Can we agree Naughty Dog is the best 1st party developer?

then feel free to propose a better way of having a general opinion about a game, it's true is a collection of opinions, but with a good enough sample it is enough to have a general opinion about the game, now as for the genral concensus being a fallacy that is applied to science, and facts, no such thing in gaming since there are no absolutes or hard facts, the most we get is an approximation or a general concensus, we are talking about how good a game is, there is no fact to be found in there, the only measurable way of defining if a game is good or bad is the general opinion. Now you may disagree with such general opinion but saying a game is bad with a 91 score is just moronic, which is why meta critic was brought to the conversation, people may say they don't like the game, big difference than saying the game is bad.

First of all, let's clarify that I didn't actually say that UC1 and 3 are bad games; on the contrary, I think they are good games. But then again, I'm not going to call someone a moron for not thinking they are good games because I can handle opinions that go against the norm.

Again, why do I need to offer an alternative? I am perfectly fine with there being no objective measure. Likewise, I'm not interested in "shutting people up" with Metacritic. I mean, if someone wants to discuss the merits or demerits of a game, that's cool, but simply saying "You're wrong. This game has a 90 MC score" is not constructive unless one is trying to score points in a fanboy shitslinging contest.

As for general consensus, that's basically an appeal to popularity fallacy. Better to just argue for a game's merits and learn to live with the fact that opinions on nearly everything will vary.

Yeah, I actually don't remember the Pirate Homeworld either lol.

And yeah, the game was easy save for a few bosses. Gameplay felt great tho.

Nobody's denying the existence of a general consensus. The distinction is that champ and I don't place the same value on a general consensus that you do.

As for the second sentence I isolated, although sometimes people make distinctions between quality and preference, much of the time people don't like games because they think they are bad. There's no reason one has to think a game is good just because it has a high metacritic score. Again, metacritic just says that critics liked a game to whatever degree. There's no actual positive truth value to an MC score. Using my earlier example, AssCreed has good metacritic scores but that's just not going to have any bearing on my opinion that it's a POS. Nor should it. I would be doing myself a disservice as a thinking human being to say that the MC consensus measure of what's good or bad should trump my own.

Right now? Yes they are. I would've said Nintendo few years ago (if we count them as single 1st party developer and not publishers) but now Nintendo's stuff doesn't interest me anymore. I was hoping for Star Fox to change that but wasn't impressed with the demo.

All the people crying about Nintendo EAD not releasing a new IP, Jesus, they literally just released one a month ago, and it was well received with great commercial performance to boot.

What's next?

I can agree to that.

Uncharted 3 had pacing issues and a debatably anti-climactic ending. Aside from that, it wasn't far removed from Uncharted 2 at all. So to say that one was "garbage" but the other was "outstanding" puts your position in a sketchy light.

You probably would have been better if you just stayed ambiguous. Now people know you're lying.

Yeah

Not at all- I agree with him. Uncharted 3 has a lot of issues: pacing, as you mentioned, was one, and the ending was completely underwhelming. Apart from that, it fudged with the gunplay to the extent that it lost the satisfying ring from the second game, had worse puzzles than Uncharted 2 (if that was even possible) so that they became just tedious, getting in your way and breaking the flow completely, in addition to removing player agency almost completely (it was constant button prompts away from being a linear QTE fest) and erring too much on the side of cinematism.

It is possible to like Uncharted 2 - a masterpiece that treads the line between gameplay and storytelling with finesse - and dislike Uncharted 3- a game that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and one that completely jumps the gun and pledges its alliance squarely to trying to ape a movie more than being a satisfying game to play.

Yep. It felt like a game that was designed primarily with set pieces in mind while making a sloppy attempt at fitting a story around that. And as you said, the gameplay suffered because control was taken out of the players hands (more so than previous entries) in an attempt to capitalize on those set pieces.

Uncharted 2 had a logic to its locations.

Absolutely not. They are Sony's best, they still aren't as consistent as many of Nintendo's dudes, or even the Forza team MS has.

I am not saying you have to like the games, or the dev in question. I just cant help but sit back and read all this about bad or inconsistent level design and laugh. You know who votes on Best Actor at the Oscars? Actors. Director? Directors. Just curious what marvels of gaming you have made so I can play them? Now we all have the right to our opinion I know that but where is the legitimacy of scale? A game not being as fun as its predecessor doesn't make it bad on mine. Like I said Vampire Rain, Rambo, Double Dragon 2: wander of the dragons are bad and terrible games.

I can agree to that.

Best is a very strong word in a world where Nintendo still exists.

