Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 158
  1. #16
    Put a smile on that face Immortal Weapon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Bronx, New York
    Posts
    6,592

    Default

    I don't think it's a stupid decision because the Switch is a popular console and third party games have been successful on it. It wouldn't surprise me if by next year the Switch installbase eclipses the Xbone.

    Having Nintendo be the publisher means the game won't be monetized into the ground if Activision published again.

  2. #17
    Mighty Member ZeonsSilverStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    I actually plan on buying a Switch before the New Year, new Smash is out, so this being an exclusive doesn't bother me. The fact that it looks like a ported mobile game is my issue but hey Wolverine is all is forgiven. After Spider-Man I had high hopes for the future of Marvel gaming but I suppose that was the exception and not the new norm.
    Somewhere, a nerd cries. I feel nothing.

  3. #18
    Astonishing Member The_Greatest_Username's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,681

    Default

    I’m pretty interested to see how this turns on being a Switch exclusive.

  4. #19
    Ultimate Member Havok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Metaltron View Post
    Why the hell does it have to be a Switch exclusive for? This could have been a great return to this series but shelving it behind one console is gonna cost them. Worse this now makes it all but certain that Avengers Project by Square is gonna be another shitty Destiny/Overwatch clone no true Marvel fan wants or cares about. Very disappointed.
    That didnt hurt Spider-Man in the slightest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Weapon View Post
    The game is being published by Nintendo
    https://gematsu.com/2018/12/marvel-u...ced-for-switch
    thats surprising bc I thought Activision owned the IP and wouldnt expect a sequel without them
    Last edited by Havok83; 12-07-2018 at 08:56 AM.

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member Derek Metaltron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    4,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havok83 View Post
    That didnt hurt Spider-Man in the slightest.
    Because more people have PS4s than Switches. And it’s Sony’s cash cow and studio. There was no need to make MUA3 exclusive, especially when the vast audience would have played the earlier games on the consoles not respected.

  6. #21
    Ultimate Member Havok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Metaltron View Post
    Because more people have PS4s than Switches. And it’s Sony’s cash cow and studio. There was no need to make MUA3 exclusive, especially when the vast audience would have played the earlier games on the consoles not respected.
    Im just pointing out that the same complaint you made is exactly what people said 2 years ago when Spider-Man was announced. Spider-Man games havent been doing as well in recent history but this exclusive sold better on one platform than the Activision ones that were released on multiple ones with a much larger install base so your argument is flawed

    Besides did you see that trailer? The graphics arent that impressive so this likely doesnt have a huge budget. It doesnt need the PS4 and XB1 to be profitable. Nintendo and Marvel will likely make back what they put into this as it doesnt appear to have AAA production value behind it.

  7. #22
    Astonishing Member Derek Metaltron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    4,644

    Default

    That’s not the point though. There’s been a lot of people who have been clamouring Marvel to make another MUA for nearly a decade now and to have it be a mere console exclusive on a platform that the core audience might not own is unfair. I can only hope that Marvel realise their mistake and re-release it in a year or so on the other consoles. Team Ninja aren’t as beheld to Nintendo as Insomniac are with Sony.

    And Spider-Man sold well because they put effort and respect for the brand into it.

  8. #23
    Incredible Member Master Planner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    615

    Default

    Looks like a mobile game rather than a console one.Plus,no Fantastic Four, so i'm not interested in seeing a game reduced to Avenger and GotG,plus Wolverine and Spider-Man.
    " I am Loki Scar-Lip, Loki Skywalker, Loki Giant's Child, Loki Lie-Smith. I am Loki, who is fire and wit and hate. I am Loki. And I will be under an obligation to no one."

    Previously known as Nefarius

  9. #24
    Ultimate Member Havok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Metaltron View Post
    That’s not the point though. There’s been a lot of people who have been clamouring Marvel to make another MUA for nearly a decade now and to have it be a mere console exclusive on a platform that the core audience might not own is unfair. I can only hope that Marvel realise their mistake and re-release it in a year or so on the other consoles. Team Ninja aren’t as beheld to Nintendo as Insomniac are with Sony.

    And Spider-Man sold well because they put effort and respect for the brand into it.
    It is the point. I really dont think Marvel and Nintendo are going to be hurt for rolling the game out the way they are. Besides this has a new publisher and new developer. This will only be MUA in name only as it will be unrelated to the past games.

    Unfair? This is business. If you want to play the game, get a Switch. This is nothing new that hasnt been done in gaming for decades

  10. #25
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,814

    Default

    Why Switch only? Ugh ...
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  11. #26
    iMan 42s
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havok83 View Post
    That didnt hurt Spider-Man in the slightest.
    That's largely because Spider-man is known to have exclusives or in some way have money make its way back to Sony. Anybody who knows the modern Spider-man games know that Sony has a big chunk of the Spider-man pie and that it was only a matter of time before they got another exclusive title, as opposed to taking a cut of sales and or having exclusive content. And honestly if we take into account earlier games it was in some ways warranted. Sony had an exclusive version of Spider-man 2 and they took a big profit of the movie titles and they had the PSX games. Sony was in some ways always there so while the reaction to the PS4 exclusivity was negative, it made sense especially considering Marvel's partnership with the company over the years. It just made sense that this sort of thing would happen.

