Playstation 4 will crush the competition, according to CNN

Link

It's About The Games:

Sony(SNE) has never looked better heading into a new generation of gaming. The Japanese company, which owns music, movie and TV networks, has focused solely on games thus far with its PlayStation 4 console. Sony has been able to win over important early adopters by doing the opposite of everything Microsoft(MSFT, Fortune 500) did at E3, undercutting the Xbox One's price by $100 and allowing for game rentals, used game playback and offline play. Eventually, Microsoft was forced to change its policies after gamer backlash, but the damage has been done.

More gamers were pre-ordering PS4s during E3 week and Sony has been riding a wave of positive buzz ever since. Sony has said entertainment functionality will be part of the PS4, just as it's been for the PlayStation 3, but the company has learned from past mistakes. The PS3 was known as a difficult system to develop for, which gave early Xbox 360 titles a graphical advantage. But new games like The Last of Us and the upcoming Beyond: Two Souls showcase the full power of the system. With game veteran Mark Cerny behind the hardware in the PS4, that type of quality should be evident day one with games like Infamous: Second Son. Here are five reasons why Sony will win the next gen war.

The Price:

The $400 price point will go a long way when it comes to gamers' wallets. You can pick up an extra controller and launch title before hitting the Xbox One price point. Sure, Sony sacrificed its PS4 camera by opting not to offer it as a pack-in, and that will impact how many games utilize it, but at the end of the day most gamers will be happy without it. And Sony will sell more hardware at the lower price point out of the gate.

The Brand:

Sony has a great brand in PlayStation. Sales of the original PlayStation surpassed 102 million units and the PlayStation 2, which just ended its production run this year, has an installed base of over 150 million consoles. Sony has sold over 77 million PS3s and counting (they'll continue to support PS3 well into the future). The bottom line is everyone knows the PlayStation brand, and that goes a long way in reaching the more mainstream consumer. Sony has also wooed more hardcore gamers with its line-up of exclusive games like Gran Turismo, which has sold over 65 million copies.

The Power:

Although both the Xbox One and PS4 feature AMD's latest Graphics Core Next technology, developers at E3 said Sony's console features roughly 40% more processing power. If that holds true, third party games like Activision's Call of Duty Ghosts and Ubisoft's Watch Dogs will look better on PS4 when put side-by-side with Xbox One this fall. Coupled with the ease of use developers are having programming for the PS4, Sony should have a great collection of standout games at launch like Driveclub and Killzone War Zone.

The Developers:

Two of the highest-rated Metacritic game franchises of all time, Uncharted and The Last of Us, come from developer Naughty Dog. The Sony-owned studio has been able to create original action adventure games that push the boundaries of Sony's hardware, while garnering critical acclaim and blockbuster sales. The studio recently made the successful transition from Teen-rated Indiana Jones-style action in Uncharted 3 to Mature-rated intense post-apocalyptic thrills in The Last of Us. Gamers around the world are looking forward to seeing what this studio can do with the PS4.

The Indies:

With the rise of mobile gaming, there's a huge new audience of gamers who are gobbling up smaller, indie-developed games. With development costs rising for "AAA" next gen games, exclusive indie titles could play a bigger role with next gen. Sony is winning over game developers with PS4, embracing indies to the point of featuring them on stage at its E3 press conference alongside its big budget exclusives. Yes, Microsoft offers indie games, but developers are flocking to Sony because the company is treating them better. Games like Octodad: Deadliest Catch, Transistor and Outlast were also given prime space at Sony's E3 booth, and for good reason. These are great games, just at a much lower price point.

CNN

Do you think that CNN has a good point? They also made an article about why the XBox One will crush the competition as well. Feel free to look at thet here if interested.

Any thoughts?

Well, they're all valid points, so it's a logically written article. Although I wouldn't count the brand as a reason so much. I'd omit that as a reason and put Microsoft down as a reason instead. It's very rare that your competitor helps you sell systems. Sony should send Microsoft flowers.

Anyone who tries to convince himself that Microsoft didn't have a horrible fvcking month is delusional. And the system is so American-centric that I would term it pretty much unsellable overseas. This thing's gonna be a huge bomb compared to the 360.

There's a very discernable difference in listening to the head people of sony and ms talk.  That recent interview with Jack Tretton at ign is very telling of the trustworthy aspect of a company.  Yes there's money, but there's also balancing a fine line between that and the people giving the money.  I had no idea he was in the industry for 25+ years and involved in the original psx.

At this point I'd be surprised if Sony DIDN'T win.

It will!

It's insane how many accolodates TLOU is getting. It's everywhere. What ND did with Uncharted made them one of the best devs to me, but it seems people were just waiting for them to do a serious game. Uncharted 4 is going to have some tough shoes to fill after TLOU. THe stakes have been raised. They need to reboot that series and make it more than just a linear shooter. 

I think these doom and gloom articles are a bit too early. People said the samething about the PS3 and now it looks like it may just become the best selling console worldwide when it's all said and done. It will at least get second place. All MS needs to do is announce a price drop. Bring it down to $400 and market the shit out of it. The casuals will buy it just like they bought Kinect. 

It's insane how many accolodates TLOU is getting. It's everywhere. What ND did with Uncharted made them one of the best devs to me, but it seems people were just waiting for them to do a serious game. Uncharted 4 is going to have some tough shoes to fill after TLOU. THe stakes have been raised. They need to reboot that series and make it more than just a linear shooter.

I think these doom and gloom articles are a bit too early. People said the samething about the PS3 and now it looks like it may just become the best selling console worldwide when it's all said and done. It will at least get second place. All MS needs to do is announce a price drop. Bring it down to $400 and market the shit out of it. The casuals will buy it just like they bought Kinect.

S0lidSnake

I'd be fine with the Uncharted series going away (on the balance I even enjoyed Uncharted 3, but I don't think developers should be chained to franchises in perpetuity), but if it sticks around, I think it makes sense for it to be true to its predecessors. As I've said in many threads which discuss reboots and the possibility of reboots, there are always people who will throw brickbats at a given game, but smart developers should make games for their fans and not games for their detractors. If a series is dying on the vine commercially, yes, kill it or reboot it, but if a series is popular, then abandoning what fans love about it to appeal to some other group of people is extremely risky and isn't likely to pay off.

In terms of the PS3 people who predicted horrible times were right. Due to early mistakes, it was a couple years before the PS3 became a serious competitor and during those couple years in the wilderness Sony lost all of the money it had made on the PS1 and PS2, the two most successful consoles in history. Sony persevered through those bad times in no small part because the videogame industry has in the past been very profitable for them and a big source of their profits (heck, a former head of the game division now leads the entirety of Sony).

