Uncharted 3

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not even so much about the overall quality, but the huge sellers this generation were all pioneers in some way or another. Assassin's Creed, Gears of War or Modern Warfare - they all did something new. Most of the other big sellers at least used to be pioneers last generation, like Halo or GTA.

But Uncharted did do something new with the scenery traversal. Taht's as new as anything those other games you site have done. Oaky, maybe AC had the scenery traversal and Gears had the cover and it could be argued that Uncharted just copied them both into the one game, but those features weren't unique to AC and Gears either. Most games are evolutions of ideas, and if you look at the list of best selling titles, you don't see the most innovative gameplay heading the lists, or performing particularly well in many cases. Looking at the VGChartz lists for XB360, nothing is jumpinh out at me as being amazingly original other than Kinect, which even then was a progression of EyeToy Play. Guitar Hero is the first title I'm seeing that's something properly new. Everything else is a variation on a theme. Viva Pinata, orignal for the XB platform, didn't do amazingly well. Neither did Portal 2 which was very original. Nor Mirror's Edge. So all-in-all I can't agree with your view that pioneers are huge sellers. The huge sellers are all regurgitating 20+ year old ideas with only a slight progressive variation. How is ND any different?

 

[Phil]

I wanted to post this in the other topic "the last of us" - but in here is more appropriate... was UC3 the last of the series and has this been confirmed? I'll probably buy *anything* from ND, but I still would have enjoyed another UC (weak story or not)...

 

[Nesh]

So when an Uncharted game is scripted to death (let's face it, there's very little gameplay in U3's most spectacular scenes, and you either play exactly as intended by the developers, or you simply fail) it's praiseworthy, but when CoD does it it's treated damn near as a crime?

Its not because its Uncharted. Its because a scripted scene in Uncharted has a continuous impact on the gameplay without removing too much control from the player, it doesnt brake the action, it feels seamless and it transitions the action to a new situation naturally.
The experience is uninterrupted in Uncharted and everything blends between gameplay and scripted situation simultaneously. Both the player and external environment have the necessary level of control and interaction with each other. The optimal level between what the player has control and what the AI and the environment has control. This is why it so natural. You cant expect only the player to do stuff to the other AI characters and the environments, or expect the AI and environment to have too much control over the player. Both the main character, uncontrolled characters and the environment should have a similar presence and influence. And Uncharted does this very well.
The ship stage is a very clear example of this. There is a nonscripted physics moving the ship. The characters and the player are affected by movement, waves and water while they fight. A beautiful and natural interaction between player, AI and environment. And then at a later point there is a gunfight at which a scripted "accident" in the ship happens that causes water leakage. All without any interruption of the gameplay that took place earlier. The water leakage even adds an extra variable to the gameplay. After a few minutes the ship turns on its side as a result of the water leakage which is where the environment participation comes into play like it should have. From that point the whole experience transitions seamlessly to a sinking ship, swimming, climbing and trying to get away from death.
In other games, they either
a) give too much control to the player making the external world look sterile, dead, since the main character has way too much influence in relation to everything else.
b) or they put too many scripted events that interrupt the action which the player senses as triggered lifeless mechanisms put there by a developer, than situations caused by the external environment (either by the other characters or by the surroundings).

 

[goonergaz]

I never said they make mindless clones, but they never did anything to really disrupt the market either. Mortal Kombat was huge, so they made Way of the Warrior, then platformers were all the rage and Crash was born. The jump and run fad continued all the way to the PS2 generation with J&D, until R* made GTA that is, so J&D suddenly became an open world game with a touch of (rather awkward) grittiness. Then Epic made Gears of War and look who's made a cover based shooter. (with jumping mechanics so simplified and automated they might as well have been quick time events anyway). I feel ND's creations are always overshadowed by their obvious inspirations.

I'm not arguing that they are very skilled at taking someone else's ideas and combining them into something very polished and cohesive, but visual wow moments aside, I never walked away from any of their games with a sense of "now that was truly something else". Yes, true innovaton or at the very least unique appraches are indeed quite the rarity, but they still exist and have paid off incredibly well for certain games.

Ouch, that seems a tad harsh! Everyone copies from somebody - I bet even the most original ideas we seeds from something else - hhmmm, an open world game where you can go anywhere - shoot people, nick things - sell them and hunt wanted people? Elite.

A console that allows you to play films & music CDs, go online and play games - even use it as an educational tool? Philips CDi.

OK, maybe I'm off the mark a little, but no more than the above IMO.

 

[Prophecy2k]

At the same time, ThatGameCompany is pretty niche and so far been supported by Sony's very open funding policy on game types. I'm not sure a AAA studio could be as original and inventive as TGC while being mainstream and generating enough turnover to fund AAA projects. We see this most often with indie and small-scale titles being the more original because they have less to lose, I guess. Where ND are sitting, I think they do an admirable job furthering the art within the constraints of big business.

Sure, although thinking about it more I would cite Quantic Dreams and Heavy Rain as an example of a truly original and inventive game. I enjoy that Sony lets them design the game however they like, and they're even a 3rd party developer. Heavy Rain was also a commercial success too, so generating enough turnover to fund another AAA project from the same studio.

