Zechs Merquise

Because someone likened the Wii U's situation to that of the Sega Saturn and claimed both failed because of their software. Without a doubt, that is not the case. If you think discussing things on a discussion forum is 'point scoring' then I'm not sure if you understand why discussion forums exist!

I just started this game at the weekend. What a refreshing little gem! Not only does it look lovely, but it is polished in every way and oozes with charm and attention to detail. I didn't think I would enjoy this as much as I have, so far I would really recommend this to anyone. It's just pure gameplay bliss, no huge story, no giant over world - just streamlined bite size gaming excellence.

I thought that list was pretty poor. I would have lots more 3rd party games on there: Batman Arkham City, Mass Effect 3, Deus Ex, Ninja Gaiden and ZombiU to name a few. I've put some serious hours into 3rd party software on the Wii U and Mass Effect 3, Batman Arkham City and Deus Ex are three of the best games I've ever played! Oh and as for Minecraft - fuck that boring pointless shite! Never interested me one bit ad when I have tried it, it bored me to tears.

Your knowledge of the Saturn's failure is really rather poor and frankly this post suggests that you're just trying to draw parallels between two markedly different situations. First and foremost - the Saturn was a success in Japan, at least initially. It sold very strongly on launch and even continued to sell well (actually outselling the Play Station) after the Play Station's launch. What killed the Saturn wasn't the game content but several factors which were far more prevalent in the West. Fist and foremost Sony did exactly to Sega what it did to MS this gen - it had the later press conference at E3 and Sega announced the launch of the Saturn first including the price of $399. Later that day Sony blew everyone away by offering their console for $299. Secondly the marketing budget between the companies differed greatly. Sony spent roughly 5 times as much marketing the Play Station in some territories than Sega did with the Saturn. Thirdly, in the US Sega were panicked into releasing the console early in a poor attempt to give themselves a head start. They moved forward their release date by several months and couldn't actually satisfy retail demand, which lead to them making the disastrous choice to neglect some retailers entirely, which in turn caused Sega to be black listed by some of those retailers who refused to stock the Saturn in the future. The combination of an expensive console, poor marketing and a botched launch damaged the Saturn too heavily for it to ever recover. Finally when the Saturn was on shelves, it found itself competing with the 32x which served only to confuse consumers who had already been burnt by the Sega CD. The games weren't really an issue. You of RPGs in the West, but at the beginning of the 32 bit era it was all about arcade ports. Sony really had nothing in terms of software and partnered with Namco who supported the PS with Tekken and Ridge Racer which competed with Virtua Fighter, Sega Rally and Daytona. Sega competed well with Virtua Fighter 2 being very well received - the big 'playground' argument of the day had switched from Mario and Sonic to Tekken and Virtua Fighter. You then criticise the Saturn for it's poor technical performance - again a half truth. The Saturn had complicated architecture which did indeed hold back developers - however it ended up with superior versions of Quake and Duke Nukem which were the big 3D shooters of the day. I don't think the PS ever even received a port of Quake. As for the 2D games - 2D games were huge in the 32 bit era with the Street Fighter Alpha series and the Capcom fighting games being more examples of games that ran far better on the Saturn than they did on the PS. As for the issue of Sonic 3D Blast - comparing it to Super Mario 3D World is just embarrassing, the game had more in common with Snake Rattle and Roll on the NES than it does with SM3DW. The nonsense that a great 3D Sonic could have saved the Saturn is simply wishful thinking, by the time Sonic Xtreme as it was to be called would have been due for release the Saturn was already dead due to Sega's own mismanagement of their brand and Sony's much better marketing and pricing. And as for the drivel that a 3D Mario like Mario 64 would be some big console seller, more so than a new 2D Mario insinuates that you haven't even researched the issue. Every single time a console is released with both a 2D and 3D Mario title, the 2D Mario title outsells the 3D one by a wide margin. Mario Galaxy is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, game ever made. Yet NSMBWii outsold it by a factor of 2 to 1.

Above that it says 'digital content' that you have purchased which would surely cover games and apps and VC content etc.

