I was looking at release dates for the DS when I found results for Assassin"s Creed DS.
Google search it for more details
I think the only question is whether it will suck more than COD4 DS.
I'm looking forward to trying it out, actually. =/
I heard that it was a card game....but im not sure.
Seriously? That would be lame.
Guaranteed to suck. I mean, the actual game wasn't even that good.
In your opinion.
You're saying Jade's Game was great? **** off. It was, at most, good. Realistically it was a massive disappointment and highly repetitive. A mere tech demo of future PoP games.
No. You **** off. Don't go spouting your opinion as if it's fact.
It's a fact Jade's Game is highly repetitive and built up to be way more than it was, not to mention filled with tons of little oddities, broken mechanics and glitches.
Opinion as fact day? Here's mine:
It's a fact that game fans will hype any game as a "AAA" (despite one of those "A"s probably standing for gameplay) as long as it's from a big publisher, has a big budget, is from a big series and has great graphics/voice acting/cool looking mocap cutscenes/some form of plot despite playing like a Nazi mind-breaking method of torture while genuinely brilliant playing games like Fire Emblem or Trauma Center get slagged off by wankers from Gamespot or IGN because of a lack of great graphics/voice acting/cool looking mocap cutscenes/some form of plot/being too hard for their tiny brains/not being all about the experience but actually having some fucking gameplay.
Sorry, just watched 3 episodes of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe.
[quote=Shade;795302]No. You **** off. Don't go spouting your opinion as if it's fact.
It's fact. We've played the game in its entirety, and I'm pretty sure you've played it for a few hours at most.
It's a good game, and it has almost everything down... Except stuff to do. Therefore, it's good at best. A DS version of a game that's just 'good' will be terrible.
What if the DS version went for a completely different angle and turned out as a reasonable platformer in the same vein as Aladdin? I mean, in all likelyhood that's what happened, I doubt they got the friggin' crowd AI running on it.
Oh come on, the chances of it being a decent game are very slim. Most console-to-handheld transitions are handled terribly. What made Jade's Game worth playing was the parkour elements, and the DS just can't do it to the same degree. They could go in a completely different direction, but the chances of that being a good direction are also fairly slim.
And again, what I said about Jade's Game was far from opinion. Play the game first, please.
I'm just saying an average DS game could turn out better than the train wreck the real version turned out to be.
Trainwreck? Even I disagree with that. Still, I'll be very surprised if it's decent, especially if Ubi is developing it.
I seem to be the only person who actually enjoys the game. =/
I haven't played it yet, and I will, but the vibe I've gotten from it is it's short, repetitive, has a bad fighting system, boring platforming and hiding in the crowds (the game's main selling feature!) doesn't really have a point. Sounds like people are just saying it's okay despite all that out of guilt or something.
In my opinion, the game is a lot of fun... Unless you're doing the objectives. The crowd mechanics, climbing and swordplay are all excellent, but all the gameplay is wasted on a bunch of repetitive missions. All it needed was a greater variation in objectives, and you'd have had GOTY material.
I think a lot of people are bashing it in the same manner as Halo - to go against the grain of popular gaming culture. It doesn't help that Jade's whoring it out at every opportunity. Even I was reluctant to admit I was enjoying myself while playing it.
[URL="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2694-Zero-Punctuation-Assassin-s-Creed"]This review nails it.[/URL]
Maybe our definitions of trainwreck are different, when a game fails in almost everything it sets out to do that's a trainwreck to me.
Why's it always "Jade's game" anyway? She's only the producer last I checked.
It failed it to do what it set out to do, but it was still somewhat successful in terms of gameplay. What it meant to do and what it does do a re two separate things in my opinion.
And it's Jade's Game because that's really how it was promoted.
Hey Speedy, you might like this picture.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Jamie425/1195647274240.jpg[/IMG]
JADE'S GAME
...they're looking straight past her.
At the game. In utter disappointment. I'm pretty sure Miyamoto said the business equivalent of "**** sucks" after he left.
He said 'it's interesting'. Which is alright, considering he hardly plays games outside of those he creates.
I heard the crowd AI was pretty flawed. Like, you'd save some woman from some guards and she'd be like "OH MY *** SOMEONE KILLED THESE GUARDS THERE'S A MURDERER AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE", as if she wasn't being harassed by them at all.