Also, haven't all TGC's games been the best selling games on PSN by a large margin (outside of the InFamous 2 expansion and maybe FFVII). Given the wide gulf in marketing and distribution costs between retail and DD, and the fact that Sony doesn't release sales info. for any games sold on PSN, some of TGC games could very well have generated a comparable turnover to a retail AAA title. I would personally deem TGC's games like Journey and Flower to be AAA-quality and production value games, however released digitally only, rather than at retail.

I agree they are niche in terms of what we see selling big numbers at retail on consoles, but without exact sales figures its quite possible that the sales of those games might justify a different qualification.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Its not because its Uncharted. Its because a scripted scene in Uncharted has a continuous impact on the gameplay without removing too much control from the player, it doesnt brake the action, it feels seamless and it transitions the action to a new situation naturally.

Same with Call of Duty

 

[assurdum]

The part I'm really hate of unchy it's that prescripted events lead too much in prescripted gameplay, I don't know If it's clear what I mean... for example I hate to miss the train in the second chapter without any chance to change this thing during the replay sessions... or clamorous was the tibet level where we begun with stealth mode & the enemies discover your position with a rocket launcher... I think those things ruined the uncharted replay value too much...

 

[Prophecy2k]

The part I'm really hate of unchy it's that prescripted events lead too much in prescripted gameplay, I don't know If it's clear what I mean... for example I hate to miss the train in the second chapter without any chance to change this thing during the replay sessions... or clamorous was the tibet level where we begun with stealth mode & the enemies discover your position with a rocket launcher... I think those things ruined the uncharted replay value too much...

There's no such thing as pre-scripted gameplay, because by the internets' definition it wouldn't be gameplay.

Uncharted games don't have scripted gameplay either, as you spend the vast majority of your time playing the game shooting at enemies in a succession of enclosed arena-type areas of varying size.

I think the whole, "Uncharted is full of QTEs" or "Uncharted is too scripted" or "Uncharted doesn't have enough gameplay", complaints are absolutely completely vastly overplayed, obsurd and tired.

The scripted events and general linearity of the games are simply a feature of their genre and craft, and are used as devices through which to allow players to enjoy shooting things, solving puzzles and navigating a 3D environment, all the while telling a meaningful and compelling tale. If you're not into that then fair enough, but don't start parrotting endless overinflated complaints about things that are used far worse and to much more detrimental effect in vast swathes of other games.

I mean, I would personally prefer scripted events ala Uncharted, COD, Gears of War (of course everyone's darling is also guilty of this too) etc etc to endless cutscenes breaking up the action so much that it becomes jarring (e.g. like in KZ3 & MGS4).

I also don't at all mind linearity in games where the story is super compelling, as it keeps up the pacing and keeps things moving, as opposed to games where there's an endless amount of backtracking over areas you've seen many times.

However, all games are different and I can appreciate the variety afforded by many different kinds of games. In the end its all about balance and stuff like cutscenes, scripting, linearity in mission & gameplay structure, openness, narrative etc etc are just tools, and devices used by devs to turn a bunch of simple gameworld interaction mechanics into a playable and fun game worth spending your money on.

These things were never really an issue in the past, and I get that some idiots on the internet and in the gaming press are throwing hissy-fits, divining that all games are slowly becoming movies by their overuse of these kinds of things. But once you're able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and actually step back and take a look at the entire gaming medium as a whole, you'll notice that this is yet another load of mythical FUD created by paranoid fearmongers who think that anything existing in the popular media space is a thread to their beloved hobby. It's hyperbole, and that's all it is.

/rant

 

[Sigfried1977]

I don't think it's a bad thing either. I just think it's odd how one series gets near universal praise for it (Uncharted) while others are hated on for doing the exact same thing.

 

[tuna]

I don't think it's a bad thing either. I just think it's odd how one series gets near universal praise for it (Uncharted) while others are hated on for doing the exact same thing.

I think that this depends on the execution.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Of course, but CoD does the exact same thing, and it does it very well. The game doesn't wrestle the controls away from the player any more than Uncharted does.

 

[tuna]

COD is more popular so it is more fashionable to bash (compared to Uncharted).

 

[Prophecy2k]

COD is more popular so it is more fashionable to bash (compared to Uncharted).

Bingo!

I'm even yet to play a game where I would complain about scripted scenes pulling control away from me.

The only two games where i felt gameplay was broken up too much by cutscenes was MGS4 (for good reason), and to a lesser extent KZ3 (despite the fact that I still loved both games).

I just feel that all these criticisms about removable of control from the player are unjustified and silly. If you don't like that kind of thing, stick with games that don't do it. There's enough choice in the industry to be able to do that.

It's also wierd to me that people can complain about QTEs and scripting in games, yet can sit through endless dialogue trees in games like Skyrim, DA:O & ME games and love it. As thoguh games where you spend a significant portion of your gameplay time clicking on various dialogue options to then sit and watch an animated character speak what you've chosen out loud, provide anymore player agency than a 5 second QTE in a God of War game, or 10 second scripted sequence in any other game.

