• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Uncharted 3 - E3 2011 Gameplay and Trailer

jett

D-Member
Jun 6, 2004
98,866
13
1,765
RyanardoDaVinci said:
I really, really, really hate the new running animation.

And :| x infinity at taking a knee from falling, it makes less sense if there isn't fall damage -- so you jump from 100ft and all that happens is you kneel for 1 second? Completely pointless and it only nerfs the traversal because now you can't get the literal drop on people by jumping down behind them, or quickly escape enemy fire.

Exactly, seems like ND is intent on nerfing traversal all the way. Some of the best moments in UC2MP are jumping from the highest point of High Rise to the lowest, you feel like a complete badass. This shit is just lame.
 

Aeonin

Member
Feb 24, 2007
822
0
0
Greeley, CO
www.massive-united.com
I don't have that big of an issue with the knee drop. It was a gigantic height and the guy didn't even jump correctly.

But everybody make sure ya watch Jimmy Fallon tonight - who knows what footage we'll catch on there.

And whats wrong with the running animation? Looked fine to me.
 

Mikey Jr.

Member
Dec 5, 2008
17,875
735
1,360
Toronto
Kinda glad they put in the drop to knees thing. It was kinda ridiculous that I pull someone off a ledge and they fall 7 feet, they die instantly, but if you jump from 50 feet, its all gooooood. Just shrug it off.

Not saying that they should put in fall damage, but if you drop 25 feet, you should be able to roll away. Any higher then that, the 1 second drop to the knees sounds ok.
 

iamvin22

Industry Verified
Jan 22, 2010
3,581
2,141
1,400
The Main Event said:
Well just downloaded the 3D Trailer on PSN...and wow. The depth is just about perfect. If there's one game that I can't wait to play in 3D this is it.

Yea i have a pany 3D plasma and viewed the new trailer and it almost rivals avatar. Just my opinion.
 

mysticwhip

Banned
May 9, 2009
8,922
0
0
that one second drop was always in uncharted. You only roll if you keep the analog stick pressed forward otherwise you'd get the knee drop animation.
 

MalboroRed

Banned
Jan 2, 2011
1,032
0
0
Aeonin said:
Youtube'd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWA4A7lM_dw (2 mins Chateau - 1 second Ballerina)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QkF8zzRVPA(6 mins Airfield - Too much movement)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsLs0HrdCHI(Very little Chateau - But its an area we haven't seen much).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yVZo5Jfmvs(2v2v2 Airfield - 90 seconds)

Is it confirmed we can upload replays directly to Youtube? Cause we're gonna have a lot of great footage after the beta if that is true.

All but one of the players were too fucking stupid to switch shoulders or toss the treasure, god damn. Switch shoulder when having a wall to your right, you stupid, stupid fucking schmucks.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
Sep 10, 2009
14,189
0
790
alr1ghtstart said:

I wish people would stop caring about water. It's cool that they modeled a boat on a simulated ocean, but the impact on the player (at least for me) isn't nearly as large as the "coolness" of whatever technical shit is going on behind the scenes. It's an inefficient use of resources. The UC2 E3 demo was a lot more exciting.

That's not to say I'm not excited about the game, and I'm sure there's lots of cool shit in there. I just wanted to say my piece about the eternal obsession with water effects and how I think programmers are probably blown away while players barely notice.
 

badcrumble

Member
May 12, 2006
26,792
5
0
I only wish we were on the outside of the boat as it sank/turned vertical/et cetera. Remember the boat slowly going vertical in Titanic? Now imagine that happening to a large cover-based level as it tilts and shudders into a big scalable platforming area instead <3

That said, cool fucking setpiece nonetheless.
 

arne

Member
Sep 13, 2005
5,576
0
1,485
Santa Monica, CA
www.arnemeyer.com
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I wish people would stop caring about water. It's cool that they modeled a boat on a simulated ocean, but the impact on the player (at least for me) isn't nearly as large as the "coolness" of whatever technical shit is going on behind the scenes. It's an inefficient use of resources. The UC2 E3 demo was a lot more exciting.

