• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Uncharted is a legit great TPS (mechanics, encounters, level design)

FranXico

Member
Ugh, and here I was thinking OP was going to praise the first game, which is still the overall best in the series. But yes, Uncharted DOES have good gameplay despite what people say. It's not GOAT gameplay, but as far as the cinematic action genre goes, it's only second to something like God of War IMO.

No way. The pacing and variety in Uncharted 2 is way superior.
 

Game4life

Banned
I really enjoy the Uncharted series but I think it has a lot of problems with game feel.

Absolutely no action in the game, in my humble opinion, feels satisfying. From the automated platforming to the slippery movement, it just doesn't feel great to navigate the battlefield in Uncharted.

Drake feels particularly bad in the original and the guns just don't have much impact.

In terms of gameplay options and movement Metal Gear Solid V kills it.

Tomb Raider also feels more satisfying, as does Gears of War, Max Payne and The Last of Us.

Game feel is priceless to me and Uncharted just doesn't deliver the goods.


However, Uncharted 2 has some excellent encounters - though I think all the games suffer from too many wave-based combat sections.

Still love the series though.

How does Gears have decent level and encounter design? It is the most uninteresting straight up cover shooter you can get with zero thought put into those two core pillars to what makes a good game. A good TPS should have mechanics and level design go hand in hadn while still offering variety. Gears is a failure at it. TR 2013 I wont comment on because it is a C grade Uncharted in my eyes. I think UC2 is a much better TPS than all those games you mentioned and straight up is better than UC1 and 3 as well precisely because it actually has some thought put on all three pillars that makes a game good - mechanics, level and encounter design.

It seems less people focus on level design and encounter variety these days. Vanquish is another example of a game mechanically super competent but bereft of ideas on how to apply those mechanics to interesting levels.
 
See the response in my edited post. I know you can instakill with headshots. That's not what me and others are talking about.

If you aren't getting headshots they are absolutely spongey.



No, no. That is my fault. I put it in there as an edit after.

So, 3-6 hits to kill is classified as spongy.
 

FranXico

Member
How does Gears have decent level and encounter design? It is the most uninteresting straight up cover shooter you can get with zero thought put into those two core pillars to what makes a good game. A good TPS should have mechanics and level design go hand in hadn while still offering variety. Gears is a failure at it.

To be fair, Gears still has small gameplay aspects that make it unique, like the active reload mechanic.
 

Lima

Member
Tomb Raider and Rise of the Tomb Raider shit all over Uncharted when it comes to the actual shooting and moving around with the scramble move.
 
Played them all for the first time with the collection recently.

My conclusion is they are fun romps with some great set pieces, fun chatacters / dialogue and fun environment traversal. While I enjoyed them, they all had very mediocre combat and 3 in particular had some really bad encounter design.

However I didn't have the same thoughts while playing TLOU so I'm hoping for some improvement in 4.

So basically, fun games but the combat isnt the selling point for me. I'm sure I will enjoy 4 regardless but if done right it would be amazing.

Oh and all bosses and semi bosses in 1-3 where just terrible.


Tomb Raider and Rise of the Tomb Raider shit all over Uncharted when it comes to the actual shooting and moving around with the scramble move.

And totally this. Uncharted stomps tomb raider 2013 in story and characters but TR2013 has way better combat and movement.
 
Tomb Raider and Rise of the Tomb Raider shit all over Uncharted when it comes to the actual shooting and moving around with the scramble move.

Absolutely not. I have a section in the OP where I describe exactly why Tomb Raider doesn't come close to Uncharted's combat. Can't speak for Rise of, since I haven't played it though.
 
