Jump to content

A Contrarian's View on Uncharted 3


Recommended Posts

I bought into the hype machine. I didn't buy Uncharted 3 right away, but I bought it within a month of release. I heard about how great the game is from friends. I read a few reviews that rated it incredibly highly. The bar had been raised. I assumed that this game would carry on the high standards set by the previous two games. I quickly realized that something was off.

 

My problem is this, I don't think this game is anywhere near the game that the reviews have said it is. It's current Metacritic score is 92 (tied for the highest score over the last 90 days, putting it all time in the neighborhood of Skyrim, God of War III, and the Ico Collection, and above notable games such as Assassin's Creed II, Killzone 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Fallout 3, and so on). It has received 23 perfect reviews (out of 95 reviews) from IGN, Destructoid, Gamepro, Giant Bomb, 1UP, The Sixth Axis, the Official Playstation Magazine (both US and UK versions), amongst others. Unfortunately, having played it, I can't accept the scores that it has received. It's not something I'd call a "masterpiece" as IGN classified it or one "gaming's finest moments" as IGN's Greg Miller referred to it as. It's a good game, but unfortunately a flawed game.

 

Let me preface my ranting by saying that Uncharted 3 is still better than most other games that you will find out there at the moment. I do not believe that it is up to the standards of the previous games though. When this platform generation is all said and done, Uncharted 2 may be remembered as the finest PS3 game. Sequels are supposed to build on the successes of the previous game, take what worked and improve it, but also take what didn't work and fix it. I'm not sure that Uncharted 3 does any of those things. Some of the things that worked in the second game have taken a step backwards.

 

The obvious place to begin is the story. This is a story driven game and when it lacks, the whole game suffers. And boy, did this game lack story wise (And I'm not even going to get into the physics of the plane scene. To keep it short, there's no fucking way in the known universe that Drake survives). Every story needs a villain, and this game had Katherine Marlowe. Chad Concelmo on Destructoid calls her, "hands down, the best in the series." My main problem with that statement is this, we don't know what her purpose in the game is. We know she wants Drake's ring and that she wants to find Iram of the Pillars, but why does she want to find it? In Uncharted 2, Lazarevic had a reason to want to find Shangri-La. What does Marlowe want in the city? Is it this mysterious toxin that is in the darts her soldiers use? The game ends without any kind of insight and I was left wondering "What was the point of the whole adventure?" One of the basic tenets of story telling is to tell the villain's motivation for pursuing whatever it is that they're pursuing. That never happens with Marlowe. After completing the first two chapters, you know that she's been after the ring for at least 20 years. Why even go back and acknowledge that she's after Drake's ring if that story is never going to be pursued? And of course, none of this can really be explained via DLC. The game just feels unfinished.

 

Related to the issue of an incomplete villain is that the story is broken into two halves that seem only loosely connected. Sure, every character got their face time. Everyone had their one moment where they seemed to stand out. The dividing line is very sharp and clear and takes the form of a basketball substitution (Chloe and Cutter out, Elena in). There is no word on what happens to Chloe and Cutter after they exit the game. "Did they get out of Syria?", "Are Marlowe's men still after them?". and "Are they even still alive?" are all questions I had at the end of the game.

 

The other part of the split game oddity is that certain storylines appear to have been left unfinished or dropped entirely. Marlowe and Talbot are hinted at as to have some sort of supernatural part of them. Talbot disappears as quickly as Nightcrawler from the X-Men comics. How? One of Marlowe's men is shown to be completely green shortly after death. Why? These events occur in the game and are never mentioned again. The perception that I have after playing the game is either that the storyline was written by two groups of people, each responsible for half of the game and the two halves were pieced together with only loose connections made; or there are chapters cut out of the game.

 

On the technical side, the game looks great, sounds great, and plays ok. The game lacks the polish of the previous two in the series. There were some sequences in which I would bump into an object and see a very poor animation from Drake. I'd direct Drake to jump to the next platform, but he'd inexplicably bounce of it. Trying to jump from platform to platform, Drake would reach out for a platform that was right next to him instead of just climbing to it. Trying to point in the right direction while moving would prove troublesome as sometimes Drake would jump straight up instead of the to the left, where he was supposed to go. The shooting has never been a strong point of the Uncharted series, but this is possibly the worst of the three. The aiming defaults too low (but perfect if you like to shoot people in the legs). Enemies will do a kamikaze rush for no real reason. Armored enemies will take a round from the grenade launcher straight to the chest and not even so much as break stride. All of this tells me that there was a lack of fine tuning in order to make a date that was announced 11 months prior to release.

