Uncharted 3 reviews

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 4, 2006
44,305
2
0
San Francisco
AniHawk said:
well then don't have them during (intense) firefights. make the challenge all about the platforming and problem-solving.
Or don't have too much fail=death platforming during combat. One of my favorite aspects of Uncharted 2 was the mix of platforming, melee and gun combat in the multiplayer modes. The campaign seemed to segregate those aspects a bit more.
 
May 8, 2009
14,617
0
0
Amir0x said:
that was some reveal too

anything that tops U2's falling building/train levels?

Don't tell me what they are, just if in your estimation they existed. That train level was so amazing compared the train levels in most games.
Yes, by my standards at least. The game goes a long way to ensure that the set pieces are bigger and more insane. I just wish I hadn't spoiled so many of them in those trailers. Still some incredible surprises though, in terms of those.
 
Oct 27, 2004
103,739
3
0
34
Nowhere, PA
arne said:
you do realize that in Jak, the way to ratchet up the difficulty in some of the platforming was basically just to reduce the timing for you to make a successful jump until it was almost impossible right?
I don't know, I just know it was fun!

A more closely related product would be Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands. That shares more similarities with the way Uncharted works, sans the rewind mechanic obviously and the greatly increased difficulty potential + traps, and it still works around very intense, vertigo situations.

Jak, the original, is a good platformer though so i'd take that too ;)
 
Jun 7, 2004
74,677
2
1,405
to be fair, jak and daxter was actually a platformer, and uncharted is not, although uncharted has platforming in it. i don't demand high-quality platforming from uncharted, because i don't expect it.
 
arne said:
because dying sucks. and totally cheap mechanics that lead to dying multiple times because you didn't get the timing right suck more. but we also want to create tension.

i'm being extremely reductive, but that's kind of the gist.
Arne I have to disagree. People loved Mario and he died ALL the time with no continues. But its true we have moved on from there.

The simplistic view is to blame dying for a lack of progression which will stop the player playing the game and move on to the next game.

This is true.

However this also goes against what I think is fun, which is the challenge. There is no challenge if there is no consequence. How much more unfun were the old school games when you played on god mode. Doom?

When you dangle the carrot you can't dangle it too far away otherwise people will just stop playing. But you want to make the challenges attainable, so that even if you 'die' it can be attained on the very next go.

Anyway I've probably missed the point because I haven't played U3.
 
Oct 27, 2004
103,739
3
0
34
Nowhere, PA
AniHawk said:
to be fair, jak and daxter was actually a platformer, and uncharted is not, although uncharted has platforming in it. i don't demand high-quality platforming from uncharted, because i don't expect it.
Right, I'm not expecting Mario. I just want to die when I time things wrong or if I'm too slow (at least, the window for such things should be smaller to allow skill to take over)

or at least I'd take it in crushing difficulty mode

anyway, night guys
 
Jan 24, 2011
21,941
0
0
Brooklyn, NY
Segnit said:
Cherry picking are we? Ok, let me put it in a more diplomatic way, why do some fans feel that there has been foul play with the very positive scores so far?
Has more to do with the criticisms than the scores, and actually sparked up a really interesting discussion.

Personally I'm not bothered by the easy platforming, the way it mixes in the the gunplay is great in my eyes, I'm more interested in improved melee.
 

Combichristoffersen

Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Jun 26, 2009
23,338
1
800
Norway
arne said:
so what you're asking for is us to bring in Jak levels of platforming difficulty? ;)
Or make a new Jak. Like the first one. Tell Sony they need to use all those millions they aren't using on funding a new MediEvil or Motor Toon Grand Prix on something, so it should be a new Jak. Like the first one.

Remember, it should be like the first one.
 

arne

Member
Sep 13, 2005
5,576
0
1,135
Santa Monica, CA
www.arnemeyer.com
Combichristoffersen said:
Or make a new Jak. Like the first one. Tell Sony they need to use all those millions they aren't using on funding a new MediEvil or Motor Toon Grand Prix on something, so it should be a new Jak. Like the first one.

Remember, it should be like the first one.
okay, make another game like Jak 2. got it. thanks. be back in a couple of years.
 
