"When it comes to impressing, doing the same thing has diminishing returns. It doesn't matter if something is refined or improved if it is still very similar to the original. The 'WOW' factor dies off. If you had said Uncharted 3 you still wouldn't have a good point, but at least you would have gave a example that almost applied to yourself. Uncharted 3 is a better game than Uncharted 2, it refined a lot of mechanics and set pieces and generally improved the game, especially for the multiplayer which is a major part of the two games. But it was not as impressive as Uncharted 2, Uncharted 2 didn't just refine Uncharted 1, it came out leaps and bounds better, UC1 didn't even have multiplayer."
I don't think Uncharted 2 was leaps and bounds better than Uncharted 1. I think it was more or less the same, aside from the multiplayer. Set pieces were a bit more impressive, but I really don't see a huge difference in the games. I certainly wouldn't call it leaps and bounds better, although reviewers seemed to think it was, so I guess I'm the odd man out. At any rate though, Metroid Prime was better than the original Uncharted (again going by average critic score). When you make a game that is rated among the best of all time, you have far less room to improve.
At any rate, all you said was "was an improvement over it MP3 came a lot later so not as impressive". That's very different than saying "MP3 wasn't enough of an improvement over the other prime games".
"Next, I never said MK7 was a bad game, that is just bullshit and doesn't warrant further reply."
Well, since you get so testy about me "saying things you didn't say" please point out where I said that you said they were bad. I said that you criticized Retro for them, which you totally did.
"Lastly, I listed Retro's games from their wiki page. If they really didn't contribute much for those games than that is just more evidence that Retro cannot be compared to Naughty Dog, since cannot even praise Retro for an impressive output of games. I didn't criticise Retro for Hunters, Trilogy or MK7 though, again you're posting bullshit."
Apparently you didn't do very much research, because on the Wiki page it makes it very clear what exactly Retro's role in the game was. "While Retro was busy with the Prime sequels, they had to pass on the Nintendo DS title Metroid Prime Hunters. The eventual developer, Nintendo Software Technology (NST), worked closely with Retro to design the game's art and characters to make sure that they fit into the overall Metroid series."
And you didn't criticize Retro for Hunters? Hmmm...
"What else have Retro done? Metroid Prime Hunters... Hunters should never have been greenlit for DS." So, that's not criticism? Because it sounds to me like "shouldn't have been green lit" means it was a poor game either in concept or execution that shouldn't have been made. I might just be a glass half empty kind of guy, but I see that as criticism.
" Let us not pretend these blew anyone away." Sounds like criticism to me. Let's say you just finished making sweet love to your boyfriend or girlfriend, you asked her/he how it was, and she/he said "I wasn't blown away". I dunno about you, but I'd take that as criticism. As the whole point of your post was that Retro was not as good of a dev as ND, and you brought this up as a point in your favor, I don't see how this can not be considered criticism.
"MK7 was just MK as usual." Debatable. Seems like a knock on the company's innovation on a project they had a minimal role in. Sounds like criticism to me , particularly in context.
Again, since you seem so testy about people putting words in your mouth, please show anywhere that I said or even implied that you said Trilogy was bad or that you ctiticized Retro for it. I did not even mention Trilogy except when discussing it in the averages. I felt that counting compilation game in the average would be redundant since all three original games are factored in and compilations are often rated differently than original games.
"If they really didn't contribute much for those games than that is just more evidence that Retro cannot be compared to Naughty Dog, since cannot even praise Retro for an impressive output of games. "
Impressive output of games is completely relative to the size of a studio. According to their linkedin pages, Retro employs between 51 and 200 employees. Naughty Dog employs between 201 and 500 employees.
Unless I'm mistaken, Naughty Dog has produced 7 original titles across the PS2/3. Jak 1-3/Racing, Uncharted 1-3. For the Gamecube and Wii, Retro has produced 4 original titles. Naughty Dog has produced about twice as many games and is about twice the size, so it seems that in terms of productivity, the two companies are about equal. As measured by Metacritic scores, Retro has produced an overall higher quality of games over that time period. Naughty Dog is bigger, which does not mean they are better.
As for me "posting bullshit" it is quite possible I misunderstood a point you made, or accidentally misrepresented you. However, I absolutely was not doing so on purpose. Instead of complaing "that's bullshit" which is, in my opinion, unnecessarily defensive, immature, and a bit disrespectful, perhaps you could simply clarify your statements so that I might understand you better, and we could actually have a conversation on the matter. Of course, if that's not what you want, then carry on.
