Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, the problem is, even despite your last paragraph, you're looking at games just as games. Uncharted and MGS are both Action Shooters, although different in execution. But the point is, people classify games by gameplay... Which is fine. Action Shooter, FPS, RPG, Fighting Games, Platformers, etc.

But the difference between Uncharted and Metal Gear(for example) is deeper than that. Especially when you're comparing games to movies. Metal Gear would fall into Sci-Fi Action Thriller category. Whereas Uncharted would be more like Action Comedy. You don't go to see an Action Comedy to face with heart burdening dilemas. You go to see some kick a** action and have a bunch of laughs.
And maybe you say Uncharted is more forgettable because the genre as a whole is more forgettable. I know Rambo IV embedded itself into my conscience and memory a lot better than... Say... Beverly Hills Cop.
And that's just how it is, maybe.
So maybe if you look at Uncharted NOT in terms of "Platformer Shooter" but in terms of, "Action Comedy" comparing it to games like, "Brutal Legend," "Evil Dead Regeneration," or "Ratchet and Clank", then you'll see that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Uncharted's narrative.
The only difference is that most comedy related games don't have those kind of through the roof production valuse as Uncharted. Which is a shame, but a completely different discussion.

All I'm saying is that you're comparing it to other action games, like Assassin's Creed 2, but when you look at it from the subject matter point of view, it's a completely different genre.

Sully was likeable... Maybe even MOST likeable character in Uncharted 1 and 2, don't be knockin' on Sully. Plus I honestly believe that a lot of that chatter between them in the jungle, about hooker to church, and Montreal, was ad-libbed by the actors. And I thought it was a nice touch.

Again, T-Rating. Duke Nukem was the first game (that I know of) to display semi-realistic nudity in video games. So there's the issue of demographic there too.
And I mean, for being a T-Rated game, you gotta admit, they pretty much pushed their envelope as far as they could. How many times the characters curse, all the headshots, violence and destruction. It's a severed arm away from being M-Rated. So you gotta commend it for making a game that violent, but still something an ignorant mother would buy to her barely teenager.

Well, just because Uncharted isn't cartoonish, does that make it any less of a similar thing? Only using real people instead of a fantasy setting.

Also, again, you don't want to compare it to Brutal Legend because of the gameplay. But I wasn't talking about gameplay, I was talking about the subject matter. The core meat of the storyline and the characters. Like, if Brutal Legend WAS a movie, it would be considered an Action Comedy animated feature.

Well, the bottom line is, Uncharted (1 and 2) is a great game, well designed, well built, and frankly, I think is packed with likeable, memorable characters. And it deserved Game of the Year.
The only reason I didn't bother with Assassin's Creed 2 was because, frankly, I think the first one was a major grind, and that's sugarcoating it. The storyline was bland, and the ending just plain sucked. And even though I'm sure AC2 improved massively on all those issues, if I'm gonna get invested into a series, I need to actually enjoy beating its games more than just the first time around. And since I couldn't gind my way through part 1 a second time, I just gave up on this series. I'm sure it'll still sell like a hotcake, don't worry.

And what other action games? As far as I know, the ration of people playing AC2, or Modern Warfare 2 this time is drastically bigger than the ratio of people playing Uncharted 2. Heck, it's a simple fact, with Modern Warfare 2 already having sold over a million units on the PS3, and that's not including all the other platforms. So if anything, Uncharted 2 isn't getting ENOUGH people playing it. It's almost a cult favorite, even though it got like, 24 perfect scores, which I think it deserved.

The simple fact is, Uncharted 2 was my most anticipated game this year, and it did NOT disappoint, by far. And I'm not the only person who thinks this.

I have a different opinion because I relate more and feel alot more for Nathan Drake than I do for Snake. Snake to me is just...unrealistic as a character. The storylines in Metal Gear solid are way too complex, even by movie-standards. At least, they're too complex for a game. When you're playing a game you're meant to PLAY it not watch most of it happening, which is how I felt with Metal Gear Solid. the story in Uncharted is sometimes told while you're actually playing, instead of watching a cutscene, which I think is great.
As a character I like Nathan drake because of his smugness...there are people out there who are really like that. At least because you hate him you've got a response..some characters don't generate any sort of emotion in me at all..like Snake or a stupid fat plumber like Mario.

