Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Keyblade Wielder
Registered: 01/04/2012
Online
9946 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

[ Edited ]
Oct 5, 2012

Hastatus_Atratus wrote:

TheStuntDouble wrote:

Hastatus_Atratus wrote:

TheStuntDouble wrote:

Aureilia wrote:

 

Lobbies for conversations? I don't play to converse with people. I load up a game to play it. If I happen to end up in a conversation so be it, but that isn't an objective of mine.


My thoughts exactly. If I really wanted to talk to people so badly I'd go to an acutal chatroom/video conference/whatever.

 


Doesn't sound like either of you even know what gaming lobbies are or how they work on a social level. With good lobbies you could play more quickly and continuously than you can with this current match-making system. The current match-making system is designed for the antisocial. It reduces quality to ensure everyone gets a mediocre experience, while lobbies allowed some people to have much higher quality experiences. Unfortunately for the antisocial **bleep** it removed good people from being their victims, so they were unhappy about not being able to play so developers have forced good people to play with bad people (adjectives referring to attitudes, not skill).

 


I'd like an example of a "good" lobby then.


- Rooms usually have a vote to kick system or a host only kick: we used to kick "randoms" (as opposed to "regulars") who were @sses, who lagged or glitched, etc; which meant that the players there were quality players who you would play against or play side-by-side with.



You make good points and I like your idea of a good lobby. This, though, is exactly why I don't like RDR, GTA, etc etc.

 

EDIT: That means 2 seconds into the game I get kicked because they're what, busy? Yay multiplayer elitism.

 

Raffica user, Hardcore Mode player for life. Don't let it die! Obey Tailgater #1 sedan in GTA Online, too.
Please use plain text.
Message 21 of 38 (231 Views)
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 05/21/2010
Offline
1016 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 5, 2012

Crimsonine wrote:
What was MGO? :/

Metal Gear Online

Joel's has superhuman hearing due to his integrated Astro A40's :3
Please use plain text.
Message 22 of 38 (218 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 05/21/2010
Offline
1016 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 5, 2012

I understand your post, but only 1 AMAZING MP experience from Konami does not make them king of multiplayer games. Not unless somebody can convince me why. I would gladly listen.

Joel's has superhuman hearing due to his integrated Astro A40's :3
Please use plain text.
Message 23 of 38 (215 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 04/20/2010
Offline
2841 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 5, 2012

Hastatus_Atratus wrote:

The more I play UC3 the more I miss MGO. Everything that made me fall in love with online shooters is just absent from most other online games I’ve played and Uncharted is by far the worst. The developers simply put no thought into anything to facilitate the making of friends or clans.

 

1)      First the matchmaking is world wide and puts players together who don’t understand each other most of the time, even if they do happen to have mics. I miss being locked into Region 1 where knowing three languages was enough.

 

2)      There is no accurate level system to measure skill, so even though I’m on par with many legacy 5 level 75s, I refuse to legacy so I look like a dumb newbie. Then there’s all this crap with co-op being included in the levels so players look good, but suck at competitive.

 

3)      The clan system is the biggest joke of all. Bracket a few letters and a bracket IS NOT A CLAN SYSTEM; it’s developers being extremely lazy…ooo look at those abbreviations *sticks finger in throat and gags*. In MGO players had actual clan names that showed up in full (I belonged to Run Amok); they had personally created emblems; there were private clan chat room forums; clans actually belonged to a clan list of up to 50 members which was in-game so you could see who was on and they didn’t need to all be on your friend’s list. MGO even had a personal friend’s list…yes you had a clan list and a friend list within the actual game that was not tied to your PSN friend list. Hell you even had an enemies list…lol which would prevent receiving of personal messages or would block them from any room you created in the lobby. Yes the game had an in-game personal messaging system.

 

4)      Lobbies created more friends than this random generated world-wide crapshoot and you could play on DLC maps anytime you wanted. The death of lobbies was the death of fun online social multiplayer.

 

5)      Communication was important. Mics would only allow people on the same team to hear each other before matches so you could strategize. If you wanted to communicate with the other team, you used the in-game text chat which had the option to be team only or everyone. That’s right in-game text chat. Press select and type away without needing Skype or PSN.

