So, why do people like the Uncharted games so much?

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

It's mostly down to the characters and character-interaction for me. While all the characters may be walking bags of clichés I still love every single one of the characters, and Naughty Dog are (IMO) unparalleled when having their characters interact and play off each others personality.

They're fun for me because it has lots of good aesthetics, funny one liners, and great level design imo

The games are challenging and just pure fun for me

Yeah it is riddled with hollywood cliches but the execution makes it great

both of these. people keep pointing out the one liners and walking cliche's and whatnot..and you know what? that's part of what i'm enjoying about it. There isn't that much depth or deep mechanics to it, but it does the job and i had a blast playing all 3 games.


and i guess i just enjoy obnoxious smartass characters (which is why i love alistair from DA so much)

 

[JagermanXcell]

Funny, just yesterday I went on a thread titled "I don't understand why people like teh Dork Solez!". Luckily I held back my urge to write a wall of text.
Meh, Escapist is full of deja vu. GG.

OT:
I liked them, the series was definitely a heavy hitter exclusive wise for the PS3 since MGS4 came a bit too soon then just left.

U1 was a fun game, very broken gameplay wise with an ending that was weird but its definitely something to remember and of course it introduced me to the cast of cliche characters that were still likable so I could not wait for the next game.

U2 was a near-perfect game. End of story.

U3 was pretty much U2 but with a really really REALLY bad story. Fun but a huge disappointment.

The series had a lot of flavor to it, aesthetics, enjoyable story even if they're not original, and fun gameplay. I consider it a really solid series overall.

Also I don't hate Nate, he may be a smug douchebag, but he's a funnny smug douchebag. I mean there are a lot of characters that are worse douchbag wise (Travis Touchdown) but are saved by that fact that they are written well enough to be fun around.
Either that or I'm just a smug douchebag

 

[BrotherRool]

I don't agree it's Gears of War mixed with the mechanics of Tomb Raider, because Tomb Raider didn't have the same exploring mechanics that Uncharted did (well until they decided to copy them for the reboot). Even then a cover-based shooter that mixes puzzle sections and exploration sections is by itself fairly unique. You can recognise an Uncharted clone and there haven't been many until recently (Enslaved and Tomb Raider 2013)

The Uncharted games are really good at creating a sense of fun and really capturing that Indiana Jones spirit, I'd argue that they did it a lot better than the Tomb Raider games ever managed to do. There's a huge sense of epic adventure and the environments are beautiful. Uncharted 1 was a console launch title and breaking new ground, but Uncharted 2 really showed the potential of the games. That cold opening with a frozen Drake clutching a wounded side in a train carriage, pulling out to show the train carriage is dangling off the edge of a cliff and then aching and groaning he has to pull himself up it, isn't really an experience that other games have managed to sell.

The series is really good at dynamic environments (like when you#re shooting bad guys on a crumbling floor and everyone starts slipping down until you jump through a window or fighting through a burning building) and interesting unfamiliar set-pieces (like an actually decent train fight) and it excels at giving climbing sections with a sense of vertigo. It's one of those games which for the most part stops being about it's discrete components and starts being about everything you feel put together.

My explanation: lack of good games for the PS3.

Yeah, there are *some* games for PS3 but can you really compare the quantity & quality to PC? Or even PS2?

When I counted up my all time favourite games I believe there were something like 10 for the PS2 and 11 for the PS3. So in a literal sense I guess I can compare them.

If you're willing to include the multiplatform titles in the PS3 library I think you could even make a solid case for the PS3 winning overall (if you're willing to include HD re-releases then the PS3 has won, but that would be cheating =D).

Because the PS2, whilst a great console had much more of a rigid divide between it and the PC at the time, which really stunted the PS2 in some genres. Like try and name a good PS2 CRPG? Whereas the PS3 had Fallout 3, Fallout 3: New Vegas, Skyrim, Mass Effect 1-3, Dragon Age:Origins/Awakening/2. Or the sandbox genre evolved a lot after the PS2, so the PS2 had the excellence San Andreas, but it completely misses out on the Saints Row franchise, or Just Cause 2 or Far Cry 3.

Or the shooter genre. I mean I don't think there are many people who are going to try and argue that the CoD and Medal of Honours before CoD4 come close to as good as CoD4 is.

And then the PS3 also caught the emergence of the indie scene that hadn't really arrived on the PS2. No Flower, Fat Princess, Braid, Journey, Trine, FlOW, Pixel Junk.

