We're not gonna take it?

[Khengi]

We don't need a sequal.

We need downloadable content. Nintendo can let loose on DLC, ya'know?

 

[Grawr]

I don't know. I love it, it feels like Animal Crossing again. Man, cut these guys some slack. They actually went out just to make us, the fans, a sequel to Animal Crossing. Sure, they may not have good music...and that's the only bad quality. So what if it's a remake? Did you expect guns or swords or space traveling? It was meant to be Animal Crossing. From what I've seen, they've done a fine job. They work their butts off and you have the nerve to come and say they were lazy. You know what, I'd like to see you guys go to Nintendo and work a year on a game that in the future no one likes because it seems too much like the others. That's the way the AC formula moves. If they changed anything, if they deviated from what they did now, they would have seriously messed it up. More than you guys think so. If you don't like the game, keep it to yourself, and don't post on a site called THE BELL TREE, a site almost dedicated to Animal Crossing. Stay away from what you hate. Let us, the AC fans who accept the game for what it is, talk about it in peace. You guys don't have to stay here. The people who don't like it can go. There's no reason to keep saying what's been said by yourself over 10 times. The point will get across. Seriously.

Haha...

Do not sit there and practically tell me to leave this place. I've been here for 3 years, buddy. How long have you been here again? 3 weeks? You've got some nerve.

Your post really did make me laugh, though. Your views on Nintendo/Animal Crossing surprises me. It's like they've completely brainwashed you.

So you're saying that we're lucky Nintendo even decided to make a sequel to Animal Crossing?
Not really.

When Nintendo got their truckloads of cash from AC and Wild World, I can tell you right now they weren't thinking: "Hey, you know, we should work on another game. JUST FOR THE FANS."

It was more like this: "Guys...look at all this money. Let's make another one, so this can happen all over again."

I hate to bring the sunny side of the buisness world into your little gaming-head, but there you have it.

I personally don't think Nintendo really had the fans in mind all that much when they made this game. Animal Crossing City Folk was a remake, yeah, and is trying to appeal more to the "non-gamer" then the fans of the series. I'm not the first to say that, either. Check IGN, Gamespot, other reviews and things...

Another thing you said..."They work their butts off". No.

The makers of, maybe the FIRST Animal Crossing, worked their butts off. The makers of Gears of War worked their butts off. The makers of Half Life and Half Life 2...they worked their butts off.

The makers of ACCF? Nah...they didn't.

But hey, say what you want KingKombat. It intrigues me.

 

[Gabby]

That is true...

 

[Tola]

It's meant to attract casual gamers - just look at the ads.

 

[beehdaubs]

I hate the ads >.> for AC:CC the people in the commercials act like losers. They treat it as their second life.

 

[D.T.]

It is a good thing that the reviewers are rating the game low. Nintendo did a half-assed job, and the scores let them know that it isn't gonna fly in the future even though they may have their new casual audience now. If they got high scores on this, they'd just keep giving us low-quality games in the future.

 

[Tola]

It is a good thing that the reviewers are rating the game low. Nintendo did a half-assed job, and the scores let them know that it isn't gonna fly in the future even though they may have their new casual audience now. If they got high scores on this, they'd just keep giving us low-quality games in the future.

Well, evidently, they didn't HAVE to do anything else.

By the way, your signature makes no sense. It reads like gobbledy-gook.

 

[Zephent]

It is a good thing that the reviewers are rating the game low. Nintendo did a half-assed job, and the scores let them know that it isn't gonna fly in the future even though they may have their new casual audience now. If they got high scores on this, they'd just keep giving us low-quality games in the future.

I agree, they did do a half assed job.

Not saying I dont love the game, I do, but they didnt try too hard to make it its own.


The Animal Crossing series as a whole feels like each one is a step twords creating the ideal animal crossing game, as opposed to sequels and such, this one was thrown together rather haphazardly, though. Very few new holidays, most of the content is copy/pasted from Wild World, and WHERE THE HECK IS MY NEW MUSIC?!?

*Ahem*

On that note, I'd say the reviewers are pretty dead on with their scores, its a great game, and if it were a standalone and not being compared to other titles, it'd score higher, but it certainly isnt top teir material as far as Nintendo games go yet. But they always seem to be getting one step closer to that ideal animal crossing formula they've been working on.



Side note: Anyone know what Nintendo Power gave it? Im curious.

 

[Tola]

Options would have made the game golden, paired with new content.

 

[Zephent]

Options would have made the game golden, paired with new content.

