@aktivity: I think it's more to do with the disconnect between more typical grim-dude a la GoW (take either) CoD, etc. etc. Nathan Drake is a relate-able funny guy with a somewhat good sense of heart? That is at odds with his ability to commit genocide ad finem, mercenary or not. No other game does it quite so much in a somewhat 'realistic' world, and Drake doesn't even have the excuse of war, and barely the end of the human race etc.
There's a reason Uncharted brought about the use of 'ludonarrative dissonance' and few other games do it quite as prominently. Also I think it is partly due to the fact that the bad guy is sort of put out there as not that inherantly evil also, so we're at least slightly empathetic.
Spec-Ops which I haven't played, seems to have dealt with the morality much more completely, and with complexity, subtlety, and also sensitivity.
@thiefsie: When you leak information about an unannounced project, it has nothing to do with an NDA. An NDA is put in place when a company voluntary gives out information to the media. The media can choose to accept the terms of having that information and sign the NDA, or not. In this case, since the information was leaked, they didn't have to sign an NDA to receive the info.
Since Austin said they have the documents to prove what he's saying, they should either release them, or explain why they can't. Furthermore, he should explain why he's providing anonymity to his sources. It might be obvious, but it also might not be. For example, maybe the sources want anonymity because this is all a PR stunt by Sony, but they want to have plausible deniability and make this seem like leak. That wouldn't be a legitimate reason to give them anonymity.
You can bet your ass that any developer that has access to these documents that were leaked has signed NDAs in place to stop this very thing happening. Companies also do some sly things with such materials so they can identify who leaked the content easily enough. These documents I can pretty much assume were given to devs or executives for informational purposes as of course they need to find this sort of info out first so that they can work with it (or of course make publishing decisions based on further info, will this affect VR takeup, game sales, etc.
My understanding for GB leaking documents is,.. well basically the only trouble they could get into is copyright infringement, or perhaps at a stretch defamatory/libel or even loss of income suits (whatever version legalese this is for 'company secrets').The more they identify, the more plausible it is that this isn't a rumour, which is why this stuff stays anonymous enough so that the actual guys involved (a la Sony) have to come out to either quash or confirm the rumours.
There's a reason big companies (relatively) like GB and Kotaku for instance have to get this stuff verified (informally) before posting, and yet still keep it somewhat anonymous. They get absolutely toasted otherwise, and of course their sources will too if found out.
For your last point - you really think GB would stoop to that? Well... somehow I doubt it... Sony, yes, but GB will talk to a number of ppl they know to corroborate the story independently, purely so that this isn't a stunt, that they perpetuate.
Sony doesn't need a PR stunt to do this. If they just came out and announced it themselves, the shitshow would be even larger, as mainstream press is more likely to jump on the bandwagon, rather than just having to link to GB as a source.
They will be under NDA or embargo which means they are copyright and other so cannot be released. They can't say who leaked or the contacts are as those contacts would get in miserable deep trouble for the afore-mentioned NDA's they are all heavily under.
I bet it ships with a hardware upscale solution for all those crabby old PS4 OG games and otherwise it's slightly better. Bring on the mobile phone hardware cycle.
Less and less reasons to own a console every day.
Still glad I haven't jumped in this gen. Although I'm still on Playstation Plus four years later so I'll get the PS4.5 soon enough, and have some sort of built in library. Still, where are the exclusives? Bloodborne ain't for me. UC4 I guess...
PC with steam in-home streaming is the way to go people.
Don't get me started on VR.
About time that they should have graphics vs performance options on console, non brand-locked multiplayer, and in-built obsolescence... Oh wait, we may as well all have PCs. Yep.
Bye bye consoles...
They may as well integrate them with steam-link. Like seriously... why not? It would only be a selling feature.
Just started this... it's lacking in holding your hand, and I think the open world start is a little... vague and aimless, but it is absolutely spectacularly beautiful in visions and aural senses. I have to spend more time in it, but first impressions are that it's perhaps a little too opaque for me up front, and I'm usually someone who criticises clear signposting... so thats... awkward.
I don't think three mentions of something is overstating it and honestly, I don't see why this is a big issue? It doesn't diminish the review in any way, there is still enough in the review for readers to form their own informed opinion. So with that said I don't actually understand what your argument is. Dan felt it worth mentioning it so he mentioned it. Which doesn't make him into a worse or better reviewer. They are just points he wanted to get across to the reader. Weather you think it's relevant or not, other people might and he sure did so that's all it is from my perspective.
Thiefsie's comments