Last Guardian Trademark Abandoned, Game Not Cancelled?
Unfortunately, it's a work of art that has been long overdue. Originally revealed in 2009, The Last Guardian was expected to be released in 2011.
Two key departures (although designer Fumito Ueda has agreed to stay on until the end of the project) and no new announcements are worrying signs about whether The Last Guardian will ever see the light of day.
Recently, it's come to light that The Last Guardian trademark has been cancelled. There's no need to panic just yet, as it doesn't mean that the project has been cancelled. Rather, Sony's allowed the trademark of the game to expire, without renewing it.
Sony has up to three years since it received the Notice of Allowance—back in January 2010—to renew the trademark, which will be January 2013. Since The Last Guardian is unlikely to make that time, the trademark expired and someone at Sony just neglected to file for an extension.
For now, don't worry just yet about The Last Guardian being cancelled. Sony has plenty of time to file for an extension to keep the trademark.
it wont flop. what i know is that it hasnt changed development studios yet, and the two games before it.
will it live up to hype... no
will it be a pieced together zombie of a game that only went to market because someone put everything to gether? no
Not sure if trolling or just stupid?
Well that is just YOUR opinion not everyone thought Duke Nukem Forever was a flop in the first place and to just assume it will be a flop without any info one way or a another is just wrong.
As for Duke Nukem Forever I really enjoyed the game and thought it was well worth the money and I did pre-order the game. No game will please every one it just is not possible but some it seems will never be happy with any game.
DN: Forever was a terrible game. What you are saying is that you were going to like the game regardless of its contents as you pre-ordered it. Last Guardian won't be as bad, but don't try to claim DN:F was any good - it was bad in every way, from the graphics, to the infantile script.
As for DN, it is EXACTLY what it was meant to be, an homage to the original Duke3D. That includes all the crass off base jokes and perverted juvenile thinking. Anyone who bought it not understanding that was in for a rude shock. I really thought the reviewers were just reviewing the jokes and not the game itself. The controls were good, the levels a mix of shooting and platforming and as a total was mildly challenging. Overall it was exactly what it was meant to be, a cheesy off base fictional FPS loaded with sexist and insulting jokes. I even went back and played the original Duke3D just to be sure I wasn't remembering things wrong, and nope the original had just as many bad jokes and sexist content.
D3D was actually good. DNF wasn't. It was a confused blend of trends, poorly executed humour, tied memes and bad graphics. It was a terrible came and only people who can't admit a poor purchase will say otherwise.
Like many of the people who played DNF their remembering D3D from a different perspective then now.
I actually did go back and replay D3D just to be sure, and yes it's just as bad as DNF was (bad being a subjective word). The thing with D3D was that when it was released there wasn't many great FPS's, we were still running on software 3D engines with 640x480 resolutions. That is why D3D felt so great at the time. We're now criticizing DNF after having experienced much better 3D FPS games and expecting it to be some sort of great game when it's just an homage to the original D3D.
Why are you comparing a 15 year old game to a one year old game?
Obviously expectations have increased since D3D, so going back and comparing it to a modern game is imbecilic. D3D was great for the time. DNF was never great, not even on release. Your point is down-right idiotic.
Go back and play D3D again. It was only "great" because most everything else was primitive.
This is important only because DNF was made as an homage to the original D3D. They attempted to capture the same style of FPS + platforming with juvenile humor. And it did exactly that. What's changed is our expectations are now much higher and we had unrealistic expectations of DNF.
Seriously what were people expecting, another Half Life? It's fricking Duke, good for a perverse laugh and some mild entertainment, nothing else. People were expecting some sort of "Awesome" from something that was never meant to be awesome. So while I feel DNF was a mediocre game at its best (and a horrible one at it's worst), it doesn't deserve anywhere near the hate that gets spewed onto it. Seriously go back and play the first one where on the very first level your giving money to strippers in the club.
Yes it was great back then. Why on earth would I compare it to modern games? That's retarded. The expectation of games has gradually, and rightfully so, increased and so past games, if compared to present games, will suck.
However, DNF when compared to games at its time of release, really sucked. D3D did not suck when it was compared to games around it's release. How was DNF not supposed to be awesome? Imagine marketting saying "right guys, we don't want this game to be awesome!" Kid, please, you have no idea what you are talking about and are just being a fanboy trying to justify a bad purchase. DNF was not good for a laugh, nor even mildly entertaining. It was simply a bad game with no redeeming qualities ever.
Your idea of comparing a 15 year old game to modern games is just stupid.
Here is a much better honest review of DNF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th2z0xT-X5s
Score should of been a 6.5/10, mediocre yet a decent game.