How does Gears have decent level and encounter design? It is the most uninteresting straight up cover shooter you can get with zero thought put into those two core pillars to what makes a good game. A good TPS should have mechanics and level design go hand in hadn while still offering variety. Gears is a failure at it. TR 2013 I wont comment on because it is a C grade Uncharted in my eyes. I think UC2 is a much better TPS than all those games you mentioned and straight up is better than UC1 and 3 as well precisely because it actually has some thought put on all three pillars that makes a game good - mechanics, level and encounter design
Gears level design isnt great and I find fighting the AI tedious but Gears MP is better and its mechanics show through far better in that mode. I have never appreciated a gears campaign but Gears MP is as good as it gets for TPS. Its amazing.
 
Tomb Raider and Rise of the Tomb Raider shit all over Uncharted when it comes to the actual shooting and moving around with the scramble move.

I don't really think so, I only played TR2013 but the shooting and movement in that is simply perfunctory, much like Uncharted. Uncharted 2 and 3 are probably better games then 2013 though
 

Game4life

Banned
Gears level design isnt great and I find fighting the AI tedious but Gears MP is better and its mechanics show through far better in that mode. I have never appreciated a gears campaign but Gears MP is as good as it gets for TPS. Its amazing.

UC2 mp is even better in highlighting how amazing the core mechanics are but I dont want to digress since this thread is about single player. I will never consider Gears a good TPS in that regard. Few years back when it launched sure.. it was unique but looking back it does not warrant that tag when it comes to its single player campaign.

I don't really think so, I only played TR2013 but the shooting and movement in that is simply perfunctory, much like Uncharted. Uncharted 2 and 3 are probably better games then 2013 though

Whats worse is they keep interjecting their mediocre gunplay with even more mediocre set pieces. Like if you cant make a good set piece dont. Stop making C grade versions of what ND makes. God I always felt CD is one of the most mediocre developers around. Hopefully they start focusing on what they are good at rather than forever be the has been's of the TPS world.
 

Veelk

Banned
You're getting a little hot around the collar about this, which is weird but ok. How am I suddenly back peddling? It's thematically unified and the mechanics encounter and level design are good. Just because I think melee and the other systems are good and well implemented in relation to the design of the rest of the game doesn't mean I don't think there's room for improvement, or that it's flawless. Uncharted 4 looks like it's improving on everything I like about the systems.

I'm just snarky by nature. I'm cool, don't worry about it. I'm fine, and hope you don't take it personally.

I never said you were backpedaling, I just said you're misattributing the praise. The fact that it's in line with the scrappy Indiana Jones-esque adventure vibe doesn't mean it's mechanically sound, which is what the thread is about. If I go to a resturant that serves me poor food but had great decor, I'm not going to say the food was great because I liked the look of the place, even if I liked the overall experience. In your post, you're argument was that Uncharted gives you freedom of movement. This disrupts that freedom. I'm not sure why 'not interrupting combat' is considered relevant, since that can be said of a number of bad mechanics in other games, but it's not what was argued in the OP anyway.
 
I enjoyed old the Uncharted games, even the first, but Tomb Raider is the superior TPS at the moment. Rise of the Tomb Raider is almost perfect when it comes to balancing combat and exploration. Maybe Uncharted 4 can retake the crown.
 
How does Gears have decent level and encounter design? It is the most uninteresting straight up cover shooter you can get with zero thought put into those two core pillars to what makes a good game. A good TPS should have mechanics and level design go hand in hadn while still offering variety. Gears is a failure at it. TR 2013 I wont comment on because it is a C grade Uncharted in my eyes. I think UC2 is a much better TPS than all those games you mentioned and straight up is better than UC1 and 3 as well.

I wasn't really talking about encounter design (which I praised Uncharted 2 for), more game feel and responsiveness.

The act of firing a gun and moving around the game world is something that just doesn't feel as good in Uncharted as the other games I mentioned.

Drake's Fortune was an poor game in 2007, let alone in 2015 and there's some incredibly detailed posts ripping apart encounter design in Uncharted 3 (which actually feels better to play than the others in my opinion).

However, Uncharted 2 has really strong encounter design with lots of variety - all wrapped up in an expertly paced adventure.