For MS, the industry hasn't been a big part of their profits (as of the time of this writing, neither Xbox has made more money than it cost and by way of contrast Windows earns MS a billion a month) and there are signs someone higher up at MS (such as Ballmer) told the Xbone division this needed to change. Why else would MS talk about selling between 400 million and a billion consoles (neither Nintendo or Sony has sold even 400 million consoles in their lifetimes) and focus so much on nongamers/non-gaming services? Is MS going to perseverse, telling its game division to lose however much money it takes to win marketshare (as the did in the days of the original Xbox) or are they going to say 'play conservative and don't lose a lot of money'?

What's really, really weird is that MS has shoved away indies (by not allowing self-publishing) and they are pretty much the only group of designers who have successfully appealed to the wider audience (mostly on cell phones). The big publishers MS has thrown in its lot with make the overwhelming majority of their money off of traditional games aimed at traditional gamers. Big companies making big bets and who do very well in the existing gaming market are unlikely to go out on the sorts of limbs one needs to go out on to win over new gamers.

I'm sure I read an article by CNN just the other day that said the Xbox One will destroy the competition. I'm confused.MonoSilver

That is mentioned (and linked to) in the first post...

That's a misleading thread title because Microsoft is poised to win the console war, also according to CNN.

All they've really done is bring up 5 strongest points of each console and why each has a chance to win. And they're all fair points, more or less.

Personally, I think that the price is going to be the determining factor. If they were both priced the same, it'd be up in the air, but this way Sony definitely has the upper hand.

I think it's obvious it will.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

It's insane how many accolodates TLOU is getting. It's everywhere. What ND did with Uncharted made them one of the best devs to me, but it seems people were just waiting for them to do a serious game. Uncharted 4 is going to have some tough shoes to fill after TLOU. THe stakes have been raised. They need to reboot that series and make it more than just a linear shooter.

I think these doom and gloom articles are a bit too early. People said the samething about the PS3 and now it looks like it may just become the best selling console worldwide when it's all said and done. It will at least get second place. All MS needs to do is announce a price drop. Bring it down to $400 and market the shit out of it. The casuals will buy it just like they bought Kinect.

CarnageHeart

I'd be fine with the Uncharted series going away (on the balance I even enjoyed Uncharted 3, but I don't think developers should be chained to franchises in perpetuity), but if it sticks around, I think it makes sense for it to be true to its predecessors. As I've said in many threads which discuss reboots and the possibility of reboots, there are always people who will throw brickbats at a given game, but smart developers should make games for their fans and not games for their detractors. If a series is dying on the vine commercially, yes, kill it or reboot it, but if a series is popular, then abandoning what fans love about it to appeal to some other group of people is extremely risky and isn't likely to pay off.

I am not asking for them to make it a Witcher 3 styIe RPG (though I'd love that shit). I'm merely saying it needs to evolve otherwise it will become stale and fans will ditch it just like they ditched God of War Ascension and Gears Judgement. GoWA went from 1.2 million in first month's sales (GoW3) to 350k. On a platform with more than twice the install base. Gears Judgement went from nearly 2 million to 400k? You can't keep making $20 million games for fans only. The new Tomb Raider sold to more than just the fans of the series and look at how successfully it has become, both commerically and critically.

I like what Guerrilla is doing with Killzone Shadow Fall. The game is still Killzone but instead of it being a linear shooter, we now have massive open levels, optional secondary objectives, new ways to traverse the levels, stealth and abilities that are a brand new and substantial additions to the sequel. They still have their linear setpiece moments like the one we saw at the reveal, so why cant Uncharted be the same. 

One thing I have noticed about next gen is how every game is becoming more and more open world. Developers are using the extra horsepower to make their games bigger instead of just prettier. Mirror's Edge, Killzone SF, Division, Destiny, Metal Gear Solid V, Witcher 3, Dead Rising 3, The Crew, even Watch Dogs looks like it should be a scripted action game but it's set in an open world. The new Halo is also rumored to be open world. Koima has been evolving the MGS formula with every single entry and it has only served to make it the most popular franchise among gamers if we go by the excitement every new trailer generates. 

In the end, people dont despise more content. They wont feel they've been abondoned if they get a few more optional temples to explore. 

[QUOTE="MonoSilver"]I'm sure I read an article by CNN just the other day that said the Xbox One will destroy the competition. I'm confused.CarnageHeart

That is mentioned (and linked to) in the first post...

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

It's insane how many accolodates TLOU is getting. It's everywhere. What ND did with Uncharted made them one of the best devs to me, but it seems people were just waiting for them to do a serious game. Uncharted 4 is going to have some tough shoes to fill after TLOU. THe stakes have been raised. They need to reboot that series and make it more than just a linear shooter. 

I think these doom and gloom articles are a bit too early. People said the samething about the PS3 and now it looks like it may just become the best selling console worldwide when it's all said and done. It will at least get second place. All MS needs to do is announce a price drop. Bring it down to $400 and market the shit out of it. The casuals will buy it just like they bought Kinect. 

dvader654

TLOU is a linear stealth shooter, so why would Uncharted have to be something different. Uncharted needs to be like U2, thats all they need to focus on. 

Uncharted 3 was like U2 and it was already too fimiliar. They had already hit their peak with U2 and had to change with U3 but what we ended up getting was just not good enough. 

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

It's insane how many accolodates TLOU is getting. It's everywhere. What ND did with Uncharted made them one of the best devs to me, but it seems people were just waiting for them to do a serious game. Uncharted 4 is going to have some tough shoes to fill after TLOU. THe stakes have been raised. They need to reboot that series and make it more than just a linear shooter.

I think these doom and gloom articles are a bit too early. People said the samething about the PS3 and now it looks like it may just become the best selling console worldwide when it's all said and done. It will at least get second place. All MS needs to do is announce a price drop. Bring it down to $400 and market the shit out of it. The casuals will buy it just like they bought Kinect.

S0lidSnake

I'd be fine with the Uncharted series going away (on the balance I even enjoyed Uncharted 3, but I don't think developers should be chained to franchises in perpetuity), but if it sticks around, I think it makes sense for it to be true to its predecessors. As I've said in many threads which discuss reboots and the possibility of reboots, there are always people who will throw brickbats at a given game, but smart developers should make games for their fans and not games for their detractors. If a series is dying on the vine commercially, yes, kill it or reboot it, but if a series is popular, then abandoning what fans love about it to appeal to some other group of people is extremely risky and isn't likely to pay off.

I am not asking for them to make it a Witcher 3 styIe RPG (though I'd love that shit). I'm merely saying it needs to evolve otherwise it will become stale and fans will ditch it just like they ditched God of War Ascension and Gears Judgement. GoWA went from 1.2 million in first month's sales (GoW3) to 350k. On a platform with more than twice the install base. Gears Judgement went from nearly 2 million to 400k? You can't keep making $20 million games for fans only. The new Tomb Raider sold to more than just the fans of the series and look at how successfully it has become, both commerically and critically.

