Just where is the online community for Uncharted 2?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Dude, in what way would SP be any different if there was no multiplayer? 10 extra chapters? get real. Naughty Dog would have had the story/gameplay set in stone from the beginning and they chose to make a MP ASWELL.They dont just go "oh look maybe we should add in MP.okay lets cut out these chapters,put less effort into graphics and gameplay.".The finished game is amazing, with 97 on metacritic and some of the best console graphics seen yet youre complaining because you ASSUME it could have been better just because it had a MP you didnt like?. And please stop hating on the MP and comparing it to MW2.Theyre completely different MP games._Cadbury_
Actually, none of us really know for sure HOW they developed it so you can't be sure about this either.
This point, however, is valid ... you can't assume they sacrificed some resources from the development of single player campaign in order to develop multiplayer, but you can't assume the opposite either. My argument is to just form your opinion on what the game is, not what it could have been.
This point is valid and is my main argument against what the other poster is saying. You (other poster) refuse to say why the multiplayer is subpar and just say that's your opinion. I don't take issue with the fact that you dislike it, I take issue with the fact that you call it subpar with nothing to back it up when I clearly show evidence as to why it is high quality.
well i've not had the time to play the online yet. im currently on crushing for my last trophy, then after that i shall go to the online.mep69That's exactly what I did. :D Now I can play as Marco Polo online. It's great. :P
you can ALWAYS add more to a game, if you do it RIGHT. it could have even been something seperate as stated like DLC. there's lots of options and saying it would only degrade it only shows how much you actually think of this company and the gaming industry as a whole. i have no urgency to end the discussion, i only wish to end a debate on a subtopic that ive clearly undeniable already won. there is no way around it....all your doing is trying to do a little dance. money and time, in the hands of a good developer can only improve and add great things. your either a fool or a fanboy...take your pick. as to the other guy, this isn't school so take your grammar nazi tactic's somewhere else....unless your just here to soley annoy people in which case that wouldn't surprize me. and seeing the success of another game has nothing to do with being a fanboy. when you run around supporting a flawed MP thats when your a fanboy. it doesn't matter WHEN they put it in, it doesn't matter when they told you they put it in, it doesn't matter if they call it a "bonus" in an attempt to make people turn a blind eye to the flaws. all that matters is they spent time and money to do it, and i don't know how many times it will take to get that to sink into your brain. that is time that could have been used to add any number of kinds of content to the single player aspect....this IS AN EXTREEMLY SIMPLE CONCEPT WHAT IN GODS GREEN EARTH IS YOUR PROBLEM? DO "BONUSES" NOT COST MONEY AND TIME IN YOUR DREAMWORLD? and yes ill say it again your a fanboy if you think the multiplayer didn't cost them money and that it couldn't have been put to use on the single player in some way or fashion. i already know your answer and its gunna scream fanboy again...so how about you just bow out already....because your logic is flawed. you've taken the naughty dog bonus bait.machiavell8x8
:roll:
-Like I said before, the game is almost perfect, 97 on metacritic, yet this isnt good enough for you.Hell, why dont they just not release the game for another year while they try to improve it? why dont ALL games just spend 6 years making their games completely perfect for your apparent ridiculously high standards.Now would you please tell me WHAT on earth else they could add to SP to make it that much better, I mean seriously, you must know if youre so sure on how it couldve been better.
And you keep banging on about its terrible MP, THATS YOUR OWN OPINION.Sure its not a perfect mp, it has some issues, but its still extremely fun to the rest of us.And guess what, some of us actually like having a MP component to our game, rather than having its overall SP content increase by 3% in value.
a game can be great, yet it can always be greater....sadly i thought we all knew this.machiavell8x8Of course all games have room for improvement. You're arguing that their decision to include multiplayer influenced their decisions regarding singleplayer, which is something we don't know. Their development of the campaign was not necessarily affected at all by their decision to include online multiplayer. Who says they would have made the game any different if they didn't include mutliplayer at all? Again, what I'm trying to say is that your reasoning is not necessarily true because you assume the campaign would have been better off somehow if they chose not to do multiplayer which may not be the case. If they didn't include multiplayer at all, but still made the same exact campaign and released it at the same time, would you still be disappointed? I hope not.