 

Uncharted has almost no communication system besides mics, no clan system, no friend system. The more I think about it the more I think PSN is what is ruining online games. Developers are lazy greedy people with no imagination who just piggy-back on the less than adequate PSN system. Konami was king. I miss innovative multiplayer developers who understand what friends are and how people make them. Uncharted is so depressingly antisocial. I’m so ashamed that no developer who speaks my language has any clue what people really need.

 


I totally disagree with your opinion, because:

1) you compare an action/adventure with an online shooter, as far as I know, your precious MGO doesn't have a great single player expierence with it

 

2) the multiplayer of uncharted is not a strategic shooter, if you like strategic shooters, uncharted is just not the game for you, it would be the same if I said this:

 

OMG, Konami is lazy because I can't even climb in their stupid game, I can't even hang on ledges and pull opponents down or do other funny things like that...

 

you see, that makes no sense at all...

 

3) I think Naughty Dog has been very innovative with Uncharted, I have never seen an action/adventure having multiplayer, thanks to Naughty Dog other developers realised that an action/adventure can have multiplayer if they are creative, for instance after Uncharted 2, Ubisoft started making multiplayer for Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, which turned out to be very fun in my opinion, also God of War: Ascension gets multiplayer, but that game is not my cup of tea

 

4) Naughty Dog focused on other things, that are more important, I don't give a **bleep** about official clans or in-game text chat, Naughty Dog made much funnier things, they realised a climbing system in the multiplayer of Uncharted, which results in great vertical combat and great maps, you could also use the map, for instance by hanging on a ledge and pull down people, I love to do that, I hate shooters because the only thing you do is run and shoot, Uncharted is different, you can kill in many ways, it's not just shooting, and I love it that way

 

5) (not to be offensive) you were that trophy hunter right? You play games only to get 100% trophy's in them anyway, since when did you start to care about the games you played :smileytongue:

Please use plain text.
Message 24 of 38 (210 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 11/28/2009
Offline
461 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 5, 2012

I don't know about MGO but I sure miss Warhawk.   That was **** good.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No more drastic nerfs please. Just buff the AK and buff the M9 *very slightly*headshot wise and we have achieved balance.

*Please note that I say "No more 'drastic' nerfs"* I am unopposed to a RoF MOD decrease or removal :smileyhappy:
Please use plain text.
Message 25 of 38 (207 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Keyblade Wielder
Registered: 01/04/2012
Online
9946 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 5, 2012

Matt, you have to help my with my college debates. I mean, wow.

Raffica user, Hardcore Mode player for life. Don't let it die! Obey Tailgater #1 sedan in GTA Online, too.
Please use plain text.
Message 26 of 38 (201 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 12/19/2010
Offline
550 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 5, 2012

Matthijs_17 wrote:

Hastatus_Atratus wrote:

The more I play UC3 the more I miss MGO. Everything that made me fall in love with online shooters is just absent from most other online games I’ve played and Uncharted is by far the worst. The developers simply put no thought into anything to facilitate the making of friends or clans.

 

1)      First the matchmaking is world wide and puts players together who don’t understand each other most of the time, even if they do happen to have mics. I miss being locked into Region 1 where knowing three languages was enough.

 

2)      There is no accurate level system to measure skill, so even though I’m on par with many legacy 5 level 75s, I refuse to legacy so I look like a dumb newbie. Then there’s all this crap with co-op being included in the levels so players look good, but suck at competitive.

 

3)      The clan system is the biggest joke of all. Bracket a few letters and a bracket IS NOT A CLAN SYSTEM; it’s developers being extremely lazy…ooo look at those abbreviations *sticks finger in throat and gags*. In MGO players had actual clan names that showed up in full (I belonged to Run Amok); they had personally created emblems; there were private clan chat room forums; clans actually belonged to a clan list of up to 50 members which was in-game so you could see who was on and they didn’t need to all be on your friend’s list. MGO even had a personal friend’s list…yes you had a clan list and a friend list within the actual game that was not tied to your PSN friend list. Hell you even had an enemies list…lol which would prevent receiving of personal messages or would block them from any room you created in the lobby. Yes the game had an in-game personal messaging system.

 

4)      Lobbies created more friends than this random generated world-wide crapshoot and you could play on DLC maps anytime you wanted. The death of lobbies was the death of fun online social multiplayer.

