Prez wrote on Mar 29, 2012, 21:04:Looks more Flatout than Ridge Racer, but either's fine with me.
Wow, Ridge Racer is making its way to PC after what, 15 years?
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 19, 2012, 22:42:Not great, but promising. It showed that a more traditional style of RPG may still sell amongst all your CODs, GOWs, and WOWs. But rather than weed out the crap and expand on what it did well for the sequel, they stripped out all it did right, kept all it got wrong and added a lot more wrongness on top.
Was DA:O all that great? Seem pretty simplified model as a turned based game.
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 19, 2012, 22:08:http://i36.tinypic.com/1zb9eg3.png
In fact, that reuse of characters and plot structure from game to game has come to define everything Bioware has done post-BG2.
Teddy wrote on Mar 16, 2012, 07:41:You're seriously going to compare adding a few new guns and maps to COD, to creating an RPG the size of FNV? And ignoring the fact that Fallout 3 wasn't built on a new engine either? Yeah.. you might want to re-think that one.
What game and budget achieved my results? As in, what games were produced for significantly less cost than the original in significantly less time while using the same base engine? You really need the answer to that one? Pretty much any Call of Duty following Modern Warfare, all based on the same base engine with minor alterations where the bulk of the work was on 'new' content.
WaltC wrote on Mar 15, 2012, 21:44:Total bollocks. Most of it looked/was the same. Some of it looked better. None of it looked worse.
As I recall the vanilla FNV was much, much worse-looking than the vanilla Fallout3
born2expire wrote on Mar 6, 2012, 10:10:Hey, c'mon now. That's a bit strong. I'd hardly call them "playable".
or how about, its more bioware playable movie crap. Of course reviewers pander to the fanboys, if they didn't their site gets hammered by virtual "hate".
meezookeewee wrote on Mar 1, 2012, 21:10:Got their hands on it? Rayman's been a Ubisoft franchise from the start.
If it wasn't UbiSoft that got their hands on this...
eRe4s3r wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 12:34:They didn't switch to that style until late in the first game's development, so if anything it created more work. And it looks good.
Also i maintain, that this is not "artsy" cel shading but a lazy ass attempt at saving money for art assets. The game looks absolutely terribly with low-res textures and low poly counts. Hard to believe this is coming out in 2012
Blackhawk wrote on Feb 6, 2012, 22:35:I, for one, am glad they went with a more realistic approach.
I like the idea, and I like the look, but it looks a little too twitchy. It doesn't seem to have the lumbering, walking tank feel, or the careful maneuvering that mech games are known for.