• 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.

Uncharted 4 street date broken as thieves steal copies

Status
Not open for further replies.
So sorry, just one more I promise. :)

How is traversal in this game? Is there a lot more freedom in how to approach the climbing set ups?



There are def waves at certain points. In the liquor store when Joel and Ellie are ambushed at the beginning of Pittsburgh. Or the first time Ellie uses the rifle.

I think there are a couple of other points as well.


As far as that, the exploration and climbing does seems to have sometimes a few different routes, or at least it's given that impression. It's not a one note as some of the prior games. Also about the wave of enemies my comments all apply as far chapter 12 so can't speak for later parts. As for someone asking about the modifiers, I've not finished the game otherwise I'd answer that.
 
All this hype over Uncharted 4 has got me to finally go back and pick up The Nathan Drake Collection. I wanted to actually play the other games before 4 to make sure I have the full story etc.

Almost done with Drakes Fortune - very excited to progress through each game and see the improvements!

I'm playing through the collection now (in a weird order, 3, 1, 2).

The originals I've played as follows with these conclusions:

1: Solid game for the time, somewhat repetitive level design and slightly off combat, but elevated by the great characters and performances. Beaten on Normal, later Hard. B+ at the time.

2: Masterpiece. Best pacing in a game like this; the best set pieces; awesome regular battles with beautiful vertical level design; the best visuals; the best characters and tons of memorable story moments. Beaten on Normal, Hard, Crushing. A+ at the time.

3: Horrible aiming issues (The More You Know: I started and maintained the thread on here that got them to fix it). Once fixed, still a disappointing experience from 2 with seemingly rushed level design that regressed from 2. Set pieces were cool but had an aura of pummeling you into submission, like too much of a good thing. A lot of linearity that felt like meh, mostly because of U2 expectations. Mechanically a good game but really hurt by the aiming fuckup. Story had the patented character moments but also went kind of nowhere regarding the intriguing villains. Visuals were excellent but IQ felt worse than U2 at times. Beaten on Normal only due to lack of interest and the aiming ordeal. A- at the time but felt worst than that due to U2.

---

Collection replay (all on Hard with kid watching):

3: Wow, this came off a lot better than in 2011! Damn. Really enjoyed this time. Honestly it is a great example of how much better it is playing without forcing expectations onto your experience.

1: And this one came off worse than the original. Same game, of course, but the mechanical niggles like the cover system messing up, weak Moss-12 shotgun, breakdancing pirates, and the wave-based level design all seem quite damaging. It's really amazing how basic and somewhat unpolished this game was vs. 2 and 3.

2: This is officially now a game I can play an infinite number of times. It just doesn't get old. Everything between Nepal and the end of the game, minus a couple boss fights, is pure game design brilliance. I have some more to go through and can't wait to get back to it tonight. There are games I love, like Mass Effect 2, that I could not play repeatedly like this despite those games in some cases being much more open and free-form. Amazing.
 

Simo

Member
Downloaded U3 on PS+, never played it but i want to get an idea of Nate and Elanas relationship as that looks to play a pretty big part in 4.

Might just put it on easy and run through it.

I'd skip it honestly. I'm near the end since I'm playing the PS4 collection and Elena is barely in it and the game is the worst in the trilogy for me. I don't even know if I can be bothered to finish it. lol
 
I don't know how people can say 3 is weaker than 1 with a straight face. 3 is better in every single aspect: writing, combat, level design, art direction, pacing, you name it.
 
I don't know how people can say 3 is weaker than 1 with a straight face. 3 is better in every single aspect: writing, combat, level design, art direction, pacing, you name it.

Yep. Getting through 1 is getting difficult now a days. And I recommend to all my friends who are looking to get into the UC franchise to skip 1 or rush through it on an easy difficulty.

Can't risk turning off someone from the series over the mediocrity of 1 these days.
 
I don't know how people can say 3 is weaker than 1 with a straight face. 3 is better in every single aspect: writing, combat, level design, art direction, pacing, you name it.