 

5)      Communication was important. Mics would only allow people on the same team to hear each other before matches so you could strategize. If you wanted to communicate with the other team, you used the in-game text chat which had the option to be team only or everyone. That’s right in-game text chat. Press select and type away without needing Skype or PSN.

 

Uncharted has almost no communication system besides mics, no clan system, no friend system. The more I think about it the more I think PSN is what is ruining online games. Developers are lazy greedy people with no imagination who just piggy-back on the less than adequate PSN system. Konami was king. I miss innovative multiplayer developers who understand what friends are and how people make them. Uncharted is so depressingly antisocial. I’m so ashamed that no developer who speaks my language has any clue what people really need.

 


I totally disagree with your opinion, because:

1) you compare an action/adventure with an online shooter, as far as I know, your precious MGO doesn't have a great single player expierence with it

 

2) the multiplayer of uncharted is not a strategic shooter, if you like strategic shooters, uncharted is just not the game for you, it would be the same if I said this:

 

OMG, Konami is lazy because I can't even climb in their stupid game, I can't even hang on ledges and pull opponents down or do other funny things like that...

 

you see, that makes no sense at all...

 

3) I think Naughty Dog has been very innovative with Uncharted, I have never seen an action/adventure having multiplayer, thanks to Naughty Dog other developers realised that an action/adventure can have multiplayer if they are creative, for instance after Uncharted 2, Ubisoft started making multiplayer for Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, which turned out to be very fun in my opinion, also God of War: Ascension gets multiplayer, but that game is not my cup of tea

 

4) Naughty Dog focused on other things, that are more important, I don't give a **bleep** about official clans or in-game text chat, Naughty Dog made much funnier things, they realised a climbing system in the multiplayer of Uncharted, which results in great vertical combat and great maps, you could also use the map, for instance by hanging on a ledge and pull down people, I love to do that, I hate shooters because the only thing you do is run and shoot, Uncharted is different, you can kill in many ways, it's not just shooting, and I love it that way

 

5) (not to be offensive) you were that trophy hunter right? You play games only to get 100% trophy's in them anyway, since when did you start to care about the games you played :smileytongue:


I don't think you understand me very well or get the meaning behind what few causes I take up. Do you think I say these things to waste my time? I say what I say because I hope that Naughty Dog will improve what they do. If I thought their product was worth nothing and didn't see hope for it, I wouldn't bother posting CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. There is much in UC2 and UC3 that I do like. I only focus on certain negative aspects that I deem truly important rather than complain about every little detail that I could like everyone else does.

 

I'll try to counter argue, but you are all over the place and your writing style is so not easy to follow.

 

1) "1) you compare an action/adventure with an online shooter, as far as I know, your precious MGO doesn't have a great single player expierence with it"

 

Do you not know what MGO is? You sound like you think I'm comparing MGS4's single-player game to UC3's online game. Which game do you call the action/adventure game (MGS4 or MGO or UC3?) and which game is an online shooter (UC3 or MGO?) I'm comparing the specific online components of MGO to specific online components of UC3. I never mentioned anything about either game's singleplayer in this thread. And any online shooter which tries to have clans should have a decent clan system. Only games that don't think they're any good should have no clan sytem. Do you think UC3 is not good enough to deserve the best type of clan system possible?

 

2) "the multiplayer of uncharted is not a strategic shooter, if you like strategic shooters, uncharted is just not the game for you, it would be the same if I said this:

 

OMG, Konami is lazy because I can't even climb in their stupid game, I can't even hang on ledges and pull opponents down or do other funny things like that...

 

you see, that makes no sense at all..."

 

So you are saying that a non-strategic shooter like UC3 doesn't deserve a true clan system with an actual roster, truly customized clan names, emblems, etc? You're not a very loyal fanboy are you? :smileyvery-happy: lol Re-read what I said: I said Naughty Dog is lazy when a clan system is only allowing the player to control four letters within some square brackets. When you've seen the intricate possibilities that I have seen in a nearly PS2 generation game (MGS4 /MGO due to its very early development) you would think this current generation of developers is lazy too: 4 letters versus 15 letters, a 50 player in-game list, an actual clan leader, being able to know who is in your clan, everyone in clan having the same emblem controlled by the clan leader or whomever he designates, having clan leaderboards, stats recording who has been on in the past week, etc, etc, etc. Naughty Dog = lazy compared to Konami which innovated stuff I could never have come up with and created stuff that I never knew I would even want. So, yes Naughty Dog and other developers who should have seen this stuff have decided that it is too much effort or costs too much = LAZY. (Oh and fully customizable clan emblems = BRAVE; Naughty Dog = CHICKEN due to being afraid that some will create offensive ones AND LAZY because they would have to police them; but since UC3 is rated Teen I'll let that one go.)

