Christ Centered Gamer

I'm a bit of an Uncharted buff. Played all but Golden Abyss, because I don't have $250 to throw at a Vita quite yet.

But yeah. Big Uncharted fan.

Played Among Thieves and midway through Drake's Deception.
Really great games; good blend of action, adventure and cinematics.

Huge fan of the Uncharted series. The second one being my favourite.

I haven't played Golden Abyss since I don't have a Vita, but I'm sure that game is great as well.

I've beat all three on the PS3. I haven't tried Golden Abyss either, as I'm short of the $290 required to buy a Vita and Golden Abyss.

Nonetheless, I'm sure it's still worthy of the reputation Naughty Dog built Drake to do - putting Indiana Jones on the curb.

A franchise can't pay homage to what came before (which the Uncharted series does, over and over again) without putting down what came before?

...Right. Better tell that to Lara Croft and Dirk Pitt.

Nathan's been in relatively good adventures recently. I haven't been disappointed by any of them. Indiana Jones, on the other hand, hit the wall hard with The Crystal Skull. I didn't like it, the critics didn't like it, the fans didn't like it. Still, it made hundreds of millions, but money is just a number. Like age.

Well, no.

The critics liked it, and fans were about halved on it.

But, you know, if you prefer pastiche over other stuff that has merit, that's cool. Your prerogative.

Money is just a number?
Like age?

ಠ_ಠ

You know, people aren't actually allowed to say that seriously. You need at least a hint of facetiousness or sarcasm.

It's okay, he's in middle school. He's allowed to say it seriously.

*fist pound*
Well done, sir.

Yep. Still reveling in the unparalleled wisdom that comes with 15 years of age. XD

ArchAngel wrote:Money is just a number?
Like age?

ಠ_ಠ

You know, people aren't actually allowed to say that seriously. You need at least a hint of facetiousness or sarcasm.

I totally agree with that statement though.

Played the demos of Uncharted 1 and 2. Pretty good.

jester747 wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:Money is just a number?
Like age?

ಠ_ಠ

You know, people aren't actually allowed to say that seriously. You need at least a hint of facetiousness or sarcasm.

I totally agree with that statement though.

I tentatively do as well. I mean, it's not just a number physically; it's gold, or salt, or chocolate, or (if you happen to be a silly American) paper or digits.

But metaphorically? Totally agree.

Chozon1 wrote:I tentatively do as well. I mean, it's not just a number physically; it's gold, or salt, or chocolate, or (if you happen to be a silly American) paper or digits.

But metaphorically? Totally agree.

Silly american? What first world nation isn't on a fiat currency?

It isn't even just metaphorically "just a number." Money has value, in fact, money IS value. It's a representation of all obtainable goods and services.

And age. Age isn't just a number. It's a measurement of the length of life lived, and as it turns out, that matters immensely, especially if you consider with the right angle that it's all we have in this world.

Now, to pause the rant, I get the point. Money or age is often given more importance by some than due, but this doesn't excuse swinging completely to the other side and claiming it's an arbitrary number. There is significant importance behind each of these concepts.