I would have loved the option to choose between a rehashed Wild World soundtrack or a rehashed Gamecube one, if they're gonna rehash soundtracks, may as well appeal to everyone, right?

 

[ShigeACCF]

what we need is downloadable like a lot of people have said. Though I do like this animal crossing better then the GC one. I have never played the DS one since I have never owned a DS. So, ACCF probably seems better cause of that reason

 

[Tola]

Exactly Zephent, but why they chose the (far) LESSER of the two bothers me even more.

 

[Sugar J]

I hope the DLC is promising

 

[D.T.]

It is a good thing that the reviewers are rating the game low. Nintendo did a half-assed job, and the scores let them know that it isn't gonna fly in the future even though they may have their new casual audience now. If they got high scores on this, they'd just keep giving us low-quality games in the future.

Well, evidently, they didn't HAVE to do anything else.

By the way, your signature makes no sense. It reads like gobbledy-gook.

Bukowski was a very successful writer, so it really doesn't matter whether it makes sense to you or not. It really is not that difficult to understand. Perhaps you are simply too closed-minded.

 

[Tola]

It is a good thing that the reviewers are rating the game low. Nintendo did a half-assed job, and the scores let them know that it isn't gonna fly in the future even though they may have their new casual audience now. If they got high scores on this, they'd just keep giving us low-quality games in the future.

Well, evidently, they didn't HAVE to do anything else.

By the way, your signature makes no sense. It reads like gobbledy-gook.

Bukowski was a very successful writer, so it really doesn't matter whether it makes sense to you or not. It really is not that difficult to understand. Perhaps you are simply too closed-minded.

Success shows intelligence? I guess Dr. Phil and Oprah top the charts.
But, you're RIGHT - it's NOT difficult to understand. It's GENIUS!

"Teachers that teach history do not know history at all." < I guess this is sensible since teacher's unions don't really require them to know anything except how to read and speak at the same time.
"Surgeons that operate on brains do not have brains." < This is obviously true, because Surgeons WANT the brains from their patients. Why else would they choose such a profession?
"Hitler called for ethnic cleansing, so he loved all ethnicities." < I'm still getting to this one.
"Vegetarians don't eat meat, so they love it." < To be deprived of something for SUCH a long time when clearly we're designed to eat it? I feel bad for vegheads.

 

[D.T.]

I get what you're saying, but just because you don't understand something does not mean the person that wrote it is unintelligent. I referred to his success because success implies that many other people have read and understood his works. Unless you believe that you are the most intelligent person on the planet and everyone else is an idiot (which, given your attitude so far, it seems that you do), the fact that you do not understand the excerpt simply means that you don't like his poetry...it doesn't mean that it's bad. Poetry means a lot of different things to different people, and no one poet is universally revered.

I understand the excerpt, and if you don't, it would be rather difficult to explain it to you. You seem too logically minded and unopen to anything that you do not initially accept. But I'll give it a shot anyway. Bukowski is implying that people are all hypocrites. At least, that is how I read it, it could mean several different things to different people. Those who preach God need God the most. Those who preach love could have the best capacity for hate...the things Bukowski said may not apply to everyone, but if you do not believe they apply to anyone, you have a very naive and restrained worldview. Just because someone says something or appears to be something does not mean that is what they are. Bukowski was not referring to vegetarians or Hitler or anyone else, only people preaching morality and other things pertaining to that.

I seem to remember something in my psychology class stating that people generally hate in others what they hate most about themselves...this could be applied to that excerpt. Those who preach against murder really have the best capacity to commit it, those who preach peace have the best capacity to make war, and so on. Nothing is definite, it is all only Bukowski's opinion...it is an opinion I do agree with, and that is why I put it in my sig. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but you don't have to go on talking about how it's the stupidest thing on the planet...I don't agree with your signature, either, but I didn't feel the need to make a post about it.

Now, in the interest of the thread I'll let you have the last word in this argument. I don't really feel like continuing it, anyway. Have fun making more sarcastic comments.

 

[Tola]

I never said I didn't understand, I said it's gobbledy-gook, meaning I UTTERLY understand it, but it's incoherent and therefore confusing. If that's "poetry" then so is all this.

"those who do not have babies want babies."
"those who have much food hate eating."
"those who have dogs want cats."
"those who drink soda do not like it."
"those who love sleeping truly hate to sleep."

Please, whine to someone else. As far as I'm concerned, not a single word of your blubbering constitutes for an argument. But for the "interest of the thread" (lol) please continue to get offended by my sarcasm and consequentially spend half an hour responding.