HOME | DD

augustoflores In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-25 08:19:41 +0000 UTC]

CAPCOM executives are all evil corporate greed-buckets anyways, living in their ivory tower in Osaka while ignorant gamers bad mouth the companies around them and all of the innovation they provided throughout the years.

seriously... if capcom winds up making this, we will be barraged with downloadable crap that we should have gotten when the game was first released. this is why Masahiro Sakurai alone is superior than all of capcom, because he is a perfectionist. as soon as the game is released, that's everything he could make out of the game... no dlc, no costume packs if there would have to be, then it would have to be on the disc... unlocked... like wario's plumber suit(granted Nintendo has a policy against such despicable strategies but i am sure sakurai would have it no other way)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to augustoflores [2012-01-25 14:09:48 +0000 UTC]

"sakurai"

"perfectionist"

hahahaha I don't know if you're clinically retarded or just a troll.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

augustoflores In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-25 15:27:04 +0000 UTC]

gonna have to go with neither. you see, you bad mouthed nintendo characters... so i flipflopped it to talk of capcom.
but take it what it is... im finished.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to augustoflores [2012-01-26 02:07:44 +0000 UTC]

Nintendo is, bar none, the greediest game company on the face of the planet. The fact that they don't have DLC is only due to the fact that they can't create an online infrastructure worth shit because they don't have a single goddamn clue how online play works, they're wholly ignorant of everything that the game industry as a whole has done and keep releasing substandard games that are made with production values from 1996. This is the whole reason they ignored gamers in favor of their new casual audience of non-gamers who were fascinated with their brand-free minigame collections and yoga fitness software instead of releasing REAL games. This is the reason they release one "good" game per year and the very reason that they let 99% of the Wii's library become shovelware.

Smash Bros is as FAR from perfect as a fighting game can possibly get and Sakurai is an idiot who should never make games again. It's a good game if you're 10 years old and don't actually have any interest in using your brain or actual skills in a serious competitive fighter, but apart from that it's terrible. It is the most unbalanced game by a long shot, filled with features that are meant to DISCOURAGE competitive play, such as tripping, extremely overpowered items, and moves that extensive use of random number generators that make it a game of luck instead of skill. The only way the game begins to look competitive at all is by turning off items, the one feature that makes the game unique. Even then this trash cannot be played competitively because some characters have extremely overpowered moves and glitches that break the game's balance, and since Nintendo doesn't understand online networks at all, there is NO HOPE that these exploitable glitches will ever be patched out, unlike in a game like Street Fighter or MVC3 where updates always include necessary rebalancing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

GSDAkatsuki In reply to tokotiger [2012-02-02 01:08:34 +0000 UTC]

MvC3 HA!!! Pure sh*t.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

UseTheBrakes In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-30 20:05:15 +0000 UTC]

Are you honestly telling me that Activision is not the greediest company in gaming? Or Zynga or Rovio? (but then again, I don't count their shit as actual games)

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

redrojo17 In reply to UseTheBrakes [2012-12-21 19:49:32 +0000 UTC]

they are also a bunch of f*cking idiots for not letting crash and spyro appear in playstation all stars battle royal

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UseTheBrakes In reply to redrojo17 [2012-12-21 20:05:48 +0000 UTC]

That game I wasn't paying much attention to. However, considering Crash and Spyro and their importance to the PS1...yeah, kinda bad. Still, we did get the Big Daddy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TronmanZ In reply to UseTheBrakes [2012-02-25 03:00:57 +0000 UTC]

EA is worse than Activision IMO. And Activision is scum.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tokotiger In reply to UseTheBrakes [2012-01-31 02:26:15 +0000 UTC]

They're amazingly greedy too but unlike Nintendo they at the very least release games for their fanbase. Nintendo just hoards all its money and hardly spends anything on the creation of games, their development budgets rival the ones they had from 1996.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UseTheBrakes In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-31 02:58:56 +0000 UTC]

Gee, I wonder why Nintendo is making Luigi's Mansion 2 then? Not to mention the HD Zelda game...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to UseTheBrakes [2012-01-31 04:33:43 +0000 UTC]

Wow, Luigi's Mansion 2, a total rehash of a mediocre game that absolutely nobody cares about. And they're not making an HD Zelda you idiot. That was just a tech demo to show off the Wii U's hardware, why else do you think they reused the same Link and Armogohma boss from Twilight Princess? All they did was upres them for a cutscene. That HD Zelda tech demo is nothing more than an empty promise and you are incredibly naive if you believe it's an actual game.

