Support NeoGAF

[BruiserBear]

I think the mistake some people continue to make is to label these traversal sections as platforming. They've never been platforming, and it was never Naughty Dog's intention to actually challenge you with these sections. They're just a slightly unique way to get from one pace to another.

Of course they've considered making these sections more challenging, but I bet they figured it just slowed the game down from it's core mission. A cinematic action adventure game, with great storytelling.

 

[Ricky_R]

I think the mistake some people continue to make is to label these traversal sections as platforming. They've never been platforming, and it was never Naughty Dog's intention to actually challenge you with these sections. They're just a slightly unique way to get from one pace to another.

Yeah, but the Icecave has to be platforming.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

In the end it's important for arne and others working on the game to realize that the reviewers offering harsher criticisms are in the minority. Should the minority be ignored? No. You should parse through them and see what's worth taking into account, and trying to implement those changes in a future title, while making sure you continue to appease the majority who offered rave reviews about the specific type of experience that you've been offering.

It's worth noting the nuance in the debate here. It's not really linearity vs. non-linearity, but punishing linearity where even remotely going off script can often end in awkward non-deaths-that-are-deaths-anyway and a feeling that you're not really even playing.

I say this because I think some people said this about Arkham Asylum, that they want Batman in an open world, and I think Arkham City (which is a good game) was a fairly different experience and that appeals to some people, but the original guided experience was good in all the right ways. So I don't think people want like an OPEN WORLD Uncharted game. God forbid... enough franchises have been corrupted by changing with the times. TOMB RAIDER

I don't disagree enough to argue this one bit. So arne, take note plzkthx. Quoted myself to get the full picture.

 

[StuBurns]

I'm honestly not so sure about this. There's no way I get more emotionally invested in a GTA story than in Uncharted. Even ones like Deus Ex:HR I barely remember a lot of the story but I remember the incredibly fun open ended/choice oriented gameplay.

It's certainly wildly subjective, but I'm the exact opposite. I loved the story of GTA4, and more recently I just finished StarCraft 2 which is a very story heavy game that gives the player lots of choice in what they do, and in what order certain events take place, and I enjoyed the story way more than the Uncharteds.

You can't please everyone, that's obvious, but could they gain more fans than they lose by opening it up a little? I think absolutely, but I could be wrong.

 

[NullPointer]

I wish the linear restrictive review crew would come in this thread and explain rather than have gaf guess their reasoning.

Basically 1. explain why UC3 linearity is bad but UC1 and UC2 weren't and 2. explain why criticisms of other big sequel series like COD, Gears, etc. are largely non existent in comparison.

Best I've seen in the past few pages:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32305648&postcount=6021

 

[perineumlick]

I don't care if a game is linear, as long as its engaging and fun and challenging etc etc

This describes Uncharted 3 to a tee. So where's the problem here?

 

[Angry Fork]

Best I've seen in the past few pages:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32305648&postcount=6021

I see. Haven't played the game yet so I'll wait and see if this is the case. It could be disappointing if true.

Mainly in terms of not being able to stand around and look at environments and stuff, which I love doing in these games. If half the game is run away/run quickly forward than I could see that being disappointing.

edit - Actually I probably wouldn't be disappointed. I don't necessarily play the Uncharted series for the shootouts so the strategy stuff doesn't really phase me. I definitely play for the overall experience and wow factor so I'll probably love UC3 more than 2.

 

[Yoboman]

I agree with BruiserBear; some people even criticized Batman: AC for being open world, saying they preferred a more narrower focus like AA. Now U3 focuses on the formula that the series started with, and it's a problem. I think it's a lot of crap personally, and ND seems to be victims of their own success. When you become very popular, some will try to tear you down, and demand something different.

But Arkham Asylum wasn't linear, there was plenty of flexibility

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Oy, didn't see ND employees were posting in here. I don't know guys, I don't see why these reviews are such a big deal. If you're worried about scores or whatever, the title still has very high scores all around, and is getting a lot of good press.

 

[obonicus]

It seems that what it comes down to, really, is whether the illusion of freedom is convincing enough, and quite a few complaints that for UC3 it isn't.

Oy, didn't see ND employees were posting in here. I don't know guys, I don't see why these reviews are such a big deal. If you're worried about scores or whatever, the title still has very high scores all around, and is getting a lot of good press.