 

"3) I think Naughty Dog has been very innovative with Uncharted, I have never seen an action/adventure having multiplayer, thanks to Naughty Dog other developers realised that an action/adventure can have multiplayer if they are creative, for instance after Uncharted 2, Ubisoft started making multiplayer for Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, which turned out to be very fun in my opinion, also God of War: Ascension gets multiplayer, but that game is not my cup of tea"

 

I'm wasting my time on you because clearly you don't even know what MGO is OR you don't classify MGS4 as an action/adventure. Still not clear to me. Innovative is Konami who created MGO1 (Metal Gear Online 1 for MGS3 Metal Gear Solid 3) on the PS2. That was an action adventure game with an online compenent way before Naughty Dog or Ubisoft (and I'm sure some other developer must have done so before Konami too). You must be very young and inexperienced with past generations of online games. You should start respecting the knowledge of your elders. I'm still not sure what your argument is.

 

"4) Naughty Dog focused on other things, that are more important, I don't give a **bleep** about official clans or in-game text chat, Naughty Dog made much funnier things, they realised a climbing system in the multiplayer of Uncharted, which results in great vertical combat and great maps, you could also use the map, for instance by hanging on a ledge and pull down people, I love to do that, I hate shooters because the only thing you do is run and shoot, Uncharted is different, you can kill in many ways, it's not just shooting, and I love it that way"

 

Ohhh. Now I think I get you, finally lol. You think MGO is a multiplayer shooter and UC3 is not a multiplayer shooter (is this right?). So UC3's multiplayer is an action/adventure game and not a shooter. Got you. Again why does an action/adventure multplayer game with clans not deserve a proper clan system when it only involves text, lists, etc (very basic programming stuff on par with the complexity of NES games). So you are saying that action/adventure shooters are not worthy of having good clan systems. I hope other fanboys flame you for this. lol I doubt you will even read this far mr troll. Ok so Naughty Dog couldn't create a proper clan system for UC2 multiplayer because they were busy inventing climbing mechanics. So how did they improve climbing in UC3 to have no time to create a proper clan system? Where are all the new action mechanics that were not cut and pasted from UC2 that prevented them from having time to implement a proper clan system? So I guess you believe that developers should not try to improve their games once they've found the right hook for their little fishies?

 

Oh and I could kill in many ways in MGO: knife in throat, stun with tranque, then HS while asleep, slam to the ground HS, use you as a human shield and let your team mates f you over while I wip out a side-arm, grab you sticka  C4 to your @ss, choke you out, wait for team mates to come revive you and blow everyone up *drooling* and slower pace made each kill so much more painful and lasting; the unconsious guy had to wait and wait and just when he was about to wake up...hs; hiding in box surprise; so you have no imagination or don't know what MGO is. I never said UC3 didn't have any innovative things. Again you seem to deviate so far off-topic like a master troll.

 

"5) (not to be offensive) you were that trophy hunter right? You play games only to get 100% trophy's in them anyway, since when did you start to care about the games you played :smileytongue:"

 

I love when people say "no offense" which just means they know they are being offensive.  No offense but you do not know how to stay on topic. No offense but your arguments are sh!tty like a pirate. No offense but I think you are a little kid who has played very few games in his life compared to some of us who speak with much more experience and so make better critics. No offense but you can't read and comprehend much of what I say. I don't have the time right now to go find the right quote in my Views of a trophy Hunter thread, but I never said that I only play games to get trophies. I said that I want 100% in every game I play, and I own every game I play. If I own a game it is because I expect it to be the best of the best. No one I know buys games they don't expect to like, unless they have a ton of money to throw around. I care a lot about the games I buy and only a complete moron would think that someone would buy  games that they don't care about. Do you see me buying easy dumb games for easy trophies? You might want to do a background check before you try to assassinate someone's character. Only a complete moron would think that someone would post long intricate threads on topics within a game forum if they didn't care about the game. No offense, but I have to ask because I just don't know: Are you a moron?