What do you mean inefficient use of resources? the point with the cruise ship, among other things we've done in the game, large and small, is that it's a fully realized physics object that serves to both ground you in the "world" of the game (so that everything reacts as you would expect if you were rolling around in an ocean) and provides challenges. And there's more to the water than just the simulated ocean -- for us it's the way we've got it sloshing around in the pool, the way it's used as an obstacle and challenge the various sequences you've seen in the E3 demo.
 

patsu

Member
Jun 19, 2005
10,336
10
1,455
Arne, can Nate jump into the swimming pool and swim out ? Can I change how the chandlier sway by firing at it ? Can I change the direction of the barrel roll when the boat starts to tip over ?
 

beast786

Member
Oct 12, 2007
15,763
0
0
Detroit
patsu said:
Arne, can Nate jump into the swimming pool and swim out ? Can I change how the chandlier sway by firing at it ? Can I change the direction of the barrel roll when the boat starts to tip over ?


That would be hard to do in real life. Unless it is a shot gun and point blank range.
 

Fenderputty

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
23,121
0
0
Cali
The Main Event said:
Well just downloaded the 3D Trailer on PSN...and wow. The depth is just about perfect. If there's one game that I can't wait to play in 3D this is it.

This makes me excited. I just got a 3D pannasonic the other day.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
Sep 10, 2009
14,189
0
790
arne said:
What do you mean inefficient use of resources? the point with the cruise ship, among other things we've done in the game, large and small, is that it's a fully realized physics object that serves to both ground you in the "world" of the game (so that everything reacts as you would expect if you were rolling around in an ocean) and provides challenges. And there's more to the water than just the simulated ocean -- for us it's the way we've got it sloshing around in the pool, the way it's used as an obstacle and challenge the various sequences you've seen in the E3 demo.

I'm speaking from limited exposure and knowledge, obviously, but from this demo, I see something kind of cool - that the boat and the stuff on the boat is moving according to a physics simulation - and I hear talk about it like it's a big deal that adds a lot (both in this video and from Naughty Dog programmer "Cowboy" on the Giant Bombcast). Just based on what I've seen, and just for me, the impact of the physics simulation is small, but the technical achievement is large. I call it inefficient because putting a lot of work in on the technical side when it yields a disproportionately small payoff for the player experience is not a good use of time and effort. Again, I recognize this is a limited demo, that my reaction is not going to be shared by everyone; some people will experience the moving stuff as A Big Deal.

I know you guys know what you're doing, and you know how to wow the player. I am probably mainly reacting this way because discussion of water physics/graphics has long been a strange pre-occupation when previewing and reviewing games, even though, at least for me, it's a completely forgettable aspect of the actual player experience.
 

badcrumble

Member
May 12, 2006
26,792
5
0
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I'm speaking from limited exposure and knowledge, obviously, but from this demo, I see something kind of cool - that the boat and the stuff on the boat is moving according to a physics simulation - and I hear talk about it like it's a big deal that adds a lot. Just based on what I've seen, and just for me, the impact of the physics simulation is small, but the technical achievement is large. I call it inefficient because putting a lot of work in on the technical side when it yields a disproportionately small payoff for the player experience is not a good use of time and effort. Again, I recognize this is a limited demo, that my reaction is not going to be shared by everyone; some people will experience the moving stuff as A Big Deal.

I know you guys know what you're doing, and you know how to wow the player. I am probably mainly reacting this way because discussion of water physics/graphics has long been a strange pre-occupation when previewing and reviewing games, even though, at least for me, it's a completely forgettable aspect of the actual player experience.
The little touches matter a lot (and my guess is that the sway of the boat is just there as an added bonus since they already put in the work in order to have it tip over realistically when it needs to).
 

cakefoo

Member
Jun 24, 2006
5,264
0
1,270
usa
ND IIRC said in an interview something along the lines of: the writers influence gameplay, and gameplay designers influence the writers, back and forth. You can throw technology into that mix too. It's not just a throwaway tech demo- it's simply what needed to be done to advance the story in a way that is convincing.