I like what Guerrilla is doing with Killzone Shadow Fall. The game is still Killzone but instead of it being a linear shooter, we now have massive open levels, optional secondary objectives, new ways to traverse the levels, stealth and abilities that are a brand new and substantial additions to the sequel. They still have their linear setpiece moments like the one we saw at the reveal, so why cant Uncharted be the same.

One thing I have noticed about next gen is how every game is becoming more and more open world. Developers are using the extra horsepower to make their games bigger instead of just prettier. Mirror's Edge, Killzone SF, Division, Destiny, Metal Gear Solid V, Witcher 3, Dead Rising 3, The Crew, even Watch Dogs looks like it should be a scripted action game but it's set in an open world. The new Halo is also rumored to be open world. Koima has been evolving the MGS formula with every single entry and it has only served to make it the most popular franchise among gamers if we go by the excitement every new trailer generates.

In the end, people dont despise more content. They wont feel they've been abondoned if they get a few more optional temples to explore.

Your numbers aren't correct. Ascension sold 620K first month (which is still a substantial drop). Its also worth noting that GoW Ascansion placed as much emphasis on the multiplayer as it did on the campaign, downplayed the campaign during the run up to the game's release and they gave the enjoyable campaign (which didn't quite hit the highs of 3, but didn't have the lows either and had better puzzles) a throwaway story. By way of contrast, look at the way ND handled multiplayer with Uncharted 2. They did the exact opposite of what SSM did, focusing on the SP (U2 is as polished a game as has shipped) both in terms of effort and emphasis (they talked about SP for a looong time before talking about MP).

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29381614/march-2013-npd-numbers?page=2

As for KZ Shadowfall, change makes sense. KZ2 put up good numbers, but KZ3's changed up quite a lot (lots more color, vehicle segments, the character lost the heavy feel of KZ2 and became the standard jumpy boy, weapons lost all recoil, the multiplayer was radically different due to the ability to mix and match, etc) in order to appease detractors and lo and behold, sales declined because fans (including me) were disappointed and detractors didn't abandon CoD or Gears or whatever their poison of choice was.

The fact lots of franchises are going the free roam route next gen doesn't mean everyone should do it. That sort of thinking has killed a lot of franchises because it has translated into a lot of throwaway modes and/or design choices which left fans cold. People don't despise more content, but most also come to franchises with expectations. RE6 boasts more content than any of its predecessors and features more popular design elements (military action games are vastly more popular than first person shooters) but many fans walked away because they abandoned what made the franchise great.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

It's insane how many accolodates TLOU is getting. It's everywhere. What ND did with Uncharted made them one of the best devs to me, but it seems people were just waiting for them to do a serious game. Uncharted 4 is going to have some tough shoes to fill after TLOU. THe stakes have been raised. They need to reboot that series and make it more than just a linear shooter.

I think these doom and gloom articles are a bit too early. People said the samething about the PS3 and now it looks like it may just become the best selling console worldwide when it's all said and done. It will at least get second place. All MS needs to do is announce a price drop. Bring it down to $400 and market the shit out of it. The casuals will buy it just like they bought Kinect.

S0lidSnake

TLOU is a linear stealth shooter, so why would Uncharted have to be something different. Uncharted needs to be like U2, thats all they need to focus on.

Uncharted 3 was like U2 and it was already too fimiliar. They had already hit their peak with U2 and had to change with U3 but what we ended up getting was just not good enough.

The problem wasn't that Uncharted 3 was similar to U2, the problem was that it wasn't quite as good. For example, the fact that the childhood sections were utterly pointless and that Nate spend most of the second half of the game alone really harmed the game (U2 had no such weak spots).

I think the market will greet an Uncharted that lives up to the greatness of U2 enthusiastically. If Naughty Dog doesn't believe that, they should dump Uncharted rather than turn it into something its not. Unlike Kojima (who is a tremendous talent, but who hasn't been involved in a hit game not named Metal Gear in generations because most fans of his work are fans of MGS, not Kojima) Naughty Dog boasts fans who follow Naughty Dog (whether that is Crash, Jak, Uncharted or The Last of Us) rather than their franchises.

You know, all this talk of TLOU is pretty positive for a lot of people.

Near the end of the month, I think I will finally cave in and get the PS3 with a few games to go along with it, including TLOU.

Who will crush who is always up for grabs mainly because the market can be swayed. Not necessarily easily but unpredictably. I most likely would not be burning my money on any of these systems since the bulk of the games are also being released on the PC, a system I already own. The first year of any new console is generally a waste of money. Games are normally overhyped because of the scarcity of games on the new system. What is going to make it a bit problematic next gen, is the continous support for  current gen. I would sit back and watch as everything unfolds but I am more excited about the rabid fanboyism that is to come. :D

Sony will win.

Who will crush who is always up for grabs mainly because the market can be swayed. Not necessarily easily but unpredictably. I most likely would not be burning my money on any of these systems since the bulk of the games are also being released on the PC, a system I already own. The first year of any new console is generally a waste of money. Games are normally overhyped because of the scarcity of games on the new system. What is going to make it a bit problematic next gen, is the continous support for current gen. I would sit back and watch as everything unfolds but I am more excited about the rabid fanboyism that is to come. :D

Pedro

I disagree. Developers in the first year don't know exactly what the market will look like and many early adopters are looking for something different than the norm, so the first year tends to have a higher level of crazy than later years.

On a related note, first year games tend to define the generation Halo, (nods towards GTA3, Gran Turismo, SSX, DMC, Wipeout, Ico, Mario 64, Gears of War and Geometry Wars), and even some of those which don't find commercial success or inspire imitators are interesting games in their own right (Ring of Red, Eternal Darkness and Shadow of Memories spring to mind).

Good points on both articles. However, although multiplat games will perform a bit better on PS4, I expect them to look nigh identical on both systems. Also, I feel they may be overstating Smartglass's importance.

 

Your numbers aren't correct. Ascension sold 620K first month (which is still a substantial drop). Its also worth noting that GoW Ascansion placed as much emphasis on the multiplayer as it did on the campaign, downplayed the campaign during the run up to the game's release and they gave the enjoyable campaign (which didn't quite hit the highs of 3, but didn't have the lows either and had better puzzles) a throwaway story. By way of contrast, look at the way ND handled multiplayer with Uncharted 2. They did the exact opposite of what SSM did, focusing on the SP (U2 is as polished a game as has shipped) both in terms of effort and emphasis (they talked about SP for a looong time before talking about MP).

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29381614/march-2013-npd-numbers?page=2

As for KZ Shadowfall, change makes sense. KZ2 put up good numbers, but KZ3's changed up quite a lot (lots more color, vehicle segments, the character lost the heavy feel of KZ2 and became the standard jumpy boy, weapons lost all recoil, the multiplayer was radically different due to the ability to mix and match, etc) in order to appease detractors and lo and behold, sales declined because fans (including me) were disappointed and detractors didn't abandon CoD or Gears or whatever their poison of choice was.

