Jump to content

DiamondCutter

Members
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DiamondCutter

  1. Nolan has revealed The Dark Knight Rises takes place 8 years after The Dark Knight.

    The Dark Knight Rises will take place quite a while after the events of The Dark Knight. How long? 8 years.

    Director Christopher Nolan has spoken to Empire, saying "surprisingly for some people, our story picks up quite a bit later, eight years after The Dark Knight. So he's an older Bruce Wayne; he's not in a great state."

    The director also spoke about the choice of Bane as the villain. "With Bane, we're looking to give Batman a challenge he hasn't had before. With our choice of villain and with our choice of story we're testing Batman both physically as well as mentally."

    Nolan also discussed the villain's fighting style of the physically imposing antagonist. "He's brutal. Brutal. He's a big dude who's incredibly clinical, in the fact that he has a result-based and oriented fighting style. It's not about fighting. It's about carnage. The style is heavy-handed, heavy-footed, it's nasty. Anything from small-joint manipulation to crushing skulls, crushing rib cages, stamping on shins and knees and necks and collarbones and snapping heads off and tearing his fists through chests, ripping out spinal columns. He is a terrorist in mentality as well as brutal action."

    Empire also spoke to the film's costume designer Lindy Hemming, who revealed the reason for Bane's mask. "He was injured early in his story. he's suffering from pain and needs gas to survive. He can't survive the pain without the mask. The pipes from the mask go back along his jawline and feed into the thing at his back, where there are two cannisters."

    Can't wait till next year? Well, a prologue to the film will be shown in select IMAX cinemas on December 21, 2011. According to Nolan, the footage is "basically the first six, seven minutes of the film", a sort of "introduction to Bane, and a taste of the rest of the film."

    I'm not really sure about this. I get that they want it to be an older, less sharp Batman going up against super strong Bane, I know the story but jumping a whole 8 years? Theres just so much stuff that could have happened in between that would be a much better story to tell than just ignoring it all. Surely the cops would have sorted out their grief with Batman after eight years? I sort of assumed that would be the major plotpoint of the third film going off the end of Dark Knight but I kinda think it's a bit silly to think that Batman wouldn't have been accepted almost a whole fucking decade later. Surely Joker would have escaped or something interesting.

    I'm not shitting on it as I'm sure Nolan will make it awesome once more, but it just seems baffling to me.

    +1.

    I have no doubt in Nolan's ability to make an incredible cinematic piece; with that said however the ending of TDK made it seem that the next film would take right after TDK ended, to jump forward 8 years does seem odd to me as there's so much that would be left unexplained within that time-frame unless we'll get Keanu Reeve style flashbacks or 2 lines of dialogue backing everything up.

  2. Ugh...this is why I use my 360 more then my PS3..got Saints Row 3 today..put it in..

    "A system update is required to play this game"

    Ok..download and install the system update..

    "There is an update for this game"

    Grrr..download this update for the game..

    "Please wait...installing game data onto HDD"

    Fuck..just let me play the goddamn game already

    My current rule of thumb is to use my PS3 for PS3 exclusives (obviously), and multi-platform games that exclusive PS3 content. Anything else gets popped in the 360.

  3. I have no idea who anyone is supposed to be in that thing beyond John Cena (in the cartoon shot) and Undertaker (in the cartoon shot).

    Looks like they went the way of Marvel Imperfects and created some characters just for this game.

  4. Traded in Infamous and LittleBigPlanet for HAWX 2 and Fallout : New Vegas, I will let you know in a few if I regret this decision.

    Dident yoou just get InFamous and LBP for free. :shifty:

    I traded in the physical copies I've had for over a year since I can get the digital copies for free + Gamestop was doing 50% extra trade in credit through end of business today.

    I'll actually be downloading LBP and Dead Nation, Infamous was a bore.

  5. I've been playing LA Noire for about two days and I am incredibly bored already. I think that I should get Crysis 2 instead. Anyone play it before?

    Tis awesome. But not worth a buy, more of a rental the multiplayer is nice but not enough to warrant $59.99 for an 8 hours single player expercience and 5-10 that you might get from multiplayer before getting bored.

  6. I've always been a huge Battlefield fan, the experience is just totally different than that of any other FPS. True other titles have destructible environments, vehicles, and squad based multiplayer, but none do it as beautifully and as polished as what DICE has delivered on every outing.

    It's safe to assume the shots they have been showing have been for the far superior PC versions, but just look how gorgeous they are.

    You can't talk about Battlefield without addressing the elephant in the room that is Call Of Duty. Personally I enjoy both titles, but for completely different reasons. I believe that COD and BF are always going to be on the same level when providing a single player experience, they both play out like a solid Michael Bay effort. Not to say that's a bad thing, but their writing is what it is, a cliche, but entertaining thrill. I'm also a rider of the COD train but only for the fact that it's a great game to play with pals.

