Gamers unite -HQ | Page 140 | WrestleZone Forums

Gamers unite -HQ

Which is a huge rarity. They tend to call themselves hacktivists as well.
 
Got Batman: Arkham Origins and Epic Mickey 2 for the Wii U in the sales - worked out at less than a £10 each.

If the former is anywhere near as good as Arkham City was on the WiiU then I will be happy; the latter should hopefully fill in the immense gap of a finale that the first game suffered from.
 
Arkham Origins, having been the first in the series not developed by Rocksteady and also the first in the series to be worked on by about half a dozen studios (including one based just two miles from me, which is nice), is a big step down from the first two. It's still fundamentally an Arkham game; everything just feels a bit off. Whoever oversaw it knew what the basic mechanics were, just not why they were that way. There are enough small changes that the flow is disrupted. It's a direct-to-video sequel, basically.

Arkham Knight is being developed by Rocksteady again and looks gorgeous (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/check-out-new-batman-arkham-knight-gameplay-footag/1100-6423791/). Kevin Conroy is back as Batman's voice, which is good because Kevin Conroy is Batman's voice.
 
Барбоса;5083189 said:
That bad, eh?

I'd imagine it was fine if I had the patience for the camera but I do not.
 
Arkham Origins did however have the best writing especially considering how the original intended story didn't work out. Deathstroke was supposed to have a much larger role.
 
Anyone played Infamous: Second Son? I got it for Christmas and have yet to open it due to things such as:

Having a busy life, and
Being addicted to NBA 2K15 when I can actually be fucked playing games.

Rusty would like to know if the game is worth playing, because Rusty's time is more valuable than yours.

(Please note, if it's a ridiculous long game that takes hours and hours on end to complete, Rusty is not interested).
 
Arkham Origins, having been the first in the series not developed by Rocksteady and also the first in the series to be worked on by about half a dozen studios (including one based just two miles from me, which is nice), is a big step down from the first two. It's still fundamentally an Arkham game; everything just feels a bit off. Whoever oversaw it knew what the basic mechanics were, just not why they were that way. There are enough small changes that the flow is disrupted. It's a direct-to-video sequel, basically.

Arkham Knight is being developed by Rocksteady again and looks gorgeous (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/check-out-new-batman-arkham-knight-gameplay-footag/1100-6423791/). Kevin Conroy is back as Batman's voice, which is good because Kevin Conroy is Batman's voice.

The fucking trailers MAN


99% ill still just end up downloading the cutscene movie, but this one holds the most temptation of an actual playthrough
 
Reading IGN's review of the re-mastered Saints Row 4 makes me wonder how you can fuck up a decent franchise so badly. Then I read the comments and wonder how even a small minority can still like it
 
Nintendo's closing Club Nintendo. BUT WAIT! they're reimaging it with the same stuff they've been doing with Club Nintendo!

Iwata did an interview last year where he essentially said it wasn't fair that loyal Nintendo fans would pay the same price for a game and that if they were to bring in a loyalty programme it would offer discounts. So yeah it'll be different I think.

Shame though I've enjoyed club Nintendo (and VIP24:7 back in the day).
 
Reading IGN's review of the re-mastered Saints Row 4 makes me wonder how you can fuck up a decent franchise so badly. Then I read the comments and wonder how even a small minority can still like it

What differentiating itself from GTA is a bad thing??
 
What differentiating itself from GTA is a bad thing??

Differentiating itself from GTA and making it a complete laughing stock are two different things. It could be different from GTA but still maintain a serious tone. SR3&4 are just comical in tone and as result you cant take the game seriously.
 
It's one of a handful of genuinely funny videogames. You're not meant to take it seriously. It's only grown in popularity since it embraced the inherent absurdity of sandbox games.

You wanna ride cars? We'll add a surfing minigame.

You wanna beat up pedestrians? We'll add wrestling moves.

You want customisation options? Here's a dialogue option to make your character sound like Jason Statham.
 
It's one of a handful of genuinely funny videogames. You're not meant to take it seriously. It's only grown in popularity since it embraced the inherent absurdity of sandbox games.

You wanna ride cars? We'll add a surfing minigame.

You wanna beat up pedestrians? We'll add wrestling moves.

You want customisation options? Here's a dialogue option to make your character sound like Jason Statham.

But that suff has nothing to do with the story. You could have all those things in it and still have serious tone to the story. I remember reading an article about the making of the game and they were quoted as saying "we wanted stephen colbert to be the president but then we were like 'fuck it your the president'" it just shows they didnt care for the story and just wanted to make an over the top game. Number 3 was over the top but the story still had a serious tone overall, especially the darker ending
 
There's nothing wrong with silly over the top. The world has become so serious that good silly over the top thngs are met with disdain when 9/10 times it's better that most of the 'serious stuff' people clamour for.

One of my favourite games recently was Lollipop Chainsaw for the sheer silly attitude it has for all things zombie as zombie stuff has quickly becme gritty realism.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top