Uncharted 4 is finally upon us. We talked about it a bit before, but maybe it's worth bringing up again now that we've had a chance to get our hands on it.

It's absolutely amazing. After 3 hours of play time (I just finished Chapter 7), I have no doubt that it's going to the best of the franchise. There have already been some great sequences, and I really dig the story it's presenting so far. The controls finally feel really, really good. The platforming is the best it's ever been, and the gunplay finally feels like a really good cover shooter, rather than a mediocre one. And man, holy crap, this game is absolutely gorgeous. Honestly, it's the strongest argument against Sony needing to put out a more powerful PS4 that I've seen. It's that good.

So, honestly, maybe a useless thread since I haven't played much and there's not going to be much to say until everyone finishes and is okay with spoiler talk, but I already can't praise this game enough.

That's one thing that I play with in PlayStation games almost more than the game itself (I bought The Order: 1886 partly just to play with the Camera Mode).

I heard that it's even better in Uncharted 4.

I used PSN credit I apparently had for some reason to buy it. Loving it so far, I agree it's probably the best in the franchise. I just have one minor quibble: there is SO MUCH CLIMBING. Maybe I'm just not remembering the sheer amount of climbing in the first 3 games, but man, it's constant in 4.

So, honestly, maybe a useless thread since I haven't played much and there's not going to be much to say until everyone finishes and is okay with spoiler talk, but I already can't praise this game enough.

I'm not as far as you. I just stole the cross in Italy and escaped.

However, I agree. It's fantastic. I was initially weary of the whole long lost brother trope, but the way it was introduced with the flashbacks, and the fact that he was presumed dead actually made me feel okay with it.

They keep getting better and better. Naughty Dog is the best in the business, right up there with Platinum. There are no Caveats. The game is great, well written, and respects your time. There's actual human emotion in the story. The environments are amazing, interactive, and you get a lot of mileage from them. The combat feels intense, because you aren't just a killing machine mowing down low level thrall.

I'm sure we can exchange reviews when we finish.

2016 is going to be a great year for games.

P.S. Does this game take place in the 90s? Nathan's flip phone, and Crash Bandicoot would place this in 1996-1997 territory. That would mean Uncharted 1 took place in the late 80s, which makes no sense given the model of Elena's video camera and her reality TV stardom.

. . . there is SO MUCH CLIMBING. Maybe I'm just not remembering the sheer amount of climbing in the first 3 games, but man, it's constant in 4.

See, and I love that. It could have no gunplay at all and I would be just as happy. I love the climbing.

So, honestly, maybe a useless thread since I haven't played much and there's not going to be much to say until everyone finishes and is okay with spoiler talk, but I already can't praise this game enough.

I'm not as far as you. I just stole the cross in Italy and escaped.

However, I agree. It's fantastic. I was initially weary of the whole long lost brother trope, but the way it was introduced with the flashbacks, and the fact that he was presumed dead actually made me feel okay with it.

They keep getting better and better. Naughty Dog is the best in the business, right up there with Platinum. There are no Caveats. The game is great, well written, and respects your time. There's actual human emotion in the story. The environments are amazing, interactive, and you get a lot of mileage from them. The combat feels intense, because you aren't just a killing machine mowing down low level thrall.

I tend to agree but I think it is a better (fantastic) narrative than a game, but it's the best Uncharted in terms of gameplay. Thoroughly enjoying it.

I'm sure we can exchange reviews when we finish.

2016 is going to be a great year for games.

P.S. Does this game take place in the 90s? Nathan's flip phone, and Crash Bandicoot would place this in 1996-1997 territory. That would mean Uncharted 1 took place in the late 80s, which makes no sense given the model of Elena's video camera and her reality TV stardom.

I can see Nathan being behind the curve on phones. I'd cut them some slack, especially about Crash Bandicoot. The latter is simply fan service.

- No text -

Only partially played the first TR reboot, but it was a reboot. I don't know if you're talking about gameplay or what, but comparing early entries of a new franchise with the last entry of a franchise doesn't seem fair to either.

