Originally Posted by boredgunner
If you're talking about what all the big sites will award GOTY, then maybe. There's still more to come. But even then, that game is mostly mediocre. Aside from voice acting, the only thing that's "above average" is the storytelling, and even then there are much better games for this.
But it's hilarious how amazed console gamers are by that game (as well as Uncharted), and how predictable they all are. Everyone is riding the Naughty Dog bandwagon and drinking the Naughty Dog kool-aid. They probably haven't played anything better.
.... I kind of have to agree with this. I got a PS3 a few years ago with my TV. Never set out to get a PS3, but hey, free is free - also it plays blu-rays (didn't have blu-ray player in my desktop at the time). Everyone was hyped up over Uncharted 2, so I borrowed it from a friend (I can't handle controllers - so there's no way I'm buying a console game). At the time, the TV hadn't shown up yet, as it was back-ordred; so I plugged the PS3 into my desktop monitor (the same one I used up until a month ago - LG2452T). I thought this would make a great comparison. I had the same headphones plugged in (ran through my soundcard - it has RCA in), same chair, same viewing distance, same screen. The other difference was the box that was running the game, and the input method.
Anyway, I put the game in, started it up... and meh. A lot of PS3 players said it was the best looking game ever; that it looked better than Crysis, etc.... it didn't. It was a blurry, aliased mess (yes, the PS3 was set to 1080p and the screen had 'stretch' turned OFF). Part of me wasn't that surprised. My desktop is far superior to a console in terms of hardware; and rendering at sub-720p isn't going to look close to native-1080p. However, I was kind of stunned that console gamers could claim that it even looked close to as good. It just didn't. Also, the FPS did a LOT of dipping into what I assume were the low 20s. However, even 30fps feels like garbage, so it's kind of pointless to complain.
As I'm getting used to the controls, fights became more about my skill, rather than me not making mistakes with the controller... and then I noticed that the AI sucked. Admittedly, I wasn't on the highest difficulty, but the AI was insanely predictable. They go to obvious cover points, repeat actions... It was just very generic. The fights weren't unique. Crysis offered far more in terms of AI; snipers that sniped, AI that blind-fired at where they thought you were, used grenades to flush you out, and so on. I've had more than my share of "wait what?" moments in Crysis where the AI surprised me (then I made a custom CFG to make it about 20x harder). This... just wasn't that. The fights were simply an issue of timing when the AI popped out of cover, and hitting them in that bracket of time.
The story was decent, and the motion capture / voice acting was admittedly impressive. But that's about it. Sub-par graphics compared to PC, sup-bar gameplay, AI, etc. As a result, I never beat the game. It just wasn't compelling enough (Also, my TV showed up - so I moved the console to another room).
Now there's "The Last of Us". There was a ton of hype behind this, but it's a console game so I didn't really care (i.e. didn't buy it). I did however watch some game play videos. Again, same thing. Easily some of the best motion capture I've seen recently, and some great voice acting... and that's it. Generic stealth-gameplay, generic pop-guy-who-jumped-out-of-cover gameplay. The graphics are honestly awful by todays standards. When the game came out and the a few sites gave it a "horribly low" mark of 8/10, people brought up things like "they didn't even mention the AMAZING graphics!"... and I'm just sitting here thinking "What graphics?" The texture resolution on environmental assets is so low that it should be a sin in 2013; the lighting is pretty crap outside of cutscenes, and even character textures (the only area where any care actually went) are still pretty bad.
I seriously don't understand why they went for a "super-realistic" art-style. The system just can't do it. "The Walking Dead" arguably conveys the same level of emotion, but doesn't jar the player every 2 seconds because of crap graphics BECAUSE it's not realistic; and as a result it's likely more realistic (again, youtube videos).
Naughty-Dog is an interesting studio. They pull off some good stories with well done characters, and then ride a hype-train to a bunch of awards. Meanwhile games like Metro 2033/Last Light are essentially ignored.
And then there's the "NEXT GEN" titles, that will supposedly "destroy our faces" with graphics. They won't. It just won't happen. The only impressive demo thus far was "The Dark Wizzard", and there's literally zero evidence that that was real-time on console. It was "In-engine". But I can also do "in-engine" stuff in Crysis 3 that looks about the same... just at about 10fps. What I dont understand is the OPs video. It's supposed to be on the PS4, but it's missing some very obvious features (AO), and also has horribly low texture resolution on essentially everything that isn't a character. However, this makes absolutely no sense. In the PDF from the devs
on the demo, they claim that 1,321mb is PURELY for textures, with an additional 572mb on "streaming pool" (which could contain textures). So where is all this texture data going? Crysis 3 has far superior textures, but the ENTIRE video budget of that game can be brought down to ~1.2gb - less than JUST the non-streaming texture load in KZSF.
Basically, something is very, very wrong with this picture. The game is supposed to be the pinnacle of next-gen graphics (or I assume that's the goal), but it's missing features that were on PC in 2007 and despite having more VRAM than my card has to offer purely dedicated for textures, everything is a blurry mess.
What is going on here?