you can ALWAYS add more to a game, if you do it RIGHT. it could have even been something seperate as stated like DLC. there's lots of options and saying it would only degrade it only shows how much you actually think of this company and the gaming industry as a whole. i have no urgency to end the discussion, i only wish to end a debate on a subtopic that ive clearly undeniable already won. there is no way around it....all your doing is trying to do a little dance. money and time, in the hands of a good developer can only improve and add great things. your either a fool or a fanboy...take your pick. as to the other guy, this isn't school so take your grammar nazi tactic's somewhere else....unless your just here to soley annoy people in which case that wouldn't surprize me. and seeing the success of another game has nothing to do with being a fanboy. when you run around supporting a flawed MP thats when your a fanboy. it doesn't matter WHEN they put it in, it doesn't matter when they told you they put it in, it doesn't matter if they call it a "bonus" in an attempt to make people turn a blind eye to the flaws. all that matters is they spent time and money to do it, and i don't know how many times it will take to get that to sink into your brain. that is time that could have been used to add any number of kinds of content to the single player aspect....this IS AN EXTREEMLY SIMPLE CONCEPT WHAT IN GODS GREEN EARTH IS YOUR PROBLEM? DO "BONUSES" NOT COST MONEY AND TIME IN YOUR DREAMWORLD? and yes ill say it again your a fanboy if you think the multiplayer didn't cost them money and that it couldn't have been put to use on the single player in some way or fashion. i already know your answer and its gunna scream fanboy again...so how about you just bow out already....because your logic is flawed. you've taken the naughty dog bonus bait.machiavell8x8
Huh? Your egotistical surpemacy is sickening. There's no argument or debate here. The fact is that Naughty Dog developed the multiplayer much later in developement. Simple as that. I NEVER once argued that it doesn't cost to develop a game. I'm not a moron. The fact is that the campaign had been complete before the multiplayer was incorporated thus that means, what? That the campaign would be the same regardless. I don't care what you claim to be fact because it's irrelevant at this point because you're just wanting to make this entire discussion out to be some kind of intellectual debate, and again it isn't. How's my logic flawed by the way? A developer tacks on a little something something towards the end of development and somehow this magically compromises the single player game. I'm a fan, but a fanboy I am not. Your retorts are pathetic and immature. Get the facts straight before spewing this nonsense because you're in no position to call me a fanboy when you yourself claimed Modern Warfare 2 King of multiplayer when the game is not even out. Oh, and if you're going to be posting on a public forum at least have the courtesy and self-respect to mind your grammar.
oh and by the way if you guys read closly you'll see that i never said that the MP affected the SP. so even if your arguing that they did the SP first, they still choose to spend money on the game later on, in which they could have spent that money on SP instead, went back and added things in. this was always my stance, the money used on MP could have been used on SP. like i said it really doesn't matter what the case was, choice or sacrifice as you say. its money spent bottom line that could have been spend on the single player aspect...and i still can't believe that there's only one person in this thread that seemed to understand my point.
p.s. you sure act like one.
oh and by the way if you guys read closly you'll see that i never said that the MP affected the SP. so even if your arguing that they did the SP first, they still choose to spend money on the game later on, in which they could have spent that money on SP instead, went back and added things in. this was always my stance, the money used on MP could have been used on SP. like i said it really doesn't matter what the case was, choice or sacrifice as you say. its money spent bottom line that could have been spend on the single player aspect...and i still can't believe that there's only one person in this thread that seemed to understand my point.machiavell8x8
Actually you did. Your entire argument is based on money that Naughty Dog chose to spend on developing multiplayer that could have been spent on making the single player "better". Not exactly word for word, but it doesn't take a genius to see through your meaning.
P.S. You are too, bud.
