Yeah well, they did it first. Everybody else started after they began doing it(most, like Gamespot, started the year after they ran their first) and ripped them off. So they're the only source I care about, who do you use?
Yeah well, they did it first. Everybody else started after they began doing it(most, like Gamespot, started the year after they ran their first) and ripped them off. So they're the only source I care about, who do you use?
LOL
I want the skelezor or marco polo skin for online but god damn crushing mode is too much
Again, I didn't say they were trusted. All critics are the same in my book, and they simply ran the Game of the Year awards before anybody else. Hence, I go with the original, as this kind of thing is now a dime a dozen. If you go with something else, which you obviously do since you were the one who brought up GOTY earlier in the thread, feel free to say which and why.
You sure are trying awfully hard to troll me, what's the deal.
I don't "use" a certain one, it's never really held any weight with me personally, because its all too opinion based and I have yet to see any of them I can completely agree with. It's hard to agree with a site that doesnt hold consistency in how they measure things.
IGN's biggest flaw is they have the worst journalists Ive seen writing their reviews and they come off as just complete idiots. LIke considering Batman AA one of the best games of the year, I just cant agree with that.
I'm with you, I feel that way about all the sites tbh. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt to begin with. In my eyes, trying to chose between them is like trying to chose the lesser of two evils, so I just go with who did it first. Not that it's important like you said, but if somebody brings up GOTY.. well that's what I consider 'GOTY'.
It'd be pretty hilarious to see batman get it this year, just to throw everybody off lol. I didn't even like the demo.
For me its silly to consider a goty for me personaly yet, I have yet to play Assassin's Creed 2, Dragon Age or Borderlands, but right not IM playing this and demon souls and their both phenomenal. Everyone seems to forget about Killzone 2 and infamous since they came out early in the year, both were great games.
How bad is it compared to 1?
I'm going to finish my Crushing run on #1 (6 chapters to go....) before I start on #2, but with the armored soldiers, the increased use of Dragon, Hammer, and RPG users, I'm assuming it's like Crushing x10?
(wonder how hard Uncharted 1 would be on crushing if it didn't have check-points almost every 5 minutes of the game)
You know, I'd at least try to understand if the game was like...5-6 hours. But fuck, 12 hours + unlockables + a terrific multiplayer mode for an action/adventure games isn't fucking short. In fact, its even "long" since the game has literally 0 backtracking or other cheap tricks.
imo
Uncharted 1 hard = Uncharted 2 crushing
Uncharted 1 crushing = so frustratingly hard
Maybe that is just from me playing uncharted 2 beta so much but I think the stealth factor of Uncharted 2 makes it easier because you can knock out most the guys before they start shooting at you. I already have 2 people on my friends list who have the Marco Polo skeleton skin for MP.