That said, should UC4 reach a 90+ final score on Metacritic, it'll be a continuous run of 4 games reaching that threshold. If that's not a testament to quality I don't know what it is. Even if UC4 flops, a 3 game run is still impressive IMO. And that's not considering their PS1 & PS2 days.

ND is definitely one of the best if not the best for more adult or more matured audiences while Nintendo is probably best for kids gamers. Something jut seems off to me if a 20-30yr old is playing Mario or Zelda in a serious manner. No offense people.

Nope. In fact, Naughty Dog games in some regards embody everything that is wrong with the modern gaming industry.

Yes, they are way ahead of all other developers!

First off ND is like the only AAA developer left that don't do fillers. It's all just delicious meat with no fat (ok there are a few collectibles). Secondly they make the best set pieces by far. The action that goes on is spectacular while they still leave the player in control most of the time. The latest UC4 is just an incredible achievement that no other studio comes close at. Third, they are the best at in game character interaction. They build their characters through gameplay by letting them banter and comment on things around them, as well as interacting to bypass obstacles/enemies (many great examples in the latest demo). Other games do this as well, but not at the level ND does it. Fourth the visuals are smashing for the system they develop for. Not just on a tech level but more importantly they do really smart optimization. Stuff like the mud in the UC4 adds a ton to the look and feel of the scene, while not costing too much. Use of camera angles is also top notch.

You argue your opinion reasonably and get over the fact that people aren't going to agree with you?

Not having a definitive criteria doesn't make metacritic a valid debate point. It would still be a flawed argument. Ditto with the general consensus argument. If I find something to be poor, I can articulate why I find something poor. In a rebuttal I expect an actual counter and not "here is this arbitrary number that means nothing in relation to the conversation"

Nintendo EAD for life.

A developer that's only made two good games in the last 10 years? Nope.

Nintendo has a much better track record

They up there but not the best. For me Uncharted games are not the best single player games. I'm pretty sure MGSV and Fallout 4 will be much better single player. And online the games they make can be fun... but eh.. not beast. I found it very hard to play Uncharted games online with all the silly OP pick up guns and blindfire auto aim. No clan system in their games is very painful for a KZ beast like me. Creating custom rooms and trying to get a clan to join sucks, they need to learn from Guerrilla. I never played TLOU but i heard the competitive in that game is a camp fest lmao.... UC4 please be better.

I think the scavenging does exactly what it's supposed to do. It makes you search new areas as you get to them, which is in character and feels consistent with the world. Since you can't pause to craft it also creates some tense moments. Not sure what more you wanted from the system? Sure it's pretty slimmed, but would adding more stuff really make it more compelling.

Dead Space 3 had a fairly complex crafting system which was a total waste and just annoying for example.

As the cows are bringing MC scores into this, ND appear twice in the top 50 rated games, whilst Nintendo appear 4 times in the top 20 and 10 times in the top 50.

End thread

What? there's no way one developer has made a dozen game in 5 years. Nintendo EAD must be the name of multiple development studios under Nintendo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_Analysis_%26_Development#Software_Development_Group_No._1

Lots of development groups making those games. Knew it.

Why do mature gamers need to play mature games?

This quote has been used on SW many times, but C.S. Lewis's incredibly wise quote on this issue applies to gpuking.

"Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

@skelly34: I'd say from PS1 untill now they have easily been among the best.

Crash Bandicoot

Jax and Daxter

Uncharted

Tlou

All great franchises..

I'd have to say, overall, Nintendo. Hard to beat that track record. In recent console generations, easly ND. Nintendo has nothing that interest me anymore, not even the Zelda games.

Why do you always ask if we can agree on things?

This is system wars, the answer will always be no

Yes.

"...As for UC3, that game was bad for different reasons. Technically it's better then UC1. However there were levels in that game that either sucked and/or were unnecessary. Whether its the shipyard, the desert, the ship portion, the beginning of the game, and the final level, the overall game was lacking. Some of these parts I just mentioned were horribly designed. Lastly, I felt the A.I. was worse then UC2 (my personal GOTY of 2009).

To make it short, I didn't like UC1 and UC3, but for different reasons and I stand by that opinion because:

a. I played, beat and own all of ND's games on the PS3

b. TLOU, while had flaws, blew away UC3 by a mile. I don't see how fans of ND can praise TLOU and not destroy UC3. It's like comparing Metroid Prime 1 to Metroid Prime 3. MP3 clearly was not as good as MP1 and both MP1 and MP2 destroy MP3.

Therefore, I do not think ND are the best 1st party developers currently as I find there work last gen to be inconsistent (from excellence to shit and back again)." Seabas989.

@Pariah-

What do awards shows have to do with this?

What does me being a developer or not have to do with this?