Mar 9, 2010
176
0
0
Cyprus
upJTboogie said:
Has more to do with the criticisms than the scores, and actually sparked up a really interesting discussion.
Indeed it has :)

As for the criticisms, what's wrong with them?

Which criticisms leveled against Uncharted 3 are not valid?

I'm arguing that on principle, marking down a game due to linearity is entirely valid. Same goes for marking down a game for reduced interactivity.

I'm sure some bad writers wrote some bad reviews, why be upset about it if you don't care about median scores?
 
Jun 2, 2009
6,256
0
0
Amir0x said:
Right, I'm not expecting Mario. I just want to die when I time things wrong or if I'm too slow (at least, the window for such things should be smaller to allow skill to take over)

or at least I'd take it in crushing difficulty mode
I agree with making it harder on the higher difficulty levels. The platforming parts become far less interesting the second or third times through, especially since the difficulty of the shooting sections is higher. Making them a bit harder would go a long way to keeping them interesting.
 

arne

Member
Sep 13, 2005
5,576
0
1,135
Santa Monica, CA
www.arnemeyer.com
Segnit said:
Indeed it has :)

As for the criticisms, what's wrong with them?

Which criticisms leveled against Uncharted 3 are not valid?

I'm arguing that on principle, marking down a game due to linearity is entirely valid. Same goes for marking down a game for reduced interactivity.
it's not that they are invalid, which again I've been very careful to point out that I don't feel these criticism are invalid, or that the reviews are erroneous.

it's a combination of factors. one of which is why is U3 being called out for these things that other games are not. what can we learn from that perception or how others are handling the same challenges we face? another is, which you answered a couple of pages back i think, the "why now" when we've established what kind of games the uncharted series is. why not before. heck i mentioned i had this particular criticism for U1 (which was also echoed by fans and press i think). and so forth.
 
Jan 24, 2011
21,941
0
0
Brooklyn, NY
Segnit said:
Indeed it has :)

As for the criticisms, what's wrong with them?

Which criticisms leveled against Uncharted 3 are not valid?

I'm arguing that on principle, marking down a game due to linearity is entirely valid. Same goes for marking down a game for reduced interactivity.

I'm sure some bad writers wrote some bad reviews, why be upset about it if you don't care about median scores?
No one is upset right now unless your referring to the reactions much earlier in the thread.
 
Dec 28, 2010
11,968
0
0
Just as many have their opinions of what could be better for Uncharted, I have mine.

ND, Arne and Co.

I don't care how many set-pieces you guys add or how many times my only choice is to push the joystick just to move through an area you guys wanted us to go or how many limited controlled cut-scenes you guys implement, I wouldn't want you guys to change a thing.

AS LONG as there's enough combinations of gunplay, platforming and puzzles. Of course it would have to include the first class production vales, voice acting, great dialogue, etc, that you guys are known for.

I want at least one game that makes me feel like an epic adventurer who's always at the edge of death just to come out of it alive at the last moment. If I want another game with none of that cinematic stuff, there will be a pretty good list of games to choose from.

That's my opinion.
 
Sep 21, 2010
27,716
0
640
videogames?
twitter.com
arne said:
because dying sucks. and totally cheap mechanics that lead to dying multiple times because you didn't get the timing right suck more. but we also want to create tension.

i'm being extremely reductive, but that's kind of the gist.
Here are my thoughts...

When dying(or another form of loss) is marginalized there can't be much legitimate tension. The skill level will be too low and the player has nothing to lose. With dying out of the picture, what is left is a skin-deep illusion and that would be an apt description of certain segments of UC2(and UC3 from the sounds of it). Safe and nigh automatic "platforming" leads to hollow victories(though that is enough for everyone but a relative few). As spectacular as the visuals are(and really, only God of War 3 puts up a fight in the department of cinematic moments), once you see through this illusion all these set pieces become little better than pushing forward down a hallway until you reach a new room to shoot dudes(where dying matters again).

