To be honest I haven't played a Pokemon game in many many years and Ive never been a fan of the series... But why is it so hard to make a pokemon RPG that is on a console. There might be a few leaps in graphical power and so on but really I think the series is being handled pretty poorly for the kind of thing they COULD be doing with it.
There have been console RPGs of Pokemon, but everyone is afraid to make a really big budget one because for some reason, Pokemon games just do not do very well on consoles, or at least not within the same kind of galaxy the handheld releases have proven. I would expect the next Pokemon after the ones coming out soon will be on the 3DS, so in this case the graphics would not be much different than from what we have on most games now anyways.
I agree, luckily I never said that... I said games like Bayonetta, Valkyria Chronicles and such are MORE creative, more fun and amitious in MY opinion then anything Nintendo have done since then. I'm not saying Nintendo haven't done anything creative... Just that they don't really wow me ever.
Fair enough, but that is still a pretty large claim.
Resonance of Fate's addition confuses me. If Alpha Protocol and Resonance of Fate are deemed good, then why not SASASR? It's easily a better game than either of those and is much more of a "SEGA" game.
I disagree, Alpha Protocol has a Saturn in it and violence, SARS has neither, and it has Billy Hatcher! That is like, the most Nintendo-like game SEGA ever published!
I get that Sega tried a bit. And that they are one of the 3rd parties actually putting some games to buy.
'Tried a bit' and 'Literally have the most games on the platform out of any third party, including the most potential failures that could cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars' is not really the same thing. Sorry.
"Why did he add ROF"
What exactly is wrong with it?
What exactly is good with it?
1. To see if its worth the money
2. If enough people (Critics and fans) don't like the game. I'll totally like it.
Hey look, this movie sucks balls. Every critic is bashing it, the fans hate it. I'll go see it.
While I can completely understand where you are coming from on the money part, you cannot sit there and tell me you have never enjoyed a game that other people told you was bad. There has to also be some games you hate that everyone loves too. I personally hate the shit out of Jet Set Radio and Valkyria Chronicles, nothing wrong with that as I can at least still appreciate the work put into them.
I think the whole reviewing system is messed up. I can understand you cannot always take chances with potential money issues, but to completely hate a large, large portion of a company's products without even knowing much outside that they exist is just stupid.
Would I be whining that I don't get to be able to play these games if I play them? I don't give a crap about fishing. I want to play some action and adventure games
This is part of my point. What gives you the authority to say something completely sucks when you are just not interested in it? This is like when IGN reviewed a version of Football Manager, giving it like a 2/10, then the UK IGN gave the SAME game like an 8/10.
A 7 isn't that bad. But anything lower is starting to boggle my mind. Yes, I had experiences that games with low scores were good. But please don't tell me game with overall average of 4 and has been bashed for having terrible controls, gameplay, and graphics is going to be a buy.
Sonic Unleashed.