I think he's just trying to understand why people are reacting the way they do. Gamers are great at giving mixed signals. wouwie's post seemed like a pretty good summation of why, though.

 

[zero margin]

I think the mistake some people continue to make is to label these traversal sections as platforming. They've never been platforming, and it was never Naughty Dog's intention to actually challenge you with these sections. They're just a slightly unique way to get from one pace to another.

That was platforming near the end of 2 if you're talking about the entire series.

 

[BruiserBear]

But Arkham Asylum wasn't linear, there was plenty of flexibility

Please explain.

 

[sp3000]

I wish the linear restrictive review crew would come in this thread and explain rather than have gaf guess their reasoning.

Basically 1. explain why UC3 linearity is bad but UC1 and UC2 weren't and 2. explain why criticisms of other big sequel series like COD, Gears, etc. are largely non existent in comparison.


I'm honestly not so sure about this. There's no way I get more emotionally invested in a GTA story than in Uncharted. Even ones like Deus Ex:HR I barely remember a lot of the story but I remember the incredibly fun open ended/choice oriented gameplay.

You can still care about a GTA or Fallout-esque story but I don't think you'd be as emotionally involved as a tight, scripted one. Portal 2 is another example where the developers having more control means you get the better experience (in terms of story and feeling, it's different if you don't care about story and just want gameplay).

I specifically stated GTA was at the opposite end of the spectrum so that's not really the type of game I'm talking about. DXHR is much closer to the experience I'm talking about, but it's story wasn't anywhere as good as the original. Have you played the original Deus Ex or System Shock by any chance, because that's much closer to what I mean when I say a good balance.

In these games, there are specific levels to traverse, there is no open world, and you do have only one objective at a time. It's how you approach that objective that matters. Neither of these things applies to a game like GTA or Oblivion. People now only think in terms of Sandbox games or linear games because the entire middle ground no longer exists.

Of course it's POSSIBLE. The question is, how much more are you able to achieve when you devote all of your resources into one linear route instead of trying to add in open-ended things? The answer is: a very large amount. If a game is linear anyway, I want it to really take advantage of this to the fullest extent possible. Giving players the illusion of choice in a linear game serves little purpose, as it is still linear, but now the developers have spread themselves a bit thinner than they needed to, and the narrative experience is weaker.

The illusion of choice serves a huge purpose. In fact, that's what makes games so different from movies to begin with. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the narrative experience, I'm referring to level design. I'm not saying Drake should be able to have an open ended conversation with other characters like in Mass Effect. That's totally the wrong type of game for this. Rather, I'm saying that levels should have multiple ways to traverse, for example climbing a building that has been destroyed should not have one specific set one ledges that works while all the others have invisible walls.

 

[BruiserBear]

Oy, didn't see ND employees were posting in here. I don't know guys, I don't see why these reviews are such a big deal. If you're worried about scores or whatever, the title still has very high scores all around, and is getting a lot of good press.

People can discuss such things as adults. It doesn't mean it's a big deal, and Naughty Dog are losing sleep over Eurogamer's review.

 

[StuBurns]

Please explain.

It's a metroidvania.

 

[perineumlick]

Best I've seen in the past few pages:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32305648&postcount=6021

I don't agree with his account at all. There are many fights in the game where I was given a choice of been stealthy or Rambo, and the environments are much bigger than in the first games, allowing for more strategic vantage points. Sure there are the barreling setpieces, but there's a good balance of other game play elements too.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think the mistake some people continue to make is to label these traversal sections as platforming. They've never been platforming, and it was never Naughty Dog's intention to actually challenge you with these sections. They're just a slightly unique way to get from one pace to another.

Of course they've considered making these sections more challenging, but I bet they figured it just slowed the game down from it's core mission. A cinematic action adventure game, with great storytelling.

It's really boring as well. Even FFXIII's traversal was better than Uncharted 2 because it didn't even bother caring about actual input to jumping and doing cool stuff, just pressing up whereas Uncharted presents situations that seem like challenges but have no actual substance to them and they have to try to confuse the player as to what is interactable in the environment to try to add substance to them.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Arne, I wouldn't bother trying to dissect the reviews. It is simply a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Yoboman]

Please explain.