 

There are some interesting design choices that gave me pause. Why do all of the brutes look the same? Are they all the same guy? Did Marlowe recruit from a family of giants that had octuplets? Is part of her nerfarious unsaid plan cloning? Why are all of Marlowe's henchmen bald? Why does everyone in the first chapter, except for Drake, Sully, and Talbot, have no hair? Is being bald and white a prerequisite for being employed by Marlowe? Was there a British chapter of the Hair Club for Men meeting during Chapter 1 that Drake interrupted? More focus seems to have gone into the highly unnecessary multiplayer to make it more of a polished experience. That portion of the game plays a little bit better with some new additions, that doesn't make it something that is needed. And if resources took away from the single player side to build on multiplayer, that's just a sad statement on the current state of gaming. It could just be a coincidence, but it comes across to me as lazy and half assed.

 

Level design is a mixed bag. On one hand, the last level of the game is probably the best chapter of the series (I think it is anyway). The problem that I have with the levels is that the game is based around these large action scenes. The story is used to fill in the gaps between these action scenes. Unfortunately, the Michael Bay method of story writing doesn't always work. It doesn't work as well as it did in Uncharted 2 since the story is weaker. There wasn't really any scene that drew me in and had me concerned about Drake. Some of the reviews have referenced the chapter in the Rub'al Khali as being the most emotionally gripping of the series. Considering what Drake had just survived (again, there's no possible way he should have lived), that he's the main character, and the game hadn't reached it's final destination yet, I spent the entire chapter not wondering "This sucks for Drake. How is he going to manage to survive?", but "Ok. How is he going to get out of this one?" It's a subtle difference, but the latter has no sense of danger for the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ever since I earned the platinum trophy, I had been thinking about all of these issues. I couldn't quite figure them out and why a studio that has such a high commitment to excellence, would send out something that feels like "Return of the Jedi" to Uncharted 2's "Empire Strikes Back." Then I saw a random post on N4G that held a quote from the Official Playstation Magazine. "The talented folks at Naughty Dog may have made your game of 2011, but even they aren't perfect. It turns out last time we spoke to one of their number (Lead Designer Richard Lemarchand) he lied to us. He told us that the success of the award-winning studio was down to the fact that it is a one-team operation, which concentrates at making a single game at a time. It was a glaring untruth. In the studio's darkened offices in Santa Monica, two teams are now at work - one what what will almost certainly be Uncharted 4 and the other, led by Uncharted 2 veterans Bruce Straley and Neil Druckmann, building The Last of Us."

 

Is that the reason that the game feels off to me? Two of the guys from Uncharted 2 have moved onto The Last of Us. The Naughty Dog have had to split resources between two games for the first time. Why were they even working on two games at once when they had never done that before?

 

All of this doesn't mean that Uncharted 3 is a bad game. It's a still a nice experience and if you enjoy the series, you'll enjoy the latest iteration. The final chapter of this game I think is the best chapter in the entire series. I've played worse games in the last year, but I haven't played any that were as disappointing as Uncharted 3. It was a let down in so many ways. I can only hope that The Last of Us or the inevitable Uncharted 4 pick up where Uncharted 2 left off.

 

This is hardly a perfect game like so many reviewers have said. The perfect reviews all read similar to each other. "OMG!!! This is awesome!!! Perfect score!!!", but without looking much deeper than the surface. For me, it's in the 8-9 range, but no higher than that. It's a good game, but not a great one. It's not what I thought it would be. Sadly, the only deception that I found was on my preconceived notions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting read. I've been considering getting this, but haven't managed to find a good reason to pick it up. The only reason I could ever come with is for the story, which after reading this, doesn't look anywhere near as good as the previous iterations (not to mention I've unintentionally spoiled the story for myself, whoops). I think now the only way I'll end up buying it is if a friend does, so it can maintain longevity via co-op.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe you got through talking about the spotty story without once mentioning that whole stupid pirate diversion. That entire section of the game was in there just because, as it says in one of the extra movies you can unlock about the making of the game, they thought of having a sinking ship level and then have to find a way to tie it into the rest of the game. They threw it in as cheaply as possible. I think the story would have flowed a bit better if they just cut out those chapters entirely and just had Talbot get away in the chase. That would force Nate, with no other options, to go back to the hotel where he meets up with Elena and the rest of the story can go on from there. Or they could have taken the time that the pirate section of the plot took up to patch in some of the other gaping holes they left. But no, they wanted a random ship level, so fuck it. Toss in some pirates and get back to work on the multiplayer.

