We Recommend
View as:
Newest first
-
Oldest first
-
-
RonnyLive19881 - May 28, 2012 4:42 p.m.
Yes it should, any Youtube footage of that moment proves it Lol I was in tears watching that trailer... of course I can say that about every Zelda reveal trailer Lol -
RonnyLive19881 - May 28, 2012 4:45 p.m.
I'm just guessing it is GR being GR with their distaste for Nintendo... sad really :( -
GR HollanderCooper - May 28, 2012 5:45 p.m.
You... I... I... really don't know if you're being serious or not. -
BladedFalcon - May 28, 2012 7:21 p.m.
Probably serious sadly, he's a well known and irrational Nintendo Fanboy. Also, you should know that his main beef with you guys is for giving skyward sword a 9 for shame! I know this, because he repeats it every fucking time he gets an excuse to. So just ignore him, i'd say. -
-
shawksta - May 28, 2012 1:02 p.m.
Definitly some nice surprises. E3 2011 held some surprises as well, with the most notable and unexpected being Luigi's Mansion 2, the first was memorable but it was a horrible launch game in terms of sales cause it was basically a beta, and there were MANY things we can expect to come back more than Luigi's Mansion, even Earthbound. There were rumors of a sequel, but ONLY because Nintendo stated the Gamecube was originally gonna be a 3D system with Luigi's Mansion patented, it wasnt really noteworthy to think Weegee was getting a sequel till we saw those chandeliers light up, and the Red Ghost and Luigi appear on that 3DS visual montage. These choices are still awesome surprises and i am definitly looking forward to E3, especially with games that are gonna be revealed there. I know you guys will gives us all the scoop, but im a busy person, and wont have time to watch the live conferences and would perfer not looking at anything else besides the actual conferences, so i do hope you guys have an article where we can watch the conferences before spoiling ourselfs. Win or fail, i perfer to be surprised -
BladedFalcon - May 28, 2012 12:35 p.m.
"By the time the game came out it had just about matched the initial test footage, forcing everyone to eat their words in a big, fancy, all-you-can-eat buffet. " Er... No it didn't. The final product was damn good looking, to be sure. But it still didn't get even close to the initial footage, specially in terms of special effects and fluidity. -
zombi3grim - May 28, 2012 5:09 p.m.
Er....yes it did. Watch it again. This time, take the 3 inch thick critic glasses off. -
BladedFalcon - May 28, 2012 7:19 p.m.
One word to you: Fire. Compare the fire from one trailer to the other. The actual game doesn't even come CLOSE to looking like the fire in the trailer, and again, that's just one of the details, but one of the most notorious ones. You want another one? lightning. Another one? character models, not even by Killzone 3 do they get a character model to look as good, fluid and crisp as the commander that was shouting at the beginning before it's ship was blown off. Thing is, the Killzone games look great, undeniably so. But they never came close to what that original trailer promised for one single, rational reason: It wasn't possible, the things shown in that CG trailer is stuff that no game today (not even PC ones) have been able to do. That's why that trailer back then was such a shocker, and that's why even today I don't really forgive Sony for setting the bar so high, even though they never would be able to reach it. -
zombi3grim - May 29, 2012 4:09 a.m.
Seriously, take the glasses off. I just looked at both again. Its almost fucking identical. Whats wrong with you? -
BladedFalcon - May 29, 2012 5:30 a.m.
I actually looked at the trailers yesterday again... And, "seriously" there is absolutely nothing wrong with me. Unless YOU are blind, or just not discerning enough, there is no possible way you can NOT see the difference between the trailers. The character models alone, look so much different, specially when you see them up close at the beginning of both trailers when they are in their aircrafts. Look at the polygons of the 2005 trailer... Wait, they HAVE NO POLYGONS WHATSOEVER in their models. Then look at the 2007 trailer, right from the bat, you can see the polygons that form Rico's shaved head, and then the rest of the squad. Next are the animations, the ones in the 2007 trailer a pretty fluid no doubt... But they don't even reach the variety it had in the 2005 trailer. Where's stuff like that Helgan soldier that is knocked of a bridge, then hangs on and fails around it, before being killed? And again, look the the FIRE used in both trailers for Godsakes. The fire in 2005 looks incredibly fluid and plasma-like, in a way no game has ever showed it so far. The fire in the 2007 are basically just flashes of oranges, you see no fluidity, no licks of flame forming. All of those examples are very specific, but things like the animation, and the detail in the background are things that consistently differentiates one trailer from the other. -
zombi3grim - May 29, 2012 6:18 a.m.