Hmmm, I think you have some fair points, but I honestly didn't get many bugs. I've seen a couple of body parts hovering in mid air, but as I've played through the single player 2 twice and am on a third run for golden eggs, I haven't seen it that many times. I didn't think the graphics were bad... just VERY mixed. I thought the models for the main characters were great, then some of the models generic and bland. The same was true for everything else... very mixed. Some scenery looked like basic assets, others looked quite decent and whilst I was rarely wowed, I felt it wasn't nearly as bad as reviewers claimed and was generally decent. There is a lot of clipping - especially on finishing moves where you smash an opponents head into a surface, literally they always go through it. But that doesn't actually bother me that much as some of the finishers are awesome - and the fact they are weapon and context sensitive is fun and very rewarding. I also think the game gets a lot of heat for doing things in a 'generic' way. Red barrels, turret sections and silly story. But seriously, there are games that sell millions of copies and that are regarded as system sellers that have these same traits. I liked the story, not because it was good, but because it was so stupid and never seemed to be taking itself seriously! Where as MGS is equally stupid (I mean you fight some fat fuck on roller skates in an oil rig) but it takes itself so seriously. Devil's Third just seemed like silly over the top 80s nonsense, which I have a soft spot for as I loved 80s action films. There were many times when the game really pissed me off - walking around corners into enemy fire. Walking through a door to get blown up before the cut scene ended, melee combat not locking on to the target, the camera flying around in melee combat so I'm not sure what I'm doing and the cover system positioning the camera at the wrong point so when you peep out you can't see where you're aiming! But saying all that, I really enjoyed the game at times and can't stop playing it. I literally can't stop. I am now on my third run and am playing the online every evening! There is something so satisfying when it does all come together properly. When you are carrying out a string of finishing blows to then pull out your rifle and despatch two people at distance, it's all so much fun. I can't say this is a great game, because I know it isn't. But I have enjoyed playing it and can see the potential a game like this has. It's not a great game - but it isn't a horror story either, and for some reason it is really good fun! Shame there isn't voice chat, as the clan mode would have been great with a good group, we could have taken over the US! Imagine that, calling a clan the Redcoats or something similar and retaking America haha.

I've put a few hours more in the multiplayer now - and I can say it's a real shame more people aren't playing this. The multiplayer is actually pretty decent. Again, it isn't amazing. It suffers from some of the same issues as the single player - the melee combat doesn't always lock on correctly and the the hiding behind cover doesn't always give you the best view of things. But overall, I'm having a decent time playing it. The whole game is set up a little like COD with levelling up, custom load outs, equipment, weapons, guns and grenades that can all be purchased and customised to suit one's play style. The maps are large and I haven't encountered any horrible camping spots. In fact, the maps are pretty well designed. Granted, they're not Modern Warfare good, but they are certainly better than average. The big problem I have with the online is the bloody rocket launchers. Why any game allows people to purchase and equip one hit kill weapons like this is beyond me. They literally ruin games. Once you get to a certain level in the game you can open up a whole map of America and fight to control the continent in clans. This is a really interesting feature and one that would be great if there were more players online. As you fight battles against other clans you claim territory across the states with each clan trying to conquer as much land as possible. If you don't wish to join a clan, you can participate as a mercenary, helping whoever you wish. I think this would be a great addition to COD and if integrated well could be a real draw to getting teams online regularly and playing together against other teams. Again, when playing the multiplayer it is clear to see the childish way that journalists jumped on the bandwagon to attack this game and make out it was the worst thing ever made. Giving a game a 2 or 3 out of ten would indicate a game was broken or even borderline unplayable - a Superman 64 type effort. This is far from that, it's not great, but there's some really good ideas here and certainly fun to be had. I'll probably give this a few more hours play before the Splatfest this weekend. Take a look at this video, it's pretty good and shows the game off well:

Really good presenting, you actually sound enthusiastic! You would do better getting a job with Nintendo and presenting Tree House, as you're a damn sight more interesting than Nintendo's own presenters!

So simple! Logged in with my NNID and set it up in a few clicks, very smooth and a good sign that Nintendo are moving forward.

Classic N-E bullshit here! 'Ignoring the clusterfuck' and 'better value for money' in relation to the Masterchief collection - how the fuck can you ignore the fact the main portion of a game doesn't work and how can anything be better value for money when it is totally broken? The Masterchief collection was so broken the multiplayer was completely unplayable, I actually had a mate who bought and XBO for this game and it simply didn't work. He was furious, sold the console and bought a gaming PC instead. How on earth is this an example of Nintendo releasing something that is lazy? It's an HD port with some improvements. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. But seriously, claiming this is anything worse than the likes of Uncharted, Halo and The Last of Us is a joke. Especially as one of those games didn't even work!

This looks really good, since it's reveal the game has really had a lot of polish and effort put into it. For an HD revision, it looks pretty sweet and I can't wait to give it another play through. I have the other two versions, so this will look great in my collection.