It's all down to personal opinion anyway. You might love the complex story of Metal Gear Solid whereas I hate it. You dislike Nate's smugness but I think things like that make him a believable character..more human and not perfect.
Besides, I think it's really difficult to pick game of the year because everyone has different tastes. If you don't like action games at all you won't think Uncharted deserves it. It also depends on what you think makes a good game because not everyone agrees. Some people might think Uncharted is too easy and therefore not a good game where others like the level of difficulty.
I think as long as you say "in my opinion, Uncharted 2 doesn't deserve game of the year" rather than "uncharted 2 doesn't deserve game of the year" than you're covered wink

I don't think you look too deeply into games...I do it with books cause I'm a literature student, and I do it with photographs and art. Movies and games and music are all forms of expression and "art" and so I think you should think deeply about them. You can't TRULY completely appreciate a game if you don't think about it beyond the obvious.

I think agreeing to disagree is the only way forward in here, I'll keep bashing the game 'til kingdom come and you lot will keep defending the game, but it's still fun to discuss.

That last paragraph confuses me though; if you're judging me based on the discussions on the forum then I highly recommend you should go back to the General Discussion board. I enjoy studying games deeply, I used to be a media student but sadly had to quit the course due to family reasons and like to look at games from the media aspect, especially the interactive media gaming has complete rule over that has the gamer limit the amount of depth they can get from the game.

So if I look at it from point of view of this being a slice of high-octane cinematic action adventure rather than just an action game I'll find a game which is unparalleled to any other? This just brings us back to the previous discussion of "Yes, this is a good game, but not anything new, special nor outstanding" that we made about 5 posts back. I do admit I keep tieing it back to other titles but if you want I'll do the rest of this post without using comparison.



Apart from the omission included you are right, the scoring is epic, graphics are dazzling, gameplay functioning and fun, but I've yet to deny this is a good game, it's the fact that there's nothing new about it that keeps getting my back up. It feels so safe, like it's created by a focus group rather than a writer. There's no personal touch to it. If games are an art portrait then this is a photograph. Sure it's a better image than most art but it doesn't have that same vibe you get from it as you examine each part of it.

Like I said, everything is open to interpretation. Being best of that genre doesn't stop you disagreeing, nor does Uncharted being game of the year stop me whining here. It's not like this is fact and we're being made to accept this, it's discussions like this which is why I joined this forum. To put my view against someone else's and thrash it out 'til we get bored and spend more time commenting on the discussion rather than the game.

I'm reminded of that saying; "Nothing is true, everything is permitted".


The Barney Stinston thing was a joke, I know it'd be unfair to compare the two, it's two different interpretations.

Apart from being the shallow-stock side-character to Nate who betrayed him (sadly a position snatched up by that English shallow-stock side character in the second game) there's little depth to Sulliven. He cares about money and women, and would betray Drake for money though jump back to his side at the last minute just to be the shock that he isn't all bad, just misguided. If I missed something out please insert.


OK, please for the love of god re-read what surrounded the Duke Nukem comment.



I'm not comparing it to Duke Nukem, I'm saying that there's nothing wrong with comedy in an action game, and using Duke Nukem as the earliest example of a game using a comedic tone in an action game that came to mind at the time. If it makes you feel any better I'm more than willing to concede that Uncharted was much better than Duke Nukem.



Completely agreeing with this one, followed by Sonic afterwards. If you get bored of this discussion then please make a new topic where we can go at this one.



No, I'm not saying that, just comparing the amount of laughs you'd find in the two games is a little redundant since the comedy used in the two is different that one is more in your face about it while the other is subtle. Apart from the odd comical crack in the dialogue Brutal Legend was very serious in it's approach, if you've not got that imaginative frame of mind for Brutal Legend then will come across as more stupid than satirical, but if you allow yourself to get immersed into the game you really get drawn into it's world, to the point that you somehow no longer question it. He did the exact same thing with Psychonauts as well.