 

The multiplayer which is a pain in the ass, by the way. They have more game modes, but LESS options than Uncharted 2 had. We had fun in the Uncharted 2 game night trying different weapon packs. Uncharted 3 lacks that feature. Why? Where did it go? Did they spend that time making Uncharted TV? Uncharted TV is a nice idea to keep you entertained during the painfully long matchmaking, but one that quickly gets as old as every other game that has nothing to watch because they decide to repeat the same two or three videos constantly. I sat there January 7th watching a video that told me to preorder Uncharted 3 at the end of it. Yeah, that's right, a game that's been out for just over two months and that I'm currently playing was telling me to preorder it. Might want to update your videos, Naughty Dog. And really, what's up with the teamkilling. Don't pick up any power weapons if you're playing with randoms. They'll just grenade you so they can have the weapon. Real nice.

 

Bottom line, I pretty much agree all around. Still a good game, but looking at this, then back to Uncharted 1 and 2, and then to 3 again... What happened?! (Well, obviously, a greater focus on multiplayer and a rush to make a fancy release date that had all 1's in it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the plat in Uncharted 2, but I did not enjoy the game very much. That being said, I was already not planning to get 3, barring extreme bargains. Then I read about how the gameplay is flawed to the core, the exploration is removed to make it more straightforward (and punishing if you stray), and the story is crap, and it's a no-brainer.

 

I might have won a free copy of the game in a recent facebook contest (hosted by prizelogic), but even if I do get it, I'm just going to sell it unopened. I'm not letting that game anywhere near my ps3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. In case anyone else was wondering and doesn't want to look it up because Google scares you:

 

A contrarian is a person who takes up a position opposed to that of the majority, no matter how unpopular.

 

...Huh. Surprised nobody ever called me that before. That's actually me on quite a lot of things. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the plat in Uncharted 2, but I did not enjoy the game very much. That being said, I was already not planning to get 3, barring extreme bargains. Then I read about how the gameplay is flawed to the core, the exploration is removed to make it more straightforward (and punishing if you stray), and the story is crap, and it's a no-brainer.

 

I might have won a free copy of the game in a recent facebook contest (hosted by prizelogic), but even if I do get it, I'm just going to sell it unopened. I'm not letting that game anywhere near my ps3.

 

I've never played an Uncharted game, and based on this comment (I respect Akari's taste in games) and Olsen's excellent editorial, it sounds like I'm not missing much. Onward!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you enjoyed the first two, play the game. You'll enjoy it since there are some fun sections. It's just not as good as the others.

 

...Huh. Surprised nobody ever called me that before. That's actually me on quite a lot of things. :p

 

That may be the most surprising thing about this thread. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncharted 3 really didn't do it for me compared to it's predecessor. Hell, Eurogamer got a ton of shit on this site for giving the game an 80 before the game even came out, and I'd say 75-80 would be the most appropriate score for it. I'd just like Naughty Dog to move onto a new plot formula if that's okay with them.

 

[spoiler=abc]

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune: Sir Francis, having discovered the statue's true power, was actually trying to keep it on the island.

 

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves=: Nate and Tenzin discover that Schäfer's men were SS members on an Ahnenerbe expedition, and that he had killed them to protect the world from the power of the stone.

 

Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception: The true mystery of what happened to the people of Ubar thousands of years ago becomes apparent: when King Solomon cast the brass vessel into the depths of the city, it fell into the water and began to taint the water with a powerful hallucinogenic agent.

 

 

Hell, Uncharted 3 was created Set Piece first, story second. I really don't understand the praise the game got for it's story.

Edited by Cornagandarub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncharted 3 really didn't do it for me compared to it's predecessor. Hell, Eurogamer got a ton of shit on this site for giving the game an 80 before the game even came out, and I'd say 75-80 would be the most appropriate score for it.