And the adventure genre got a huge boost this generation too. The Walking Dead, Heavy Rain etc trounce the likes of Indigo Prophecy. We hadn't started to get serious games like Spec Ops and the superhero genre hadn't been solved in the way Arkhum Asylum solved it.

And PS2 internet=Greatest joke ever. So every multiplayer game invented is pretty much an advantage in the PS3's favour over it's younger brother.

A lot of the great PS2 series' continued being good on the PS3 and evened out. The PS2 had MGS2 and MGS3, the PS3 has MGS4 and Peace Walker (which is basically a main series game)


The places the PS2 really wins out over the PS3 is in the JRPGs. We've got Valkyria Chronicles and that's about it. JRPGs definitely died off this generation and instead of improving like other genre's did, it got so much worse.


It's true that there were roughly 3,500 games for the PS2 compared to the 2,800 games for the PS3 (so far, the PS2 had at least two years of life after the PS3 launched and the PS3 is looking to go the same way) but you have to remember that the PS2 also took up the same position in households that the Wii now takes. A lot of those 700 extra games are stuff like Bratz: Rock Angelz, Petz: Catz 2(Seriously, what's up with the z's?) or Dora the Explorerora Saves the Princess

 

[Padwolf]

To be honest I personally don't like them, but to be fair I have only played the first and it put me right off. I couldn't stand how it was looking like a great adventure game, I was really hyped up for this action/adventure game. What I got was a 90% third person shooting game and a 10% adventure game. It got boring really quickly for me after that. However I will say that graphically it looks great, the level designs are good.

 

[Lightknight]

I honestly don't get how people can like shooting mechanics in games like Uncharted and gears of war, it's just boring.

If the game was just shooting mechanics I'd burn the game and this try to outlive all the developers/writers on the project to piss on their graves. It is not, however, the only part of the game. The game has a lot more to it and the shooting mechanic isn't awful. It's just not FPS.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The game has a lot more to it and the shooting mechanic isn't awful. It's just not FPS.

Uncharted's shooting mechanics may not be awful but they aren't good either. There's no camera sensitivity option, which is a HUGE no-no for any shooter. The shoulder-swap is horrible as well, it might as well not even be there since it's unusable (The Last of Us didn't learn either on how to implement shoulder-swapping). The controls make Uncharted's competitive multiplayer unplayable, that's not even getting into how Naughty Dog has no idea how to balance a multiplayer either. You can deal with the controls in a single player/co-op environment though.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I've really enjoyed all three personally..The gameplay is pretty fun, and I enjoy the characters. I don't think it has a particularly amazing story but the characters are all fun and have entertaining dialogue between themselves.

Some of the set pieces have really blown me away too. The plane part in 3 comes to mind, I like crushing mode too, you have to get pretty tactical to get through it, even if you have to resort to cowardice in certain parts.

 

[spklvr]

I think it's because I've neither played a lot of shooters, nor a lot of adventure games (haven't watched a lot of those movies either). So Uncharted felt very new and fresh to me, and the story and characters kept me playing. My only complaint is the puzzles being too easy. By the third game, I thought the gameplay had gotten a bit repetitive, but I still enjoyed the story. Also, it's a very good-looking game.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I bought UC1/2 pack on a whim. It's still sitting on my shelf, sealed. I played the demos and couldn't stomach the sub-Whedon snark (and I already think the majority of Whedon's stuff is painful), the prevalence of cutscenes and QTEs, and the cliched story. I'm guessing I'll be bored enough to crack that case and play them through some rainy afternoon, but I'm not sure my opinion will improve much.

I understand why the games are popular, but it saddens me. The Infamous series was far more ambitious in terms of gameplay, design, and storytelling, but the sales weren't nearly on a level with UC.

 

[Strelok]

My explanation: lack of good games for the PS3.

Yeah, there are *some* games for PS3 but can you really compare the quantity & quality to PC? Or even PS2?

Multi-Platform Ultimate, Godlike, Over Lord checking in to confirm the above is false, and nonsense, simultaneously. Primarily PC for all FPSs I play, oh and Killzone is one of the best I have played. Loved Uncharted, can't believe I waited till after 3 was already out to play it. God of War, well what can I say, every one (except the most recent, only because I haven't played it yet) are some of the best games I have ever played. Heavy Rain, terrible replay value, but who cares after that amazing story? Now, The Last of Us, the preliminary ho hum impressions have all been decimated by an incredible story it really... Grows on you... *oh you

 

[Lightknight]

The game has a lot more to it and the shooting mechanic isn't awful. It's just not FPS.