Uncharted goes for something a little more obvious, with comical additions not really weaved into the gameplay but more into the storyline. It just uses a humour so wry it doesn't come without cynicism. It's how everything comes with a "Oh great..." approach that isn't that especially witty. Don't get me wrong, it did make me laugh in places, but mostly when it used sarcastic monologue over gameplay which was perfect for the moment it was being used, especially during heavy climbing sequences, but overall I got more laughs from Brutal Legend.





OK, switching from the hunter to the hunted now; Defending Assassin's Creed use of high-octane action is definitely a losing battle, because it's not meant to be high-octane. The reason there is so much to talk about in this game is because it takes everything with a slow pace. It's storyline is more abstract and leaves it more for the player to question rather than be bold-facingly told about it. I've met people who didn't know in the first game you could pickpocket the doctor in the Animus room for his keycard and read his emails later in the game, and I've also met people who knew that but overlooked the ones full of gibberish and questioned what they were for. I guess it's because I actually worked out the code for some of them (others I gave up and referred to an online guide) but being able to get an extra depth from the story this way is truly creative. It's also how it's a story-within-a-story and makes a point of going somewhere in it's course. I will agree if you're not willing to put a lot of thought into it then it will come across as weak, but then a part of me believes that Ubisoft weren't making a game to please that lot and leave them to either keep themselves amused with the gameplay (which again is weak in the first instalment but superb in the second) or sod off back to Gears of War. It's miles deeper than were Uncharted goes and I enjoy the depth to it.

I highly suggest you get your hands on AC2, most likely after the Christmas period when people are flinging it back in to game shops for you to snap-up on the cheap as you may be pleasantly surprised by the new one. I highly doubt you'll be hailing it as better than Uncharted but I am sure you will enjoy it this time around.


Again, inFamous is a lot more slow-paced in it's gameplay and action (spot the trend) and again wasn't made for it's high-octane, but what I loved about this game is that he is no Spiderman with a code of pre-established depth and characterisation and let you build into it during the game. This game felt like it had a story to tell, which is more than likely true since their previous established title "Sly Cooper" had a pitiful storyline and focused more on gameplay and I'm sure the team wanted to do something creative for a longtime.

What both these games come down to is that I don't need high-octane action shat down my throat for a game to keep me interested, however my cynicism for first person shooters covers my cynicism for Uncharted in this aspect that a game doesn't need to have flashing lights on every corner to keep me interested, but on comparison MMORPGs have shown me that having to work very hard for even the slightest touch of enjoyment makes a game less worth it, especially when it's achieved through endless grind. Games need to find the balance of telling a story with it's gameplay that doesn't need to be pushed 100 mph at all times.

All this is pointless since I did enjoy Uncharted's high-action approach too, it's just other points of the game which makes it less enjoyable for me than these 2 examples.

I just disagree with you, that's all. I mean, there's obviously nothing we can do, unless you want to write a letter to Naught Dog asking them which one of us is right, lol.
But there's no way in hell Sully would betray Nate over money. The only time he did something even remotely close was at the beginning of Uncharted 1, and I don't know if you recall or not, but that was NOT over money. "Roman had a contract out on me," he said. Meaning that was to save his own life, and I'm sure he hoped Roman would just take the map and leave without that, "Just to prove that we mean business," deal where he shot Sullivan anyway.
And yeah, that just means he's not righteous. He's not the type of guy to say, "I'll die before I tell you where the map is," kind of deal. But he would not betray Nate over money. Or women, for that matter.
If you want to compare him to Barney Stinson, then Sullivan stikes me as a true Bro.


I'll see what I can do, haha.