Dying actually rocks. Dying may just be the best thing about videogames. It makes every other mechanic more satisfying and more important. It is what makes most games competitive, even when alone against some AI. Dying without checkpoints or auto-saves or quicksaves every 10 seconds is even better. Failure creates true tension, not something dressed like tension. It means you need are no longer being asked kindly to do something, but being demanded of it. Yes, now you'll need to learn the timing of this or that action and it might take much effort and humility. The end result is that the player's reflexes/muscle memory have now been improved, he has grown and not because the game pushed him to the next area or told him his character leveled up. You line up a bunch of these tests, without letting him cheese it by trial and error thanks to abusing checkpoints or allowing the game take some the burden off of him(leveling/grinding), and you'll shape a talented player(and a challenge worthy of talented players).

However dying can be exclusionary. It can weed out those who do not desire to learn from their failures(they will proceed to call things "cheap"). Frustration is being shown your powerlessness and that is just about the worst feeling in the world. There is going to be a group of people who don't want to cope with that for what is a minor side-distraction, a slightly more flashy alternative to soap operas or reality television, to their busy nine to five lives. This is going to be the overwhelming majority, every time. If you simply "show" that the player is powerful instead of forcing them to earn it, you can get the best of both worlds, right? This means you are going to want more anti-competitive mechanics(which would also describe some of the UC3 multiplayer mechanics) and illusionary tension, probably less complexity altogether as well(Uncharted's TPS combat vs Uncharted's platforming). In that way the cinematic moments of Uncharted 2 and beyond are actually pretty perfect. The future, even.

You can't please everyone though. There is no better way to measure depth than measuring disparity between the best and worst players. Now more than ever many developers(especially in the west), I have to imagine ND is among them, feel they need to make every game winnable for every human on the planet(or at least work towards that) and this is smart because you want the size of your audience to grow. However that means a lot of hollow victories for players who don't want illusions of difficulty.
 
Apr 9, 2011
3,259
0
0
Segnit said:
Please keep the discussion civil buddy. Thank you :)

In case it wasn't evident what I was saying, let me rephrase kind sir.

  1. Strictly linear design in games by definition means the exclusion of open world elements.
  2. A pure sandbox design (ala Minecraft) excludes linear and sometimes thrilling set-pieces.
  3. Game design that incorporates both linear and open world elements has the most potential.

Also games by their very nature need to get more interactive as tech gets better and time goes by.

Now since there is no pact between reviewers on what a perfect score is or who gets to review which game according to who's tastes, a reality emerges at the higher echelons of the league. The reality is that top tier games need to have a central vision that does not alienate or exclude a large segment of the reviewing world.

World of Goo, Katamari Damacy, Cut the Rope are all fine games, but they do not appeal to a wide enough demographic to rise to historic heights. And the fact of the matter is that those games are all small enough that they could be included as minigames in a larger triple A production and still not impact the overall reception enough.

The Uncharted type of game that has a tight focus, more linear gameplay and reduced interaction does not incorporate pluralism or complementarity. The scores are reflecting that.
Well you pose some valid points, but I can't agree with everything you are saying. What you seem to be describing is a way to perhaps get better review scores, but not necessarily better games.

It is true that it is possible to mix linear elements with sandbox elements to give a bit of everything, but I have a feeling the result would end up feeling watered down compared to a game that focuses mostly on what it does best. I believe Arne has addressed this in the past in stating that they wanted to keep the relentless pace going most of the time, and sandbox elements would really pull you out of that.

I'm not saying it is not possible to mix both styles effectively, but I think the end result will be better when developers focus on one or the other for the most part. At the very least, you cannot deny that resources devoted to open world elements in an otherwise linear game are taking away from the potential things they could have done had they stuck with the linear approach, in addition to the pacing issues already described.
 
Jun 26, 2011
6,104
0
490
No more Jak games, there's no market for it, like there's no market for another ratchet, don't listen to the "give us another Jak" bullshit, THERE IS NO MARKET FOR ANOTHER JAK.

Tighten up the shooting in Uncharted 3 MP, too much hipfire, not enough accuracy for the AK or pistol, lower the recoil and the randomness of bullets.
 
