Support NeoGAF

[Jangowuzhere]

i don't know but at least something, you can easily play a good chunk of this game with your feet and it's not like something interesting is happening on the screen, just you climbing the 400th wall. there's so many easy little things you can throw in to make it more interesting but it feels like nobody really wanted to do those parts at ND so they phoned them in to get back to working on other things.

this sums it up:
https://youtu.be/xnlDwEZkidI?t=159

Even after 4 hours, the adventure never feels like it truly kicks off. Yeah, it gets "slightly" more exciting after the first 1/3rd of the game, but the entire thing is super slow from start to finish.

Again, like I said before, I do not understand why this game is 15 hours. There are so many parts that simply feel like unnecessary filler. You can cut out half the game and tigten up the plot and still have the exact same impact with the story. The main difference being that it won't be a complete slog to get through.At some point, this entire project just got out of hand. Sony kept pumping money and giving Naughty Dog all the time in the world. I bet the team worked incredibly hard on every part of the game, so they would feel bad cutting out any of the pieces they made. However, that lack of editing and downsizing ends up being very noticeable.

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

It's always hard to judge tone online so just to clarify, I wasn't being a keyboard grammar warrior correcting wrongs for the good of mankind, I was genuinely asking if that's what you meant...

I wasn't being sarcastic either in my thanking of you for pointing it out.

Also, I never played the original trilogy (apart from a few hours of part 1) so I can't comment on the amount of action in A Thief's End relative to it.

As someone who has played 1-4, I can safely tell you 4 has by far the least action.

Even after 4 hours, the adventure never feels like it truly kicks off. Yeah, it gets "slightly" more exciting after the first 1/3rd of the game, but the entire thing is super slow from start to finish.

Again, like I said before, I do not understand why this game is 15 hours. There are so many parts that simply feel like unnecessary filler. You can cut out half the game and tigten up the plot and still have the exact same impact with the story. The main difference being that it won't be a complete slog to get through.At some point, this entire project just got out of hand. Sony kept pumping money and giving Naughty Dog all the time in the world. I bet the team worked incredibly hard on every part of the game, so they would feel bad cutting out any of the pieces they made. However, that lack of editing and downsizing ends up being very noticeable.

After hearing about the troubled development of the game, a lot of its issues make sense to me. (as in, I understand "what went wrong") In fact the biggest mystery to me is the universal praise in critical reception. So few critics had issue with the pacing, story and climbing?

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

UC3 > UC2 >UC1 >>UC4. This is the true order of greatness. Why the hell did they change the formula on the last game. Uncharted 4 often bored me to tears.

 

[Manu]

Even after 4 hours, the adventure never feels like it truly kicks off. Yeah, it gets "slightly" more exciting after the first 1/3rd of the game, but the entire thing is super slow from start to finish.

Again, like I said before, I do not understand why this game is 15 hours. There are so many parts that simply feel like unnecessary filler. You can cut out half the game and tigten up the plot and still have the exact same impact with the story. The main difference being that it won't be a complete slog to get through.At some point, this entire project just got out of hand. Sony kept pumping money and giving Naughty Dog all the time in the world. I bet the team worked incredibly hard on every part of the game, so they would feel bad cutting out any of the pieces they made. However, that lack of editing and downsizing ends up being very noticeable.

IIRC, they actually removed two big setpieces from the game because they couldn't fit them in the story. So, if anything, they made the opposite of what you said your post.

 

[MegaSackman]

Maybe people should not take their own opinion as facts.

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

IIRC, they actually removed two big setpieces from the game because they couldn't fit them in the story. So, if anything, they made the opposite of what you said your post.

Stupid. It really hurt the game. And honestly, the story has quite a few leaps in logic already. Just how many massive structures and steps did Henry build to tell people where Libertatia was located? I think they do a "now he is telling us to go here!" moment 5 or 6 times in this game! So I think they should have invented a way to jam the setpieces in.

 

[Manu]

Stupid. It really hurt the game. And honestly, the story has quite a few leaps in logic already. Just how many massive structures and steps did Henry build to tell people where Libertatia was located? I think they do a "now he is telling us to go here!" moment 5 or 6 times in this game! So I think they should have invented a way to jam the setpieces in.

This happens on every single Uncharted, though.

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

This happens on every single Uncharted, though.

Exactly! (although I feel like it was done once or twice more in UC4) So why couldn't they have fit in these setpieces? What could have been so jarring a reason to not include them?

 

[Jangowuzhere]

After hearing about the troubled development of the game, a lot of its issues make sense to me. (as in, I understand "what went wrong") In fact the biggest mystery to me is the universal praise in critical reception. So few critics had issue with the pacing, story and climbing?

Yeah, I don't get either. A lot of the flaws of Uncharted 4 are incredibly obvious on the first playthrough.

I personally think the critical reception really sucks. I don't think Uncharted 4 deserves the level of praise it gets. Naughty Dog aren't going to learn anything and will likely repeat the same mistakes in a future project if critics don't point out the issues.

 

[El-Pistolero]

Yeah, I don't get either. A lot of the flaws of Uncharted 4 are incredibly obvious on the first playthrough.

I personally think the critical reception really sucks. I don't think Uncharted 4 deserves the level of praise it gets. Naughty Dog aren't going to learn anything and will likely repeat the same mistakes in a future project if critics don't point out the issues.

It seems like another case of "I don't like a game, so everybody who does must be mistaken" case. This is the last Uncharted game anyway, so the point is moot...

 

[Lys Skygge]

Yeah, I don't get either. A lot of the flaws of Uncharted 4 are incredibly obvious on the first playthrough.

I personally think the critical reception really sucks. I don't think Uncharted 4 deserves the level of praise it gets. Naughty Dog aren't going to learn anything and will likely repeat the same mistakes in a future project if critics don't point out the issues.