Story progression is linear but the game employs a Metroidvania style level design. Parts of the environment are made accessible by gaining new abilities throughout the game. This makes exploration in the game feel useful, not shoe horned. I never felt limited by where I could go or what I could do, except for the fact that I had obviously not gained the necessary tool.

Generally, every combat scenario allows you multiple options on how to approach it. Uncharted's most dynamic elements are in its combat, its hard to fault Naughty Dog there

But Rocksteady manages to find a better balance between the exploration and traversal elements being dynamic and flexible than Naughty Dog does.

 

[BruiserBear]

It's a metroidvania.

I guess it all comes down to personal preferences. I'm not the kind of guy who finds 35 side quests and 300 collectibles exciting extras. I usually concern myself with the main storyline and it's progression. I just finished Arkham City last night and I liked the game a lot, but the side quests and collectibles had nothing to do with my enjoyment of it.

 

[StuBurns]

I guess it all comes down to personal preferences. I'm not the kind of guy who finds 35 side quests and 300 collectibles exciting extras. I usually concern myself with the main storyline and it's progression. I just finished Arkham City last night and I like the game a lot, but the side quests and collectibles had nothing to do with my enjoyment of it.

Yeah, I'm exactly the same way. Playing Rage recently, I did nothing I didn't have to basically. I think that is the laziest response to the linear criticism too, set it in a boring town, and send you on missions from a hub. That's just separating the fun, which is terrible.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I do think it's pretty weird that there's all of this stuff around Uncharted 3 and it hasn't even launched yet except for a few people.

 

[Neuromancer]

Yeah, but the Icecave has to be platforming.

Best part of UC2. Hands down.

 

[zero margin]

Best part of UC2. Hands down.

Hated it.

 

[NullPointer]

Yeah, I'm exactly the same way. Playing Rage recently, I did nothing I didn't have to basically.

Rage doesn't really let you honestly and there isn't really much there there. It got some grief for that as well because it sets an expectation of a larger more expansive world, but the actual gameplay is only in limited areas - although their linear areas are well done.

I think the personal preferences thing is right, and for my part I do love well thought out collectibles. It doesn't add to the oomph of en enemy encounter, but whenever I'm in some unlit corner of a map hunting down a treasure or collectible I think about the artists that may have spent agonies of time to perfectly render this scene here, or that building there, or that vista that I would've completely missed had I not gone looking for shiny trinkets. So maybe they aren't the core aspect of gameplay for me, but they allow a player to change the pace they want to play at, and smartly done can act as a nice extra (audio logs filling in backstory and character, environmental story elements in Left 4 Dead/Bioshock etc).

But wait, Uncharted 3 still has collectibles doesn't it?

 

[BruiserBear]

Story progression is linear but the game employs a Metroidvania style level design. Parts of the environment are made accessible by gaining new abilities throughout the game. This makes exploration in the game feel useful, not shoe horned. I never felt limited by where I could go or what I could do, except for the fact that I had obviously not gained the necessary tool.

Generally, every combat scenario allows you multiple options on how to approach it. Uncharted's most dynamic elements are in its combat, its hard to fault Naughty Dog there

But Rocksteady manages to find a better balance between the exploration and traversal elements being dynamic and flexible than Naughty Dog does.

See, and I see that style of gameplay as a form of padding, designed to lengthen the game. I often find myself slightly annoyed by that type of thing. "Now go all the way back to that other place and use this to get through that door". How about not?

I don't think it's really fair to compare a super hero game to a game about an everyman hero. Drake doesn't have a grapple hook to fling himself up to ledges, and he doesn't have a cape to glide. Every game can't and shouldn't offer the same type of experience. In movie terms, let the comedy be the comedy, and the drama be the drama. They can't all be everything to everyone. I can respect a fun action flick if it's entertaining, but I can also respect the drama when to delivers great drama. Uncharted does Uncharted really well. I respect it for that.

At the end of the day it's about what U3 has to offer, and most people agree it does many things amazingly well.

 

[perineumlick]

Story progression is linear but the game employs a Metroidvania style level design. Parts of the environment are made accessible by gaining new abilities throughout the game. This makes exploration in the game feel useful, not shoe horned. I never felt limited by where I could go or what I could do, except for the fact that I had obviously not gained the necessary tool.