I don't agree with your analysis of Gears but bearing in mind it's 1.30am here, you might have to wait until the morning to find out why. Lol
 
You know when comparing UC to TR I couldn't really describe why I felt UC has better gameplay than TR so I never bothered to debate. OP, you just described my feelings for UC perfectly! In UC you're forced to constantly move and switch weapons. In TR you hide behind cover, take out some bad guys, then move to some more cover.

I think people prefer TR because you don't have to constantly weigh your options and figure out the best coarse of action. There's one strategy and you just stick with it. With UC you're constantly having to rethink your strategy. It's more of an old school approach and it works!
 
I never really understood why people tried to claim that there is objective and apparent poor gameplay in the Uncharted series. How do these people rectify critical acclaim with 'shit gameplay'? It's clear that these people are largely in the minority but I often see it claimed as though it were fact.
 
I'm just snarky by nature. I'm cool, don't worry about it. I'm fine, and hope you don't take it personally.

I never said you were backpedaling, I just said you're misattributing the praise. The fact that it's in line with the scrappy Indiana Jones-esque adventure vibe doesn't mean it's mechanically sound, which is what the thread is about. If I go to a resturant that serves me poor food but had great decor, I'm not going to say the food was great because I liked the look of the place, even if I liked the overall experience. In your post, you're argument was that Uncharted gives you freedom of movement. This disrupts that freedom. I'm not sure why 'not interrupting combat' is considered relevant, since that can be said of a number of bad mechanics in other games, but it's not what was argued in the OP anyway.

No worries mayne.

My emphasis was on mobility in the OP you're right and I didn't really expand on my thoughts on melee too much anyway. To clarify, I don't think every moment you're not moving runs counter to the game or the fun of it. You're still going to use cover sometimes, and blind fire or pop out and shoot guys etc. Melee is flexible enough to offer steel fist as a way to melee and move, which means you have to run and gun and pick your shots which I finds adds a layer of tactical depth, as does knowing when you can get into a full on fist fight and when you have to either scrabble away or use blind fire or grenades or whatever to try to avoid it. Mechanically the melee by itself is more successful presentationaly and thematically I admit, but I like the simplicity of it as well because it's not something you have to think about mechanically in the heat of battle, only tactically. Cerain encounters in 3 exacerbate some of the flaws of the melee system in particular, but for the most part I thought it was a welcome cog in the system of combat, and adds a satisfying punctuation mark to the flow of combat when you knock and enemy out and then scrape by and enter back in the fray of a shootout by the skin of your teeth.
 
I never really understood why people tried to claim that there is objective and apparent poor gameplay in the Uncharted series. How do these people rectify critical acclaim with 'shit gameplay'? It's clear that these people are largely in the minority but I often see it claimed as though it were fact.

People conversationally mix their opinions with facts. It's just how people talk when they're not being pedantic robots. You could put an imaginary "IMO" after every sentence if it bothers you.
 
Uncharted has always been about the potential than being fully realized. Every iteration tends to take 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. I agree with the OP that the game is designed for run-and-gun diversity, that, is when the game truly shines. The problem? This design doesn't extend to higher difficulties.

Right now, I play in Crushing and ND has showcasing all the sins of difficulty implementation. Most notably: Aimbots & less health. This means, many of the encounters are going to force you NOT to play the game the way it is intended to since each combat arena has very little in way of moving to cover to cover, it would take only a few good shots with dead (cheating) accuracy before you are put out of business. This means resorting to extreme defensive position where pop-and-shot from your cover shooters is the way to go. Once in awhile, you do move from position but the enemies will always have a bead on you. ALWAYS. I don't want to imagine what it would be like in Brutal. I hate it when games don't expand their design philosophy consistently; it's one of the rare examples you can actually call "lazy" design.

