nelsonroyale
Member
I prefer the combat in Uncharted to Gears. It always felt more fast paced and mobile. I can't really see what Gears does better at this stage than U4 in SP...
-
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)
- Thread starter Fancy Clown
- Start date
I prefer the combat in Uncharted to Gears. It always felt more fast paced and mobile. I can't really see what Gears does better at this stage than U4 in SP...
Tried the Water Feature encounter on crushing. Took your advice and used more opprtunities to break line of sight and incorperate stealth into the mix and everything turned out a lot better. I still feel like enemies are a little too accurate, because i've now moved onto the next encounter in the Mansion and the heavy armored machine gun guy just took me out from across the room while swinging from the rope.
No, you're not. Everyone's views here on Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 are unaffected by the release of the new Uncharted 4.. even if that entry may well be a legit great TPS (I haven't played it, so can't comment on it atm). Uncharted 4 wasn't in scope of this thread when you made it. If someone made a claim that Street Fighter was a legit great fighter when the only released game were Street Fighter 1, the release of Street Fighter 2 wouldn't retroactively vindicate them. Make that same claim around the time of Street Fighter 3, and most people would probably agree with them.
It's likely because you're just more adept at controlling the character, as a result of the time you've spent playing. Much like I don't have any problems choosing with enemy to attack, or running in between hordes in Phantasy Star Online as a result of learned habits. It doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate control issues that the average person will encounter (and you yourself encountered with the original game).
Or don't, and just continue to pick them off. Which is what's been working for many of the people that are dying when attempting to be mobile. It's not that you can't be mobile (people tend to be able to speedrun anything for example), the game's just not designed in such a way for it to be conductive to most players' success.
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
Gear has vital points. Headshots kill, ect. But they are hard to compare. MGS has a ton to do with stealth.
Only 1/10 enemies in the game are like this, though?
9/10 of them (probably more like 19/20 in UC4) can be killed with one headshot.
What are they then?
There are guns you can use agains enemies that yuo shot to kill, in U4 and specially TLOU the feel of killing is liek God Tier and instead of giving us more things to kill they give less, how is that making any sense?
Now if they want to stick to their guns and make a walking, character interaction heavy platformer sure they can Im not saying they shouldnt but for fucks sakes put a mode where I can forget all that shit and go and kill things without worry about cutscenes and stuff.
Hence me asking for Horde mode or survival mode where I can play with a coop partner or 4 and just kill things for fun, I know MP is in there but not everyone likes to play with some magic misticals stuff all over, if you tell me there is a classic mode pure ol team deathmatch now I will be pleased.
I fucking hate the way Gears plays. It controls like ass and the gunplay feels like shit. Feels like the guns are meekly lobbing peas at meat sponges. Literally hate everything about how that game plays and feels.
The fuck are you talking about here, man? Headshots kill every enemy except the ones with a helmet, which are pretty few and far between and then take two headshots.
Chronospherics
Member
I guess the problem with Uncharted's design is that it isn't really about movement at all. Movement in Uncharted makes the game enjoyable, as you run and gun through enemies, but ultimately this aspect of the games design is punished rather than rewarded.
This is very clearly demonstated on the higher difficulties, as combat becomes more stagnant and passive. Enemies do not care where or how you are moving, they will outright kill you in seconds, and you're much better off clinging to cover than you are moving anywhere.
This contrasts shooters who are actually focused on movement, like Doom, where movement is an essential component of the core gameplay and actively rewarded. Uncharted would be a better game if it rewarded movement with a similar mechanism. The way the OP describes, Uncharted turns the typical TPS mechanic on its head by promoting movement in combat, but it doesn't actually do that at all, and that's a shame.
Not that I think the game is bad, and on moderate difficulty the game can be really enjoyable, on this difficulty, movement almost feels rewarded. It isn't, but you can get away with that run and gun playstyle that makes the game incredibly enjoyable.
This is very clearly demonstated on the higher difficulties, as combat becomes more stagnant and passive. Enemies do not care where or how you are moving, they will outright kill you in seconds, and you're much better off clinging to cover than you are moving anywhere.
This contrasts shooters who are actually focused on movement, like Doom, where movement is an essential component of the core gameplay and actively rewarded. Uncharted would be a better game if it rewarded movement with a similar mechanism. The way the OP describes, Uncharted turns the typical TPS mechanic on its head by promoting movement in combat, but it doesn't actually do that at all, and that's a shame.
Not that I think the game is bad, and on moderate difficulty the game can be really enjoyable, on this difficulty, movement almost feels rewarded. It isn't, but you can get away with that run and gun playstyle that makes the game incredibly enjoyable.