3 had more variation and better set peices imo and it's my prefered over 2 because of it but 2 has a more cohesive story and feel as it doesn't feel like set peices were shoe horned into it. 2 is def the better game, but I enjoyed 3s moments more.

That said 4 stream rolls over em all!
 

Gurish

Member
I don't know how people can say 3 is weaker than 1 with a straight face. 3 is better in every single aspect: writing, combat, level design, art direction, pacing, you name it.

Today? sure but I enjoyed the first more at the time of release, when I rank 3 below 1 it means that U1 in 2007 was more enjoyable than U3 in 2011.

But nothing come close of course to U2 in 2009, one of my favorites ever.
 
I'd skip it honestly. I'm near the end since I'm playing the PS4 collection and Elena is barely in it and the game is the worst in the trilogy for me. I don't even know if I can be bothered to finish it. lol

I don't think that's a mainstream impression. I was as disappointed in 3 as anyone at the time, given its predecessor, but telling people to skip it is bad advice, even if that's how you feel personally. A, there are definitely key Elena moments in 3, and they even appear to tie into 4 thematically. And B, it's a strong game and certainly much better -- as a game one plays -- than 1, which is severely limited in comparison.

Uncharted 3 is a very good game. It definitely stung after 2, but a few years removed from that whole situation, people should play and enjoy it very much.
 

The Lamp

Member
I don't know how people can say 3 is weaker than 1 with a straight face. 3 is better in every single aspect: writing, combat, level design, art direction, pacing, you name it.

No. Not in writing.

3's story was a mess that was thrown into some scripted set pieces. It tried and failed at a lot of things.

Uncharted 1 had a very simple, focused story that was tightly developed between Sully, Elena and Nate, and the island setting came around that. It succeeded at this.

U3 failed at whatever it was trying to write.
 

Daft Punk

Banned
No. Not in writing.

3's story was a mess that was thrown into some scripted set pieces. It tried and failed at a lot of things.

Uncharted 1 had a very simple, focused story that was tightly developed between Sully, Elena and Nate, and the island setting came around that. It succeeded at this.

U3 failed at whatever it was trying to write.

I wouldn't say it failed, but the character of Marlowe could have been handled a lot better.
 

Servbot24

Banned
Uncharted 3 is a bad game like Dark Souls II is a bad game.

I.e. both games are wonderful and should absolutely played, even though there's an even more wonderful predecessor.
 
I don't know how people can say 3 is weaker than 1 with a straight face. 3 is better in every single aspect: writing, combat, level design, art direction, pacing, you name it.

I agree. 1 is still a mostly solid game, but it's almost a tech demo compared to 3. It's so limited. I mean, it's courtyard battles with climbing in-between. The set pieces are laughable as well.

Except the overall plot. Certainly 3 is more ambitious, but 1 wraps up more cleanly. 3 has some elements of characters that are intriguing going nowhere in the end. It sort of skates by on great individual scenes and performances.
 
Ok I'm done lol

zhYDAMd.jpg


bKZi1ve.jpg
I'm RIP.
 
1 is better than 2.

I think 2 is a better game, but I thought 1's more personalized scale and characters were much better. The villains were so much better than Lazarevic. I'd put 2 over it, but just. If 2 had a great villain and no shitty boss fight at the end, I'd think much more highly of it because I need great villains in things like this.

Hopefully 4 delivers there. tbh if 4 has a great villain that's already something major that it has going for it.
 
UC1 and UC3 are both 6/10 games in their own unique way. UC1 visuals are hella dated now, the combat simply isn't very good, the repetitive structure of "now this is a traversal section, now waves of enemies, now a traversal section, now waves of enemies" is increasingly grating, its storytelling is crude compared to later entries, that jet ski thing is like the one set piece and its ass, I cant remember any of the puzzles...its a really rough prototype for the game UC2 would eventually be.

UC3 is...man, Im so fuckin sick of talking about why UC3 isn't good. Like we've been having the same conversation about its problems for years now. Even if you know its not good or you don't at this point.

So ready for UC4 so we can just talk about that from now on.
 
I can't really agree with the UC3 story complaints. It had it's issues but for me, on the story and character interaction level, it was my favorite UC game. There's a couple of scenes in the game that are my favorite in the entire series.