It will be quite some time before they release something like that, and I doubt they ever will, since the NSMB and Mii games for the WiiU both have terrible graphics that show that they're not willing to put any serious effort into making these games.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UseTheBrakes In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-31 20:54:33 +0000 UTC]

Oh yeah, cause graphics are what makes a game good. That's why I enjoy Super Mario 64 so much: it has such incredible graphics. And even if the Zelda HD was a tech demo, Nintendo is definitely making an HD Zelda as we speak. And there were people who cared about Luigi's Mansion. It's called a cult hit. Ever hear of one?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

tokotiger In reply to UseTheBrakes [2012-02-01 02:22:20 +0000 UTC]

If graphics are so unimportant to you then why would you even care about an HD Zelda? They're not making one and will not be for quite some time. Deal with it.

As I've mentioned, there seems to be this discrepancy with you Nintendo fanboys that all anyone ever cares about on the other consoles is graphics. There is not A SINGLE PERSON in the game industry who thinks graphics take precedence over gameplay. That's just a load of bullshit you Nintendo fanboys made up and use as a crutch, you use it to cover up the fact that Nintendo is too cheap to shell out the money for good hardware. The advantages of good hardware aren't just graphics, obviously. Processing power contributes a ton to gameplay. You could have many more enemies on the screen or far larger setpieces and explosive spells, among other things. Yet you Nintendo fanboys have your heads stuck so far up your own asses that you think all we care about is graphics (again, something you completely made up).

So what? "Cult hit" status isn't difficult to achieve. That term is bandied about so carelessly that I think people like you forget what it meant. Cult hit status doesn't mean something is good, it just means there are a select few people who enjoyed it. There is an extremely dangerous car in the UK called the "Reliant Robin" which is a three-wheeled piece of crap that constantly rolls over and poses a constant danger to your life, yet it's popular among a small group of people. "Cult hit" doesn't mean a damn thing. There are REAL franchises that they could be making proper sequels to, like Star Fox, F-Zero and Pilotwings, but oooh no they're just doing a sequel to Luigi's Mansion because that's apparently more important than those franchises. Wrong, more like Luigi's Mansion is the cheapest sequel they could make.

And when I say sequels I mean REAL sequels, not like Star Fox Adventures or Command that involves dinosaurs or pretends to be a strategy game. An HD F-Zero with a fully involved story mode, that delivers an amazing sense of speed as given by the likes of games like Burnout Paradise (yet another great game thing that you would never truly experience with the Wii's hardware). Not going to happen. Instead they're going to keep cranking out the same low-effort crap they've always been doing; the only actual GAMES they had on display for the Wii U at this past E3 were lame Mii minigames with low-resolution graphics. They also displayed a new NSMB for the thing that wasn't in HD at all, it was the exact same graphics AND gameplay as the previous NSMB game. It's sad to see how you support a company that rips you off constantly and doesn't care about your existence at all. Now, you might be inclined to say the same thing about me with Activision and Call of Duty, to which I reply, I don't play Call of Duty. There are many more quality games for my system that aren't just the ones you see talked about on gaming news sites all the time, unlike with the Wii, where your only options are Zelda or Mario.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UseTheBrakes In reply to tokotiger [2012-02-01 22:24:37 +0000 UTC]

And you know what? Zelda and Mario don'tneed your fancy shmancy processing power to be good, or rather, excellent games. And why do you even bring up graphics if you even don't think they're important? I'll bet you never played Super Maio Galaxy or its sequel; both of those games are proof that production values and graphics mean jack shit when making quality games. Or even Super Mario Bros 3, or A Link to the Past. Those games are still amazingby today's standards.

Nintendo is hard at work on a Pikmin 3 for Wii U. You would literally need to be retarded to not think that Nintendo is working on a Zelda for the Wii U. And I wouldn't be surprised if at this year's E3, they announced sequels, REAL sequels, to Starfox and F Zero.