I came to it right off finishing Uncharted 2 and 3 in the collection on Crushing and Uncharted 4's combat actually took a while for me to "get" despite playing on Hard. At the start I kept getting killed by enemies coming up behind me (which I initially took as some Uncharted 1/3 spawning bullshit) and my aim felt like the Polygon player in that Doom video (going from 60FPS to 30 doesn't help either). Then I calmed down and looked over things more and I realised the actual reasons; enemies are all there from the start, they're just way more aggressive and the bigger arenas make it easier to initially overlook them. The aim-disruption when getting hit is also greater and makes straight shootouts much harder. I eventually realised that those things promoted mobility and indirect attacks much more. It wasn't until like chapter 18 that I fully "got it" though, and by then it was almost over (and I pretty much breezed through the last fights after a bunch of deaths in earlier ones). They're not hunting you, you're hunting them. In Uncharted 4 it's kind of a shame there's so little combat in the first place, as what's there is the best and a refinement of what Uncharted 2 got right.
You should probably take this up with the OP, rather than people that disagree with the title.
Will respond to others soon.
You're not wrong on paper (re the title) but the OP is only talking about the quality of combat encounters, not the quantity - whereas the guy i was responding to there was saying the game has too few combat encounters. My argument to these posters is that other mechanics (ie not TPS ones - platforming, adventuring etc) have equal footing here.
You're not wrong on paper (re the title) but the OP is only talking about the quality of combat encounters, not the quantity - whereas the guy i was responding to there was saying the game has too few combat encounters. My argument to these posters is that other mechanics (ie not TPS ones - platforming, adventuring etc) have equal footing here.
autoduelist
Member
There is no enemy except for the super heavy in Uncharted that can take a head shot and "keep firing at you". Headshots kill. The only exception is if they have a helmet, and then it generally takes two headshots (one to remove helmet, second for kill). The super heavies helmets are slightly harder to remove -- a grenade or two will remove helmet, and then a single head shot will kill. But their shooting is easily timed and you should be able to take them down even with a pistol assuming good aim.
This is true even on crushing. They aren't bullet sponges unless you hit them in their armor... they are human enemies and headshots will kill them.
Well, to be fair... neither he nor the person he responded to even made any mention of the number of encounters having anything to do with its genre. They just want more of that, and less of whatever else there is. Like if I say that I wish for more/longer tombs in RoTR, I'd be pretty surprised to get a resposne back saying something along the lines of "oh look, another person who think's this game is a puzzle/platformer. (hint: it's not)". I mean.. I didn't say it was... I would just prefer there to be more of something that it already does contain.
I suppose a better argument from my end is how the person directly used Gears as a showcase.
Of course it's fine to want more combat in Uncharted 4. I want more combat in Uncharted 4.
But the person's Gears comparison belied a complete misunderstanding of what Uncharted is - as in, the entire series. Gears is combat sequence after combat sequence with great shooting and cover mehanics and solid AI/encounter design. That's it. Nothing else. Traversal is just walking. There are no puzzles. No "adventuring" for adventuring's sake. Very rare vehicular sections. Saying "Uncharted 4's lack of combat sucks, it should be like Gears" is pretty disingenuous and suggests a reductive TPS should = TPS argument.
Mr.Fletcher
Member
Gears of War, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid, Vanquish, Max Payne - they are all doing different things. Some are pure shooters, some are action-adventure games with shooting elements, some are something else entirely.
None of them feel the same and none of them play the same, but that's by design.
Uncharted 4 feels great but it's going after something totally different to the rest.
People who want more heft in Uncharted and people who want more verticality in Gears don't understand what makes those games work in the first place.
None of them feel the same and none of them play the same, but that's by design.
Uncharted 4 feels great but it's going after something totally different to the rest.
People who want more heft in Uncharted and people who want more verticality in Gears don't understand what makes those games work in the first place.
Mr. Giggles
Member
Agreed, Its cool to prefer one over the other but wanting other games to conform to the design of the game you prefer is very narrow minded.
Its kind of why for a time lots of games shoehorned CoD mechanics only to be a lesser experience for it (ADS, perks, etc)
Am I missing where he directly compares the game with Gears, or are you getting him mixed up with a different poster you've responded that compared it to Gears (Exploratory maybe?). You could ask for a horde mode for pretty much any game... Gears just established the new popular name for an arcade-like mode where you fighting an increasing difficult wave of enemies.
Exploratory
Banned
Morrigan you're clearly either imagining this or need to git gud.
It's absolute trash but has nothing to do with the base mechanics if anything the base mechanics are the reason people play at all.
