I just wish Naughty Dog would port it to the 360 beacause there's only about 20 people in the world with a PS3 and they're all playing Madden or waiting for MGS4.Doesn't Sony own Naughty Dog though?
So does the main character have humorous dialog? His snippet from the commercial was pretty good if that's consistent throughout the game.Yeah, he has humorous dialog and the dialogue is consistent throughout the whole game.
My favorite part about the game was that it was basically a bad Hollywood movie but you get to play it instead of watch it.Man, this is such a perfect way to put it.
Doesn't Sony own Naughty Dog though?
Unfortunately they do. Which is gay.Yes Why didn't Naughty Dog stay independent like Insomniac Games!
The Naughty Dog reps did say that they were going to be using a tweaked version of this engine for the next Jak game. I can't wait.
I played it for about an hour on my cousin's PS3. Even in that short time the puzzles got a bit repetitive but I did enjoy the Prince of Persia-esque acrobatic sections.
When all the badguys got laser sights the game entered el cheapo mode. Other than that, everything else was solid.I didn't think it was too bad. If you kept moving you were fine.
When all the badguys got laser sights the game entered el cheapo mode. Other than that, everything else was solid.I really liked it when they started using laser sights, actually. I started moving around a lot more and sniping was fun too.
The twist and complete change in gameplay style near the end was definitely pretty weird and I can see why a lot of people didn't like it. Personally, I thought it was reasonably fun and didn't ruin the game or anything but it was definitely much weaker than the rest of the game's firefights.Yeah, I agree with you. The twist was cool and it was actually pretty fun that after getting used to fighting in a certain style for the whole game, suddenly that didn't really matter too much. For a while anyway. But since you couldn't move and aim well at the same time, it felt like the game wasn't really meant for that kind of gunfights and it showed. But at least it required some fast aiming and I had a few close calls which was fun.
The one thing that really got me down about this title was that there are no boss fights. This is a trend I'm seeing in a lot of modern games that really gets me down. Games like Metal Gear Solid are defined by how creative and fun their boss fights are, and I feel like a title really loses something when they don't incorporate them.This is so true. I love boss fights and if one thing disappoints me about this game, it's that there are practically none. Jak & Daxter had the same problem though, it had boss fights but not nearly enough of them. I hope there will be boss fights in the sequel.
jesus christ, are you kidding me? i don't care how cool it is, $65 with tax for a game that takes 10 hours to beat in single player mode and doesn't have some goddamn extensive multiplayer is a horrible ripoff and totally unacceptable. this is why i hate this console generation; half of the games i've played so far have been relatively brief (under 20 hours), yet still cost tons and tons of money. bioshock, assassin's creed... games like those are bad enough at ~20 hours, but 8-10 is obscene. this takes me back to the early n64 days when the games were short, gay, and cost $60-70. i guess it's okay if you're going to rent it, but i feel sorry for the people who bought it. even selling it to places like gamestop like a week later after you beat it, you take a pretty heavy hit to the wallet, not to mention the fact that that's essentially just an incredibly expensive rental anyway.
What? No they haven't! I'd say during the last generation, the average length of a game was probably somewhere around 15-20 hours. Even non-RPG shit like platformers took a decent amount of time to beat. Plus, they were like $40-50, new. Now this game's HALF the length, and potentially 50% more expensive? This isn't how it's always been, dawg.
:words:
games are probably getting shorter because graphics are getting harder and harder + more time consuming to make, so adding more gameplay just adds that much more to the development time.thanks for the insight into the industry, buddy. this actually isn't too valid a reason, i feel, because unless we're talking about totally new and unexplored areas, the models, textures, terrain, and all that jazz are already made. take a game like assassin's creed, for example; it has you running around the same three major cities for the large majority of the game. in what way would more content, and a wider variety of it, require them to spend much more time making new models and areas? a lot of the time, the same visuals are reused in various areas, anyway, so even if they have to add one, i think it's somewhat rare that the area would need to be built from the ground up. you can't really just come out and say "ya more content = much more money spent" when it honestly doesn't have to.
but i definitely think it's something that's a serious problem. it's a bad trend! games that are more expensive and, in many cases, significantly shorter than they should be? is this what you want?Obviously I don't think anyone would really want that, but I just don't think it's as big of a "trend" as you're making it out to be. Can you give many examples of games that are 10 hours or less and don't have multiplayer?
i'd sort of rather go back to the days of regular-looking 3d and not this ultra hi-def shit that a) costs substantially more, and b) takes much longer to develop. i think i've had a bad experience with my 360, but there haven't been too many games that have really utilized the ultra enhanced visuals in a way that really justifies the cost they come at (going beyond games being more expensive, even). mostly it's just "whoaa.... look at his cape flow," which is hardly even worth it.Yeah, I can agree with this. From my experience the only genre that I think really benefits from HD (so far at least) is first person shooters, and that's just because I think the intensity factor is turned up and you get really engrossed in them the more realistic they feel. I'm mainly thinking of CoD4 when I say this.
