Uncharted 1 and 3: To buy or not to buy?

[syaoran728]

I actually really enjoyed the combat in Uncharted 2, but that's mostly because I realized that you can get through a large portion of the game stealthing around and jumping on people.

 

[Evonisia]

I actually really enjoyed the combat in Uncharted 2, but that's mostly because I realized that you can get through a large portion of the game stealthing around and jumping on people.

Well to be fair I did always try that, and I'm the type of person who will reset when caught. A lot of the time, though, it forces you into combat which really pissed me off.

For context, as soon as I reached the train section the game went really downhill for me in terms of the combat. The first half is more stealth focused and well... good.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Both game are pretty stinking similar in combat, the difference is whether the level design got better or if you like little tidbits they added, like deteriorating cover in Uncharted 3.

Uncharted 1 is quite a bit harder than Uncharted 2, in my opinion, and has some pretty stupid moments crowned by jet skis. Combat's pretty similar but with less selection on weaponry.

Uncharted 3 is more of the same as Uncharted 2, except you can't go around punching everyone to death for no penalty. I still really enjoy the game for the co-op multiplayer and the characters, namely Charlie and Sully.

 

[Brownie80]

One of the problems with these games is that they keep bringing fucking Elena back, when she's boring as all hell. Every new character gets pushed to the sidelines just for the sake of Drake and Elena's stupid on again/off again relationship. They should've ditched her after the first game and focussed on Chloe in the sequel, but no there's Elena again, coincidentally in the same place as Drake.

And by the third game they jump the shark completely by establishing some father/son relationship between Drake and Sully, which is stupid for two reasons:

Spoiler

1) If they go way back and Sully practically raised Drake, why does the first game have the little subplot where it seems Sully turned coat? Why would that be there if their relationship wasn't already a bit shaky, with both of them being thiefs and all?

2) The fact that they become partners when Drake was still a kid means Sully nurtured this boy into becoming a fucking killer. Sully was the adult, and instead of turning over a new leaf because he now has the responsibility over a child, he just allows this kid to go from purse snatcher to mass murderer. And then the game tries to play this off as touching!?

I know you tried to be The Last Crusade, but you're doing it wrong.

I never had too much of an issue with the gameplay, but after The Last of Us perfected that Jack-of-all-trades third-person action, it seems dreadfully mediocre now.

Sully never trained Drake to be a killer. All of the enemies in the games are pricks who would shoot first whether it was Nathan Drake or an American tourist. Drake almost never starts the hostilities. If the villains of the games never were there the only person Drake probably would have killed was that museum guard he threw off the roof in the beginning of the second game. And I know the situation might be different but didn't TLOU pull off the exact same thing.

 

[syaoran728]

I actually really enjoyed the combat in Uncharted 2, but that's mostly because I realized that you can get through a large portion of the game stealthing around and jumping on people.

Well to be fair I did always try that, and I'm the type of person who will reset when caught. A lot of the time, though, it forces you into combat which really pissed me off.

For context, as soon as I reached the train section the game went really downhill for me in terms of the combat. The first half is more stealth focused and well... good.

That's kinda funny cause it was during the fight at the derailed train that I realized that if I play it right I can kill everyone via stealth.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Sully never trained Drake to be a killer. All of the enemies in the games are pricks who would shoot first whether it was Nathan Drake or an American tourist. Drake almost never starts the hostilities. If the villains of the games never were there the only person Drake probably would have killed was that museum guard he threw off the roof in the beginning of the second game.

I didn't say he trained him, but he fed Drake's affinty to steal shit to the point where he had no qualms in killing guys to get what he wanted. Instead of saying 'Hey kid, don't go down the same path as me' he proposes to show him the ropes. And I know the guys he kills are just mecenaries/pirates, but that doesn't make the blood on his hands any less bloody. He actively seeks out this violent conflict just for money, and the games treat it like light hearted, unironic fun. Even the times where it does peek just a little bit at itself in the mirror, it goes right back to snarks and joking around the very next minute.

And I know the situation might be different but didn't TLOU pull off the exact same thing.

The world of TLoU is a violent one, and the violence is question is presented in a way where it's kill or be killed. It's also treated with a great amount nuance and respect - Joel never makes light of the brutality he inflicts by making quibs or showing off. Beyond that the violence you see is shocking and meant to show how fucked up it is that it's become a daily routine for most of these characters.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I always hated the "Drake's a killer" idea, this is a game, don't take it seriously, mowing down hundread baddies is an acceptable break from reality, in real life they will have a tenth of the mercenaries they have each game and the enemies always shoot first regardless.