Generally, every combat scenario allows you multiple options on how to approach it. Uncharted's most dynamic elements are in its combat, its hard to fault Naughty Dog there

But Rocksteady manages to find a better balance between the exploration and traversal elements being dynamic and flexible than Naughty Dog does.

You're still being guided down a path, and you're backtracking through levels only after you've moved the story forward far enough to gain the abilities to access other areas.

What it boils down to me is; people are criticizing ND's choice of game design, and it's their right to do so. If you don't like it, that's fine; if you do like it, that's even better. I just have a problem with those who are labeling the game as problematic without even playing it yet. Just play it yourself, instead of going back and forth worrying about what some reviewer said.

 

[KingK]

Personally, I love linear games and open world games, and I would hate it if the industry only offered one or the other. Uncharted 3 and Skyrim could not be more different from each other, but they are my two most anticipated games this year. I wouldn't want Uncharted to become more open world any more than I would want Elder Scrolls to become more linear.

However, that's not to say improvements can't be made in both series. Haven't played UC3 yet, but I feel the series could improve with even larger combat arena areas with more options and more choices of stealth, for example. And I think Elder Scrolls could improve by making the main campaign more compelling.

 

[lowrider007]

Best I've seen in the past few pages:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32305648&postcount=6021

I'm not trying to be big headed but what Arnie posted there I practically said word for word earlier in this thread, although to be fare I think it is pretty obvious what ND was trying to achieve here, ND are in a sense creating a game almost like you create a movie, it's a very directed experience, an interactive experience, but still a tightly directed one nonetheless, ND have clear goals in terms of what they want the gamer to experience and how they experience it, and this is where I think ND are geniuses, although the game is obviously quite linear, they still managed to provide you this 'movie like' directed experience but with a very conventional control method, one that most gamers are accustom to, and, the illusion of freedom, most gamers will follow the level design cues and feel as if the journey was a natural one instead of a forced one, this is the mark of good level design in a linear game and ND for the majority pull it off well, but then that can be dependent on the person playing the game and how susceptible they are in certain types of level design cues, this is not something that works well for everyone.

 

[StuBurns]

Rage doesn't really let you honestly and there isn't really much there there. It got some grief for that as well because it sets an expectation of a larger more expansive world, but the actual gameplay is only in limited areas - although their linear areas are well done.

That's true, Rage's hub isn't exactly bustling, there's stuff like mini games, the sewer missions, the job board missions, things like that, for the most part there's nothing there.

I'm trying to think how that's different to StarCraft 2 for example, it is basically the same idea, the difference I believe is the time. If you choose to not interact with the crew, you can spend your upgrades and get into the next mission in less than a minute typically, in Rage it's closer to half an hour.

It takes time to care about a game's story and characters, if you're irritated straight away from feeling stifled, I think that can be very hard to come back from. UC2 did that to me, it feels like it takes ages to really get fun, I would say the ruined town is the first time it's really fun, that's probably two hours in, the fact the next eight hours are great isn't enough to remove the bad taste out of my mouth, and that distaste is naturally funneled at the characters who're stopping me having fun by making me watch endless cutscenes. I think having control over how long it takes to get to the fun is really important. If you get bored playing the story of a GTA for even a second you can break away from it and start having fun instantly.

I don't need choice in level progression, or story events, but I do want choice in the gameplay. For example, if I know a floor is going to collapse if I run on it, I want to be able to very carefully walk around it, not be forced to trigger the same boring 'set piece'. The problem with set pieces is they only work once or the illusion is broken, and they can only know they will work if they game is practically automatic, and games aren't fun without player agency. I think set pieces are fundamentally poor game design for that reason.

 

[The Xtortionist]

This describes Uncharted 3 to a tee. So where's the problem here?

Significant parts of Uncharted are not challenging or engaging in the slightest, nor are they affected by difficulty.

 

[Ra1den]

most gamers will follow the level design cues and feel as if the journey was a natural one instead of a forced one, this is the mark of good level design in a linear game .

This is another important thing that is being forgotten by many. I never felt like I was forced to do anything in the Uncharted games, even if I had no choice, it didn't feel like that.

 

[BowieZ]

Don't you see? Arne is just giving us the illusion of feedback.

Spoiler

;p

 

[perineumlick]

Significant parts of Uncharted are not challenging or engaging in the slightest, nor are they affected by difficulty.

Have you played U3? It's definitely more challenging on Hard difficulty, even on normal it's more of a challenge than the prior games. All the other stuff is just preference; guess it's just not your cup of tea.

 

[The Xtortionist]

Have you played U3? It's definitely more challenging on Hard difficulty, even on normal it's more of a challenge than the prior games. All the other stuff is just preference; guess it's just not your cup of tea.

Uncharted combat is thoroughly challenging and often the highlight of the game. The parts that lose me are the platforming and "exploration" segments which are ridiculously shallow and near-impossible to fail. Aside from the pretty graphics, there's zero substance there. I haven't played UC3 but all reports indicate that there's even more adventure elements than before.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

arne, would you like to hear from someone who has never played an Uncharted game? Of course you do! (Nothing personal, I don't own a PS3.)

So with that one huge caveat, I've still been pondering your two major questions.

On being criticized for giving players more control in scenes that would normally be completely hands-off in previous generations:

Again, I have no idea how much of this is actually in U3. But would you have reduced the amount of "interactive cutscenes" if it were not possible to make them interactive at all? If all the heavily-scripted sequences were hands-off cutscenes, would it feel like there were too many cutscenes in the game? The difference in player engagement between watching a scene and "walking" through it is pretty minimal. Perhaps the ability to have these elaborately choreographed sequences happening in real time resulted in more "tourist" content than you might have included otherwise?

On being criticized for being linear when the previous games and other games were no less constricting:

This is just the nature of spectacle and the law of diminishing returns. The novelty starts to wear off; it's tough or impossible to regain that sense of surprise and wonder again. This is absolutely no different from the film industry as sequels inevitably begin to feel tired even if they are technically bigger and more accomplished than the previous films. And when your game franchise is attempting to emulate that "blockbuster action movie" so closely, it's going to feel that effect that much more keenly.

 

[The Lamp]

I think one of the reasons Uncharted 3 is getting more criticism regarding freedom and linearity because quite simply there are more moments in UC3 where control is taken away from the player than in UC2. There are several times in the game where the game forbids you from running, climbing, shooting or do anything other than walking. There was only one such time in Uncharted 2, and the game smartly gives you stuff to do to break up the monotony, such as talking to the villagers, playing with the kids, or petting the animals. In UC3 you just walk forward in all of these scenarios, there's nothing else to do. There's a time in the beginning where the game doesn't let you exchange weapons. If you don't want us to exchange weapons, why even have the enemies at that point drop pickups? These are only two examples I can think off the top of my head.

The game is just as linear as UC2, but it feels more directed. Frankly the people answering you in this thread clearly haven't played the game yet.

Now this is a complaint I can finally understand. I haven't played the game yet, but if this ends up being true, then I totally submit to the validity of a complaint like that.

At the offset it felt like some people were complaining about the linearity like it was unheard of for Uncharted, and that really confused me. Now, if comparing to Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3 seems to hold your hand with a death-grip compared to the way it used to, then I can see where the disappointment from some people is coming from.

 

[Ra1den]

I don't need choice in level progression, or story events, but I do want choice in the gameplay. For example, if I know a floor is going to collapse if I run on it, I want to be able to very carefully walk around it, not be forced to trigger the same boring 'set piece'. The problem with set pieces is they only work once or the illusion is broken, and they can only know they will work if they game is practically automatic, and games aren't fun without player agency. I think set pieces are fundamentally poor game design for that reason.

This is unreasonable in a series such as Uncharted. If an entire sequence is scripted to occur after said floor collapses, what do you expect them to do, create an alternate sequence that would trigger when you avoid the pitfall thanks to this newfound knowledge?

What a waste of development time and resources for something that doesn't even make any sense. Sure YOU know there is a pitfall there, but Drake has no clue, and the idea is that you are experiencing the game through him.

Moreover, why not apply your logic to a million other unavoidable situations in games. Remember that elevator ambush in MGS? If you die there once, you know its an ambush, and you should be able to avoid it, right?