Chronospherics
Member
I've played all of the UC games and have 1000s of hours in MP and I don't entirely disagree with him, it's easy for the game to accidentally place you in cover rather than roll. Say there's cover in front of me, and I want to roll forward, not take cover, well, there's absolutely no option to do that. If I press up and circle it will always take cover, obviously that is going to cause issues from time to time.
I doesn't hamper my sense of enjoyment because in most instances taking cover is 'good enough', it propels you forward quite quickly in a low stance, just as the roll would, but it can cause issues from time to time all the same.
Unknown One
Member
This seriously or been playing too much COD with enemies that dies in 1-2 shots.
shadowstar
Member
Comparing similar games, I prefer the gameplay aspects of the most recent Tomb Raider to Uncharted 4. The zelda like level design is more fun for me than linear levels, I prefer everything about the combat (weapon upgrading, alt fires, the stealth is a lot more believable), and the movement feels a lot tighter and you're free to do a lot more.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Agreed.
Really now. Could have sworn they controlled in third-person and you shot people with guns in it.
Could be true. Maybe I was just really rusty, because I don't recall the cover/dodge issue to be that frequent in the past games, particularly when I was playing UC2 a lot (and doing online coop with friends) and got pretty good, but it was my biggest source of frustration in UC4.
I agree with this. For instance I'd try the moving around, swinging on ropes etc. but every time I swung on a rope I'd be gunned down to death before I could even leap off, so I stopped trying that pretty quickly.
Every time I'd try to use the super-armoured guys' big heavy gun, which can't be used from cover, I'd die before I finished off every enemy, so I stopped using that.
Every time I tried to run and gun with a shotgun I'd just end up dying from bullets that came from all directions too, so I quickly abandoned that kind of tactic.
Cool if these tactics worked for others. Maybe I just got unlucky and most of the time they are efficient and I should have tried more. But in the end I went with what worked for me.
Haha. Well. I finished Uncharted 2 on Crushing (forgot if I did UC1 on Crushing too, I think so -- but didn't bother with 3) and UC4 on Hard. I think I do okay. Maybe I suck more than I think, but I don't think that my complaints are frivolous. The dodge/cover button issue pissed me off the whole game really.
Note, I don't really have a problem with the so-called "bullet sponge" argument. I don't think it's true generally. Though, sometimes, when I pop a non-armoured enemy in the chest 3 times and he's still alive I get a bit miffed. But then I remember that Drake is unarmoured and can take some hits too (even on Hard) so I'm like "eh ok fair enough".
This right here. The game looks great and the animations are some of the best I've seen, but every time i would get to a point where I had to stealth kill 18 guards or else an endless wave of enemies spawn, my wife and I would just roll out eyes. Shit gets old after a while .
WrenchNinja
Member
if the base mechanics make it such an amazing tps then surely people would be all over the multiplayer wouldn't they
It's definitely something that's present in UC1&2 also (the only one's I've played). It's less about someone "playing badly" and more that over time people adapt to pretty much any control mechanics to the point where they cease to be an issue. That's why I brought up PSO, as I imagine pretty much anyone that's played it knows the feeling of having the auto-lock switch to an enemy other than the one you intended to attack due to them becoming to closest in proximity, or how it can be awkward way the game will transition you from running into a guarded walk when you get close to enemies. If you love the game though, and play it for tens/hundreds of hours, you'll automatically adopt a style of play that renders these common complaint moot... but they're still there, and it shouldn't be surprising when someone else encounters them.
Not really.
See also, the new DOOM. You can fuck up multiplayer modes in a variety of ways that are not directly connected to core gameplay mechanics. If a game is designed for singleplayer first and foremost, then the mechanics are likely better suited for that also. A multiplayer Resident Evil 4 would probably be shit.
Unknown One
Member
MGSV character mechanics are good, but the shooting mechanics is average. It doesn't feel good to fully shoot an automatic in that game at all. The spread randomization is ridiculous.
CrichtonKicks
Member
Uncharted 2-4 had great mechanics (especially 4), but too many people sleep on UC1. The PS3 version is most definitely outdated, but the remaster version is fantastic to play! It doesn't motivate you to move throughout the battlefield like later games, but I found myself enjoying the combat quite a bit
I think UC1 motivates you to move way more than UC2. UC2 was the most friendly to all the games of just hunkering down in cover.
