I enjoyed drake's fortune. The game looked great for its time. I enjoyed the story, but i liked the characters best of all. I thought the acting was good butt he dialogue was fun - imo at least. The havent played it in a while, but i remember there being some problems with the gameplay. Shooting, enemies absorbing bullets and damage.
I never took any of this seriously because i didnt feel i had to. The game felt lime indiana jones. Indiana jones is a fun movie with great characters but is pretty cheesy and isnt anything out of this world artistically. Its just plain ol movie fun. Thats how i feel when i play uncharted.
Yes, they have cleaned up some ofthe mechanics, etc. But i never play an uncharted game for that. I want to play because it feels fun. Would uncharted have been as succesful had it come out during a time when the ps3 had a huge library? I dont know. Im glad it did though.
I love it but damn it's so antiquated. Head shot fest. Bullet sponge mobs. Asshole QTEs. But I love it and got the plat trophy for it. Maybe because there was nothing else out at the time?
They're not hard when the camera works. But countless times I would hold the stick in a direction so he can grab onto a ledge and he just misses. If people want to say I suck at it fine than I suck at Uncharted but AC does the platforming better. Hell, The Saboteur does it better. The camera in this game during some of the platforming sections is just terrible. I'm not complaining about the platforming, it's the camera during some of these sequences. Most of the time I don't have a problem.
AC (2007 release as well) was built around the who premise of free climbing, while in Uncharted it is just a means to get from one spot to another in a tightly scripted manner.
And The Saboteur came out in 2009 and I would hope it would be better given feedback from other games.
So, you need a game that's "easy to aim," but you are still insisting you don't suck. My girlfriend at the time smoked through Uncharted on Normal and she literally only played Q-Bert, Critter Crunch, and Pixel Junk Eden on any kind of regular basis.
I'm happy she's great at it but it doesn't change the fact the aiming sucks. When you play games with "better" shooting mechanics and then come to this, I'm sorry, but it sucks. Just as an example. Max Payne 3. The game can be challenging. But not because the mechanics suck. The aiming feels correct and fluid for one thing. Aiming and basic movement was easy. It didn't feel jerky, or... whatever the issue is with UC, I still say something about the aiming in this game is off.
Maybe it's not relevant to the OP, but speaking of aiming difficulties, it is a fairly commonplace comment that some people struggle with Uncharted games because it has no aim assist, a toggle that most shooters have on as default.
TLOU is the same way but has slight aim assist when you're pulling off a combo (staggering enemies for a head shot, etc), but it's also much more manageable without aim assist because there are way less enemies compared to UC which is much more about throwing enemies and bullets at you. I think TLOU has an auto-aim toggle, but only on the easiest difficulty.
I loved this game when it launched, sold it, picked it up again 2 years later, played through it and liked it again, then played it again last year and still loved it. This is noteworthy because I almost never play through anything twice. Super playable, super fun game.
Maybe it's not relevant to the OP, but speaking of aiming difficulties, it is a fairly commonplace comment that some people struggle with Uncharted games because it has no aim assist, a toggle that most shooters have on as default.
TLOU is the same way but has slight aim assist when you're pulling off a combo (staggering enemies for a head shot, etc), but it's also much more manageable without aim assist because there are way less enemies compared to UC which is much more about throwing enemies and bullets at you. I think TLOU has an auto-aim toggle, but only on the easiest difficulty.
I love it but damn it's so antiquated. Head shot fest. Bullet sponge mobs. Asshole QTEs. But I love it and got the plat trophy for it. Maybe because there was nothing else out at the time?
Now I'm playing on "normal". First of all enemies are bullet sponges and I've determined the aiming in this game sucks. I don't suck. It's the way this game plays. You have so little ammo for your guns. So you see some dropped from an enemy, you get out of cover to go get it and you're dead or almost dead because you can only take like 2 shots. But the enemies with no armor can take 20. I waste more ammo trying to go for headshots than if I just sprayed. In the beginning the game was pushing me to use the "brutal combo" on enemies and get double the ammo. Ha, well, I can't stand and fight long enough to take an enemy out. Too many fucking bullets hitting me.
The camera in some of these platforming sections is just awful, too. Jumping in the wrong direction or not grabbing on what he's suppose to grab onto.
On "normal" you should be able to take 5-6 shots easily and enemies take maybe 4-5 shots at most. I've never run out of ammo except maybe a couple of times on crushing. On normal my biggest problem was there was too much ammo and you can only carry so much. You're not supposed to "spray" you're supposed to aim. Sounds like you suck at aiming.