Uncharted's shooting mechanics may not be awful but they aren't good either. There's no camera sensitivity option, which is a HUGE no-no for any shooter. The shoulder-swap is horrible as well, it might as well not even be there since it's unusable (The Last of Us didn't learn either on how to implement shoulder-swapping). The controls make Uncharted's competitive multiplayer unplayable, that's not even getting into how Naughty Dog has no idea how to balance a multiplayer either. You can deal with the controls in a single player/co-op environment though.

Right, but this is the nature of 3rd person games. We need a Halo equivalent of 3rd person games. Where Halo changed everything to make it into some sleek package that makes total sense. There's no real gold standard for 3rd person and I don't actually know if there can be. It will always be slightly awkward due to there being two frames of reference instead of just your own.

This is likewise the nature of platformers. I'd say that a lot of the fun in Uncharted is the platforming and so this is a necessary evil performed as well as possible. I recently played Army of Two with my wife and I have to admit that Uncharted did a great job with required 3rd person perspective. Army of Two makes me hate 3rd person all over again.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I remember when the first one came out, the graphics took everyone's breath away by console standards and that allowed people to overlook the flaws that it had. I remember being pretty impressed that Drake's clothes were actually wet and dripping, as well as stuck to him when he got out of the water, things like that.

Also, when looking at the trilogy as a whole (but mostly 2), the games are what we hoped that gen would be, the fun shooting and adventuring that Naughty Dog and the like always provided for the PS1/2 but with better graphics, animations, and a leap forward in storytelling ability due to the cutscenes and large disc size. It's not gritty and brown, it has humor and color, and they look fantastic by console standards. They also gave PS3 owners something to be proud of. At the end of the day, they're like those summer popcorn-muncher movies: You had fun, laughed a bit, enjoyed it with your friends, and you're glad you experienced it even though it didn't change your life or make your top 10. They're quality, and the kind of fun we enjoy executed well. They don't need to be much more than that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Right, but this is the nature of 3rd person games. We need a Halo equivalent of 3rd person games. Where Halo changed everything to make it into some sleek package that makes total sense. There's no real gold standard for 3rd person and I don't actually know if there can be. It will always be slightly awkward due to there being two frames of reference instead of just your own.

This is likewise the nature of platformers. I'd say that a lot of the fun in Uncharted is the platforming and so this is a necessary evil performed as well as possible. I recently played Army of Two with my wife and I have to admit that Uncharted did a great job with required 3rd person perspective. Army of Two makes me hate 3rd person all over again.

Metal Gear Solid has become the gold standard for TPSs in my opinion. Yeah, MGS1-3 all had top-down cameras, but MGS4 has basically perfect TPS controls, the aiming is spot-on with no need for aim-assist (something console FPSs can't even do) and the controls have depth like being able to lean while in 1st-person (again, something console FPSs except Warfighter can't even accomplish). Ubisoft has really advanced the TPS cover system with Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon Future Soldier's cover swapping, it now feels weird to not be able to cover swap in other cover-based TPSs like an Uncharted. TPSs have come a long way this gen, they used always have a clunky feel to them but now they (the good ones at least) feel very smooth and fluid. Even Uncharted feels pretty smooth overall even though there are a lot of control issues with the game but those really only become apparent in the competitive multiplayer.

I tried a demo for the 1st Army of Two and it has that kinda camera where you character is all on the left of the screen and you get that extreme over the right shoulder view. It's fine in say the Batman games because they aren't shooters.

 

[PatrickXD]

I've played the first game and the one on the Vita. Neither appealed to me past an hour. I just got kind of bored, didn't care much about anyone or anything, and turned it off. I don't have much of an opinion about the games beyond 'not my cup of tea'.
To that end I obviously don't see the appeal.

 

[Weaver]

I thought they were pretty mediocre personally.
The complete critical praising of the Uncharted series it is why I didn't buy the last of us.

 

[nevarran]

Some people like linear 3rd person action games. Easy to digest, I guess.

The complete critical praising of the Uncharted series it is why I didn't buy the last of us.

Same here. After KillZone 2, I'll never listen to fanboys again.