Naughty Dog: Uncharted 2 'Impossible' On Xbox 360

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Mazty said:
Mate, coming from the guy who bullshitted about owning a PS3, I think you can take your fanboy attitude somewhere else, as you have been blatantly caught out lying, instantly making your credibility zero.
Yeah, your trophies give this away, or utter lack of (you literally never got past the first mission in GTA4, did you just put the disc in and then bin the game?? Drake's fortune you also did the same on, and spent <10 hours on Motorstorm: PC, and never once went online with Killzone 2. Other than these games and Resistance 2, you don't seem to even own any other games...yeah, sure, you own a PS3) and unwillingness to show proof of your PS3, saying your phone doesn't 'sync' with your PC, which doesn't even make any sense.
The PS3 can emulate the PS2 games, as the PS2 game capable PS3 in the EU was entirely software driven. The reason they aren't making this software into a full-on patch is simple:
Sony are still making money from the PS2.
I have no Trophies for GTA4 because I played it and got bored of it months before it belatedly even got Trophies with the update 6 months after the release. You do remember how GTA4 did not even have Trophies at launch? I just could not be bothered to go back to them, especially when it became apparent how the PS3 version underperformed so badly compared to the Xbox 360 version, it wasn't even in native HD resolution.

I didn't pursue any trophies with Uncharted 1 because (like many other people have stated in this forum) the gameplay is bloody crap, I bought it pre-owned and traded it back in within a week. I know I can't be that critical of it because I have not played it all the way through but really the first few hours of gameplay just did nothing for me. It was when I found the submarine implausibly perched at the top of a valley yet after jumping in the water discovering I couldn't even dive below the surface, I mean in a game like this and I can't swim underwater. That was the last straw of many straws like the totally un-fun cover and shooting mechanic that just seems a poor rip from Gears of War along with the lame puzzles and platforming. I'd rather play Tomb Raider from the PSX than that.

I assume you mean Motorstorm: PR, yeah I spent under 10 hours on that (that's still longer than a typical playthrough of Killzone 2)... because it's not that good a game and I am not even a particularly big racing game fan, I actually preferred Motorstorm 1.

I also DID go online with Killzone 2, only I quit before I achieved the first rank since I realised they had removed the knife (the only fun weapon), the weapons were just as useless to aim and there was practically no innovation at all, CS:S seemed more appealing. You are also blatantly ignoring I achieved 31% of the trophies in KZ2, yet you still make the blatantly defamatory claim that I am lying about having a PS3 or have played Killzone 2. I got the Trophy for killing the arc trooper in under 1:30 you dolt!

You really are pathetic, I have given you such ample proof that I have a PS3 and use it yet you you still stubbornly refuse to face the truth as well as telling outright lies that you caught me lying while in the same paragraph validating every claim I made. And No, I will never stoop to your level of pathetic-ness and post pictures of my own PS3 that you know full well I bloody well own, especially considering have I have always avoided uploading pictures of my life along with all that emo facebook crap. It's just so sad. Quit it, ya paranoid fanboy.

The reasons I have not got in hundreds upon hundreds of hours on PS3 are many:
-I've been primarily a PC gamer, if you have Steam I can show off all the achievements I've earned in Team Fortress 2. This is logical since like most gamers in my demographic I like First Person Shooters and online multiplayer while anyone with any sense should know the PC is best for that kind of stuff.
-My PS3 has been stuck at my parent's house as that is where the only HDTV I have access to is located and I'm only at home between my stays at University.
-I have not actually even found many PS3 Exclusives that I even like and it has become apparent to me that most multiplatform games look and play better on Xbox 360 (Digital Foundry and Beyond 3D can confirm this) which is what I mostly play them on now. Also I can play my Xbox 360 on my PC monitor in HD via the VGA cable, and that option makes it so much more appealing.
-I know you gave that £180 Monitor as an example, though not only do I not even have £180 to spend but if I did I'd rather buy £180 worth of games than just make my PS3 as capable as my PC and X360 ALREADY ARE. There is not much I see on PS3 that I am desperate to play.

