huaxiong90 on 28 January 2010
Twistedpixel said:
huaxiong90 said:
Twistedpixel said: The reason? Well my copy of Uncharted 2 has been through about 3 hands already and by the end of the year it'll have gone through between 4 and 20 peoples hands, depending on whether or not anyone decides to keep it. I wouldn't be surprised if twice as many people play Uncharted 2 as buy it.
My PS3 is attached to the home entertainment unit, a large screen Sony Bravia. So what were they thinking in making the game single player only? Its hard enough finding time to play games nowadays and even harder to play a single player only game.
Sony has NO BUSINESS releasing a system designed to be the home theatre king and NOT put a focus on local multiplayer. The moment the system is in the home theatre unit, single player games become less valuable because I always have to compete with others who may want to use the PS3 for other things.
Idiots! 
|
Local multiplayer? Splitscreen was removed to avoid sacrificing visuals. Why not just play online?
|
Because there are 5 people in the house. I can't exactly tie up the main TV when there may be 2-3 other people who want to use it for something else. I can manage local play because it actually involves someone else not sitting and staring at how goofy Nathan Drake looks. I don't give a damn about visuals, I just want a game I know I can play consistantly. Since that invovles local play and Uncharted 2 doesn't have it then number 4 gets his copy of Uncharted 2 from me and I go and I'll probably go and buy NSMB with it and add to the evil statistics. I will be able to play NSMB about 4-5* more often than Uncharted 2 and for about 10* the total time, so long as I enjoy it. Much better value for money, no?
|
Ah. Didn't know that was the case. My bad. Then yes, I certainly agree with you.
Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!
Kojima: Come out with Project S already!