sushifiyed
Constipated
I recently found out that Suda51 might be making a new No More Heroes for the Wii U or 3ds. What do you guys think about this?
No More Heroes 3?
- Thread starter sushifiyed
- Start date
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
havnt played either of em yet lawl
How important were the motion controls to No More Heroes? Half the fun like Red Steel (2, not 1 as it was ass), or replaceable with ye olde button and analogue controls? If on the 3DS, would a touch screen add anythin' to the gameplay?
How important were the motion controls to No More Heroes? Half the fun like Red Steel (2, not 1 as it was ass), or replaceable with ye olde button and analogue controls? If on the 3DS, would a touch screen add anythin' to the gameplay?
id love no more heroes 3..
i beat the 1st one...played a couple hours of the 2nd one...
you could program the wiimote directional slashes to an analog stick...but wouldnt be as satisfiying...
in no more heroes1 you could hold the wiimote to your ear and use it as a phone
instead of using a phone..they could make travis use a tablet now...
anyway...i hope its open world like the 1st one and offer the option of using a wiimote...
would be awesome if it was exclusive to nintendo consoles as well.
i beat the 1st one...played a couple hours of the 2nd one...
you could program the wiimote directional slashes to an analog stick...but wouldnt be as satisfiying...
in no more heroes1 you could hold the wiimote to your ear and use it as a phone
instead of using a phone..they could make travis use a tablet now...
anyway...i hope its open world like the 1st one and offer the option of using a wiimote...
would be awesome if it was exclusive to nintendo consoles as well.
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
No. Exclusives bloody suck.
OP
sushifiyed
Constipated
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #5
I played the 2nd one for HOURS. I agree with you, since the Wii u gamepad doesn't have motion controls like the Wii remote did, it would be boring with an analog stick.
The motion controls were used to do finishing moves to your enemies. It was pretty satisfying. But the motion controls weren't that important though.
Last edited by a moderator:
sometimes its good though...
it could boost sales for a console by being exclusive and might even make a niche game sell more...games like killzone are selling well due to being sony only franchises which makes fans buy them more...if killzone was multiplat it would have died already.
look at rayman legends...was going to be exclusive and wiiU owners were hyped....then they made it multiplatform and delayed it....which caused it to flop even harder.
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
Don't be stupid, it most assuredly isn't. What an exclusive is, is many middle class (and lower) gamers bein' ****ed out of a great experience. That's what it comes down to, and it's utter bullshit. I'll never be able to sink my teeth (wait, Magikarp don't have teeth...) int' Killer Instinct because Microsod is a bunch'a sods. Countless Bayonetta fans won't get to play the sequel that was revived rather than be canceled forever.
It's an absolute bollocks business practice that prioritizes money over fans... and sadly, that's business.
is you being able to play a game worth it if the franchise has to die for it? or a console or company has to close or discontinue?
what's more important?
Last edited:
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
In short, what you've just said is that, if for example Pokemon was not-so-exclusive and suddenly ported to the PSVita, Game Freak would go bankrupt/the series would just up and die/both.
No.
No.
yea...put pokemon on iphone and andriod and vita....the 3ds would probably sell less....pokemon would not be looked at as a nintendo frnachise anymore so nintendo brand is reduced...these are all negative effects....which could lead to the series or nintendo and their handhelds declining.
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
If Pokemon was also on non-Ninty systems, it'd sell more. The series would only become more profitable, and Game Freak along with it. The fact that it's an exclusive is a negative for everyone but Nintendo by that very reasoning: Game Freak has less sales, and people who are either not willing or are too poor to buy a 3DS just for Pokemon don't get to play the game they want to. If it were not to be exclusive, you're right: it'd be a negative effect. For Nintendo solely. That's proof for my point, exclusivity does nothing but benefit whatever company that procures a title/series. No one else. No middle man, not the gamers, not the developers, only the suits benefit.
So, if Ninty's handheld(s) would decline in popularity and thus sales 'n profitability, what does that tell ya? Title exclusivity is a tool to sell consoles, nothing more. If game exclusivity was thrown out the window, Ninty would no longer be so clearly on top of popularity charts. Only a very small amount of stupid people would ever buy an Xbone. It'd be a battle of who's making the better console, not who owns the best developer studios.
Obviously I can't say for sure whether or not the removal of exclusivity would be nothing but beneficial for gamers and developers alike, but the practice has it's downfalls. T'is my point, that exclusivity is a negative trait of gaming that perhaps should be outright destroyed, or at least done better. For example, exclusive titles would only have their "exclusive" status for a year or two, and be released later for other systems after a set period of time. So long as other systems would get an otherwise exclusive game eventually, assuming developers do want to port the title(s) in question, I wouldn't complain 'bout this issue at all.
/off topic
So, if Ninty's handheld(s) would decline in popularity and thus sales 'n profitability, what does that tell ya? Title exclusivity is a tool to sell consoles, nothing more. If game exclusivity was thrown out the window, Ninty would no longer be so clearly on top of popularity charts. Only a very small amount of stupid people would ever buy an Xbone. It'd be a battle of who's making the better console, not who owns the best developer studios.
Obviously I can't say for sure whether or not the removal of exclusivity would be nothing but beneficial for gamers and developers alike, but the practice has it's downfalls. T'is my point, that exclusivity is a negative trait of gaming that perhaps should be outright destroyed, or at least done better. For example, exclusive titles would only have their "exclusive" status for a year or two, and be released later for other systems after a set period of time. So long as other systems would get an otherwise exclusive game eventually, assuming developers do want to port the title(s) in question, I wouldn't complain 'bout this issue at all.
/off topic
games like final fantasy and metal gear solid were exclusive and turned multiplat...did it help developers there?
sometimes i feel killzone and resisitance only sold that much because they are playstation house brands....idk
but yea i wish every game was multiplat...then you would only need 1 console
Splash_King
The Scrubbiest of Hunters
In sales, definitely. In other ways, probably. For example, there wouldn't be a Final Fantasy fanbase amongst Microsod's own if those more recent FF game(s?) didn't get a 360 port.
Similar threads