If you're talking about quality, then Nintendo is by far the highest quality you can ever get in a videogame. 3 of my top 5 games of all time are from Nintendo. Only a select few come even close to Nintendo's standards, and I find many other games boring that aren't Nintendo.

And another thing. I bet you didn't hear about the ambassador program when your head was shoved so far up your ass. When the 3DS' price dropped, those who bought one before the drop got access to 20 classic games. More proof that Nintendo cares about their customers. I'll bet you that Microsoft would've never done that. Sony, maybe, but definitely not Microsoft.

I admit Nintendo does have issues, mainly with the online space. But if you ask me, that's pretty unimportant anyway. Sure, it's fun to play games online with friends, but I will always think that single player is the most important part of the game. Besides, if the stars are aligning with the Wii U, Nintendo might just catch up to the likes of Sony and Microsoft.

One last thing. You say that the only options for Wii are Mario and Zelda. But did you forget about Smash Bros, Kirby, No More Heroes, and MadWorld? All quality games. Now I'll admit that I have more games for my other consoles, but I definitely play my Wii more than my Xbox and Playstation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to UseTheBrakes [2012-02-02 02:19:16 +0000 UTC]

You blindly assume that I've never played Mario Galaxy or SMB3 and LTTP despite the fact that anyone who's grown up with games have most definitely played the latter two and I mentioned that I played SMG in the former, so either you're illiterate or just retarded. They were good games but so many nostalgia-deluded manchildren just love calling them "masterpieces" for no good reason. LTTP in all honesty is just a good game, but you fanboys always blow it out of proportion as the best game ever made. And on top of that you constantly use Nintendo's past successes as a reason why they're good today, ignoring that the industry has changed and Nintendo hasn't really done anything groundbreaking since OoT.

"Hard at work" on Pikmin 3? Pikmin is an extremely simplistic game that doesn't require much production time put into it, and they announced it in 2008; there's STILL no news on it. How long could they possibly need to develop a game that doesn't have anywhere NEAR the depth or scope of a game like Batman Arkham City? Given the last two Pikmin games, which give an idea of what to expect from the third one, it's not like people are expecting a lot from this series. There is no possible way they could justify that amount of development time on a game as simple as Pikmin. The maps and dungeons in Pikmin are not hard to make, modern roguelikes are even capable of producing dungeons like that simply through computerized map generators. With all this, it's safe to say that NO, they are not "hard at work". They are just sitting around aimlessly until they can cash in on the next Mario or Mii-game rehash.

I notice a lot of the things you say are just purely speculative thoughts pulled out of your ass. "Well they just HAVE to be working on a new Zelda! I'll bet they're making sequels to F-Zero and Star Fox!" The onus is on you to provide evidence for these claims. It's easy to deduce from empiricism that they are not working on any such thing. Your kind said that they were working on F-Zero and Star Fox sequels when the Wii came out, that would take full advantage of the new era of motion controls, and now that the console is near it's life cycle we still haven't seen that. So what else could this possibly be but just more wishful thinking from Nintendo fanboys? I do agree you will eventually see a new Zelda but not for at least another four years. There is no way in hell that they are anywhere past the conceptual phase on the next one. Given how long it's taken them between major Zelda titles to release new ones, the fact that they just released one in November, and the fact that this NEW Zelda will supposedly be in HD (a hope that has been dashed in interviews where Eiji Aonuma said that the HD Zelda tech demo doesn't represent how the next game will actually look), all evidence supports my statements whereas you haven't got a lick of empirical proof, just starry-eyed optimism and nothing more. I used to be the same way, I used to love Nintendo and thought they could do no wrong before the Wii proved to me just how backwards they are.

3 of your top 5 games are Nintendo. Given that you're vehemently defending their decisions no matter how bad they are and the fact that you have a Rosalina avatar, this doesn't surprise me. You have a ridiculous amount of cognitive bias so your opinion isn't to be trusted in this case because you'll just gleefully swallow all of Nintendo's sticky loads. You're treating "quality" as if it's an entirely subjective property when it's not, many modern games surpass Nintendo by an enormous margin in terms of production values, content and depth. And when I say the term "production values", you seem to think that means "amount of money you can throw at it", which is not the case.