Take Vanquish for instance. This is a game that actually handles difficulty right, in harder modes, you are forced to keep moving and balancing the your arsenal for every arena fight. If such examples exist, I don't get why ND barely puts any effort in higher difficulties. I've got the feeling this would be the same in Uncharted 4 and that would be a pity.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
The games are a strange case. The encounters are more fun on Crushing, but the enemies are more tedious to fight since they are already huge sponges on normal and become a true pain in the ass on the hardest difficulty.

And the less said about the shitty UC2 boss fight, the better.
 
Uncharted has always been about the potential than being fully realized. Every iteration tends to take 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. I agree with the OP that the game is designed for run-and-gun diversity, that, is when the game truly shines. The problem? This design doesn't extend to higher difficulties.

Right now, I play in Crushing and ND has showcasing all the sins of difficulty implementation. Most notably: Aimbots & less health. This means, many of the encounters are going to force you NOT to play the game the way it is intended to since each combat arena has very little in way of moving to cover to cover, it would take only a few good shots with dead (cheating) accuracy before you are put out of business. This means resorting to extreme defensive position where pop-and-shot from your cover shooters is the way to go. Once in awhile, you do move from position but the enemies will always have a bead on you. ALWAYS. I don't want to imagine what it would be like in Brutal. I hate it when games don't expand their design philosophy consistently; it's one of the rare examples you can actually call "lazy" design.

Take Vanquish for instance. This is a game that actually handles difficulty right, in harder modes, you are forced to keep moving and balancing the your arsenal for every arena fight. If such examples exist, I don't get why ND barely puts any effort in higher difficulties. I've got the feeling this would be the same in Uncharted 4 and that would be a pity.

Yeah I really hope 4 changes this up, but likely won't. Remixed encounters and more agressive or faster enemies would be legit. I think hard strikes a good balance, but yeah crushing is too far and removes a lot of what makes the combat great.
 
I could do a whole other post on the train setpiece, it's aged like fine wine. The mix of platforming and combat (avoiding signs and stuff that can be used against enemies), to how it dynamically effects aiming and grenades, how the backgrounds flow seemlessly from forests to lakes to tunnels to snowy mountains, the sheer diversity of encounters in there like the turret car, shooting down the helicopter, fighting guys while avoiding the helicopter etc, and even though a train is as linear as you can get you STILL have two or three different ways to progress from car to car and that affects both combat and traversal.

Nods in approval.. not to mention the sheer amount of possibilities during that sequence in term of paths possible (In the train, above the train , on the side of the train ) and the fact that section is so fast paced during chapter 15 and then chapter 16 get slower in term of pacing just to crank it up once you exit the tunnel .

Magnificent.
 

FranXico

Member
Right now, I play in Crushing and ND has showcasing all the sins of difficulty implementation. Most notably: Aimbots & less health. This means, many of the encounters are going to force you NOT to play the game the way it is intended to since each combat arena has very little in way of moving to cover to cover, it would take only a few good shots with dead (cheating) accuracy before you are put out of business. This means resorting to extreme defensive position where pop-and-shot from your cover shooters is the way to go. Once in awhile, you do move from position but the enemies will always have a bead on you. ALWAYS. I don't want to imagine what it would be like in Brutal. I hate it when games don't expand their design philosophy consistently; it's one of the rare examples you can actually call "lazy" design.

Take Vanquish for instance. This is a game that actually handles difficulty right, in harder modes, you are forced to keep moving and balancing the your arsenal for every arena fight. If such examples exist, I don't get why ND barely puts any effort in higher difficulties. I've got the feeling this would be the same in Uncharted 4 and that would be a pity.

Agreed. If instead of taking the easy route and just making every bullet hit the player harder, enemies were made more intelligent in higher difficulty levels, the level design would also also shine through. But this is sadly not the case.
 
People conversationally mix their opinions with facts. It's just how people talk when they're not being pedantic robots. You could put an imaginary "IMO" after every sentence if it bothers you.
It doesn't bother me. I appreciate that you took the time to reply but it doesn't really answer my post at all. I'm curious as to why people that discuss the series as though it genuinely has bad gameplay rectify its position as one of, if not the, most critically acclaimed series of the last generation. It's a genuine question.
 