I personally think what a lot of people here consider flaws (pacing being the biggest criticism) is a major positive. I found the pacing to be perfect. Perhaps several reviewers thought the same?

Just because you don't like thing, doesn't mean everyone should agree with you.

 

[Juanivan]

UC3 > UC2 >UC1 >>UC4. This is the true order of greatness. Why the hell did they change the formula on the last game. Uncharted 4 often bored me to tears.

Please...

 

[Jangowuzhere]

It seems like another case of "I don't like a game, so everybody who does must be mistaken" case. This is the last Uncharted game anyway, so the point is moot...

I personally think what a lot of people here consider flaws (pacing being the biggest criticism) is a major positive. I found the pacing to be perfect. Perhaps several reviewers thought the same?

Just because you don't like thing, doesn't mean everyone should agree with you.

Okay? It's not like I'm saying you guys suck for enjoying the game.

It's not like my criticisms are my own personal ones. They have been repeated all over the internet for months now. People pointing out issues with the games pacing and structure aren't uncommon, especially here on GAF.

 

[Lys Skygge]

Okay? It's not like I'm saying you guys suck for enjoying the game.

It's not like my criticisms are my own personal ones. They have been repeated all over the internet for months now. People pointing out issues with the games pacing and structure aren't uncommon, especially here on GAF.

And people all over the internet have been singing its praises as well.

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

Please...

Please what?

 

[void666]

Please what?

Guy probably messed up his ranking. He obviously meant: UC2 > UC3 >UC1 >>UC4.

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

Guy probably messed up his ranking. He obviously meant: UC2 > UC3 >UC1 >>UC4.

That is how I now feel as well. But I wouldn't consider UC3>UC2 to be a ridiculous enough of an opinion to be worthy of ridicule.

 

[Hypron]

I don't understand how someone can rank UC1 above any other game in the series. It's just inferior in every way. UC4's gameplay is also the best it's ever been, although the game does have pacing issues.

 

[rashbeep]

Stupid. It really hurt the game. And honestly, the story has quite a few leaps in logic already. Just how many massive structures and steps did Henry build to tell people where Libertatia was located? I think they do a "now he is telling us to go here!" moment 5 or 6 times in this game! So I think they should have invented a way to jam the setpieces in.

This is called padding, and while I understand many games do this to make them feel longer, it was very irritating in U4.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

The game offers very little satisfaction as a rousing action campaign so it's hard for me to find much I can take away from the experience as a positive. Maybe I'm taking just how skilled Naughty Dog is at characterization, presentation, tech, and art for granted by saying that, but my raw gut reaction is that the pacing kills the experience for me. The whole thing feels like a sputtering engine that occasionally gets into high gear for a second or two before backfiring back to 1st. Not a game I can sink my teeth into and have fun going on a flowing ride in the same way I did with UC2. Probably for the best that ND is finished with the franchise. I only hope that TLOU2 or whatever they're making next doesn't succumb to the same stretches of dry downtime and tepid energy that UC4 did.

 

[Lys Skygge]

I don't understand how someone can rank UC1 above any other game in the series. It's just inferior in every way. UC4's gameplay is also the best it's ever been, although the game does have pacing issues.

Eh, I can see why someone would prefer UC1 to 4. UC1 was practically wall to wall shooting and action, while UC4 was more of a walking simulator. If someone doesn't enjoy walking simulators, then they won't enjoy UC4.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

It's the Uncharted for people who didn't like Uncharted. That isn't to say fans of past Uncharted games (like, say, Uncharted 2) can't or wouldn't like playing it, but outside of story elements, it is designed for the people who thought there was too much combat in the past games and wanted to explore the environments they were shooting through.

My gripe with that is that the exploration in 4 rarely was substantial enough to warrant me spending much time with it, and when it was substantial (chapter 10), the payoff was never significant. The climbing/traversal was better than before, but not interesting enough to warrant the large quantities and prolonged stretches of it.

 

[LastNac]

I think Neil was a bit limited with Sam due to the whole situation at ND. He probably didn't have time to start from scratch and just gave a new direction to the character.

The whole thing seems a bit out of place considering that he was never brought up in any of the games, but I think they managed all things considered.

Well, I've got it on pretty good authority that Sam was originally a villain, and that approach would have probably had Drake completely reject his brother as opposed to the convenience of

Spoiler

his death was just too painful to talk about.

It's just impossible to justify so much of his character by retconning the importance of that relationship, especially since Sam Drake didn't exist before the fourth installment.

Not to mention that Uncharted 3 developed Drake's psyche and Uncharted 4 went out of its way to disregard all of that. The two flashback sequences

Spoiler

for when they were children

did the most damage, without a doubt, to what had been developed before.

Give me a shout when you make a thread because I've got a lot to say.

I'm not ignoring your question from the previous page, but I think how I would define it (cinematic storytelling) and why I have an issue with it Uncharted 4 will make more sense if I talk about the series as whole.

I'm pretty sure I know your issues with Sam too... if you have the same gripes my friend and I had.

Edit: Just to elaborate, Sam's introduction works, but it's not seamless and has costs.

I ask about "cinematic" because I've noticed recently the definition has been changing away from a noun(cutscenes) to an adjective. The Uncharted series is truly cinematic in the sense that the whole experience(and not just what you watch) is crafted to emulate a film, specifically though its techniques.(lighting and framing.)

I've seen so many people over the years label Uncharted a "cinematic game" just based purely on the presence of its cutscenes, which is frankly the wrong determining factor. Whenever the camera pulled back, pushed in, or panned wide to visually emphasize a sense of the story, now that was truly a cinematic moment. Uncharted 4 didn't really use that technique like its predecessor did, and I couldn't but help find myself disappointed because of it. There were a few moments, sure, but nothing akin to the consistency of Uncharted 3's camera work. TLoU, being a grounded story about a significantly less athletic man, it didn't make sense to pull the camera out of go big and sweeping. Uncharted has always been about its scale though, going back and even playing Drake's Fortune I really noticed how often they sold scale during gameplay moments. People criticize Uncharted 4 for feeling different(and even darker) and I think one of the big reasons for that is because it feels less "romantic" overall, and the sweepingness of the camera plays a big part in that.

