Reply
Monster Hunter
Registered: 12/15/2008
Offline
41 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012

C'mon now, every fighting game needs a token black guy. Look at Zack from DoA, he kicks **bleep** and owns an island full of beauties.

Message 21 of 46 (185 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 08/09/2012
Offline
291 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012

he was put in because he is sony owned, and easy to work with for DLC. Plus he makes good free dlc because he doesnt have a massive following to justify paying for him.

Message 22 of 46 (180 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 07/21/2010
Offline
1735 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012

Shadowmark123 wrote:

Um i kinda take offense to the black part since im black as well


Then you should understand why this obscure character is even being added. The lead dev is black, and the game is whiter than a snowman with a bukkake fettish. Emmet Graves fills the void somewhat

 

Message 23 of 46 (166 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 12/29/2007
Offline
264 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012

Personally I think he's a good addition. I love Starhawk, it has one of the best multiplayer experiences out there right now. Sure the story and characters might not be the epitome of story telling and may be somewhat bland but lets face it Emmet Graves IS the face of the series. Superbot took a character like Fat Princess who wasn't even playable and made her into a character who has a pretty cool moveset. I don't understand all the complaints and some people on this forum seem to forget that they can't just put characters like crash, spyro, snake, wander, cloud, etc... until they have the companies permission? Would you rather them sit around and do nothing until these characters are allowed in? Or would you rather them add to the already awesome roster with characters who are easily obtainable and have the potential to have very unique movesets and become great characters? 

Message 24 of 46 (158 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 01/22/2009
Online
2885 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012
There's a very dedicated Warhawk community, which in turn, turned into a very dedicated Starhawk community. Emmitt is a great character, and personally, Starhawk is my favorite multiplayer game this gen. Starhawk fans are thrilled to see Emmitt, and Starhawk getting some love. Starhawk could have been marketed better, and this is actually a smart way. I've seen lots of comments stating that they are going to download Starhawk now and give it a shot.

Message 25 of 46 (151 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 01/22/2009
Online
2885 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012

RedWaltz79 wrote:

Reasons to have him:

 

1.  Sony Santa Monica owns the character so it isn't  hard to get the rights to the IP, unlike other products (even other Sony IP's are hard to get, since you still have to go through their holder)

 

2.  It's cheaper to get Graves, a first party character from inhouse, than a 3rd party character, which allows them to give him away for free instead of charging for DLC.  They aren't going to give away Snake.

 

 

Reasons not to have him:

 

1.  Starhawk sold less than 200k games worldwide, which was the reason Lightbox, the studio that developed the game, didn't have its contract renewed with Sony and had to lay off a majority of its workers and now is going to try to focus on IOS games.

 

2.  To quote IGN's review of Starhawk and Graves, "...these characters suck..."  Basically every critic who reviewed this game said the characters were lame and 2 dimensional.

 

3.  The character design is bland and generic.  He looks like basically any other soldier we have seen a thousand times the last decade.  Doesn't look cool and has no charm at all.

 

4.  He is not an all-star.  His game was a flop, he was widely criticized as a character, most people don't know him and he caused the studio that created him to basically shutter its doors.

 

I'm not saying he won't be fun to play gameplay wise, but he is a absolutely horrible choice from a character standpoint.

 


Just thought you should know, ign also gave the game a 9.


Message 26 of 46 (147 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 07/22/2009
Offline
949 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012

because superbot has no **bleep** idea how to chose characters for a playstation alstar fighting game. Its like they have a money choose the chaaracters for them

Omar - "what are you guys doing? Why did you get rid of crash!"
Game devs - "we wanted to put in evil Cole so we had to get rid of everyone else the fans wanted"
Omar- "Oh nice, good idea. I didn't think of that"
Message 27 of 46 (111 Views)
Splicer
Registered: 09/26/2012
Offline
46 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012

TomatoDragon wrote:

RedWaltz79 wrote:

Reasons to have him:

 

1.  Sony Santa Monica owns the character so it isn't  hard to get the rights to the IP, unlike other products (even other Sony IP's are hard to get, since you still have to go through their holder)

 

2.  It's cheaper to get Graves, a first party character from inhouse, than a 3rd party character, which allows them to give him away for free instead of charging for DLC.  They aren't going to give away Snake.

 

 

Reasons not to have him:

 

1.  Starhawk sold less than 200k games worldwide, which was the reason Lightbox, the studio that developed the game, didn't have its contract renewed with Sony and had to lay off a majority of its workers and now is going to try to focus on IOS games.

 

2.  To quote IGN's review of Starhawk and Graves, "...these characters suck..."  Basically every critic who reviewed this game said the characters were lame and 2 dimensional.

 

3.  The character design is bland and generic.  He looks like basically any other soldier we have seen a thousand times the last decade.  Doesn't look cool and has no charm at all.

 

4.  He is not an all-star.  His game was a flop, he was widely criticized as a character, most people don't know him and he caused the studio that created him to basically shutter its doors.

 

I'm not saying he won't be fun to play gameplay wise, but he is a absolutely horrible choice from a character standpoint.

 


Just thought you should know, ign also gave the game a 9.


Yeah, it did get a 9. Funny how he didn't mention that. I guess he could be somewhat questionable but he obviously would have a unique moveset and being coupled with kat (who is awesome) is just great. And of course again it is FREE. I don't really undersand why any and every bit of news pertaining to this game is enveloped in negativity. I honestly feel bad for superbot at this point. People treat them like they are nonthing.

Photobucket
Message 28 of 46 (103 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Monster Hunter
Registered: 11/12/2012
Offline
34 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012
They chose Emmett becuase he would have a unique playstyle. Also, more people know about Starhawk thanks to the Single Player campaign being free for PS+ members.
Message 29 of 46 (99 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Gaming Beast
Registered: 09/18/2012
Offline
2105 posts
 

Re: Why Emmett?

Nov 16, 2012
Starhawk flopped not because it was a bad game but because Sony absolutely sucked at marketing it.
------
Playstation God of War Stars Battle Bore y'all !!!
Message 30 of 46 (96 Views)
Reply
0 Likes