dsgrue3 said:
d21lewis said:
And that's the thing, to me. These days, we get so many people gushing over these "games" that place so much emphasis on graphical achievement, mind blowing set pieces, and breakthrough technology instead of gameplay (and yes, I am aware that games can have both--not directed at you, FOX, just anybody else who's ready to pounce on me.). When you look at games of the past, the ones that stand out as timeless aren't the ones that broke new ground graphically. They're the ones that got gameplay down pat. Your Super Mario World, Street Fighters, Tetris, Pac Man, Link to the Past, etc..
Loving a game based solely on presentation (which, let's face it, is what Uncharted does best) is like loving a woman based solely on her outer beauty. You can overlook a LOT of flaws because the outside is so good looking but, over time, the beauty is going to fade. Prettier things will catch your eye. Then, you realize that what you fell in love with was really quite shallow to begin with.
Make a game first and focus on presentation second. That's how you create a timeless classic. Ten years from now, I would probably rather play Prince of Persia on Gamecube than Uncharted on PS3. One will still be a game. The other will be an outdated movie.
Suggesting that Uncharted is nothing but a presenation is moronic.
Hell, even games like Heavy Rain are more than a presentation. although much more so than UC.
I'm astonished anyone even suggested this and won't even entertain a proper rebuttal. Just a stupid, stupid thing to say.
Okay. I respect your opinion.