N

Noray

Unconfirmed Member
Endless waves of bullet sponge enemies doesn't qualify as great combat to me.

first post gets it. Add to that shooting that just doesn't *feel* good and you have a very mediocre shooter, from mechanics to encounter design. Last Of Us had way better shooting and I hope a lot of lessons learned from that game go into UC4, because it looks pretty dope.
 
Nods in approval.. not to mention the sheer amount of possibilities during that sequence in term of paths possible (In the train, above the train , on the side of the train ) and the fact that section is so fast paced during chapter 15 and then chapter 16 get slower in term of pacing just to crank it up once you exit the tunnel .

Magnificent.

Apart from the huge misstep of that terrible mini-boss (I like how unlike the final boss fight, they gave absolutely no narrative reason why he can take like 10 magazines full of ammo to the face before dying) it's perfect. Stuff like the cruise ship may have topped it in terms of sheer spectacle, but in pacing and execution it's no contest.
 

cgcg

Member
Hate to say it but you are an idiot if you think the enemies are bullet sponges. All non-armored enemies takes 3 shots to the body or 1 shot to the head to kill. No exceptions. If you think that's bullet sponge then you just suck at gaming.
 
Uncharted 2 is also terrible until you reach Nepal, and terrible from once you reach the Monastery onwards, whereas the first and third games are great all the way through. 1>3>2.

It has a slow start mechanically and can drag on replays, but as an intro to the story and world it's great. Borneo is legit.

Also, the monastery is great. It skews the pacing a bit too much towards combat (although there are still some good pacing moments in there), but the encounters there are pretty much all good.
 
It doesn't bother me. I appreciate that you took the time to reply but it doesn't really answer my post at all. I'm curious as to why people that discuss the series as though it genuinely as bad gameplay rectify its position as one of, if not the, most critically acclaimed series of the last generation. It's s genuine question.

Well Uncharted has three major types of gameplay in it that are wildly different from each other:
-combat
-exploring, environmental puzzles and navigation
-scripted events and "bask in the scenery" walks

This may be why people have strong opinions on certain parts of the game - they want the part they like to rotate in. If you notice, certain gamers enjoy certain parts of this kind of game, so while someone may acknowledge the scripted events are top of the line, they might think the other two are rubbish.

And that's OK. Because "most critically acclaimed series" has no bearing on my opinion of how good something is in my estimation. It doesn't make me wrong, or other people wrong either. Lord knows that I've absolutely hated critically acclaimed films, books, and music. "Critically acclaimed" doesn't change that.
 
Eh, the Uncharted games are okay for a good amount of fun the first runthrough of them. They have horrible replayability though imo. I usually play through it once then sell it. The only Uncharted I still own is 3.
 
The bullet spongeiness of the enemies in the games was always a huge unacceptable problem keeping the them from being 10/10s in my book. So obnoxious that you can shoot someone in the head and he would immediately get back up. Complete bullshit.

The Last of Us improved on this greatly - largely out of necessity due to the lack of ammo in the game, but I do hope Uncharted gets rid of the bullet sponges in 4.
 
first post gets it. Add to that shooting that just doesn't *feel* good and you have a very mediocre shooter, from mechanics to encounter design. Last Of Us had way better shooting and I hope a lot of lessons learned from that game go into UC4, because it looks pretty dope.

Saying it doesn't "feel" good tells me nothing considering I find Uncharted 2 and 3 to generally "feel" good in a lot of ways, 2 more so than 3.

Each one of Uncharted 2's shootouts is different, and has some element that shapes the encounter, and not always something as bombastic as an attack helicopter or tank. Not sure how that game has poor encounter design compared to other similar games that just have enemies pour in from nowhere the same way over and over. Granted, I would've made this thread about Uncharted 2 alone since UC1 was poor in regards to encounter design, enemy hit reactions, level design and aiming controls, but even still.