Big budget games are expensive for a reason, after all.
 

arne

Member
Sep 13, 2005
5,576
0
1,485
Santa Monica, CA
www.arnemeyer.com
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I'm speaking from limited exposure and knowledge, obviously, but from this demo, I see something kind of cool - that the boat and the stuff on the boat is moving according to a physics simulation - and I hear talk about it like it's a big deal that adds a lot (both in this video and from Naughty Dog programmer "Cowboy" on the Giant Bombcast). Just based on what I've seen, and just for me, the impact of the physics simulation is small, but the technical achievement is large. I call it inefficient because putting a lot of work in on the technical side when it yields a disproportionately small payoff for the player experience is not a good use of time and effort. Again, I recognize this is a limited demo, that my reaction is not going to be shared by everyone; some people will experience the moving stuff as A Big Deal.

I know you guys know what you're doing, and you know how to wow the player. I am probably mainly reacting this way because discussion of water physics/graphics has long been a strange pre-occupation when previewing and reviewing games, even though, at least for me, it's a completely forgettable aspect of the actual player experience.


Ah -- we'll the point is, it may appear "small" to you here, but it's the idea of making these "moving platforms" as physics objects that have lots of potential, and lots of other ways they can be used in the full game. the chandelier in our Chateau demo was an example of a much smaller, interactive physics object in the same vein. the cruise ship is much more complex, and well, you've only seen about 6 minutes of it. :)
 

Domcorleone

Member
Feb 4, 2009
2,188
1
0
New York, NY
arne said:
Ah -- we'll the point is, it may appear "small" to you here, but it's the idea of making these "moving platforms" as physics objects that have lots of potential, and lots of other ways they can be used in the full game. the chandelier in our Chateau demo was an example of a much smaller, interactive physics object in the same vein. the cruise ship is much more complex, and well, you've only seen about 6 minutes of it. :)

My question to you is, with all this potential when bringing in these types of physics into the game. Will that also bring in more difficulty into the platforming or combat? I would like these nice additions to actually change the way I play the level rather than just feel more connected with the game world.

Which leads me into my next question, will the puzzles be harder in this game? Please say yes. Please.
 

arne

Member
Sep 13, 2005
5,576
0
1,485
Santa Monica, CA
www.arnemeyer.com
Domcorleone said:
My question to you is, with all this potential when bringing in these types of physics into the game. Will that also bring in more difficulty into the platforming or combat? I would like these nice additions to actually change the way I play the level rather than just feel more connected with the game world.

Which leads me into my next question, will the puzzles be harder in this game? Please say yes. Please.


It's going to make things very interesting in at least a few scenarios we haven't yet revealed, so obviously I can't talk about it yet. You have to remember, just tilting and then flipping the boat on it's side in the E3 demo - that's stemming from the same underlying tech. So already there should be a glimpse of how it can change things from a battle/traversal perspective.

I wouldn't be surprised if we asked you to use your brain a bit more.
 

patsu

Member
Jun 19, 2005
10,336
10
1,455
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I'm speaking from limited exposure and knowledge, obviously, but from this demo, I see something kind of cool - that the boat and the stuff on the boat is moving according to a physics simulation - and I hear talk about it like it's a big deal that adds a lot (both in this video and from Naughty Dog programmer "Cowboy" on the Giant Bombcast). Just based on what I've seen, and just for me, the impact of the physics simulation is small, but the technical achievement is large. I call it inefficient because putting a lot of work in on the technical side when it yields a disproportionately small payoff for the player experience is not a good use of time and effort. Again, I recognize this is a limited demo, that my reaction is not going to be shared by everyone; some people will experience the moving stuff as A Big Deal.

I know you guys know what you're doing, and you know how to wow the player. I am probably mainly reacting this way because discussion of water physics/graphics has long been a strange pre-occupation when previewing and reviewing games, even though, at least for me, it's a completely forgettable aspect of the actual player experience.