So I've heard, at least.
... You heard correct. Makes for some serious lolz.
And riding your horse past a guard fast makes them think "that guy is UP TO SOMETHING".
Yeah, that seriously annoyed me.
oh shut the **** up already and get to the ****in game...........
its better than your tastes vamp
So this is your new mission in life, eh? Trolling me? Sounds fun.
I'm going to get it, but I haven't played the actual thing yet, but I have heard good and bad things about it, and it honestly looked okay. It's nothing I'm going to look foward to (Unlike SSBB <3) but I will get it and hope it's not a waste of money.
You could choose so many games that are better than *** Creed.
Don't you mean *** *** ins Creed?
Just *** Creed.
... It's a good game, honestly. It's just that so many AAA titles came out this year, your money would be wasted on something that's just plain ol' good.
Jade's *** Game?
I'd play that. if ya know what i mean
its coming out in feburary, vamp you no you would tap jade in a second if you had the chance and force her to make the best AVP video game ever.
There's no Canada like French Canada
It's the best Canada in the land
The other Canada is hardly Canada
If you lived here for a day you'd understand
[quote=Poco;799066]Fire Emblem (I've only played the Gamecube one) is pretty much "My First SRPG" (generic jrpg crap, and a rock-paper-scissors battle system); it isn't brilliant by any means, and if you think so, you've probably never played another SRPG, or you are probably included in the crowd that calls FF7 a "literary achievement". I haven't played Trauma Center, yet.
IT'S ADVANCE WARS WITH SWORDS. ARE YOU GAY?
It doesn't have the factories. Adds a whole new level of play.
Fire Emblem's a barebones strategy RPG, like Poco said. Final Fantasy Tactics is a much more complex and engrossing example of the genre.
Really, the only thing Advance Wars and Fire Emblem have in common are the movement field and the fact they're turn based.
[quote=Poco;799861]i mean if you think fire emblem is revolutionary you probably think sephiroth is the greatest villain of all time
I don't think I'm gay; i don't classify mediocre jrpgs as "brilliant" or "revolutionary", infact anyone who calls a jrpg those things is a complete moron with poor taste
It was revolutionary when it, you know, invented the genre. But I never even said anything about it other than it has excellent gameplay, especially compared to most strategy games.
I'm surprised you keep referencing FF7, I'm pretty much the most vocal FF hater on these boards. Don't stop at JRPGs though, western RPGs are just as awful. In fact, they're even worse, because they lack the adventure gameplay ripped from Zelda that JRPGs have and replace it with more meaningless number systems and even worse storylines. Fun fun fun! And then they can't even do the create-your-own-story thing properly because they're limited by developers and computers rather than just your imagination. Might aswell just stick to tabletops or MMOs.
[quote=Speedfreak;799898]In fact, they're even worse, because they lack the adventure gameplay ripped from Zelda that JRPGs
Oh hay there, Oblivion.
Man, that game was painfully linear. Not a single ounce of adventure or excitement to be found.
lol
I have some, which I want to keep in tact.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;800092]Man, that game was painfully linear. Not a single ounce of adventure or excitement to be found.
lol
I'm talking about the kind of gameplay that's in text, point-and-click and action-adventure games. Basically anything that tests your ingenuity like solving puzzles in Zelda or Day of the Tentacle or conserving resources in Resident Evil. I'm not referring to atmosphere or just non-linear gameplay.
I can't comment on Oblivion, but KOTOR certainly didn't have this stuff.
KOTOR doesn't account for all WRPGs. You're pigeonholing an entire genre, based on a single game.
A genre that's not even that large to begin with :rolleyes:
Though, the puzzles in pretty much every Zelda game are pretty ****ing basic to begin with...
Advance Wars wins.
...What genre is AW, anyway? I loved Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, and have heard great things about Fire Emblem.
BAH NOW I HAVE TO PLAY ALL THREE
Yggdra Union beats the **** out of all of them.
I'm waiting on FFTA2.
Zeta keeps talking about Yggdra Union...gotta try it one of these days. :(
I'm waiting on that, but mostly Luminous Arc 2. <3
It's gonna be a good year for the DS.
[quote=The X;800545]You're pigeonholing an entire genre, based on a single game.