 

The entire internet gave Eurogamer a ton of shit for that one. Fanboyism to the extreme. Rage about a score for a game they hadn't played yet when the score clearly matches the review. I wonder how many people even bothered reading the review. Hell, remember this? All that bitching about 7.5 for inFamous 2, but when you actually stop raging about a game you haven't played yet and read the review, the actual review and the tacked-on number match each other. So the only real reason it's "bad" is because people think anything less than a 9 or so means the game sucks. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

But yeah, on a proper review scale where 8/10 means "impressive efforts with a few noticeable problems holding them back. Won't astound everyone, but is worth your time and cash" or "great games that are excellent in almost every way and whose few setbacks probably aren't too important" instead of the idiot scale where 8/10 means "THIS GAME IS SHIT DON'T PLAY IT", that's probably about right for Uncharted 3 if people insist on just talking about numbers instead of actually talking about the game.

Edited by mjc0961
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best part about this thread is that about 90% of our community wanted to say exactly what Olsen said, just couldnt put it in such a way. :applause:

 

But i fully agree with Mjc, how can you do a wonderfull job yet miss probably the most glaring balls up ever in the pirate chapter that had 0 bearing on the game.

 

U3 was never a bad game, just a very flawed game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearsay or not, I heard that the story was made based on the multiplayer maps, that Naughty Dog decided on the maps they wanted, and made a story off that. That's why it lacks. It wouldn't be so bad if the multiplayer was actually an improvement on Uncharted 2, but I don't honestly think it was. It lacks that replay factor that the previous had, which brings to light the question "How have they spent all that time on multiplayer for it to not actually be an improvement?" and the thought "Don't fix what isn't broken" springs to mind (not just the multiplayer either, tie in the shooting with that, which apparently wasn't changed from Uncharted 2, but we all know otherwise). The brutes now remind me of those in Saints Row The Third, they all look questionably similar too.

[spoiler=IDJSDFGJSDJSDBFGJSDBFJAFBSDGSDMVSKDLVSMDF]

As for what Marlowe wanted, I believe it was mentioned (somewhere) that it was indeed to be used as a weapon, like what happened to Cutter and Drake. Marlowe's man that is completely green (the guy in the Chateau?) is presumed to have suffered death from the spiders, or at least that's what I took from it. The only scene that had me emotionally attached was the brief thought of Sully dying. That says it all, that I was more concerned for the welfare of the sidekick than the main protagonist). What was all that crap about his 'real name'? How the hell does Marlowe know Drake isn't his real name? DLC add on? Revealed in the next installment? It had better.

 

I don't think its a bad game, I'm just disappointed it wasn't an improvement on the previous, and my money is on Uncharted 4 being released on the Playstation 4.

Edited by fletchar2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good points made here by Olsen. I cannot understand why people say that it isn't an improvement from Uncharted 2 though. Let's not forget this game was incredibly popular and won many awards including Game of the Year. The expectation for Uncharted 3 to be as successful was huge. Don't get me wrong though, Uncharted 3 is a brilliant game, but all the hype resulted in disappointment for many players. Let's face it, Uncharted 2 will probably remain the best game in the series, but there are still a few improvements been made in Uncharted 3 - Just not an overall improvement. Take the graphics for example, they are much better than in Uncharted 2. I also think that the Multiplayer experience is better, with more customisation and I like the maps much better, but that is my opinion. I understand that many beg to differ and stand by Uncharted 2 on this one though.

 

Bottom line is that people should just appreciate it for being a great game. There are many game series in which some titles aren't as good as their predecessors, for instance Call of Duty. Many people still believe that Modern Warfare (COD 4) is the best game in the franchise. Anyway, that's my take on the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is funny, remember some time ago when I made this thread;

 

http://www.ps3trophies.org/forum/mass-effect-2/103825-94-metacritic-dont-understand.html

 

It is essentially the exact same arguement as yours, yet I got a ton of shit from people about my opinions, yet everyone is willing to be constructive with you and yours......Then again, maybe it's because you're Olsen and you have a red name?

 

I've always found through my years here, that, the amount of seriousness people take others opinions on here is always down to their status on the site. Sad, but true.