The fact lots of franchises are going the free roam route next gen doesn't mean everyone should do it. That sort of thinking has killed a lot of franchises because it has translated into a lot of throwaway modes and/or design choices which left fans cold. People don't despise more content, but most also come to franchises with expectations. RE6 boasts more content than any of its predecessors and features more popular design elements (military action games are vastly more popular than first person shooters) but many fans walked away because they abandoned what made the franchise great.

CarnageHeart

Regardless of whether or not MP was marketed more, the fact remains that both Gears and God of War have overstayed their welcome. Even at 600K Gears had a huge drop from a the 2+ million Gears 3 sold in its first month. There was no MP marketing push. It was just another Gears game that no one (not many) wanted.

As for KZSF being different because sales declined, well I hope a great studio like ND doesn't wait for a flop before they decide to evolve an already stale formula. I hope they see the writing on the wall and make the necessary changes to the formula instead of waiting for their fans to shun them.

You seem to think Uncharted 3's problems were mostly story focused. Yes, it was a bad idea to keep Drake alone for the last half of the game, but then how comes those were THE best parts of the game? Everything from the Yemen chase to the shipyard, harbor, boat chase, cruise liner and the cargo plane sequence was probably THE best sections the Uncharted series has ever had. In fact, Id argue that the levels where Drake is with his team are the most boring. The whole London chapter aside from the opening bar fight is a chore to play through, yet you are fighting alongside Sully and Cutter. Two awesome characters. Syria chapters were equally boring and there you had Sully, Cutter AND Chloe. Only the Chateau chapter was fun.

 U3s problems were more than just mechanical stuff they can fix with the next entry. I mean they improved the puzzles from U2 which were something many bitched about and people STILL thought those sections were boring. Just go back and read the U3 thread, you will see how people kept saying they werent feeling the opening chapters. That it was too samey. Uncharted has overstayed its welcome. Plain and simple.  And like GoWA, ND just didnt know how to improve the gunplay so they ended up f*cking it up just like the abomination of combat that was in GoWA. Going back to U2 gunplay and GoW3s combat is them basically admitting they have no innovation to bring to the franchise. That they have no new ideas. BTW, ZOE has a cult following so no gamers arent just fans of MGS the fault lies with Konami and Kojima himself who are too scared to do anything else.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Your numbers aren't correct. Ascension sold 620K first month (which is still a substantial drop). Its also worth noting that GoW Ascansion placed as much emphasis on the multiplayer as it did on the campaign, downplayed the campaign during the run up to the game's release and they gave the enjoyable campaign (which didn't quite hit the highs of 3, but didn't have the lows either and had better puzzles) a throwaway story. By way of contrast, look at the way ND handled multiplayer with Uncharted 2. They did the exact opposite of what SSM did, focusing on the SP (U2 is as polished a game as has shipped) both in terms of effort and emphasis (they talked about SP for a looong time before talking about MP).

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29381614/march-2013-npd-numbers?page=2

As for KZ Shadowfall, change makes sense. KZ2 put up good numbers, but KZ3's changed up quite a lot (lots more color, vehicle segments, the character lost the heavy feel of KZ2 and became the standard jumpy boy, weapons lost all recoil, the multiplayer was radically different due to the ability to mix and match, etc) in order to appease detractors and lo and behold, sales declined because fans (including me) were disappointed and detractors didn't abandon CoD or Gears or whatever their poison of choice was.

The fact lots of franchises are going the free roam route next gen doesn't mean everyone should do it. That sort of thinking has killed a lot of franchises because it has translated into a lot of throwaway modes and/or design choices which left fans cold. People don't despise more content, but most also come to franchises with expectations. RE6 boasts more content than any of its predecessors and features more popular design elements (military action games are vastly more popular than first person shooters) but many fans walked away because they abandoned what made the franchise great.

S0lidSnake

Regardless of whether or not MP was marketed more, the fact remains that both Gears and God of War have overstayed their welcome. Even at 600K Gears had a huge drop from a the 2+ million Gears 3 sold in its first month. There was no MP marketing push. It was just another Gears game that no one (not many) wanted.

As for KZSF being different because sales declined, well I hope a great studio like ND doesn't wait for a flop before they decide to evolve an already stale formula. I hope they see the writing on the wall and make the necessary changes to the formula instead of waiting for their fans to shun them.

You seem to think Uncharted 3's problems were mostly story focused. Yes, it was a bad idea to keep Drake alone for the last half of the game, but then how comes those were THE best parts of the game? Everything from the Yemen chase to the shipyard, harbor, boat chase, cruise liner and the cargo plane sequence was probably THE best sections the Uncharted series has ever had. In fact, Id argue that the levels where Drake is with his team are the most boring. The whole London chapter aside from the opening bar fight is a chore to play through, yet you are fighting alongside Sully and Cutter. Two awesome characters. Syria chapters were equally boring and there you had Sully, Cutter AND Chloe. Only the Chateau chapter was fun.

U3s problems were more than just mechanical stuff they can fix with the next entry. I mean they improved the puzzles from U2 which were something many bitched about and people STILL thought those sections were boring. Just go back and read the U3 thread, you will see how people kept saying they werent feeling the opening chapters. That it was too samey. Uncharted has overstayed its welcome. Plain and simple. And like GoWA, ND just didnt know how to improve the gunplay so they ended up f*cking it up just like the abomination of combat that was in GoWA. Going back to U2 gunplay and GoW3s combat is them basically admitting they have no innovation to bring to the franchise. That they have no new ideas. BTW, ZOE has a cult following so no gamers arent just fans of MGS the fault lies with Konami and Kojima himself who are too scared to do anything else.

Gears was made by a different team and was a very different game (the campaign was much more arcadey and score focused, the multiplayer was missing some of the more popular modes and light on maps).

Rather than go too deep into the weeds with you about U3's flaws and weaknesses, let me just reinterate my larger point that it wasn't as good a game as U2. I named a couple examples of why that was the case, I didn't say those were the only reasons.

If you're that down on Uncharted, fine and good, but why do you think Naughty Dog should mutilate the franchise beyond recognition rather than let it die and do something new? As I stated, clearly many Naughty Dog fans follow the studio, not X franchise, so if they want to make a free roaming game they should just make an original IP, rather than release a game which is 'Uncharted' in name only.

FYI: The fact a big budget series like ZOE has just a cult following is a huge problem. The dedication of fans like myself (ZOE2 is pure awesome) means less than the fact that there were not enough of us buyers to make ZOE2 (which unlike the original didn't have an MGS demo packed in) profitable.

And like GoWA, ND just didnt know how to improve the gunplay so they ended up f*cking it up just like the abomination of combat that was in GoWA. Going back to U2 gunplay and GoW3s combat is them basically admitting they have no innovation to bring to the franchise. That they have no new ideas. BTW, ZOE has a cult following so no gamers arent just fans of MGS the fault lies with Konami and Kojima himself who are too scared to do anything else.