Might I ask how the fuck you know that?
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;800852]Tactical turn-based. Anything like an RTS game based on board game mechanics, turn-based, and on a smaller scale falls into that category.
Advance Wars isn't a pure tactics, it's strategy. It has both but generally when a game actually has strategy it's just called a strategy game. Ironically, many RTS games are tactical, especially C&C.
Maian: Fire Emblem is heavy, HEAVY strategy. Imagine Advance Wars where you have to take as much time to plan each mission as you do to execute it, making tweaks to your unit selection and equipped weapons here and there before finally getting the balance right.
... Really? For Sacred Stones and Path of Radiance, it was usually a case of protecting the powerhouse characters while they OHKO'd all the mobs on the field.
[quote=Speedfreak]Might I ask how the f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]ck you know that?
[quote=Speedfreak]western RPGs are just as awful.
Sweeping statement right here in this thread. I could trawl other threads and find similar comments.
If you're any good at AW you plan before the battle. That's strategy.
Which is inherent in all tactics-based games. Even tactical FPS.
Don't tactical and strategy go hand-in-hand as it is? What's there to argue?
Yes, that's what I said. One is a sub-genre of the other.
So what exactly is Speedy's point, then? I know it somehow relates to his love affair with Fire Emblem, but eh.
idk, he's saying they're thinking and planning involved so it's strategy. Cause, you know, tactics has nothing to do with that.
It doesn't. Stategy being a sub-genre of tactics or vice-verse literally makes no sense, they are two entirely different things. Strategy is what you do before the battle, tactics are what you do during. In AW deciding which factories to go for first, what kind of force to build etc is strategy. Using a Med Tank to block a choke point and firing your rockets over it is a tactic.
I'm saying Fire Emblem has more strategy than AW because on top of the similar tactics they share in Fire Emblem you also have to think about which units you're bringing along, how to kit them out, where to place them at the start of battle, which to put together for support conversations and even more long term variables like which theif to give experience, which archer to rank up and so on.
There is a clear difference between the two, I promise you. And yeah, most games do actually have at least small amounts of both. But usually when a game has a good amount of strategy it's called a strategy game because tactics are found in pretty much every game ever in large amounts.
Uh, tactics takes strategy. There isn't one without the other.
Anywho, couldn't give a **** about Fire Emblem. I'm only talking about AW.
Thread title should really be changed.
'Bitter faggots arguing about strategy Posting Only Thread'.
[quote=dictionary.com]
strat-e-gy
1.the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
[quote=dictionary.com]
tac-tics
1. the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
.
[QUOTE]tac
Thank you Shade.
The Oxford English dictionary helps me out too.
tactics
The art of disposing armed forces in the order of battle and of organising operations, especially during contact with an enemy. Often contrasted with strategy.
strategy
1. A plan designed to achieve a particular long-term aim.
2. The art of planning and directing military activity in a war or battle. Often contrasted with tactics.
They have a similar meaning in a colloquial sense, kinda like how "Evolution is only a theory" doesn't make sense to scientiss who actually know the meaning of the word theory. In game theory "tactics" and "strategy" most definately have different meanings. If you still disagree then I'll point you in the direction of Mr Sun Tzu.
Pretty much stopped caring when I found out we weren't talking about Advanced Wars.
...Why are we in an argument throwing dictionary definitions of strategy and tactics? Wasn't this settled already? :cookie:
Nothing is ever settled on VGC.
so the new advance wars looks pretty cool guys
[quote=maian;802475]...Why are we in an argument throwing dictionary definitions of strategy and tactics? Wasn't this settled already? :cookie:
Because sometimes it's nice to have in-depth discussions about game design and game theory rather than tons of threads like "do ya leik the vidya game" "i want the vidya game" "new vidya game"
Point is neither of us are wrong if we both had our points proven by dictionary entries. RIGHT?
I reckon my game theory, 2 different dictionaries and a chinese warlord beat your 1 dictionary.
But strategy is for long-term planning and tactics for short-term (ie a war as opposed to a battle) though the two, however, still go together. You need a long-term plan for the short-term plan to have any meaning or effect and vice-versa. Thus operational warfare. Whether the theory of both contrast or not doesn't really mean anything because, as I said, there really isn't one without the other.
