[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]

Eh, it was ok.

Convoluted story that crowded the gameplay. More of an interactive CGI movie than a video game to me.

PSP107

WTF? I guess I am in the minority, but I loved being immersed in a game... I like feeling attached to the characters... I like great dialogue... I like solid game play... I like having a meaning of playing the games. I guess there are a lot of people out there that want to see zero cut scenes and just play play play. I have friends like that, and I guess you guys are like that too. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. But to me it is not nearly as interesting. I want to become attached to the characters and feel what they are feeling. This is what makes MGS4 the best game I have EVER played, not just the best of this generation.

If you don't want a story, just buy one of the millions of FPS and have fun blasting people into the next millineum. But as for me, give me a game world where I become completely immersed and care about the characters. Give me more Metal Gear.

Hm.. I'm getting a PS3 by this year and I plan on getting 5-10 games on day 1. So I have my wishlist prepped andhalf of them are '09 exclusives. The third most important titlefor me to getUncharted 2: Among Thieves.

I know Uncharted: Drake's Fortune's a great game and all but I heard it's pretty short, clocking in at about 8 hours. 8 hours, WTF?

So the question is, will it still be worth it to purchase Uncharted 1 after Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is released? Your thoughts?

I doubt the stories will have much relation with one another and I'm sure Uncharted 2 will be even better and hopefully longer. Also one factor is the inclusion of multiplayer.

I can't decide whether or not to get Uncharted 1. So...

Calviscerate

That right there is your answer. If you were only getting one game on day one--then it has to be MGS4. However, if you were getting two games on day one, it would have to be MGS4 and Uncharted. Since you are getting more than one game on day one, you must get Uncharted. It is simply one of the best games to ever come out. It is in my top ten of all time list, and I have been gaming for over 20 years.

Oh, and there is no way in hell you will beat this game in 8 hours. That is only possible if you play on the easiest setting and run through the levels as fast as you can. It is more like a 12 -15 hour game if you play on a more challenging level and explore. Trust me, EVERY PS3 OWNER SHOULD HAVE THIS GAME!

At some point we are going to hit a wall resolution wise, 24" monitors are big enough for most PC gamers while people would struggle to get larger than 40-60" televisions in their homes. You reach a point were the size of the screen makes higher resolutions impractical, people are more interested in what's on the screen at that point.

Frankly I cannot ever see myself getting a 30" monitor, they are just way too big; you would have to turn your head to see all the image.

AnnoyedDragon

What is funny is everyone thinks that 1080p is the most important detail when buying a tv. When in reality, it is almost the least important. The most important is the black levels, accurate color, grayscale, screen uniformity, etc. I will put my 720p plasma against any 1080p LCD any day of the week. My 720p plasma will outperform them all. Because it has much deeper blacks, very accurate color, and perfect screen uniformity. The 1080p LCD won't look any sharper, but will look washed out, colors are off, flesh tones either are too light or dark, shadow detail will be lost, fast motion will blur as the response time of the pixels are not fast enough, and god forbid you are sitting off to the side--where the picture really starts looking like crap.

1080p is a bit low res for the next generation imo.Brainkiller05

If you are referring to consoles, than no it is not.

You do realize that you can not tell a difference between 720p and 1080p unless you have 55inch or bigger screen. Most people sit 6-12 feet away from their tv, and at this distance you need a big screen to tell the difference.

Now if you are talking about computers and you have a 24 inch screen and are sitting 6-12 inches, then you can see the difference.

The bottom line is, for most people 1080p is highly overrated. I have a 1080p, but it is a 60 inch, and you can see a difference, but it is not earth shattering.

If you have a 1080p tv, you should go into the PS3 video out settings and check 1080p and 720P. Make sure 1080i is left unchecked. 1080i is an inferior resolution. You really never want to use it, technically speaking it is a resolution between SD and HD. Never use it. This way, if the game is in 1080p, it will show it in that, and if it is in 720p, it will show in that.

If you have a 1080i tv, only select 720p. Your tv can't handle 1080p so there is no need to check that, and 720p will look much better. Without getting all technical with frames per second and odd/even scan lines, just stick with 720p.

JUST DONT SHOP THERE! I hate that company almost as much as Monster and Bose. People should start educating themselves and just stop buying from these companies. SPEAK WITH YOUR DOLLARS.

I just downloaded and played the Red Faction Guerilla demo. WTF? I've never seen anything so half-***ed as far as graphics go. It looks like a PS2 game. The gameplay is a little awkward, and there is an obvious lack of balance in power. You still got your big hammer. I just ran up to guys from long distances with them shooting me the whole time and I knocked their blocks off in one swoop. AI seems a bit clumsy, too.