Honestly, having played both this summer, I would say Inside is more inherently cinematic based purely off of its presentation during gameplay than Uncharted 4.

Don't get me wrong, every single employee at ND is an amazing artist, and I would say they are still the best game makers/story crafters in the industry to date. That said, outside that fantastic Finale Fight

Spoiler

Sword Fight FTW

I wasn't as Wowed as I thought I'd be. Nothing came close to that Desert Vista that I experienced in 2011 from a presentation standpoint.

 

[Ricky_R]

Well, I've got it on pretty good authority that Sam was originally a villain, and that approach would have probably had Drake completely reject his brother as opposed to the convenience of

Spoiler

his death was just too painful to talk about.

It's just impossible to justify so much of his character by retconning the importance of that relationship, especially since Sam Drake didn't exist before the fourth installment.

Not to mention that Uncharted 3 developed Drake's psyche and Uncharted 4 went out of its way to disregard all of that. The two flashback sequences

Spoiler

for when they were children

did the most damage, without a doubt, to what had been developed before.

Yeah, the initial teaser suggested as much. Apparently Neil didn't like the idea of having Nate's brother as the villain (sounds kinda cheesy to me) and he went the other way, or maybe he didn't even want to include a brother, but starting from scratch was out of the question.

Anyway, I didn't mind the way they retconned Sam. They had to, somehow, since they decided to introduce him into the series. I believe Nate's past was tackled poorly in Uncharted 3, so the way they did so in Uncharted 4 didn't bother me at all. Neil felt his past needed closure and I don't think he could've done much to keep it as faithful to past games as we would've liked with Sam brought into the mix. Which is why I think there's a possibility Neil wouldn't have necessarily written a brother if he was in charge of the creative process since the beginning.

I may be wrong though.

 

[LastNac]

Yeah, the initial teaser suggested as much. Apparently Neil didn't like the idea of having Nate's brother as the villain (sounds kinda cheesy to me) and he went the other way, or maybe he didn't even want to include a brother, but starting from scratch was out of the question.

Anyway, I didn't mind the way they retconned Sam. They had to, somehow, since they decided to introduce him into the series. I believe Nate's past was tackled poorly in Uncharted 3, so the way they did so in Uncharted 4 didn't bother me at all. Neil felt his past needed closure and I don't think he could've done much to keep it as faithful to past games as we would've liked with Sam brought into the mix. Which is why I think there's a possibility Neil wouldn't have necessarily written a brother if he was in charge of the creative process since the beginning.

I may be wrong though.

How so?



My impression(as well as what I picked up from other people) is that the Neil saw the UC3 "revelation" to be a plant for something else, something bigger to explore and it doesn't seem like that's not exactly where Amy was going with it. To be honest, the whole point of UC3 was that it doesn't matter where you come from or who you are, it's about who you can grow to become. It was slightly grating to see all the people on NeoGaf want to know more about Drake's past post UC3. The thing is, that stuff didn't matter, that was the whole point of the game. I just never found it an interesting path to follow down because frankly I knew it would never take us anywhere. With respect to the powers that be, it wasn't worth flushing out because it had no bearing on the present. Couple that with the fact that Drake's motivations are switched from being an orphan who struggles to come from a place of importance and therefore creates his own identity and background, to well,

Spoiler

we are on the run from the law so we'll just take new last names witness protection style.

Hell, in Uncharted 4 it's

Spoiler

Sam who picks the last name Drake

as opposed to Nathan adopting that surname for himself.

Like I said, I'll go into this more in detail in another thread, but Nathan Drake was a much more compelling character when he was damaged. There was something existential about what Uncharted 3 had set up for the character that Uncharted 4 seemed to overwrite. It was a man buying into his own con and actually believing and convincing himself that he was something and someone else. It was so amazingly specific and universal at the same time. In that moment, Drake was more grounded than he had ever been before. Of course, taking that away and even making Sam

Spoiler

the source for the name change

just seemed to cheapen everything. It would have worked if Sam wasn't a Drake, but instead the brother who always had an edge; an antagonist in both objective as well as philosophy. The story of a Cynical Older Brother and A Dreamer Younger Brother clashing against one another; a modern day Romulus and Remus or Cain and Abel. Two brothers with two competing ideologies.

Or even still, they could have been two Orphans that met in the orphanage and picked the last name Drake because they both were starry eyed dreamers, creating their own family of Legends out of otherwise forgotten sons. Picking up after Uncharted 3 where we find Nathan "Drake" much wiser and more accepting of who he is, acting as a contrast to Sam "Drake" who was never able to drop the rose tinted glasses. This situation would have had Drake assume the role of a developed character who had to pull someone out of their own machinations and delusions; effectively Nathan Drake would see an earlier version of himself in his "brother."

But instead we got the biological brother approach...

 

[Ricky_R]

How so?



My impression(as well as what I picked up from other people) is that the Neil saw the UC3 "revelation" to be a plant for something else, something bigger to explore and it doesn't seem like that's not exactly where Amy was going with it. To be honest, the whole point of UC3 was that it doesn't matter where you come from or who you are, it's about who you can grow to become. It was slightly grating to see all the people on NeoGaf want to know more about Drake's past post UC3. The thing is, that stuff didn't matter, that was the whole point of the game. I just never found it an interesting path to follow down because frankly I knew it would never take us anywhere. With respect to the powers that be, it wasn't worth flushing out because it had no bearing on the present. Couple that with the fact that Drake's motivations are switched from being an orphan who struggles to come from a place of importance and therefore creates his own identity and background, to well,

Spoiler

we are on the run from the law so we'll just take new last names witness protection style.

