Ermm.. There is such a thing as copyrighting for technology.. It's called patenting.
I don't think anyone is saying that Sony is directly ripping off the Wii. After all, the EyeToy was released several years before the Wii. The question is.. why has it taken Sony so long to make such interesting use of the technology? And would they have even done so were it not for the success of the Wii?
I think the logic on a PS2 rather than PS3 release, is that PS2 market penetration is still much, much better than PS3's. Plus, with it's cartoony graphics, a game like this wouldn't really benefit from a 'next-gen' upgrade.
I do agree with you that Deus Ex is a much better example of what gaming can be. Its a game that lets you choose who you want to be.
Linear and spoon-fed stories can still be fantastic, but gaming can do so much more...
You're talking crap...
Do you realise that you are saying there is huge conspiracy involving almost every game reviewing publication out there?
I'm sorry but that's absurd.
The brilliant thing about gaming is its sheer diversity. Many games need no story whatsoever. You can't get away with that in most films or books!
I'd rather that the future of gaming be 'emergent narrative' rather than interactive movies personally.
Not that there isnt room in the gaming industry for both..
MGS4 really isnt the best example as it practically IS a movie. The story itself is not interactive, the player can have no effect on the narrative.
Not saying its not a great story, but sitting watching a cut-scene takes away gaming's unique property of INTERACTIVITY!
I'll assume you didn't actually read the article...
It doesnt conclude that games are bad at telling stories, just that the stories that most games tell are not much different from those of films or books, but that gaming has so much more potential than this.
If you'd like to quote the part where he says "that if they give them 9's or 10s that people will blindingly buy them." I'd be interested to see it. Cos I read the article and I didn't read that.
"Sadly there is no system in order to give an score to hardcore gamers and one to casual gamers." - It's not about hardcore or casual games, it's about people who haven't had experience with a franchise that may be somewhat inaccessible.
"Bottom line...
He's not saying that sequels should get lower scores, he's saying that having sequels being reviewed only by people familiar with the franchise (especially if its a complex one) gives a very one-sided view.
It doesnt really help people who are new to the series. If games want to sell well, then they need to bring in new audiences as well as existing fans.
Sequels shouldn't just be looked at critically as the latest game in a franchise, they should also be looked at a...
Erm... Not really. Halo 3 came out over a year and a half ago. Most people who want to play it have already bought it.
Plus, it's a budget game now anyway.