 

Photobucket
Please use plain text.
Message 27 of 38 (181 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/29/2011
Online
6905 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 5, 2012

it's not the game or the community making the game antisocial it's the PLAYERS

Sleep Matt signature
Please use plain text.
Message 28 of 38 (176 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 04/20/2010
Offline
2841 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 6, 2012

Hastatus_Atratus wrote:

Matthijs_17 wrote:

Hastatus_Atratus wrote:

The more I play UC3 the more I miss MGO. Everything that made me fall in love with online shooters is just absent from most other online games I’ve played and Uncharted is by far the worst. The developers simply put no thought into anything to facilitate the making of friends or clans.

 

1)      First the matchmaking is world wide and puts players together who don’t understand each other most of the time, even if they do happen to have mics. I miss being locked into Region 1 where knowing three languages was enough.

 

2)      There is no accurate level system to measure skill, so even though I’m on par with many legacy 5 level 75s, I refuse to legacy so I look like a dumb newbie. Then there’s all this crap with co-op being included in the levels so players look good, but suck at competitive.

 

3)      The clan system is the biggest joke of all. Bracket a few letters and a bracket IS NOT A CLAN SYSTEM; it’s developers being extremely lazy…ooo look at those abbreviations *sticks finger in throat and gags*. In MGO players had actual clan names that showed up in full (I belonged to Run Amok); they had personally created emblems; there were private clan chat room forums; clans actually belonged to a clan list of up to 50 members which was in-game so you could see who was on and they didn’t need to all be on your friend’s list. MGO even had a personal friend’s list…yes you had a clan list and a friend list within the actual game that was not tied to your PSN friend list. Hell you even had an enemies list…lol which would prevent receiving of personal messages or would block them from any room you created in the lobby. Yes the game had an in-game personal messaging system.

 

4)      Lobbies created more friends than this random generated world-wide crapshoot and you could play on DLC maps anytime you wanted. The death of lobbies was the death of fun online social multiplayer.

 

5)      Communication was important. Mics would only allow people on the same team to hear each other before matches so you could strategize. If you wanted to communicate with the other team, you used the in-game text chat which had the option to be team only or everyone. That’s right in-game text chat. Press select and type away without needing Skype or PSN.

 

Uncharted has almost no communication system besides mics, no clan system, no friend system. The more I think about it the more I think PSN is what is ruining online games. Developers are lazy greedy people with no imagination who just piggy-back on the less than adequate PSN system. Konami was king. I miss innovative multiplayer developers who understand what friends are and how people make them. Uncharted is so depressingly antisocial. I’m so ashamed that no developer who speaks my language has any clue what people really need.

 


I totally disagree with your opinion, because:

1) you compare an action/adventure with an online shooter, as far as I know, your precious MGO doesn't have a great single player expierence with it

 

2) the multiplayer of uncharted is not a strategic shooter, if you like strategic shooters, uncharted is just not the game for you, it would be the same if I said this:

 

OMG, Konami is lazy because I can't even climb in their stupid game, I can't even hang on ledges and pull opponents down or do other funny things like that...

 

you see, that makes no sense at all...

 

3) I think Naughty Dog has been very innovative with Uncharted, I have never seen an action/adventure having multiplayer, thanks to Naughty Dog other developers realised that an action/adventure can have multiplayer if they are creative, for instance after Uncharted 2, Ubisoft started making multiplayer for Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, which turned out to be very fun in my opinion, also God of War: Ascension gets multiplayer, but that game is not my cup of tea

 

4) Naughty Dog focused on other things, that are more important, I don't give a **bleep** about official clans or in-game text chat, Naughty Dog made much funnier things, they realised a climbing system in the multiplayer of Uncharted, which results in great vertical combat and great maps, you could also use the map, for instance by hanging on a ledge and pull down people, I love to do that, I hate shooters because the only thing you do is run and shoot, Uncharted is different, you can kill in many ways, it's not just shooting, and I love it that way

 

5) (not to be offensive) you were that trophy hunter right? You play games only to get 100% trophy's in them anyway, since when did you start to care about the games you played :smileytongue:


I don't think you understand me very well or get the meaning behind what few causes I take up. Do you think I say these things to waste my time? I say what I say because I hope that Naughty Dog will improve what they do. If I thought their product was worth nothing and didn't see hope for it, I wouldn't bother posting CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM (lol, constructive criticism xD, more like whining about the amazing work Naughty Dog did, and calling them not innovative because they just didn't make what you want) There is much in UC2 and UC3 that I do like. I only focus on certain negative aspects that I deem truly important rather than complain about every little detail that I could like everyone else does.