UC2's still the better paced and more cohesive game though.

And 1 is just meh.
 
I really liked 3. It was a solid 9 whereas 2 was a 9.5 and 1 a 8,5. For me personally.

I was only dissapointed that Chloe and that bald guy who broke his leg suddenly completely dissapeared from the game.
 

viHuGi

Banned
I really liked 3. It was a solid 9 whereas 2 was a 9.5 and 1 a 8,5. For me personally.

I was only dissapointed that Chloe and that bald guy who broke his leg suddenly completely dissapeared from the game.

You just know some people at Naughty Dog are reading this thread and they must be thrilled to see our reactions to the few people that are giving their impressions.

Neil reads our forum and if he see this post I just him to know that I love him!

With that said, I can't wait for this game.
 
Uncharted 1 is fantastic and the story is alot better than 3s. The main downside of Drakes Fortune are the seemingly endless waves of enemies; otherwise I think it's aged very well and was a great foundation for the series. If another developer were to take over the franchise, I think starting by going back to the basics of the first game would be a great idea.
 

zkorejo

Member
What kind of things would you guys like to see in the multiplayer?

I hope the rest of the maps are more like U2 (Village, Plaza, Temple and Sanctuary) and less like U3 maps. So far the 3 we have seen are good.

I would like to know about the customization of the guns. If its just suppressors or are there any other boosters/mods to increase clip size etc. I doubt there is, but would be cool.

I mainly play TDM and Plunder and I know these 2 are definitely there. So I dont really care about the number of modes.

MP Characters and how many skins each of them have in the base game. I know they will keep adding cosmetic items as dlc but I would like to know if the base game has enough.
 

Glad to see folks still getting a kick out of these pics I did. Everytime I see them, I laugh. I feel like Nate on Nate is almost a meme in itself. Lol Also hope for everyone that's seen my post and pics. I'm doing the best to not spoil anything major for you all, and as it should be.
 
UC1 and UC3 are both 6/10 games in their own unique way. UC1 visuals are hella dated now, the combat simply isn't very good, the repetitive structure of "now this is a traversal section, now waves of enemies, now a traversal section, now waves of enemies" is increasingly grating, its storytelling is crude compared to later entries, that jet ski thing is like the one set piece and its ass, I cant remember any of the puzzles...its a really rough prototype for the game UC2 would eventually be.

UC3 is...man, Im so fuckin sick of talking about why UC3 isn't good. Like we've been having the same conversation about its problems for years now. Even if you know its not good or you don't at this point.

So ready for UC4 so we can just talk about that from now on.

UC1 better than UC3 though.

UC1 dated but I powered through it and enjoyed it a bit. UC3 I cut it off multiple times due to boredom. UC2 I played straight.
 

Simo

Member
I don't think that's a mainstream impression. I was as disappointed in 3 as anyone at the time, given its predecessor, but telling people to skip it is bad advice, even if that's how you feel personally. A, there are definitely key Elena moments in 3, and they even appear to tie into 4 thematically. And B, it's a strong game and certainly much better -- as a game one plays -- than 1, which is severely limited in comparison.

Uncharted 3 is a very good game. It definitely stung after 2, but a few years removed from that whole situation, people should play and enjoy it very much.

Well the gaffer wanted to play through UC3 for Nate and Elena's relationship and there's very little of it in the game to warrant playing through the whole thing.

I don't agree it's a very good game at all but that's just my own opinion. I played UC1 and UC2 on release day and I've gone through the Collection from UC1-UC3 which I'm nearing the end of and again I didn't play much of on PS3 so even removed from whatever disappointments of when it was first released I personally think UC3 is terrible today.

I was actually enjoying the game up until the ship graveyard and then my opinion went south on the game quickly.
 

Gurish

Member
I think 2 is a better game, but I thought 1's more personalized scale and characters were much better. The villains were so much better than Lazarevic. I'd put 2 over it, but just. If 2 had a great villain and no shitty boss fight at the end, I'd think much more highly of it because I need great villains in things like this.

