Fancy Clown
Member
It takes 3-4 body shots with a pistol to kill a standard enemy, or 1 shotgun blast. Still a bullet sponge?
-
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
It takes 3-4 body shots with a pistol to kill a standard enemy, or 1 shotgun blast. Still a bullet sponge?
The games are supposedly designed to make you want to leave cover and engage in run and gun, melee etc, but then they simultaneously punish you for doing so by applying damage in most instances when you leave cover. This is contradictory design. "Optimal" play therefore becomes about using the subpar stealth/cover-shooting mechanics as much as possible to avoid damage, but in videos posted here that supposedly show off the great combat design, the player is running around taking damage constantly, getting locked into extended melee animations in the open, etc. The game seemingly wants you to do the "fun" option but simultaneously punishes you for it. It feels sloppy and unsatisfying to achieve competency in Uncharted games because doing all the "cool stuff" inevitably leads to receiving damage.
Compare this with something like MGSV, which is mechanically superior to control, and properly rewards comptency. Even Resident Evil 6, which has an extremely uneven singleplayer mode, controls in a much better manner than the UC series and correctly rewards competency rather than punishing the player for attempting to use the game systems.
You realise your argument is "the games can't be bad, because I enjoyed them", right?
Compare this with something like MGSV, which is mechanically superior to control, and properly rewards comptency. Even Resident Evil 6, which has an extremely uneven singleplayer mode, controls in a much better manner than the UC series and correctly rewards competency rather than punishing the player for attempting to use the game systems.
Fancy Clown said:
You realise your argument is "the games can't be bad, because I enjoyed them", right?
Yeah, but I can't really appreciate these things since you can pretty much steamroll them once you figure how much damage you can take or can expose yourself. As such I add way more emphasis in having creative ways to dispatch the baddies.That's true but I generally expect at a basic level of self-preservation. I need to actually believe the AI wants to be alive, to get any satisfaction from taking their life away.
But you are right, most AI in TPS (or FPS) aren't good enough. I think Uncharted has some better responses though, as AI actually recognize when they are the last man alive, when you have run out of ammunition, when you're moving for another piece of cover etc. They do make some of the mistakes of Mass Effects AI, rushing forward at inopportune times, and so forth, but I think they cling to cover and use blindfire pretty intelligently, a lot of the time.
ahh, here is it the default (terrible) defense for criticism for a game: You're just bad!
Chronospherics
Member
I think several people have pointed out that although enemies are killed in one headshot, it also only takes between three and five regular shots to put them down.
I don't think that's an at all unreasonable amount of damage to have to output in the event that you're forgoing accuracy (headshots) for an easier target (centre of mass). The weapons you fire in Uncharted all shoot pretty quickly, and regardless of what your doing all regular enemies can be dispatched in under a second. That's more than can be said for games like Gears of War, where the lancer actually takes quite a while to take down targets.
I actually think a lot of the bullet sponge complaints stem from the fact that Uncharted uses human enemies, rather than aliens and the expectancy that comes from that, and playing games like Call of Duty. Because sci-fi shooters like Gears, Halo, Destiny, Resistance, where enemies require far, far more bullets to kill (on average) than Uncharted do not usually see these 'bullet sponge' complaints.
WrenchNinja
Member
Are you saying that enemies shoot at you while you're out of cover? Why I can't believe this. What an outrage. Who would have thought that you could get damaged while out of cover.
Fancy Clown
Member
Obviously you take damage when you leave cover, but that's why you have regenerative health. You take damage but it comes back once you get to a new cover point and move on again. And the level design rewards you for taking the high ground, flanking, or finding power weapons. If you just hide you can get flanked, rushed, run out of ammo etc.
I've layed out a detailed argument in the OP and numerous times throughout the thread that you can look at if you care to. That post I repsonded to didn't merit an argument beyond what I said.
Fancy Clown
Member
Are you going to respond to any of the posts that point out how the enemies are not bullet sponges, or what
WrenchNinja
Member
There's plenty of things to criticise Uncharted with. Bullet sponge enemies is not one of them. Using that argument is pretty telling, that the player is either full of shit, or can't aim for shit.
But in this case it's true though. If you can't aim for the head, or can't control recoil, obviously enemies are going to seem bullet spongey even when it's actually been proven not to be the case. Hell, other TPS like Gears of War and Resident Evil generally have enemies that require far more bullets to take down.
Outside of the rare supernatural enemy (against which you can use powerful super natural weapons) and ultra rare bosses, Uncharted enemies simply are not bullet sponges. Unless of course you're comparing the ttk to games like COD.
