toxicitizen

Well this is kind of anticlimactic... Can't you at least call me an asshole or something? I guess the only part I don't really get is how this could possibly be preferable to a dedicated co-op mode, which is actually a thing the series has been doing. And pretty decently, too.

I don't? I mean, I personally don't care about coop but it's not like I'm fundamentally opposed to it. My entire argument is that I don't think the overly simplistic implementation you're describing would ever happen. It's the alternative I'm opposed to, which is having the forced inclusion of coop dictate the design of my single-player experience. It's happened before with series I love so maybe I'm a little more defensive than I should be but THAT'S what I've been saying from the very start. Eh, fair enough but we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. It's just that, based on what I know about them, I feel like Naughty Dog is the kind of studio that puts careful consideration into every single aspect of their games. Being highly cinematic isn't just a thing Uncharted does, it's one of the core aspect of the series. And I honestly think that a cartoony aesthetic does give you some leeway as far as breaking immersion goes. Besides, The Last of Us is basically a 15 hours long escort quest, and they didn't put coop in that. I kinda feel like that says a lot about where their priorities are. If they were to make a coop game, they wouldn't half-ass it.

Where does anyone claim this? I'm heading out in a few mins so I don't have time to go back and reread all your posts, maybe you didn't say that specifically. But that's pretty much what I've been getting from Ethan's whole "add coop but still design around single-player" thing. My entire point isn't that I don't want this nor that you shouldn't want this, it's that I think it's not a good fit for Uncharted at all. And I would never expect Naughty Dog to include a feature as important as full campaign coop without giving it serious consideration during the game's entire design process. I have not played Knack, no. But are you seriously comparing a cartoony platformer to a highly cinematic action adventure game that has a realistic visual style and a heavy focus on presentation? Because I don't think there's a lot of validity to that comparison. You can get away with a lot of silly nonsense with a cartoony game.

What kind of shitty games have you guys been playing to make you think that any devs worth a damn would actually include a coop option so half-assed that the second player constantly has to kill themselves and respawn in order to even be able to progress? Because it sure as hell wasn't Naughty Dog's games. Your claims that the game could include full coop in the main campaign without being changed in the least aren't just false, they're starting to border on delusional. Have you guys been getting enough sleep lately? Seriously, you're starting to worry me!

What Ethan said. Also, ME2 and ME3 are certainly better made games, but they arguably suffered from a genre change. The original really was more of an RPG that happened to have third-person shooter combat while ME2 and ME3 were straight up shooters with light RPG elements. And I mean the overall game structure here, not just character progression. Most of ME1's main areas were these big hubs that you explored and found/completed quests in. The Citadel was this massive area that felt like a real place, you could go from any point A to any point B completely on foot. It felt like you were exploring real locations. Then in ME2, every single mission was essentially a corridor shooter level that you picked out on the galaxy map. It felt like a massive step down for some people, myself included.

What could possibly suck about Sanic?!

Oh, is that what that youtube channel CyberRat linked the other day was? Uh, going back to check it out, yeah. That's Johnny he's talking to in the vid. Can't believe I missed that.

Wait, who made a podcast?

Man, you guys always have to ruin everything. Why can't you just let the hostility between me and Ethan grow naturally to the point where we just start insulting each other whenever we're in the same thread? This is why people keep leaving this forum. We just can't have fun things. You're dumb, Ethan! You're dumb and you have a dumb face!

I think I've gone into reasonable detail in explaining why I believe your core point does not, in fact, stand. But if your only response to that is "whatever, they can still totally do it" with zero elaboration then I guess I'm done here... Although, you'd rather have an half-baked coop option in the main campaign, in a game that's structured in a way where a second player could be left with nothing to do for extended stretches of gameplay at any given time, than a completely separate, dedicated coop mode? Hmm... okay?

I don't mean dynamically changing it when a second player joins. I mean it has to be designed from the ground up so that it can potentially support more than one player. Uncharted is full of cinematic set pieces that simply wouldn't work with a second player present, it's not just the crumbly bits. And those set pieces are a core aspect of what the games are trying to achieve. More thought has been put into Halo's coop option than you seem to realize, that's just how game design works. I'm willing to bet Halo was never intended to put as much emphasis as Uncharted on having a cinematic presentation. It was most certainly designed to accommodate coop from the very start of the series so, yeah, they most certainly actively avoid designing levels/situations where having more than one player would be problematic. To add it into Uncharted at this point, you'd have to drastically compromise on the current structure and format of the campaign. You'd inevitably lose some of the things the series is now known for.

...Are you being intentionally dense, dude? The last few posts are full of examples of how the Uncharted series has been historically designed in ways that accommodate only a single player. Are you seriously asking why allowing the presence of a second player at any given time will affect those things? I can already picture it. Drake lands on a platform only for it to become unstable. So he jumps off, grabs onto a wall and starts climbing, destroying a little bit of it in the process. Once at the top, having completely destroyed the only way up, he looks back down at some mysterious doppelganger that appeared out of thin air an hour ago and has been following him ever since: "Oh well, sucks to be you, buddy!" I guess you're right, the game's level design wouldn't really be affected!

What? How is that what they are for me specifically? Making a cinematic action adventure romp with the main focus being on presentation is clearly the entire idea behind these games. Do you seriously not get that? You can't just add a coop option to the main campaign and still design around single-player. Holy shit, are you even thinking this through? It clearly affects almost everything. Story, level design, core mechanics (beyond moving and shooting), obstacles, etc. Everything needs to be designed to accommodate more than one player at any given time. Halo is obviously made like this, even if you don't realize it. Uncharted isn't and it's not exactly a trivial change to make.

I wasn't initially replying to you. I edited my post to reflect that. As for a separate mode not being given as much care. Well, that was certainly true in Uncharted 2. Haven't really tried it in U3 but I suspect it was similar. Hmm, it's as if the devs agree that co-op really isn't the point of these games. Besides, you say co-op breaks immersion regardless. My entire point is that breaking immersion goes directly against the idea of what the Uncharted campaigns are.

What you think about the quality of the story is completely irrelevant to my point, though. The campaign is all about having an action adventure story with a highly cinematic presentation. Anything that detracts from that is simply a terrible idea design-wise. And what you said about crumbling platforms is another good example of why it's a terrible idea. It limits what can be done in the main campaign, you lose something the series is known for and it detracts from the cinematic presentation. I find kind of funny how you're fine with a character appearing out of context for no reason (perhaps out of thin air, even?) and that's somehow less immersion-breaking than Sully making a big jump. Especially considering that, if memory serves right, crumbling platforms and Sully not feeling too good about making a jump have often been used as story justification for Drake to be separated from him and have a solo section. You can circumvent all of that with basically zero compromise by having co-op be its own separate thing. edit: my post was initially only replying to TN. I only saw this next part after I'd already posted. I really don't think I am. That kinda stuff is important to consider when designing a game, you can't just start adding unnecessary features without considering their impact on the game's cohesion. Maybe thoughtless co-op is fine for Halo, I don't know, I haven't played it. I couldn't tell you what the point of Halo is if I tried. Seems like a Call of Duty-like kind of FPS campaign, though, so I can see how it might work. Are there other Spartans besides Master Chief? But having that kind of forced, half-baked inclusion in Uncharted would definitely detract from what the experience of the game is meant to be, I think. It would be kind of stupid to go to such great lengths to have the best cinematic presentation possible only to absolutely shatter the illusion the second someone else picks up the second controller. Not every single game is a good fit for co-op, you know.

Yes? Play together in a separate, dedicated co-op mode all you want but the main campaign shouldn't be co-op. It never was and it's not something you can just add without completely changing the game's normal structure. There's always long stretches of gameplay where Drake is completely on his own. If the campaign was fully co-op, that would no longer be an option. Like I said, Uncharted's campaigns have always been about the narrative more than anything else. Letting the inclusion of co-op dictate what can and can't happen in the story is a big no-no. I mean, I guess they could let people control the other characters whenever Drake has people with him. But I don't really see the point in doing that. I mean, imagine inviting someone over to play the game only for the next 2 hours to be a long stretch of Drake being alone. A dedicated co-op mode just makes more sense for this series. I'm not sure how anyone that has actually played the games could possibly not see that. If you want a fully co-op campaign, just go play Resident Evil instead. That series has already been ruined by co-op. No need for Uncharted to suffer the same fate.

What are you guys going on about? The Uncharted series has had coop since U2... Unless you mean in the actual main campaign? In which case, fuck that. Uncharted is all about the narrative, I don't want any of that immersion-breaking drop-in drop-out bullshit. Keep that shit in a separate mode. Especially since it's basically a given that Drake won't always have someone with him.

Yeah, I think it's missing the point to suggest that people are criticizing Mass Effect 2 and 3 for not being what they want it to be. That's not what's happening. They're criticizing them for changing what made them like the original Mass Effect in the first place. Likewise Dragon Age: Origins and criticizing Dragon Age II for being a shameless display of lazy/rushed cut-and-paste game development.

I remember renting Dirge of Cerberus and I'm pretty sure I finished it but I remember next to nothing about the actual game. I seriously doubt it was any good but I'd actually be curious enough to replay it, I think. I'd be willing to pay like 5 bucks for it if they put the PS2 version up on PSN.

Oh man, whenever someone bumps one of these threads I kinda miss TC. Dude was gloriously batshit insane. He single-handedly created more drama over the span of a few short weeks than we've had in like 2-3 entire years. It was kind of amazing. Godspeed, you crazy motherfucker. Hopefully you got the psychiatric help you so desperately needed.

Let me put it another way: I don't think a purely visual upgrade brings enough value to the table to justify the existence of a full-on AAA remake. I'd rather devs create new experiences than needlessly rehash the past. I mean, let's be honest here. Is FFVII really the masterpiece everyone remembers it to be? The main thing it had going for it back then was its presentation. That's what blew people's minds and was ground-breaking. But beyond that, it's fairly standard JRPG fare. I don't think making it look pretty all over again is a particularly good use of time and money. I'd argue there's more to games than being wowed but I suppose that'll vary from person to person. I do believe there is inherent value to revisiting classics, though, regardless of nostalgia. But I'll grant you not everyone will be able to see or appreciate that value. Although, personally, I do find that "Ah, this is how it was done before" can absolutely bring an experience along the lines of "Yeah, this is the shit right here". Again, I suppose YMMV, but I mean, some older games are so unique and special because the technical limitations of the time forced designers to get creative. Take Silent Hill, for example. The iconic fog covering the town was only added to hide the absolutely godawful draw distance. But you know what? I played that game for the very first time when it came out on PSN as a PSOne Classic. And despite its dated, blocky PS1 graphics, it still scared the shit out of me. Way more than any other so-called horror games that came out this gen. How is that not fucking awesome? Visuals may age but quality stands the test of time. Janky and dated are two different things, though. FFVII wasn't poorly made by any stretch of the imagination. A janky game will be harder to enjoy regardless of graphical fidelity. So I think that's an entirely different issue altogether. I mean, look, it's not like I'm completely against remakes as a general rule. One of my most anticipated releases right now is the remaster of the Resident Evil remake. I just think that in the case of FFVII it's completely unnecessary. And it's not like I completely disagree with you either. Personally, I have a hard time with pre-NES graphics. Shit, even some NES games feel kinda... visually hollow to me. But I really believe that FFVII is just fine the way it currently is. And shit, you know how gamers can be. If FFVII was actually remade, they'd most likely find a way to hate it.

And I honestly can't say I see how better graphics will make the game inherently better. I mean, the game works as it is. Asking for better presentation at this point just seems kind of superficial to me. Can't we just appreciate it for the classic that it is? Honestly, replaying Final Fantasy VII nowadays, it being such a retro experience would actually be a big part of the appeal for me. Let's not forget we're talking about a company that is already struggling to release the games that it is actually working on. Do we really want them to spend their time and energy on a remake? I'm certainly not trying to be unfair, I simply think there's little validity to the notion that being graphically dated robs a game of its value. I mean, cinematography has come a long way since the 1940s. Does Citizen Kane suffer so much from technological advances in the field that it needs to be remade? Not that I'm trying to compare FFVII to it but I think you get my point. Do you mean the mobile releases? I haven't followed them all that closely but weren't they more like remasters? I know FFVI had terrible new sprite work but I don't think any of them were straight up remakes. Arguably, what's happening with FFVII and FFVIII (at least on PC) right now is the very same treatment. Likewise FFX HD for PS3 and Vita. I don't think there's been a proper remake since the handheld versions of FFIII and FFIV. So, I don't think an actual remake is a given, honestly.

Yeah, early 3D graphics have admittedly aged horribly. But who cares? Games aren't all about graphics. I have a hard time taking seriously the opinion of someone who can't play a game because of dated graphics. Dated gameplay is one thing, but graphics? I mean, come on. We're not talking about pre-NES pixel graphics here. It might not be pretty but it's hardly getting in the way of enjoying the game.

Damn right it won't. And you know what? I don't fucking want it to happen. I'd rather they make new games than waste resources remaking FFVII with AAA production values. It's not like the game is mechanically dated, it's still perfectly playable in its current form. It would literally just be remaking all the art assets with higher fidelity. Waste of fucking time, imho. If people can't deal with dated graphics, that's their problem and they should get over it.