    But this is a game that was multi-platform, ten years later, on a console that is a successor to a console that was not prioritized compared to the former generation, that is a sequel to two games that did not have Nintendo in mind during development. It's a strange and frankly a dumb move to lock people out when you consider that anybody who played MUA likely came from the playstation or X-box circles. Notably the X-box circles considering it debuted on that.

    It's also going to be 10 years later and while sure somebody will have picked up a Switch or will soon, it's 7 years past anybody caring. MUA is effectively a dead franchise and it missed it's window 5-7 years ago for the audience to still be there. Sure some still care (we clearly do), but you can't expect somebody to jump back in shelling out 300 dollars for a single product. Especially when cheaper alternatives in the big two still exist and offer arguably far more economical features, have much larger game catalogues, and product libraries.
    -----------------------------------
    For anyone that needs to know why OMD is awful please search the internet for Linkara' s video's specifically his One more day review or his One more day Analysis.

  12. #27
    Ultimate Member Havok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorIronman View Post
    That's largely because Spider-man is known to have exclusives or in some way have money make its way back to Sony. Anybody who knows the modern Spider-man games know that Sony has a big chunk of the Spider-man pie and that it was only a matter of time before they got another exclusive title, as opposed to taking a cut of sales and or having exclusive content. And honestly if we take into account earlier games it was in some ways warranted. Sony had an exclusive version of Spider-man 2 and they took a big profit of the movie titles and they had the PSX games. Sony was in some ways always there so while the reaction to the PS4 exclusivity was negative, it made sense especially considering Marvel's partnership with the company over the years. It just made sense that this sort of thing would happen.

    But this is a game that was multi-platform, ten years later, on a console that is a successor to a console that was not prioritized compared to the former generation, that is a sequel to two games that did not have Nintendo in mind during development. It's a strange and frankly a dumb move to lock people out when you consider that anybody who played MUA likely came from the playstation or X-box circles. Notably the X-box circles considering it debuted on that.

    It's also going to be 10 years later and while sure somebody will have picked up a Switch or will soon, it's 7 years past anybody caring. MUA is effectively a dead franchise and it missed it's window 5-7 years ago for the audience to still be there. Sure some still care (we clearly do), but you can't expect somebody to jump back in shelling out 300 dollars for a single product. Especially when cheaper alternatives in the big two still exist and offer arguably far more economical features, have much larger game catalogues, and product libraries.
    None of the Spider-Man games have been exclusive in 17 years until the PS4 one. Sony doesnt own Spider-Man and doesnt get a cut out of every Spiderman game. This deal with Nintendo is in the same league as what Sony had with their recent game

    This isnt a true a sequel. This isnt like the Rise of the Tomb Raider deal where they started a story and went exclusive for the next game. This will pretty much a brand new thing as those making this werent even involved with the orignial games

  13. #28
    Astonishing Member Derek Metaltron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    4,644

    Default

    If it wasn’t a true sequel to be fair they wouldn’t have called it Ultimate Alliance 3. Doing so implicitly implies it’s a continuation of the previous story and continuity, and stuff like how Nick Fury has gone from being white to black might have to be addressed, given how significant a character Nick Fury Senior was in the first two games...

  14. #29
    Ultimate Member Havok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Metaltron View Post
    If it wasn’t a true sequel to be fair they wouldn’t have called it Ultimate Alliance 3. Doing so implicitly implies it’s a continuation of the previous story and continuity, and stuff like how Nick Fury has gone from being white to black might have to be addressed, given how significant a character Nick Fury Senior was in the first two games...
    Not really. The name Ultimate Alliance means something and they are banking on that to help give this legitamacy. MuA2 wasnt a true sequel to the first one either and I see this even more removed from the previous title bc different companies are involed

  15. #30
    Astonishing Member Derek Metaltron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    4,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havok83 View Post
    Not really. The name Ultimate Alliance means something and they are banking on that to help give this legitamacy. MuA2 wasnt a true sequel to the first one either and I see this even more removed from the previous title bc different companies are involed
    Events from the first game were referred to on a few occasions by characters in the second game, so that’s not strictly true. Like I suggested there was no reason why they couldn’t have called it simply Marvel Ultimate Alliance, but they kept the 3 in there. It’s not like EA which didn’t simply call 2015’s Star Wars Battlefront Star Wars Battlefront 3 because Pandemic had made two console games previously.

    I wouldn’t expect them to be directly related but if they have referred to it in that way there should be a demonstration why.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •