Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Sam Ecorners, Nov 17, 2010.
Wasn't adding the playable Joker gimmick part of marketing, though?
Pretty damn good game, by the way.
"...you must work alongside three other captured wastelanders..." - oh my, I'm so tired of that "lets make our main hero a captive with no alternatives and strip all his stuff to balance things" nonsense. I freaking hate this. Another "Pitt" goddamn it. Sorry for swearing, I love "Obsidian", but, well...
And I'm also pretty mad about this X360 exclusive thing as well. Although it is obviously a temporarily problem.
It's not even that I give it three weeks max, before a team already has it ported to PC, it's not a problem in the slightest, it'll come out than it'll be on PC, and beth can't do a single thing about it, except for making it such complete and total bull, that no one wants it.
Dead money? Sounds more like a waste of money.
I just don't see how they'd pull a heist with this engine. And the summary itself sounds sort of lame and unimaginative.
But I'm a PC gamer, why should I care?
Are fable and ass erect still xbawks exclusives?
The editor gives you way more value than a DLC anyway.
Fable is developed by a studio owned by Microsoft, so of course it is.
As for Mass Effect, the first game is exclusive to 360 and PC, but ME2 will be released on the PS3 too, and so will ME3.
Obsidian DLC, huh? Well that's a relief, even if PC gets it like a year late.
Yeah, piracy is fucking awesome, right? Keep it off these forums, please.
Nope. Mass Effect was never an Xbox exclusive and Fable III is coming to PC. Mass Effect 2 is being ported to PS3 too.
It actually is generally considered to be the main reason the PS3 version stomped the 360, despite it being widespread knowledge that the game was technically inferior on a few points.
Granted you are correct with the marketing stuff, the PS3 version had a pretty wicked trailer that got a lot of air time showing the Joker exclusive content and making it seem like a really huge deal. I still wonder how much Sony paid out to have that remain exclusive.
No idea why they skipped Fable 2 on the PC, though, if they did port Fable 1 and are porting Fable 3.
Y'know for all these claims I have yet to see a link showing that PS3 outsold Xbox 360, or a market analysis that the main reason for this is the Joker. Not that I'm not blindly believing claims of "it is widely believed that", but y'know, 
I will try to dig something up about it when I get home from work, it is sorta old news. At the time though it was a pretty big deal, mostly because it was still in the time period where multiplats sold better on the 360 no exceptions and it was one of the first "heavy hitter" titles to do other wise. Street Fighter IV is the only other from that time period I can recall that made as big of a fuss.
Without having to search around this is the best I could find. (lol vgchartz) I know. I will try to find the old Team Xbox threads from back in the day later.
I think that New Vegas is as close to a playable Fallout sequels as I’ll ever get to play. The quests and setting in the main game are done well enough that I’m hesitant to throw some random unrelated side quest in there. Best case, I don’t see what it adds to the experience. Worst case, it could lead to the same feeling of random unrelated crap everywhere that FO3 had.
There is a trend, at the moment, of publishers giving the PS3 exclusive bonuses when the PS3 port is a bit shit. There is Batman AA of course, but also games like Ghostbusters, Red Dead Redemption and Assassins Creed.
It’s almost like the developers are coming right out and saying, “Look, we know it’s a bit crap – but would a little sugar make up for our technical ineptitude?”
As a console-tard myself it puts me in an awkward position of choosing between a game that runs properly and a game with more content. Generally I’ll pre-order both copies of the game, pre-paying half on both of them; and when the game comes out I try to see both of them running before I cancel the one I don’t want.
Yeah, just because one group is playing on Microsoft hardware, using a Microsoft OS, over a Microsoft online service and buying games that require royalty fees to be paid to Microsoft…. I don’t see why they would get more attention from Microsoft then a PC gamer using random hardware, a competing digital distribution service and games that Microsoft doesn’t get royalties from!
I think that the trend towards exclusive DLC is bad. But it’s less bad then exclusive games were, and at least most of the exclusivity is timed.
Yeah, no one should be upset at not getting to play Fable, Peter Molyneux is a toad and the games are a rent at best.
Uhhh, could someone enlighten me on whether or not this is a standalone thing or a new sidequest? The way the announcement describes it, I don't know whether or not it will be played with your main character. I don't really understand the premise to be honest.
No way man, Fable: TLC is great. II and III, not so much.
It will likely be a side-quest like all the FO3 DLC aside from Broken Steel.
Wonder how much real development time will go into it. Last time Bethesda wrote about DLCs, they said something like making them bigger and not every month anymore, if I remember correct (not sure tho'). If the first DLC comes out now in late december, it's a long time, at least on paper... maybe it will have some more content then as well.
Odd how the North American sales for the platform are so close. I mean, Japan being an exception is usual, but why would it sell significantly more in Europe on PS3 compared to North America? Oh, VGChartz.
Wait, why do you pre-order them?
But people should be upset at missing the opportunity to spend relatively more money on relatively less content?
*doesn't really get why people buy most of the DLC that's out there*