They also always do very well with aesthetics. It doesn't matter how many polygons the game pushes, a well-designed game bleeds narrative from most everything the player looks at.
...which, in horribly depressing fashion, probably won't occur until after this 2pacalypse you refer to, which I assume is some kind of reckoning based around the second coming of Tupac Shakur.
Yet again...
There's no blame floating around. He was asked an honest question, and he provided an honest answer, one which has apparently been corroborated by Sony themselves.
If you actually care about this issue, rather than to slobber all over your chosen system, actually read some of the interviews where he talks about system architecture.
Oh, and as far as tradesman blaming tools... a saw missing a few teeth is less effective than a...
They're very different animals to produce.
Consider a real-time cutscene shot from a single-angle perspective (Drake being chased by the truck in the city in UC2). It looks super cool, but it's one rendering from one angle.
With a first-person game, most every angle of everything has to be rendered at any given moment. Add an open-world feel and sprawling landscapes which may or may not be quickly traversed... not to mention a player may progress in a...
Amazing.
As usual, an ignorant fanbrat takes one tiny quote from one tiny section of a very long interview, completely ignores any context, and uses it as some kind of completely stupid proof of something completely stupid.
The "Old Dogs/New Tricks" thing is especially funny when much of the article discusses much of recent and future trends in graphics development, like voxels and ray tracing.
Oh, and for you people still on the fe...
Well, as much as I can respect what id has brought to gaming in terms of the technical stuff...
I've never really been uber-thrilled by their gameplay or (especially) narrative.
Yet again, Gabe Newell, though not tactful, wasn't wrong about his criticism of the PS3 at the time.
Sony had a lousy first couple of years, and Newell pretty much said flat out that the architecture was needlessly obtuse and the development tools weren't all that great.
The PS3 was not the most worthwhile system to own back then. It's obviously improved, which was why Newell, who is very very good at the business side of things, didn't shy aw...
@gamingdroid
You're probably correct in that EA makes plenty of profit, but at least some of those earnings go back into the development cycle of new games.
Gamestop is a business, and their employees need to eat, live, and whatnot, but their business existence is all about taking a slice out of video game profit.
It's all well and good to vilify EA as a large, nasty, greed-mongering company, but at least they're in the business o...
The nice thing is that digital only will create a much more reasonable purchase environment.
Ask anyone who uses Steam with regularity. All big budget games get discounted by at least half eventually, and a lot of times the sales will net greater profit for said developer than the original release.
It's matter of scale. Piracy is like you loaning the same game out to a few hundred of your friends all at the same time while still owning it yourself. Then they each of those friends loan it out, etc.
The two aren't really comparable, but nice try anyway.
Piracy affects all consumers. Many investors, developers, and individuals in-between see piracy as lost sales. Whether they are or not is an interesting question, but *they* definitely think so, and that's all that matters.
Thus, they take steps to limit the loss of money, like crippling DRM.
You can't afford it? Too friggin' bad. I can't afford a yacht, but you don't see me hauling around a pair of bolt cutters at the marina to get my kicks.
At least not often.
Find something free, bargain hunt. Video games themselves seem pretty expensive, but it's one of the cheapest hobbies a person can have if they're just a tiny bit smart about it.
It doesn't equal lost sales, but how does that make it right? Why do people think it's just plain okay to get something for nothing?
I don't disagree; devs should make a product that's honestly worth buying, but consumers bloody-well pay for the usage they get.
Can't afford it is a lame excuse. If you can drop a heavy amount of money on the device required to play the games, it stands to reason that you can buy a game every now and then.
But it really falls through when you consider enough high quality, free games exist to fill an individual's free time.
And if you can't afford it? Tough bananas. Get a job (or a better one), or find some way to squeeze it into the budget. Piracy is never justified.
Basically he complains about the narrative.
He complains about the narrative when the artistic style, level design, pacing, depth, and about fifty other elements are done better than most other games.
The 2 stars are given to emphasize a personal dislike, which is entirely the opposite of objective review. Yeah, it bloody well ain't worthy of a perfect score, but that low? Not a chance.
Except for both companies are in the market for both hardware and software. Opening large amounts of potential software sales up to an untapped market equals more money.
"oh the joyous petulance of the PC owner."
Switch it to, "Oh the joyous petulance of the petulant individual," and I'll agree. Irritating, blind fanboyism exists in all quarters.
And it's not like the PC version of Rage is some kind of unholy blight. A few issues with ATI cards and suddenly the game causes cancer?
It's less the games themselves and more the personality type. Whether disposition or rearing created that attitude, games are just one of any type of compulsion or crutch they use to escape the dreary reality of their lives.
I know people, fairly intelligent individuals, actually, who waste away every day embroiled in some variety of book reading, TV series/movie/anime watching, and video games. They could be doing obsessive exercise, but lacking focus and reluctance to ...
Yeah... there are plenty of people in the world who are not given sufficient time in which to complete assigned work. If they tell their boss, I need more time, their boss will probably fire them and find someone who can work faster, will work in off hours without pay, or will simply lie about having work done.
I don't really agree with it, but I'm sure the reviewer would rather keep his job and maybe skimp on a couple hours of the game than either not get paid for wo...
Hate to say it, but Uncharted doesn't have more complex physics than Half-Life.
Most of the impressive stuff you see in Uncharted is pre-rendered. This isn't at all bad, and in fact it always looks bloody-well great, but it doesn't make it some technical marvel.