What makes Uncharted's gunplay hard is a few things:
1. Aiming isn't perfectly fluid. Legitimate complaint, but you get used to it after like 30 mins. Also this is fixed in Uncharted 2.
2. Enemies will react to getting hit and there's a whiplash. They're not just sitting ducks waiting to take a certain number of bullets and die. It's more realistic and takes some adapting.
3. Enemies move around and cover well.
It doesn't play like the typical 3rd person shooter. You need to adapt to its aiming system. If you can't then play on easy.
Also running around with a shotgun and no aim is so fun.
It felt orginal, i played Among Thieves right after Drake's Fortune and i found it boring. Well, graphics was amazing compared to DF and all details, and techically it was superior. BUT, i didn't get same feelings.
Overall the biggest problem in this series is that number of enemies is too d*mn high AND they can take too much punishment. Dropping their amount 50% and make them 50% more easier to kill would make Uncharted games much more enjoyable.
I'm happy she's great at it but it doesn't change the fact the aiming sucks. When you play games with "better" shooting mechanics and then come to this, I'm sorry, but it sucks. Just as an example. Max Payne 3. The game can be challenging. But not because the mechanics suck. The aiming feels correct and fluid for one thing. Aiming and basic movement was easy. It didn't feel jerky, or... whatever the issue is with UC, I still say something about the aiming in this game is off.
I remember the aiming sucking in Uncharted: DF. I've beaten that game, but beyond that I've never gone back to it for any considerable amount of time, so I can't illustrate exactly what about the aiming is bad. I know it felt wonky for me, like sliding a cursor over a screen, like in Die Hard Arcade PS1 version, rather than feeling aiming in any other decent TPS. Enemies take too many shots, barely flinch/react to being shot and will frequently shimmy and dodge your cursor after it lingers on them for more than a moment. They also psychically know where you are and don't lose track of you when their line of sight is broken.
Again, someone else (who doesn't let their love for UC1 blind them to its issues) can probably explain why in detail Uncharted 2's aiming is better, but it just is. Not only does general player movement+aiming feel better, but it looks like Drake is pointing where the cursor is, unlike in UC1 where he took up a third of the screen and looked as if he was aiming far to the right of the cursor. You can also break line-of-sight with UC2 enemies causing them to advance to your last known position. Enemies still can take 3-4 shots to the body, but they don't do that stupid fucking dance where they dodge your cursor (not running to cover, just ducking/weaving in place, just out of the way of the cursor). That just scratches the surface of what 2 does better, but those changes go a very long way in making the game better.
EDIT: Uncharted 1 is not a better game than 2 in any objective way.
Aim for the head and realize that enemies move around like their on crack so you're bound to miss a lot until you get good at aiming. I don't remember anything being incredibly "bad" in that game.
While Uncharted 1 has worse aiming in general I think this is the biggest contributor to the jankier feel (as well as a lot of the "bullet sponge" complaints); enemies literally being able to sense where the cursor is and dodge bullets as a result means encounters tend to get arbitrarily prolonged, and also makes aiming awkward as you have to keep making small adjustments to match the enemies' movements, which the game doesn't handle too well.
Because something is objectively better doesn't make it subjectively more enjoyable though, and thats why you see some posters, me included, who prefer DF.
Because something is objectively better doesn't make it subjectively more enjoyable though, and thats why you see some posters, me included, who prefer DF.
Of course. I just don't want anyone to put into newcomers' minds that Uncharted 2 is worse, or that they should get their hopes up for Uncharted: DF. I've seen people say they were planning on skipping 2 after hearing 1 was objectively the best, and not liking DF much. It would be a shame for people to miss out on a game they might really enjoy because of that.
My first platinum trophy. The first four chapters on crushing was harder than anything I've played in the series since. Loved the cathedral fight though.
I finished Uncharted earlier this week and... well, where to start. I'm incredibly torn on this one. On one hand, the presentation is incredible. High production values are apparent. The story isn't too deep, but it's enjoyable and quite uncommon for video games, which especially at the time were overran with epic bald space marines shooting eevul. The first hour was very promising too. But what came after... and the gameplay, oh, the gameplay.