 

I'll try to counter argue, but you are all over the place and your writing style is so not easy to follow (sorry that English is not my native language and I'm not a frequent forumer...).

 

1) "1) you compare an action/adventure with an online shooter, as far as I know, your precious MGO doesn't have a great single player expierence with it"

 

Do you not know what MGO is? You sound like you think I'm comparing MGS4's single-player game to UC3's online game. Which game do you call the action/adventure game (MGS4 or MGO or UC3?) and which game is an online shooter (UC3 or MGO?) I'm comparing the specific online components of MGO to specific online components of UC3. I never mentioned anything about either game's singleplayer in this thread. And any online shooter which tries to have clans should have a decent clan system. Only games that don't think they're any good should have no clan sytem. Do you think UC3 is not good enough to deserve the best type of clan system possible?

(No, I'm saying that Uncharted 3 is an action/adventure and MGO is an online shooter bundled with MGS4 or as a stand-alone game in Japan, the servers of the game were recently shut down, yes I know what I'm talking about, and my point is that in shooters, clans are important, because people like to be competitive towards each other, action/adventure games are not like that, Uncharted 3 is a casual multiplayer that is fun for the whole family, it's not meant to be a serious shooter like MGO is, so it doesn't need a clan system, and if you knew anything about Uncharted you would know that it was the fans who asked for a clan tag possibilty in Uncharted 2, and that's what Naughty Dog gave them, Naughty Dog never intended to make anything clan-related, so you're argument about that is invalid)

 

2) "the multiplayer of uncharted is not a strategic shooter, if you like strategic shooters, uncharted is just not the game for you, it would be the same if I said this:

 

OMG, Konami is lazy because I can't even climb in their stupid game, I can't even hang on ledges and pull opponents down or do other funny things like that...

 

you see, that makes no sense at all..."

 

So you are saying that a non-strategic shooter like UC3 doesn't deserve a true clan system with an actual roster, truly customized clan names, emblems, etc? You're not a very loyal fanboy are you? :smileyvery-happy: lol Re-read what I said: I said Naughty Dog is lazy when a clan system is only allowing the player to control four letters within some square brackets. When you've seen the intricate possibilities that I have seen in a nearly PS2 generation game (MGS4 /MGO due to its very early development) you would think this current generation of developers is lazy too: 4 letters versus 15 letters, a 50 player in-game list, an actual clan leader, being able to know who is in your clan, everyone in clan having the same emblem controlled by the clan leader or whomever he designates, having clan leaderboards, stats recording who has been on in the past week, etc, etc, etc. Naughty Dog = lazy compared to Konami which innovated stuff I could never have come up with and created stuff that I never knew I would even want. So, yes Naughty Dog and other developers who should have seen this stuff have decided that it is too much effort or costs too much = LAZY. (Oh and fully customizable clan emblems = BRAVE; Naughty Dog = CHICKEN due to being afraid that some will create offensive ones AND LAZY because they would have to police them; but since UC3 is rated Teen I'll let that one go.)

(that stupid argument again, just because Naughyt Dog didn't create what YOU want makes them lazy, come on!, and I can go like that too!: Naughty Dog made cinema files of every match and I never knew that I would love that, great move Naughty Dog, now I can share awesome moments with my friends, MGO doesn't has that, that's stupid, because if it was a social multiplayer game, you would share awesome moments with your friends, BUT YOU CAN'T, HOW ANTI-SOCIAL, KONAMI YOU LAZY! You see how stupid that is, arguing like that?)