[QUOTE="machiavell8x8"]the game was over hyped and now your seeing the after affects.Totalgym9000Or a lot of people just purchased it for the amazing single player, just like with metal gear solid 4 Exactly. This isn't the kind of game that people buy so that they can jump straight into the multiplayer. It's just a bonus. Personally, I LOVE the game, but hardly ever play multiplayer (and when I do, it's mostly just co-op with friends). I'm sure a lot of people are the same way.
yes thats what i said, that doesn't mean that it affected the SP. like i said they made a choice. a choice to spend more money, money that could have been spent on SP instead. what ive said all along, is that the money they spent on MP could have been spent on SP instead....read my third post in this thread...read it. they doesn't mean they planned to spend the money on SP in the first place and then spent it on MP instead....it means "the money the spent on MP could have been spent on SP instead" doesn't seem to hard to understand unless your reading what you want to read instead of what i actually said.
in the end, the final product was comprimised as the finale product could have been better had that money been spent on SP
yes thats what i said, that doesn't mean that it affected the SP. like i said they made a choice. a choice to spend more money, money that could have been spent on SP instead. what ive said all along, is that the money they spent on MP could have been spent on SP instead....read my third post in this thread...read it. they doesn't mean they planned to spend the money on SP in the first place and then spent it on MP instead....it means "the money the spent on MP could have been spent on SP instead" doesn't seem to hard to understand unless your reading what you want to read instead of what i actually said.
in the end, the final product was comprimised as the finale product could have been better had that money been spent on SP
machiavell8x8
Huh?
your posts are fleshed out with many words that actually add nothing to your minorpoint.
Much like your posts, Naughty Dog could have spent that MP money on SP to add more and more stuff.But would that have made the game better in the end?
it proved my point, if you weren't trying to be annoying you would see that. you seem to be the only one getting hung up on that anyway..
and its not my minor point its YOURS, like i said it hardly mattered if it was their original CHOICE or a sacrifice....it hardly matters. so your minor point about my statement that YOU brought up goes out the window.
and yes why wouldn't more money make SP better? do tell. because i can't think of one game that wouldn't benifit from more money and more time. unless were talking about your imagination land again, hows kenny doing by the way?
are you a stock holder or something?
you can't keep up with the conversation so you feel the need to call ME stupid? yah that makes sense.I didnt call you stupid, I called your assumptions stupid.
and unless that score says 100 then there's plenty of room for improvement and even then....you can always make the game longer. proof is in the pudding and you just ate all of it.97/100 on metacritic.this leaves 3 points of possible improvement,97chances of downgrading.Im sorry, but you act like 100 is aneasy score to get with time and money. Not one game on metacritichas gotten 100/100.And 10/10 is very rare here on gamespot
and again, every game will be better if its given more money and time if its in the right developers hands. Why do you think all the Sony games are always AAA titles? because they have all the time and money in the world. there game dates are always changing, because they are always adding more and more time and money.... Exactly. AAA titles, not 10/10. Many games are in development for YEARS and have masive budgets but still cant reach a perfect score.
you getting full yet on that pudding? Better luck next time? still waiting on that evidence.machiavell8x8
so your saying my assumption is stupid but im not? i love fruitcake don't you? and whats your point about AAA and not being 10/10's all that does is prove my point, it takes time to make good games, time and money. the reason you never seen 10/10 or 100/100 is because there is no such thing as a perfect game. but whats better 8 hours of a 97 ranked game or 12 hours of a 97 ranked game????????
so yes your right 100 is hard to get, but my point is flying so far over your head i don't think you can even see it even tho im typing it out for you. there is ALWAYS room for improvement even if a game that gets 100/100 because you can ALWAYS make a game better...otherwise gaming would have died long long ago or everyone would just be playing one game forever. yet you denie that time/money = improvements, where do you think the money would go to the little orphans on the street? sure if you gave that cash to little timmy and let him spend that development time it wouldn't get better...but thats NOT what were talking about is it..... this is my proof, my undeniable proof to most normal humans. if you don't see this as proof then thats between you and god. and as everyone who has played Demon souls knowns....Great games are even better.....when they are LONGER. which is why everyone is despritely waiting...for DLC.