Production values are things that the game developers place great importance on, such as aesthetics, sound, control and gameplay. They have to make sure their games are top of the line in every regard, which they do. They make absolutely sure the complex physics and mechanics in the game work how they're supposed to. Production values do not mean "jack shit" when it comes to making quality games, otherwise Nintendo would never have been able to devise the gravity-based elements in SMG. Statements like that show how utterly ignorant you are of gaming as a whole. Non-Nintendo developers usually set their aspirations higher than just making a game work well. They do things like enrich their games with incredible storytelling and context-sensitive gameplay, always focusing on enhancing player immersion. They accomplish this in far more interesting and compelling ways than just collecting an item and using at this specific spot (such as in Zelda). Mass Effect, Batman, Deus Ex, Skyrim, these are all SUBLIME examples of high quality production values that outclass Nintendo in every way, and that doesn't even begin to describe lesser games such as Uncharted, The Witcher, Bioshock, Demon's Souls and Portal, which are still way out of Nintendo's league. If you haven't experienced or at least witnessed all of these games then you can't possibly say that you know what you're talking about. These games all demonstrate a far higher quality than Nintendo has ever shown in their entire history as a game company. You probably dismiss them for some ridiculous and churlish reason, such as them being too complicated to just sit down and play, or having naughty words in them, or not having enough pretty colors. These are all absolutely terrible excuses to dismiss these games, in addition to being poor sentiments for a mature gamer to have. It's akin to me dismissing Zelda and Mario for being too childish (which they are, but I gave their recent games a chance anyways and liked them, I just don't think they're anywhere near up to par with modern game standards). The main reason there are so many of these darker, mature titles is obvious, because the people who grew up with Super Nintendo have actually GROWN UP; these games are all for discerning adults to enjoy. Not everything has to be family friendly 100% of the time in order to be good, otherwise there would be no excellent dramas in books, TV, films or games. Everything would be completely sterilized, held back and censored for the lowest common denominator like how Nintendo makes things. This would be a truly dark, soulless, artless world if everyone followed that example.

The 3DS ambassador program, WOW, you get a bunch of old games that cost literally nothing to Nintendo, are worth nothing to anyone, are effortlessly ported over and can be easily emulated anywhere. Ooh oh god I'm so envious. This doesn't mean shit, it's a completely vapid and thoughtless attempt to remain "good" in the eyes of the public. "Oh we're sorry we made you buy our hardware at a completely unreasonable price before dropping it, here, have some games that are so old and universally available that they don't even cost a dollar at any used game store. See? We're benevolent dictators here at Nintendo!". It's akin to a corporate greedbucket CEO posing for the paparazzi with a baby in his arms, then tossing the baby in a dumpster when they all look away. It's purely for appearances. Nintendo doesn't care about you, they don't give a shit that you paid an exorbitant amount for their system before they dropped the price. It cost them absolutely no time or effort whatsoever to port these "ambassador" games and this is such a completely laughable point that honestly I just seriously pity you now. They essentially just let you download a bunch of GBA roms. They're pissing directly into your ear and telling you that it's raining, and you're believing them. Come on man, use more scrutiny.

Yes, online integration is important to this generation of consoles. Sure, single player is important, but have you really immersed yourself in online gameplay at all? It seems to me that all you've really experienced of this generation is Halo and COD, never straying too far out of your comfort zone and only playing either family-orient games or what your friends tell you to play, instead of exploring games and finding new gems to enjoy like the games I talked about above. Many of the games I talked about are primarily single player yet games today are usually enhanced significantly by the online offerings. Have you really immersed yourself in the competition of a game like Halo, or committed yourself to co-operating with people to create and build stuff in Little Big Planet? Have you even tried any of the other games that offer more varied and creative online experiences? I'm really doubting it.