 

"3) I think Naughty Dog has been very innovative with Uncharted, I have never seen an action/adventure having multiplayer, thanks to Naughty Dog other developers realised that an action/adventure can have multiplayer if they are creative, for instance after Uncharted 2, Ubisoft started making multiplayer for Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, which turned out to be very fun in my opinion, also God of War: Ascension gets multiplayer, but that game is not my cup of tea"

 

I'm wasting my time on you because clearly you don't even know what MGO is OR you don't classify MGS4 as an action/adventure. Still not clear to me. Innovative is Konami who created MGO1 (Metal Gear Online 1 for MGS3 Metal Gear Solid 3) on the PS2. That was an action adventure game with an online compenent way before Naughty Dog or Ubisoft (and I'm sure some other developer must have done so before Konami too). You must be very young and inexperienced with past generations of online games. You should start respecting the knowledge of your elders. I'm still not sure what your argument is.

(ow, the usual insult on my age, how predicatable, I'm 22 by the way, is that old enough for you? and yes, I started playing games recently, does that mean I can't start a discussion? of course not, just because you play games longer, doesn't make you smarter then anyone else, and my argument was that because of Naughty Dog, Action/adventure genre started to have multiplayer, Metal Gear is a stealth game and MGO is an online shooter, so not an action/adventure, and even if it is (according to your weird logic), it didn't make other developers implement multiplayer in their action/adventures, so it wasn't as innovative and succesfull as Uncharted was in the action/adventure genre, MGO is just another shooter)

 

"4) Naughty Dog focused on other things, that are more important, I don't give a **bleep** about official clans or in-game text chat, Naughty Dog made much funnier things, they realised a climbing system in the multiplayer of Uncharted, which results in great vertical combat and great maps, you could also use the map, for instance by hanging on a ledge and pull down people, I love to do that, I hate shooters because the only thing you do is run and shoot, Uncharted is different, you can kill in many ways, it's not just shooting, and I love it that way"

 

Ohhh. Now I think I get you, finally lol. You think MGO is a multiplayer shooter and UC3 is not a multiplayer shooter (is this right?). So UC3's multiplayer is an action/adventure game and not a shooter. Got you. Again why does an action/adventure multplayer game with clans not deserve a proper clan system when it only involves text, lists, etc (very basic programming stuff on par with the complexity of NES games). So you are saying that action/adventure shooters are not worthy of having good clan systems. I hope other fanboys flame you for this. lol I doubt you will even read this far mr troll. Ok so Naughty Dog couldn't create a proper clan system for UC2 multiplayer because they were busy inventing climbing mechanics. So how did they improve climbing in UC3 to have no time to create a proper clan system? Where are all the new action mechanics that were not cut and pasted from UC2 that prevented them from having time to implement a proper clan system? So I guess you believe that developers should not try to improve their games once they've found the right hook for their little fishies?

(it has nothing to do with not being worthy to have clan systems, clans simple don't have the priority, Uncharted's priority is fun for everyone, full interaction with the world and other players in the map, cinema files and a variety of unique modes that aren't anywhere else (plunder, coop hunter, coop adventure, and there's a lot new things from UC2 to UC3, for instance all the customization, kickbacks, buddy system, don't say UC3 is just UC2 copied with new maps, that's stupid)

 

Oh and I could kill in many ways in MGO: knife in throat, stun with tranque, then HS while asleep, slam to the ground HS, use you as a human shield and let your team mates f you over while I wip out a side-arm, grab you sticka  C4 to your @ss, choke you out, wait for team mates to come revive you and blow everyone up *drooling* and slower pace made each kill so much more painful and lasting; the unconsious guy had to wait and wait and just when he was about to wake up...hs; hiding in box surprise; so you have no imagination or don't know what MGO is. I never said UC3 didn't have any innovative things. Again you seem to deviate so far off-topic like a master troll.

(again you insult me, I'm starting to wonder what your age might be, anyway, about your argument: those things you list are nothing to the many ways you could play in UC3, and no, I'm not going to list them, if you play the game it should be obvious, although I expect you to be not really creative in the game...)

 

"5) (not to be offensive) you were that trophy hunter right? You play games only to get 100% trophy's in them anyway, since when did you start to care about the games you played :smileytongue:"

 

I love when people say "no offense" which just means they know they are being offensive.  No offense but you do not know how to stay on topic. No offense but your arguments are sh!tty like a pirate. No offense but I think you are a little kid who has played very few games in his life compared to some of us who speak with much more experience and so make better critics. No offense but you can't read and comprehend much of what I say. I don't have the time right now to go find the right quote in my Views of a trophy Hunter thread, but I never said that I only play games to get trophies. I said that I want 100% in every game I play, and I own every game I play. If I own a game it is because I expect it to be the best of the best. No one I know buys games they don't expect to like, unless they have a ton of money to throw around. I care a lot about the games I buy and only a complete moron would think that someone would buy  games that they don't care about. Do you see me buying easy dumb games for easy trophies? You might want to do a background check before you try to assassinate someone's character. Only a complete moron would think that someone would post long intricate threads on topics within a game forum if they didn't care about the game. No offense, but I have to ask because I just don't know: Are you a moron?