Given all the legit complaints about the shitty uses of regenerating health it's funny how a series comes along that actually promotes using to augment your playstyle (which is what it should do if it's going to be in a game) and the complaint is "but you have to take damage and that's bad because"
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Eh, while I don't agree with him, he has the trophies to back up that he's played both UC2 and 3. I don't think there was trophy support for UC1 when it first came out though.
Sorry for snooping Moon_frogger
Then he must be Guy Pierce from Memento
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
The feel of the weapons are really bad imo. It just doesn't feel satisfying to kill an enemy.
Please explain this to me. Because pretty much every game has bullet sponge enemies if you don't aim for their weakpoints. Those hunters in Halo? Elites and jackals with shields? Bullet sponges if you don't aim for their weakpoints, or let the elite's shield recharge. God, you know what was a huge bullet sponge? The garrador in Resident Evil 4. Just...don't shoot them in the back please.
That's interesting. All of the bits you highlight come from the last act, the Shambala section.
I replayed UC2 on crushing 3-4 times back on PS3, and I never had any issues in these parts. It just required slightly different tactics - something the games are great for doing. I'm just about to reach the Shambala parts on the ND Collection in the next week, so I'll feed back whether I felt they were cheap or not.
PS I agree with the Uncharted 2 ending boss. OHKOs are annoying, but the fight teaches you the rules, and then lets you get on it with it. Never had an issue with it. UC1's and UC3's are far worse.
I think the heavy one-shot weapons (magnum and shotgun) feel good, but yeah it's not the series' strong suit. FYI killing while run-and-gunning often feels best. And explosives are broadly great.
Uncharted 4 definitely looks like it'll address this. Shooting the AK looks amazing.
My problem with Uncharted isn't the 'bullet sponge' enemies, that's among the least of its problems, so I can't really the defend that argument (I just feel pointing out headshots are one shot kill without helmets is a dumb counter). But you just named two other games that are also notorious for their bullet sponge enemies..
Something about the Uncharted games just never felt right for me.
Shooting was never satisfying. Feedback is extremely important to me with shooters, and Uncharted lacks that weighty punch that something like say MGSV does extremely well.
Movement in general also never felt right to me. It felt janky and weird, almost as if my inputs weren't always responding correctly.
From a gameplay perspective, everything about the series just feels sloppy, and unrewarding. The only things they really do well are setpieces and creating likable characters.
Shooting was never satisfying. Feedback is extremely important to me with shooters, and Uncharted lacks that weighty punch that something like say MGSV does extremely well.
Movement in general also never felt right to me. It felt janky and weird, almost as if my inputs weren't always responding correctly.
From a gameplay perspective, everything about the series just feels sloppy, and unrewarding. The only things they really do well are setpieces and creating likable characters.
TouchMyBox
Member
I didn't really care for the "bullet-sponge" argument that was levied at the series since because at least in the first game, all of the enemies died with 1 headshot. Then I played Uncharted 3 and it was just endless waves of dudes who were full-out hurt-locker who took like 7 shots to the head to kill, man that was frustrating. I eventually put the game on easy mode, and people died with shots to the face like they should and the game became much more enjoyable, albeit completely lacking any challenge. I'd like to think that there is a nice middle-ground somewhere between easy peasy and frustrating as fuck (I imagine it's significantly less crap on the PS4 with the improved framerate though).
CryTharsis
Banned
I remember playing Uncharted 2 for the first time (it was the first game I bought for my new PS3 in 2011), I was like: man this looks beautiful, but why the fuck did it get those high scores?!
Today I enjoy these games because of fantastic graphics, great locations, thrilling stunts and sympathic characters but as a shooter and as an action-adventure they are pretty mediocre imo.
Today I enjoy these games because of fantastic graphics, great locations, thrilling stunts and sympathic characters but as a shooter and as an action-adventure they are pretty mediocre imo.
Can you still explain what he's missing about bullet sponge enemies? Why are enemies that have weak points a dumb counter to bullet sponge enemies?
What games don't have bullet sponge enemies, using your reasoning? Only hardcore tactical shooters?
Neff
Member
My main problem with Uncharted's gameplay besides it being simplistic, derivative, and repetitive, is that by the end of the game, you're playing it in exactly the same way you were at the start. You gain no new abilities. With the possible exception of being able to blow up fuel cans, you haven't learned any new skills or tricks which improve your performance. It basically boils down to a limited combination if light stealth, aiming for randomly effective headshots, cover-hugging, and strafe-hipfiring like an idiot for its entire duration, across three games.
