If "the main pillar for the PS4 will be online play", then paying $400 for the system should not include the online play? I mean, the $400 is not buying the main pillar?
@unwell-7 @Skakruk $600-$1100? What console in the world will cost that? Sony will not make the same mistake they did at PS3 launch. PS4 will not be over $550-$580, probably will not even reach this price. Another thing is that PS3 was way more expensive and powerful than PS2. It was 8 cores when PCs were dual or single core. PS4 is another 8-core platform. I mean, it is not more powerful than a good computer.
@hitomo First. Haters gonna hate. Second. It was always about superfitial entertainment. Please, when was it discussing deep matters of world or humanity? Third. Haters gonna hate.
@david60639 The console will be on market in later 2013. Of course it is a preview. Until holidays the only thing we will have is a preview. Maybe you mean it was a teaser. Yes, it was a teaser. And one that was able to tease those that are interested in. It is official, there is a PS4. Before yesterday it was only speculation. At E3 it will be shown and the new Xbox as well.
I think that limit your freedom by forbiding non-stealth action, for instance, is not the way. To forbid is always a problem, mainly if you think about a generation that grew up in the unlimited internet world. BUT, if you give total freedom of choice, you will probably see players going through a game using the same strategy over and over again. Not because he is lazy, because it works. Actually, too many options is also a problem. In my opinion, the best way so solve is not demanding a certain kind of action, but incentivating it. If you go stealth or not, you earn this or that, an achievment, an item, a different showdown, cutscene, line of dialog. It must be clear that you can go through many ways and that each of these ways will lead to something different. It is up to the player to choose, but he can not do whatever he wants. The options being already thinked.See, as a movie, a game is meant to be an experience. In the movies, you are driven by the director's decoupage and the freedom is on your own and unique capability of interpretation, which is, at the same time, limited and infinite. In games, as an interactive form of art, there must be freedom, but also you need something to guide you, otherwise, the artist starts to lose tools to cause the experiences. In any form of art, a good artist is that one that create a experience (or line of experience) knowing what he is creating (it is not random). If the game designer give you a sand box, ok he is creating an experience, but an almost random one. Maybe he want you to experience the freedom, the power to create, destroy and to choose what you will do. But if you can choose about everthing, it is almost the real life, and that is boring. To see that, you can think abou Second Life. It is so unlimited that it is boring. There is no point. Few gamers will spend their time playing Second Life. You are the director, you point the camara, always. It is not because you can look to your left side right now that you will do it. The ability to do it whenever you want just make it boring. You need some incentive to do mundane stuff, because they are not intersting. A game, as any form of art, must be intersting in some way.Just overthinking the matter. Sorry.
capyvaraepg's comments