S0lidSnake

You hatred of GoW Ascension never fails to amaze me. Before you bought it you stated you hated the idea of it and called the director (who said he wanted to make a game the fans of GoW would love) a horrible person. Then when you bought it you didn't bother to learn the combat system before you started making incorrect statements about it and claiming that it sucked.

You don't see me buying CoD games. I know I hate the concept, so I don't subject myself to the agony. Anyway, below is our exchange from four months ago.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29365015/the-official-god-of-war-ascension-thread-of-bros-before-foes?msg_id=339893474#339893474

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Why is magic tied to the rage meter? Why? Who greenlit such an awful move? Why does the rage meter drain automatically even if you dont get hit? For a QTE heavy game this is a deal breaker in most boss battles.

This combined with nearly all the combos locked to the rage meter has made this game's combat one of the most boring combat I've played in a video game. Square, Square, Triangle. That's what this game has become. Some might say it was always like this but nope, I always used other combos. Now they have locked away even triangle, triangle, triangle. Forget about the L1 moves.

I fought three boss battles doing Square, Square, Triangle. God of War 3's combat was perfection. This is truly horrendous stuff. This game is one of the biggest f*ck ups this gen.

CarnageHeart

Magic isn't tied to the rage meter. To use magic, you need to upgrade the items that give you elemental attacks. At the first level they just give you blades infused with the element and minor special attacks (and of course, a special Rage of the Gods attack). Once they are upgraded to a certain point, then you get magic attacks (which aren't tied to rage meter, but do consume magic points).

Also, as is traditional in GoW, additional combos are acquired by upgrading the blades of chaos (5 levels, roughly 5 new attacks learned at each level). The L1 attacks start opening up at level 2.

*Shrugs* But I honestly don't see why you bought Asencion after complaining that you were shocked and horrified that it got an 8 and saying it should have changed genres (to a dancing game or something) and that the director was a horrible person for saying he wanted to make a game fans would enjoy.

Clearly you have no interest in a true GoW game, so I don't see why you bought this one given all the other games out there (you spoke approvingly of Dead Space 3 in the NPD, but also stated you hadn't bought it). Since you are (to no one's surprise) unhappy with Ascension, why not trade it in for Dead Space 3 or something?

You hatred of GoW Ascension never fails to amaze me. Before you bought it you stated you hated the idea of it and called the director (who said he wanted to make a game the fans of GoW would love) a horrible person. Then when you bought it you didn't bother to learn the combat system before you started making incorrect statements about it and claiming that it sucked.

You don't see me buying CoD games. I know I hate the concept, so I don't subject myself to the agony. Anyway, below is our exchange from four months ago.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29365015/the-official-god-of-war-ascension-thread-of-bros-before-foes?msg_id=339893474#339893474

 

CarnageHeart

Those were my early impressions of the game. The fact remains that the magic IS locked even if it isnt tied to the Rage meter. The fact remains that there is only ONE weapon in the game with four different variants. I do not remember a God of War game that locked away the magic behind the third or fourth upgrade. Triangle, Triangle, Triangle was indeed tied to the Rage meter. The trial of Archimedes wouldnt have been that difficult if we had the Cestus, Hermes Boots, Bow and Arrow, and other items/weapons from God of War 3. Instead we got a total of two items, mostly useless and four variants on the blades that you dont even have to use on different enemy types. The combat here was as shallow as it gets. You are making it sound like I have some kind of irrational hate for this game when in fact I am just pointing out that the games combat has some serious issues. Just like Uncharted 3s combat. Are you saying that GoWAs combat is not inferior to GoW3?

BOTH ND and Santa Monica got complacent. They both rushed out a product with MASSIVE bugs and glitches. The aiming problems took three weeks to fix and the audio problems of GoWA werent fixed by the time I traded in the game a few weeks later. They thought Hey Carnage will play and love the same old shit we give him so why bother adding something new? Actually, Lets strip away all the combat upgrades we have introduced so far in the series and give him a shallow as f*ck experience because hes our fan.

 And I was largely proven right regarding the directors comments because the reaction to the game (both critically and commercially) was pretty critical. His 600k fans didnt seem to like the game much. The other 600k didnt even both picking up the game. I was one of the 600k who picked up the game, not sure why you have a problem with that. What I choose to play is my decision and I decided to give the game a chance. Just like I did with the Wii U, Demon Souls and Zelda. I find that if you are taking shit about something, you need to have played it first. Simple as that.

 I dont know. Some people are ok with yearly CoD games. Some love yearly AC games. Halo has become a yearly franchise since Halo 3 with 5 Halo games released since 2007, and people seem to be ok with that. My take is that we cannot shit on CoD for not innovating and then turn around and give Sony a pass for doing the same with the franchises.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

You hatred of GoW Ascension never fails to amaze me. Before you bought it you stated you hated the idea of it and called the director (who said he wanted to make a game the fans of GoW would love) a horrible person. Then when you bought it you didn't bother to learn the combat system before you started making incorrect statements about it and claiming that it sucked.

You don't see me buying CoD games. I know I hate the concept, so I don't subject myself to the agony. Anyway, below is our exchange from four months ago.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29365015/the-official-god-of-war-ascension-thread-of-bros-before-foes?msg_id=339893474#339893474

S0lidSnake

Those were my early impressions of the game. The fact remains that the magic IS locked even if it isnt tied to the Rage meter. The fact remains that there is only ONE weapon in the game with four different variants. I do not remember a God of War game that locked away the magic behind the third or fourth upgrade. Triangle, Triangle, Triangle was indeed tied to the Rage meter. The trial of Archimedes wouldnt have been that difficult if we had the Cestus, Hermes Boots, Bow and Arrow, and other items/weapons from God of War 3. Instead we got a total of two items, mostly useless and four variants on the blades that you dont even have to use on different enemy types. The combat here was as shallow as it gets. You are making it sound like I have some kind of irrational hate for this game when in fact I am just pointing out that the games combat has some serious issues. Just like Uncharted 3s combat. Are you saying that GoWAs combat is not inferior to GoW3?

BOTH ND and Santa Monica got complacent. They both rushed out a product with MASSIVE bugs and glitches. The aiming problems took three weeks to fix and the audio problems of GoWA werent fixed by the time I traded in the game a few weeks later. They thought Hey Carnage will play and love the same old shit we give him so why bother adding something new? Actually, Lets strip away all the combat upgrades we have introduced so far in the series and give him a shallow as f*ck experience because hes our fan.

And I was largely proven right regarding the directors comments because the reaction to the game (both critically and commercially) was pretty critical. His 600k fans didnt seem to like the game much. The other 600k didnt even both picking up the game. I was one of the 600k who picked up the game, not sure why you have a problem with that. What I choose to play is my decision and I decided to give the game a chance. Just like I did with the Wii U, Demon Souls and Zelda. I find that if you are taking shit about something, you need to have played it first. Simple as that.