Minute visual _and_ gameplay details like these will be remembered by the gamers. e.g., When the boat tilted (or the U2 building collapsed), the player, enemies and furniture felt the effect of gravity. It put the gamers right in the game because the controller acts funny but in a believable way.

The art side (combined with the tech knowhow) also create a very unique mood.
 
Apr 14, 2009
5,069
0
0
It was pretty cool hearing the audiences reaction to UC3 last night on Fallon. I think some girl came when Nate fell in the water.
 

ZeroRay

Member
Feb 10, 2009
10,034
0
0
North Miami Beach
eternaLightness said:
It was pretty cool hearing the audiences reaction to UC3 last night on Fallon. I think some girl came when Nate fell in the water.

For some reason, I thought they were doing it next week. Tonight is Battlefield 3, right?
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
Sep 10, 2009
14,189
0
790
patsu said:
Minute visual _and_ gameplay details like these will be remembered by the gamers. e.g., When the boat tilted (or the U2 building collapsed), the player, enemies and furniture felt the effect of gravity. It put the gamers right in the game because the controller acts funny but in a believable way.

The art side (combined with the tech knowhow) also create a very unique mood.

I'm fully aware that small things can make a big difference in player experience. My point is more that putting a lot of work into a crazy physics simulation doesn't guarantee a proportional payoff for the player. I'm sure ND are aware of this and think about it plenty.

arne said:
Ah -- we'll the point is, it may appear "small" to you here, but it's the idea of making these "moving platforms" as physics objects that have lots of potential, and lots of other ways they can be used in the full game. the chandelier in our Chateau demo was an example of a much smaller, interactive physics object in the same vein. the cruise ship is much more complex, and well, you've only seen about 6 minutes of it. :)

I don't doubt the potential, and I know I've only seen a small fraction of the game. I'm very optimistic that you guys will impress in November.
 

Chuck Norris

Banned
Feb 13, 2006
10,609
0
1,435
arne said:
It's going to make things very interesting in at least a few scenarios we haven't yet revealed, so obviously I can't talk about it yet. You have to remember, just tilting and then flipping the boat on it's side in the E3 demo - that's stemming from the same underlying tech. So already there should be a glimpse of how it can change things from a battle/traversal perspective.

I wouldn't be surprised if we asked you to use your brain a bit more.
Does it open up a bit from the demo? It seemed mostly like set piece after set piece once the boat flipped in the demo, is that how the rest of the ship level goes down?
 

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
Jun 8, 2004
28,318
2
0
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I'm speaking from limited exposure and knowledge, obviously, but from this demo, I see something kind of cool - that the boat and the stuff on the boat is moving according to a physics simulation - and I hear talk about it like it's a big deal that adds a lot (both in this video and from Naughty Dog programmer "Cowboy" on the Giant Bombcast). Just based on what I've seen, and just for me, the impact of the physics simulation is small, but the technical achievement is large.
I strongly disagree. Take a look at the tanker scene in MGS2, all the rain, waves and water there was practically pure eye candy with minimal gameplay impact (you would run slower when going against the wind iirc, and that was it) but it is still one of the most memorable scenes thanks to the atmosphere it provided. Here they have not only made something in the same vein that looks amazing, but it all has much more impact on gameplay and the unfolding of the various sequences that you play through.
 

patsu

Member
Jun 19, 2005
10,336
10
1,455
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I'm fully aware that small things can make a big difference in player experience. My point is more that putting a lot of work into a crazy physics simulation doesn't guarantee a proportional payoff for the player. I'm sure ND are aware of this and think about it plenty.

I don't think everything is physics sim. ND will carefully optimize their resource allocation during dev and run-time. Remember, whatever we see here can be rendered in full 3D. There should be reserved "power/resources" left.