Hell, in Uncharted 4 it's

Spoiler

Sam who picks the last name Drake

as opposed to Nathan adopting that surname for himself.

Like I said, I'll go into this more in detail in another thread, but Nathan Drake was a much more compelling character when he was damaged. There was something existential about what Uncharted 3 had set up for the character that Uncharted 4 seemed to overwrite. It was a man buying into his own con and actually believing and convincing himself that he was something and someone else. It was so amazingly specific and universal at the same time. In that moment, Drake was more grounded than he had ever been before. Of course, taking that away and even making Sam

Spoiler

the source for the name change

just seemed to cheapen everything. It would have worked if Sam wasn't a Drake, but instead the brother who always had an edge; an antagonist in both objective as well as philosophy. The story of a Cynical Older Brother and A Dreamer Younger Brother clashing against one another; a modern day Romulus and Remus or Cain and Abel. Two brothers with two competing ideologies.

Or even still, they could have been two Orphans that met in the orphanage and picked the last name Drake because they both were starry eyed dreamers, creating their own family of Legends out of otherwise forgotten sons. Picking up after Uncharted 3 where we find Nathan "Drake" much wiser and more accepting of who he is, acting as a contrast to Sam "Drake" who was never able to drop the rose tinted glasses. This situation would have had Drake assume the role of a developed character who had to pull someone out of their own machinations and delusions; effectively Nathan Drake would see an earlier version of himself in his "brother."

But instead we got the biological brother approach...

I just think they threw that Drake's past curve ball out of nowhere in UC3 and left it pretty ambiguous. Why do that when you have a pretty fun, superficial character that works, then suddenly flirt with the idea of him having some depth just to leave us with blue balls.

Was it a good idea to go that route? That's irrelevant to me because, well, they did... I just think it was neccesary to give closure if they wanted to end the series, or at least end Drake's adventure. Neil felt compelled to do so as well which is why he bothered to write it, regardless of how well it resonated with fans. I for one enjoyed it because UC3 didn't really gave us much to work with, so Uncharted 4's take on his past seems to actually be the only fleshed out moment of his youth. And Neil had to take Sam into account so it was necessary to make some changes.

In Uncharted 3 it just felt like an after thought. A bit shoe horned if you will.

And like I said, I believe the whole brother thing was just something Neil wasn't able to avoid. It seemed to be Hennig's idea to introduce him, and Neil's to find another direction for the character. This is just an educated guess of course.

 

[Fancy Clown]

I'm with Last Nac RE Drake's past. Uncharted 3 did way more with way less in that regards. Pretty economical and effective storytelling. Uncharted 4 fleshed something out that didn't need it, and ended up coming with a less compelling exploration of it. The rest of Uncharted 4 is pretty aces though, and I liked Sam a lot. That kid Drake stuff tho was yikes. Chapter 16 is one of the worst bits of game ND had put out in a while.

 

[Servbot24]

Yeah, I don't get either. A lot of the flaws of Uncharted 4 are incredibly obvious on the first playthrough.

I personally think the critical reception really sucks. I don't think Uncharted 4 deserves the level of praise it gets. Naughty Dog aren't going to learn anything and will likely repeat the same mistakes in a future project if critics don't point out the issues.

I hope Naughty Dog doesn't "learn" anything here because the fans are flat out wrong about a lot of the common points that are made. I am so happy to have a big budget studio that allows its stories to slow cook and tenderize - so few other AAA studios would be that daring. It's refreshing, it reenforces the theme of the story. The first several chapters... immaculate. Naughty Dog are too good for their fans.

The gameplay could be better though. Still pretty good all around.

 

[Ricky_R]

I'm with Last Nac RE Drake's past. Uncharted 3 did way more with way less in that regards. Pretty economical and effective storytelling. Uncharted 4 fleshed something out that didn't need it, and ended up coming with a less compelling exploration of it. The rest of Uncharted 4 is pretty aces though, and I liked Sam a lot. That kid Drake stuff tho was yikes. Chapter 16 is one of the worst bits of game ND had put out in a while.

Sometimes, less is more, but when you have a character that claims to be a Fracis Drake relative, and that being pretty much the main reason why he goes on these adventures throughout three games, then you better give us some meat if you suddenly reveal that he was lying about said past. I don't really see how it was effective storytelling when they teased us with what seemed to be the first sign of actual depth for Drake just to let it die during a single cut-scene.

Anyway, Amy decided to reveal more about Drake's past for whatever reason, and Neil felt he had to bring closure to it specially because they had a brother written into the mix.

 

[LastNac]

I just think they threw that Drake's past curve ball out of nowhere in UC3 and left it pretty ambiguous. Why do that when you have a pretty fun, superficial character that works, then suddenly flirt with the idea of him having some depth just to leave us with blue balls.

But that's not the point, there need be no Balls for the Blueing.