    Multiplayer is what sells these games, and it's whats going to sell Battlefield. Battlefield's competitors' online communities suffer because of poor game mechanics that turn an other wise fun experience into a camping festival, filled with dirty and cheap tactics.

    Battlefield however has a community where you will at some point get frustrated every match, but it's a good frustration that comes from authentic gamer moments like finally having your sniping position revealed after your enemy blew off the wall protecting you being visible.

    I can't wait.

    wub.gif

    Battlefield 3 (commonly abbreviated to BF3) is a first-person shooter action video game, being developed by EA Digital Illusions CE and to be published by Electronic Arts. The game is set to be released on October 25, 2011 on Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.[3] Despite its name, it is the eleventh installment in the Battlefield franchise, and the direct sequel to Battlefield 2, released in 2005.

    Wikipedia

    From

    Bf3-pc-cover.jpg

    Multiplayer Trailer

    how do you embedd? I though it was [/ media]

    • Like 1
  7. What a load of crap. You can do all of that on the PSN as well. :P And if all you know of PSN is that Playstation Home exists, it's pretty clear you've never spent more than five minutes on a PS3.

    But anywho, a 360 is totally worth picking up for the cheapest price possible as you won't need to install much on there. It depends really if you think you'll end up buying stuff on the store, in which case you might want to get a slightly higher priced system so you don't have to delete stuff every so often.

    I own both systems. My point is that on the Xbox 360 everything is laid out in a much more user friendly and visually appealing manner, whereas the PSN has one Marker on the XMB dedicated to providing new release info, but no markers promoting news, developer interviews, etc.

  8. crying.gif

    This is what happens when rules get followed. Nice guys finish last, then get mean sarcastic heart breaking comments directed towards them. I knew someone had to have already made an underrated games list so I didn't want to start a new thread, I'm bored and love to hear reflections on the past.

    Just give him a Diamond Cutter. :pervert:

    He countered it into a Rock Bottom

  9. It might not make a difference at this point. I thought for a moment that Nintendo would have the upper hand since they would have the newest system on the market first, but I don't think it will take away from Sony or Microsoft's fanbase because developers are going to have a hard time making the games the "normal market" is used to on the Wii U.

  10. Both services do provide online gaming, but there's also other features as well that the services offer.

    Currently Xbox Live delivers a better entertainment hub than the PlayStation Network offers in my opinion.

    The Xbox Live hub has a seamless interface of what's going on in the Marketplace, any Xbox News, all additional services such as Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, etc. Everything is laid out smoothly and makes it worthy of a subscription fee, whereas The Playstation Network has many of the same features as Xbox Live but struggles to present it in a way that encourages the user to want to even try them due to the hassle it is to get there.

    Playstation offers a Second Life like experience with Playstation Home, however getting there takes a ridiculous series of menu navigation and loading.

  11. crying.gif

    This is what happens when rules get followed. Nice guys finish last, then get mean sarcastic heart breaking comments directed towards them. I knew someone had to have already made an underrated games list so I didn't want to start a new thread, I'm bored and love to hear reflections on the past.

  12. Star Fox Adventures for the Gamecube.

    That was a beautiful game, and I loved that staff, it was a huge departure from the typical Fox game but it was still a blast to play and that dinosaur chick was bangable.

  13. For some reason when you or anyone else for that matter types X-Box I doubt their video game mass index.

    A 360 is a great system to get into current gen market with. From what you've said I take it you just want to play some games that really showcase the system. Red Dead Redemption and Borderlands are both great purchases, but there's no bundle of the two that come with the system. As you can see from the link you can pick them both up for under $50 for the pair, sweet deal.

    They're both great choices because you get an amazing single-player experience and you can dive into Xbox Live Multiplayer as well, which is a huge selling point of the system, I have a PS3 as well but the Playstation Network is light-years behind Xbox Live.

    The $199.99 system comes with everything you need to play and 4GB of hard drive space.

    The $299.99 system comes with everything you need to play and 250GB of hard drive space.

    The $399.99 system comes with everything you need to play and 250GB of hard drive space, and the Kinect Sensor.

    If you're in the US I would really check out Gamestop as their website has a lot of other bundle offers that you can't find in retail stores.

    • Like 1
  14. No one said this sucks... at least here? o_O

    Yeah, I was referring more to the reactions across the internet as a whole. But then, I've seen people complaining that it won't have Gamecube support, so people will complain about any old shit. Gamecube support didn't even sell the Gamecube, never mind a console two generations later.

    I was more comming from the angel that this gimmik might end up just being there. In the end this might just be the normal HD console most old school Nintendo games wanted from Nintendo.

    Ahh yes wise wisdom from the Angel of Gimmik.

    I agree with your statement, of course it pushes Nintendo into the HD era, but Nintendo needed that just to garner support from some hardcore nut jerkers, the innovation from the controller is what will set them apart from Microsoft and Sony's killer hardware whenever that drops.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy