toxicitizen

...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.

Yeah, and not only that but when they inevitably start lagging behind they just throw a bunch of money around to try and fix things. Which is my main issue with them. Like, I don't have a problem with a first-party hiring/cooperating with a third-party to make an exclusive for them, as long as they get involved early on and it's very much their project or IP. Sony are doing it with Bloodborne, for example. Sunset Overdrive was a similar situation, I believe. They funded it, it's theirs. Likewise with Scalebound. I hate that Platinum Games are making yet another exclusive for a system I don't own or want but Microsoft aren't doing anything wrong there. But buying exclusivity late in development on something that would never have been exclusive otherwise (like Rise of the Tomb Raider) is a fucking load of shit. It's not adding value to their platform, it's removing value from other platforms. It's one thing to do it on DLC but an entire game? It doesn't benefit anyone but them and, imho, it just hurts the industry overall. This shitty business practice is the main reason why I have no desire to buy an Xbox.

I already own (and played) both Bastion and Shovel Knight on Steam and even I can't help but be excited about them coming to Vita/PS4. Lots of great announcements at the PSX Keynote. I can't help but wonder what the fuck Microsoft are thinking/doing. PlayStation (and even Nintendo) are getting tons of hype while they had basically zero presence at The Game Awards. It's like once they outsold the PS4 for a single month they just jammed their thumbs up their asses and figured that was good enough.

Not sure where the info is coming from but the Steam thread on NeoGAF says it starts on either the 18th or 19th. Based on past years, that sounds about right. And they wouldn't be that specific unless they had some credible info. Not too surprising, really. Steam sales dates have been leaking a lot the past couple years. Guess that's what happens when you let a bunch of amateurs dump their garbage all over your store front. Some of them are bound to not give a fuck.

Escape Goat. It's really short, took me a little under 3 hours to beat, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. And considering it was like a dollar, I definitely feel like I got my money's worth. I was a bit disappointed by how easy it was, though. Very few of the rooms posed any real challenge. And once I cleared them all I unlocked level select and went achievement hunting. Most of the achievements are stuff like "complete level x without doing y". I figured the restrictions would increase the difficulty but I ended up completing like 90% of them in about 20mins. The only achievement I have left is for speed running the game. I'll definitely be getting the sequel at some point. It's 10 bucks though, so I really hope it'll be a bit longer and more challenging.

I feel like you should never buy Telltale's games until there's at least 3 episodes out. By then you can usually grab them for 15 bucks or so. Plus, their games seem to always inevitably be plagued by all kinds of issues at launch. So, it gives them time to deal with that.

Yeah, not to get massively off-topic here but that's pretty much hitting the nail on the head, I think. I don't expect this kind of analysis out of the gaming press because I'd argue most of them aren't critics in the real sense, they're reviewers. They evaluate a product for consumers, which definitely has its value but is ultimately fucking boring. I find that real critics take a deeper approach to interpreting every aspect of games (story, mechanics, systems, design, how they all mesh together, etc) and that's infinitely more interesting to me than "game is hella fun, no bugs, 10/10". It's been a while but I don't really recall anyone I consider a real critic covering or praising FC3 all that much.

The writer argued that he was being all subversive and shit and that people just didn't get it. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-12-18-far-cry-3s-writer-argues-critics-largely-missed-the-point-of-the-game I'd argue that if basically everyone misses the point of your story, that's kind of a massive failing on your end.

A couple of last minute purchases I made before the sale ended. I absolutely loved To The Moon, so A Bird Story was kind of a no-brainer. As for Escape Goat, I've had my eye on it for quite a while. I love puzzle games and retro-styled games so it seemed like it would be right up my alley. Oh and I also grabbed that Humble Sega Bundle or whatever it's called. I mainly got it for the Dreamcast Collection but I keep hearing that Sonic All-Stars Racing is great so I'll have to check it out as well.

Oh man, I can't believe I forgot about The Wolf Among Us. That game had such a great atmosphere and the music contributed a lot to it. Good pick. Yes, you really do. Might be a good idea to put it at the top of your wishlist for the secret santa.

Yay, it's this thread again! Much like Bastion, Transistor's entire soundtrack was amazing but the main theme is just so, so good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aej731dmNMk The Souls series hasn't really had a lot of memorable music since Demon's Souls chilling main theme but the Majula theme really stuck with me for some reason. It lets you know you're in a safe place but at the same time it's really eerie and haunting. If you grew up playing the NES like I did, Shovel Knight was such a goddamn nostalgia trip and the music contributed a lot to that feeling. It takes you back to the days when games had to have really catchy tunes because they couldn't yet bore you with generic orchestral soundtracks. And, as it turns out, I haven't played a whole lot of new releases this year because that's pretty much it. So, I'm going to cheat and say the PC version came out this year. On its own, the Revengeance soundtrack isn't that incredible. It's cheesy power metal nonsense and is all kinds of silly. But as a game soundtrack? Holy shit, it's as close to perfection as you can possibly get. It complements the insanity happening on-screen in the best imaginable way. There's just something incredibly satisfying about hearing someone scream "RULES OF NATURE!!" as you block the attack of a gigantic robot with your tiny little sword, only to follow that up by running up its arm and slashing it to fucking pieces.