Also, your explanation for the Lack of BC on PS3 doesn't quite make sense as why would they REMOVE software emulation on later models? Was it that they hoped PS3 would totally overtake PS2 yet when the PS3 tanked they were forced to backtrack? I think the only reason Sony are still milking PS2 is because the PS3 is failing to deliver.
 

cleverlymadeup

New member
Mar 7, 2008
5,256
0
0
jamesworkshop said:
full mouse and keyboard is not available, 2 games and an internet browser is not proper support.
Most PCs run crysis fine (even my 2006 PC didn't need upgrading) and no the PS3 is not lag free despite often only ever being capablke of 720P and 30Hz.
Sure upgrades are part and parcel but again is only an advantage at the end of the Day I know plenty of People who were pissed at how long it took Nvidia to make a faster card than the 8800GTX and the utter failiure of ATi's 2000/3000 series to do that job either

actually sorry but full mouse and keyboard support IS available, they can do it but it's not been used a lot

as for most pc's running Crysis, sorry but that's a big no, i don't think you remember all the complaints, including on this site, about pc's not being able to run Crysis, it was only the very top end ones that could

ZippyDSMlee said:
You are only partially correct, pure hardware/software interface/speed wise a console can run up to 3 times faster than its PC counterpart, however you can do 10 times more things on a PC than just gaming.

So again realistically speaking they are about even because of the limits of the console and the over head of the OS.
actually i was 100% correct, everything that a PC can do a console can do. it can easily run stuff like a word processor, photo editor and whatever, they haven't been made for the console but it can do it.

tho i could easily install linux on my ps3 and get anything that pc runs without much difficulty either. so your argument fails again
 

jamesworkshop

New member
Sep 3, 2008
2,683
0
0
cleverlymadeup said:
jamesworkshop said:
full mouse and keyboard is not available, 2 games and an internet browser is not proper support.
Most PCs run crysis fine (even my 2006 PC didn't need upgrading) and no the PS3 is not lag free despite often only ever being capablke of 720P and 30Hz.
Sure upgrades are part and parcel but again is only an advantage at the end of the Day I know plenty of People who were pissed at how long it took Nvidia to make a faster card than the 8800GTX and the utter failiure of ATi's 2000/3000 series to do that job either

actually sorry but full mouse and keyboard support IS available, they can do it but it's not been used a lot

as for most pc's running Crysis, sorry but that's a big no, i don't think you remember all the complaints, including on this site, about pc's not being able to run Crysis, it was only the very top end ones that could
Of course the PS3 is capable of supporting mouse and keyboard but without the games full mouse and keyboard support is not available.
2009 > 2007 hardware to handle Crysis is a pittance
 

Ashbax

New member
Jan 7, 2009
1,773
0
0
CompanionCube said:
The most realistic graphics in the world can't fix the problem of crappy level design or other game flaws.
The graphics arent near 'best'.

Also, most devs fill up most of the 25G, because they just keep copy/pasting the code onto the disc to help stop things like glitches and lag.

So hes pulling one of those not-quite-a-lie-but-not-quite-truth jobs, hes saying hes filling up the whole memory - yet it doesnt necessarily mean hes filling it up with all different things.
 

Arassar

New member
Nov 25, 2008
85
0
0
I think it's hilarious that this whole flame war started because some PS3-only developer ran his mouth about using 25 gigs of data and streaming from a HD. Because that's obviously what makes a game good.

Please.

And I hope they put those 25 gigs to good use. You can fit 3 full 1080p movies in there.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
cleverlymadeup said:
as for most pc's running Crysis, sorry but that's a big no, i don't think you remember all the complaints, including on this site, about pc's not being able to run Crysis, it was only the very top end ones that could
and
Mornelithe said:
Crysis may have only run in DX9, and not the highest of settings. But it will run fine on even a 7800 GPU. That's what my brother conquered it on anyway. The engine does scale fairly well, but, you're definitely missing a great deal in the game w/o running enthusiast + DX10.
with this:
http://www.meshcomputers.com/Default.aspx?GCLID=CKnz29nGy5wCFU0A4wodvVinJQ&PAGE=PRODCATEGORYVIEWPAGE&USG=APPLICATION&ENT=APPLICATION&KEY=71810

the £399 option (Which includes a 20 inch monitor @ 1080p resolution + keyboard + mouse). I don't know about Stateside but I've seen even better deals over there for under $600 and you can knock off as much as another $100 if you build it yourself.

and
http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?WebProductID=1005242&source=froogle

for £73 (around $100 for any Americans who are interested)

This setup will just about play Crysis on Very High if set to 720p resolution which is a resolution good enough for consoles. It will also just about max out every other game at 1080p.