Jul 29, 2010
15,423
2
610
www.neogaf.com
arne said:
it's a combination of factors. one of which is why is U3 being called out for these things that other games are not. what can we learn from that perception or how others are handling the same challenges we face? another is, which you answered a couple of pages back i think, the "why now" when we've established what kind of games the uncharted series is. why not before. heck i mentioned i had this particular criticism for U1 (which was also echoed by fans and press i think). and so forth.
Perhaps because UC3 seems to focus more on platforming/adventuring than previous UC titles? Haven't played the game but that's just what I've heard.

If you don't mind me asking, what other games are getting a pass for similar gameplay?
 
Jan 16, 2009
16,846
0
0
The Xtortionist said:
Perhaps because UC3 seems to focus more on platforming/adventuring than previous UC titles? Haven't played the game but that's just what I've heard.

If you don't mind me asking, what other games are getting a pass for similar gameplay?
Well, Call of Duty gets a pass every year.
 

Combichristoffersen

Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Jun 26, 2009
23,338
1
800
Norway
KingK said:
The Jak games were my favorite series last gen. ND should make Jak 4 as their last project on PS3, and then make a new adventure game ip in the vein of Zelda for PS4, followed by Uncharted 4.

do it arne.
A Jak game running on the UC2/3 graphics engine could end up looking glorious.

Oh, and Jak > Jak 3 (never played Jak 2 or Jak X)
 
D

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member
I'm kind of interested in how Naighty Dog work when moving into each new game in a series. Do you guys consider certain elements sacred cows of a franchise, or is everything potentially on the cutting board?
 
Aug 19, 2010
7,550
0
0
27
New Zealand
dreammodule.com
arne said:
one of which is why is U3 being called out for these things that other games are not.
Think of it as a good thing;
the fact that miniscule issues like easy platforming and linearity are the biggest complaints about this game just means there wasn't any bigger issues to complain about.

other games which also had those same issues about linearity also had bigger issues that were more important.

Uncharted doesn't have bad gameplay, gamebreaking bugs, horrible voice acting, long load times(none!), huge framerate drops, doesn't have sluggish controls, a short campaign. bad characters, or too much variety etc, etc.
 
Sep 17, 2005
16,003
0
0
arne said:
it's not that they are invalid, which again I've been very careful to point out that I don't feel these criticism are invalid, or that the reviews are erroneous.

it's a combination of factors. one of which is why is U3 being called out for these things that other games are not. what can we learn from that perception or how others are handling the same challenges we face? another is, which you answered a couple of pages back i think, the "why now" when we've established what kind of games the uncharted series is. why not before. heck i mentioned i had this particular criticism for U1 (which was also echoed by fans and press i think). and so forth.
U3 is being held to a higher standard

Revel in it and hold yourselves to a higher standard as well. You know your game play could be more expansive, you know you have ideas that probably aren't being explored, that there are ways this franchise can move in that can make these games feel better, more challenging, fresher.
 
Mar 3, 2010
43,443
0
0
I think the problem arises from Uncharted being about exploration yet within that exploration aspect, the game is very limited. People don't care about Gears of War being limited because the story and gameplay mechanics re-infornce you going through narrow corridors. Everything about Uncharted, such as the transversal methods and multiple approaches to combat, seems to suggest that you should be able to explore your environment more yet the game is somewhat restricted. ND needs to embrace that and come up with alternative solutions to a problem in-game other than the obvious ones for the casual player. This gives additional depth to the game as well which comes back in replayability as well as increasing player choice.

The Xtortionist said:
Disagree. Unlike Uncharted, 95% of what you're doing Call of Duty is combat, and there's no hand-holding to be seen on higher difficulties. The average player would get endlessly fucking destroyed on Veteran.
World at War was a PhD class in pain.
 
Jan 26, 2009
3,571
0
0
The Xtortionist said:
Disagree. Unlike Uncharted, 95% of what you're doing Call of Duty is combat, and there's no hand-holding to be seen on higher difficulties. The average player would get endlessly fucking destroyed on Veteran.
the average? everybody gets destroyed on Veteran.

Yoboman said:
If by pass you mean being rated lower and becoming less anticipated every year
You mean by the press, right?