As for the other choices you listed on the Wii... Smash Bros. is a lame party game for 10 year olds that gets old quick once 4-player matches devolve into incomprehensible clusterfucks, the game is more reliant on luck than actual skill, and it's not meant to be played competitively. I want some depth from my fighting games, and an understanding of what makes a game competitive, which is why I play games like Super Street Fighter IV on my 360 (not at all like the 3DS version because that one is stupid and lets you map moves to a single touch-screen button). Capcom understands the competitive scene quite well, not like Sakurai who adds stupid things like severely broken items, instant-kill stage hazards and random tripping. Once you desire a more cerebral fighting game experience, SSB becomes immensely dull. No More Heroes? Not that great. That game was made by Grasshopper Manufacture which has gone on to produce WAY better games that are only on 360 and PS3, like Shadows of the Damned and the upcoming Lollipop Chainsaw. In addition, NMH is getting ported over to the PS3 and getting a PS3-exclusive sequel to be used with the Playstation Move (I think it may have come out already, actually). Madworld... same deal, Platinum Games has gone on to produce far superior games that are only available on PS3 and 360, like Bayonetta, Vanquish and the upcoming Anarchy Reigns. And Kirby? Really? Kirby hasn't been a compelling reason to own a system since the Super Nintendo. I'm sure that new Kirby game is good, it looks okay, but if it's anything as easy as Epic Yarn was then it's pointless to list this as a good reason to own a Wii. Epic Yarn was by far one of the worst games I've ever played, being ridiculously easy and streamlined to the point where it doesn't even deserve to be called a game. It literally holds your hand and walks you through it, beginning to end. No challenge, no fun, total pass. In addition, Nintendo has a bad habit when it comes to releasing games of a 2D nature. For a quarter of the price you can buy games like Splosion Man or Castle Crashers on XBLA and PSN, which have the exact same amount of content as NSMB Wii or DKCR. Nintendo's 2D games are ridiculously overpriced for what you get in addition to showing how half-assed their production values are. No 2D game is worth $50 anymore, this isn't 1994. They are artificially bloating the price, mainly because the Wii's control scheme doesn't allow them to release 3D games with traditional controls anymore, so they have to bank on the fact that the only way to do traditional controls is by tilting the Wiimote on its side.

In any case, Xbox and Playstation both have a higher volume of critically acclaimed games. With their libraries you get quantity AND quality. The only reason you still play Wii is because you see Nintendo through rose-tinted nostalgia goggles, and you feel an attachment to their mascots. I don't think you've experienced the best that the other systems have to offer. And when I say "the best" I don't mean Halo or God of War, those are merely the most popular games on those systems. This isn't like the Wii where you either go with the most popular choice or go with nothing. There is a vast selection of games that you clearly haven't took in, many of which are the most stellar literary experiences in recent memory. You are very uninformed and should experience more of those systems' libraries before you go about spewing more praise for Nintendo. See what I'm talking about before you say that Nintendo is the best because you will reconsider that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UseTheBrakes In reply to tokotiger [2012-02-02 03:34:44 +0000 UTC]

I've played plenty of games on my 360 and PS3. Bioshock happens to be one of my favorite games of all time; I also love Batman:Arkham Asylum, Halo, Infamous, God of War, Gears of War, Portal, Resident Evil, Dragon Age (for PC), among others. I just love Nintendo games more. And it's not just rose tinted nostalgia goggles. I think Nintendo stands for quality, and yes, I'll admit that Nintendo doesn't have the most triple A titles this generation. But I can play a Nintendo game like Galaxy or yes, even Pokemon for months on end. They're a great deal of fun, and that's why I play video games. For fun.

You keep on saying that Nintendo cares only about money. Well, why would they have a Zelda Symphony Concert Tour then? Honestly, I looked it up. A good seat costs $87, which, if you ask me, isn't too much considering, and it's a full blown orchestra we're talking about. They have to pay 50-60 people to play a tour, and I imagine orchestra players get paid a pretty decent amount. I honestly doubt Nintendo is making a profit on that.

But seriously, though, why are we arguing? We both know that no matter how much we argue, I'm still gonna love Nintendo, and you're still gonna hate Nintendo.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to UseTheBrakes [2012-02-02 07:30:38 +0000 UTC]

Um, yeah, you play video games for fun, indeed that's the whole point of video games no matter what system you play them on. I don't know why you bothered pointing out that you "play video games for fun", it's like saying you eat food for sustenance. The only way I can see a comment like this making sense is if that you're trying to imply that the games I've talked about are somehow less fun or are diminished in that aspect, which I think is disrespectful to them. But yes, judging by the games you've listed you've only experienced a fraction of what the other systems offer, only choosing to play the most popular titles instead of the real gems. So this proves that everything you have to say on this subject is misguided. and uninformed, akin to saying that by watching only the most popular shows like Jersey Shore you've experienced everything TV has to offer and don't bother checking out superb serial dramas. Arkham City is leaps and bounds over Arkham Asylum.