A PS3 with a decent HDTV easily costs the same or even more than this yet this is easy and cheap to upgrade while of course having the added value of being a very capable Personal Computer for all non-gaming electronic entertainment. And of course this plays games at far higher quality than the consoles.

I'm fed up of people going on about Crysis needing ridiculously expensive hardware or that PC gaming in general is so much more expensive. It's not. Also note that PC games are generally £10 or $20 cheaper than their consoler releases, even for brand new releases, mainly because they don't have to pay any licence fee to Microsoft or Sony.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
cleverlymadeup said:
jamesworkshop said:
full mouse and keyboard is not available, 2 games and an internet browser is not proper support.
Most PCs run crysis fine (even my 2006 PC didn't need upgrading) and no the PS3 is not lag free despite often only ever being capablke of 720P and 30Hz.
Sure upgrades are part and parcel but again is only an advantage at the end of the Day I know plenty of People who were pissed at how long it took Nvidia to make a faster card than the 8800GTX and the utter failiure of ATi's 2000/3000 series to do that job either

actually sorry but full mouse and keyboard support IS available, they can do it but it's not been used a lot
This is true I am waiting on the console makers to make a option available where you can swap a mouse and KB for a pad it should be easily done in the frimware and a nice config menu in the dash board even give you presets hell sell it for 10$ as DLC and update it for 1$ each, even make a control config DLC where you can remap out the game pad and do presets and programming for 20%... but no they are to busy being un-innovative it just aggravates me to no end.
as for most pc's running Crysis, sorry but that's a big no, i don't think you remember all the complaints, including on this site, about pc's not being able to run Crysis, it was only the very top end ones that could.
I ran cryisis on a 3700 single core and 42000 dual core CPU with 2GB of ramm and a 50$ 7600 ninvida card it played fine and looked fine on low settings.

The trouble with soem PC marketing is they try to hard to sell hardware with the game making it seem like you need the newest hardware.

ZippyDSMlee said:
You are only partially correct, pure hardware/software interface/speed wise a console can run up to 3 times faster than its PC counterpart, however you can do 10 times more things on a PC than just gaming.

So again realistically speaking they are about even because of the limits of the console and the over head of the OS.
actually i was 100% correct, everything that a PC can do a console can do. it can easily run stuff like a word processor, photo editor and whatever, they haven't been made for the console but it can do it.

tho i could easily install linux on my ps3 and get anything that pc runs without much difficulty either. so your argument fails again
But its not used for such things the market is 95% games and 5% other forms of visual/audio media, its like getting a mac to play games or use PC software on.

Now I can agree it can be used for such things but its not, PC hardware and software is much more open than consoles due to that you have many more options and that's why they will be superior at most things but since consoles push software sales more they will be more favored by the mianstream.

Basically they are both great at what they do :p
 

HyenaThePirate

New member
Jan 8, 2009
1,412
0
0
Arassar said:
And I hope they put those 25 gigs to good use. You can fit 3 full 1080p movies in there.
If it's anything like MGS4, thats probably what we will GET... 2 and a half full 1080p movies broken up by fleeting moments of gameplay :D

EDIT: Off topic, dude I LOVE your avatar.
I.. am.. a .. HUGE.. Battle Angel Alita (Gunnm) fan! While most people are raving about Avatar, I kinda was let down by it, realizing that James Cameron chose to do THAT instead of the Battle Angel live action movie he always wanted to do.
 

FallenRainbows

New member
Feb 22, 2009
1,396
0
0
*cough* New Final fantasy. Use more discs much? also...

WHO CAREEESS?!?!?!? Now Uncharted is hardly AAA its more... A if that...

Tis it just me or did he just get a couple of £££ in the bank for that?
 

Grand_Poohbah

New member
Nov 29, 2008
788
0
0
Jumplion said:
Grand_Poohbah said:
wrecker77 said:
The Bandit said:
No one cares about Uncharted. 2

What?

Most people care. I think it will be awesome.
You are not most people my good man. Most people will not care. You will care.