 

[Callibretto]

Arne, I think you should focus less on why U3 being criticized for thing U2 did, and focus more on how to improve/fix the criticism. standards or expectation may change. no use to worry over things you can't change and just focus on the future. here's some ideas on how you can improve for your next game. (without making it open world game with bloated budgets)

remember in U2, there's sometimes less obvious path that usually lead to dead end, but you can find treasure there? make more of those, but instead of dead end, let it lead into you next combat arena the same as destination if you just follow the obvious path. it will start the same combat arena, but from different starting point that lead into different experience giving more replay value and you don't even have to change much. obviously if you have set pieces prepared then you don't have to use this tricks in every combat situation.

some description or history regarding to your treasure would be nice.

make a couple of well hidden special treasure that can affect gameplay, basically make them your cheat tweaks, rather than just buying them in bonus menu, you have to find certain artifact before you can actiivate slow motion cheats.

for Nathan Drake is a serial killer complaint, make most of the game can be completed without killing too many people. how? by adding more non lethal weapon, you can rationalize it by the enemy needing to capture Drake alive so they carry tranquilizer gun which you can stole to in turn use it against them, or give more stealth option where stealth mean knock out instead of kill, or more melee fight, or just for fun, let drake pick up objects like vase or bricks and throw it to people head to knock them out. ^_^

edit: basically no need to change the setpieces at all, just good level design. people will have to be alert for alternate route during exploration and climbing, and they'll be rewarded for new perspective for the next combat arena, perhaps stealth is easier if you start from that place etc.

 

[Shurs]

In Uncharted 2, there was a genuine feeling of risk and "oh god oh god oh god I'm going to die" in every set piece...

Really?

I never felt that during Uncharted 2. Not for Nate, at least.

I did have a moment of genuine concern for Elena, though.

It was immediately after the cutscene where the cameraman gets killed after you drag him through the streets while getting shot at. I (as Nate) was running down a series of alleyways with Elena in tow. The camera is positioned where you can't always see Elena. At one point, Elena gets hung up on some geometry as I keep running. I don't see her. My heart drops a little bit --well, as much as it can for any video game character. For a split-second, I didn't think she made it when, suddenly she comes running up behind me.

There was a sense of danger for me do to the events immediately preceding the gameplay --though the cameraman was such an incidental character that I don't even remember his name -- but it was really the small glitch of Elena getting hung up that made me think, just for a second, that she was going to die.

Never did I feel that Nate was in any real danger. How often are main (playable) characters in video games killed off?

 

[The Xtortionist]

Really?

I never felt that during Uncharted 2. Not for Nate, at least.

Same, the collapsing building did absolutely nothing for me in terms of fear or excitement.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

It seems that what it comes down to, really, is whether the illusion of freedom is convincing enough, and quite a few complaints that for UC3 it isn't.



I think he's just trying to understand why people are reacting the way they do. Gamers are great at giving mixed signals. wouwie's post seemed like a pretty good summation of why, though.

Yeah I just got up to speed and read his responses. I haven't played UC3 so I can't comment, except that with greater success comes greater expectations from fans and press, fair or not.

 

[RurouniZel]

It's possible to tell a linear story while still allowing for player freedom and choice

Exactly this.

 

[Glassboy]

He's probably exaggerating to complain about how many bullets enemies take to die in Uncharted games. A lot of people felt the same way about Uncharted 1 and 2, in fact it was a pretty common complaint for the original game.

I still don't know why. I recently played the game over (Uncharted 1) and I don't know why people keep saying that. A headshot is a headshot and people go down pretty quick. Not call of duty quick, but faster than an enemy in gears of war. I remember in the demo that it took a lot of shots to kill a dude, but that changed in the retail.

 

[partime]

Bought the Collecters Edition by accident, dammit Amazons 1 click purchase

 

[Shai-Tan]

cnet (they seem to like it)

 

[JWong]

Man, I hope my game arrives on time, or I'm gonna be pissed!

 

[GillianSeed79]

Dumb post, apologies.