The demo mission is a timed mission. You got like ten minutes to get across the map to a certain goal, but you have to fight through the enemy soldiers on the way there. You can steal various vehicles to do this. Yes, hijack vehicles. Yes, just like all the other games that su-- were less than good. You can kill civillians, but they don't "trust" you anymore. The graphics and physics are just too lame for this generation. The shooting is okay for the third-person perspective, but it could definately be better. I don't know, some of you may enjoy it.

To me, however, its like Mercinaries 2 but worse. Worse graphics, worse physics. But it plays the same. You can run around freely, fight off all the enemies at their little checkpoints and what not, take their vehicles, bust up your environment with your hammer, blah blah blah...

So what do you guys think? Is there any hope for it?

Nephilim83

I think you are being a little harsh. Nothing is worse than Mercs 2. That game was just plain broken. The graphics are not that bad. In fact I think they are decent for a multiplat game. Sure it is no Resident Evil or Killzone, but not everything can look that good.

Here is what I liked:

1. The destructability was fantastic.

2. Running from enemy and smashing through buildings with the hammer was great fun.

3. The mine bomb that you throw is great for setting up traps.

4. The ability to steal vehicles.

Here is what I am concerned about:

1. Enemies respawning is just plain stupid.

2. The guns feel very very weak.

3. THIS IS THE BIGGEST ONE--sandbox gameplay. I like being funneled down a path of purpose, not just go anywhere and do anything with no real sense of purpose. Due to this, I am very worried that the game will get stale very quickly, like Far Cry 2 or Assassins Creed.

All in all, I am not sure if I will get this game, it all depends on what the consensus is on the reviews. If everyone says it gets stale due to the sandbox nature, then I will not buy it. I really do hope it scores well, because I want to like this game and it does have some promise.

[QUOTE="bez2083"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"] So you're saying the PS3 was a $600 paperweight up until MGS4 which was released in June (18+ months after its launch) if I'm not mistaken.. That's good to know.. :|OhSnapitz

Who said it was a paperweight? Merely just stated my opinion on the matter is all. I bought mine in June of 2008. Why? Because the lineup fit my tastes. Which if you squint real hard is underlined somewhere in this quote.

I thoroughly disagree. That 18 month drought was only seen on GS forums, by fanboys. 2007 was also a great year for PS3. IMO it was about a dead tie between PS3 and 360 for 2007. Everyone seems to forget Motorstorm, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, and Uncharted. All of those came out in 2007. Heavenly Sword was a good game, could have been better. However, the other three were magnificent. Motorstorm is one of my favorite racers of all time. Uncharted is one of the greatest games to come out in years (highly underrated on GS), and the new Ratchet was one of the best in the series. Just because it took the PS3 18 months to get a high scoring game on one lousy website does not mean there was nothing worth playing.

[QUOTE="6644kk"]

That Microsoft has been releasing and releasedfar less qualitytitles than Sony in 2008 and now uptil april 2009.

ronjon_09

Huh? First off, all are not way better. In fact almost none are way better. Some are better on PS3 and some on 360. However, about 90% are so insignificantly "better", that all fanboys can do is claim ownage when a telephone wire in a racing game has 5 jaggies per foot and the PS3 has 6 jaggies per foot. Yeah, the 360 version is so much better:roll:

In fact I don't know how you can even play the version with one extra jaggie.

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

[QUOTE="Marka1700"] You are telling him to go and listen to a "real" system. Than that depend on how you define "real" Becuse I would hardly ****you you just listed as a "real" system by my standards. And I know others that ****my standards as low.Marka1700

Well, I can't see how you can't ****fy what I stated as a "real system"? It is the highest rated satalite speaker system on the market, and a pretty good receiver to boot. Sure, I could spend over a $100,000 and get some B&Ws and other crazy stuff, but there are probably like 3 people in the world that have something like that. What I have is a fantastic system at a price point that most adults with a decent job can afford. And you can easily discern lossless audio verses dolby digital on my system. Now if you are playing it on some junk $300 HTiB system, then you probably won't hear any difference.

I guess you could say a BMW M3 could be low to your standards, if you were comparing it to a Mclaren F1. Then again, who can afford the F1, where many people can afford the BMW and it is an amazing car.

Huh? So you are saying if he listened to a real system like he claimed, then he is correct. So there is no difference? Hmmm, wonder why I can hear a huge difference? My point is that you can hear a huge difference using the correct setup and system. Oh and on the satelites...too bad CNET and half a dozen other review sites disagree with you.