You know what... Thanks for brining that up. Yes, Uncharted does do something new that no other game has done.... Here I go.
Like you said, the humor in Uncharted is subtle... But there's a lot more to it than typical cynical "Oh great" stuff.
The beauty and charm of uncharted is that a lot of its humor doesn't necessarily come from the text, but rather from the character interrelations. And I don't mean the scripted stuff. They were allowed a certain degree of improvisation during the mocap shooting, and the actors were all together when doing a scene... This allows something no other game has done yet (even though there HAVE been games where the mokap stuff was acted out by the voice actors. I've never seen there being any window for improv. Anywho....). You can have a game like Metal Gear Solid 4, and Kojima would write the script and get it translated, and say, "Okay, we can have a cool moment here, a cool joke here." etc. etc. etc.
But with a certain degree of improv and having the actors all there at the same time... It gave uncharted so much more of a human touch. Where.. I mean, they could be talking to each other, and they could do unscripted gestures, or even actually be able to look at each other a certain way... Which the animators will see on camera, and replicate with the faces in the scene. It gave them that much more of a realistic human touch.
Basically, what I'm saying is, enacting the kinds of scenes Uncharted has, with all the actors present, it allows for chemistry. And when there's chemistry between actors, there's so much more potential.
Like, going back to Metal Gear Solid (which I'm not bashing, it's still my favorite franchise), you can have a game like MGS3, but there's just no possibility of there being any kind of chemistry between David Hayter and Lori Alan or Suzetta Minet. Even though Snake is supposed to have a one or another type of relationship with their characters. And yes, it still comes off pretty well, thanks to the animators. But with Uncharted, the chemistry between the actors allows there to be REAL chemistry between the characters, and it comes off that much better than in other games.



Then I guess that's just a matter of preference. To me, high-octane is the best type of action. And don't get me wrong... Like I said, I didn't really enjoy Assassin's Creed 1 that much, but to me, the running away, and fighting sequences in it were definitely the most enjoyable parts, even if they weren't as fast paced as, say, Uncharted.
There's room in my heart for non-high-octane action too, but in those cases, the game better bring something else interesting to the table.

I don't disagree with you on that. Yes, Uncharted's plot comes off more like a movie than a game. And I find it particularly difficult to delve into movie mythology. So yeah, I'm sure there's a lot more layers to the Assassin's Creed storyline.
I just don't find it that enticing, is all. I'm not saying it's not deep, it's just... Okay, earlier I said bland, and I apologize for that. A more accurate word would be dry. And again, maybe that has something to do with how they portrayed Israel... And maybe Ezio in Italy is a hell of a lot more fun, but this is not a series that I'd replay.

Yeah, but even if I do... If this isn't a series I'm gonna devote myself to, then I don't wanna buy it. I mean, even if I thoroughly enjoy AC2, I just can't imagine myself grinding through AC1 again. And that's a deal breaker for me.
I might rent it, I suppose.

Oh, I'm not denying for a second that inFamous has a better storyline than Web of Shadows.
And yeah, sometimes slow paced gameplay suits something better than high octane. But then... I'd have to say that Cole would be more like Batman, when it comes to super heroes. And as much as I love Batman, the darker artistic tone, the story etc... When it comes down to it, and I say, "I wanna watch a Super-Hero flick" Batman is the last one that comes to mind. Web of Shadows captures a lot better what my idea of a super-hero game should be. I mean, when you play Web of Shadows, there are moments where you actually feel like spiderman, just swinging through the city, gaining momentum, it's really well executed and deserves better than the 5.0 that IGN gave it.

Well, this is a completely different conversation entirely. Spider-Man vs. inFamous. But yeah, I don't either, just when it does come to super-heroes, it's prefered.

Again, same for me. It doesn't NEED it, but Uncharted's action sequences are still intense, fast and a lot of fun. And at the end of the day, when I'm talking about an action game, that's what it comes down to. Fun.

If we're talking about Survival Horror, or Adventure, or something of the sort... Yeah... Slow it down.
But action is action. And if someone said "Which action movie you want to watch" I'd pick Wanted, or Death Race (high-octane in literal sense), over Bourne or Batman.