They look great, though.
They look great, though.
Great work pulling one sentence out of my post so you could take it out of context, nice job! As I said already, it's poor design for the game to encourage you to run and gun while simultaneously punishing you for it. Once you're out of cover the enemy accuracy is such that you will inevitably take damage unless you... get right back into cover again.
This doesn't address what I said, which is that the game is actively punishing you for doing the thing it wants you to do. Not only that, it telegraphs this in the most blatantly obvious way to tell you to stop what you're doing and get in cover (multiple bright red indicators on-screen, fading to monochrome, etc). If Naughty Dog actually want you to dynamically roam around between all these in/out of cover states in the way you laid out in the OP, they are failing to convey this in the design, because you are consistently punished within a couple of seconds of leaving cover in the games, and the natural response to the visual feedback for most players will be to get back in cover ASAP.
The real answer is that there is no masterful design going on here, and Naughty Dog just happen to have dressed up some playable but not particularly deep mechanics in a polished package, and the relatively simple combat and generously regenerating health means that people can progress through the game in a straightforward manner. Not that I'm damning the game as a package, since the real draw is in the setpiece design, visual quality and characterisation which are all amazing and often deserving of awards.
Mman235 said:
Finish your sentence: "but you have to take damage and that's bad because the game is portraying your competency with the mechanics as a failure state".
I can't believe I have to defend that it is poor design for a game to tell you you're performing correctly by giving you negative feedback.
Just the first two chapters of which game? Pretty ridiculous post, mate. If it's first two chapters of UC1 you'll have a decent impression. First two chapters of UC2 you might even have a bad impression (very slow starter, high pace from about chapter 5). From UC3 you might even then have an OK impression (also a slow start).
None of the games get really good until a few hours into the adventure. From chapter 523 Uncharted 2 is absolutely phenomenal.
Difficulty doesn't change enemy health, Easy gives you auto-aim/much stronger aim assist so this suggests to me that you were, honestly, just bad at shooting/aiming on Normal (or whatever difficulty you were playing it on at the time). Couple that with UC3's aiming problems at launch and it's understandable how you could have been getting many of those "7 shots to the head to kill a guy" moments. But in the Collection, that problem is gone completely and if you replayed it on Normal in the Collection 3 is much better overall.
But Uncharted 3 is notoriously bad for its level design in some areas of the game so it's not the de facto best example of the series' combat. 2 has far better consistency in combat arena design. There's aome areas in 3 that are super cool and fun to fight in but it doesn't have that great design all the time like 2 does -- 2's arenas start becoming amazing from Chapter 5 and on -- there isn't really a single bad combat arena from Chapter 5 to about 24, I'd say. And that's a huge chunk of the game to have such great consistency with.
WrenchNinja
Member
There's no context missing here. It's such a ridiculous thing to criticise. The thing about running and gunning is knowing when to back away from a fire fight and went to rejoin it firing away. Of course you will inevitably take damage if you're always out in the open.
Fancy Clown
Member
lol what the hell are you going on about. So TPS games can't have high mobility if you can get shot by enemies? You can't stay out in the open forever, but as I've stated there are significant advantages from moving about, only using cover to recharge your health. If you had a health bar with limited med packs, sure going out in the open would be dangerous, but there's no downside to running out and trying to get a better weapon, find a better location, or choke a guy out or whatever.
So, one last time.
Advantages to moving around:
-Get to better locations in the map
-Get better guns
-Avoid being flanked
-Can beat an encounter quicker
-Replenish your ammo
-Lose enemy sightlines
Disadvantages to moving around:
-You open yourself up to damage that can very quickly be regenerated once you get to another cover spot
1. Apparently this will change in UC4. Lots of new gadgets unlocked throughout (closer to Tomb Raider 2013/RotTR), multiple branching routes, and new vehicles scattered throughout.
2. You absolutely get new situations, weapons and unique contexts throughout all the games (Uncharted 3 the least so). E.g. vehicles and enemy types in UC1 and UC2, enemy types in UC3. But most of the variety comes from the enemies and their strategies combined with the level design - you constantly hit new situations, new challenges and encounter mix-ups (eg only fight by hanging, only fight by running, only fight vertically) etc, even if the core mechanics don't/barely change.