The bullet spongeiness of the enemies in the games was always a huge unacceptable problem keeping the them from being 10/10s in my book. So obnoxious that you can shoot someone in the head and he would immediately get back up. Complete bullshit.

I got to know which of the games you're talking about here. Only armored enemies can take a shot to the head, and at least in UC2, once the helmet's off, it's a one hit kill.
 

QaaQer

Member
Thanks for the thread op. I wrote this in another thread:

Nor should it. I think the collection will also hurt uc4 sales. Here is my experience:

I played the demo before release. I started it up and got lost looking for a switch to flip to turn an elevator back on, so frustration ensued. Then I had to battle furiously some helicopter with like 2 minutes of getting used to the game systems. I died many times, more frustration. I thought, "da fuq? This is horrible. I should buy the collection because there has to be something there. Millions of gamers can't be wrong." As a side note, this is also the reasoning I used when I bought a wiiu and $350 of software. So, I then played uc1, and aside from ten minutes of likeable dialog, I was astounded at how bad the game is. I also feel the same way about the wiiu, BTW. :p

I'll play through 2 using the run&gun steel fist approach and see if I like it better. Normal is the appropriate difficulty for that?
 

TheDanger

Banned
yes I have found if hip shooting jumping around and meleeing (all the time) is much more effective and fun than shooting from cover. On normal it works really good, on hard you have to plan it out for a bit, but on crushing you are pretty much stuck with shooting from cover.
 

FranXico

Member
I'll play through 2 using the run&gun steel fist approach and see if I like it better. Normal is the appropriate difficulty for that?

Normal or hard are challenging without getting frustrating. Hard in fact went smoother than what I remembered from the PS3 days, thanks in no small part to the more responsible controls (30fps -> 60 fps).
 

Spinluck

Member
There seem to be two camps when it comes to this and the Uncharted 3 shipwreck level is the great divider of opinion.

Those that think the combat is dynamic and based around movement and readjusting attack position love that level due to the freedom it has.

Still one of my favorite Uncharted levels.
 
I'll play through 2 using the run&gun steel fist approach and see if I like it better. Normal is the appropriate difficulty for that?

Yeah it is. You'll still have to use cover sometimes, but just use all the abilities you have at your disposal. The first game is not repreaentative of 2 or 3 especially in terms of combat.
 

Spinluck

Member
Hate to say it but you are an idiot if you think the enemies are bullet sponges. All non-armored enemies takes 3 shots to the body or 1 shot to the head to kill. No exceptions. If you think that's bullet sponge then you just suck at gaming.

Absolutely fucking bullshit

I'm playing through UC1 right now on Crushing, and if you do not shoot their heads it's a toss up.

I've counted enemies surviving up to 5-6 shots depending on the gun. That's a joke considering how quickly they kill you on Crushing.
 
The games are great fun and provide a great tps experience I've played the trilogy twice now with the remasters and they are just as fun as the first time

I'm currently atm trying to choke down golden abyss I just can't seem to get into it tho so there's that

Also on the tomb raider argument I started playing the remake on my Xbox one thanks to gwg and it's decent but I find the quality of uncharted much much better but I'm more of a characters story environments kinda guy I feel tr lacks compared
 

nib95

Banned
Endless waves of bullet sponge enemies doesn't qualify as great combat to me.

They're endless waves of bullet sponge enemies if you have terrible aim and no concept of recoil control, otherwise they're mostly one headshot hit kills that never really overstay their welcome.

Anyway excellent OP, I just finished the three games recently and fully agree.
 

bounchfx

Member
i'm a bit shocked that this is even a debate

it became successful because it did everything it set out to do exceptionally well, which the sequel only improved on. it wasn't just a vehicle for cutscenes and indiana jones-esque adventure, even though it did that well too.

shit was just fun
 
Top Bottom