Jarmel said:
World at War was a PhD class in pain.
That game was just unfair, unlimited enemy spawns and GRENADE SPAWNSS!!!!
 

arne

Member
Sep 13, 2005
5,576
0
1,135
Santa Monica, CA
www.arnemeyer.com
Rez said:
I'm kind of interested in how Naighty Dog work when moving into each new game in a series. Do you guys consider certain elements sacred cows of a franchise, or is everything potentially on the cutting board?
there's no bad ideas or feedback. good ideas collectively resonate and rise to the top.
take a look at Richard's presentation on how we work, if you haven't read about it or see it already:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/44276/dice-2010-naughty-dog-presentation/
 
Oct 26, 2006
25,012
0
0
www.robleydesign.com
The Xtortionist said:
Disagree. Unlike Uncharted, 95% of what you're doing Call of Duty is combat, and there's no hand-holding to be seen on higher difficulties. The average player would get endlessly fucking destroyed on Veteran.
I believe his argument is that COD does the exact same thing every year and gets to be called original and re-defining!
 
Sep 21, 2010
27,716
0
640
videogames?
twitter.com
BruceLeeRoy said:
I believe his argument is that COD does the exact same thing every year and gets to be called original and re-defining!
Not on NeoGAF it does.



Was World at War the hardest Call of Duty game? I ended up beating that one(yeah, it was pretty tough at times, though very checkpoint friendly so relatively easy to actually complete), and I am currently in a state of mind where I can't be bothered to play another CoD campaign. It is just so dull the way you fight enemies.
 
Apr 30, 2009
35,156
0
0
BruceLeeRoy said:
I believe his argument is that COD does the exact same thing every year and gets to be called original and re-defining!

Call of Duty's appeal is based on multiplayer which is not scripting-based. I don't think even reviewers have thought there's been a good Call of Duty single-player in four years.

I personally thought the demo of Uncharted 3 had many obvious "gotcha" moments where it was obvious some bad thing would happen to Drake and then Drake would escape and there was a major feeling of fake tension as it seemed obvious that certain parts of the house would burn and break down at certain points which didn't happen as much as UC2 so if that continued I could definitely see some reviewers liking it a lot less. Also, Uncharted platforming/traversal is a major part of the game unlike Call of Duty and it sucks really badly.
 
Mar 9, 2010
176
0
0
Cyprus
arne said:
it's not that they are invalid, which again I've been very careful to point out that I don't feel these criticism are invalid, or that the reviews are erroneous.

it's a combination of factors. one of which is why is U3 being called out for these things that other games are not. what can we learn from that perception or how others are handling the same challenges we face? another is, which you answered a couple of pages back i think, the "why now" when we've established what kind of games the uncharted series is. why not before. heck i mentioned i had this particular criticism for U1 (which was also echoed by fans and press i think). and so forth.
I think from your end, you need to see the positive end.

You have a growing and much loved franchise; you have 1 game resting in the mausoleum of the the all time greats; and you have plenty of room to surprise in the future.

As for why now? I think Zane put it best a few pages back.

Zane said:
Well, the way I felt during the game was this (I wrote the Wired review): Uncharted 1 was a fresh and new experience. Uncharted 2 improved on that by a gigantic amount. It blew minds because we had never seen those sort of really amazing setpieces before. Or at least, nothing on the scale of what U2 had to offer. What I felt with U3 is that it didn't really offer anything new and fresh. U1 and U2 did.
I think for most people, Uncharted 2 came exactly at the right time and surprised a lot of people with how clever some of the design decisions were. But my whole point is (as Zane put it) that keeping such a tight focus will stop surprising people.

Think of it like this, it's like when zombies first gained prevalence in movie culture. At first, just the sight of a zombie pulling itself out of a grave was meant to be shock and horror. Then as more and more movies used that recipe, people got desensitized to it. The zombies then evolved to faster creatures, then more powerful, then smarter etc. until the present day where Zombies are just fun to unleash carnage upon (and in the process largely lost its original horror appeal).

Some people can be dense sometimes so let me phrase my zombie example in its purest form. It's not often you catch the lighting in a bottle twice. Uncharted 2 was lighting.

If people think it's possible to continue the series (any series) in a steady path, without expanding the scope or catering to a more inclusive and pluralistic game design elements over its predecessor, and do better with each iteration; then I'll have to say it's possible , but unlikely (and a bit delusional).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.