I dont know. Some people are ok with yearly CoD games. Some love yearly AC games. Halo has become a yearly franchise since Halo 3 with 5 Halo games released since 2007, and people seem to be ok with that. My take is that we cannot shit on CoD for not innovating and then turn around and give Sony a pass for doing the same with the franchises.

Your first paragraph complained about some of the new things Ascension did (though you didn't cover stuff like the parry and grab). Your second complains that they didn't have enough old things (the sort of things no veteran of GoW would have expected since the Blades of Chaos are the only constant weapon in the series). Get back to me once you have developed a coherent argument :P.

I was fine with Ascension's combat (grabbing enemy weapons was more important at the beginning, towards the end as you power up the different elements and magic becomes available, enemy weapons become less important). Granted, that is a very different structure than previous GoWs have employed (though its worth noting all the GoWs boast different magic system and weapons) but it worked. *Shrugs* As I've previously noted, you seem to be of two minds about the desirability of change.

I've never criticized CoD for not changing enough, I've criticized it for multiplayer that cements dominance (I've watched my brother and a cousin play if for hours) and shallow SP. I don't realistically expect Activision to change the formula because well, the games are selling well and smart designers who helm commercially successful franchises seek to please their fans rather than their detractors.

The state of CoD isn't something that keeps me up at night. Ridiculing CoD is fun, but I have no real problem with those guys. What distresses me are developers that foolishly destroy their own successful franchises by aping CoD (Starhawk looked as much to CoD for inspiration as it did Warhawk and that is what killed it), which is a strategy that just doesn't pay off (CoD is like an MMO, there is no downtime when the community is looking for a facsimile).

The fact that you buy games that you know you'll hate is fascinating. I love to debate games and have the post count to prove it, but I'm not willing to buy games I hate and spent hours on them just so I can better elucidate my dislike. I tip my hat to your devotion sir.

 

Your first paragraph complained about some of the new things Ascension did (though you didn't cover stuff like the parry and grab). Your second complains that they didn't have enough old things (the sort of things no veteran of GoW would have expected since the Blades of Chaos are the only constant weapon in the series). Get back to me once you have developed a coherent argument :P.

I was fine with Ascension's combat (grabbing enemy weapons was more important at the beginning, towards the end as you power up the different elements and magic becomes available, enemy weapons become less important). Granted, that is a very different structure than previous GoWs have employed (though its worth noting all the GoWs boast different magic system and weapons) but it worked. *Shrugs* As I've previously noted, you seem to be of two minds about the desirability of change.

 

The fact that you buy games that you know you'll hate is fascinating. I love to debate games and have the post count to prove it, but I'm not willing to buy games I hate and spent hours on them just so I can better elucidate my dislike. I tip my hat to your devotion sir.

CarnageHeart

 Nope. I was trying to prove how GoWAs combat is inferior to its predecessor. I wasnt asking for their inclusion. My argument is as coherent as it gets. GoWAs combat is a step back from GoW3. Tell me Im wrong.

 As for my overall point about evolving the series, why in the world do you think that includes nerfing the combat and taking away all the major weapons? No, those are things that you build upon. You dont discard them altogether. And THEN you evolve.

 And for the last time, I dont HATE god of war. GoW3 was my favorite game of this gen alongside MGS4. I dont HATE Zelda or Demon Souls or the Wii U. I just think when you are talking about a game, you need to have as much knowledge about it as possible. There are too many people running around this board shitting on naughty Dog, Uncharted and TLOU without even ever playing it. I didnt give Demon Souls a try so I could shit on it on PGD. I gave it a chance because I really wanted to like it. Same with GoWA. There is no way I couldve known they wouldve thrown away everything good about the combat. Just like how NO one couldve known U3 would all of a sudden have broken aiming and a return to respawning enemies from U1. I figured worst comes to worst, we get a game with the awesome combat from GoW3 with some phenomenal visuals and setpieces.  We certainly got the visuals and setpieces, but the combat was gimped. And it was gimped because they didnt know where to take it. The formula reached its peak with GoW3 and needed a reboot. The blades needed to be retired after FIVE games in FIVE years. But nope, They decided to milk it instead of saying enough is enough, lets do something different for a change.

 Look at Motorstorm. Fantastic evolution in each iteration. They didnt even need new hardware. The core gameplay remained the same with some new additions that completely change the way you play the game. Look at what Witcher 3 is doing. They couldve given the fans Witcher 2 with shitty weapons or challenged themselves to do something bigger and better. Same with MGSV.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

 

Your first paragraph complained about some of the new things Ascension did (though you didn't cover stuff like the parry and grab). Your second complains that they didn't have enough old things (the sort of things no veteran of GoW would have expected since the Blades of Chaos are the only constant weapon in the series). Get back to me once you have developed a coherent argument :P.

I was fine with Ascension's combat (grabbing enemy weapons was more important at the beginning, towards the end as you power up the different elements and magic becomes available, enemy weapons become less important). Granted, that is a very different structure than previous GoWs have employed (though its worth noting all the GoWs boast different magic system and weapons) but it worked. *Shrugs* As I've previously noted, you seem to be of two minds about the desirability of change.

 

The fact that you buy games that you know you'll hate is fascinating. I love to debate games and have the post count to prove it, but I'm not willing to buy games I hate and spent hours on them just so I can better elucidate my dislike. I tip my hat to your devotion sir.

S0lidSnake

 Nope. I was trying to prove how GoWAs combat is inferior to its predecessor. I wasnt asking for their inclusion. My argument is as coherent as it gets. GoWAs combat is a step back from GoW3. Tell me Im wrong.

 As for my overall point about evolving the series, why in the world do you think that includes nerfing the combat and taking away all the major weapons? No, those are things that you build upon. You dont discard them altogether. And THEN you evolve.

 And for the last time, I dont HATE god of war. GoW3 was my favorite game of this gen alongside MGS4. I dont HATE Zelda or Demon Souls or the Wii U. I just think when you are talking about a game, you need to have as much knowledge about it as possible. There are too many people running around this board shitting on naughty Dog, Uncharted and TLOU without even ever playing it. I didnt give Demon Souls a try so I could shit on it on PGD. I gave it a chance because I really wanted to like it. Same with GoWA. There is no way I couldve known they wouldve thrown away everything good about the combat. Just like how NO one couldve known U3 would all of a sudden have broken aiming and a return to respawning enemies from U1. I figured worst comes to worst, we get a game with the awesome combat from GoW3 with some phenomenal visuals and setpieces.  We certainly got the visuals and setpieces, but the combat was gimped. And it was gimped because they didnt know where to take it. The formula reached its peak with GoW3 and needed a reboot. The blades needed to be retired after FIVE games in FIVE years. But nope, They decided to milk it instead of saying enough is enough, lets do something different for a change.