-=Edit=-
If you basing any amount of your opinion on either the PS3 or 360 release of the game, then stop right there. Having seen the absolutely HORRIBLE disaster that the console versions are, it's just not indicative of the PC version. The console versions look like they scaled all textures down by a factor of 4 and reduced the model complexity by a factor of 10. Lots of popping and horrible controls (it was designed for keyboard + mouse). I have played through the PC version and it's just fun, not a masterpiece but definitely enjoyable. Not worth the release price of $60 USD, would of been better as a $30~40 USD game. PC version loads faster, has no graphical glitchs, has 2011 era graphics and zero control issues with a WASD + mouse setup. About the only thing I can complain about is I hated the CoD treatment it got with the 2 weapon limit and regenerative health.
actually that 2 weapon treatment was popularized by halo, not cod, blame the right game.
also, most of the hate for the game came from white nights, any review that is overly negative that sites sexism is a white night review, and is to be disguarded.
that said, is there a mod for ulocking more than 2 weapons at a time yet?
PC version, and it sucked in every way. Graphics were bad, gameplay was confused. It was like walking through the "in-themes" of the last 5 years. Started with a Quake 4 run-and-gun feel, then quickly changed to almost completely ripping off Prey and then chucks in some very, very crappy vehicle sections and so on.
It was not designed as a 90's shooter; you obviously never gamed during the 90's. Two weapons? Vehicle sections? Quake 4 is a good modern 90's shooter. Same with Prey. DNF is just bad. You clearly have played so few games that your idea of good and bad is warped to your limited gaming experience. Are you really comparing DNF to the likes of Metro 2033, Crysis, Crysis 2, BF3? Those are 2011 PC graphics. DNF graphics would have been average in 2008.
That's the Halo treatment, not the CoD treatment. I think that's proof to show that you've no idea about what games in the 90's were like, or even in the early part of last decade.
I tend to lump all the "2 weapon regenerating health" games into one category. An no there isn't a way mechanically to get more then two weapons, it only stores two ammo counters. I was kinda disappointed about that, but ohh well.
When I read the negative reviews it's almost as if they never actually played the game at all. Had super high expectations that it would be a 11/10, started it up and within the first 30 min discovered it was a mediocre game (6/10) and decided to hate on it ever since.
Just look at mazty and how much he's frothing at the mouth. I actually played through the PC version and the graphics were not bad / old / outdated and I honestly have no idea where people are getting that from. The best I can assume is they read a review on the console version and that it was the same on PC (since most PC titles were console ports at that time). DNF was designed as a PC title that had it's console ports rushed, from everything I gather those ports were really really bad. On PC everything works and looks fine, was mildly entertaining. Won't play through a second time though and not worth the $60 USD price tag. That doesn't make it a bad game, only a mediocre game.
In short, I think people are doing the game an immense injustice and reviewing based on their own disappointment and not on the game itself. I ask people to specifically point out where it was "horrible" and they can't do it.
You're a fanboy who probably has so crap PC and therefore has no idea what good graphics are. You're entire experience of gaming is probably 50% of mine, but as you spent $60 on DNF you'll be damned before you admit it was a poor purchase.
http://www.xgcdb.com/pub/duke-nukem-forever-12.jpg
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2783/metro203320100813012937.jpg
The fact you tried to argue that DNF washed out dated graphics were fine for 2011 shows just how deluded you are, and I haven't even mentioned your self-appointed role as defender of a game this thread isn't even about.
I played DNF on the PC and it sucks in everyway. Tell me, what exactly does it do that games half it's age do not do better? Both Quake 4 and Prey are considerably older and look just as good (if not better), while being better FPS'.
No matter what you call a turd, it's never going to be lobster.
allot of the reviews were white knighting the game too, calling out sexism and so forth. any review that even mentions that in more than a passing fact should be disregarded.
i agree that dnf isnt a 1 out of 10, but its not a very good game either.
to much new, and not enough old, mixed together made the game worse than it should have been.
Again more frothing at the mouth. I doubt you actually played it, sounds too much like hating just cause hating is "cool".
My PC Specs...
Phenom II x4 970BE @4.2
2 x EVGA Hydro II GTX 580 (these are WC cards)
16GB DDR3-1600 memory
Samsung 830 (when I played it was using a 4 x 7200 RPM RAID 0)
24 inch Acer 1920x1080x120 Monitor
Yeah ... "crap" PC all right ... :rolls:
That tells me you never actually played DNF and are just parroting what you read on some review magazine or youtube poster. You haven't even watched that youtube like I posted earlier. It's a fair an honest review by a gamer who played through the entire game (and posted youtube videos of the play through), then waited a day, then made his review. He came up with the same score I did, 6/10. Not a great game, not even a good game, but definitely not a mess or failure. Just a mediocre game that plays like a 90s shooter with modern graphics and bad jokes. You play through it once and laugh but afterwards there is no attraction to play again.
As anyone with a half a brain can see I'm not defending the game, it's not a good game, but I'm also not going to jump on the bashing bandwagon that's so popular on the interwebz these days. Games like "green lantern" and "thor", which are complete and utter market trash were rated as medicore. DNF deserves at least the same level of mediocrity, aka 6/10.
Or did everyone become disappointed Asian Father on the interwebz.
-=Edit=-
Nice washed out images there, really good job they did of turning down the graphics to "prove a point". That is NOT the game I played. Looks like motion blur on a dialed down AA / resolution.