CS controls and animation were unique BACK THEN

but its pretty old now, and needs to have more ... life?

To me, Uncharted 2 was something different. I'm not a fan of FPS, and not a big online guy, but really... Uncharted 2's singleplayer was good enough that it made me actually want to platinum the game, something I NEVER do. It's also for the first time in a long time given me a multiplayer experience that I actually enjoy and have put a lot of time into.

MW, and Killzone 2, to me, is just the same war game we've gotten since last gen, except with better graphics, rather than a shot at a totally improvement over the original like we got with Uncharted 2.

I have a friend who confused me about uncharted 2.

Now I never played it I only got a 2nd hand bootleg copy of the first one that I loaned my cousin later, but that one had it's ups and down. (I like Lara more =P) Actually it was a nice game. But as for 2 my friend basically had an ear to ear smile when describing his experience.

He went on about how great it was and bla but said it was so short... now I don't know if that was a good thing or bad thing... it's like when he finished Metal Gear Solid 4 for the 5th time and I said I couldn't put myself through another install screen he said it was annoying, but he said it with a smile on his face.

I'm really not sure if it's a good game.

I wont lie after i got uncharted 2 i dont care about mw2 anymore and it was my game of the year.

i don't really love those 2 PS3 exclusives, but they both have raised the bar, and raised it high thats for certain.

...great games don't require great graphics. It seems strange, to me, to entertain the idea that such minor differences in graphics could possibly be a the tipping point between any two games in quality.

The answer is obviously no. Anything done on the PS3 with KZ2 or Uncharted 2 could have easily been done better on PC. If the games were also on PC then their quality wouldn't be diminished simply because of that port. Some of the best games of all time are multiplatform, like Half-Life, and The Orange Box.

That said, one MIGHT(I have to give them the benefit of the doubt) imply that developers spend more time focusing on quality when they don't have to worry about the port. That is a legitimate argument, but it's also, imo, wrong in many case. For instance, Bayonetta wasn't multiplatform development, it was developed for the 360 and ported to another console, by another company. The port might be shitty, but indeed the game didn't suffer from the port. That's the jist of it. Not all games suffer from ports, and implying that they do, is a basic misunderstanding.....It's a vague hope that we all have. That the lines in life are black and what, and everything can be sectioned off into neat little lables. It means that one really wishes there was an elite group of games where developers refuse to worry about anything that isn't pure game quality. That elite group of games exists, but one can't generalize them as exclusives. They exist over the whole spectrum. They are giving far too much credit to something that has very little to do with anything.

Also, one can't take away credit from the exclusive developers like that. One might as well imply that developers who make exclusive games aren't necessarily better than multiplat developers, they just have an advantage, so their games are better. By implication, Nintendo, NaughtyDog, Insomnica, and Gurella(sp?) aren't really that great, they just had better games because they were exclusive.

I could say that Forza 3 is better because it's exclusive....but it's not. Gears 2 isn't better because it's exclusive. If it was on PS3, it'd probably be just as good. Batman wouldn't have been any better as a PS3 exclusive, it would have just been more crowed about by platformfans, and used as an example of developers having time to focus.

Just implying the possibility is a generalization, imo.

Here's the reality, PS3 exclusives will sell......to put it mildly.....much lower numbers than a game like MW2. MW2 is far more hyped, and people are far more excited about it. That is a generalization I can accept. Saying that games are worse just because they are multiplat...is not.

Was Half-Life worse because it was a multiplat? Will Bayonetta be worse? Just because one thinks a company gimped their games in order to port them to all platforms, doesn't mean it's true, and it's probably not. It's an assumption. Everyone's logic is fallable.

Look at it this way. If people thought that only exclusives were good, the only good games the PC would have, would be World of Warcraft, and RTS games. There are very few top quality exclusives on that platform that don't fall within those two genres lately. Yet, you, Naz, still enjoy PC gaming as much more more than console gaming, I'd assume, despite the fact that you have to play multiplatform games as your main form of entertainment on PC(assumption).

That's just my opinion. I don't think it's right to pose that question. I think it's insulting to certain developers, and I think it hurts the credibility of those rightly opposed to the "only exclusives are good" argument presented by fringe members on this forum, when someone as powerful and influential as Naznatips implies that they might have a point. That's just my 2 cents.

Why don't we keep me out of this and focus on the thread for once, shall we?

As for me missing a point, I think you are implying that his point was he's not forcing opinions on anyone? It clearly wasn't. His point was to start legitimate discussion amongst board members. Wasn't that his point? Did I miss that, oh so clearly?

I feel I added my 2 cents. Stop trying to marginalize my opinions by criticizing my past actions.

it's hard to look on mw2.
i first was excited but end up looking like COD4 too much.

Kz2, a beautiful mess.

There is no problem, I'm a PS3 owner, and I just gave my opinion.

You are angry at the content of my post, but you don't address that content. Sometimes you do, this time you did not. You addressed me and my posting history in a derogatory way, in a way that you obviously knew would invoke an angry response. You have no interest in legitimate discussion, while I actually do on this subject, believe it or not. Your contribution with the GTFO pic not withstanding, I think that someone who takes an opposing viewpoint might be good for a thread like this, and I think that....might have been his point in creating it.

Well, lol, I guess I can't blame you there. I've been told a lot that my posting style seems like I'm making a mockery of others opinions, but I did not mean it that way, ESPECIALLY in this instance. I really made a pretty well thought out argument, even if it was presented poorly(crunk). I never said your GTFO comment was your ONLY contribution, but it's one of the two bad ones you have made, second being your busting out of me and starting of this needless conversation.

I respect you if you disagree with me, but while you can have my allegiance as a gaming ally, you might never win my heart and mind. That's presumptious. If you are confident in your stance, don't let my confidence dissuade or anger you. It isn't meant to be insulting, and in this thread, I thought I did a pretty good job of keeping it even handed, even if my point was a little controversial, I didn't mean to be rude.

Let's get back to the topic at hand.

I think the main reason that exclusives are "better" in people's eyes, is because they tend to focus in on the good exclusives, and forget the bad ones. For every Uncharted 2, there are 10 Gingerbread men. The few top end examples don't prove the rule, they prove the exception.

Also, the arugment seems to focus in on the potential of games, which is an assumption, because it's not a reality. We assume that Fallout 3 would have been better if it were exclusive, but that's not right. What if it were exclusive to the Wii, or the PS3. The game would never have become as great as it is on the PC. Also, what if the game was exclusive to the PC? Would the budget for the game have been smaller?

It seems to me like this isn't just about graphics. Some people seem to imply that the actual content of the game would have been expanded if the developers didn't have to worry about the other consoles....but....isn't that the ultimate presumption? There is no way to know that is true, and while I'm sure in a few instances it is true, isn't it very likely that it is also not true in many, many instances? It's a grey line, not black and white, and broadly painting exclusives as superior is ultimately wrong, imho.