Andrespetmonkey on 27 May 2012
| Jay520 said: "Didn't seem like that to me, he said "Not Naughty Dog (Linear as hell games..." as if linearity alone is a valid criticism. That's like someone saying "I don't like Bethesda games, they're open as hell." See what I mean?" Nah, not really. A person can dislike open games & that would be understandable. That's not what I'm saying. It's understandable that someone dislikes open world games, but it's not understandable that said person would say open world = bad, as in bad for everyone. No review would have "Open world" written as a negative bullet point, for the same reason the genre wouldn't be there. It would be understandable for me to not like a FPS game because I don't like FPSs (for example), but it wouldn't be understandable for me to say a game is bad because it's an FPS. "Even when only considering the single-player (which you shouldn't do if talking objectively), Uncharted's 8-12 hour campaign is above standard for a linear game. " Above the standard? Sure. He said it lacks content, you just agreed that it's above the standard, so I guess that critique is false in your eyes as well as mine. Does it help support Naughty Dog as being a top game developer? (Which is the topic of the thread). Not to some people. But how is it a reason that Naughty Dog isn't a top developer? And how does that make his critique any less wrong? |
