>>189134 >They stopped Capcom from producing any Marvel fighting games After Marvel 3; I'm not seeing the problem here.
>>189136 Pretty sure Origins is still on sale on PS3 and 360. Could be wrong. I do remember they pulled MvC2 as well as MvC3's DLC... which was then banned due to its now limited access which torpedoed my Rocket/Shuma/Jill team
The licensing for these two TR games confuses me. Temple of Osiris and Rise of the Tomb Raiders are two entirely different full-priced releases right? Are they under development by different people? And are they in different continuities?
>>189104 the last two things being more true, unless they added a lot more to that series. Be yes it's a different team using "classic" Lara Croft while that New one is reboot Lara Croft with the Sam relationship stuff.
>>189107 But they're under totally different management right? Or did Squenix decide it was fine with releasing two separate TR games to two two different teams, kind of like how Activision has three teams to pump out their Cawladudies?
save fileimage:140596357500.jpg(126kB , 608x800 , Bundesarchiv_Bild_146III-373,_Modell_der_Neugestaltung_Berlins_('Germania').jpg)
>>188958 Yea focused on some shocking accurate alternate history bits in there. Because the Berlin we saw parts of what what they wanted to design as the world capital. Would have loved to have gotten into that building for a mission. Architects and Engineers have said that dome would have been so massive that its environmental control systems (Heat/AC?Etc) Would have created its own climate and weather inside the building. I hope we get a Sequel, Maybe Focusing on the Son of BJ if not him saved by the Black Sun Dimension Critters and spat out later.
>>188374 Noting is wrong with wanting more of X. That's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is "I want more of X, but will complain about Y because it's the opposite of X, and when X comes out I won't buy it in lieu of complaining about Y2, and if anyone calls me out on this, I'll blame the publishers of X for not marketing it enough, the fans of Y for being immature misogynists, and then move onto Z when I've properly shamed everyone and absolved myself of any fiscal or even proverbial responsibility to actually support the things I'm demanding."
>>188375 That controversy only makes sense if you've bought into the dogma, or speak it fluently enough to farm it for pageviews.
>>188378 > And if a game said they made sure not to have any black people and you said that'd be great, you'd be racist.
Are you for real? GTA SA had no asian main character, and at no point there was the intention of having one, so by argument anybody who liked it is a racist. Sleeping Dogs had an asian main character which means he wasn't black . Totally a racist game!
>>187334 >There seems to be a misconception that graphics don't matter, because NES games are fun. I really don't get that. Yes, NES games are fun but they're just that: fun.
In reality, a LOT of those old games also had pretty damn good graphics back in the day. The first Super Mario may look crude today, but to a wee lad like myself back in the 85 who was stuck with atari (and my bro's commodore 64) graphics, that thing looked unbelivably cool and it sure is one of the reasons why the game attracted my attention. Graphics have always mattered, it really isn't a modern trend.
>>187487 Right. And the 80s/90s are probably the only time you could really make a distinction between graphics and art direction. Games like Final Fantasy or Legend of Zelda had great concept/official art, but the graphics at the time couldn't even begin to express it. These days, though, there's no need for that distinction: even our handhelds are capable of amazing detail, so there's no excuse for graphics not to match the concept art except, perhaps, in very little details.
Take Child of Light, for instance. In one of the "Making of" interviews, someone (producer? art director?) said that the concept art wasn't meant to be some ideal, but to actually be within the game. Transistor seems much the same.
However, I can understand someone liking the graphics but not the art direction. Wind Waker is a good example of this: the animation and graphics are awesome, but the choice of cel-shading turned a lot of people off.
>>187486 The difference between graphics and art direction is the difference between some "Real is Brown" shooter and Okami, or Katamari Damacy. It's saying that a game might have lower polycounts or lower res textures, but still look better than a game with more because of the artistry involved in using what they have.