I'm not a developer but I can't have opinions on games? I am not a film director but I can't have opinions on movies? I am not a musician but does that mean I can't criticize bad music?

When did I say I had a rating system?

Why are you so mad?

Oh God no! They aren't even the best Sony developers. The Last of Us is there one good game. Crash was mediocre, Jak was ok, and Uncharted was terrible.

Retro Studios and Nintendo EAD take this title easily.

How "current" are we talking? The last 10 years? 5 years? If so, my vote goes to Valve. Dota 2, Portal 2, and CS:GO have released within the last 5 years. 2 of those games are forerunners in esports with massive prizes and another garnered several GOTY awards. Funny how people forget about Valve.

Dude, I was trolling. No harm meant

That sounds like an apt description of Uncharted 2. I haven't played the 3rd, but to say the third was more focused on providing a movie-like experience than on the gameplay and Uncharted 2 isn't is pretty ridiculous. That is exactly what Uncharted 2 is all about. It's about the back seat driver exeperience that the developers push you through rather than your input. I mean at least 50% of the game is cinematic walking (mostly climbing in this case) in which your input is irrelevant.

But that is just an opinion of someone that means nothing unless you want to believe it. It's a perspective and nothing more.

Reading your posts in this thread denouncing any critical review opinions of games to be used in the conversation as proof or merit of anything, I find it amusing that you quote another person's opinion to try to make a point of something.

It's quite embarrassing really and paints you as sort of a hypocrite. If those were your own words it would have a stronger meaning after your brave stand against reviewer critical opinion, but now it just comes off as you using outside opinion when it suits you in your argument.

"The words adult and child exist for a reason, it's up to the individual to decide how these terms are looked at", by Playharderfool

Your quote is lame doesn't really say shit tho, probably because you lack the wisdom and maturity to say anything thoughtful or wise. Which I'm not faulting you for. Thirteen year olds are not particularly quotable lol.

Also, your opinion that I'm a hypocrite because I used somebody's opinion is nonsensical and grasping for straws. It is perfectly fine for somebody to use a quote that they think is wise or applicable while acknowledging the reality that review scores and metascore averages are nothing more than opinions (which is a fact). I never said Lewis's quote is fact. Nor did I say that critics can't say useful things. What Lewis said is relevant to gpuking's assertion and is food for thought. That doesn't mean that metascores somehow become gospel. The idea that one has to put stock in metascores to use CS Lewis quotes is a downright comical non-sequitur.

Also, there is a difference between a specific quote with a specific application/meaning and a metascore. Trying to compare the two is tenuous at best.

Yep. +1. Back in the day, trolling meant something.

Can we all agree? No. The answer is always no.

they aren't first party

And most of those games suck or are overrated with the exception of like 4 games, also we know you don't like Skyward Sword and did you just put Nintendo Land in there??? dude.....

Also, come to think of it, this statement is not even coherent. You say that the words exist for a reason (though you are either too lazy or incapable of fleshing out this reason; without fleshing it out, you're simply offering a banality), implying that they have a specific meaning, but then you imply in the second part of the comment that the terms are subjective. Not to mention that nobody actually denied the distinction between child and adult; the Lewis quote actually clearly offers differences between childhood and adulthood. He just doesn't base the difference on trivialities.

My advice would be to not try and post a quote of your own because I used a Lewis quote. You're way out of your depth. Stick to being a Sony soldier.

They are probably the most consistent in recent years. I'd probably put them at number 1. Maybe The Coalition will blow us away with Gears 4.

@AzatiS:

ND isn't breaking out of the play it safe. They dropped their more interesting games jak and daxter for a white power trip mixed with tomb raider... and its a pretty spectacle over substance type of 3rd person shooter. Even TLOU isn't breaking any molds gameplay wise. Granted comparing ND to nintendo is kind of silly... Nintendo isn't just a developer... its an entire publisher as well and they probably have a lot of development studios that aren't distingushied from "nintendo".

What are you saying now ? They dropped an AAA and a well established franchise to try something new from SCRATCH , literally. And they made 2 games from ground up to be one of the most award winning , high scored , community praised games of last generation. I would love to see Nintendo leave for a while the comfort zone like ND did with Mario/Kart/Smash/Zelda combo and try something from scratch and be an AAA material with high standard values..

Im not trying to say Nintendo isnt great but as for right now , ND in on another level atm.

Dont take that lightly when something have to materialized from ART on paper .. They dropped a sure seller and a well established franchise for something NEW and they delivered awesomeness both times ... thats what i call a great developer. In my opinion that is

I think even TC would agree that UC is for the children

How is Jak and Daxter any more interesting than UC? The first was a good but completely standard platformer while the sequels made a cringey attempt to be edgy and rode on those GTA caottails.