Edited by SimplySupreme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read, I tend to agree on most points, mainly that U3 isn't as "good" as U2 but it is still a solid game given it's nature and limitations. But I think you are always going to be disappointed if you buy into hype and expect too much like this. If you are looking for a carbon copy of a previous game this will happen. Developers will go off in a different direction that may not be to your taste, they may alter things which you prefered, but that's what always happens with sequels.

 

For me Uncharted (series) is an action film, and as such the plot doesn't really have to make sense, the story is simple as you like and the characters very basic and predictable. Which is the same for any action film. For me that goes for the whole series, I felt that as soon as I played Uncharted 1, there wasn't going to be much to tax my mind or any epic plots etc but it would be a fun action game with some nice visuals, that formula has worked for three titles and ND are milking it. Rightly so, gaming is business pure and simple, look at Modern Warfare for example.

 

You know for sure there will be a U4, tbh it will probably be similar to U3 rather than U2. The things that made U2 great cannot be done again, we've seen all those bells and whistles there, it was probably as good as they (ND) and the PS3 could do. The series can only go so far in the same world with the same characters. It will become stale quite soon, if not already. That being said I will still buy U4, i'll know what to expect, it will be the same as all the other titles in the series with a few different cutscenes and Drake will have a new witty catch phrase :D

 

The whole over hyped thing, we've seen that so many times with so many different games. It will happen again in future with a game series that doesn't even exist right now. Whenever a series becomes popular it sets itself up for the fall. Don't buy into hype, play it for what it is, the hype is just to make money, you're best to judge for yourself.

 

I do enjoy the online in U3, i've played it long time lol, mainly for co-op with a couple of mates it's a right laugh. As MJC & fletchar say, U2 online was a more fun experience, they changed it a lot in U3, as is normally the case with sequels. I haven't touched the U3 single player since the (P) but then that's probably like most of us lot on here, perhaps the majority of gamers (non-trophy hunters) have went back to it, i'm not sure, but there was no replay value for me at all.

 

This is funny, remember some time ago when I made this thread;

 

http://www.ps3trophies.org/forum/mas...nderstand.html

 

It is essentially the exact same arguement as yours, yet I got a ton of shit from people about my opinions, yet everyone is willing to be constructive with you and yours......Then again, maybe it's because you're Olsen and you have a red name?

 

I've always found through my years here, that, the amount of seriousness people take others opinions on here is always down to their status on the site. Sad, but true.

 

I agree with what you said there about Mass Effect at the time, it's the same topic different game really. That's what I mean, a game series will always become overhyped and disappointing, just swap out the title of the game and it's the same issue. Unless it's something like Final Fantasy where everything is changed each time, that would be the reason they are upto XIV or whatever it is now. I wouldn't let that bother you, it's probably always going to get negative responses when you are posting against the majority of views in a specific forum section.

Edited by funkyweed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with 99% of your points Olsen and think you've summed up all the problems well. Personally though I thought the multiplayer in U2 was far far superior to that of U3. I spent a couple of hours playing U3, whereas on U2 I spent ten times that and then some! So all that time they spent 'improving' the MP for U3, was to the detriment of the single player - the main reason I bought the game. A shame indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with olsen.. i was really hyped for this game.. but even though i eventually got platinum.. i felt as if i had to force myself to play it.. it just wasnt as epic as the hype made it out to be.. up to now i fail to see what was so fantastic about the sand effects and the ocean physics :think:

 

i will say, however, that as usual, the dialogue was funny and well written. and i was actually impressed by the level where u had to escape the burning chateau while it was crumbling all around u and bad guys were trying to kill u.....which , i will admit, had me wondering... "why is this place burning to the ground but instead of trying to escape these guys are hanging back trying to kill drake?" :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completly agree Olsen, the game is far more concentrating on graphics and not story. The graphics are great I'll admit but the story is.. meh.

 

The plane part you mentioned, is... just stupid. Drake would not survive that. Unless he somehow has super human grip which he seems to show throughout many chapters, but I doubt he does.