UC4 just seems to cater to this modern day audience's need to, for some reason, have everything explained out word by word, and I just don't get it. We don't need to see why when we already have the outcome. Nathan Drake was orphaned and disowned by his family, he was thrown away almost completely and left to an orphanage in a world that didn't want him. Going back recently through Uncharted 1 we meet this fortune hunter who feels he has claim to this identity, despite the fact that we are told time and time again that Sir Francis had no heirs, but Drake is always quick to remind her that he had no heirs in England. That little quip, the validation and affirmation, is as much a reassurance to himself as much as it is a counter to Elena's point. In Uncharted 2 it's not really a point of concern since Sir Francis doesn't play a part, but when you get back into UC3 you see the obsession take off. It's in UC1 and UC3 where Drake propels himself forward the most. Hell, in UC2 Drake wants to back out by the time he gets to Tibet. The difference is though, the first and third installments tackle his supposed namesake, and therefore deal with his own sense of ideology/identity. If he can follow Sir Francis' footsteps then he can follow the legacy, and in the end hopefully claim it for his own. Drake's Fortune and Deception show us a man obsessed with purpose and ownership. In this sense, by the time that sequence rolls around in UC3 where we find out his background it gives us all we need to go forward. The revelation isn't that he was once a

Spoiler

Morgan

, it's that he's not really a Drake. That's what's important, that's what matters. It would be like wanting to know about the first time Robert worked with Joel, or what happened with Ish after he got out of the sewers. The truth is it doesn't matter, it simply doesn't matter. All we needed to know about his past we got in UC3. All it provided was a catalyst for a character change and that's what people should have focused on, much like when lighting a stick of dynamite, it's not the burning fuse that matters, it's the explosion. It's the end result, and Uncharted 3 provided us both bookmarks for that character. We didn't need to see each time Drake's father was mean to him to appreciate that he's an orphan, much like we didn't need to appreciate his original last name in order to realize that his current wasn't real. It's people looking at the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Was it a good idea to go that route? That's irrelevant to me because, well, they did... I just think it was neccesary to give closure if they wanted to end the series, or at least end Drake's adventure. Neil felt compelled to do so as well which is why he bothered to write it, regardless of how well it resonated with fans. I for one enjoyed it because UC3 didn't really gave us much to work with, so Uncharted 4's take on his past seems to actually be the only fleshed out moment of his youth. And Neil had to take Sam into account so it was necessary to make some changes.

But we didn't get anywhere with the character that we hadn't before. Sir Francis never even came up in conversation between the two brothers at all. Their namesake was amazingly absent and goes to show you how little meaning went into picking the last name Drake due to the retcon in UC4. Hell, Nathan found Sir Francis body, you'd think that would actually mean something to them.

Sam as a character also seemed undefined and far too wishy washy. We didn't get enough time between the brothers to feel something, so Drake's motivation to put everything on the line in order to save him feels artificial and forced. Even looking at the end there doesn't seem to be enough closure. Sam just comes off one note(as much as I love Troy) and indecisive in what he wants. He is pushed towards the treasure but then seemingly indifferent at the end, we are told that he wants to have his brother involved and yet he puts his life in danger in order to get the treasure. I never got the sense of what actually propelled Sam forward.

Uncharted 4 didn't wrap up any long hanging loose ends, instead it just presented all new questions that we won't get the answer to. For example, what was Sam doing for three years while helping Rafe?

In Uncharted 3 it just felt like an after thought. A bit shoe horned if you will.

See above.

And like I said, I believe the whole brother thing was just something Neil wasn't able to avoid. It seemed to be Hennig's idea to introduce him, and Neil's to find another direction for the character. This is just an educated guess of course.

You realize that direction more or less took a hard 180 turn once Neil and Bruce took over, to the point where characters were recast. I hardly believe that various elements were just dumped into Neil's lap and he just had to make the best of it. We know that Drake's Brother was an element, but I would assume Druckmann took him in the direction he wanted to.

 

[Ascenion]

Uncharted 4 is just 2016's Metal Gear Solid V. It's a great game that perfects the gameplay, it's just a bad [insert series name here] game. Uncharted 4 after 3 playthroughs is effectively the worst Uncharted game. It lacks replay value, it overstays it's welcome and this is in general due to sparse combat and bad pacing. Uncharted 3 is honestly a better sequel in most ways. And I mean I liked the game and I'd say Bruce and Neil got it but at the same time they didn't get "it". I said it in the OT and I'll say it again. Uncharted 2 is the balance and Uncharted 3 was what happened with Hennig unbalanced and Uncharted 4 is Druckmann unbalanced. It's the two extremes, and honestly Hennig did better, hers was simply more fun if not more nonsensical.

 

[Davide]

Uncharted 4 is just 2016's Metal Gear Solid V.

MGSV didn't even have a good story and Uncharted 4 didn't have close to the gameplay-cutscene ratio.

 

[Ridesh]

I've never been bothered so much by pacing issues like I did with Uncharted 4.

This killed a great deal of my desire of replaying this gorgeous game.

 

[LastNac]

Sometimes, less is more, but when you have a character that claims to be a Fracis Drake relative, and that being pretty much the main reason why he goes on these adventures throughout three games, then you better give us some meat if you suddenly reveal that he was lying about said past. I don't really see how it was effective storytelling when they teased us with what seemed to be the first sign of actual depth for Drake just to let it die during a single cut-scene.

Anyway, Amy decided to reveal more about Drake's past for whatever reason, and Neil felt he had to bring closure to it specially because they had a brother written into the mix.

And we got that he was obsessed with Drake because he was an orphan. He wanted to earn his legacy. What did you want, the first time he checked out a book on Sir Francis from his local library?

The point remains, we get all we need to information wise on why he would be so obsessed with Sir Francis in Uncharted 3. We get that alone with just the visuals and doodles Kid Drake has in his journal. We don't need that bashed over our heads to get that. Too much and it's just bad, exposition heavy story telling.

And I can't believe that you put UC4's treatment of his identity on a pedestal. All that the FlashBack chapters add are the presence of a brother and the confirmation of an orphanage. We don't get how he's close with his brother, we don't get where they go, and we certainly don't get how Drake makes it on his own in order to meet Sully. The Kid Drake we see in UC4 is practically a different character compared to the Kid Drake we see in UC3. He has none of the charisma, charm, or fortitude that UC3's version had, which that version alone acted well as a Proto version of the man he would grow into.

Hell, the meaning behind the last name itself is really allocated to a throw away line which never goes anywhere

Spoiler

muttered by the old woman just to cover base

. We didn't get enough of Drake's Mother to justify how

Spoiler

going by Drake would be an honor or in service to her at all.