Hopefully 4 delivers there. tbh if 4 has a great villain that's already something major that it has going for it.

You are a little extreme, a game that has much better gameplay, actual set pieces (weren't you concerned about U4's set pieces? well 1 barely even had those), much better visuals, puzzles, pacing, almost every single category on which we rate games- better.

"But U2 villain was lame so it's only slightly better", seriously? like there are 15 hours of so much more superior game in there, "but man eddy raja man!", I will never understand how some people rate stuff.
 

The Lamp

Member
I can't really agree with the UC3 story complaints. It had it's issues but for me, on the story and character interaction level, it was my favorite UC games. There's a couple of scenes in the game that are my favorite in the series.

UC2's still the better paced and more cohesive game though.

And 1 is just meh.

U3 story spoilers
Some really messy writing in this game.

1. Marlowe tries to get Drake to distrust Sully even though she has no believable reasons why he should. Really bad writing.
2. Talbot's plot is all kinds of fucked. Amy Hennig even had to spend time explaining some inconsistencies.
3. Some unexplained events between U2 and U3 transformed Elena from being an exciting treasure hunting journalist to Elena suddenly being really upset with Nathan about treasure hunting and we're suddenly supposed to be aligned with that. And then she uses Sully being old to make us feel bad. low blow. Lol. I can understand this, but if you suddenly switch character personality on us like this, it's difficult for the viewer to align with it.
4. Chloe just disappears! She joins you for a life threatening treasure hunt and then bails because it's life threatening!

I don't know, it just didn't feel carefully handled. It felt like the game was trying to make Nathan an asshole for doing exactly what the player wants to do--treasure hunt.
 

Donos

Member
When i replayed UC1-3 in the collection, UC3 was way better than i remembered. I liked parts of it even more than 2. No way i would ever rate 1 better than 3.
2 > 3 >> 1
 
No. Not in writing.

3's story was a mess that was thrown into some scripted set pieces. It tried and failed at a lot of things.

Uncharted 1 had a very simple, focused story that was tightly developed between Sully, Elena and Nate, and the island setting came around that. It succeeded at this.

U3 failed at whatever it was trying to write.

Uncharted 3 has more apparent issues in its writing than Drake's Fortune (the ship section, Talbot being a cypher, side characters not being well developed *ahem Salim* --although DF didn't have developed side characters out of the trio either) but it's still the better story because it is far more ambitious in respect to theme and character. It sheds its focus on plot and external conflict in favor of a more introspective look at Drake (and a Sully and Elena to a lesser extent) and actually develop our hero and explore his flaws. 3 may be the most "blockbuster" like in terms of action, but it's narrative focus goes in the opposite direction. Like I give major cudos for them having Drake's central conflict throughout the story be an existential crisis that probes his fears about his identity and why he does what he does. It's a good sign that 4 wants to explore this further. Not to mention 3's dialogue and character interactions are better than DF's , and it has by far the most emotional scenes in the series. I love the moment at the end when Sully tells Drake to quit joking around when he gives him his ring back, it's really subtle heartfelt stuff that speaks volumes about the characters.

DF's story's strenghts lie in its simplicity and how good of a job it does in establishing tone and the characters, but everything it did was outclassed in Among Thieves by a huge amount, and then 3 shifted directions. So while it stumbled, I gotta respect what it strove for and what it got right.
 
Uncharted 1 is fantastic and the story is alot better than 3s. The main downside of Drakes Fortune are the seemingly endless waves of enemies; otherwise I think it's aged very well and was a great foundation for the series. If another developer were to take over the franchise, I think starting by going back to the basics of the first game would be a great idea.

It has aged okay. Honestly, it's not great gameplay-wise. It doesn't have all of what the series is know for. It has some but not all.

Varied level design? Not really.

Sophisticated traversal in battles? No.

Major set pieces integrated into gameplay? Not at all; it uses on-rails segments instead... not great.

And of course its combat engine is rather janky with various little issues.

So... it has aged okay. It's still quite playable and rather fun, which is more than I can say about some other games held in high regard back then, such as Mass Effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom