[QUOTE="Ninten007"]

No they think of the total package. Both the single player and multiplayer.

tagyhag

I find that to be false, whenever I hear someone praise Goldeneye, they praise its multiplayer aspect and the fact that it had 4 player split-screen.

Go back and read the reviews. The single player was the main focus of the game and it recieved praise such as Its better than the Movie! The multiplayer was just icing on the cake.

[QUOTE="Ninten007"]No they think of the total package. Both the single player and multiplayer.-The-G-Man-

Then Activision have the wrong idea with this game. They should just leave it alone and develop Bloodstone on the Wii.

[QUOTE="Ninten007"]

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]because people remember Goldeneye to this day for its single player campaign?-The-G-Man-

Oh yea Goldeneye's single player was a revolution at that time. The AI showed lifelike behavior, they reacted when shot to different parts of the body, stealth could affect the outcome, avoiding cameras, can complete objectives in an order you prefer, etc

No they think of the total package. Both the single player and multiplayer.

because people remember Goldeneye to this day for its single player campaign?-The-G-Man-

Oh yea Goldeneye's single player was a revolution at that time. The AI showed lifelike behavior, they reacted when shot to different parts of the body, stealth could affect the outcome, avoiding cameras, can complete objectives in an order you prefer, etc

That looked awful.

The whole Dam Level is supposed to be a stealth level. I mean with all that shooting and explosions, you would think an alarm would be raised to let the guards down below to get ready.

It was so bad I turned to the Bloodstone gameplay footage, Now that is how a Craig Bond game should play out.

Bloodstone looks much more interesting.

I usually dont get tired of "good" games.

I would have to say Assassin's Creed 1. That game started off nicely but it was just tiring to save citizen, pickpocket, beat up, kill a few guards walking about, and then finally getting to the best part, killing the big cheese. It became a chore to finish and I never played it again. I can jump into my other "good" games easily.

Thankfully AC 2 fixed all of those problems.

If you are gonna use vgchartz to claim the 360 is leading in sales for the past few weeks then you can say the 360 is dead last in 2 out of 3 regions.

[QUOTE="Ninten007"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Who gives a f how many NPCs or buildings it has since it looks worse?Same like KZ3 vs C2...KZ3 is bland in comparison,with one or two oil rafinery buildings and all around you is snow.I already posted 2 videos of RDR that put to shame any open world game and IF2 does not look better than that.RDR does not need any special destruction or particles since thats what Infamous 2,with all its powers should excel at.But RDR is just MUCH bigger,with some beautiful lightning and is much better animated...it feels like alive world,while IF2 feels like regular open world game...RDR also has MUCH MUCH bigger draw distance,is full of vegetation which is it seems very hard to render and very complex so they had to tone it down on PS3.Also,textures are great and thats also one thing that looks a bit muddy and blurry on ps3 since they use QAA...on top of that its sub hd.Soo...if you played ps3 version i get why you are feeling that way...

Bus-A-Bus

Well NPCS and buildings are part of graphics. It is much easier to have good graphics when there is a lot of empty areas. Infamous 2 is rendering more than RDR while maintaining a solid frame rate and looking as good as it is.

Besides Infamous 2 is still in development. So you really cant judge its looks right now. Either way Infamous 2 does look better and is using more of the systems power than RDR.

You cant say it uses more power based on seeing gameplay trailer.For example,GTA IV,while looking worse than IF2 is just as crowded(even more) with just as much buildings(even more),with hundreds of dynamic light sources in scenes,with much better animated world and seems bigger draw distance...Same like AC2,its just as crowded...Does it make them better looking game than RDR?NO.Red Dead Redemption may have much less buildings(ofcourse) but it has so much detail put in world,probably the biggest foliage density on consoles(thats VERY performance hogging,they had to reduce it on PS3) and draw distance that excels that one 50 meter street in IF2.

This remind me when cows said that Reach still does not surpass KZ2 and then lemms said but it has MUCH MUCH bigger scale with ~40 NPCs,whil KZ2 is basically corridor shooter and cows just said who gives a damn?Does it look better?No,so no body cared how much npcs it pushed or how sandboxish it was...

What about lemmings and you saying UC2 only looks good because its a linear 3rd person adventure game and it it was a sandbox game it will have a lot of graphical issues? KZ 2/3 are on a whole other level compared to Halo Reach. The graphics are better, the lighting, the scale, the animations when enemies are shot. Besides no one has seen KZ 3s new jungle levels yet. Or that GOW 3 only looks good because its not "sandboxy" enough.

RDR looks great but I can see why it does. It is just a bunch of empty environments with a few handful of NPCs to shoot. This is not about being a fan of either system its about what I see and I think Mafia 2 does look better than RDR. It is all about time and age. RDR will be ancient when Infamous 2 comes out so logically given a year the its graphics will also improve.

[QUOTE="gpuking"]

RDR probably has the biggest scale but it lacks the structures, NPC density of infamous. The world of RDR looks beautiful from a distance but breaks down immediately on close inspection wherease infamous 2 has far better special effects, particles and destructions in the environment. There's said to be 100 NPCs on screen at one point in infamous2 and all that happens with the Ionic lightning storm is just crazy. The amount of calculations just seems so much more.

Bus-A-Bus

Who gives a f how many NPCs or buildings it has since it looks worse?Same like KZ3 vs C2...KZ3 is bland in comparison,with one or two oil rafinery buildings and all around you is snow.I already posted 2 videos of RDR that put to shame any open world game and IF2 does not look better than that.RDR does not need any special destruction or particles since thats what Infamous 2,with all its powers should excel at.But RDR is just MUCH bigger,with some beautiful lightning and is much better animated...it feels like alive world,while IF2 feels like regular open world game...RDR also has MUCH MUCH bigger draw distance,is full of vegetation which is it seems very hard to render and very complex so they had to tone it down on PS3.Also,textures are great and thats also one thing that looks a bit muddy and blurry on ps3 since they use QAA...on top of that its sub hd.Soo...if you played ps3 version i get why you are feeling that way...

Well NPCS and buildings are part of graphics. It is much easier to have good graphics when there is a lot of empty areas. Infamous 2 is rendering more than RDR while maintaining a solid frame rate and looking as good as it is.

Besides Infamous 2 is still in development. So you really cant judge its looks right now. Either way Infamous 2 does look better and is using more of the systems power than RDR.