This like million times. I don't understand why people see Drake as a killing psychopath. The same kinda action movies are allowed to have characters making quips and puns after killing someone, why not Drake? You need to have more people to kill in a game vs a movie as a game needs all that gameplay. Just killing like 10 people in a shooter would be a horrible shooter. You either have all the killing or Uncharted becomes a puzzle-platformer or an adventure game, which are completely different genres. Most people wouldn't have a problem with Drake in the latter genres but in the shooter genre, he's not allowed? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Brownie80]

Sully never trained Drake to be a killer. All of the enemies in the games are pricks who would shoot first whether it was Nathan Drake or an American tourist. Drake almost never starts the hostilities. If the villains of the games never were there the only person Drake probably would have killed was that museum guard he threw off the roof in the beginning of the second game.

I didn't say he trained him, but he fed Drake's affinty to steal shit to the point where he had no qualms in killing guys to get what he wanted. Instead of saying 'Hey kid, don't go down the same path as me' he proposes to show him the ropes. And I know the guys he kills are just mecenaries/pirates, but that doesn't make the blood on his hands any less bloody. He actively seeks out this violent conflict just for money, and the games treat it like light hearted, unironic fun. Even the times where it does peek just a little bit at itself in the mirror, it goes right back to snarks and joking around the very next minute.

And I know the situation might be different but didn't TLOU pull off the exact same thing.

The world of TLoU is a violent one, and the violence is question is presented in a way where it's kill or be killed. It's also treated with a great amount nuance and respect - Joel never makes light of the brutality he inflicts by making quibs or showing off. Beyond that the violence you see is shocking and meant to show how fucked up it is that it's become a daily routine for most of these characters.

Wait, why would you be expecting morality in a game like Uncharted? I am GRATEFUL they didn't introduce that whole moral "killing is wrong" crap because it has it's place and it's certainly not Uncharted. You know why? Because TLOU exists. The Walking Dead Video Game exists. Heavy Rain exists. The last thing Uncharted needs is some moral meaning drilled into it. Heck, if your game's title isn't Spec Ops: The Line and it is also a shooter, that is the last thing you want to put in it. Heck, Uncharted 3 tried to go for a more emotional and less cliched action story, even adding a hint of doubt in your trust for Sully, and it seems everybody hates it for some reason. However Uncharted 2, probably the least moral of all of them, and it is better to a lot of people. And he wouldn't have to kill that many people if the enemies didn't shoot him on sight. Also, in most levels he dosen't even bring a gun and at the beginning of the second game he even got unnerved when Flynn brought out the tranquilizer guns. So he's far from immoral. He had about the same amount of morality as Indiana Jones: Good to friends but doesn't care about enemies. You want morality (or lack of) play TLOU or TWD. Don't play a third-person action shooter series like friggin' Uncharted.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Heck, Uncharted 3 tried to go for a more emotional and less cliched action story, even adding a hint of doubt in your trust for Sully, and it seems everybody hates it for some reason.

Uncharted 3 is bad not because they went for a more emotional story but due to the story being complete shit.

Spoiler

Drake keeps getting warned not to take Sully on these adventures anymore because he's too old, he'll get hurt; various characters (even Sully) tell this to Drake THROUGHOUT the game. Naughty Dog keeps playing that "serious card" all game. I actually felt bad fighting through the burning building and such while dragging Sully along because he can't do that shit anymore, I actually felt like I WAS dragging someone with me that didn't want to be there. The gameplay wasn't as "fun" due to that. Naughty Dog even pulls the completely obvious fake death shit. And at the very end, Naughty Dog reverts back to the tone in the previous games and Sully is cracking jokes (I actually thought Sully was going to get shot or something right after a joke so the jokes weren't as enjoyable either). The game ends with Drake not learning a god damn thing and literally everything is status quo (with Drake and Sully, and Drake and Elena). Naughty Dog played the "serious card" all game, then just took it off the table at the end like it was never there. That's why Uncharted 3 sucks because it was character focused narrative with no character development.

The whole "I'll follow you anywhere" thing from Sully is not even consistent with fucking Uncharted 2 as he didn't follow Drake because he was too old for that shit and now he just follows Drake no matter what.

 

[T_ConX]

I played all three, and I honestly thought 2 was the high point, despite being a pretty boring game.

Each one felt like it was the same thing over and over again. Elaborate but linear climbing sequences occasionally cutting to poorly done cover-based-shooting battles. Occasionally the camera pulls back to reveal some incredible scenery, but all this ever does is remind me of how the games obsession with spectacle has turned actual game-play into a secondary concern. You might be better off just watching Let's Plays of the two games.

I've got TLOU on my backlog, but my general dislike of the Uncharted series has me waiting until the price drops down to $20.

 

[Seracen]

If you liked the story, but hated the combat...I would ask how much the story meant to you. If you enjoyed it, just bring the difficulty down to easy. For me, the gameplay was also somewhat stale after a while. The story kept me engaged, but I got fatigued on the gunplay (it never managed to grab me)...the platforming and stealth sequences were much better, IMO.

But with Easy and a good FAQ, you can tear through the game and enjoy the story quite handily.