and WHY do you think WOW is so popular??? ding ding. thats a TKO
so your saying my assumption is stupid but im not? i love fruitcake don't you? and whats your point about AAA and not being 10/10's all that does is prove my point, it takes time to make good games, time and money. the reason you never seen 10/10 or 100/100 is because there is no such thing as a perfect game. but whats better 8 hours of a 97 ranked game or 12 hours of a 97 ranked game????????
so yes your right 100 is hard to get, but my point is flying so far over your head i don't think you can even see it even tho im typing it out for you. there is ALWAYS room for improvement even if a game that gets 100/100 because you can ALWAYS make a game better...otherwise gaming would have died long long ago or everyone would just be playing one game forever. yet you denie that time/money = improvements, where do you think the money would go to the little orphans on the street? sure if you gave that cash to little timmy and let him spend that development time it wouldn't get better...but thats NOT what were talking about is it..... this is my proof, my undeniable proof to most normal humans. if you don't see this as proof then thats between you and god. and as everyone who has played Demon souls knowns....Great games are even better.....when they are LONGER. which is why everyone is despritely waiting...for DLC.
and WHY do you think WOW is so popular??? ding ding. thats a TKO
Okay this is getting seriously ridiculous. Youre just running around in circles now. uncharted 2 would have been the same length without MP. Go get me some proof from the mouths of naught dog that MP hindered the success of the SP. Until then, I have nothing more to say to you because you seem to think your opinion = fact. And WOW is not comparable to UC2.nobodys saying it hindered the SP how many times do i have to say it???????Your the one running circles your whole case against me is about something i never even SAID!!! they finished the singleplayer I GET IT! but then they choose to spend MORE MONEY, which COULD have been spent on SP if the CHOOSE TO. which would have resulted in the END, to turning out to be a better experience over all. and you talk about running circles around things....look in the mirror and what you just did with WOW. you got TKO'd....you shouldn't even be standing right now....yet somehow you manage to say "it doesn't compare" like you get another round in the ring or something....
nobodys saying it hindered the SP how many times do i have to say it??????? they finished the singleplayer I GET IT! but then they choose to spend MORE MONEY, which COULD have been spent on SP if the CHOOSE TO. which would have resulted in the END, to turning out to be a better experience over all. and you talk about running circles around things....look in the mirror and what you just did with WOW. you got TKO'd....you shouldn't even be standing right now....yet somehow you manage to say "it doesn't compare" like you get another round in the ring or something....machiavell8x8*FACEPALM*
[QUOTE="machiavell8x8"]nobodys saying it hindered the SP how many times do i have to say it??????? they finished the singleplayer I GET IT! but then they choose to spend MORE MONEY, which COULD have been spent on SP if the CHOOSE TO. which would have resulted in the END, to turning out to be a better experience over all. and you talk about running circles around things....look in the mirror and what you just did with WOW. you got TKO'd....you shouldn't even be standing right now....yet somehow you manage to say "it doesn't compare" like you get another round in the ring or something...._Cadbury_*FACEPALM*
well im glad you finally looked in the mirror
wow, Uncharted 2 is serious business.
*FACEPALM*[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"][QUOTE="machiavell8x8"]nobodys saying it hindered the SP how many times do i have to say it??????? they finished the singleplayer I GET IT! but then they choose to spend MORE MONEY, which COULD have been spent on SP if the CHOOSE TO. which would have resulted in the END, to turning out to be a better experience over all.Contradicting yourself here.If SP is finished, why go back and spend more money on it. And yes, originally you said SP couldve been better without MP, which means MP hindered SP.Get it?and you talk about running circles around things....look in the mirror and what you just did with WOW.I never made any kind of statementabout WOW beforehand, so how have I ran in a circle?you got TKO'd....you shouldn't even be standing right now....yet somehow you manage to say "it doesn't compare" like you get another round in the ring or something.... So because you say ive been "TKO'd" I "shouldnt be standing"? Well okay then... whatever YOU say, Because clearly fact is all about YOUR opinion.machiavell8x8
well im glad you finally looked in the mirror
I hope my comments have cleared things up for you.