So I finished this relatively quickly - and collected every trophy! After finishing the game, I have really mixed feelings on it. Firstly, and most importantly though, there was a clear agenda against this game. It is nowhere near as bad as people in the gaming press made out. People giving this three out of ten, you would think it was virtually unplayable - a Superman 64 style effort. It isn't, in fact at times it's really quite good. It's not a AAA game, it's not a GOTY title and it times it isn't very good. But on balance, it's not a disaster and there's plenty of fun to be had and at times, it is really good. In that respect, I believe the media jumped on this as a popular title to bash and mock without really giving it the attention it deserves. At times, you're fighting several ninjas with your sword (or hammer, axe or one of many other melee weapons) cutting them up with great cinematic and contextual deaths being handed out, then extra enemies arrive, you pull up your riffle and switch to a first person perspective and take out a group of enemies and it all works well and feels like you're playing your way through a glorious 80s action flick! Then at other times there are irritating moments - times when you enter a room and before the cut scene of opening the door ends you're already being shot at. Or when you have to fight five ninjas in a halfway that is too narrow to evade their attacks meaning you have dash away and shoot them, and dash away and shoot them again. It's this mix of good (albeit basic) fun and frustration that characterises the whole game. But strangely, whilst I acknowledge the games flaws - and I must say it's not as good as other games on the system that do similar things, Ninja Gaiden 3 and Bayonetta 1 + 2 are all better games, yet I did have a lot of fun with Devil's Third. In fact I had far more fun with Devil's Third than I have had with several games that I acknowledge are 'better made' titles. In fact, I enjoyed it more than the Assassin's Creed games. I don't know why, I just enjoyed Devil's Third in spite of its flaws. If you like the look of Devil's Third and you can accept that it's unpolished and frustrating in places, you may well end up having a lot of fun with it as I did. The other sad thing with the game is due to the bashing it received, the user base is so small getting multiplayer games is hard - and the multiplayer is actually pretty damn good. I've never really played a game that mixes melee and FPS gameplay so well and the experience is utter chaos. It's a shame there isn't a proper community to enjoy it with. Overall, it's not a great game, but not a disaster either. I'm pleased I bought it and am happy Nintendo chose to let it see the light of day.

This game should be a flashy, fast and twitchy shooter that pays homage to the N64 game whilst taking things to the next level in terms of graphics and gameplay. What this looks like is an HD version of the N64 game, with flat textures and everything slowed down to include a second screen that the game simply doesn't need. Just bang the map on the second screen and give us a sequel to the 64 bit masterpiece!

I think that's where everyone might well be getting it wrong. In a world where there is so much free content being spewed out by thousands of sites, blogs and Youtube channels, there is increasing competition for views. Having huge offices, overheads and a sizeable number of staff members puts you at a disadvantage to the Youtube channel being run out of a bedroom somewhere.

Wow, I used to love that site. At one point I would listen to Invisible Walls and Epic Battle Cry every week. I always thought their reviews were really good too. I haven't been to GameTrailers in years though. What a shame, despite not visiting them myself, I thought they were still pretty big.

Well, I don't think Apocalypse looks that bad. Thank heavens he doesn't look much worse, this is 20th Century Fox - remember what they did to Galactus...

Nintendo shouldn't release the NX this year. It is still too soon into the Wii U's lifespan to dump it. The NX should be out for Christmas 2017 - at least then it will have had a four year lifespan. People compare the Wii U to the Dreamcast, but the Wii U has had some monster software sales, the biggest selling game on the DC was Sonic Adventure with 2.4 million units sold, Mario Kart 8 has sold over 7 million units. Nintendo may not have done big numbers on the hardware front, but their software is doing great numbers and they are profitable as a company. It shouldn't be time to bail out - that's only a consideration if you're losing money and the console is dragging you down. If they continue to support the Wii U it won't leave the sour taste that the Saturn or DC did.

Well I finally got around to opening this and giving it a blast. I picked this up at the same time as Xenoblade - and obviously the later took precedent. After reading all the horror stories about how bad this game is, I was braced for the worst, but I was pleasantly surprised. The game isn't great, but it certainly isn't the horrible mess many reviewers made it out to be. In fact, the game has some great ideas. What lets the game down is that everything about it is a mixed bag. Every single aspect of the game seems to shine at certain times then disappoint at others. The graphics are a great example of this - the main character looks great - as do most of the bosses and key characters. It is then totally shocking when this is mixed up with a grass texture that looks like it is straight from a budget Gamecube title. The same goes for the environments, at some times it looks great, at others it's like the game wasn't quite finished. The combat is the same - at times it's exhilarating and the finishing moves make for a very cinematic experience as Ivan executes his foes in a variety of contextual ways. Other times there are fantastic gun battles in open areas where you have to take down a variety of foes at range or get closer for a brutal melee take down. But at other times Ivan won't stick to the cover correctly, or when you lean out of cover the camera will remain too low so you can't see what you're shooting at. The plot is ridiculous - but fun. It's like an 80s action film, but it seems aware of the fact it is ridiculous which is like a breath of fresh air. The bosses are all part of this madness and they remind of of the ridiculous bosses from Metal Gear Solid - only without the piss poor overblown drama. The boss fights themselves are again a mixed bag. Some of them are great, others frustrating as they have one hit kills and cheap moves that you can't even see coming. When things really speed up, the controls don't always help as the same button is mapped to dodging and blocking. The game also has a multiplayer mode which is really quite unique. The mix of gun play and quick close quarters combat is pretty interesting. Sadly, as the game didn't sell well the pool of players isn't large enough and games are difficult to come by. This could have been a good mode, especially with the clan wars and the different game modes and large variety of weapons and play styles. Overall, despite its flaws, I've found the game to be fun. I've actually enjoyed playing it. I think most reviewers were far too harsh on it, and the game certainly isn't the broken mess it was made out to be. I would recommend this game to anyone who finds it cheap and wants a few hours of dumb over the top action. It's never going to be a game that tops GOTY lists, but there's plenty of fun that can be had with Devil's Third. I'll post some more impressions when I've completed it.