I don't see how I'm disproven by Nintendo having a Zelda symphony tour. In fact that only serves to reinforce my claim that they're corporate greedbuckets because a Zelda concert tour is pure ostentation and nothing else. It's solely for the purpose of bringing brand awareness back into the good graces of popular opinion. It's not like other concert tours where you'll hear new and original music. Instead you're paying nearly $100 to hear music that you've heard a thousand times before. And considering that tickets cost that much per person, that each venue will fill up with easily over a thousand seats, possibly more, thus already bringing the amount of money to an exorbitant amount, you are talking out of your ass if you think Nintendo is doing this out of the "goodness of their heart". Especially once you consider how many places they're touring to.

You're the one who began this argument and you're the one who perpetuated it so why the hell are you asking me why we're arguing? I'm just trying to get you to reconsider your deeply misguided view of gaming and this uninformed notion of Nintendo being a benevolent charitable organization instead of one of the greediest corporations in the world. I'm concluding that you are vastly ignorant about games which is why you cling to Nintendo. There are real developers making real strides to innovate in this medium to get it recognized as an art form and Nintendo is holding back all advancement by constantly making games like it's 1996. They do not do anything to push real boundaries in games and only reinforce the idea that it's an industry driven entirely by corporate avarice, hence the fact that they ignored gamers for most of the Wii's life cycle in favor of the far more profitable non-gamer audience of soccer moms and grandmas. If you actively choose to not see for yourself how the other companies are better than Nintendo then you are living a life of ignorance and decay and can't call yourself a true gamer because a real one would be open to all systems instead of just being selective about one. You are undeniably and completely wrong and there are numerous paths to righting you. You may go down them or continue living in ignorance, I don't care, but if you choose the latter option then don't speak out on this subject again because you are far too uneducated on it to make these conversations fruitful to anyone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

UseTheBrakes In reply to UseTheBrakes [2012-01-31 20:59:10 +0000 UTC]

Oh, and I should also say that the fact that Paper Mario 3DS is an RPG rather than a platformer, not to mention Mario Tennis ming out for 3DS and being developed by Camelot, means that yes, Nintendo does care about its fans.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

augustoflores In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-26 05:12:39 +0000 UTC]

*sigh*

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tokotiger In reply to Ether-Enereon [2012-01-25 02:36:32 +0000 UTC]

PS3 and 360 already got Marvel vs. Capcom 3 which is better than TVC in every way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ether-Enereon In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-25 23:18:08 +0000 UTC]

What I meant is if a 'Nintendo Vs Capcom' turned up - The other consoles don't actually as such have exclusive 1st Party characters, but they'd likely get what they want anyway - their own version of a Nintendo exclusive 3rd Party game.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to Ether-Enereon [2012-01-26 02:09:31 +0000 UTC]

Not true. It's not like the other companies were keen to rip off Smash Bros. Capcom seems to favor the other systems anyways, they're distancing themselves from Nintendo these days.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ether-Enereon In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-26 02:35:23 +0000 UTC]

Smash Bros isn't a 3rd Party game XD And what I was referring to is the fact that nearly every game Capcom has announced as an 'exclusive' for Nintendo has been ported >.>

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to Ether-Enereon [2012-01-26 08:00:26 +0000 UTC]

What year are you living in? 2005? That is extremely ancient news, Capcom hasn't released any Nintendo exclusives in ages.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ether-Enereon In reply to tokotiger [2012-01-26 10:16:04 +0000 UTC]

Actually, I can name 4 off the top of my head since 2005, and there are many more. Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom (2008), Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles (2009), Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007) (both rail shooters) and Resident Evil: Revelations (2012). Resident Evil 4 was *meant* to be an NGC exclusive, but Sony got their way and had their own version of it. All the Capcom beat'em ups (with the exception of Tatsunoko and Super Street Fighter 4) since the GBA have all been exclusively to other consoles.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1