Also "randomly effective headshots"? They are always effective. Wtf. If I had to describe me playing Uncharted 2 on Crushing, it would be more like "a broad combination of good stealth (can do whole levels with it), cover-shooting until enemies force me out with grenades/rushing, jumping/rolling to new places, mixing cover-shots with run-and-gun and CQC, using climbing to get better positions/cover, constantly losing and flanking enemies, constantly being flanked by enemies, constantly on the look out for better weapons/ammo... Just generally having a great time. It's fucking great.
2. Uncharted solidly fits the 'simple but deep' paradigm imho. See my list in that last sentence of point 2.
Yes, the mechanics are very simple and barely change, but the amount you can do with the mechanics is great and lets you intelligently interact with lots of unique scenarios.
Fredrik
Member
You don't like anything about the gameplay? I have no problem what so ever with the puzzles and the jumping and climbing, I actually love that, feels like Tomb Raider or Prince of Persia. I just think there is too much focus on the gunplay and the gunplay isn't nearly as good as the best games in the genre. Doesn't mean the whole games are bad, it just means the gunplay could be better.
There are way too many hyperbolic posts in the thread. :/
Fancy Clown
Member
RE4 has probably the most simple set of TPS abilities known to man and it's still the best TPS ever made. Because much like Uncharted (mostly 2) the encounters are incredibly diverse and continue to challenge you in interesting ways the whole way through.
That's not how it works. You get i-frames from rolling. You can suppress enemies by shooting at them, then run-and-gun, even if the accuracy is poor. You can use the level design to zip in and out of cover while making large movements and actually losing the enemies so you can flank them. Mixing up these elements on-the-fly is what makes the 'run-and-gun' structure work (and be incredibly fun to play).
Castef
Banned
Err... just the first two chapters in the saga. Sorry, bad explaination.
Oh as in, Uncharted 1 and 2? That's fair enough. In that case, I point you to my wordy posts about how Uncharted 2 isn't a great game until you play it on Crushing.
Uncharted 1 is pretty flawed, though. I still like it. But it's flawed.
What failure state? It's a game with regenerating health; the only failure state is dying. That's the whole reason every game looking for mass appeal tacks it on even when it doesn't make sense. Most games just use it as an excuse to use hitscan enemies everywhere; Uncharted 2 somewhat has that issue, but it also does something with it by actually giving you the mechanics and agility to put yourself at risk to gain an advantage (with the period of safety to recover after corresponding with the risk), and makes health a sort of timing resource in the process. Other regenerating health games technically have that, but only a tiny amount (Vanquish being the most obvious one, given it literally semi-links your health and agility options) actually follow through on making that a viable way to play, with Uncharted 2 being one of those few.
Prototype Viktor
Member
Then fps don't have combat, there's always another player character around the corner
I tried to play through the first one back in 2010 but it was just so damn terrible I dropped it. Combat was boring with waves of bad guys. Traversal felt like it was on rails and an interactive cut scene. Graphics were just plain ugly.
On the other hand Gears of War 1 is probably one of my favorite games which is odd because the games are compared so often and they shouldn't be just because they are both 3rd person shooters.
On the other hand Gears of War 1 is probably one of my favorite games which is odd because the games are compared so often and they shouldn't be just because they are both 3rd person shooters.
facetheslayer92
Member
Uncharted 2 felt so damn good in multiplayer. Drake felt fluid and agile in his movements i.e-taking cover behind a wall and rolling around. Uncharted takes the heaviness out of Gears.
Fancy Clown
Member
Gears of War has much better combat than the first Uncharted. I prefer 2 and 3 to Gears though.
The climbing and puzzle solving felt off to me too. The movement just feels awkward for whatever reason. Again, sometimes it felt like Drake wasn't following my inputs correctly, and there were a few occasions where I'd try to jump toward something and end up just falling to my death due to janky controls.
I bought a PS3 because of the hype surrounding Uncharted 2 at the time of its release. The game was a solid 8/10 for me because it played well and looked pretty good, but I didn't fall in love with the game in the same way the rest of the community did.
My main problem with it was that the story was pretty forgettable and the characters weren't very interesting to me. I thought the start of the game was good, however, because it didn't rely on shooting in order to progress, but I was disappointed that wasn't a recurring design for the rest of the game.
As far as the game's design or its ranking amount TPSs, I think the OP makes a convincing argument in the series's favor. I haven't given it the same depth of analysis and for brevity's sake I'll agree with the OP on a technical level. However, for me, the gameplay/shooting did not feel great. It felt like a chore to me. Every time I came to a clearing or an open area I knew I was going to have to shoot through a bunch of dudes just to get where I want to go.
