Replaying Uncharted

[fgdj2000]

Considering the many announcments of Naughty Dog-related games these days - with not only a remake of the Crash trilogy and PS4 remasters of all 4 Jak games they made, but also a brand new Uncharted game down the line, all to be released this very year, AND the sequel to The Last of Us also announced - I decided to replay the Uncharted games. It's also summer-ish now, so I want to play a summer blockbuster. Oh, and it's also the 10th anniversary of the franchise...

So far I've booted up only the first game (PS$ remaster). While it definitely has a little bit to do with the remaster, everything still looks gorgeous, even after 10 years. Gameplay is so simple and uncomplicated, it's great. You really feel like a regular dude who's in way over his head. I like that you don't have to manage inventory and complex upgrade systems and can just get down to business.

I always liked the climbing sections a lot. They may not be particularly challenging, but they give you beautiful vistas and help you relax a bit from some of the more stressful gunfights. However, it's funny how quick I get through the game. I about an hour I made it to the Fortress, which seemed like an eternity in earlier playthroughs.
Also with what we know of later games, it's kind of fun seeing Nate, especially with the whole backstory we got in UC4. Though the first game really suffers from enemy waves just spamming into the area from out of nowhere which can result in some cheap deaths.

Can't wait getting through this series again and see it gradually evolve.

[Cerberus_0408]

I definitely agree with that. The whole fun is about not just general combat, but also getting through various environmental obstacles and the story also plays a significant part. Out of the trilogy, I think 2 started out with a bang.

[fgdj2000]

Finished the first game. Gunfights are tedious and after playing through the other games seem almost tame. Most deaths are cheap, because they throw some grenade launcher at you or controls phased out for a moment and Nate jumped the wrong way. But I did like the pirate setting, which is repeated in greater detail in UC4. Back to the roots, sort of, with everything they've learned in UC2, UC3 and Last of Us.

Overall Uncharted is a series of small beginnings. Sic Parvis Magna indeed. But the first one isn't terrible. It still looks beautiful and has the great characters and a great sense of progression.

[A.G.]

I always play the first on easy to avoid getting stuck on useless gunfights. This allows me to enjoy the scenery and the story more.

[Cerberus_0408]

Using stealth will bypass some of the more vicious encounters.

[fgdj2000]

May 29, 2017 20:35:51 GMT -5 Cerberus_0408 said:

Using stealth will bypass some of the more vicious encounters.

Not in Uncharted 1. And in 2 and 3 something will always trigger a detection.

I primaily dislike the gunfights, because there are so many factors that you cannot influence that make them difficult. Cheap enemy placement, randomized damage, cheap one-shot kills and occasional moments where the game won't let you progress unless you do exactly what it wants (the tank in UC2, the heavily armed gatling gun guy on the boat in UC3 and the armored vehicles in UC4), usually cause death more often than me being careless.

Luckily in 4 they reduced the gunfights noticably and implemented the afforementioned Stealth better. I like that before the final duel they had this elaborate climping section instead of an elaborate shooting section.

[Cerberus_0408]

I primaily dislike the gunfights, because there are so many factors that you cannot influence that make them difficult. Cheap enemy placement, randomized damage, cheap one-shot kills and occasional moments where the game won't let you progress unless you do exactly what it wants (the tank in UC2, the heavily armed gatling gun guy on the boat in UC3 and the armored vehicles in UC4), usually cause death more often than me being careless.

But that's how games are supposed to be played. At least to me. You MUST do things just as they're required to be done to proceed. Even if you don't like it, you can still argue that moments like these are few and far apart.

[fgdj2000]

Yeah, but there are games that give you a lot of freedom on how you proceed. Take MGS: starting with MGS3 they gave you more and more options on how you get through an area: do you want sneek past the enemy while hiding in tall grass? Do you tranq every enemy in reach? You can even go in guns blazing in some areas. You can even destroy their food supplies or their ammunition and make them vulnerable to being poisoned or distracted by food or getting out of ammo.
Even the boss battles give you many options. And usually when you actually die, it's because you were too bold and went in over your head.

By contrast, Uncharted often features cheap enemy waves out of nowhere and you are often forced to memorize by trial and error, in what order best to take out enemies. Add to that some instances where the game actually breaks its own rules: For example, in Uncharted 3 on the ship, there is one area where there is a heavily armored guy. Normally you would be able to take him out with enough ammo, right? Wrong! I emptied entire clips and even threw all of my granades on him. However the game wants you to wait until another guy with a rocket launcher shows up, whom you have to kill, take that rocket launcher and then shoot the invulnerable heavy armored guy. Only then will he die. The game doesn't allow for any creativity on you part. Which is why Metal Gear, even MGSV will always be the superior game to Uncharted for me.

I still love Uncharted, but it's like a well made popcorn movie. Like The Fast and the Furious or most Superhero films: It's well made, looks great, but there is no depth to it. Metal Gear is like a Tarantino film, or even Star Wars or Dark Knight. Eccentric, but much more original, deeper fims that have actual meaning to them. Sometimes I want mindless fun, sometimes I want depth.

[Cerberus_0408]

Jun 11, 2017 3:15:25 GMT -5 fgdj2000 said:

I still love Uncharted, but it's like a well made popcorn movie. Like The Fast and the Furious or most Superhero films: It's well made, looks great, but there is no depth to it. Metal Gear is like a Tarantino film, or even Star Wars or Dark Knight. Eccentric, but much more original, deeper fims that have actual meaning to them. Sometimes I want mindless fun, sometimes I want depth.

True. Comparing UC to MGS is like the original Batman movies to Nolan's trilogy. The older ones were more kid-friendly at the expense of being campy and comedic (like Batman and Robin). That versus Chris Nolan's version of being dark, gothic and depressing.

[fgdj2000]

Yeah, that too. But Nolan's films are also about stuff that you can take outside and think about. Particularly The Dark Knight has a lot of stuff about human nature. The age-old question: if we are pushed to our breaking point, do we really drop all sense of morality and act only in our own self interest? Joker says yes, but Batman believes in and fights for the good of humanity.

Similarly, Metal Gear (particularly 1-3) poses the great questions: What makes you who you are? Is it your Genes? What will you pass on to the future? How much of what you think you know do you actually know? Not to mention all the stuff about nuclear disposal, politics and the military-industrial complex that's in there. There is nothing this deep in Uncharted or most other action/ stealth/ shooter games. These are questions, that will probably never fully answered, but where everyone has an opinion on.

And still, Metal Gear manages to be an engaging fun blockbuster and you can just as easily the philosophical stuff if you just want to be entertained. That's the genius of it, really, and why it has a large fanbase, that also has at times very divisive opinions.

[Cerberus_0408]

Yeah, you have a point there. But I still feel each game has a 'feel' to it. Take Silent Hill and Resident Evil for example. Both essentially revolutionised the survival-horror genre, but in different ways. SH and Halo both make MANY religious references. GTA, Saints Row etc are all open-world. Skyrim and Monster Hunter, RPG. The list goes on.

So, my point being that UC may lack the deep stuff in MGS. But it still has a certain 'feel' to it. Like hunting for treasures. Each game has its own particular good things and I don't just compare UC to MGS or whatever it may be. I just enjoy whatever game I have for what it is.

[fgdj2000]

To that I raise my glass!

Seriously, that's precisely my point. Each game and game series has its own identity. I also greatly enjoy UC games. Variety is always good imo. I love UC for it's light but well executed story, its great characters and its very simple gameplay, not to mention its incredible beauty. The reason why I compare UC and MGS is because I like both very much but for different things.

It's actually when a series doesn't seem to do anything particularly interesting or compromises its own identity that I get bored by it. When AC did Victorian London, I didn't care anymore, because it became too much like a bunch of other Open World games and lost what made the series great: its unique historic settings.

So, as long as a game does what it does very well, it's pretty much great.