There is an absolute ton of problems I had with the design of the game, ranging from minor quirks to what I consider simply bad game design. Let's start with animations and what in a way comes with them, controls. The game is pretty, there's no other way to say it. It's obviously far from what games look like now, but it still holds up rather decently and stands out compared to most of it's contemporaries. However, Nate's animations are really disappointing. Maybe because his model is too thin, or maybe it's directly related to the control scheme, but he feels very stiff. Whether it's running around, climbing, or jumping from ledge to ledge something is very off. There is... no weight to him if I may say so. He moves in an unnatural way and it was quite bothersome to me. Clunky controls and stiff animations made for some really unsatisfactory platforming segments (along with other annoyances besides difficulty, like some really weird and non-intuitive camera angles). They were ok, but ultimately very unsatisfying.
Now, what came after the first hour? Ah, combat combat combat. Surprisingly, I didn't have any gripes with what people consider bullet spongy enemies. They weren't that bad, honestly. It feels that way because, as mentioned before even in this very thread, they have some weird animations that don't necessarily mean the hit connected and stupidly implemented invincibility frames (especially when the hits connect, no damage is done, yet you can easily see the blood spurts). What however was obnoxious to me were ENDLESS. WAVES. OF DUDES. Seriously. You kill dudes, lots of dudes and yet what follows is even more dudes. They never stop coming and their spawn points are often illogical. You can clear the field, move a few steps forward and THAT'S when they spawn. It's truly annoying. Not even mentioning the instances where you try to experiment in the field and they spawn behind your back, which happened to me a couple of times. It does not happen too often and is not as much of an annoyance as endless reinforcements, but it did stick out. What's worse and worth a mention are unexpected spawns that include the annoying enemy with rocket launcher which can plant a rocket in you face, instantly killing you. Most of the time they don't hit you (which is a surprise since other mobs seem to have laser sight in their eyes and are able to hit you with any gun from quite some distance), but it is very annoying on an off-chance they do murder you unexpectedly. I had some problems with aiming too, but it's hard for me to pinpoint the exact reason. Aiming feels a bit jumpy, but I honestly don't know why exactly. A year prior Gears of War released with a far more accurate and satisfying cover shooter gameplay design, so it's not that the game came before the explosion of the genre. Maybe it's because when it comes to shooters I'm primarily a PC gamer? But I never had problems with RE4 either. Then again, I hate DualShock series of controlers and besides them being unwieldy I find the sticks highly inferior and imprecise compared to their competitor's offerings (DS4 is fantastic though, from what little I've played with it), so maybe that was why I had trouble. But still, I think besides these remarks, they simply leave quite some to desire.
Before I move to spoiler territory, I'd like to mention how bland the level design is. Not the locales themselves, I liked them (though there does seem to be a lot of copy paste going around with samey looking places). Since it's a cover shooter you need spots to cover... but honestly, it doesn't feel like Naughty Dog even tried. Nearly every battle arena is perfectly flat, with most of them featuring neatly laid out crates. There are some more varied room layouts, but for the most time of the game you are hiding behind perfectly placed crates. But that's ok when compared to some of the more illogical cover spots later in the game, per example the situation in which you find cover behind fences in the catacombs. There is absolutely no way anyone could deem that a suitable place to hide... yet here they are and it provides perfect protection from enemy fire. Seriously dumb. Now, what this game also suffers from is the variety of combat scenarios. As in, there's barely any. Run up to the crates. Shoot guys. Wait for the reinforcements. Kill'em all. Move on. Kill more guys. Over and over again.
They shake it up with vampires later in the game, but it's such a jarring and bizarre change that it's hard to count that as variety. Going from cover shooter to a normal TPS... and then alternating between them, it felt really off, especially since that second part of the equation was not as refined as the former. Especially when I expected a vampire and moved past a corner with my machine gun raised only to get shot in the face by a dude with a shotgun. Final boss was highly disappointing too, since it was once again dudes and dudes upon dudes, and more dudes with a QTE at the end. Meh. I don't know what I expected but it was underwhelming.
I did not however completely hate this game. I somewhat enjoyed it and there was something that kept me pushing (sequel?). For me it's a solid 7 on Edge scale, 8.5 on gaming journalism scale. Good game, not something that's a must-play or world-changing. The production values are through the roof, the story is charming, characters could use some work but they're not as bland as many characters in similar games. I liked it. Gameplay-wise it's heavily flawed but I guess I enjoyed the ride.
For what it's worth, I've already started Uncharted 2 and right off the bat it's vastly superior and most of my problems with the original one seem to be fixed. Sweet. Though Drake's nose in the cutscenes looks different and everyone has creepy eyes.
Never personnally understood why it was said to have amazing never before seen animations. All I saw was some of the most floaty animation work I had ever seen.
