Dr.Grass said:
jarrod said:
Dr.Grass said:
mushroomboy5 said:
Dr.Grass said:
We haven't seen a game of significant production value in 2years. Read that sentance again and then consider this: It took Naugty Dog 1.5 years to dev Uncharted 2. If this paragraph doesn't 'do it' for you, then nothing will.
No sly comments about me bringing up U2 please. I think it's a very good point that the game of the year was wholly developed and released within the Wii's dry spell. Especially considering that the recources required to dev said game are much higher than any (that's a guess) Wii game to date.
|
True, but naughty dog work on...how many games at a time was it again? 1 or 2???
|
You complete missed my point.
|
Your point is disingenuous in the first place. U2 couldn't have had a 1.5 year R&D cycle without all the heavy lifting that went into it's predecessor tech and gameplay wise (and it's own 2+ year cycle). It should be dismissed for the same reason you dismissed Mario Galaxy 2.
|
Hmmm. Are we comparing the devs directly, or am I simply pointing out that a AAA blockbuster was created and released within arguably the driest spell in Nintendo history?
You missed it again.
|
I missed that schedules don't arbitrarily align? No shit.
I'm simply pointing out that UC2 couldn't have been "created" without the recycled know-how (and game design/code built upon) from UC1. This wasn't a ground up effort, and it also had a team larger than anything we've seen from a Nintendo game bar Smash Brawl. If you want your "point" to get across, it'd be better to use less flawed examples...