To me Tomb Raider feels like more of a video game (more in-depth mechanics and progression and a focus on good combat) and Uncharted feels more like an interactive experience (more set piece moments, more story focused, and crazy sequences, like being dragged behind vehicles). Both entertaining, and a significant amount of overlap, but different, and one isn't necessarily better than the other.

Also, I can tell that Uncharted 4 is banking on a pre-existing emotional investment in the characters. Removing that from the evaluation of the game seems like cutting the heart out of it.

I played and loved both of the new Tomb Raider games. Rise of the Tomb Raider is especially good.

I feel like Tomb Raider is a better "game" than Uncharted, in that the gun play, stealth mechanics, crafting mechanics, and large explorable hub areas all work really well together to create an engaging gameplay loop. The story doesn't really factor into it at a certain point. I loved Rise of the Tomb Raider, yet I've already forgotten large parts of that story. The characters aren't all that interesting, and I certainly don't care about them like I do the characters from Uncharted.

Uncharted 4 seems like it's structured largely like the rest of the Uncharted games. It's much more linear than Rise of the Tomb Raider, which each Chapter just being another linear level to traverse. The gunplay and stealth are good, but not really in the same league as Tomb Raider's. Uncharted definitely relies heavily on you actually caring about the story and characters to pull you along, and lets you experience cool set pieces, but doesn't actually throw you into the world in the way that Rise of the Tomb Raider did.

Ultimately, as much as people want to compare them, I don't think it's all that warranted. They're completely different styles of games, even if they look very similar on the surface. I'm not sure I can say one is better than the other--I love them both for very different reasons.

Part of me was hoping that Uncharted 4 would mimic and have an answer for Rise of the Tomb Raider's semi-open world design. Part of me is a bit disappointed we didn't get that. The other part of me is happy we didn't--I feared that Naughty Dog making something like that might dilute the good qualities of Uncharted.

Tomb Raider's collectibles are definitely much better, because at least they give a little bit of context. Uncharted's collectibles are literally finding the items with absolutely no indication of what they are. Which, I guess is fine--it makes me feel alright just completely ignoring them.

I played and loved both of the new Tomb Raider games. Rise of the Tomb Raider is especially good.

I feel like Tomb Raider is a better "game" than Uncharted, in that the gun play, stealth mechanics, crafting mechanics, and large explorable hub areas all work really well together to create an engaging gameplay loop. The story doesn't really factor into it at a certain point. I loved Rise of the Tomb Raider, yet I've already forgotten large parts of that story. The characters aren't all that interesting, and I certainly don't care about them like I do the characters from Uncharted.

Uncharted 4 seems like it's structured largely like the rest of the Uncharted games. It's much more linear than Rise of the Tomb Raider, which each Chapter just being another linear level to traverse. The gunplay and stealth are good, but not really in the same league as Tomb Raider's. Uncharted definitely relies heavily on you actually caring about the story and characters to pull you along, and lets you experience cool set pieces, but doesn't actually throw you into the world in the way that Rise of the Tomb Raider did.

Ultimately, as much as people want to compare them, I don't think it's all that warranted. They're completely different styles of games, even if they look very similar on the surface. I'm not sure I can say one is better than the other--I love them both for very different reasons.

Part of me was hoping that Uncharted 4 would mimic and have an answer for Rise of the Tomb Raider's semi-open world design. Part of me is a bit disappointed we didn't get that. The other part of me is happy we didn't--I feared that Naughty Dog making something like that might dilute the good qualities of Uncharted.

Tomb Raider's collectibles are definitely much better, because at least they give a little bit of context. Uncharted's collectibles are literally finding the items with absolutely no indication of what they are. Which, I guess is fine--it makes me feel alright just completely ignoring them.

Perhaps it's because of all the time I spend in Destiny, but these days I seriously crave being immersed in a well-crafted, linear story. I know that in gaming linear is a bad word now, and it's considered regressive if you can't affect the outcome, but games that do a good job of having multiple endings are rare (Dishonored is one), and even then having one logical, inevitable ending is always more satisfying, to me anyway.

Perhaps it's because of all the time I spend in Destiny, but these days I seriously crave being immersed in a well-crafted, linear story. I know that in gaming linear is a bad word now, and it's considered regressive if you can't affect the outcome, but games that do a good job of having multiple endings are rare (Dishonored is one), and even then having one logical, inevitable ending is always more satisfying, to me anyway.

