@Thepharaoh Actually read your comment the wrong way, my apologies. That being said, yes the games you mentioned were awesome and yes, there are a ton of indie titles that must be mentioned in part II :).
Did you not read the end of the article? That's why a part two is coming.
You know what the real shame is? There are quality articles written today alone that are begging to be read, yet this excuse for an article has been viewed and shared a million times over what it deserves to be. Seriously, why does sensational trash like this always make the front page of N4G?
"I don't think a multiplayer game can ever be great, at least relying solely on multiplayer elements."
Completely disagree. I'm the type of player that would rather be involved in a deep, single player campaign versus a dozen multiplayer matches any day, but that doesn't change the fact that some of the most memorable moments in gaming for me took place when I was playing multiplayer games with friends. Of course, these games were memorable because the g...
Seems people are disagreeing with you just because they don't like that the news is fake. It's fake, Rockstar always launches their game in May, it's been that way for the majority of this generation and judging by their strong sales figures, it'll stay that way.
When did it become okay to report on comments made by ordinary people? Seriously, anybody could say that GTA V is releasing in March and somebody would report on it. Hey guys what guys, Shenmue III is finally being released during the third week of August this year, and it's okay to report that because I'm about to post it as a comment somewhere on the Internet. Maybe after that, I'll send an e-mail to IGN and tell them that a sequel to LA Noire, Gettysburg Noire is being slated f...
I don't know about you, but I didn't play Far Cry 3 for a very strong story, I just wanted to have fun in an "anything goes" jungle.
ICO actually came before SotC. Another great game, but quite a bit different than this one.
Is this your first time playing?
So graphics are the only thing you should measure when it comes to determining if a game has "aged terribly?" I don't know about you, but System Shock 2, Half-Life, Deus Ex, and a handful of those games still play phenomenally. If you can't look past the graphics to see how amazing a lot of the games are your list actually are, then you need to take a step back and rethink what truly makes a game great.
Sorry, but everything about this game was spectacular. It's your opinion I know, but if you weren't blown away by this game, then you probably are not a huge fan of open-world sandbox games. I'm not saying it's the best in its genre, but it is certainly one of the best sandbox games to release in the last few years for sure. Sure, it's no Red Dead Redemption, but it's way better than most.
Perhaps you misread my previous comment. I didn't say anything about you creating the controversy. In simple terms, you're adding flames to a fire that didn't need to exist in the first place.
You're helping to create an issue out of nothing. Nothing more.
So it's acceptable to get worked up about an issue that doesn't exist now?
By your train of thought, a game that's at 60FPS plays better by default simply for the fact that it's running a higher frame rate. So tell me, exactly how does 60FPS make a big difference?
I don't really see the logic in your point. Do you really think people are purchasing multiplayer titles based on graphics alone?
This depends on what you mean by "dying out." At the rate it is going, is it on the road to "dying out?" Absolutely. Eventually (and I have no idea when this will happen) something is going to come along that is going to take everyone away from COD in the same way that COD took everyone away from Halo.
Is it dying "presently?" As much as I wish this was the case, no it's not. Even the gamers that hate COD are buying them just because a few o...
Tl;DR version of this comment, Jormungandr missed the point of the entire article.