I may be a little bit bias too but I'm just not seeing Uncharted 3 on here enough. Especially shocked not to see it under best writing--not "boss" enough? Maybe didn't "drop" enough F-bombs for ya?

And how are you going to have an open world award but not a linear award? That's kind of like having an Oscar for Best Film starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

...I guess it's a New York thing.

Rate of fire, clip size, dmg...I don't feel this at all. My mind is going numb from all these old school games. I keep reading how this is different then plenty of other shooters that have come out on PSN since PS3 launched--but I just don't "see" the difference.

It's ok to me if you want to go retro or simple to bring a new idea to the market. PJ Eden and shooter, Flower, Echochrome, even LocoRoco Cocoreccho; I've not played those games before (maybe you have?) But I've definitely played this before.

If you like zombies, survival, and upgrades...maybe you should try this http://www.zombiegames.net/games/The-Last-Stand-2.html.

Oh yeah, and it's FREE.

@Spunky Monkey 190906

Do you feel that Sony is ignoring PSP, Move, and Home for the sake of 3-D? It's not like you have to buy an expensive, external box adapter to use 3D technology.

And sure, the TVs are expensive. But so were 1080p TVs while PS3 supported HDMI. But like then, you can rest comfortably knowing that when the TVs reach a modest price-point, your PS3 is ready to plug-n-play.

And let's not forget many of Microsoft's other notorious foresights on technology: not including hard drives with every 360, or HDMI ports, and supporting HD-DVD.

(Sorry to keep preaching here.)

Sony does sell TVs and obviously if they get you hyped about 3D tech you're gonna want a new TV. But 3D technology is very much "in." So is Sony truly taking advantage of people or simply providing a home experience that the masses have fallen in love with in the theaters?

What would you prefer? A system that avoids new technology to save money and boost profits? A system that makes excuses and hits below the belt when they get left behind? Or maybe a console that tries to do...well everything?

"originality" is a dangerous claim to make. Especially since most every game we play today is somehow inspired or a derivative of a previous game. I believe the Grand Theft Auto creator jokingly claimed that GTA derived from Pacman, with pacman being the car, the dots being pedestrians, and the ghosts being police. It makes sense to me.

I think it's more appropriate to look at the craftsmanship and how well a game involves a player emotionally and interactively. Look at Uncharted. Are they actually doing anything new or are they simply taking everything that you've always loved doing and making it work near-perfectly?

I personally loved Resistance and Resistance 2 because they create a great sense of desperation and hopelessness. When I walk out that bunker the first time and saw San Fran in ruins with hundreds of enemy transports flying overhead--I had an emotional reaction. But there's that and the fact that both games were fun as hell and featured great multiplayer.

I don't think a game needs to completely revolutionize interactivity--but they can take the familiar and use it in new and interesting ways.

How do you kill things in the afterlife?

The game looks too silly--so I just don't care. Don't even know why I'm posting...

Making a small--thoughtless comment about the material being promoted. I remember when I was a child and saw Mortal Kombat for the first time. I was so excited--and up till about 12, I was a devoted fan to the excessively gory franchise. I think as a child, I was greatly entertained by the gore, and special effects that resulted in dismemberment. So much so, that in class I would draw in storyboard format the different fatalities.

But as I got older, story and interactivity became more import than blood and guts. Moments in games like MGS1 where I had to decide whether to fight to save Meryl's life or give in to save my own. And even a game like God of War (to which Dante is so often compared) there was more meaning behind the violence (which is another discussion).

But ultimately, all they seem to care about is being epic and violent--but to what end? What are they trying to say with this violence? What part of human nature are they exploring? And more-so, how dare they reference such an important piece of work only to turn it into a hack-n-slash fun-time afternoon! The Divine Comedy was not the medieval version of Saw--and so should not be treated that way, even in a video game.

Therefore, I feel this game has the intellectual value understandable by a 7 year old: kill the bad guys.

It appears that despite an expected Mature rating, this game is indeed for "kids."

I don't know--I think it's ok to bring in the source material and its cultural value on the world because this game did so first. It said, "Hey, we're going to be a game that appropriates well-known literature." So it demands to be compared and considered within the realm of that.

Though I think with God of War, they replicated Greek tragedy and feuding between the gods quite well--compared to this game that's goal is to be bad ass instead of a philosophical interpretation of the medieval world-view of Christianity.

Point is--when you make a game based on existing events and people fiction or nonfiction, you're utilizing that preexisting material to imbued the game with the same emotional and intellectual responses. Such as Inglourious Basterds. That movie could have taken place at any point in time because it was not historically accurate. But, by setting it within the WWII era, they called upon the world's deep hatred for Nazis to motivate our sympathy for its characters.

So ultimately, if this game fails to truly realize or bring more perspective on the concepts the original writer intended with the epic poem, then the game itself fails to be anything more than exploitative, commercial crap. Like Shrek 2.

Hehe