 Look at Motorstorm. Fantastic evolution in each iteration. They didnt even need new hardware. The core gameplay remained the same with some new additions that completely change the way you play the game. Look at what Witcher 3 is doing. They couldve given the fans Witcher 2 with shitty weapons or challenged themselves to do something bigger and better. Same with MGSV.

Did somebody praise the gunplay in Uncharted and Uncharted 2? If so, they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same.El_Zo1212o

Uncharted 2 had far superior gunplay. It's the best cover based third person shooter out there. 

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Did somebody praise the gunplay in Uncharted and Uncharted 2? If so, they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same.S0lidSnake

Uncharted 2 had far superior gunplay. It's the best cover based third person shooter out there. 

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Did somebody praise the gunplay in Uncharted and Uncharted 2? If so, they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same.El_Zo1212o

Uncharted 2 had far superior gunplay. It's the best cover based third person shooter out there. 

 "they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same."

First you'll have to explain why I need my head examined. I have no idea why you disliked the gunplay when the shooting mechanics are responsive and the cover system along with Drake's agility make it more dynamic and responsive than many third person shooters out there. 

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] How so?dvader654

 "they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same."

First you'll have to explain why I need my head examined. I have no idea why you disliked the gunplay when the shooting mechanics are responsive and the cover system along with Drake's agility make it more dynamic and responsive than many third person shooters out there. 

I kind of get what he is saying, I dont think the actual act of aiming and firing the gun is as satisfying or responsive as other TPSs. I think the total package is incredible but the shooting has always felt like shooting a pea shooter in uncharted. Just compare the firing of a gun in Uncharted and TLOU, pretty different. To go farther compare it to RE4 where every shot feels extremely important.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Uncharted 3 was like U2 and it was already too fimiliar. They had already hit their peak with U2 and had to change with U3 but what we ended up getting was just not good enough.

dvader654

The problem wasn't that Uncharted 3 was similar to U2, the problem was that it wasn't quite as good. For example, the fact that the childhood sections were utterly pointless and that Nate spend most of the second half of the game alone really harmed the game (U2 had no such weak spots).

I think the market will greet an Uncharted that lives up to the greatness of U2 enthusiastically. If Naughty Dog doesn't believe that, they should dump Uncharted rather than turn it into something its not. Unlike Kojima (who is a tremendous talent, but who hasn't been involved in a hit game not named Metal Gear in generations because most fans of his work are fans of MGS, not Kojima) Naughty Dog boasts fans who follow Naughty Dog (whether that is Crash, Jak, Uncharted or The Last of Us) rather than their franchises.

You're a Nintendo fan who wants to lay Mario/Zelda/Metroid till you die? I will die of shock the day I meet a Nintendo fan who doesn't feel that way :P. Like it or not, people who key on franchises rather than genres do exist and they exist in massive numbers on Nintendo consoles because that is the audience Nintendo has cultivated the past two generations.

As for Uncharted, if it continues fine but if ND wants to move on that's fine too so long as they continue to make quality games.

As for Uncharted, if it continues fine but if ND wants to move on that's fine too so long as they continue to make quality games.

CarnageHeart

With Uncharted, I noticed more of their shortcomings than I did with The Last of Us.

I would be fine if they moved on from Uncharted, honestly. I think they'd be stifling themselves creatively if they don't. At the same time, I hope there are no sequels to The Last of Us, either. The one experience was great enough that repeated trips back could dillute it. As it stands now, we've got this perfect little slice of time in that world. I hope they leave it that way.

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Did somebody praise the gunplay in Uncharted and Uncharted 2? If so, they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same.S0lidSnake

Uncharted 2 had far superior gunplay. It's the best cover based third person shooter out there.

I haven't played Uncharted 1 or 2 yet, but as far as I've seen, the Gears Of War franchise has been pretty consistent with having an excellent cover system. I'm not sure if you have even played any of the Gears games, but if you have, can you compare the two in terms of its cover system? I'm really curious to hear your thoughts! :)

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Your numbers aren't correct. Ascension sold 620K first month (which is still a substantial drop). Its also worth noting that GoW Ascansion placed as much emphasis on the multiplayer as it did on the campaign, downplayed the campaign during the run up to the game's release and they gave the enjoyable campaign (which didn't quite hit the highs of 3, but didn't have the lows either and had better puzzles) a throwaway story. By way of contrast, look at the way ND handled multiplayer with Uncharted 2. They did the exact opposite of what SSM did, focusing on the SP (U2 is as polished a game as has shipped) both in terms of effort and emphasis (they talked about SP for a looong time before talking about MP).

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29381614/march-2013-npd-numbers?page=2

As for KZ Shadowfall, change makes sense. KZ2 put up good numbers, but KZ3's changed up quite a lot (lots more color, vehicle segments, the character lost the heavy feel of KZ2 and became the standard jumpy boy, weapons lost all recoil, the multiplayer was radically different due to the ability to mix and match, etc) in order to appease detractors and lo and behold, sales declined because fans (including me) were disappointed and detractors didn't abandon CoD or Gears or whatever their poison of choice was.

The fact lots of franchises are going the free roam route next gen doesn't mean everyone should do it. That sort of thinking has killed a lot of franchises because it has translated into a lot of throwaway modes and/or design choices which left fans cold. People don't despise more content, but most also come to franchises with expectations. RE6 boasts more content than any of its predecessors and features more popular design elements (military action games are vastly more popular than first person shooters) but many fans walked away because they abandoned what made the franchise great.

CarnageHeart

Regardless of whether or not MP was marketed more, the fact remains that both Gears and God of War have overstayed their welcome. Even at 600K Gears had a huge drop from a the 2+ million Gears 3 sold in its first month. There was no MP marketing push. It was just another Gears game that no one (not many) wanted.

As for KZSF being different because sales declined, well I hope a great studio like ND doesn't wait for a flop before they decide to evolve an already stale formula. I hope they see the writing on the wall and make the necessary changes to the formula instead of waiting for their fans to shun them.

You seem to think Uncharted 3's problems were mostly story focused. Yes, it was a bad idea to keep Drake alone for the last half of the game, but then how comes those were THE best parts of the game? Everything from the Yemen chase to the shipyard, harbor, boat chase, cruise liner and the cargo plane sequence was probably THE best sections the Uncharted series has ever had. In fact, Id argue that the levels where Drake is with his team are the most boring. The whole London chapter aside from the opening bar fight is a chore to play through, yet you are fighting alongside Sully and Cutter. Two awesome characters. Syria chapters were equally boring and there you had Sully, Cutter AND Chloe. Only the Chateau chapter was fun.