All that stuff really doesn't go anywhere.

 

[Ricky_R]

But that's not the point, there need be no Balls for the Blueing.


UC4 just seems to cater to this modern day audience's need to, for some reason, have everything explained out word by word, and I just don't get it. We don't need to see why when we already have the outcome. Nathan Drake was orphaned and disowned by his family, he was thrown away almost completely and left to an orphanage in a world that didn't want him. Going back recently through Uncharted 1 we meet this fortune hunter who feels he has claim to this identity, despite the fact that we are told time and time again that Sir Francis had no heirs, but Drake is always quick to remind her that he had no heirs in England. That little quip, the validation and affirmation, is as much a reassurance to himself as much as it is a counter to Elena's point. In Uncharted 2 it's not really a point of concern since Sir Francis doesn't play a part, but when you get back into UC3 you see the obsession take off. It's in UC1 and UC3 where Drake propels himself forward the most. Hell, in UC2 Drake wants to back out by the time he gets to Tibet. The difference is though, the first and third installments tackle his supposed namesake, and therefore deal with his own sense of ideology/identity. If he can follow Sir Francis' footsteps then he can follow the legacy, and in the end hopefully claim it for his own. Drake's Fortune and Deception show us a man obsessed with purpose and ownership. In this sense, by the time that sequence rolls around in UC3 where we find out his background it gives us all we need to go forward. The revelation isn't that he was once a

Spoiler

Morgan

, it's that he's not really a Drake. That's what's important, that's what matters. It would be like wanting to know about the first time Robert worked with Joel, or what happened with Ish after he got out of the sewers. The truth is it doesn't matter, it simply doesn't matter. All we needed to know about his past we got in UC3. All it provided was a catalyst for a character change and that's what people should have focused on, much like when lighting a stick of dynamite, it's not the burning fuse that matters, it's the explosion. It's the end result, and Uncharted 3 provided us both bookmarks for that character. We didn't need to see each time Drake's father was mean to him to appreciate that he's an orphan, much like we didn't need to appreciate his original last name in order to realize that his current wasn't real. It's people looking at the wrong things for the wrong reasons.



But we didn't get anywhere with the character that we hadn't before. Sir Francis never even came up in conversation between the two brothers at all. Their namesake was amazingly absent and goes to show you how little meaning went into picking the last name Drake due to the retcon in UC4. Hell, Nathan found Sir Francis body, you'd think that would actually mean something to them.

Sam as a character also seemed undefined and far too wishy washy. We didn't get enough time between the brothers to feel something, so Drake's motivation to put everything on the line in order to save him feels artificial and forced. Even looking at the end there doesn't seem to be enough closure. Sam just comes off one note(as much as I love Troy) and indecisive in what he wants. He is pushed towards the treasure but then seemingly indifferent at the end, we are told that he wants to have his brother involved and yet he puts his life in danger in order to get the treasure. I never got the sense of what actually propelled Sam forward.

Uncharted 4 didn't wrap up any long hanging loose ends, instead it just presented all new questions that we won't get the answer to. For example, what was Sam doing for three years while helping Rafe?


See above.



You realize that direction more or less took a hard 180 turn once Neil and Bruce took over, to the point where characters were recast. I hardly believe that various elements were just dumped into Neil's lap and he just had to make the best of it. We know that Drake's Brother was an element, but I would assume Druckmann took him in the direction he wanted to.

My main point is that they had to revisit Nate's past due to Sam's inclusion. His addition made it pretty much impossible to build a believable relationship and a more intimate story between them without digging into their past. Of course Neil took the reign and made Sam his, but it's evident that there was enough of Sam there to be scratched off before he took the creative helm. Just imagine a game where Drake has a brother appear out of nowhere who he has never mentioned, and not dwelve into their past. I believe it was inevitable, and that's why we got it.

 

[Ricky_R]

And we got that he was obsessed with Drake because he was an orphan. He wanted to earn his legacy. What did you want, the first time he checked out a book on Sir Francis from his local library?

The point remains, we get all we need to information wise on why he would be so obsessed with Sir Francis in Uncharted 3. We get that alone with just the visuals and doodles Kid Drake has in his journal. We don't need that bashed over our heads to get that. Too much and it's just bad, exposition heavy story telling.

And I can't believe that you put UC4's treatment of his identity on a pedestal.

What pedestal? All I said is that I had no issues with Neil's take on it in Uncharted 4. I felt it was neccesary and thought it was handled well all things considered. I just didn't like the way they tackled it in Uncharted 3.

 

[LastNac]

My main point is that they had to revisit Nate's past due to Sam's inclusion. His addition made it pretty much impossible to build a believable relationship and a more intimate story between them without digging into their past. Of course Neil took the reign and made Sam his, but it's evident that there was enough of Sam there to be scrated off before he took the creative helm. Just imagine a game where Drake has a brother appear out of nowhere who he has never mentioned, and not dwelve into their past. I believe it was inevitable, and that's why we got it.

And my point is the game would have been so much better with that particular element if Sam wasn't a "Drake." Drake's history can still have remained separate from his brother's based in how it was inspired(delusional little brother and grounded older brother), or as I noted earlier, they could have been "brothers" through their shared sense of insignificance at the orphanage, banding together a family untied through ambition and not blood.

Instead what we got just didn't seem to work.

 

[LastNac]

What pedestal? All I said is that I had no issues with Neil's take on it in Uncharted 4. I felt it was neccesary and thought it was handled well all things considered. I just didn't like the way they tackled it in Uncharted 3.

You seem to be giving it this weird free pass when many of the criticisms you lobby at UC3's origins can be equally applied to how UC4 handled things as well.

 

[Foxxsoxx]

The game was a great one-playthrough game, but admittedly it is pretty damn hard to replay, mostly because of that beginning pacing.