I completely agree. I understand why people want "open" "non-linear" games where your decisions alter the game & story. I get it. It's more like real life. It sounds REALLY COOL. A complete alternate reality that you can step into and experience. <edit>When I think of a game like that it sounds like a fun and wonderful experience!</edit> Unfortunately something is lost when a game attempts to do that. I'm not exactly sure what/why, but I can sense the lack of it

Perhaps it can be thought of this way, it's the difference between reading a choose-your-own-adventure book and reading a normal book. There's a reason normal linear books are still more popular than choose-your-own-adventure books. You know, maybe I should take that a step farther. It's like being given loose chapters of a choose-you-own-adventure book and you're attempting to piece together a compelling story vs. reading a good book cover to cover. Sure you may be able to have a unique experience when you're done, but I can guarantee you the linear book will be better.

<edit>Maybe that's just it, you're primarily existing in a setting, not experiencing good storytelling.</edit>

edit2: english grammar is hard.

Perhaps it's because of all the time I spend in Destiny, but these days I seriously crave being immersed in a well-crafted, linear story. I know that in gaming linear is a bad word now, and it's considered regressive if you can't affect the outcome, but games that do a good job of having multiple endings are rare (Dishonored is one), and even then having one logical, inevitable ending is always more satisfying, to me anyway.

Ultimately, I think that's where I land too. It's part of why I enjoyed playing Halo 5 so much after the more open-ended nature of Destiny. I love the way The Witcher 3 did open world, but it sort of ruined me for other open world games, and I've always thought too many games were trying to be open world for no real reason other than it's the hot trend. I wasn't a big fan of Fallout 4 for instance, and Bethesda was the king of open world, and I still think open world racing games are stupid. I did like Rise of the Tomb Raider, but it wasn't fully open world, and I do think Uncharted could be really fun and interesting by following that formula. But ultimately, I am loving the classic linear narrative and classic Uncharted formula in Uncharted 4. So far (up to Chapter 10) it's been executed perfectly, and I'm not sure I'd want it any other way.

Also, did I mention how absolutely beautiful this game is? I can't remember which podcast it was now, maybe Giant Bomb, but someone said that Uncharted is the first game that feels like it's truly come up on the other side of the Uncanny Vally, and I agree. I think it really is the best looking game I've ever seen regardless of platform.

Perhaps it's because of all the time I spend in Destiny, but these days I seriously crave being immersed in a well-crafted, linear story. I know that in gaming linear is a bad word now, and it's considered regressive if you can't affect the outcome, but games that do a good job of having multiple endings are rare (Dishonored is one), and even then having one logical, inevitable ending is always more satisfying, to me anyway.

Ultimately, I think that's where I land too. It's part of why I enjoyed playing Halo 5 so much after the more open-ended nature of Destiny. I love the way The Witcher 3 did open world, but it sort of ruined me for other open world games, and I've always thought too many games were trying to be open world for no real reason other than it's the hot trend. I wasn't a big fan of Fallout 4 for instance, and Bethesda was the king of open world, and I still think open world racing games are stupid. I did like Rise of the Tomb Raider, but it wasn't fully open world, and I do think Uncharted could be really fun and interesting by following that formula. But ultimately, I am loving the classic linear narrative and classic Uncharted formula in Uncharted 4. So far (up to Chapter 10) it's been executed perfectly, and I'm not sure I'd want it any other way.

Also, did I mention how absolutely beautiful this game is? I can't remember which podcast it was now, maybe Giant Bomb, but someone said that Uncharted is the first game that feels like it's truly come up on the other side of the Uncanny Vally, and I agree. I think it really is the best looking game I've ever seen regardless of platform.

I so agree, and I'm not far in at all. The cutscenes surpass all but a few films. The acting, dialogue, and animation are SPOT ON. I credit Neil Druckmann for his direction, the actors of course, and Marianne Hayden if she's still the Cinematics Animator. She's a genius.

edit2: english grammar is hard.

And for similar reasons, great storytelling is hard. That's why it's highly unlikely that you'll get a stellar experience out of narrative pieces you fit together on the fly.