Give me till Christmas
[QUOTE="machiavell8x8"]
[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"] *FACEPALM*_Cadbury_
well im glad you finally looked in the mirror
I hope my comments have cleared things up for you. i never contradicted myself IF YOU DUMP THE MP AND PUT THAT MONEY INTO THE SINGLE PLAYER THE SINGLE PLAYER WOULD BE BETTER RIGHT????GET IT? SP might have been finished, but that doesn't mean you can't go back.....if its not on store shelves then clearly its not done. I GAVE Dragon Age as an example a while ago....they had extra time and money and spent it making DLC. they made a CHOICE to put more money into the game, they CHOOSE to add MP, they COULD HAVE choose to go back and IMPROVE or ADD. this has always been my stance.... SO tell me HOW i contradicted myself. PLEASE. and when you FAIL to do that, PLEASE tell me how this even MATTERS????? your right you didn't run in a circle you ran away and dodged the question because you didn't have any defence against it at all. hence TKO and we both knew it. my opinion happens to be fact then you happen to be TKO'd.
wait till christmas my friend
i never contradicted myself IF YOU DUMP THE MP AND PUT THAT MONEY INTO THE SINGLE PLAYER THE SINGLE PLAYER WOULD BE BETTER RIGHT????GET IT? SP might have been finished, but that doesn't mean you can't go back.....if its not on store shelves then clearly its not done. I GAVE Dragon Age as an example a while ago....they had extra time and money and spent it making DLC. they made a CHOICE to put more money into the game, they CHOOSE to add MP, they COULD HAVE choose to go back and IMPROVE or ADD. this has always been my stance.... SO tell me HOW i contradicted myself. PLEASE. and when you FAIL to do that, PLEASE tell me how this even MATTERS????? your right you didn't run in a circle you ran away and dodged the question because you didn't have any defence against it at all. hence TKO and we both knew it. my opinion happens to be fact then you happen to be TKO'd.machiavell8x8
:lol: do you even know what the word HINDERED means? maybe you should look it up. And for the record, heres what you originally said,which you just denied ever saying:
yep and imagine how much better single player would have been if they hadnt wasted theres and our time and money on mpmachiavell8x8
Checkmate.Goodbye.
[QUOTE="machiavell8x8"] i never contradicted myself IF YOU DUMP THE MP AND PUT THAT MONEY INTO THE SINGLE PLAYER THE SINGLE PLAYER WOULD BE BETTER RIGHT????GET IT? SP might have been finished, but that doesn't mean you can't go back.....if its not on store shelves then clearly its not done. I GAVE Dragon Age as an example a while ago....they had extra time and money and spent it making DLC. they made a CHOICE to put more money into the game, they CHOOSE to add MP, they COULD HAVE choose to go back and IMPROVE or ADD. this has always been my stance.... SO tell me HOW i contradicted myself. PLEASE. and when you FAIL to do that, PLEASE tell me how this even MATTERS????? your right you didn't run in a circle you ran away and dodged the question because you didn't have any defence against it at all. hence TKO and we both knew it. my opinion happens to be fact then you happen to be TKO'd.
_Cadbury_
:lol: do you even know what the word HINDERED means? maybe you should look it up. And for the record, heres what you originally said,which you just denied ever saying:
yep and imagine how much better single player would have been if they hadnt wasted theres and our time and money on mpmachiavell8x8
Checkmate.Goodbye. lol you think that quote is checkmate? i ADMITTED to saying that, its just you can't seem to comprehend WHAT IT MEANS, even thow ive been explaining it for over FOUR PAGES. the only checkmate is the fact that you refuse to even LISTEN to other peoples points. you just run around pretending to read crap than nobody even said.
and i know why your doing this, its because its the only thing your capable of doing in this thread....as you have no defence against what MY POINT IS. so you have to make up some other POINT so you can argue about that instead.....even tho you fail to realize....again after ive pointed it out....that IT DOES NOT EVEN MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they CHOOSE to end SP like you said AND ME(YOUR TRYING TO SAY I HAVN"T BEEN)....BIG DEAL, that also means they CHOSE to SPEND MONEY on the MP PERIOD....WHICH IS MY POINT.
