[quote]kakno wrote:
First gameplay vid from BF3 Armored Kill:
Looks fun.[/quote]
Hell yeeeeeaaaah.
Just came.
Addicted to skyrim already, killed my first dragon but I could really live without the giant spiders.
[quote]kakno wrote:
First gameplay vid from BF3 Armored Kill:
Looks fun.[/quote]
Now if Dice will just get around to implementing VOIP.
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
First gameplay vid from BF3 Armored Kill:
Looks fun.[/quote]
Hell yeeeeeaaaah.
Just came.[/quote]
I knew I smelled something.
Has anyone read the AvX Event in Marvel?
[quote]Johnny T Frisk wrote:
Addicted to skyrim already, killed my first dragon but I could really live without the giant spiders.[/quote]
Late to the party, but there was a thread with some good info:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/the_elder_scrolls_v_skyrim_out_now?id=4909048&pageNo=0
In other news,
I am looking forward to this:
Regards,
Robert A
Bit of a slump in games in the last few weeks/months nothings really caught my eye since skyrim. As usual their is going to be about 10 games out that all look great and I can only afford one. Black ops 2, AC3 and far cry 3.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[new I smelled something.
[/quote]
Hahahaha!
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[new I smelled something.
[/quote]
Hahahaha![/quote]
Dont encourage him DN
[quote]Robert A wrote:
In other news,
I am looking forward to this:
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Oooh… wasn’t aware they were ‘‘remaking’’ Xcom. Remember playing this years ago and it was too strategic for my liking. Lol.
The game looks good though. It’d be interesting to know if they’re going to bring back the randomly generated battles and maps.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[new I smelled something.
[/quote]
Hahahaha![/quote]
Dont encourage him DN[/quote]
Ehehehe.
surprised there hasnt been much hype for cs:go.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Has anyone read the AvX Event in Marvel?[/quote]
Yes and it has been mostly badass, a few complaknts here and there as they boost powers to people as well as a few huh moments. For instance phsylocke was able beat daredevil even though using her powers on him messed her up. Granted she’s a hand assassin but Murdock eats had assassins for breakfast
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Has anyone read the AvX Event in Marvel?[/quote]
Yes and it has been mostly badass, a few complaknts here and there as they boost powers to people as well as a few huh moments. For instance phsylocke was able beat daredevil even though using her powers on him messed her up. Granted she’s a hand assassin but Murdock eats had assassins for breakfast
[/quote]
Dude, Thor is getting smashed in this series and you enjoy it. He hurt the Phoenix in its true form, but he can’t take on the lame ass hosts.
“The Hobbit” is now a trilogy:
Not sure what to think about this one. The story says they will spend more time explaining what Gandalf was doing when he wasn’t with Bilbo (working with the White Council, fighting the Necromancer, ect.) which could be really cool. However, splitting the story into 3 parts sounds like a cash grab to me.
[quote]Fishdog70 wrote:
“The Hobbit” is now a trilogy:
Not sure what to think about this one. The story says they will spend more time explaining what Gandalf was doing when he wasn’t with Bilbo (working with the White Council, fighting the Necromancer, ect.) which could be really cool. However, splitting the story into 3 parts sounds like a cash grab to me. [/quote]
Peter Jackson had already expanded on the book with the addition of a brand new character, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, and scenes involving Frodo. That was before they decided to make a third:
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/evangeline-lilly-talks-the-hobbit-1
That said, I’m not a fan of making a trilogy for the sake of it. It’s almost as if they think “trilogy” makes a franchise more respectable.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Fishdog70 wrote:
“The Hobbit” is now a trilogy:
Not sure what to think about this one. The story says they will spend more time explaining what Gandalf was doing when he wasn’t with Bilbo (working with the White Council, fighting the Necromancer, ect.) which could be really cool. However, splitting the story into 3 parts sounds like a cash grab to me. [/quote]
Peter Jackson had already expanded on the book with the addition of a brand new character, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, and scenes involving Frodo. That was before they decided to make a third:
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/evangeline-lilly-talks-the-hobbit-1
That said, I’m not a fan of making a trilogy for the sake of it. It’s almost as if they think “trilogy” makes a franchise more respectable. [/quote]
I have faith he will do it right, as a guy who loved all of the books and thought they did an outstanding job sticking to the story line for the movies.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Fishdog70 wrote:
“The Hobbit” is now a trilogy:
Not sure what to think about this one. The story says they will spend more time explaining what Gandalf was doing when he wasn’t with Bilbo (working with the White Council, fighting the Necromancer, ect.) which could be really cool. However, splitting the story into 3 parts sounds like a cash grab to me. [/quote]
Peter Jackson had already expanded on the book with the addition of a brand new character, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, and scenes involving Frodo. That was before they decided to make a third:
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/evangeline-lilly-talks-the-hobbit-1
That said, I’m not a fan of making a trilogy for the sake of it. It’s almost as if they think “trilogy” makes a franchise more respectable. [/quote]
I have faith he will do it right, as a guy who loved all of the books and thought they did an outstanding job sticking to the story line for the movies. [/quote]
Yeah. Jackson and his wife are basically Tolkien experts now and there is a lot of Tolkien-penned material to draw from (Forgotten Tales had a lot that could be included). The main thing I’m worried about is over-prequelizing the new movies.
Lucas tried to foreshadow every thing that happened in the OT, and instead of giving the sense of a vast, epic saga, it became this tiny place where everybody knew everyone else. That’s the main pitfall of every prequel, I feel, but he is the prime example of overdoing it.
I’d personally like to see more of the Istari, especially Saruman’s relationship with Gandalf before Saruman was corrupted by the ring, and Radagast, who never appeared in the previous movies.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Fishdog70 wrote:
“The Hobbit” is now a trilogy:
Not sure what to think about this one. The story says they will spend more time explaining what Gandalf was doing when he wasn’t with Bilbo (working with the White Council, fighting the Necromancer, ect.) which could be really cool. However, splitting the story into 3 parts sounds like a cash grab to me. [/quote]
Peter Jackson had already expanded on the book with the addition of a brand new character, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, and scenes involving Frodo. That was before they decided to make a third:
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/evangeline-lilly-talks-the-hobbit-1
That said, I’m not a fan of making a trilogy for the sake of it. It’s almost as if they think “trilogy” makes a franchise more respectable. [/quote]
I have faith he will do it right, as a guy who loved all of the books and thought they did an outstanding job sticking to the story line for the movies. [/quote]
Yeah. Jackson and his wife are basically Tolkien experts now and there is a lot of Tolkien-penned material to draw from (Forgotten Tales had a lot that could be included). The main thing I’m worried about is over-prequelizing the new movies.
Lucas tried to foreshadow every thing that happened in the OT, and instead of giving the sense of a vast, epic saga, it became this tiny place where everybody knew everyone else. That’s the main pitfall of every prequel, I feel, but he is the prime example of overdoing it.
I’d personally like to see more of the Istari, especially Saruman’s relationship with Gandalf before Saruman was corrupted by the ring, and Radagast, who never appeared in the previous movies.[/quote]
Well it does worry with the Frodo comment. When I read the Hobbit that was one of my nit picking complaints not enough back story, which I had thought would have been introduced in LOTR. So if they can do that in the movies I will be very happy