Jaffe might like Grimdark. He also had the chance to do Heartland but it didn't work out and then got to work on Calling All Cars. Left Sony and still got given Twisted Metal to work on.
WinFonda said:
This mass murder thing only comes up with Uncharted. And the connotation I get when someone says that, since it's so morally negative, is that they feel their character's actions are conscientiously wrong/inconsistent or they feel uncomfortable shooting enemies in Uncharted as opposed to any other game where they shoot and kill enemies; humans or not. Self-defense or not. It strikes me as odd. I don't see any inconsistency in Drake's morals. They're pretty clear: Drake is not a shining beacon of morality, but he does not kill innocent people. The people he is shooting at are war criminals and mercenaries out to kill him and any innocent people next to him for money. And they are "tearing countries apart" as Chloe put it. Perhaps they could show the brutality of the people Drake is fighting better, but it is a T rated game. Then again, if you protect an innocent Tibetan village from an onslaught of tanks and soldiers and still get the feeling you're a mass murderer, I guess that's that.
I think the disconnect is only in how people are applying the term "mass murderer" in the games they play.
Drake has one liners that are light hearted, then makes austin powers lost your head jokes, and goes through characterized cutscenes without reacting to his killing. The window dressing and the 700 mercanaries he shoots in the head by the end of the game are drastically out of alignment. Nico from GTA was terribly characterized at times but at least he goes into a rage over bumping a car into another.
The Albatross said:
Yeah, but the Indy movies were hinged on the basic idea that this was all sort of crazy... That Indy, an archeologist who is grounded in reality, is convinced by circumstances that this other-worldly item or power exists. In Uncharted 2, at least, it was following that same vein to great success... and then just sort of lept off into the idea that some guy could
drink super water that would turn him into a super human and destroy the world
.
The second half of UC2 almost dropped everything from the first half of the game, which was too bad.
Still, not taking anything away, awesome game, loved it, probably my favorite game this generation, but
when I had to fight a grenade lobbing super human, or whatever he was, at the end, it felt cheap. Similarly, Bioshock did this.
The bosses have always been the weak link in the Uncharted games. A possible fix may be to just throw drake into an unarmed fight and and use the brawling controls.
Uncharted, inFamous, Warhawk, MAG and Socom each filled it's own style of shooter that are different enough from each other to warrant them being made.
Fair enough, but now tell me how many fantasy adventure games did Sony help make this generation other than GOW3 and Demons Souls? Does that still justify taking away ND's liberty to make the style of game they wanted vs another 3rd person shooter?
HYDE said:
Not true, thank goodness Nintendo helped Retro out with Metroid Prime. Raven whatever would have been shit in comparison.
Like I said a few posts above, I overgeneralized. Here's what I was implying:
AAK said:
You're right, I did overgeneralize. Sorry, I guess I should add that ND have proven themselves with the Jak and Crash series and deserve creative freedom at the very least.
Drake has one liners that are light hearted, then makes austin powers lost your head jokes, and goes through characterized cutscenes without reacting to his killing.
Amy Hennig mentions in her Qore interview how Drake (and the series as a whole) is based on pulp fiction heroes. If you're looking for depth in character, this ain't the right series for you.
Plus, how many heroes in video games are actually like Drake? He's virtually unique in what a one-dimensional cardboard action hero he is.
Well, creative freedom or not, but I highly doubt that a new Jak by ND on PS3 would sell as nearly as well as a new Uncharted.
Besides Mario, the cartoony platformer genre have been a downward spiral since last gen. Rachet and Clank is proof of that and I wouldn't be surprised that Jak would suffer the same fate.
Fair enough, but now tell me how many fantasy adventure games did Sony help make this generation other than GOW3 and Demons Souls? Does that still justify taking away ND's liberty to make the style of game they wanted vs another 3rd person shooter?
you speak as if ND is being forced to make a shooter and Uncharted is their unwanted half ass jobs they put out.
also, this happens before with insomniac as well, they're proposing an action adventure game girl with a stick to Sony and Sony didn't told them to scrapped their efforts and make Ratchet instead. they said to insomniac that they'll support insomniac and fund girl with a stick, although they show concern if it will sell or not.
Insomniac made their own decision to scrap it and made Ratchet instead.
who knows, maybe the same happened with ND and ND made their own decision to make a shooter instead of their fantasy game (we don't even know anything about it and people here already mention open world game with dragons, puzzles etc, that's a bit reaching imo, it could be as super linear as Uncharted, and make it too similar to God of War).
Also a bigger fan of the Jak series, I think this is disappointing. Uncharted is hardly realistic and doesn't really compete with the "realistic shooters" at all. Resistance is completely off the wall yet it's more of a competitor to those types of games than Uncharted is.
