Uncharted 4: A Thief's End [PS4]

[RenegadeRocks]

I am quite excited that they use more open gameplay sections, inspired from TLOU...this is the most important improvement for me as this helps with replayability and 'unique' experiences/combat situations.

Exactly ! Just add some cutomis-ability to loadouts too and with that dynamic AI shown inn the demo, this could rock really hard.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I hope you won't have to go out of your way for all the stuff that tends to look so great and dynamic in demonstrations to happen. One of my big problems with almost all sandbox games is that they rarely incentivise, much less force you into situations where you have to be creative. Sure, I could kick that oil drum down from the roof of a building and into the guard I intend to get rid off in FC4. Would be way easier and safer to just shoot him in the head with a silenced weapon though. Demonstrations always look cool because someone rehearsed every bloody moment of it. Uncharted has always allowed for a bit of creativity when approaching certain situations. It's just always been way more effective to hang back and shoot people in the face from behind cover.

That was also my fundamental problem with Vanquish: that game was supposedly all about crazy mobility. In truth the game was 10 times easier when you approached it like a traditional cover based shooter because all those zany moves came with stifling restrictions and usually got you killed.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Some very poignant points there Sigfried1977. Not just for Uncharted 4 but for all games that attempt to provide more player agency and open-ended gameplay.

I completely agree with you, despite the fact that I'm not really sure how a game designer can do what it is you're asking for without creating artificial restrictions that make things seem too contrived. It's a good thing I'm not the game's designer then ;-)

 

[Sigfried1977]

Well, most modern games which pride themselves on creative approaches to problem solving largely do that by having a gazillion different context sensitive actions. Unfortunately these do not work reliably about as often as they do, and if they don't work it makes you look like a clueless dick. So you can either roll the dice and hope for your master assassin to take out both guards simultaneously. Or you can sit and wait on a nearby roof like a pussy until they separate or keep throwing rocks at a wall like an idiot.

My proposition: build a game around a handful of reliable, readily accessible controls instead of throwing in a bunch of half baked stuff that's been implemented for the sake of having an impressive gameplay reveal.

I actually thought that was one of the few things Watch_Dogs pulled off fairly well. Hacking was consistently useful in that game.

Being a bit more ballsy about imposing some limitations on the player might also work. Take FC4 for example. The way all these enemy camps are designed suggests a game where the player is supposed to come up with a plan, fucks it all up at some point, and is then forced to improvise. Then the game goes and hands out so many useful tools that the fucking up part's rarely gonna happen, especially later on when you get your hands on that game breaking, silenced, armor-piercing, semi-automatic sniper rifle.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Well, most modern games which pride themselves on creative approaches to problem solving largely do that by having a gazillion different context sensitive actions. Unfortunately these do not work reliably about as often as they do, and if they don't work it makes you look like a clueless dick. So you can either roll the dice and hope for your master assassin to take out both guards simultaneously. Or you can sit and wait on a nearby roof like a pussy until they separate or keep throwing rocks at a wall like an idiot.

My proposition: build a game around a handful of reliable, readily accessible controls instead of throwing in a bunch of half baked stuff that's been implemented for the sake of having an impressive gameplay reveal.

I actually thought that was one of the few things Watch_Dogs pulled off fairly well. Hacking was consistently useful in that game.

Being a bit more ballsy about imposing some limitations on the player might also work. Take FC4 for example. The way all these enemy camps are designed suggests a game where the player is supposed to come up with a plan, fucks it all up at some point, and is then forced to improvise. Then the game goes and hands out so many useful tools that the fucking up part's rarely gonna happen, especially later on when you get your hands on that game breaking, silenced, armor-piercing, semi-automatic sniper rifle.

You know, I smiled all the way through reading this, because FC4 is such a perfect example of this. And I'm sure it's so fresh on your mind because you've been playing it recently, and incidentally it's also the game that I'm currently playing. I thought the exact same thing.

What's worse in FC4 is that most of the game's weapons and gadgets can be bought or unlocked pretty early in the game. Especially the sniper rifle in question, which is unquestionably the most OP weapon in the game, especially considering the fact that you only need to find a nice vantage point for the fortresses to solo them (the same which are supposed to be so hard that you either have to wait till you kill the captian of each fort in the story missions, or co-op it online).

Yeah, with FC4 I can easily see how the game could have been designed to force you to be more creative with your options. And I think part of the problem with this subject in question and modern games, is this prevailing intention from devs to always want to make the player feel like a "baddass", which by definintion removes alot of the challenge and tension in playing.

I often think back to games like Super Metroid, where some of the boss encountered presented very interesting and non-conventional options for beating them (like the underwater guy you had to wait till he grabs you and then use your grappling hook to electricute both you and the boss together). Stuff like that was genius back in the day, and really made the process of problem solveing fun. Nowadays, it's simply shoot/slice the boss until he's dead, or screw bosses altogether and just bumrush the player with a swarm of cannon fodder.