I do wish they would have cut down on the way too elaborate clue-finding puzzles in the game. Puzzles are cool, but they're so over the top that even the characters joke about it and it would have helped to make that more grounded.

The gunplay was great, but there was too little of it, which was weird considering the gunfights were the absolute star of the game. Definitely enjoyable though.

 

[Ricky_R]

And my point is the game would have been so much better with that particular element if Sam wasn't a "Drake." Drake's history can still have remained separate from his brother's based in how it was inspired(delusional little brother and grounded older brother), or as I noted earlier, they could have been "brothers" through their shared sense of insignificance at the orphanage, banding together a family untied through ambition and not blood.

Instead what we got just didn't seem to work.

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. I agree, maybe Sam wasn't the best idea. I like the character, but I don't think it was the best decision to make him his brother. Which is why, considering how aware Neil seems to be with narrative flaws overall (even if he falls victim to them), I believe he had no choice, but to work with Sam as a brother. I just don't see him being excited about writing a brother out of nowhere into the mix. Maybe writing him from scratch would've backtracked a lot of work. Maybe...

Anyway, I agree that it may not have been a great idea to over expose his past, even if I felt they needed to dwelve on it a bit more. It's Sam fault.

 

[LastNac]

And by the way, I found the pacing to be fantastic.

I sometimes wander if those who found it boring just want constant shootouts. if so, Uncharted was never really the series for you. Combat served the story, always has in this franchise. If that's not what you want than unfortunately I saw look elsewhere. Uncharted 4 did an amazing job of keeping as much as it could on the stick, and that should not receive any criticism.

 

[Ricky_R]

You seem to be giving it this weird free pass when many of the criticisms you lobby at UC3's origins can be equally applied to how UC4 handled things as well.

My believe is that UC4 handled things as good as it could considering Sam. That's all I've been trying to say. Uncharted 3 didn't have the same obstacle Uncharted 4 had from a creative standpoint which is why I'm incline to give it a pass.

 

[LastNac]

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. I agree, maybe Sam wasn't the best idea. I like the character, but I don't think it was the best decision to make him his brother. Which is why, considering how aware Neil seems to be with natrative flaws overall (even if he falls victim to them), I believe he had no choice, but to work with Sam as a brother. I just don't see him being excited about writing a brother oit of nowhere into the mix. Maybe writing him from scratched would've backtracked a lot of work. Maybe...

Anyway, I agree that it may not have been a great idea to over expose his past, even if I felt they needed to dwelve on it a bit more. It's Sam fault.

I still think it would have been far more compelling if his "Brother" was just another orphan that he grew close to by having mutual interests and passions. Sam could have been that older, jaded kid who had a soft spot for him and took him under his wing. We all have that friend who really acts more like an older brother anyway...

That way Drake could have gone through his own revelations in UC3 and tried to "Save" Sam from that self imposed Legacy and the weight it carried. Something about Drake being the more responsible one and pretty much just playing against himself would have been interesting.

I wanted Brother Villain. I liked Rafe, but I feel like he was hit and miss. It's almost like that resentment comes out of nowhere towards the end and it makes me wonder if some of that character motivation is carried over from when Sam was playing the role of Bad Guy.

 

[LastNac]

My believe is that UC4 handled things as good as it could considering Sam. That's all I've been trying to say. Uncharted 3 didn't have the same obstacle Uncharted 4 had from a creative standpoint which is why I'm incline to give it a pass.

And I would once again argue/counter that it gave us what the story required to continue forward

Does make me wonder what content was cut post-Director swap though. I have heard Marooned was a lot longer and more "Desert-y" overall, even from a presentation standpoint apparently it had some amazing camera angles

 

[vanDoughnut]

The game was a great one-playthrough game, but admittedly it is pretty damn hard to replay, mostly because of that beginning pacing.

Uncharted 4 after 3 playthroughs is effectively the worst Uncharted game. It lacks replay value, it overstays it's welcome and this is in general due to sparse combat and bad pacing.

Why would you force yourself into 3 playthroughs lol I mean if you weren't feeling it? Trophies maybe?

IMO a game doesn't have to be replayable any day of the week to be good. Some games you play once in a long while and have a great time with it. UC4 is that kinda game for me. When I'm in the specific mood to play it again I will, and hopefully (and probably) I'll appreciate it more and more overtime.

I get that there were lots of climbing sections and "walking simulator" parts but traversal was fine if lite and the portions of the game spent walking and talking brought me a lot of joy, the mansion; first part of Libertalia with Sam.

It's like how I think Left Behind is amazing but I don't replay it on a whim. But when I'm in the mood it's always great to return with fresh eyes.

 

[Ricky_R]

I still think it would have been far more compelling if his "Brother" was just another orphan that he grew close to by having mutual interests and passions. Sam could have been that older, jaded kid who had a soft spot for him and took him under his wing. We all have that friend who really acts more like an older brother anyway...

That way Drake could have gone through his own revelations in UC3 and tried to "Save" Sam from that self imposed Legacy and the weight it carried. Something about Drake being the more responsible one and pretty much just playing against himself would have been interesting.

I wanted Brother Villain. I liked Rafe, but I feel like he was hit and miss. It's almost like that resentment comes out of nowhere towards the end and it makes me wonder if some of that character motivation is carried over from when Sam was playing the role of Bad Guy.

Yeah, him being a orphan friend could've worked. What I find kinda iffy is him being the villan. I would've liked to see it through though, just to see what crazy adventure Amy would've cooked for us.

I prefer Neil's approach, but I'll be damned if Amy's direction hasn't been one of the most fun I've ever had.

And I would once again argue/counter that it gave us what the story required to continue forward

Does make me wonder what content was cut post-Director swap though. I have heard Marooned was a lot longer and more "Desert-y" overall, even from a presentation standpoint apparently it had some amazing camera angles

Haha yeah. I expected marooned to be more cinematic, but I guess it wouldn't have sit well with all the climbing and down time.