Besides, some of the work can be (or are) shared between studios. The stormy sea simulation for example appears in KillZone 3 also.
 

jett

D-Member
Jun 6, 2004
98,866
13
1,765
Lord Error said:
I strongly disagree. Take a look at the tanker scene in MGS2, all the rain, waves and water there was practically pure eye candy with minimal gameplay impact (you would run slower when going against the wind iirc, and that was it) but it is still one of the most memorable scenes thanks to the atmosphere it provided. Here they have not only made something in the same vein that looks amazing, but it all has much more impact on gameplay and the unfolding of the various sequences that you play through.

Isn't that exactly what he's saying? That despite less technical shenanigans going on in the UC2 E32k9 demo, it's much more impressive than what was shown this year, based on artistic merit and overall visual impact. I kind of agree. At the end of the day, what they showed from UC3 was just a so-so shootout in some boring-looking warehouse. A warehouse in a cruise ship set on a semi-realistic ocean simulator, but a boring-looking warehouse still.
 
D

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member
yeah, I think the thing that made MGS2 impressive at the time was OH MY GOD the detail and OH MY GOD I can go anywhere on it and do as I please until I find the right path, and yet I can still watch ice-cubes melt.

There's something inherently less impressive about being led down one path on a ship like that. It feels less real.

I'm not looking to criticise ND's design ethic, they do what they do really, really well, but mm, the luke-warm reaction compared to MGS2's tanker doesn't seem like a grand mystery or anything.

Listening to Cowboy talk about the design process on the Bombcast was great. I could have listened to him talk for hours.
 

patsu

Member
Jun 19, 2005
10,336
10
1,455
(!) I was stunned by the E3 demo. Lighting, atmosphere, water, smoothness in combat, pacing, etc. all come together seamlessly.
 

Aeonin

Member
Feb 24, 2007
822
0
0
Greeley, CO
www.massive-united.com
Just beat Uncharted 2 again yesterday - my previous PS3 YLOD - so I had to start from scratch. Even after all the playthroughs I had done before, I still managed to find new tactics and areas this time around. Can't wait for U3 to hit me with that kind of content again.

Oh and there just has to be a boat level in multiplayer - complete with waves that wash away people ala The Last Crusade (which is an obvious influence).

Anyways - can't wait to use my UC1 and UC2 saves for some insta cash in this game.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,891
2
0
Windsor, UK
jett said:
Isn't that exactly what he's saying? That despite less technical shenanigans going on in the UC2 E32k9 demo, it's much more impressive than what was shown this year, based on artistic merit and overall visual impact. I kind of agree. At the end of the day, what they showed from UC3 was just a so-so shootout in some boring-looking warehouse. A warehouse in a cruise ship set on a semi-realistic ocean simulator, but a boring-looking warehouse still.

a short boring warehouse shootout after some navigation to that point on a swaying ship, impacting your movement etc. During the shootout the place is flooding, and then tips entirely over.

the 'boring warehouse' bit was tiny in comparison to the whole piece. And its the 'whole being more than the sum of the parts' that uncharted does so well
 

commedieu

Banned
Jan 10, 2009
27,354
1
0
mrklaw said:
a short boring warehouse shootout after some navigation to that point on a swaying ship, impacting your movement etc. During the shootout the place is flooding, and then tips entirely over.

the 'boring warehouse' bit was tiny in comparison to the whole piece. And its the 'whole being more than the sum of the parts' that uncharted does so well

Couch developers are often floored by light bloom in the Unreal Engine- edit- they know the ins and out of all gaming technology of course, which is why all multiplatform games out perform the uncharted series with their static worlds, severe lodpopin, and loading screens -edit- yet they call UC3's demo boring. Can't win this one bud... can't win at all. UC3's tech demo was phenomenal, and then considering its a console game thats stream loading the entire world. But yeah, underwhelming...

If UC3's demo @ e3 was boring, I'd love to know what anyone has seen in a console thats more impressive from a HD technical standpoint.

