I think a lot of people don't understand that the extreme linearity in a lot of current gen shooters was not a design choice as much as a technical limitation. Crysis 2 and 3 weren't more linear because Crytek thought that was better. They were more linear because consoles couldn't run the big levels of Crysis 1 at high enough fidelity. Battlefield 3 single player was much less open than Bad Company 1 and 2 because they chose higher quality assets over open areas. Halo 4 is a lot less open than Halo 3 or ODST or Reach. It's all about trade offs. Far Cry 3 tried to have both high quality and an open world and managed to rarely run at even 25 fps. Killzone is not the only traditionally linear franchise that has hyped its more open levels. Battlefield 4 has more open levels. So does Call of Duty Ghosts. I think the programmer from Naughty Dog who was on the E3 show here said it best when he said that what excited him most about this generation wasn't as much higher fidelity assets but being able to put those assets into much bigger settings.
Raven10's forum posts
The word "native" was not used anywhere and something that was true in June might not be true today. So this doesn't debunk anything. That said I have yet to hear a reliable source for this rumor so like all rumors I will assume it is false until proven otherwise. If they wanted it to run in 1080p they could do it. If they decided to run it in 720p then I would guess they felt some other aspect of the graphics made a more significant impact on the visual quality than the resolution. It's all about trade-offs when it comes to graphics. Call of Duty is 60 fps first and graphical fidelity second. They also said they are still using an updated version of the same engine they've been using since COD4 which was itself an updated version of the Quake 3 engine. Running with multi-core processors was never in the engine's design. They have tried to add it in since, but they really would need a major redo of the engine from the ground up to truly take advantage of the next generation systems and modern PC's.
@alexglass: I'm going to start off by saying that I understand exactly what you are saying. I always point out that Rayman Origins runs at 1080p on current gen systems. A console of PS1 power could run something in 1080p. It would likely be no more complex than Pong but running in 1080p doesn't suddenly make a bad game look great. It can make a good looking game look better in most cases, but it isn't the be all, end all of graphics quality comparisons. Higher resolutions do reduce aliasing and improve the capabilities of post-process AA and reveal the full detail of high quality textures but there are lots of things that a higher resolution won't improve.
And ray traced engines are outstanding and the key to future graphics rendering. Everything that you said was definitely true.
But you would do yourself and your argument a favor by not insulting everyone who doesn't understand the complexities of graphics rendering like you or I do. I think one of the key reasons that many people want native 1080p releases is that most HDTV's are 1080p. A lot of TV's are not the best at downscaling so having a game running at your TV's native resolution can be important to visual quality. Secondly, I think a lot of people don't care about the resolution as much as they care about whether their chosen console can run the game at the same resolution as another console. Of course that doesn't take into account the numerous other ways a game can be improved on one console over another (AA, texture, alpha, and shadow resolutions, draw distance, and so forth) but one of the key ways to compare the two consoles are the resolution of multi-platform games.
Let's first assume you are only counting games with a definite end, as something like Call of Duty or LOL you could play for thousands of hours. Then let's remove the big turn based strategy games like EU and Total War as "beating" those games can have multiple meanings and you might end up 50 hours into a game only to lose and have to start over. If you count EU, conquering the entire world would probably take several hundred hours and it would probably take you several dozen attempts to do that.
Removing those from the list, the next question is are you talking just main story arc or a close to 100% playthrough? Playing through just the required missions to get to the end credits of Oblivion probably wouldn't take more than 20 hours, but beating even 80% of the quests would probably take you well over 100. I personally spent about 60 hours on Dragon Age: Origins which I think was a pretty quick playthrough since I didn't spend much time reading the codex and I tended to click through a lot of the VO once I read the text, so I'm sure someone could easily spend 100 hours on the game.
The Witcher also probably took me a good 50 hours or so. Not sure on that one since I didn't play it on Steam and the game doesn't keep track of total play time as far as I know.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head but I haven't played all the JRPG's you listed.
Ninja Theory consists of YYYY, YY pause YYY and forward forward Y with modifiers.
That's exactly how DMC3 and 4 controlled... One button for melee, one for gun, and a couple to switch weapons and modify moves in combat.
