Boom boom shake shake the for-uum.
Btw, I liked the '98 Godzilla movie for the design of Zilla and its massive nest. It was basically Jurassic Park if the TRex and Velociraptors were in a city. Basically, the second movie if it only took place in the city.
...
If I wanted to see two monsters fight each other for no reason, i'd wait till after the pubs close and follow the biggest dude there.
It has plots and characters, which surprises me, but makes me want to see it. If it's anything like Cloverfield, i'll be happy. Also, I could be wrong here since I haven't seen any other Godzilla movie apart from the 90s one, but didn't the first Godzilla movie basically have a plot and wasn't just a dumb monster mash up movie?
Nah, I don't believe. Two full games (3 and 4) being ported, remade, reworked, whatever, into XBO games seems so unlikely. 1 has already been done, so why work at it again to make it an XBO game? Nah, I just can't imagine, it seems too unlikely. If these were PC games, maybe I could see it, like The Elder Scrolls collection, but not Xbox centric games.
If they do more of the same, with some nice improvements and a bit more of a refined stealth system, i'd be happy. Really like 3 for the aspect of being a deadly hunter, if they can nail it, then that's all they need to do.
It was sarcastic. I never not enjoyed it, just made some wide criticism. Can I not like the look of a game and still critique it? Because I do that with every game anyway.
Sure, they'll keep it in mind, but now it's in their mind as less of a priority, as an optional and not an integral part of their future. That's evident, not conjecture. Kinect game devs have said this is a bad thing for them because they know the market for Kinect games will now shrink. That's not just my view, that's an actual first hand experiencing dev saying that. Are they wrong because Microsoft has said the opposite to them, that they still care about Kinect? If so, why make it an optional peripheral? It reeks of falsehood on there part. Their actions have to prove they still care, maybe E3 will change that?
Hell yes i've done it. Keep doing it, people don't talk enough about their feelings, they're scared. Don't be, kindness is not scary, it's freeing.
Aye, I reviewed the game based on a trailer. Never misled otherwise. And I've already said I'd be happy to be proved, wrong and it be incredibly better than what i've seen. Actually now that trailer's out, it looks like Tony Hawks with a gun. Looks pretty good.
PR talk alot of it, which is a 'take it with a pinch of salt' situation. Especially reading this, lots of diplomatic and political words here. Or backpedalling as consumers would call it. Very consistent backpedalling, at least. Arguably, that's all just personal opinion. On average I think XO exclusives have reviewed ok compared to the PS4 exclusives, even if some people don't care for review scores. Still, sales wise PS4 exclusives have sold much better. So take a pick on which one he means. Had being the operative word. Relying on a past gens success to explain your current gen's system when the two are nothing alike is desperate and not exactly factual? First, it was seen as a remote-less device, where voice and motion would be the future. It's gone back on some of its original functions there, and everything is controller based for its media uses, like it has been since the PS2. The second statement is also false as libre's argument states that the PS4 is equivalent in a lot of ways or will be soon with its entertainment features. The entertainment apps are almost equivalent to each other. Why would you if you're buying the kinect-less model? Isn't that the whole point of buying a non-bundled version? Also, the likelihood is that Kinect 2.0 when it's sold separately will be a higher price than the £50 difference of the Kinect bundle. The original Kinect when sold separately was £120, I doubt the 2.0 would be cheaper and if it was not by much. So let's say it's a bit cheaper, about £99. The Kinect-less console will be £349. If that person wanted to add a Kinect to their console, it'd be £448, an extra £48 if they had just bough it bundled. Who would buy it at that point? To believe MS on their word at this point on Kinect seems misguided, since their actions seem to speak opposite of the situation.
What's the point in variety if there is a dominant strategy? Either way, you wouldn't vary your style if you've found the most effective or fun one to use. It's pre-emptive to say combos will make it special too. Neither of us has played this game, i'm just saying it looks a lot like stuff we've played before and that's what i'm basing my thoughts and expectations of the game on. Like I said I wanted something surprising or better than what's already established, just not getting either of those vibes. Happy to be proven wrong with future vids they give out.
See I'd believe all that variety, but more often than not, I and many players will stick to one favoured ability or even avoid combat altogether after a time of experimenting and get on with doing missions and such. The grinding looks like a more refined version of inFamous' grinding stuff from one and two. Wall running looks like Mirror's edge's but in third person. Car jumping looks like Crackdown's regular jumping. It all just looks like stuff i've done before. I'm waiting for it to really surprise me with something new or be better than this older stuff. Because it really needs to up hand 6 year old games and on a new generation.
As a shipped product it was designed to have dedicated online, integrate Kinect and cloud gaming. That's why there's a day one patch backpedalling on dedicated online, that's why there is a dedicated kinect port, that's why cloud gaming allowed Forza to experience 'Drive-atar' and is apparently used to support more games in the future. The shipped product was one thing, but the Xbox we know now is being shifted to be nothing like that. But it doesn't change what it's been, that the launch console is the same as this Kinect-less one. It's not like they'll remove the Kinect port, they'll just not bundle it and likely produce the same console on a hardware level You're comparing hardware and software, which is different. Microsoft's design on a console is different than what a third party developer chooses to do on their game. Software can be manipulated, altered a lot more easily than hardware which physically needs to be replaced. A peripheral like Kinect actually uses about 10% of the GPU, along with the apps, furthering adding to my point that Kinect was designed with the console and not as an optional accessory. So much so that there are ideas of what may come to that now open 10% http://www.videogamer.com/news/ditching_kinect_could_improve_xbox_one_performance.html I can't see any other conclusion except that they're ditching it altogether. Well it might as well not exist. Isn't that what Microsoft is saying, since they're basically not supporting it as integral any longer? Wiimotes are not optional though, because they were designed as integral to the WiiU system, and they've stuck partly because of that, because Nintendo made consumers use it as the required controller for certain games and for multiplayer stuff. Kinect has always been seen as an add on, it was released half way through the 360's life cycle as an add on. Kinect 2.0 however was bundled and sold to us as a required piece of tech that would enhance the experience along with the controller. Bundled means it was seen as part of the console. Now it's not, it's optional and throw away. The fact Kinect based devs are really hating this is telling they believe that the market will go speaks volumes. http://www.videogamer.com/news/kine...s_chance_of_making_original_kinect_games.html Apart from that, libre says it all about right.
Cheers me dears!
I've been using crazy guns since 2003, it's not something I easily get excited for, though I like the creativity. If it plays the same, it won't really mean anything. I'm not bothered by visuals, it's a very passive thing in a game after all, the atmosphere is interesting but it doesn't feel like the crux of this sort of game. It's about shooting things in a bombastic manner and that looks fairly ok but that's it.
I used to care, still do sometimes these days, but I've gone past the point of really bothering to pursue it. I will never know, never grasp it fully and it will only be a fluttering of curiosity of mine, and not a concept of this reality that I can test. It's just boring to mull over the same thing without it ever changing sometimes I want to actually do an experiment. Go on, for sure, think, think, think, like Pooh bear, but know that reality is not changing any time soon if our lives and thousands of others now dead are anything to go by.
Who the **** cares? Simulation or not, unless we find a way out of this consciousness (Matrix stuff) what's the point in wondering about other maybe/maybe not consciousness? It's like worrying what i'd do with millions and millions of £s when I don't have it. IT's fantasy. a neat idea to consider, but not a worthy worry. And I wouldn't dare experience another person's consciousness. How would you be able to distinguish two consciousnesses as 'real' and 'not real', as yours and anothers? It be like giving someone schizophrenia.