If they chose to SPEND MONEY, then they COULD HAVE INSTEAD chose to spend it on SP INSTEAD TO IMPROVE IT. NOW WITH THAT IN YOUR BRAIN, READ THE QUOTE YOU JUST PUT UP OF MINE. HERE ILL QUOTE IT AGAIN TO MAKE IT CLEAR "YEP AND IMAGINE HOW MUCH BETTER SINGLE PLAYER WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THEY HADN"T WASTED THERES AND OUR TIME AND MONEY ON MP" HOW DOES THAT NOT MAKE SENSE? I JUST PROVED WHAT THAT QUOTE MEANS. AND THE FOUR PAGES AFTER IT ALSO PROVED WHAT I MEANT.
So, now thats OUT OF THE WAY. And I also PROVED spending extra time and money on games WILL IMPROVE them in the hands of GOOD DEVELOPERS....and i LISTED EXAMPLES. BOTH of my points have been proven, you HAVE been TKO'd, YOU have nothing but circles and corners to hide in....anything after this is all just a WASTE OF TIME. ALL of Blizzards games PROVE extra time means better games. WOW PROVES that people like ExTRA cONTENT....The success of DLC ALONE PROVES PEOPLE WANT MORE. and here you are saying NOPE, end the games where they are....if you have extra money don't bother because it will only make the game WORSE....so yep lets just ignore all the DLC sales...because you say they all make the games WORSE.....major lolztko'ds
[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]
[QUOTE="machiavell8x8"]
:lol: do you even know what the word HINDERED means? maybe you should look it up. And for the record, heres what you originally said,which you just denied ever saying:
[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
Checkmate.Goodbye. lol you think that quote is checkmate? i ADMITTED to saying that, its just you can't seem to comprehend WHAT IT MEANS, even thow ive been explaining it for over FOUR PAGES. the only checkmate is the fact that you refuse to even LISTEN to other peoples points. you just run around pretending to read crap than nobody even said.
and i know why your doing this, its because its the only thing your capable of doing in this thread....as you have no defence against what MY POINT IS. so you have to make up some other POINT so you can argue about that instead.....even tho you fail to realize....again after ive pointed it out....that IT DOES NOT EVEN MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they CHOOSE to end SP like you said AND ME(YOUR TRYING TO SAY I HAVN"T BEEN)....BIG DEAL, that also means they CHOSE to SPEND MONEY on the MP PERIOD....WHICH IS MY POINT.
If they chose to SPEND MONEY, then they COULD HAVE INSTEAD chose to spend it on SP INSTEAD TO IMPROVE IT. NOW WITH THAT IN YOUR BRAIN, READ THE QUOTE YOU JUST PUT UP OF MINE. HERE ILL QUOTE IT AGAIN TO MAKE IT CLEAR "YEP AND IMAGINE HOW MUCH BETTER SINGLE PLAYER WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THEY HADN"T WASTED THERES AND OUR TIME AND MONEY ON MP" HOW DOES THAT NOT MAKE SENSE? I JUST PROVED WHAT THAT QUOTE MEANS. AND THE FOUR PAGES AFTER IT ALSO PROVED WHAT I MEANT.
So, now thats OUT OF THE WAY. And I also PROVED spending extra time and money on games WILL IMPROVE them in the hands of GOOD DEVELOPERS....and i LISTED EXAMPLES. BOTH of my points have been proven, you HAVE been TKO'd, YOU have nothing but circles and corners to hide in....anything after this is all just a WASTE OF TIME. ALL of Blizzards games PROVE extra time means better games. WOW PROVES that people like ExTRA cONTENT....The success of DLC ALONE PROVES PEOPLE WANT MORE. and here you are saying NOPE, end the games where they are....if you have extra money don't bother because it will only make the game WORSE....so yep lets just ignore all the DLC sales...because you say they all make the games WORSE.....major lolztko'ds
:lol: calm down.
