-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Black
- Thread starter Doom_Bringer
- Start date
Fallopian Tube
test tag
zzzz
Doom_Bringer
Banned
probably looks good in motion! Some Ign editors were really impressed by this at E3!
Ninja Scooter
Member
sheets of empty canvas
untouched sheets of clay
laid spread out before me
as her body once did
untouched sheets of clay
laid spread out before me
as her body once did
Doom_Bringer
Banned
BuddyChrist83 said:
I agree!
BTW: Its from the Burnout team/company
i was kind of blown away myself. first time shooting in a video game has felt really visceral for me since crisis zone.
----
http://chespace.1up.com
----
http://chespace.1up.com
Ferrarisimo
Member
This looked amazing at E3.
MrAngryFace
Banned
GUNS! MOUNTAIN DEW! HANG GLIDING EXTREMEEE IGN 3 THUMBS UP!@ OH NO3S ONE THUMB IS A BONER!
Stele said:
i love it when people use the word 'love' to describe every feeling.
and by visceral, i meant intense fire-fights that punch you right in the intestines.
----
http://chespace.1up.com
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I know this thread is old, but there's no official one (at least I didn't find one) so I'm bumping this one.
I just read in the new GameInformer that there is no multiplayer whatsoever in this game. No Co-op, splitscreen or online. So my question is this. If there is no online or multiplayer at all, why the hell isn't this game coming out on GameCube? For that reason, why no Burnout 3 & 4? There's plenty of content on both without online to warrant a GameCube version. I'm not trying to sound like a whiney little bitch, but this just pisses me off. The "No Online for GameCube" is apparently just an excuse. What's the real reason Criterion? WTF EA. WTF Nintendo. Three of the best games to come out this gen are more than capable of being put on GameCube and would surely sell enough copies on it to warrant the port yet neither company has done a thing about it. This is B/S and completely unacceptable. If Criterion doesn't want to make a game for GameCube because they think the system sucks, then say it. Don't just lead your fans on thinking there is a legitimate excuse because obviously there isn't one. There should be more integrity in the games business and especially from the largest publisher in the world. Regardless I'm not suprised, just seriously disappointed. -End rant.
I just read in the new GameInformer that there is no multiplayer whatsoever in this game. No Co-op, splitscreen or online. So my question is this. If there is no online or multiplayer at all, why the hell isn't this game coming out on GameCube? For that reason, why no Burnout 3 & 4? There's plenty of content on both without online to warrant a GameCube version. I'm not trying to sound like a whiney little bitch, but this just pisses me off. The "No Online for GameCube" is apparently just an excuse. What's the real reason Criterion? WTF EA. WTF Nintendo. Three of the best games to come out this gen are more than capable of being put on GameCube and would surely sell enough copies on it to warrant the port yet neither company has done a thing about it. This is B/S and completely unacceptable. If Criterion doesn't want to make a game for GameCube because they think the system sucks, then say it. Don't just lead your fans on thinking there is a legitimate excuse because obviously there isn't one. There should be more integrity in the games business and especially from the largest publisher in the world. Regardless I'm not suprised, just seriously disappointed. -End rant.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
MadOdorMachine said:
Wtth Burnout 3 and Burnout 4 they wanted to make a Xbox graphics quality racer on PS2. I don't think they like or care about GC/nintendo.
btw who is porting burnout legends to ds?
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
Yeah, It's now obvious they could care less about their GameCube fans. I find it hard to believe they couldn't get the games running on GameCube without the same or better graphics than PS2. There's no excuse why there isn't a GC port. Every other EA game comes out to GameCube. Aside from the Criterion games, the only other game I can think of is OddWorld:SW, and that was already made exclusively for Xbox when EA picked it up. This is an EA owned company and franchise. It's complete B/S.Doom_Bringer said:
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
The game comes out 2006, they probably don't think it's worth the effort anymore even if the were considering it for GC. Before EA, Black was said to be initially a PS2 effort.
Why is that hard to believe?MadOdorMachine said:
Look at it this way, there were plenty of smaller features missing from the XBOX versions of BO3 and 4. They engine did not come to XBOX with all features in tact. XBOX is such a friendly, easy to use environment, though. I'm sure they could do all this on GC...but it would take more effort than they probably deem worthwhile.
The GC is basically dead, at this point, so why even bother?
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I could understand that if there were no other EA games coming out on GC for 2006, but there are. That still doesn't explain Burnout 3 & 4 which came out in 2004 and 2005. These are three of EA's biggest properties. As far as Black being made originally for just PS2, so what. NFS:MW was originally made just for Xbox 360, but now it's out on all three current gen systems. It's B/S and a missed effort on both EA and Nintendo's part.HomerSimpson-Man said:
How many features and details were taken out of Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory for GameCube? You know what? They still made a GameCube version. However watered down it was to the Xbox version, I still bought it and it's still a great game. Yeah I could understand Burnout not having as many sparks, but that's not as important when the gameplay is there. The reason GameCube is dead is because developers like Criterion quite making games for it.dark10x said:
MightyHedgehog
Member
MadOdorMachine said:
How about lower average sales for most third party titles, regardless of their perceived quality. That's the real reason. Most Nintendo system owners just don't buy the sort of stuff that Nintendo themselves wouldn't release. So, the more 'mature' the theme, the higher the likelihood that the title will not sell well (comparatively) on the GC. At least, that's what it's always seemed like, if you looked at the software sales this gen. More to the point, the GC is a barren wasteland for third parties currently. So what ever mistakes other companies have made in either supporting the system or not, the reality is that it sucks to be a third party on that system, for the most part. That's why Black probably isn't hitting the system. And the post below mine has a point.