 

Going to go a bit into the story, so BEWARE. Its in the spoiler:

 

[spoiler=uc3spoil]What was actually happening in the story? because I only knew about a ring and a city in the sands, not why he is looking for it or why the enemies are. Why when Drake and Cutter got shot by those darts they went crazy? I dont think this ever explained, but I may be wrong. Why didnt Elena put the handbrake on in the car in the airport when you had to move the car? It would have made it easier. Drake also got his fingers SLAMMED in a window, yet he just said something along the lines of 'Damn that hurt' and just continued his climbing, he would have been in agony. Why didnt Sully and Drake not inhale any of that water at the end? It would have been impossible not to inhale or breath in any of the water.

 

 

those points I made in the spoiler I dont know why I did not find this out seeing as I watched every cutscene. But some things are just plot holes. I did enjoy the game though, enough to plat it in a week. But I prefered UC2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good read olsen :p I can agree with most of what you say to be honest although I guess I put less importance on certain things, maybe it's cause I really love me some Uncharted.

 

I'm kind of surprised people moan about things like the plane section though... I don't go into a game like Uncharted expecting every situation Drake gets into to make sense and play out like it would in real life, if anything it's the opposite. As long as it's fun and entertaining I don't really care if it would have been impossible.

 

My main disappointments with UC3 came from things like the lack of a strong villain, Marlowe just plain sucked. Saying that though I still really enjoyed the story. I think I preferred the shooting in UC2 as well, more so when it comes to the online. I still like UC3 online a lot though, the co-op in particular is huge amounts of fun. Also, It's hard to say without comparing them side by side but I just felt like 2 was a better looking game overall. It's seemed more polished and one thing it did a lot better that 3 is the character animations, which kind of annoy me in 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me Uncharted (series) is an action film, and as such the plot doesn't really have to make sense, the story is simple as you like and the characters very basic and predictable. Which is the same for any action film. For me that goes for the whole series, I felt that as soon as I played Uncharted 1, there wasn't going to be much to tax my mind or any epic plots etc but it would be a fun action game with some nice visuals, that formula has worked for three titles and ND are milking it. Rightly so, gaming is business pure and simple, look at Modern Warfare for example.

 

I'm not saying that the story has to be perfect and believable. But I was left wondering why Helen Mirren's clone was the villain, besides being told that she is. I was left wondering "What was the point?" That's a bigger problem to me than the believability of the story.

 

Some good points made here by Olsen. I cannot understand why people say that it isn't an improvement from Uncharted 2 though. Let's not forget this game was incredibly popular and won many awards including Game of the Year. The expectation for Uncharted 3 to be as successful was huge. Don't get me wrong though, Uncharted 3 is a brilliant game, but all the hype resulted in disappointment for many players. Let's face it, Uncharted 2 will probably remain the best game in the series, but there are still a few improvements been made in Uncharted 3 - Just not an overall improvement. Take the graphics for example, they are much better than in Uncharted 2. I also think that the Multiplayer experience is better, with more customisation and I like the maps much better, but that is my opinion. I understand that many beg to differ and stand by Uncharted 2 on this one though.

 

Bottom line is that people should just appreciate it for being a great game. There are many game series in which some titles aren't as good as their predecessors, for instance Call of Duty. Many people still believe that Modern Warfare (COD 4) is the best game in the franchise. Anyway, that's my take on the situation.

 

I've always viewed games as being interactive movies or books. I can shape the story how I want or in a narrative driven one, see how it plays out. When a story leaves me scratching my head, I can't appreciate it as much. If you enjoyed the first two Uncharted games, then you'll probably like this one too.

 

I'm kind of surprised people moan about things like the plane section though... I don't go into a game like Uncharted expecting every situation Drake gets into to make sense and play out like it would in real life, if anything it's the opposite. As long as it's fun and entertaining I don't really care if it would have been impossible.

 

I just find that whole scene laughable, like I usually do when I see terrible physics in a movie. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's face it, Uncharted 2 will probably remain the best game in the series, but there are still a few improvements been made in Uncharted 3 - Just not an overall improvement. Take the graphics for example, they are much better than in Uncharted 2.
See, the problem is that graphics are the only area where Uncharted 3 improved. With a sequel, you expect everything to be as good or better, and Uncharted 3 dropped the ball. The story wasn't as good. Personally, I found the controls to be worse (too much shit mapped to too few buttons: I lost count of how many times I wanted to roll away from an enemy and grabbed him instead. there's also still no option to use the triggers to shoot for those that want to. but they had time to make an option to turn off switching which shoulder you look over, and then default that option to off?! :confused:). I didn't really think the gameplay improved all that much. They threw in that new combat system which tries really hard to be like Batman: Arkham Asylum but isn't quite as interesting as that and just felt like button mashing.