Working very hard for the slightest touch of enjoyment is exactly why I didn't like Dead Space.

But if every single game found that type of balance, then every single game would be exactly the same.
It's the differences in pacing that separate genres sometimes. For example, games like Resident Evil (old school) and Silent Hill might have guns in them, but they are not action shooters. The pacing, and the game flow determine that, sometimes. I mean, if you compare them to Doom, for example. You ask, "What do you do in them?" I can say, "You run around, shoot monsters, find keys to get through buildings." So, then what makes one Survival Horror and the other a Shooter? I think there's a lot more to it than the camera system.
But yeah, that could probably be a topic of its own.


But in the purest sense of the word, when one could ask, "How's the action in the game," I'd say, "The best."
And yeah, if they asked, "How's the story" I'd say, "It's interesting, and the acting is amazing, and the characters are likable" as opposed to Metal Gear, where I'd say, "Oh my god, it is one of the deepest, craziest stories ever! There's so many plot twists, and there's just so much depth to it, you gotta play it, even if it's JUST for the story."
But just because Uncharted isn't filled with unpredictable plot twists, and edgy, controversial elements (aside from mass homicide of minorities I guess, if you pay attention to that sort of thing) doesn't mean that the story is bad.
Essentially, it is a PG rated Summer adventure movie. Like The Mummy.

I agree with what Biohazard said about having decent actors who act out the scene like they are in a movie, all together, rather than just vioce actors. It DOES add a human touch to the story which makes it believable. The little ways they look at each other or make hand gestures are all things which are very casual and real and you can tell they aren't scripted. When I'm playing Uncharted I feel like I'm playing a real human (apart from the fact that he can get shot a million times before dying) whereas when I play other characters I don't always feel that.

I can understand why you might not think Uncharted is that great a game because even though I do enjoy it I don't actually think it's brilliant. I do think it's too easy and I do think there are alot of repetative moments. The same jokes get repeated and the same things happen. As much as I like the other characters, Chloe gets on my nerves because she's always talking to Nate throughout the gameplay, suggesting things and telling the player what to do which annoyed me a little. The game is too easy and you definately finish it too quickly for me to be able to call it brilliant.

Uncharted isn't really anything new with regards to gameplay but that doesn't matter if you're able to do the same things as other games but do them better, and I do believe it's the best action/adventure game out there. I don't really care if it's not the best game out of all genres but I think it's the best game of it's kind. I think it appeals to people who might not usually buy those kinda of games because of its simplicity yet fast-paced action. For people who play that genre alot, like me, it seems too simple.

The first time I've played it through I didn't really enjoy it that much, I didn't get "sucked in" and I was constantly comparing it to the first game and not enjoying it as much. Whether this is because I was expecting all the hyper about it to be true, or because once you've figured out how to beat the bad guys in Uncharted 1 you can just apply the same things to Uncharted 2 and it seems fairly simple. I do think though that second time through I will enjoy it more because I won't be expecting more from it and will just enjoy what's there, especially if I spend time looking for secrets and properly exploring the environments rather than just rushing through them.

No matter what you think of it I think it's safe to say that I believe Naughty Dog cares about the game...they care about what other people think of it, they want you to like it and not just for money reasons...they want to make their game the best and don't settle for anything less and I admire them for that.

The point is, it's not a bad thing. The Mummy was awesome.

Well, what is the best game of all genres? I mean... There were people bitching that... Kotaku, I think it was... Didn't give Final Fantasy 13 a perfect score. Now, I'm positive that FF13 does NOT deserve a perfect score. Neither did GTA4, neither did Metal Gear Solid 4... Now... That's neither here nor there, but what's the best game in any genre is definitely subjective. There will be people out there that will tell you that Final Fantasy 7 is the best video game in the history of video games. Same with Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time... But I disagree... There might be people out there who think that Uncharted 2 IS the best game ever created in history of video games, it's essentially about, "Which game is my favorite," so that's pure opinion. And if Uncharted 2 IS your favorite video game ever, if you think it's the best video game ever, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.