I found your problem. Im not looking at the trailers. Im looking at the actuall game. Look at the released game and the original CGI trailer. They look almost identical. Thats why they said the released GAME looks the same. Not trailer -
BladedFalcon - May 29, 2012 12:02 p.m.
...Except most of the differences I mentioned are visible in the released GAME, and they apply even to Killzone 3. The fire effects don't looks nearly as good and fluid, the AI and animation was never able to do the movements and contextual actions that the 2005 trailer showed, and even in 3, the backgrounds never looked nearly as pretty. Oh, and even in 3 you can clearly see the polygons that make up the character models. -
zombi3grim - May 29, 2012 2:31 p.m.
Lol, okay guy. Well me and the gamesradar editors must see it differently. I guess BladedFalcon has much better critic comparison skills then we do. Good luck with that. -
BladedFalcon - May 29, 2012 8:40 p.m.
Yes, hiding your opinion under the skirts of an editor's opinion automatically adds it so much validity that it becomes impervious to facts. Whatever a GR editor says is automatically flawless and without error, right? *rolls eyes* You're free to agree or disagree with me, and I'm not saying I'm a better critic. what I AM saying, is in that specific oppinion that the editor said about the trailer and the final game looking the same, is that I disagree, and think That specific thing is wrong. And i proceeded to explain in my last three posts exactly why, with details and facts. You, on the other hand, keep saying that no, that they look indeed the same... using which arguments and details? have you in any second disproved my claims? if I am wrong, prove to me that things such as fire and animations and textures look exactly the same, and why. I may not be always right, and I may not be a professional. But at least when I am convinced of something, I give arguments and facts to back it up. Not just go all "NO U" without and real argument to back it up. Prove me I'm wrong, or at least use compelling arguments or evidence, and I'll gladly shut my mouth, bow down and apologize. -
zombi3grim - May 31, 2012 6:15 a.m.
Okay, stop. What the fuck are you doing? Argument? Prove you wrong? What the hell is this, debate club? The fuck? I see the differences. You dont. The gamesradar editors agree with me. Facts? What fact? The "fact" that you THINK the fucking fire looks different? Seriously? I honestly dont know what your trying to do here, but its sad and you should stop. -
BladedFalcon - May 31, 2012 11:52 a.m.
and yet you're the one that keeps replying like a bewildered, confused chimp who doesn't even know the meaning of rational debate ^^ No worries, I won't be bothering to reply from now on, as it's pretty obvious you're not up to task of being reasoned with, feel free to remain in your pleasant illusion that you're right (: -
zombi3grim - May 31, 2012 2:15 p.m.
Lol, no ones debating. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you seriously have this incessant need to prove yourself? No one is bewildered or confused except you since you cant see the game and the demo were almost identical. Your talk of fire pixels and whatnot means nothing. I can say the same shit. Right? Wrong? What are you trying to turn this into? I was simply saying the damn videos are the same, Im not trying to get onto a podium and have a fucking presidential debate with you. Im replying because I always check my profile and I see you reply to me with this "argument" bullshit you claim we're having. You really need a reality check. Everything doesnt have to be some sort of "Im right your wrong" thing. Let me guess, your one of those guys who drive a huge ass truck or SUV to make up for some short comings, am I right? You always seem to want to be "right" or look for arguments when there are none. So, dont "bother replying", please. Its pretty obvious you want to be something your not and are severly lacking in some aspect of your life if you seek self satisfaction of being "right" on the fucking internet. -
garnsr - May 28, 2012 12:31 p.m.
I got a Saturn as a graduation present from my mom, which must have been in June '95, I guess, but I don't remember exactly. It seems like we went into Toys R Us and it was there, so I got it. I don't remember anything about E3 from that time, I guess the magazines must have covered it, but CES is the only show I remember at that time. -
Cyberninja - May 28, 2012 12:25 p.m.
how exactly did the saturn situation work anyway, I was to young to remember? -
ChaosEternal - May 28, 2012 1:06 p.m.
From what I heard, many retailers didn't get them at first, and only the few that were given copies were prepared to sell them. Since this didn't give consumers or retailers any time to plan, it kind of blew up in their face. Not to mention the retailers not given copies were pretty angry about it. That is just what I've read, you'll want to check that yourself. :P -
LordEvan88 - May 28, 2012 12:19 p.m.
Am I the only one who saw Team Ninja, then saw Metroid, and then immediately started laughing because it sounded like the worst idea ever?
Errrrbo - May 28, 2012 2:19 p.m.