 

Nobody's saying it's a bad game. Just that it's an overrated game. It's a good game, but it could have been a better game if Naughty Dog hadn't developed it the weird way that they did.

 

This is funny, remember some time ago when I made this thread;

 

http://www.ps3trophies.org/forum/mass-effect-2/103825-94-metacritic-dont-understand.html

 

It is essentially the exact same arguement as yours, yet I got a ton of shit from people about my opinions, yet everyone is willing to be constructive with you and yours......Then again, maybe it's because you're Olsen and you have a red name?

 

I've always found through my years here, that, the amount of seriousness people take others opinions on here is always down to their status on the site. Sad, but true.

The only thing sad is you trying to pass this off and have it be taken seriously. Look at your post. Look at olsen's article. Then back to your post. If you can't see the difference between how you wrote yours and how olsen wrote his, there is no helping you. Also, I doubt olsen is going to come in here defending his post by calling everyone who disagrees a fanboy like you did about Mass Effect 2. :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing sad is you trying to pass this off and have it be taken seriously. Look at your post. Look at olsen's article. Then back to your post. If you can't see the difference between how you wrote yours and how olsen wrote his, there is no helping you. Also, I doubt olsen is going to come in here defending his post by calling everyone who disagrees a fanboy like you did about Mass Effect 2. :rolleyes:

 

Olsen classifies his as an editorial, but wouldn't look out of place in the Uncharted 3 sub-forum......Both mine and his have opinions, they both have constructive points, they both put said points across in a good way.......Infact, Olsen's article is very one way......At least I offered constructive retort to those who wanted to counter my points (Which just turned out to be fanboys basically bitching and cursing at me for daring to think differently to them :facepalm:)

 

Look at the reactions to both pieces......I got slaughtered for my opinions, and Olsen gets "good read mate!" left, right and centre?

 

It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

Olsen isn't being attacked for his opinions, even though it's quite obvious that he believes Uncharted 3 was over-rated, and is thus speaking for the minority.

 

Like I said, it's purely a community status thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olsen classifies his as an editorial, but wouldn't look out of place in the Uncharted 3 sub-forum......Both mine and his have opinions, they both have constructive points, they both put said points across in a good way.......Infact, Olsen's article is very one way......At least I offered constructive retort to those who wanted to counter my points (Which just turned out to be fanboys basically bitching and cursing at me for daring to think differently to them :facepalm:)

 

Look at the reactions to both pieces......I got slaughtered for my opinions, and Olsen gets "good read mate!" left, right and centre?

 

It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

Olsen isn't being attacked for his opinions, even though it's quite obvious that he believes Uncharted 3 was over-rated, and is thus speaking for the minority.

 

Like I said, it's purely a community status thing.

 

:rofl:

 

It's purely a "I take my label of 'SimplySupreme' far to seriously" thing. That, or it's a "SimplySupreme doesn't know what constructive actually means" thing. You'll probably complain that I'm not making any constructive counters to your post here, and you're right. It's so absurd, you're so full of yourself, that you actually think that your Mass Effect 2 post is nearly as well written as olsen's editorial and that the only difference between the two is that he's an admin and your not. So no, I'm not going to waste my time trying to actually show you the difference, because I've been down this road too many times before with you. You'll just jam your fingers in your ears and say "LALALA I'm not listening the only difference is bias and you're stupid if you don't see it LALALA!". Hell, you're already doing it.

 

I'm just going to go do something else, like play some PS2 games that look as good as Mass Effect 2. Just as soon as I can find some, because they don't appear to exist... :think:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read, but I disagree with the story criticisms that have been mentioned.

 

I'm sure it was stated that Marlowe's intentions were to control people through fear, which is why she was in Ubar. Chloe and Cutter left the action and that's it. I don't understand what more we need there.

 

And fletchar's point about the name issue - I like that its not been clarified. It was a subtle comment that Marlowe didn't want to get into and that let's us stir over it a bit whilst we wait for the next installment. I'm sure we will be told more in time.

 

Good points here though, especially mjc's mention of the pirate scenes. It really was set piece over story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...