Zelda games, people noticed that Link was obviously left-handed. And I know that all the Zelda games are stand-alones -- but in this particular game, will there be a lefty option for left-handed people?
Aonuma: It's interesting because people say "all you have to do is switch it." But in reality, it's really hard. You have to change all the models -- you have to make two of everything. So really you're making two complete games, one left-handed version and one right-handed version. We just can't do that. For Twilight Princess, what we did was just create a mirror -- we flipped everything. And if that worked I guess we could do it that way, but again having to create two games is not something we want to do. We just hope that people will play it right-handed."
But on a better note:
"IGN: At last night's roundtable it was hinted and maybe even answered that you might have orchestral music like Super Mario Galaxy 2 has. Will Skyward Sword be fully orchestrated, or just part of it, or what?
Aonuma: This is actually something we've been talking about for quite a while. I've discussed with Mr. Miyamoto, "are we going to do orchestration?" and mulled it over for a while. We got here to E3 and still didn't have an answer, so last night in the roundtable when the question came up, Mr. Miyamoto just said "I guess we're going to have to." And I said "We can? We can do it, really?" But, to be honest, I haven't had the chance to sit with him and get the OK on that. So, to be honest, I don't know either. He might tell me he was just joking around later."
Originally Posted by OldManClayton "...but again having to create two games is not something we want to do. We just hope that people will play it right-handed."
I don't actually understand why they need to create a mirrored world if link is left-handed. I played Twilight Princess left-handed and honestly never noticed the difference, but with Skyward Sword it'll be much harder to do. meh.
I was really excited to see there was a trailer for a new X-Com game - then I watched it, and it's just another lame FPS.
It just doesn't make any sense. The original turn-based strategy games were hugely popular, received fantastic reviews (IGN's #1 pc game of all time), and were commercially successful.
The later spin-offs (including the FPS "X-Com: Enforcer") were nowhere near as popular, received generally negative reviews, and didn't sell.
So why, if you're going to resurrect the X-Com franchise, would you make another FPS?!
Simple, turn based strategy games such as Xcom were what was selling back in the day, now I can't imagine anything turn based being commercially successful (except for Civilization, but they are different games). FPSes in the other hand are generally profitable (if not the most selling genre). Enforcer was simply crap and released over 5 years after the series had it's peak.
TO be honest I'm curious about the new xcom game, but in the last trailer I saw it looked more like left4dead+team fortress2 mixed together than something actually inspired by the xcom series.
Rubbish. They didn't stop making proper X-Com games because they are no longer profitable - they stopped because of internal problems at Hasbro (which killed off X-Com:Genesis). A decent squad-level, turn-based strategy game like X-Com would still sell now if anyone made it. X-Com is still (as of 2009) rated as one of the best games ever made, and still has a huge following (as evidenced by the numerous fansites and fan-made clones). Plus, they'd have very little competition - whereas the market is completely flooded with FPSs.
If it's the realtime aspect they're worried about, then they could have an optional RTS system, as in Apoc.
Just remake X-Com 1 (possibly with some of the extra aliens/tech from X-Com 2) in quality 3D, and they'd have a hit. I guess the real problem is that it would take a lot longer and be more expensive to make than a FPS (which must be one of the cheapest and easiest genres to produce these days).
As for the new FPS, no FPS will ever be as good as the original X-Com, let alone as good as a modern remake could potentially be - but as FPSs go, it looks pretty decent. Nothing to do with X-Com though, apart from having aliens, and what FPS doesn't.
Originally Posted by Sketchy Rubbish. They didn't stop making proper X-Com games because they are no longer profitable - they stopped because of internal problems at Hasbro (which killed off X-Com:Genesis).
Yes, but that doesn't explain why no classic xcom game has been made since 1997. Two high profile publishers (atari and 2k) had the rights for the franchise but neither of them made a tb squad based xcom game. Even xcom apocalypse (1997) was considered a commercial flop and it was released at a time when there was still a good share of turn based strategy games in the market.
Originally Posted by Sketchy A decent squad-level, turn-based strategy game like X-Com would still sell now if anyone made it.
How many squad level turn based strategy games were released recently ? Sad truth, but there is a reason why they are so rare nowadays.
Originally Posted by Sketchy Rubbish. X-Com is still (as of 2009) rated as one of the best games ever made, and still has a huge following (as evidenced by the numerous fansites and fan-made clones). Plus, they'd have very little competition - whereas the market is completely flooded with FPSs.
I never said the contrary, I love the classic xcom games myself.
The thing is, it's been almost 15 years since the last xcom game, and while the series still has a big following, that's definitely not enough to make a best seller. In 15 years the industry grew a huge lot, those xcom fans (like you and me) are a minority within the mainstream. Like I said, even over crowded the fps market is still going a huge lot stronger than the turn based strategy games market. What 2k is doing is actually a very smart move.
They took a well known franchise (to make it stand out above the other fpses and along the way captivate the curiosity of a few xcom fans)and put a studio with a reputation for great action games in charge. My prediction is that it will be a commercial and critical success, in spite of having very little in common with the original xcom games.
Originally Posted by Sketchy
Just remake X-Com 1 (possibly with some of the extra aliens/tech from X-Com 2) in quality 3D, and they'd have a hit. I guess the real problem is that it would take a lot longer and be more expensive to make than a FPS (which must be one of the cheapest and easiest genres to produce these days).
There are many remakes and games made by other companies that fit that description well. Also your perception of FPSes being cheaper to produce than turn based games is wrong. Just as an example, Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2 cost around 50 millions to make and it was a relatively short game, in the other hand ufo:alien invasion ( a well known xcom 3d remake) cost 0$ to be made and was for the most part made by a single person.
Originally Posted by Sketchy
Just remake X-Com 1 (possibly with some of the extra aliens/tech from X-Com 2) in quality 3D, and they'd have a hit. I guess the real problem is that it would take a lot longer and be more expensive to make than a FPS (which must be one of the cheapest and easiest genres to produce these days).
As for the new FPS, no FPS will ever be as good as the original X-Com, let alone as good as a modern remake could potentially be - but as FPSs go, it looks pretty decent. Nothing to do with X-Com though, apart from having aliens, and what FPS doesn't.
You can't compare apples with oranges. Anyway I'm not expecting any classic Xcom saying this FPS is the best game in the XCom series. I'm a bit skeptical about the game as well (I mean what the hell were those things they were shooting at in the trailer ?) but I'm still curious to see how it will turn out.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Ski
Love how where Michael Jackson's coffin was last year, there were now Wii stands with playable demos of Zelda 
