Talk:Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] HH-98?
Sorry, I'm not up to snuff on my Sikorskys, but I'm not aware of any HH-98s. However, the picture in reference looks more like a UH-60 Black Hawk variant but with its elevators pushed forward. IdoAlphaOmega 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The HH-98 is a fictional helicopter introduced in Ace Combat 5 (Used in a few missions by Sea Goblin)... electrosphere claimed it was Namco's name for an HH-60, but the new pictures pretty much prove that wrong. ZakuTalk 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation for PS3??
There is no information about this on the web, but we can´t forget that sony always had the exclusivity for this game, and, well, i already spent $700 dollars on a PS3, r u sure this game won´t come out for the PS3? if it hasn´t been confirmed yet, then i´ll have to pray to make it happen lol the sweet girl xoxo 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a 360 exclusive. ZakuTalk 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Ars Technica, it was originally a PS3 exclusive, and is now multi-platform. This needs to be reflected in the article. DestradoZero 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ars Technica's article does not provide any evidence that this game is or was, at any time, multiplatform. It assumes that development has begun for other consoles and thusly labels it "multi-platform". The Ace Combat 6 Official Site, however, prominently displays both theXbox 360 logos and Microsoft copyright notices. Furthermore, there has been no announcement by Namco as to a Playstation 3 release. IdoAlphaOmega 23:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I realized this shortly *after* posting, unfortunately. I see this eventually being announced as multi-platform, but until official it should definitely remain the way it is. However, has anyone mentioned it being an X-Box 360 exclusive? There's a difference between being acknowledged on only one system (so far), and being an *exclusive*. If information is *just* coming out, calling a game an exclusive without proof is unwarranted. DestradoZero 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)