Uncharted's characters and story do little for me, doesn't help much that they're basically predictable Hollywood archetypes.
Then again I don't care for Indiana Jones much either.
Drake has one liners that are light hearted, then makes austin powers lost your head jokes, and goes through characterized cutscenes without reacting to his killing. The window dressing and the 700 mercanaries he shoots in the head by the end of the game are drastically out of alignment.
Seriously? That is a ridiculous argument. Mario slaughters tons of goombas and Kirby EATS his enemies, but they don't react to their mass murdering or cannibalistic natures. Hell, if you have problems with Uncharted, you must loathe the Die Hard series. Slaughter an airplane full of soldiers and start laughing like a maniac.
Seriously? That is a ridiculous argument. Mario slaughters tons of goombas and Kirby EATS his enemies, but they don't react to their mass murdering or cannibalistic natures. Hell, if you have problems with Uncharted, you must loathe the Die Hard series. Slaughter an airplane full of soldiers and start laughing like a maniac.
Before anyone complains about the blue people in Uncharted 2, those are directly from Tibetan mythology. Gods and deity figures are often depicted in blue to signify divinity.
Holy shit the same bs things about drake and mass murder. *facepalm*
If you are debating those things, the game went over your head and your opinion about the game is null.
I can point out huge flaws in games and why they don't really work in their "worlds" to put the games down but I don't because *gasp* their fictional video games at the end of the day. Crysis looks amazing, is that not a video game?'point being is that devs will get to a point that graphics/characters have more realistic characteristics but will always remain just video games.
Yeah, I kinda had that feeling as well. Play it as safe as possible and copy other big "AAA" games. Uncharted 1 is basically 70% Gears of War but with unsatisfying combat and 30% auto platforming wrapped up in a game with great animations and high production values. Not really the genre defining game so many people make it out to be.
Too true. I enjoyed Jak 1, not so much 2 and loved 3 to death. They were all good to great games on the PS2 with 3 being the fav because of it's seemingly well polished nature and variety.
Similarly i enjoyed UC 1, played through the entire game in 2 sittings and felt thoroughly satisfied at the end. Played through 2 in 3 sittings and was constantly marveling at just how beautiful the game was and how tight and intuitive the set pieces and controls were.
The only downside i felt to UC 1 & 2 is the fact that i played them after playing Infamous and the platforming therefor felt extremely constricted in comparison. I literally wanted to climb anything that looked grab-able.
In the case of either franchise i could care less about the design and development decisions made before hand. These are just two really great series made by one of the most talented developers out there and i felt grateful i am able to experience their games. There are far worse games out there, like (cringe) FFXIII, that sell better and are much more loved but that's none of my concern. It's the end product that matters not "what could have been"
Guns feel light in Uncharted 1 and aren't satisfying to shoot, enemies take too many shots and flail around way too much, and enemy closets are often set up right behind where the player enters the combat area. As I was playing through Uncharted 1, I felt the combat was the filler to get through to see the good parts. And that makes sense too, as the combat areas are probably much easier to design and take more time to play through than areas where you do platforming or watch cut scenes.
Or rather "good job Naughty Dog".
There's no way to know if the quality of the result was obtained thanks to Sony's decision, or in spite of it. But we know for sure who made the game.
As a matter of fact, the "gritty and realistic" aspect is not among the main reasons why Uncharted is praised. Its qualities (high production value, general polish, cinematic sequences) may have done just as well in the original settings.
Guns feel light in Uncharted 1 and aren't satisfying to shoot, enemies take too many shots and flail around way too much, and enemy closets are often set up right behind where the player enters the combat area. As I was playing through Uncharted 1, I felt the combat was the filler to get through to see the good parts. And that makes sense too, as the combat areas are probably much easier to design and take more time to play through than areas where you do platforming or watch cut scenes.
I used to think that Uncharted 1 just had a billion enemies thrown in to quickly make it a game that could be sold. Then I played Uncharted 2 and realized that was what they were going for.
I guess the premises are similar, and how it's entirely boring and unbelievable.
Guy goes to ancient ruins, faces elaborate ancient traps, ends up in situations where he escapes by the skin of his teeth. Gets the girl in the end, never faces any danger or imminent threat. That may be thrilling for some but the obstacles in the game are just completely unimaginative IMO. Not enough to hold my attention.
I used to think that Uncharted 1 just had a billion enemies thrown in to quickly make it a game that could be sold. Then I played Uncharted 2 and realized that was what they were going for.
a lot of enemies to mask the lack of content was something i felt in uncharted one as well.
but really: i like uncharted. I just wish naughty dog would make a game that is more than corridors with a billion enemies and random autplatforming thrown in. the tibetan village part in uc2 proves that they have an eye for detail