 

[Foxxsoxx]

Why would you force yourself into 3 playthroughs lol I mean if you weren't feeling it? Trophies maybe?

IMO a game doesn't have to be replayable any day of the week to be good. Some games you play once in a long while and have a great time with it. UC4 is that kinda game for me. When I'm in the specific mood to play it again I will, and hopefully (and probably) I'll appreciate it more and more overtime.

I get that there were lots of climbing sections and "walking simulator" parts but traversal was fine if lite and the portions of the game spent walking and talking brought me a lot of joy, the mansion; first part of Libertalia with Sam.

It's like how I think Left Behind is amazing but I don't replay it on a whim. But when I'm in the mood it's always great to return with fresh eyes.

I agree that a game doesn't have to be replayable, just pointing out that I had an urge to replay the first 3 multiple times, but I haven't had an urge to replay this one yet I still thought the game was great though.

 

[AudioEppa]

I hope Naughty Dog doesn't "learn" anything here because the fans are flat out wrong about a lot of the common points that are made. I am so happy to have a big budget studio that allows its stories to slow cook and tenderize - so few other AAA studios would be that daring. It's refreshing, it reenforces the theme of the story. The first several chapters... immaculate. Naughty Dog are too good for their fans.

Hello my twin lol


To the best of my ability I've offered up my opinion regarding my love for uncharted 4, sometimes I keep it simple and just say it's a masterpiece, and I get some people hate that statement being dropped without any long text book reasons because they can't wrap their mind around it.

I see certain individuals on here keep mentioning how others share their opinion on the game not being good, or at best, a very flawed one.

But so far I've never seen (so not 100% sure) anyone try and take that opinion away from those who are not a fan, but on the flipside some people can't let it go and at times seem overly bothered by people's high praise of the title. Also I wouldn't say this game brings out toxic attitudes, but sometimes the attempt of friendly discussion starts to cross the line with an low key agenda to bring this game down as we get closer to GOTY awards and I think people expect uncharted 4 to win the majority and they don't want this game to be rewarded for what they call 'flaws' so naughty dog doesn't repeat them, and other developers don't mimic them.

After playing the collection I fell in love with series more now then I did back on PS3. With each game just feeling better and better, but my personal preference in video games is story first, with everything else falling where it may.

By replaying the journey each game gave me Drakes current history, with a bit of backstory on what his life was like before we started opening a dead pirate's coffin. So the pacing towards the end in 4 felt perfect, there was enough action thrills to get that point across. And I'm sorry but the game needed to be powered by a grounded emotion, just like the the last of us was. By adding that formula in the game still felt like itself, this time naughty dog wasn't telling us a to be continue (from them at least) they were saying goodbye.

Uncharted 4 isn't the game I'm jumping right back into replaying multiple times, but like the last of us, it's a game that has stayed on my mind multiple days and weeks because it left me with that feeling that I just played something greet, and I just been trying to decipher it all since. That experience is what I paid $60 for, that experience is more rewarding then trophies or replay value will ever be.

But that's just my approach to how I enjoy video games, this Industries growth is beyond what it started off like decades ago, the journey has given birth to developers who I respect for giving me a interactive story to be invested in. I hope naughty dog and developers like them keep pushing this industry in that direction, because without them, the state of the video games would just be something I might care about, but with them it's something I love.

 

[Primethius]

Hello my twin lol


To the best of my ability I've offered up my opinion regarding my love for uncharted 4, sometimes I keep it simple and just say it's a masterpiece, and I get some people hate that statement being dropped without any long text book reasons because they can't wrap their mind around it.

I see certain individuals on here keep mentioning how others share their opinion on the game not being good, or at best, a very flawed one.

But so far I've never seen (so not 100% sure) anyone try and take that opinion away from those who are not a fan, but on the flipside some people can't let it go and at times seem overly bothered by people's high praise of the title. Also I wouldn't say this game brings out toxic attitudes, but sometimes the attempt of friendly discussion starts to cross the line with an low key agenda to bring this game down as we get closer to GOTY awards and I think people expect uncharted 4 to win the majority and they don't want this game to be rewarded for what they call 'flaws' so naughty dog doesn't repeat them, and other developers don't mimic them.

After playing the collection I fell in love with series more now then I did back on PS3. With each game just feeling better and better, but my personal preference in video games is story first, with everything else falling where it may.

By replaying the journey each game gave me Drakes current history, with a bit of backstory on what his life was like before we started opening a dead pirate's coffin. So the pacing towards the end in 4 felt perfect, there was enough action thrills to get that point across. And I'm sorry but the game needed to be powered by a grounded emotion, just like the the last of us was. By adding that formula in the game still felt like itself, this time naughty dog wasn't telling us a to be continue (from them at least) they were saying goodbye.

Uncharted 4 isn't the game I'm jumping right back into replaying multiple times, but like the last of us, it's a game that has stayed on my mind multiple days and weeks because it left me with that feeling that I just played something greet, and I just been trying to decipher it all since. That experience is what I paid $60 for, that experience is more rewarding then trophies or replay value will ever be.

But that's just my approach to how I enjoy video games, this Industries growth is beyond what it started off like decades ago, the journey has given birth to developers who I respect for giving me a interactive story to be invested in. I hope naughty dog and developers like them keep pushing this industry in that direction, because without them, the state of the video games would just be something I might care about, but with them it's something I love.

Both the quoted post and your post on UC4 is pretty much me.

I actually paid more for my early release copy then $60. But the experience of the game was well worth the asking price. It was just such a great ride and by the end, I was plenty sad that the franchise was ending.

It's really hard to find experiences like that in gaming.

 

[Robot Pants]

Uncharted 4 = Uncharted 2 > Uncharted 3 >> Uncharted 1