Plus UC1 does that thing frequently where spawns come in from all angles so the "safe vector" is changing constantly.
gamerMan
Member
I really think it depends on how you play Uncharted. Two people playing the same game can have completely different experiences with the combat. You could hide behind one piece of cover and occasionally dodge grenades while taking out soldiers. That is not fun as it feels like wave after wave of bullet sponge enemies come at you. The better way is to move around the arena between cover points picking off enemies strategically and using the environment to your disposal.
In Uncharted, I don't know if it is the dual shock sticks but I feel moving the reticle around isn't as smooth as it should be. Aiming feels much better in Gears. It's almost as if Naughty Dog felt this was true and applied a quick bandaid over the problem. In part 4, you don't even have to be accurate with the lock on feature enabled. Now you can blindly fire at enemies.
I know the combat is different, but I actually prefer the combat in Gears because it is designed to be played in a certain way. You can never really have a bad experience unless you are not very skilled. I loved all of the strategic elements in the game and the interesting ways you could move between cover. Uncharted's combat doesn't feel as deep as Gears is constantly throwing new enemy types at you, forcing you to constantly mix up your strategy.
The AI feels much more natural in Gears and doesn't feel like it is cheating the game's rules. What I hated about Gears is that the controls felt clunky.
In Uncharted, I don't know if it is the dual shock sticks but I feel moving the reticle around isn't as smooth as it should be. Aiming feels much better in Gears. It's almost as if Naughty Dog felt this was true and applied a quick bandaid over the problem. In part 4, you don't even have to be accurate with the lock on feature enabled. Now you can blindly fire at enemies.
I know the combat is different, but I actually prefer the combat in Gears because it is designed to be played in a certain way. You can never really have a bad experience unless you are not very skilled. I loved all of the strategic elements in the game and the interesting ways you could move between cover. Uncharted's combat doesn't feel as deep as Gears is constantly throwing new enemy types at you, forcing you to constantly mix up your strategy.
The AI feels much more natural in Gears and doesn't feel like it is cheating the game's rules. What I hated about Gears is that the controls felt clunky.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
So you haven't played Uncharted 4.
Mr.Fletcher
Member
I think Gears of War benefits from having a huge cast of varied monsters, unique weapons with real personalities and the slickest cover-system in the industry.
Cover is king in Gears and almost every mechanic and weapon in the series serves to stress that. Mantle kick, the digger, lambert enemies that force you out of cover etc.
People love to belittle the encounter design in Gears, but at its best it has excellent design for its style of combat.
Totally different game from Uncharted though.
partyphone
Banned
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I really enjoy going stealth, I'm not good enough yet to do action move and crush everybody. Not enough practice yet.
Does someone have a video of a really skillful player?
Does someone have a video of a really skillful player?
Even so, it's an exaggeration as Uncharted 2 & 3 are more balanced in terms of the amount of enemies you face in each arena.
1 is the only offender of going overboard and even then, its combat (while mechanically outdated) is still surprisingly good if you actually are familiar with the game on some level. It just suffers from not communicating to the player that they need to be mobile and grab any power weapon in a given arena to dispatch of the waves of enemies. Other than that, it works pretty well playing in a more mobile style like the subsequent games.
The games (barring 4) just do a bad job at communicating you need to move and not sit behind one or two pieces of cover. You can play it that way but the games are decidedly less fun. And if you do play it that way, you're missing out on finding a lot of the power weapons laid out in the arenas (most notably in 2, somewhat in 3).
And arguably, playing it the safe way is worse on higher difficulties. You're just as likely to die sitting behind one piece of cover as you are moving from one to the next to grab a power weapon or get a better vantage point. Well, mainly on Crushing. Hard you could still get by with playing it safe. Ironically playing reckless can work much better in a lot of the arenas in Uncharted 2, as opposed to what most people probably think.
Sure. I wasn't co-signing what that poster said (tho holy shit at the end areas of UC2..). I was just pointing out how UC4 is irrelevant to the majority of posts in this thread. It's a strange bump tbh.
Ah gotcha. That was a strange bump.
And I always forget about the arena at the end of UC2; but that's mainly because since I figured out there's a trigger, after killing a certain number of enemies, you need to step over it works like a normal combat arena lol. And there is another one like that in Drake's Fortune in the underground tunnels if you never leave the room after turning the power back on; Spaniards just keep spawning until you realize you need to leave. But those are the only abnormal arenas out of the trilogy on PS3 (and look at that they're both when there's supernatural shit going on lol.)
Muffdraul
Member
Uncharted combat is the dictionary definition of decent; servicable; sufficient. It's fine. It gets the job done. It's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. After I played the U1 demo I very nearly passed on the full game because I thought it was very pretty with very dull game play. It didn't change much in the sequels.