It's just all double standards and hypocrisy imho.

I just believe that both gamers and the enthusiast press are their own enemies. They let themselves become the unwitting victims of hype far too much. Such that they buy into games in genres they usually don't like for various reasons, ostensibly come out dissappointed, and then use those games as the basis for their own self-indulgent personal crusade against those game design elements which are endemic to that particular genre, one they never really enjoyed to play in the first place.

 

[Nesh]

COD is more popular so it is more fashionable to bash (compared to Uncharted).

Excuse me, but since when was this a COD bash thread or part of the subject?
If someone has brought up COD it is someone who appears to be annoyed that others find Uncharted's feats exceptional.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Nesh I don't think Tuna's statement was in reference to anyone on here, rather the internet and enthusiast gaming press in general ;-)

 

[messyman]

Hmmm, isn't Uncharted one of those rare games that you DO have control of your character during scripted moments?

 

[Npl]

Hmmm, isn't Uncharted one of those rare games that you DO have control of your character during scripted moments?

Depends on the scene, and its not an yes/no answer.
For U2 it was mostly (always?) the case that you had full control, even if it meant your character stumbled around a bit. in U3 there are several sections where you have to "hold the analog stick this direction to continue", ie it takes away all options you are used to and puts you into an "interactive cutscene" in the worst way possible, one you cant control in any useful manner and one you cant skip either... kinda like a broken VCR where you have to get up and keep the play button pressed.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Depends on the scene, and its not an yes/no answer.
For U2 it was mostly (always?) the case that you had full control, even if it meant your character stumbled around a bit. in U3 there are several sections where you have to "hold the analog stick this direction to continue", ie it takes away all options you are used to and puts you into an "interactive cutscene" in the worst way possible, one you cant control in any useful manner and one you cant skip either... kinda like a broken VCR where you have to get up and keep the play button pressed.

This is all mixed up and confused. Firstly scripted scenes and scripting in general is always part of a mostly short gameplay segement. I've yet to find a game with scripted segements that are actually skippable. So that'snot really a valid complaint.

Also, pls name more than one section in U3 in which you could only move in a single direction without any other interaction with what was going on in the scene? I played the game twice in succession and I cannot think of any.

Also, cutscenes and scripted scenes in the first place are there simply to drive the game narrative forward. You're not really meant to control them (beyond any limited superficial character motion afforded you) because the point of them is to guide your attention to key events or points in the game story.

By all means complain about cutscenes in general, or the balance of gameplay and narrative moving sections in games in general. But it's seems odd and silly to me to complain about scripted sequences giving you limited control, and yet not have a problem with other games that drive their narrative forward solely through uninteractive cutscenes, or better still endless dialogue exchanges between game characters where the extent of player agency is limited to moving a cursor over a phrase and clicking "X"

Just sounds like double standards to me...

 

[Npl]

This is all mixed up and confused. Firstly scripted scenes and scripting in general is always part of a mostly short gameplay segement. I've yet to find a game with scripted segements that are actually skippable. So that'snot really a valid complaint.

Also, pls name more than one section in U3 in which you could only move in a single direction without any other interaction with what was going on in the scene? I played the game twice in succession and I cannot think of any.

well - desert and several narrow spaces (as spoilerfree as possible). endless move slumping in single direction scenes that wouldve been ok as a series of skippable sequences. I player U1 two times, U2 three times but I dont have any urge to play U3 again and sit through stuff like that - it was really insulting the first time.

Also, cutscenes and scripted scenes in the first place are there simply to drive the game narrative forward. You're not really meant to control them (beyond any limited superficial character motion afforded you) because the point of them is to guide your attention to key events or points in the game story.

yep, exactly which is why they should be cutscenes and skipable, if you cant move/look/ape around - why bother?
I dont complain about cutscenes and I dont complain about scripted sequences in general, I complain about the specific way U3 used them. if you really dont see the difference in freely running and gunning in a collapsing building and being limited to moving forward (and if you are really lucky backward) through a narrow passage then I dont think I can explain it to you.
One fits the gameplay naturally, the other is a "hold a button" cutscene, I can do well without the latter

 

[Nesh]

well - desert and several narrow spaces (as spoilerfree as possible). endless move slumping in single direction scenes that wouldve been ok as a series of skippable sequences. I player U1 two times, U2 three times but I dont have any urge to play U3 again and sit through stuff like that - it was really insulting the first time.
yep, exactly which is why they should be cutscenes and skipable, if you cant move/look/ape around - why bother?

Oh come on. These were very limited. These werent even supposed to be interactive cut scenes. It was a good execution of identifying with a character lost in an inconvenient situation which had to give the sense exhaustion and frustration in the middle of the dessert.
Movies did it and still do it.
Why should videogames not use this form of expression? Why? Because you cant wait to move to the next shoot out? Insulting? Not at all. What better way to do it than being left with the limited choices expected from the harsh dessert? Yes limited control in that case is suitable, because there arent much you can do in a real life dessert would you?
A prerenderred cut scene would have been much more boring and I would have skipped it.
That scene I did not want to skip it.
It was a part of the narration and doing great at that.