But still, they're not getting short enough that I think it's worth complaining over. Like, Uncharted is less than 10 hours at its bare minimum. If you don't speedrun straight through it in one sitting, and you get all the unlockables, I'd assume it's easily close to 20 hours. The only solid example of a cheapishly short game that comes to my mind is Heavenly Sword. That's the only game I've ever played where I felt like I deserved more game time for the money.
anyway, maybe i'm just ULTRASLOW when i beat games, because none of those games took me any less than fifteen hours, and probably closer to twenty (this isn't factoring in idle time, obviously). but then, this wouldn't explain why it took me about ten to beat ac, unless gamemaster marcus can do it in five.
If a democrat (particularly Clinton) takes over office the minimum wage is said to be raised from 5.85 an hour to 8-9 dollars an hour meaning the next next gen games will probably be even higher.
I'm surprised this didn't start a political discussion. Anyway yeah unfortunately the market is built so that everyone spends every cent they make so games will be $10 more expensive next generation if the average poor person has an extra $10 to spend :(
Anyway I don't think games have gotten any shorter. I almost feel like they've gotten longer or that the life of most games has been extended by features like achievements or mandatory multiplayer on 360 games and online gaming in general.
Achievements is such fucking bullshit. It doesn't really make the game longer! There's not more gameplay because the game has achievements, ít's just a reason to repeat some bits of the gameplay a lot of times, it doesn't add more game to play. Stupid fluff.
thanks for the insight into the industry, buddy. this actually isn't too valid a reason, i feel, because unless we're talking about totally new and unexplored areas, the models, textures, terrain, and all that jazz are already made. take a game like assassin's creed, for example; it has you running around the same three major cities for the large majority of the game. in what way would more content, and a wider variety of it, require them to spend much more time making new models and areas? a lot of the time, the same visuals are reused in various areas, anyway, so even if they have to add one, i think it's somewhat rare that the area would need to be built from the ground up. you can't really just come out and say "ya more content = much more money spent" when it honestly doesn't have to.
Achievements is such fucking bullshit.
Yeah, they could just C+P most of the models and shit, but Assassin's Creed being repetitive and having graphics being reused a fuck ton was pretty much already a huge complaint against the game in most every review, so maybe that wasn't the best example you could of given, given that adding more development time to add new stuff + new areas + new content to the game would of greatly helped it, instead of reusing more stuff.I actually had no problem whatsoever with the graphics being reused. The cities are full of people; it'd be retarded to honestly expect them to have a level of variety substantially above what they already did. However, working more types of missions and a larger range of content into the game, while taking some time, wouldn't really require original graphics. In fact, this is precisely why I cited Assassin's Creed to begin with. It's an example of a game with a dire lack of content variety that, without much trouble, could've had much more, with virtually no need to implement new environments or models at all, because the other missions would take place in the same area that the rest of the game does. Would this take more time? Certainly, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as time consuming as building completely new cities and models from the ground up would, as you seem to be implying is necessary (it's not). Repetitive gameplay and standardized visuals aren't necessarily related.
But even reusing stuff (reskinning models, in most cases) still takes time + money, and its wayyy more time + wayyyyy more money than it was back then.
(and since it seems now and days most devs don't want to spend big money on new things (its risky), these new things wind up being short experiences. GoW and the like are short tho, they are short experiences, but give you reply value in their difficulty modes/costumes/etc.)
Like I said earlier, getting 70 stars (the bare minimum) in Mario 64 would take you 10 or 12 hours but finding all 120 doubles that time but if Nintendo forced you to get all 120 stars to fight Bowser I guarantee you more people would have gotten annoyed with the game quickly. Artificially adding filler to the main story of a game is more annoying than creating achievements or side quests to lengthen it. If you want to play through games that force you to backtrack and do random bullshit just so you can "wow this game is long" then good for you but I rather have multiplayer or unlockables to find than bog down a good story or ruin the pacing of a game just so I can justify spending 60$ on a hobby.Marcus, are you really this stupid? Where did anyone say anything even close to "NOT ENOUGH FILLER." The problem is NOT ENOUGH CONTENT. It's like you have this victimized perspective of gaming that makes you seriously believe that if a game isn't incredibly short, it needs to be 50% filler. Filler does not equate with legitimate content, but on the other hand, neither do fucking ACHIEVEMENTS are you kidding me. Do you idiots really think MORE COSTUMES YESS ANOTHER REASON TO PLAY is an acceptable replacement for actual content? Side quests are okay in premise, but most of the time they themselves are just another form of filler, and even worse because there's not even a pretense of pertinence to the main story. Basically, I'm saying you seem to have this awful misconception that a game that lacks content and is too brief and rushed because anything longer would be too expensive would have it's good [bad] story and [rushed] pacing "bogged down" by the presence of more content. I think you're missing the fact that I'm saying length ties in with content (not unlocking costumes, sorry), not just being long for the sake of being long.
Also, not too sure I agree that it's wayyyyyyyyyyyy more time and money to... what? Code an event? I know absolutely nothing about programming, so I could easily just be missing something about the development process, but the most significant difference between console generations are the visuals. Assuming you're just reusing them, why is programming an event on the Xbox 360 wayyyyyyyyyyy more time-consuming and expensive than it was on the Xbox, exactly? What about the fundamental differences between the languages the development kits use would make, assuming you already had the visuals made and ready to go from other parts of your game, the coding of content that much longer and more expensive of a process?