And what Ive been trying to say is that even without the MP, you cant say for sure that they would have or could haveimproved SP instead.There, got my point across in one sentence, no need for giant walls of text.
im calm dude, the caps to help you read it better.ive spent four pages explaining it...ive gotta try something different am i right?
it doesn't have to do with would have....of course they would have to make that choice, thats why i always said "the could or Choose". so if thats your point ok, but don't try and tell me what my point is ok?
as for if they "could" have if they "had" tried to. Of course they could have, absolutely no doubt. they are a good company...why wouldn't they be able to? beth does it, blizzard does it, insomniac does it....why not nasty dog? its given that they could if they wanted to. imagine how much better fallout 3 would have been if they would have spent just a "little" more time finishing the main story but wait they did with DLC altho it was later on, but imagine how much better had it came with the original game. and demon souls again is a given. and sure fallout had a flawed ending so it seems kinda unfair.. yet it still ranked high so then it makes sense. and then dragon age is another perfect example day 1 DLC
[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?
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. I see your point, but I for one will still be playing U2 online LONG after MW2 comes out. I'm getting MW2 day one, beating it on vet, getting the plat, and then back to U2. IW has KILLED the MW online experience in MW2, and it's so unbalanced now. A level 50 player will have a HUGE advantage over a level, say, 5 player, even if the lvl 5 is 500 million times better than the lvl50. it's just to unbalanced and the weapons suck.im calm dude, the caps to help you read it better.ive spent four pages explaining it...ive gotta try something different am i right?
it doesn't have to do with would have....of course they would have to make that choice, thats why i always said "the could or Choose". so if thats your point ok, but don't try and tell me what my point is ok?
as for if they "could" have if they "had" tried to. Of course they could have, absolutely no doubt. they are a good company...why wouldn't they be able to? beth does it, blizzard does it, insomniac does it....why not nasty dog? its given that they could if they wanted to. imagine how much better fallout 3 would have been if they would have spent just a "little" more time finishing the main story but wait they did with DLC altho it was later on, but imagine how much better had it came with the original game. and demon souls again is a given. and sure fallout had a flawed ending so it seems kinda unfair.. yet it still ranked high so then it makes sense. and then dragon age is another perfect example day 1 DLC
Right well Ive only been arguing against your point at the start saying that SP would have been better if they didnt add MP (you did say this) I have nothing against DLC, I like DLC, Naughty Dog have already stated that DLC will be coming for the multiplayer component (maps etc). But DLC for single player is rare. And im saying that in one persons opinion, something extra added could be good, but in another persons opinion that extra content could take away from the quality the game (not dlc) So IF there was no MP in uncharted 2 and instead naughty dog DID spend extra time and money on SP, maybe it could have been slighty improved, but at the same time it gives them more time to experiment with things and put in things people dont like, and things that dont fit well in the game.right well its about how you interpret it, and i clarified many times , but i guess I see how you might think that if you only read the first post and nothing else.
i guess single player DLC is a bit more rarer than multiplayer but still quite a few SP do get it also plus its a bit tricky since some games have really limited MP or its kind of combined like LBP or Demon souls,off the top of my head i can list that folklore has it, fallout has it, rachet and clank has it, oblivion i can see in rare occasions someone might add in something you don't like, but on the whole its bound to be better. and when i say rare occasions thats mostly talking about the bad developers. Infact you know what most of the time i find myself wanting more out of games, not wishing something was missing...infact thats almost always the case. and one slightly related example that bugs me about every game these days, and remember i say slightly lol, is how pc games are being ported, a little extra time and poof that feeling could go away. and i have a big feeling dragon age is going to be like that for me after watching a few trailers
but yah i always find myself wanting more, and i have to butt in here DLC is included in this issue because half the time its stuff that "should" have been in the release, and i hate to use dragon age again as an example but im to tired to think lol
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment