Here's a surefire way to make it cease to look interesting: It's being written by the "genius" who wrote Queen's Blade. After the sexist trainwreck that was Queen's Blade, I can't expect anything of quality from anyone who worked on it.
I can't really blame them. Constant connection DRM has been proven time and time again to be little more than a punishment to the customers.
Damn. Well, at least the RBN will still go for 360 users.
Ok, I see your point. While the transfer fee is considerably lower than simply rebuying the game, to buy it fresh is the same price.
Isn't there a discount if you're paying for the Wii U transfer?
I'm trying to remember the exact process, but yeah, I had a brain fart there. You're right. Which is a load of crap. And no, Nintendo, it doesn't count if you try to justify it by saying that you're getting the enhance features.
Transferring virtual console games is free. You can't transfer saves (which is a completely different issue), but you don't have to buy it twice.
Though I'm not interested due to a dislike of the Killzone series (hated the first one and didn't think the second one was all that much better), this is almost what I want to see. It may not be a truly original game (being a new entry into an old IP), but it's at least a game that isn't available elsewhere. Maybe at the rate of two exclusives a year, the Vita will be worth buying in three years. /sarcasm
...
AAAAAAND it's another ****ing port. Come on Sony, make the Vita do something unique.
At the very least, Platinum has expressed interest in the Darksiders IP. Hopefully they'll pick it up as well as some of the people who worked on Darksiders.
And the three things I really hoped to see go to a new publisher (Games Workshop license (Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, etc.), Vigil and Darksiders) are left in limbo...
The gun control debate is neither here nor there, but this is one of the most ignorant things I've read in a long ass time. Not only do you have to be 18 to buy a gun, you have to submit to a background check (granted, one that could probably be tighter), have a license as well as other restrictions, depending on your state, but there is a HUGE difference between military issue and civilian issue. First and foremost: Civilians have NO access to fully automatic weapons. This is the biggest reason why the VAST majority of gun crime is done with semi-automatic weapons. There is a lot more to the gun control debate than weapon availability, because if that's all there was to it, then the gun nuts who cite Switzerland (which has the third highest rate of gun ownership in the world) would actually have a point (which they do not because of the MANY other factors in why Switzerland has such a low gun crime rate (IE, smaller population, more rural, higher average wealth, everyone is actually TRAINED with guns due to compulsory military service and other factors)). EDIT: I forgot about Class 3 licenses, which DO allow civilians to own fully automatic weapons... but they are EXTREMELY expensive, the weapons are EXTREMELY expensive, you have to extra taxes just for owning that license AND your house can be searched by the police at any time to make sure that you aren't just leaving your fully automatic M16 laying on the coffee table.
And yet the ESA supported SOPA. Yeah, I've stopped supporting the ESA after that, but it doesn't change the fact that they're correct on calling this unconstitutional as every other bill like this has been shot down, even by the goddamn Supreme Court. Why congress insists on wasting everyone's time and taxpayer money with this is frustratingly beyond me.
If it turns out to be a touchscreen controller, three things will happen: 1: EVERYONE will briefly make it a laughing stock for doing the same thing as the Wii U. 2: It will always have the stigma of doing the same thing as the Wii U. 3: Sony fanboys will praise it as "original" (somehow) and infinitely better than the the Wii U, regardless of how it compares to the Wii U. Knowing Sony, they'll try to claim that Nintendo had no bearing on this supposed controller... which, to be honest (personal bias here, take it with a grain of salt), I doubt. It's like when they created the original Dualshock. It felt like they were saying "Oh, they have an analogue stick? Well, we have TWO." Same with when the announced that the Vita would have the touch panel on the back of the system. Yeah, I'm sure there's more to it, but that's what it felt like. And I really can't think of any reason other than that why they had the touch panel on the Vita (and, hell, every time I mess with a Vita, I forget the damn thing is even there). Now, to be fair, this could turn out like dual analogue sticks and four shoulder buttons: Standard controller features, regardless of the reason why they're on the controller in the first place.
The only games where your rival was the antagonist was Red/Blue and Gold/Silver, as well as their remakes. Gen III's rivals were more of friends, one of which you battled twice (and started with a Ralts) and the only you only had to battle four times and his/her last team consisted of Pokemon in the low 30s. You never even saw their starter fully evolved. Black and White featured two rivals, one of which had the starter yours had the advantage over and, ironically, she's considered to have the better team. In Gen I, the main story was about Red becoming champion. Team Rocket was a sub-plot. In Gen II, the story was about the aftermath of Gen I and Gold's quest to beat Red. Team Rocket was, again, a sub-plot. In Gen III, Team Aqua/Team Magma was the primary story. In Gen IV, Team Galactic was also the primary story. In Black/White, Team Plasma was, you guessed it, the main story. In Black/White 2, the story was mostly about the aftermath of Black/White. Not to mention that the purpose of the rival in terms of gameplay mechanics is to give you a boss to test to see if you're leveled sufficiently and are ready to advance in the game. And even more not to mention that the starter isn't meant to determine how hard your rival is, it is meant to be a centerpiece for your team. Something multi-type starters can achieve much more easily than single-type starters.
Late response, I know, BUUUUT: Sounds more like it's taking inspiration from Warhammer 40,000 rather than Halo. Referring to mankind's golden age, similar to the time before the Age of Strife. This hints at it being the far future after such an a dark age that most technology is forgotten. Knights, similar to Space Marines. They're seen as the main protectors of mankind. Alien monsters, similar to Tyranids or Necrons. Both alien menaces that are hell bent on destroying everything that isn't them. The concept art doesn't look like 40k's gothic aesthetic, but it doesn't really look like Halo, either.
If they're going to announce it this year (which we can probably safely say that they are), the timing would be right if they were to announce it in May as it would be just before E3.
And so are Porygon (and Porygon 2 and Porygon Z by extension), Magnemite (and Magneton and Magnezone by extension), Klink (and Klang and Klinklang by extension) and Genesect.
Which is why they clearly attempted to balance them in Gen IV... even if they failed. That said, Gen II wouldn't have benefited from balanced starters simply because your rival was the game's main antagonist. In Gen I, he was the final boss. In Gen III, he started with a Psychic type, in Black/White, you had two rivals and, ironically, the one with the better team was the one with the starter that yours had the advantage over and in Black/White 2, your rival really doesn't play too big a role. The rival is clearly not a good reason to have single type starters. Again, the balance was clearly an oversight on Game Freak's part. They clearly attempted to keep the balance by giving Torterra Ground which beat FIre, Infernape Fighting, which beat Steel and relying on Water beating Torterra's Ground. Or at least, that's the only way I can see how they expected it to work. However, this is only an issue with the starters themselves. As a whole, Empoleon is a fine Pokemon. If you're going to quote Ground and Fighting as problems with Empoleon, well, that's the Steel type. Every Steel type is weak to Ground (save the Magnezone family) and Fighting (even Lucario, which is Fighting type itself). And if you're really going to talk about balance problems, Infernape's really the one that hurts the balance the most due to the fact that while Torterra and Empoleon were good tanks (with Torterra more focused on physical and Empoleon more focused on Special), Infernape was a hell of a lightning bruiser. You get down to it, Infernape just had a blatant advantage over Torterra and Empoleon. Also, none of the starters are considered anything special. They're all slightly above average and are meant to be good center pieces for your team. The only two starters that anyone has taken seriously in the metagame are Blaziken and Swampert because of their typings. Blaziken was quick with good Attack and Fighting moves and good Special Attack and Fire moves. It was just an all around good Pokemon with a unique typing and had potential as a sweeper. Swampert, on the other hand, remains the best Water/Ground Pokemon in the game. Yeah, the way it should be... which is why exactly one generation had it that way. Gen I: Venusaur: Grass/Poison Charizard: Fire/Flying Blastoise: Water Gen II: Meganium: Grass Typhlosion: Fire Feraligatr: Water Gen III: Sceptile: Grass Blaziken: Fire/Fighting Swampert: Water/Ground Gen IV: Torterra: Grass/Ground Infernape: Fire/Fighting Empoleon: Water/Steel Gen V: Serperior: Grass Emboar: Fire/Fighting Samurott: Water You can't really argue tradition when the tradition you're arguing in favor of isn't tradition in the first place.
