An online retailer has revealed several more European pack shots for the various bundles featuring the new Playstation 3 model that was announced at TGS 2012.
From Digital Foundry: "Welcome to the third part in the biggest DF Retro episode we've ever produced - a year-by-year look at how 1080p gaming fared on the PlayStation 3. Launched in 2007 touting its then-exclusive HDMI digital interface, Sony layered full HD gaming on top of its Cell processor and RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' as key selling points for its third generation console. Of course, we all know how that turned out - both Sony and Microsoft machines routinely ran the most advanced titles at sub-720p resolutions, often with questionable performance, so what happened to the 1080p dream?
In the first two parts of John Linneman's investigation, we've covered off the first four years of the Triple's lifecycle and moving into 2010, the overall fortunes of the PlayStation 3 continued to improve. The platform holder released - what was then - the most advanced motion controller in the console space, backed up by experiments with stereoscopic 3D, which turned out to be a short-lived but still formidable pairing. Combined with a strong E3 showing, PS3 was looking good.
However, it's fair to say that it was a fallow year for 1080p gaming on the system, with only Scott Pilgrim Saves The World's razor-sharp pixel art upscaling, Castle Crashers and Soldner X2's 3D/FMV stylings accommodating full HD output - alongside a wonderful Monkey Island remaster."
Just remember ladies and gentlemen, Sony never said all games would be 1080p. Only that the system would support games up to 1080p in a survey before the system was released.
https://spong.com/article/9...
And as we saw, some games did support it, some games tried their best to support it and some games didn't or never reached it.
Is a higher resolution great to have if you can do it? Sure. Is it necessary for a fun game? No
But what I find interesting is Eurogamer. Are they really talking about HD and PS3 in their article or are they really pushing their 4.50 Euros 4K video download subscription? Seems one is being used to sell the other. Just look at the bottom of the article.
thats what every company tries to do, push for people to buy their products. Are you really gonna blame them for that?
Not all articles are about selling. They're about informing or entertaining.
Maybe I'm supposed to watch the video instead of reading. But I shouldn't have to click. But the article lazily tells us some games did hit 1080p and some didn't. I didn't learn anything new as I own the console. Then, they push a Patreon subscription.
Are you saying every opinion, preview, review and rant article requires a push to buy something now? Tell me which sites are prone to do so so that I can avoid them in the future.
not everyone played during the ps3 era. I started during snes era but loved seeing articles/videos about how gaming evolved before that.
i dont think this article is trying to push you to get that patreon sub, it doesnt for me at least. I dont think theres anything wrong putting an ad at the bottom of the article. all the regular DF videos are free already.
Wipeout HD on PS3, a remake of the PS1 game was 1080p 60fps. And that released in 2007-08
This really feels like a filler article. I don't feel like I learned anything notable or substantial from this. I feel they could have reduced the unnecessary intro and over-explanation of things and put the whole series in one article for a more substantial and possibly informative piece rather than piece-mealing it out as they have.
It's more about the video. DF Retro videos are for Patreon members first, and I think the whole thing was one big video. For the youtube channel, it gets chopped up and released weekly.
Chris is actually right on this one. Something known already was just kind of washed over in the article. Unless you're supposed to get more in the video. If more is in the video, then more could have been said in the article.
Only thing I learned new was that they are selling a subscription. My point though is that you gain more viewers by having better articles and content.
Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception has a lot to live up to as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is an incredible and near-perfect game.
I cant even say what the point was its easily the worst story in the series. The online was a whole lot of fun though but overall doesn't come even close to 2
It was a step back for sure. Personally, I thought even the MP was way better in U2. Solid game, glad I played it. I just think they didn't push as hard as they did with U2.
The "young Drake" portion was pretty top notch, story-wise. But yeah, everything outside of that I felt was inferior.
Villains were all over the place in this… one second they wanted Drake dead, the next they needed him, then they want him dead again, then they coulda killed him, but poisoned his friend instead, then coulda shot him again, but had brunch with him, then needed him alive, then coulda mowed him down, but decided to kill him by fire and let him escape… Uncharted 2 was way better. 😅😅
=D Sounds crazy. I don't remember any of that. Played it on ps3 and I remember thinking that why was this game so bashed compared to second one. I liked it.
Another thing that annoyed me about UC3 events was the agent Talbot teleporting around Turkey. It just felt off to me, and made no sense.
Also, for about one third of the game, you go on a wild goose chase to rescue Sully, who wasn't even there to be rescued, and you end up back where you started again. There was simply no pay off for all the events you go through, so it fell flat in that regard as if they couldn't figure out how to make the game longer, so they decided to side-track you to do something with no pay off, hoping you wouldn't notice due to all the incredible action set pieces they made.
Overall though, even with its flaws, I still enjoy the game.
This was actually my least favorite in the series. Didn't have that same impact that part 2 set.
Uncharted 2 is the pinnacle of the series (to me).
Granted, 4 had the best story in my opinion, but 2 was the overall best game.
A decade after its release, how does Uncharted 3 fare today? Does its story still work? Was its precursor’s legacy a bedrock or quicksand for its own aspirations?
Replies(2)When arguably the weakest game in the series is still awesome and more fun than most games today, you know you're onto a winner!
I'd extend "arguably" before awesome too. Many technically demanding scenes were jaw-dropping for the time, but it's tough to ignore the sub-par context propelling the action forward.
Tough for you, perhaps, and that's fine. I enjoyed it very much. Perhaps a little less than the others in the series, but then the bar is extremely high.
I remember being blown away by the water and sand tech in U3 for the time too. It certainly was a visual treat!
It is very good, but when I originally played Uncharted 3 it was the most disappointed I'd ever been in a video-game because Uncharted 2 was just that good. I enjoyed 3 much more when I replayed it in the Nathan Drake Collection though. I could just enjoy it for what it is and accept that it's not Uncharted 2 - it's not a roller coaster, and it doesn't balance and rotate between action, puzzles, platforming and set-pieces in the same way.
Uncharted 3's gameplay is a bit more compartmentalized and focused on one thing at a time. I'm not surprised the scrapped version of Uncharted 4 was going to have no gunplay for the first half. It's also paced much differently - it takes a long time to get to the notable set-pieces. Uncharted 2 is insane from Nepal onwards which is about an hour into the game. haha.
I did like the introduction of chase sequences, and I love first hour (bar fight, young Drake) and from the airplane sequence onwards but I just think the rest of it just sort of meanders along without as much purpose as 2.
When it comes to the script, you can feel the absence of Neil Druckmann and Josh Scherr (writer on every other console Uncharted game). Drake gets hit in the face, and the game goes on a random side plot for an hour to give you some boat set-pieces. He then washes up on a beach close to where Elena is staying to get you back to the real plot. Drake just says "How convenient" to try make you laugh off how sloppy the plot got.
In retrospect, I'm not sure if Naughty Dog were ready to work on 2 different games at once. 3 clearly had production issues that 1 and 2 didn't have, and Hennig's version of 4 didn't work out. They had to crunch so hard to get the rebooted version done on time that Bruce Straley gave up making video-games.
I'll give you some props for the extra analysis. I remember Druckmann climbing his way to a writer spot in UC2, but wasn't aware of Josh Scherr. I didn't know that was the reason for Straley's departure either. That's pretty damn rough.
They had to make some weird choices as far as story went because the actor for Cutter had to bail which left a few holes in the story.
Uncharted is one of my favourite series and while the leap from 2 to 3 was not nearly as big as the leap from 1 to 2, I think it was an amazing experience none the less.
Graham McTavish's departure wasn't easy, but I don't think that would fix many holes tbh. Because the main issue to consider is the precarious mindset Naughty Dog was operating on: an increased emphasis in set pieces that HAD to go in and worrying about the context later.
I really liked part 3 ( Among Thieves is still the best in my opinion) My only complaint was the interactions with the villains and how they were a missed opportunity, Linda MacMahon (Marlowe) was an interesting antagonist due to the history with Sully and Nate but it fails basically flat especially with her ending. And I couldn't care about Navaro 2.0.
What I did love and made me care was Cutter, in the short time he was in the game you could feel that the guy was a good treasure hunter for example when he pulled his own notebook with the clues he founds so the team can escape a room.
It was a small touch that add a lot to the character.
I have mixed feelings on the series. I still own all of them on the PS3, and the collection for PS4, but I didn't truly "love" any of the games until 4.
They're good games, but they always stumble on some element.
The first is good, but the climbing mechanics weren't exactly fine tuned with the first showing. Not to mention the spongey enemies if you played on anything past normal; but you're then faced with a fairly unchallenging game experience.
The second mostly fixed the climbing, but added in a pretty clumsy stealth mechanic.
Three was just two with a new story.
Four got it right though.
I don't remember once getting annoyed by any mechanic had in the game.
I know that everyone has a soft spot for 2, and 3 is sort of the black sheep of the series; but they did, overall, get progressively better. Which doesn't always happen.
Thats a nice bundles.
Looks like Europe is getting the s*t:
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/...
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/...