The amount of shooting also made it hard for me to suspend my disbelief. Nathan Drake is presented (more or less) as a dude who happens to like going on adventures that could make him rich and famous. Ironically, however, he is also a bad ass killing machine that can tackle almost any battle situation by relying on the weapons he collects from enemies he takes out and with out any armor. The whole thing just distracted me from the experience rather than enhanced it. I wanted a modern take on the original Tomb Raider, but instead I got something more in common with its sequel.
To sum it up, for me, a great game is one that leaves an enduring impression due to its mechanics, atmosphere, story, and graphics. Games like Resident Evil, Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, the original Tomb Raider, and Zelda are great games because they feel great in each of the aforementioned aspects despite having flaws in other areas. Uncharted (2 was the only one I played) felt good in some of those areas, but, for me, its over reliance on shooting made it far from great.
My main problem with it was that the story was pretty forgettable and the characters weren't very interesting to me. I thought the start of the game was good, however, because it didn't rely on shooting in order to progress, but I was disappointed that wasn't a recurring design for the rest of the game.
As far as the game's design or its ranking amount TPSs, I think the OP makes a convincing argument in the series's favor. I haven't given it the same depth of analysis and for brevity's sake I'll agree with the OP on a technical level. However, for me, the gameplay/shooting did not feel great. It felt like a chore to me. Every time I came to a clearing or an open area I knew I was going to have to shoot through a bunch of dudes just to get where I want to go.
The amount of shooting also made it hard for me to suspend my disbelief. Nathan Drake is presented (more or less) as a dude who happens to like going on adventures that could make him rich and famous. Ironically, however, he is also a bad ass killing machine that can tackle almost any battle situation by relying on the weapons he collects from enemies he takes out and with out any armor. The whole thing just distracted me from the experience rather than enhanced it. I wanted a modern take on the original Tomb Raider, but instead I got something more in common with its sequel.
To sum it up, for me, a great game is one that leaves an enduring impression due to its mechanics, atmosphere, story, and graphics. Games like Resident Evil, Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, the original Tomb Raider, and Zelda are great games because they feel great in each of the aforementioned aspects despite having flaws in other areas. Uncharted (2 was the only one I played) felt good in some of those areas, but, for me, its over reliance on shooting made it far from great.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
The puzzles are brain dead easy. They're the worst part of the game. I think I only had trouble figuring out one or two puzzles in the entire series, and they were both in the third game. The rest of them feel more like tedious busy work then puzzles.
The platforming/climbing is boring because it's so linear. Jeff Gerstmann actually made a great comment on it this week on the Bombcast. There are no stakes. As soon as you get on a ledge, you're locked in and just have to press the stick in whatever direction you have to go. There's no challenge.
BouncyFrag
Member
I found this too and didn't play the series until late last gen when I picked up a ps3 for the exclusives I had missed. I ended up putting all three in easy mode by the end just to get through it all faster.
PeskyToaster
Member
I only felt enemies were bullet sponges in 1. People were probably just missing.
Fancy Clown
Member
It's weird, I acknowledge that the puzzles and traversal have no challenge or depth or whatever, but when I'm playing them in the context of the game as a whole I find them pretty enjoyable as pacing segments. One of my favorite sections in the whole trilogy is the ice caves in 2, and that's two chapters of nothing but traversal.
MakeMeFeelAlive
Member
I agree with the premise. I have never been frustrated by the gameplay in uncharted or thought it was weak or didn't perform well.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Just like all those new abilities you learn in Gears and RE4 right.....Oh wait
The game expects you to master the run and gun and especially in 2 scales the combat scenarios to assume you have indeed been getting better
Zen_Arcade
Banned
I mean they definitely brake up the pace of the game but it did it in a way that was so tedious and easy that it made me want to get back to the portions of the game I actually felt challenged with. Which was pretty much only the shooting segments.
Fancy Clown
Member
I know I get why people don't like them, but I always have even if those portions could use the biggest improvements. I value the "adventuring" feeling these games impart just as much as the core combat gameplay.
After reading the thread and being very confused, I now understand my issues with the series. Whenever I would "run and gun" and get shot to hell I thought I was playing sloppy and wrong. It made me stick to cover more and have a worse time with the game. It doesn't matter if that's the "right" way to play. Giving a player negative feedback for playing correctly is bad game design. There's multiple other ways to handle combat and health that would reinforce playing the game how you are supposed to.