In a word, no. Having owned a 3DS, whilst it has a couple of half decent titles, it's not enough to warrant trading another console for, which has a massive library of great games for.Legion said:The question on every bodies mind is:
If Legion wanted to get rid of their Xbox, would it be worth trading it in for a 3DS with the game when it releases in April?
romanator0 said:Glad to see Fire Emblem do so well. I personally found Awakening to have the best gameplay and army/unit customization of all the games I've played although I did find it a bit annoying that some of the gear like the long-range spell tomes and the weapons that reverse the weapon triangle weren't put into the game.
Hopefully we can see re-releases of older titles like Fire Emblem 6.
Yo Terramax, I'm happy for you, Imma let you finish, but the 3DS has one of the best game lineups of 2013. Of 2013!j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:In a word, no. Having owned a 3DS, whilst it has a couple of half decent titles, it's not enough to warrant trading another console for, which has a massive library of great games for.Legion said:The question on every bodies mind is:
If Legion wanted to get rid of their Xbox, would it be worth trading it in for a 3DS with the game when it releases in April?
Also, depending on your taste in games, I would actually more likely recommend a PS Vita.
It's not CoD, it's development costs. Games with cutting-edge graphics like CoD, Assassin's Creed, or Deep Space have monumentally large development costs (as Yahtzee has joked, it takes an entire room full of people working just to render one person walking across a room, a joke which isn't far from the truth), so they need large sales to cover said costs.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:Secondly, it shows how much healthier the handheld industry is when 180,000 units is seen as a smash success (though I believe those are just US figures, not Japanese as well). If EA's claim that 5 million sales are needed to be viable is the future of the console industry, I'm jumping off now and sticking just to handhelds. Not only are the games more creative, the sales expectations haven't been fucked up the arse by COD yet.
The exception that proves the rule. Generally speaking, Fire Emblem is always released under the radar. Heck, I'm a big fan of Fire Emblem and always try to keep an eye out for it, but I didn't hear about Awakening until damn-near its release date; if not after. Heck, I don't even remember what clued me in to it, just suddenly there's a Fire Emblem on 3DS that I need to run out and buy.cyvaris said:Everyone who keeps saying that Nintendo has never advertised a Fire Emblem in the US seem to have forgotten this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnm3koahhNo
THIS teaser is what got me into the series. I remembered playing as Marth/Roy in Melee and then saw this trailer, begged family for it, and got it for my birthday. Years later....they got me Awakening AND a 3DS. Certainly the best thing to find in your mail box while you are away at Uni.
Also, I love how this trailer kills Dorcas off!
No, it's a scene from very early in the game (I think around the 3rd mission), and doesn't spoil anything that the game's own box art doesn't spoil. All the screenshot says is "There's a mysterious masked guy with blue hair that implies he is somehow tied to the royal family".scotth266 said:Isn't that picture a spoiler? I wouldn't know, not having played the game.
It "technically" is I suppose but you are introduced to Marth in the first few missions so not really.scotth266 said:Isn't that picture a spoiler? I wouldn't know, not having played the game.
It's kind of a cause and effect deal. The reason games have such bloated advertising costs is because development costs are so damn high that they can't afford to NOT tell people about the game. They need millions of people to rush out and buy the game. Compare that to a game like Fire Emblem that's probably a drop in the bucket to develop, and it's apples and oranges. 180,000 is a big deal when it doesn't cost a lot to develop the game, meanwhile when it costs into the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a game, then yeah, suddenly even selling as low as one million units is a critical failure.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:Development costs is one part of it. I'd argue that marketing costs are just as much an issue currently.WhiteTigerShiro said:It's not CoD, it's development costs. Games with cutting-edge graphics like CoD, Assassin's Creed, or Deep Space have monumentally large development costs (as Yahtzee has joked, it takes an entire room full of people working just to render one person walking across a room, a joke which isn't far from the truth), so they need large sales to cover said costs.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:Secondly, it shows how much healthier the handheld industry is when 180,000 units is seen as a smash success (though I believe those are just US figures, not Japanese as well). If EA's claim that 5 million sales are needed to be viable is the future of the console industry, I'm jumping off now and sticking just to handhelds. Not only are the games more creative, the sales expectations haven't been fucked up the arse by COD yet.
Battlefield 3 had something like a $100 million marketing budget. AC3 I don't even want to think about how much they spent on marketing. I believe it's been said before that EA now spend more on marketing than they do on development. No idea if its true, but it does show just how bloated marketing costs have gotten in the industry.
Which is all well and good, but for every you, there's about a few-hundred other people clamoring for the latest graphics.Personally, I can do without fancy graphics. The Metroid Prime series is, to me, one of the high points of visual design in this medium, and all the games were made on Gamecube or Gamecube equivalent hardware. I've yet to see a Crysis, Battlefield or Gears game that I think looks better than the Prime series.