That said, the combat in U4 was a very noticeable improvement over the first three.
That said, the combat in U4 was a very noticeable improvement over the first three.
WrenchNinja
Member
sounds like excuses to cover for the game. if they're such amazing shooting mechanics and they have both contexts already, then they should be able to attract people to both sides instead of just one. Unless there's other issues that fundamentally break the game like map design, but somehow I don't think that's the issue here.
Combat is fun in UC4 and yet kind of janky/kind of random trial and error.
I never felt confident in the combat. It seems like every encounter I could either die 5x before passing it or I could pass it my first time. Roll a dice. IT was fun enough where I didn't mind repeating the combat. But my results were sort of trial and error.
I never felt confident in the combat. It seems like every encounter I could either die 5x before passing it or I could pass it my first time. Roll a dice. IT was fun enough where I didn't mind repeating the combat. But my results were sort of trial and error.
Sure, you can call them excuses if you like... I'm not really looking to argue this extensively, because to me it just seems like a no-brainer. In many games that have both multiplayer and singleplayer (or general PvE), the mechanics of the game are clearly designed for one over the other. Street Fighter 2 is clearly designed to be played primarily against other humans, and is damn good at it, despite not being as great against AI. Streets of Rage 2 on the other hand is clearly designed to be played against the AI, and is damn good at it... If someone tried to level "well, how well is Streets of Rage 2 doing as a versus fighter" as a way of dismissing the game's combat mechanics... then I'd simply assume they're just missing the point.
Uncharted quite clearly falls into the group that's primarily focused on singleplayer gameplay (to the point that they were fine dropping the MP entirely from UCC), so it makes perfect sense to compared MGSV to it on that front, rather than MP where honestly Gears is pretty much alone in its own little world compared to the rest of the genre.
WrenchNinja
Member
the difference is you're comparing throwaway modes to pushed and fully fleshed out ones. to act like it's an equivalent scenario is off base and not a particularly good comparison.
They dropped it while including the beta for their next game's multi. It's pretty clear they only made the ndc for people who didn't own a ps3 and wanted to catch up with the story. that's not really a knock on Uc2 and uc3s multi like you want it to be
Jawmuncher
Member
Still agree with this thread. Never understood why people downplay it. The series didn't sell a ton of copies because people like to climb. It's because the games action scenes were a blast to play.
LowEndTorque
Member
Agree with OP. Gameplay is top notch, esp 4.
Pretty much.
There are people who genuinely gave it a shot and the gameplay style is not for them. That is fine, and I can respectfully disagree as a matter of taste. But if I had to wager a guess, those genuine opinions probably make up a tiny fraction of the nogamplayz/bulletspongewavelol/QTEfest/lousy movie/hyped/overrated/doesn't deserve review scores/etc. discourse.
Pretty much.
There are people who genuinely gave it a shot and the gameplay style is not for them. That is fine, and I can respectfully disagree as a matter of taste. But if I had to wager a guess, those genuine opinions probably make up a tiny fraction of the nogamplayz/bulletspongewavelol/QTEfest/lousy movie/hyped/overrated/doesn't deserve review scores/etc. discourse.
It doesn't matter if they're pushed or not... they don't have to equally good at both. It certainly wasn't pushed more than the campaign was, just like Uncharted 4's multiplayer isn't. And dropping the multiplayer off three games for a 10 day beta of the next game hardly paints a picture of multiplayer being a pushed mode for the series anyway. Yes, they made NDC for people to catch up on the Uncharted story in preparation for UC4... because that's what the game sells on, just like MGS sells on the strength of its campaigns rather than the strength of the multiplayer... neither series even had multiplayer initially. This isn't intended as a "knock" on Uncharted... it's intended as a defense of MGSV, because the idea that a game doesn't have great gameplay mechanics unless it's popular amongst both SP and MP is fucking ridiculous.
NullPointer
Member
Exactly.
I really don't think these big action adventure movie GIFs are representing the gameplay well. The insanely detailed and gorgeous animations and effects and environments? Hell yes. But gameplay not so much.
Every time I start to go black and white its the game telling me to stop doing what I'm doing, or that I'm doing it wrong, and that was the result of 95% of my attempts to mix things up by swinging around and staying mobile for the hell of it, as the pure stealth takedown route was too slow paced and one-note for what I was looking for in the action sequences.
The only thing I don't really like about Uncharted's combat is the way aiming from cover has never felt right. I aim and get where I think is lined up but the reticle is off - it's a 'feel' problem that I have with Uncharted but haven't had with other games, and with the amount of cover shooting you do I find it an annoying issue.
Fancy Clown
Member
lol