U3s problems were more than just mechanical stuff they can fix with the next entry. I mean they improved the puzzles from U2 which were something many bitched about and people STILL thought those sections were boring. Just go back and read the U3 thread, you will see how people kept saying they werent feeling the opening chapters. That it was too samey. Uncharted has overstayed its welcome. Plain and simple. And like GoWA, ND just didnt know how to improve the gunplay so they ended up f*cking it up just like the abomination of combat that was in GoWA. Going back to U2 gunplay and GoW3s combat is them basically admitting they have no innovation to bring to the franchise. That they have no new ideas. BTW, ZOE has a cult following so no gamers arent just fans of MGS the fault lies with Konami and Kojima himself who are too scared to do anything else.

Gears was made by a different team and was a very different game (the campaign was much more arcadey and score focused, the multiplayer was missing some of the more popular modes and light on maps).

Rather than go too deep into the weeds with you about U3's flaws and weaknesses, let me just reinterate my larger point that it wasn't as good a game as U2. I named a couple examples of why that was the case, I didn't say those were the only reasons.

If you're that down on Uncharted, fine and good, but why do you think Naughty Dog should mutilate the franchise beyond recognition rather than let it die and do something new? As I stated, clearly many Naughty Dog fans follow the studio, not X franchise, so if they want to make a free roaming game they should just make an original IP, rather than release a game which is 'Uncharted' in name only.

FYI: The fact a big budget series like ZOE has just a cult following is a huge problem. The dedication of fans like myself (ZOE2 is pure awesome) means less than the fact that there were not enough of us buyers to make ZOE2 (which unlike the original didn't have an MGS demo packed in) profitable.

I'd argue that Uncharted 3 is equally as good as its predecessor. While I believe that Uncharted 2 was the more refined entry for the time, UC3 did improve in a number of areas. The hand to hand combat was vastly improved even adding in a throw option. The grenade throwback option was a nice addition and stealth takedowns from above as well. The puzzles were easily superior as well as the visuals, animation and sound design across the board.

Uncharted 2 often played like a pure shooter, abandoning its strengths which was the ability to use fisticuffs, traversal and takedowns with cover based gunplay. They had a much better balance of these elements in the third entry and I would also like to make a case that the enemy A.I was surely built for a pure TPS in Uncharted 2 but was toned down for the third giving the player motivation to mix and match these elements in a single combat scenario which in turn improved the gameplay tremendously.

The first chapter within Syria alone has more gameplay choice within combat than ANY chapter in Uncharted 2. In Syria you have plenty of oppertunities to mix and match, use a number of weapons. You have a puzzle segment, sniping section, vertical firefight on the side of a tower and so on. All within 30 minutes of gameplay.

I'd argue that Uncharted 3 is equally as good as its predecessor. While I believe that Uncharted 2 was the more refined entry for the time, UC3 did improve in a number of areas. The hand to hand combat was vastly improved even adding in a throw option. The grenade throwback option was a nice addition and stealth takedowns from above as well. The puzzles were easily superior as well as the visuals, animation and sound design across the board.

Uncharted 2 often played like a pure shooter, abandoning its strengths which was the ability to use fisticuffs, traversal and takedowns with cover based gunplay. They had a much better balance of these elements in the third entry and I would also like to make a case that the enemy A.I was surely built for a pure TPS in Uncharted 2 but was toned down for the third giving the player motivation to mix and match these elements in a single combat scenario which in turn improved the gameplay tremendously.

The first chapter within Syria alone has more gameplay choice within combat than ANY chapter in Uncharted 2. In Syria you have plenty of oppertunities to mix and match, use a number of weapons. You have a puzzle segment, sniping section, vertical firefight on the side of a tower and so on. All within 30 minutes of gameplay.

contracts420

Interesting perspective. I need to replay U3 one of these days (played through on hard the first time, haven't gotten around to a crushing playthrough).

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Did somebody praise the gunplay in Uncharted and Uncharted 2? If so, they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same.Metamania

Uncharted 2 had far superior gunplay. It's the best cover based third person shooter out there.

I haven't played Uncharted 1 or 2 yet, but as far as I've seen, the Gears Of War franchise has been pretty consistent with having an excellent cover system. I'm not sure if you have even played any of the Gears games, but if you have, can you compare the two in terms of its cover system? I'm really curious to hear your thoughts! :)

I have played all three Gears games (I choose to believe that Judgement does not exist). Characters in Gears move like a tank. I am sure its by design, but it makes close quarters combat a pain in the ass. The cover system is nearly identical, but Drakes agility makes moving in and out of cover and traversing the enviornment a lot more smoother/quicker. The weapons in Uncharted all have their uses while Gears is basically a Lancer game in SP and Shotgun fest in MP. In uncharted, headshots are always a one hit kill. Not so much in Gears unless you are using a Sniper Rifle. I do like that the guns in Gears pack a punch. It feels like you are using a death machine.

Can you even shoot in Gears without pressing L1? Its absolutely essential in Uncharted with enemies working together to flank you. (In U3 they became suicidal and just bum rushed you which is why the combat in that game sucks).

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Uncharted 2 had far superior gunplay. It's the best cover based third person shooter out there. 

S0lidSnake

 "they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same."

First you'll have to explain why I need my head examined. I have no idea why you disliked the gunplay when the shooting mechanics are responsive and the cover system along with Drake's agility make it more dynamic and responsive than many third person shooters out there. 

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

The problem wasn't that Uncharted 3 was similar to U2, the problem was that it wasn't quite as good. For example, the fact that the childhood sections were utterly pointless and that Nate spend most of the second half of the game alone really harmed the game (U2 had no such weak spots).

I think the market will greet an Uncharted that lives up to the greatness of U2 enthusiastically. If Naughty Dog doesn't believe that, they should dump Uncharted rather than turn it into something its not. Unlike Kojima (who is a tremendous talent, but who hasn't been involved in a hit game not named Metal Gear in generations because most fans of his work are fans of MGS, not Kojima) Naughty Dog boasts fans who follow Naughty Dog (whether that is Crash, Jak, Uncharted or The Last of Us) rather than their franchises.

CarnageHeart

You're a Nintendo fan who wants to lay Mario/Zelda/Metroid till you die? I will die of shock the day I meet a Nintendo fan who doesn't feel that way :P. Like it or not, people who key on franchises rather than genres do exist and they exist in massive numbers on Nintendo consoles because that is the audience Nintendo has cultivated the past two generations.

As for Uncharted, if it continues fine but if ND wants to move on that's fine too so long as they continue to make quality games.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] How so?El_Zo1212o

 "they need to have their head examined- Uncharted shot like something straight out of PS2 and, though I didn't play it for long, Uncharted 2 felt the same."

First you'll have to explain why I need my head examined. I have no idea why you disliked the gunplay when the shooting mechanics are responsive and the cover system along with Drake's agility make it more dynamic and responsive than many third person shooters out there. 

Uncharted 1 has mediocre shooting. I wont argue with that. I had to mess around with hte sensitivity for hours before i got used to it. It isnt very good.

U2 gets much better after the first few chapters. There is very little shooting in the first few chapters anyway.