>>98346615>You realize new doesn't mean good, right?
Clearly because I mentioned the possibility of it being shitty in my post. There's still a chance that it could be good though, and if it's gonna be good I would prefer something newer because why just recycle the same shit, that's boring.>And that someone old done well can be just as good as or better than something new
You actually think a reboot in early AT style has like even a 1% chance of being as good as early AT was? You're nuts my man. They wouldn't be able to get close so that's why I figure they should go balls to the wall to see if there's anything else they can do.