You =/= Most People
And You and "The Bandit" =/= Most people either.

Personally, I'm looking forward to Uncharted 2 myself. Plenty of other people are, not "most" people whatever the hell that means, but many people are excited for Uncharted 2. If you don't care about it, fine, though that just seems to me that you've never been interested in the games in the first place. And if you're not interested in them in the first place, then what are you doing posting in a thread about it?
Posting about my lack of interest in it.
 

MrGFunk

New member
Oct 29, 2008
1,350
0
0
I've got a PS3, I'll definitely get it, loved Drake's Fortune.

OP: This statement seems unnecessary.

360 owners know they're not going to get Uncharted ~ Naughty Dog are practically in-house ~ so why bother telling them their system couldn't run it.
"So.... we couldn't play a game that we're not allowed to play.

Well... whatever."


Arassar said:
I think it's hilarious that this whole flame war started because some PS3-only developer ran his mouth about using 25 gigs of data and streaming from a HD. Because that's obviously what makes a game good.

Please.

And I hope they put those 25 gigs to good use. You can fit 3 full 1080p movies in there.
And yet my bluray series of Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles is on 3 discs?

If a whole series of Friends fits on one, why not T.S.C.C?
Justifying the price.

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it will be. I could save money by buying series on Bluray but I'm not allowed because of share holders.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
The Dr Jack said:
Maybe we'd give a shit about this Balestra guy if he made good games.
And....he does? I mean, you may not like whatever games Naughty Dog makes, but most of their games are considered pretty [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/jakanddaxter?q=Jak%20and%20Daxter] good [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/jak2?q=Jak%20and%20Daxter] games [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/jak3?q=Jak%20and%20Daxter].
 

cjackson92

New member
Mar 6, 2009
38
0
0
Irridium said:
Well, I guess thats why I own all consoles. Exlusives mean nothing to me, I get whatever game I want no matter want.

I'm looking forward to this game, more than any other game this year in fact. The first one was great, and the second one seems to be on the right track.

Lets just hope the multiplayer isn't tacked on, or the single player is comprimised due to the multiplayer.
Mulitplayer is actually quite good (from the beta), it is much better than any tacked on multi I ever saw. It's not perfect, I hate the grenades and the grenade launchers, but it has a lot of unique features and game modes that do help to distinguish it from other online titles. This will be a definite buy for me, I just doubt I will have the time to play it as much as I would like this year.
 

cjackson92

New member
Mar 6, 2009
38
0
0
But I can tell you this much... If this game doesnt sell like gangbusters after it's high production costs, you can bet your ass you'll see an Xbox port.
Because the bottom line is PROFIT.
Owned by Sony so that is 100% never going to happen. It will sell well, it's becoming a new flagship for the system and at the very least has a decent following. It's a shame they went and said this because now it's just going to make more people hate the game for no reason, having never actually played it or its predecessor.
 

Daedalus1942

New member
Jun 26, 2009
4,169
0
0
TheGreenManalishi said:
If Uncharted 2 doesn't need installations, then WHY THE HELL DOES MGS4?!
MGS4 had 100% uncompressed sound files. From my understanding, this took up the majority of the game.
Also, I quite enjoyed Uncharted: Drake's Fortune up until the end... The ending was just horribly lame, and it went where I really hoped it wouldn't -.-
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
cjackson92 said:
Irridium said:
Well, I guess thats why I own all consoles. Exlusives mean nothing to me, I get whatever game I want no matter want.

I'm looking forward to this game, more than any other game this year in fact. The first one was great, and the second one seems to be on the right track.

Lets just hope the multiplayer isn't tacked on, or the single player is comprimised due to the multiplayer.
Mulitplayer is actually quite good (from the beta), it is much better than any tacked on multi I ever saw. It's not perfect, I hate the grenades and the grenade launchers, but it has a lot of unique features and game modes that do help to distinguish it from other online titles. This will be a definite buy for me, I just doubt I will have the time to play it as much as I would like this year.
Huh, I actually got into the beta thanks to Infamous.

Sadly my internet is shit and every time I downloaded the beta (twice, since downloading it takes about 3 full days, or 1 week if downloading during the night) and both times I downloaded and tried to install it got an error.

I was sad :(

Still, good to hear its not tacked on.