Who else thinks Nintendo might help fund Shenmue 3?

[happydolphin]

Nem said:

happydolphin said:

Nem said:

I'm thinking you are the one wasting my time. You do realise were talking about sandbox games?

You thought that we were talking about sandbox games, but gigasheik made no such limitation in his posts:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4870371

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4870392

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4870417

I get banned because I get upset when the forums are infested with posters who assume things of conversations that are just not there.

There is no convo to have when people derail ideas to no end.

 

gigaSheik said:

Quick time events? A city full of nothing to do? Every object is toucheable. You zoom in/out, rotate and all that but do absolutely nothing? Shenmue sucks. Let it rot in its coffin of unfulfilled promis.

There are much better games that Nintendo can fund.

How many cities do you find in mario Galaxy?

It doesn't matter how many cities Mario Galaxy has. What matter is that the city in Shenmue, to him, is boring, that's his opinion.

He may like other games with no guns with no cities. Not sandbox games, just regular adventure games. He could even like games with cities that aren't sandbox games, but maybe RPGs.

If you want to talk about a game with things to do, it doesn't need to be limited to sandboxes, or games with cities.

But for the sake of OP, let's say I indulge you and limit my thoughts to games with cities, there could be a game like Shenmue with no shooting, but with more things to do. You immediately compared it to GTA, but what if he simply had an issue with Shenmue's content, not with its setting (no guns).

That's where I have a hard time with your post, it assumes too much, and much of it in a negative light (that he only likes violent sandbox games).

EDIT: You need to understand that I respect Shenmue and its content, I am just not happy with your jumping to conclusions when you assumed he wanted guns and whatnot. It's not necessarily true and assumes a lot.