I wish more games treated combat scenarios like the original Soul Reaver game, where enemies were immortal vampire-mutants, that you had to expoit your environment in order to dispatch. Every encounter was thus a mini-puzzle and made every victory feel much more rewarding. These days games are becoming more and more mindless.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

The way all these enemy camps are designed suggests a game where the player is supposed to come up with a plan, fucks it all up at some point, and is then forced to improvise. .

Sounds exactly like The last of Us's combat ! ( and MGS GZ too)

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Given the option I will use different tactics to keep things fresh in games and I'm never racing through games to complete them as quickly as possible. Games like Elder Scrolls and, to a far lesser degree The Last of Us and Shadow of Mordor, give me the chance to engage in stealth combat, open combat, set traps and use distractions to skirt around enemies.

I'd like to see more of this, particularly in third-person shooters.

 

[Globalisateur]

What's worse in FC4 is that most of the game's weapons and gadgets can be bought or unlocked pretty early in the game. Especially the sniper rifle in question, which is unquestionably the most OP weapon in the game, especially considering the fact that you only need to find a nice vantage point for the fortresses to solo them (the same which are supposed to be so hard that you either have to wait till you kill the captian of each fort in the story missions, or co-op it online).

That's why I preferred taking the bases stealthy with my own hands in close combats, it's more satisfying this way, but it's not the easiest way and it must be a deliberate choice.

The crossbow equipped with the scope is already more than enough 'OP' to take a base from a vantage point anyway.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Maybe it's just me, but when a certain approach is just sooooo much more effective I tend to stick with it. When you boil games down to their bare essentials, they're basically just visually attractive puzzles, and when I find a working solution I'm gonna apply it because I feel like I cracked the code.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Maybe it's just me, but when a certain approach is just sooooo much more effective I tend to stick with it.

For me, the type of game I want to play will be as varied as the type of music I wish to listen to or the type of TV show or movie I fancy watching. In Shadow of Mordor some days I just loved running into orcs and slicing them to bits in open combat. The combat does feel satisfying and you feel (and look) like a bad ass wasting 20-30 orcs Other days I just want to sneak to the target or objective - and again, doing so stealthily is just as satisfying to me Other days I'd work work through orcs camps branding every orc, amassing a mega army then turn them. This is also immensely satisfying

If a game has only one style of play it will definitely take me longer to finish because I may now want to play that style for the duration. If it offers variety, I'm more likely to complete it in a number of successive sittings which definitely helps me enjoy a game if there's no breaks in story and setting as happens when you switch between games.

 

[ultragpu]

I like the idea of this multiple paths game design as it certainly complements a game like UC well with its outdoor and jungle centric environment, the thought of granting more explorable areas is definitely a plus. But knowing me I would most likely choose the most visually exciting or grandeur path after trying out every one of them. I also wonder if it would be smart to add a TOD/weather option for most levels after you beat the game like what they did in Infamous SS. Imagine playing that jungle level in a heavy downpour, thick mist, twilight like that reveal trailer or sun drenched summer kiss style, of course you can have your Photo mode to free zoom on Nate's or Elena's

Spoiler

arse

at any time.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I also wonder if it would be smart to add a TOD/weather option for most levels after you beat the game like what they did in Infamous SS.

I doubt we'll see this. I expect each level in Uncharted 4 to be set at in specific weather at a specific time of day and can't see Naughty Dog spending time producing assets for variable conditions.

For Infamous they had to produce assets for the whole city for different times of day and whether and it's these which are swapping in and out when changing the TOD.

 

[ultragpu]

I doubt we'll see this. I expect each level in Uncharted 4 to be set at in specific weather at a specific time of day and can't see Naughty Dog spending time producing assets for variable conditions.

For Infamous they had to produce assets for the whole city for different times of day and whether and it's these which are swapping in and out when changing the TOD.

They just need to pre bake the lighting and shadows for all those TOD right? If so I can't imagine how lengthy such a process could be correct me if I'm wrong tho.

 

[L. Scofield]

They could switch to a realtime lighting model. Much more cost effective in the long run.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

They just need to pre bake the lighting and shadows for all those TOD right? If so I can't imagine how lengthy such a process could be correct me if I'm wrong tho.

I wasn't thinking production time, I'm thinking disc space. How many distinct time of day instances are you wanting?

 

[AlNom]

There are FOUR LIGHT(ing time)s!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Brilliant episode! Actually got banned in a few countries because it touched on that sensitive subject of torture.

Getting back OT, based on the time it takes Infamous Second Son to switch between the preset times of day, it's not an insignificant amount of data involved. Go realtime and you have to make compromises in the lighting system elsewhere. I don't believe Naughty Dog will and they've already stated that are using the same PS3 engine on PS4, with modifications.

 

[L. Scofield]

30fps pretty much confirmed now:

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/uncha...0fps_if_it_compromises_player_experience.html

Maybe they'll include an "unlocked framerate" option.

 

[Globalisateur]

Yes, after ICE tweet comment about 30fps vs 60fps it really looks like some preemptive damage control from ND.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

60 fps is for PC, IMO. Or simpler arcade games. Or Nintendo . Consoles need to push eye candy and they'll need 1/30th of a second for that. Take the same game aimed for console @ 30 fps and you can crank it up to 60 for PC where power's not a barrier.