[QUOTE="Black-October"][QUOTE="machiavell8x8"]
Huh? The game was overhyped? Quite the contrary. Yes the game was hyped by many, but the general consensus agree (myself included) that the game delivered precisely what the developers promised. The multiplayer was just an added bonus, not to mention for Naughty Dogs first attempt at online multiplayer I think they did a fabulous job. Sure it's gets old after a while, but what game (in general) doesn't?
[QUOTE="machiavell8x8"]yep and imagine how much better single player would have been if they hadnt wasted theres and our time and money on mpmachiavell8x8
I'm curious. What didn't you like about the campaign that warrants such a bold statement? I thought the campaign was stupendous. I loved ever moment of it. I don't feel like Naughty Dog wasted theirs or our time and money on the multiplayer because it's one of the best online experiences on the PS3 and in no way did it compromise the single player. You may have overhyped the game, but in no way did Naughty Dog fall short of what was promised. If you feel the game was overhyped and that the single player suffered then it's because you and you alone expected more then the developer promised.
the game couldn't be any more hyped so how could it be to the contrary at all? you say the multiplayer was an added bonus, thats funny how people say that with this game as if that lets it off the hook review wise...sorry doesn't work like that. it clearly deserves to get points docked for the subpar multiplayer. they added it to get people to buy the game....so clearly those that were influenced by that asspect were sadly disapointed. how did it not compromise the single player, do you not understand time and material? they spent money producing multiplayer, hence its very easy to see how that time and money could have made the single player much better. so it clearly did compromise the single player. and how did i overhype the game? ive been saying its been overhyped long before it was ever released! and no the single player suffered because thats a FACT. all the time they put into the multiplayer could have given us all a longer campaign and various other things. games that are made for multiplayer are the games that people play, and when MW2 hits nobody will ever look back at uncharted MP. and thats a fact. unless your just bored, and in that case you'll just find yourself in worse shape. so now its your turn, what makes uncharted 2's MP better than MW, MW2, resistance 2, and MGS4 online. i myself can think of NOTHING.Might I ask; How does one overhype a game without first playing it? The focal point of the game had always been the single player campaign. The multiplayer was an added bonus and even Naughty Dog admitted to this. Naughty Dog wanted to experiment with multiplayer, but this "subpar" multiplayer isn't the breaking point of Among Thieves. Naughty Dog set a goal to deliver a bigger, better experience than it's predecessor and they did just that. The multiplayer didn't come into play until much later into development thus Naughty Dog hosted a beta. The general feedback was positive. After ironing out the bugs and polishing the game a second beta was then hosted for marketing purposes. For those that bought the game based solely on the multiplayer well that's their problem, but again it's not the breaking point. Naughty Dog delivered what they promised, and that's final.
So again I repeat that the single player campaign was not compromised in the least because of multiplayer. You apparently have no concept of marketing.
Your statement of them wasting your time, and spending your money (because I assume you included yourself in "our") is selfish and ignorant because guess what. The single player campaign would be EXACTLY the same without the multiplayer. Accept it or don't it's your choice, but don't come in here throwing the term "fact" around just nilly-willy without evidence.
Log in to comment