Either way, this all came from you saying turn-based tactics isn't a sub-genre of strategy games. Like the definition of the exact words really mean anything. Certain types of music are complete contrasts, but that doesn't mean one isn't the sub-genre of the other.
And Fire Emblem is still tactics based.
if it turns out to be a card game it better not be like kingdom hearts chain of memories because that just didnt live up to my expectations after the first gmae
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;802837]But strategy is for long-term planning and tactics for short-term (ie a war as opposed to a battle) though the two, however, still go together. You need a long-term plan for the short-term plan to have any meaning or effect and vice-versa. Thus operational warfare. Whether the theory of both contrast or not doesn't really mean anything because, as I said, there really isn't one without the other.
Either way, this all came from you saying turn-based tactics isn't a sub-genre of strategy games. Like the definition of the exact words really mean anything. Certain types of music are complete contrasts, but that doesn't mean one isn't the sub-genre of the other.
And Fire Emblem is still tactics based.
Your definition of genres and sub-genres is completely arbitrary.
Fire Emblem has strategy and tactics. Every strategy game has tactics and strategy so of course Fire Emblem is based on tactics, it's just also based on strategy. Saying it's a pure tactics game is putting it in the same genre as Rainbow Six and Street Fighter, both of those games are very tactics based.
Saying tactics is a genre is like saying "pixels" is a genre. The vast majority of games have them.
so days of ruin looks pretty cool
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;803210]Ugh, go back a page. You know, where I said the exact same thing.
and apparently wiki has an entire page on the genre: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_tactics[/URL]
and lists FE and AW as tactics games:
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_emblem[/URL]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Wars[/URL]
in before WIKIPEDIA DOESN'T COUNT!!!!
I AM SO SURE WIKIPEDIA'S AD-HOC METHOD OF CATEGORISING GAME GENRES HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE WRITER OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL WAR BOOK OF THE LAST 2600 YEARS.
[IMG]http://imagecache2.allposters.com/IMAGES/BRGPOD/228698.jpg[/IMG]
SUN TZU SCOWLS AT YOUR FAIL.
Have we been using Sun Tzu's book to categorize games up to this point? Or is your plan to revolutionize the way we categorize games starting right now? I don't get it.
And he's not scowling, he looks pretty happy. It's not his fault he can't smile.
Scowling at Speedfreak for getting his panties in a twist over a six and half a dozen definition.
Wow, speed. Wow. It's a gaming genre. Haha.
http://kotaku.com/343533/assassins-creed-ds-box-art
box art. looks to be third person rather than card game, could the lacking console title be a good hand held? kinda the way that pokemon was amazing on gameboys but coloseum sucked on the gc?
Prequel doesn't really seem to fit, but ok!
Hey, so we get to fight as the arrogant Altair who did whatever he wanted? Sounds good to me.
Spoilers: Altair gets stripped of all his weapons and gear right at the beginning of the game.
Most of the stuff is useless anyway. All you need is the little finger stabber and RUNNING.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;803531]Wow, speed. Wow. It's a gaming genre. Haha.
Yes but it's an interesting discussion on VGC. I'm excited!
Yeah, but Sun Tzu really doesn't have much to do with genres. I mean, I see your point and all, but what he says doesn't stop FE from being a turn-base tactics game. Doesn't stop one genre from being the sub-genre of another either.
assassins creed ds screens
enjoy, or cry
http://kotaku.com/344942/ubisoft-reveals-assassins-creed-ds
Looks awwight I guess.
UK, June 5, 2007 - American videogames retailer Gamestop may have revealed that Ubisoft's next-gen opus Assassin's Creed is heading for Nintendo DS - despite the fact it's only been officially announced for Playstation 3 and Xbox 360.
Over on the company's website, there's a product listing showing some temporary box art for the DS version and a scheduled release date of September 25, 2007. Which is interesting considering Ubisoft hasn't even revealed the release date for the PS3 and X360 versions yet.
On seeing the listing, we contacted Ubisoft and a PR representative unhelpfully noted: "Next generation consoles only have been confirmed." We'll keep you updated on any further developments.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/ds/data/939560.html
It's already come and gone. Late to the party, buddy.
So the second Assassin's Creed is coming out for 360 as well? Cool. I heard it was just going to be the PS3.