I love Nintendo, and when I play Nintendo games they still draw me in. I've had a great time with the Wii U this generation. I think it's one of the most under appreciated consoles ever released, especially considering it's catalogue of games - which I think is fantastic. My only real grip is Nintendo's backwards stance on online and social aspects. My Wii U collection is huge and the variety and range of titles is phenomenal. I honestly wouldn't have time for another console.

I totally disagree on Bloodborne. Niche: A specialized segment of the market for a particular kind of product or service: 'he believes he has found a niche in the market' 'smaller cooperatives must find and develop a niche for their speciality product'. Bloodborne had a development cycle of between 3 and 4 years. It will have had sizeable development costs. It has sold in excess of 2 million units in less than a year and has had a massive marketing push with TV spots. It has also been sold in places like TESCO and Sainsbury. This isn't some niche title made by a tiny studio and on a limited budget, tight development cycle and given a limited release, advertised only on specialist gaming sites and released through specialist outlets. A niche title is something like Rodea The Sky Soldier, Tatsunoko VS Capcom or Maiden of Dark Water - a game that outside of people who read dedicated gaming sites, no one would have heard of. Bloodborne maybe be difficult. It might be different. It might be a long and arduous experience. But it certainly isn't 'niche'. Just because something isn't COD or FIFA doesn't make it niche. Once you've got a game that is selling multiple millions of units and has had such a big marketing push, it can't really be called anything other than mainstream - despite its difficulty. Yes, Bloodborne and Splatoon are obviously very different games - but neither are niche titles, they're both games aimed at the mainstream which have both has big pushes in the mainstream media and outside of gaming sites by their respective publishers. The reason they were being compared is because they were both big new IPs and both seen as AAA titles.

I don't get this 'Bloodborne is a niche' game nonsense. Its clearly a triple A game with a gritty horror aesthetic. What's more, the argument it is 'mature' doesn't wash with me either, COD and Battlefield carry the same rating as Bloodborne. It really looks like it was aimed at the mainstream and marketed as such - something comparable to Resident Evil and Dark Souls. What's more it's on a console with a much bigger user base. Splatoon is a game about squids shooting paint at each other. I remember people deriding the marketing for the game when it came out and claiming it didn't have the mass market it appeal. Now Splatoon is selling well and Bloodborne hasn't performed as well, it's like we're living in opposite world and Bloodborne is a mature title (because they have problems selling) destined for a niche market and Splatoon is something made to appeal to all!

If Nintendo wants another Splatoon on its hands, it needs to look at what made it such a success. An exciting new IP that didn't just involve putting Mario into a new scenario. I think it also broke new ground - both for Nintendo and for the genre. It would be a tough call to replicate that success, but if Nintendo are going to look to replicate it, they need to get people involved in the planning stages that aren't typical Nintendo thinkers. Remember, Miyamoto and several others at Nintendo couldn't see the appeal of Splatoon, and after less than a year on the shelves it is already outselling many traditional franchises. I would say Nintendo need to start giving a little more room to internal voices that are calling for new and exciting developments that stray away from the normal safe bets that Nintendo keep doubling down on. And this is no way means I think Nintendo should stop making Mario, Zelda or Pikmin, but they should continue adding to their portfolio of top class IPs. I would say that after less than a year, Splatoon is already a top class IP and has shown just how fresh ideas can bring in big money and get the whole industry's attention.

Yeah, I wondered about that - you do have to pick which memebers of the team you like in order to prioritise working with them in order to see their story. I liked HB, Yelv and Murderess and saw their stories through quite a way. However I never touched on Boze, Nagi, Doug or Phog! I think if you take characters out with you, you can raise affinity quickly just doing missions and responding to soul voices. I think at the end of the game, I had a level 59 character, a level 60 Lin and a level 59 Elma. Once I move forward, I will ditch all my level 60 characters and go out with a squad of people like Doug, Celica and Hope to level them up. I'm not sure how much further I will play though into the post game, as I have so many other games to try.

That's a fantastic idea, having two players, both playing independently one on each screen yet both being able to interact or simply go their own way and explore. I can't believe that hasn't been implemented.