 

(again useless insults, and also lies, I quote you from you're Views of a thropy hunter thread: I would not have bought the game if I knew it would get these multiplayer thropies. AND YOU SAY YOU PLAY GAMES FOR FUN??? if you aks me, NOT buying games because they have thropies you are not good enough for to accomplish is even WORSE then buying games for easy platinums, because then you seriously do not have fun in playing games)


see above my response in fat font (or whatever it's called) ^

 

oh, and if you have a reasonably response, feel free to post it, if you are just going to insult me again, please don't waste you're tim, thanks in advance

Please use plain text.
Message 29 of 38 (144 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 12/06/2011
Offline
1994 posts
 

Re: UC3 is a dreadfully antisocial multiplayer game.

Oct 6, 2012

Hastatus_Atratus wrote:

The more I play UC3 the more I miss MGO. Everything that made me fall in love with online shooters is just absent from most other online games I’ve played and Uncharted is by far the worst. The developers simply put no thought into anything to facilitate the making of friends or clans.

 

1)      First the matchmaking is world wide and puts players together who don’t understand each other most of the time, even if they do happen to have mics. I miss being locked into Region 1 where knowing three languages was enough. This is certainly a good point and UC3 needs to be regionlocked, but rather for the sake of connection and less of good communication.

 

2)      There is no accurate level system to measure skill, so even though I’m on par with many legacy 5 level 75s, I refuse to legacy so I look like a dumb newbie. Then there’s all this crap with co-op being included in the levels so players look good, but suck at competitive. You contradict yourself in this part. You say that there are no level system to measure skill, but you refuse to legacy because you are back to level 1 which will make you look like a noob. 

 

3)      The clan system is the biggest joke of all. Bracket a few letters and a bracket IS NOT A CLAN SYSTEM; it’s developers being extremely lazy…ooo look at those abbreviations *sticks finger in throat and gags*. In MGO players had actual clan names that showed up in full (I belonged to Run Amok); they had personally created emblems; there were private clan chat room forums; clans actually belonged to a clan list of up to 50 members which was in-game so you could see who was on and they didn’t need to all be on your friend’s list. MGO even had a personal friend’s list…yes you had a clan list and a friend list within the actual game that was not tied to your PSN friend list. Hell you even had an enemies list…lol which would prevent receiving of personal messages or would block them from any room you created in the lobby. Yes the game had an in-game personal messaging system. This seems like you are just nitpicking. It does not seem practical for ND to just make their own social system when psn can do the job  just as fine. Also, an enemies list seems petty and kind of dumb.

 

4)      Lobbies created more friends than this random generated world-wide crapshoot and you could play on DLC maps anytime you wanted. The death of lobbies was the death of fun online social multiplayer. Lobbies are great but not the reason you mentioned. Both lobbies and matchmaking force players to play with others they don't know. If you choose a random lobby, you will meet random people. If you start matchmaking, you will meet random people. I really don't see how the death of lobbies caused the end of fun online social MP.

 

5)      Communication was important. Mics would only allow people on the same team to hear each other before matches so you could strategize. If you wanted to communicate with the other team, you used the in-game text chat which had the option to be team only or everyone. That’s right in-game text chat. Press select and type away without needing Skype or PSN. Again more nitpicking. ND did not want to put in-game text chat because honestly is would be impractical for a console to have one.

 

Uncharted has almost no communication system besides mics, no clan system, no friend system. The more I think about it the more I think PSN is what is ruining online games. Developers are lazy greedy people with no imagination who just piggy-back on the less than adequate PSN system. Konami was king. I miss innovative multiplayer developers who understand what friends are and how people make them. Uncharted is so depressingly antisocial. I’m so ashamed that no developer who speaks my language has any clue what people really need. Sounds like you have a hard-on for Konami.

 


 

Please use plain text.
Message 30 of 38 (135 Views)