Played through Uncharted 2 twice now. I love that bloody game; it's very very good.
It is not the gold standard for everything. It has very good scenery, visuals, and fidelity packed into it, but it is by no means the best.
Once again, played Uncharted 2 twice, and I disagree with your statement.
They just hit League of Legends. Sucks; I was just starting a game >.<
Seriously.
Uncharted is an amazing series which has always looked very very good, but a certain caliber of individuals really needs to stop treating it as the gold standard for every single everything.
There are games which have higher fidelity. Does this mean they "look" better? Not necessarily, because like many other games, Uncharted has a very strong aesthetic to go with their levels of fidelity. It works very well.
Yet this doe...
He sounds like he works for Activision.
@Practical
It all depends upon if it works and if it sells. The primary market for the bloody Wii is not the eternal Nintendo worshipers but the new gaming population/casual group of players.
Comparatively to PS3, 360, or even PC, the Wii doesn't have very many of the really top tier games. Yes, there's always the Zeldas/Marios and other rehashings, but especially now they don't have much for multiplat. Check out the top-scoring Wii games on Metac...
Yeah... don't just sit there and assume all PC gamers care about is graphics.
In general, I think the argument starts with, "The PS3 has more power and better graphics than any other system."
Then the PC crowd scratches its collective head and says, "Uh, no it doesn't."
To which the PS3 crowd says, "Oh, well we don't care about graphics anyway. It's all about the games, man, and if you can't play X...
Microsoft just wants to grab a slice of that casual market created by the Wii. Only now, I'd bet a lot of the people new to gaming are going to be looking to move beyond gimmick and into something a little more substantial.
Console power is definitely not everything. I mean, the Wii is pretty pathetic and yet... Even as the most powerful system, it took the PS3 a long time to catch up, and even that was because of games, not the system itself.
Nintendo has a tricky thing to manage, however. If they continue appealing to gimmick and casual styles of gaming, they'll probably lose some of the new gamers who are looking for something deeper.
This whole thing is horribly indicative of the way people worship the multi-billion dollar corporations who happen to produce gaming machines rather than the people who actually make the software.
There is absolutely no good reason why Insomniac shouldn't be encouraged to try and get their *high quality* work out to as large an audience as possible.
Now, yes, there is a concern that quality can fall off, but if you trust in the talent and dedication of a ...
I Wanna Be the Guy probably deserves the top spot on any list, but it was designed to be stupid hard at any given moment. It's a game of pure memorization and constant, instant death.
Sounds like it might be closer to Snake Eater than Uncharted, but who knows?
While I won't say that the Demon Siege intro wasn't incredibly awesome, it didn't quite have the fidelity of this one.
Plus, it's a hard comparison anyway, considering it's fantasy versus attempted realism.
Activision's pretty good at running things into the ground.
Guitar Hero?
Tony Hawk?
If you go back even further, Bungie's been providing free online play since 1997 with their Myth series.
What's next, Activision? Going to charge a monthly fee to play Starcraft online?
I'm kind of wondering if Nintendo won't hit a wall with their systems again.
This is just an idle thought, but it seems pretty safe to say that the Wii's casual approach brought in a lot of new game players. Now the Wii seems to have a pretty poor game to shovelware ratio, the shelves being clogged with gimmicky junk.
So, the idle thought wonders if a small to large portion of the casual gaming crowd might begin to become more interested in deeper...
It's really hard to provide enough content to justify any kind of monthly fee.
Say what you want about WoW, but that world is really damn big with a lot of stuff to do in it.
Not competing with each other? Since when?
Online multiplayer shooter (no matter what bells/whistles) is a pretty broad genre. Even games like Brink bloody-well compete with CoD and BF. Or, I suppose it would if it had been made a little better.
@ xtream
The reason (dumb) people talk about Obama being a Muslim or affiliated with them is because of his middle name: Hussein.
Decent points throughout, but something else to consider:
The size and scope of RPGs is generally expected to be somewhat larger and less linear than your average Call of Duty clone. Free-roaming (or the illusion of it) playstyle and a variety of landscapes and environments might make the game pretty and deep, but it also very likely gets expensive to produce the sheer amount of content.
Simply having more locations, more NPCs, more side-quests, more items, m...
You might be right frosty, but leaps and bounds are probably not what's going to happen with the next gen. Each one thus far has shown pretty remarkable improvements over the previous, but we're getting to a point where the fidelity increase will start to taper off.