Ninja Scooter
Member
because a total of about 4 people would buy the GC version of this game.
I don't know what to say. I can't imagine even considering the purchase of the GC version of Chaos Theory. It's so watered down and stripped that it's almost not even the same game anymore. I can't imagine too many other people would be interested in such a thing either...
master_shake_05
Banned
And why the fuck not? Anyway, wasn't it confirmed that Black was a BC title?xexex said:
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
MightyHedgehog said:
I don't keep track of sale numbers too much, but didn't the first two Burnouts sell pretty well on GC? Either way, regardless of sales, every other EA racer or FPS comes to GC. Blaming it on the maturity rating isn't gonna cut it either. These games are no worse than NFS, TimeSplitters:FP or the Bond/MoH games EA makes. Or what about Ubisoft or Activision games? If you're blaming the lack of mature titles selling on GC, can you be more specific? There aren't as many "Mature" titles because developers aren't making them, not because GC owners aren't buying them. There are plenty of GC owners who would have bought these games had they been eleased on the system. Also, when did sales start dropping on GC? Did people just all of a sudden stop buying games for it or did developers like Criterion quite making games for it which caused people like myself to get it elsewhere?
I own an Xbox as well so I can play the game if I want to. Honestly, I wouldn't have bought the Xbox if games like Burnout and Area 51 had been released on GC though. GC is my system of choice, so I'd rather play it on that. Like I said, I'm not suprised by this news at all, it just ticks me off. It's such a lame excuse.Agent X said:
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
You're right, the graphics aren't as good and there's no multiplayer, but behind all of that, there is still an incredibly solid game that's fun to play. There's really nothing wrong with the graphics of GC version. They're pretty much the same as the first two, so it's just not as big of an improvement as the Xbox version.dark10x said:
The point I'm trying to make though is that Ubisoft still released it. If they can make money off of a game that many people like yourself wouldn't buy, why couldn't EA?
MightyHedgehog
Member
MadOdorMachine said:
The first two Burnouts did sell well, but what I was talking about was that, in general, third party games on the GC just don't compete with their counterparts on the XBOX and PS2, sales-wise. Perhaps, Criterion themselves wanted to pare down the number of platforms they had to produce for to ensure that they could retain a level of quality in the same development cycle. Or, more likely, EA looked at the numbers and where they wanted to position Burnout and Criterion's other projects and decided to axe the one platform among the three that represented a demographic that was most unlike the other two. I dunno.
Anyway, some games, in particular, more family friendly fare sells much better on the GC. That's what I was getting at when I mentioned that stuff out there by third parties that Nintendo would probably release themselves is more likely to sell better on the system. It's like the majority of GC owners out there have a very narrow tastes about the games they purchase, at least in terms of how the games are angled demographically. Part of this trend was certainly fostered from the beginning... If Nintendo cares to prevent their family friendly focused/kiddy image from affecting the type of titles that hit the Rev, they'd do well to ensure that they at least showcase third party titles that are of high quality but also that sate the hunger of the player who wants some blood and guts action in their library. Focusing on things like RE franchise, which was already waning in popularity prior to the GC releases, isn't enough.
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
MightyHedgehog said:
That's cool, I respect your opinion and some of it is probably true. I'm just trying to point out how rediculous this whole thing is. It really has disappointed a lot of GC owners.
I agree, a big part of the GC was the lingering kiddy image Sony put on N64 despite the fact that it had some pretty mature games on it. Of course it didn't help launching GC w/Luigi's Mansion either. You're also right that RE wasn't enough. Nintendo should have done more. Heck probably all within about a year, Nintendo sold Rare, Sega quite making sports games, Eidos quite, Midway quite, Atari quite, Acclaim went under and it appears as though Nintendo did absolutely nothing to stop it. Add to that, very little Japanese support has been there. Capcom and Sega are about the only Japanese companies supporting GC and EA, Ubisoft and Activision are pretty much the only western publishers supporting GC. I just think it's lame that Nintendo hasn't fought for ports of these games when they're whoring out Mario and that EA hasn't seized an opportunity. We know that Mario sells, but they're doing very little to address the older "Hardcore" GameCube owners.MightyHedgehog said:
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I don't know how well it sold. Judging by the number of used GameCubes floating around in the local EB and GameStop, I'd venture to say that a lot of people gave up on GC about the time third parties quite making a lot of games for it. That's the reason I think GC is pretty muxh dead right now. I would be interested to know how well third party games were selling on GC in it's prime though...around 2003. Games like Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell, Beyond Good and Evil, Viewtiful Joe, TimeSplitters 2 etc. Obviously games aren't going to sell as well now because people have abandoned the system for something else.dark10x said: