Hardly a reason to whine. Uncharted purpose isn't the same as games like Resistance, Halo or Gears. The game focuses on a very cinematic story, well paced action segments and puzzles/platforming. I'd much rather have a more polished game + online coop than split screen. On the other hand, I doubt naughtydog decided to leave out SS for graphics alone since SS a reasonable excuse for toned down graphics. The reason they chose not to add it is because they are on a strict holiday deadline and probably don't have the time to make the option function with quality.

Regardless, most nitpickers in this thread seem to be blowing it out of proportion, probably because their loyalty lies elsewhere. You know who you are...

Oh, guess I can't play with any of my friends then.
Not everyone has a PS3 these days.....

@ Squilliam - What games do you actually own? Must be boring to only play RE5 24/7

Yes

As said by everyone, the reason that they have not designed their engine around co-op is because it is not a military shooter, so you don't have a bunch of goons running around with you, and every moment in Gears had you with somebody else, because it was designed that way. Uncharted is a very cinematic game, and it is mostly about Nate, most of the game is only played with Nate. Anyway, since when was co-op platforming fun when it is not 2D platforming with coins etc?

Now they decided to add MP to the second game as one of the main criticisms of the first was lack of replayability. While they were adding online, they decided to add in special co-op stages. Now while doing this, they would have had to do a lot of extra work for the online, and of course more design work in the main campaign (it is longer) and designing the co-op stages.

Squilliam said: Munkeh111 said: Squilliam said: Cactus said: This is actually disappointing. I never play online, and after having so much fun with RE5, I was looking forward to playing this coop with my brother. Oh well, I'm still buying it I was always going to rent it, but local multiplayer would have put me over the edge for a purchase. Its a difference of content really, with a pretty picture and little content I have to reason to not just play through it once and then discard it. $5 is what a single playthrough is worth to me. With local multiplayer I would have had a reason to keep it because its a difference of 1 play through compared to 3-4. With the former a rental can cover it, with the latter a purchase is warranted. Okay, so they have a longer single player campaign, with good replayability because of trophies and and internal reward system giving you stuff like new costumes. They then give you multiplayer, which is great fun to play {I played the beta}. They also give you online co-op, which is designed to encourage proper co-op play, and is great fun. The main single player campaign is quite story driven, and the characters accompanying you are likely to change like they did in the first one, so it would not work to just stick you in the SP campaign with some extra players. Oh and it is probably the best looking game of this generation, as I proved to Selnor, with the exception of gamespy, all the major sites gave it best looking game of E3. Now, you say that it is not worth a purchase because it doesn't offer enough replayability, so do you just not buy single player only games? Do you not think, this game is great to play, even if it is for only 10 hours, rather than, this will give me 50 hours of less entertaining gameplay, but because it is longer, I must buy it. If so, I would reccomend you stick to jRPGs Naughty Dog have pretty much improved everything from the first game, but yet they get nothing but complaints because they are missing about 1 feature. They have already had to do a lot of work to get online into this game, and now you want them to have to rework the game to include split screen. I don't care about trophies, I don't care about online multiplayer as I don't know anyone in my country with a PS3, I don't care about costumes and any improvements in the campaign and length just means I rent it for 3 days rather than overnight. I rent pretty much all of my games, its the rare game that I actually purchase. Don't take it personally, but thats the only criteria by which I would have purchased the game. No split screen = no continual playtime = no purchase. @MAFKKA: "So Fallout 3, Call of Duty series, inFamous, MGS4, Assassins Creed, Uncharted.. etc is not worth buying?" I rented every single one of those games. I didn't feel the need to play them again so no purchase. Though, I probably will get Infamous 2nd hand when its down to a little less than half price either new or used.

So basically, your criteria on buying a game is; does it have local co-op? Not the quality of the game

Damn I was really hoping that there was going to be local multiplayer. But its still a must buy.

It seems like the belief that online multiplayer is sufficient to address longevity issues with games has resulted in the following:
1. The elimination of bots.
2. The elimination of split-screen.

No, its this:

Will I play it again?

If no = no purchase.

If yes: will I play it more than once more?

if no: rent again if needed

if yes: do I value the experience highly?

if no: buy when low price

if yes: buy now.

The quality if the game doesn't matter, if I can play it once or twice and thats it I will consider renting it. Because $10 is cheaper than $120. Even if I value the game highly, it still doesn't mean that renting isn't my best bet.

Halo 3, Gears of War, Crackdown, worms, Forza 2, PGR3, Street fighter, Castle crashers

and for the PS3: Little big planet.

Uncharted 1 didn't have it, but praised by most.

Uncharted 2, looking even more bad ass plus extra, still doesn't have it, bad?


my god, this has been a generation of complainers, that's all we do.