BF3 is looking to be sick on PC. BC2 on the consoles was a pretty good engine as well, compared to the #1 FPS of all time, COD. As far as its scale, it looked damn fine, and kicked ass with its sound design as well. I'm on the fence with lush visuals vs playing with friends, which I have more of on consoles. But BF is a pretty nerd-intense game, to which i have more PC 'associates'...

Dice is doing a remarkable job with cross platform development, but these videos/screens are looking too good to be true from the console limitations.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
Sep 10, 2009
14,189
0
790
Lord Error said:
I strongly disagree. Take a look at the tanker scene in MGS2, all the rain, waves and water there was practically pure eye candy with minimal gameplay impact (you would run slower when going against the wind iirc, and that was it) but it is still one of the most memorable scenes thanks to the atmosphere it provided. Here they have not only made something in the same vein that looks amazing, but it all has much more impact on gameplay and the unfolding of the various sequences that you play through.

The tanker scene in MGS2 was very impactful, I agree. I had never seen anything like it. I don't get the same feeling from the UC3 footage. That's all I'm saying. When I say impactful, I mean psychologically, not strictly in terms of how it affects interactive gameplay.

I didn't mean to come off like I don't care about atmosphere. I care a lot. And the UC3 scene has atmosphere. I like the swaying chandeliers and the water sloshing in the pool is neat, but it's not something I'd pay attention to for more than a couple of seconds. I just think this demo was more subtle than 2009's UC2 demo and I was hoping for something big and showy like the building falling down. I guess the boat flipping 90 degrees is this year's comparable moment, but it didn't have the same impact on me as the collapsing building or the view from the top of the hotel or the helicopter shooting through windows.

jett said:
Isn't that exactly what he's saying? That despite less technical shenanigans going on in the UC2 E32k9 demo, it's much more impressive than what was shown this year, based on artistic merit and overall visual impact. I kind of agree. At the end of the day, what they showed from UC3 was just a so-so shootout in some boring-looking warehouse. A warehouse in a cruise ship set on a semi-realistic ocean simulator, but a boring-looking warehouse still.

This is indeed what I was saying. The interior of the ship got visually boring, and ocean sim physics did not compensate for that in my eyes.
 

dralla

Member
Apr 6, 2007
12,179
0
0
it would be awesome if the ship in UC3 was like the tanker in MGS2. basically navigate it how you want instead of going from A to B
 

MalboroRed

Banned
Jan 2, 2011
1,032
0
0
hey_it's_that_dog said:
I'm speaking from limited exposure and knowledge, obviously, but from this demo, I see something kind of cool - that the boat and the stuff on the boat is moving according to a physics simulation - and I hear talk about it like it's a big deal that adds a lot (both in this video and from Naughty Dog programmer "Cowboy" on the Giant Bombcast). Just based on what I've seen, and just for me, the impact of the physics simulation is small, but the technical achievement is large. I call it inefficient because putting a lot of work in on the technical side when it yields a disproportionately small payoff for the player experience is not a good use of time and effort. Again, I recognize this is a limited demo, that my reaction is not going to be shared by everyone; some people will experience the moving stuff as A Big Deal.

I know you guys know what you're doing, and you know how to wow the player. I am probably mainly reacting this way because discussion of water physics/graphics has long been a strange pre-occupation when previewing and reviewing games, even though, at least for me, it's a completely forgettable aspect of the actual player experience.

Real moving environment is HUGE, when things are fake and canned, you can kind of tell and the illusion is broken and the believability is never there, it's like invisible walls and how that breaks the game's illusion.
 

revolverjgw

Member
Sep 21, 2006
17,907
5
0
Nova Scotia
rateyourmusic.com
Looks fucking amazing.

I always to play a whole game set in a constantly shifting boat... SOS for SNES did it in 2D with mode 7 and everything, but in a 3D space it would be amazing.

 

Maleficence

Member
Dec 6, 2008
5,106
0
0
Jimmy Fallon is painfully unfunny.

"I'm not doing that! What's he doing, I'm not doing that!

I'm not doing that!"

STFU!