 

[WhyMe6]

PALGN's review raises some interesting points: (I've cut the relevant paragraphs and bolded bits below)

Gameplay and continuity hold a tenuous relationship with such a presentation though. Drake’s Deception isn’t the same rollercoaster that Among Thieves was, as it settles for a slower cooking narrative with a more gradual crescendo. It’s still thoroughly enjoyable, especially for the fans of the series, and an amazingly well paced ride. Overall though, the title isn’t quite as well realised as Among Thieves. The main enemy tries to play smarter, praying more on questioning Drake mentally, which leads to a more reverent use of the supernatural (assuming one particular bit was a weird glitch) but as a compromise it asks too many questions and starts leaving too many unanswered. While the story lives by its twists, some are borderline predictable, and players will come to expect Drake to fall on every third climbing obstacle… Still, those enjoying the ride are unlikely to notice the rush and lack of grandeur in what’s meant to crescendo of the game.

Gameplay wise, there have been some good additions to the otherwise familiar fare. Melee combat is now fun, pragmatic and dynamic, thanks to having the extra dimension of counters, context sensitive environmental attacks and the ability to fight multiple enemies at once. Flipping between gunplay and melee is now a must to survive, rather than veneered suggestion. Throwing back grenades is just about the best idea ever, lending more chaos into the set pieces while adding balance to the accuracy of enemies. Furthermore, there have been a couple vehicular style additions which work pretty well and some of the best puzzles in the series to date. Unfortunately, given the additional focus of Drake the individual and the haste of the game’s back end, it seemed like there weren’t enough of them.

Just how much control you have when you’re playing will be an issue for some. Visually and thrillingly, the chase and platforming sequences are as good as ever. It seems that an effort’s been made to have less incidental point A to B stuff, in favour of the thrill, but this is a double edge sword. If everything is a thrill, then it stops being a thrill; is thrill in the journey enough to know that it will end when it wants you to and not before? Enemies are still contentious though. Their sponging has gotten softer over time, and the ones that to take a lot of hits are actually well armoured, but the hit detection and reactions are still frustratingly erratic and not always reflective of what’s happened. The AI is noticeably erratic too. Sometimes they are very accurate from long distances, sometimes acutely alert that you’ve silently killed someone and sometimes ruthless at a close quarter. And other times they’ll run into your face, go off and take cover somewhere unknown or forget that they’re in the middle of a fire fight.

Less discriminating players and those enthralled by the spectacle won’t mind the deficiencies in the gameplay (or lack of it), but it’s very hard to stay mad when you have the unique set pieces that only Uncharted can provide. Naughty Dog has outdone themselves across the eight to ten hours that the story lasts, with set pieces now spanning vertically, environmentally and vehicularly, to create one memorable experience after the other. Previously, you felt that you were being challenged by the controls, but most set pieces now are genuine challenges with your environment as well as your enemies. You’ve probably seen a lot of these in videos, but you’re best off going and experiencing them for yourselves, rather than having it explained to you here. The only issue was the lack of a grand finale, which seems like a decision to avoid the criticism levelled at the artificial padding on the back end of Among Thieves. In hindsight, this criticism was invalid and Drake’s Deception really could have used it.

Are you a fan of the Uncharted series? The review and the score below are irrelevant to you then. You will get exactly what you want out of Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception. It’s the rollicking ride that you all know and love, with amazing set pieces, some good improvements and a compelling cast. Nathan Drake is a highly likable and relatable protagonist, and now we get to know more about him. If anything though, it isn’t as well realised as its predecessor, primarily through the rushed, underutilised finale and slightly excessive trimming. Multiplayer, both competitive and co-operative, has been genuinely improved and provides an exciting alternative for PlayStation 3 owners. At the end of the day, for what it lacks in complexity, Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception makes up for it in spades in delivering thrill and adventure.

I found this interesting because it (1) highlighted issues in the game that the reviewer found that were not linked to linear gameplay distaste and (2) there are now genuine challenges in the environmental setpieces.

Will Uncharted 3 stop me from thinking "oooh can I drop/go/land here" but it's four pixels too high/you're not "allowed" to go there as dictated by the game and the screen goes black and white and that bloody horn plays and you yell at the game, which frequently occurred as I creatively attempted to maneuver myself around the climbing sections in Uncharted 2 (funnily enough, this never happened in Uncharted 1).

 

[arne]

Don't you see? Arne is just giving us the illusion of feedback.

Spoiler

;p

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.

Spoiler

i make no sense

how did me wading in here with some personal curiosity and answering some questions and trying to figure stuff out turn into me asking for feedback? most of you don't even have the game!