It's not dumbed down. It's just that you don't need to master it as well because the game as a whole is easier. I honestly don't remember many (if any) moves in DMC3 or 4 that weren't in this game. People hate it because it isn't what they remember playing as kids hence it is terrible.
Also people who say that the new Dante is worse written than the old are so far lost in rose tinted nostalgia I'm amazed they don't have Alzheimer's honestly. Anyone who watched Bradley May Cry and still supports that version of Dante needs to never comment on story quality again. Like ever. My God the new story is just so much better in every possible way. Not to mention that there are probably less than an hour of cutscenes in the first three games combined. I know people say the story improved in 3 but what they really mean is they like the intro scene a lot and the rest of the story is barely existent, doesn't make much sense on the few occasions it does pop up, and is simply poorly written and told in most every way.
I loved DMC1,3, and 4 but I loved them for their gameplay. Their stories were always God awful.
I almost always hate it. Probably the worst parts of the MGS series to me are all the fourth wall breaking scenes. It's like the whole series is so overly serious and then they do something like that and it just ruins the mood for me.
@pandabear: There are two main games, Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 and then a ton of handheld side stories of sorts. One on GBA (Chain of Memories which was remade on PS2 and then included in 1.5 HD), two on DS (358/2 Days and Re: Coded which was itself a remake of a mobile phone game), one on PSP (Birth By Sleep) and one on 3DS (Dream, Drop, Distance). Kingdom Hearts 3 was supposed to come out on PS3 after VS 13 was finished but since it was never finished we went an entire generation without a new Kingdom Hearts game.
I'll say this. If you play 2 first as many people did I think it will be very hard to go back simply because of the vastly improved presentation of the second game. If you play the first game first (as I did) I think you'll enjoy it a ton. It doesn't look that much worse than the first Dragon Age and the Enhanced Edition fixed most of the problems with the original game. The story is great, the choices are very meaningful, and the combat is very unique. Some people like that. Others don't. Personally I thought the combat was more enjoyable in the first game. Most will tell you the second has better combat. I'll tell you the second has more standard combat as in a strong and a weak attack, with a block, roll, counter, and so on. The first game uses a rhythmic system that I guess emulates something like the melee combat in the DMC series where you press attack at certain times to chain together combos.
The second game looks better. It is better acted. The story is much more variable. The areas are more varied and interesting. And the combat is easier to get into. Plus they introduced an Easy Mode with the Enhanced Edition which makes it so most anyone can beat the game.
Final thing I'll say is that most people who stop playing The Witcher do so before the end of chapter one. I did this myself several times. Once you get about a third of the way into chapter two, though, you won't be able to stop until the end. The game just has a very lengthy and boring first act. There isn't a ton of explanation about the mechanics or systems, and a ton of the complexity of the combat is withheld until Chapter Two. So if you do try the first and find yourself liking the concepts and the characters but thinking the first chapter is a bit dull I suggest you force yourself through to the second act at which point the game really opens up and reveals its true depth to you.
@veektarius: I think that is actually the key facet. Films or games that are acclaimed for their technical merits will eventually be superseded by films with superior tech. Meanwhile a good story, good acting, and in a game's case, good gameplay, are things that can stand the test of time. It's why I'm sure Uncharted 2 and 3 will not be remembered as the great games they are currently considered simply because their strongest merits are their spectacle not their gameplay. Meanwhile something like Bioshock or Infinite I think will hold up better because while the technical aspects are certainly important, the art direction will hold up regardless of technical improvements, and the story and gameplay are great and will be great in 10 years.
Meanwhile Ben Hur has I believe the second most Oscars of any film and few would look back on it as a major cinema milestone.
I'm not sure how to prove it, but I believe this statement is extremely false.
I should rephrase that because you are correct. I meant few would look back on it as one of the greatest films of all time. For example the AFI lists it at number 100 on their list of Best American Films. Meanwhile, voters on the IMDB have it ranked as number 177. The score and some of the technical and camera work were very innovative and influential while the marketing blitz used to sell the film was the most aggressive and expensive for the time. I think my point was more that while many at the time claimed it was among the greatest films ever made, quite a few films that many fewer looked up to ended up being both more influential and more acclaimed in the intervening years.