Perhaps it's because of all the time I spend in Destiny, but these days I seriously crave being immersed in a well-crafted, linear story. I know that in gaming linear is a bad word now, and it's considered regressive if you can't affect the outcome, but games that do a good job of having multiple endings are rare (Dishonored is one), and even then having one logical, inevitable ending is always more satisfying, to me anyway.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the concept of linearity, both in games and in game stories.

First of all, t's ridiculous to say that for ANY game if you don't control the outcome of the story it is regressive. That is only the case if the interaction the game offers you is story related. If you're playing Heavy Rain, and your interactions with the game are purely story choices, then it would be criminal if those choices don't change the story, because games are supposed to respond to your inputs. That's the whole point of interactivity.

You have an FPS game, which offers the player the interaction of shooting and moving. Thus, how and where the player moves and what they shoot should effect the outcome of the battles. Right? But having a Heavy Rain type game that doesn't let you control the story is like having an FPS where the action plays out the same no matter where you go or who you shoot. That would be insane and instantly rejected. Yet, it's far too common in story driven games.

But in the FPS it is fine to have an unchanging story, because the interactions the player is afforded are purely physical, move and shoot, and they are not asked to make story decisions. The game should change vis a vis the player's interaction. So, if the player is not given story interactions, then there is no need for the story to change.

As far as linearity in games goes, it is a necessity. Otherwise you'd have a mess of a game with no direction or flow. The trick is to allow for lot of ways to reach the end though. In and FPS, the player can move a lot of places and shoot a lot of different things. So, there should be multiple ways to accomplish that. Look at the first Deus Ex. The very first level has you rescuing a hostage in the statue of liberty. There are no fewer than 7 different ways to go about this depending on how you want to play the game. But then you are on to the next area, and the next, then the next. So it's linear, but with the freedom to change and flex based on the player's inputs.

Uncharted's linear story is in no way a bad thing, and anyone who says otherwise is confused in my opinion. You can legitimately make the case however that there could be more alternate ways to climb things, as 90% of the time there is only one route, and climbing is under the player's control. You want to make a player feel like they've created their own solution, rather than simply found the solution.

I am not a fan of true open world games because they lack focus, direction, and flow nearly all the time.

I liked Heavy Rain okay, but in no way do I think its story is in the same league as something like The Last of Us.

Don't disagree with much else that you've said. Good games provide agency, but you can do that within a set narrative.

Some of my thoughts on this come from writing. I've come up with multiple endings to stories, but if one doesn't stand out as THE ending, I know I'm not done with it. I know it can be improved.

I liked Heavy Rain okay, but in no way do I think its story is in the same league as something like The Last of Us.

I would not argue Heavy Rain is even close to Last of Us. However the story served the function of the game better because it was adaptable to player choice. Last of Us did not have to be, since the player is never given choice. Last of Us was a better story judged on story terms, but judged functionally in terms of serving the game Heavy Rain did what it needed to do. Games with 'interactive' stories will never have stories as good as a single well crafted tale, but they will be more fun to play assuming the game encourages the story to change through your action.

Games with 'interactive' stories will never have stories as good as a single well crafted tale, but they will be more fun to play assuming the game encourages the story to change through your action.

I good story in my mind is dependent on both the writer and the person interacting with it. It's easy to say that a "single well crafted tale" will always be better. But that is because a person who has been writing for a career crafted it. If you compare that against a joe shmoe who is given basically the same story in pieces and asked to make a BETTER story, that's hard to do. If a player is given more options to make a story, they have a better chance of screwing it up (which is bad for the game developer) but it also gives players a better chance of making it even better than a single crafted tale.

We have witnessed what happens when people/communities are given reins to the resources of a game and make something that far surpasses that of the original creators. It's just that rarely do game makers give the player those kind of resources when it comes to story line options.

I am not a fan of true open world games because they lack focus, direction, and flow nearly all the time.

I don't disagree with that at all. That's largely why I am a fan of some open world games. Elder Scrolls, for instance. The story is serviceable, but it's never good. The combat isn't all that great, in the grand scheme of things. The real fun of Elder Scrolls comes from just inhabiting that world and exploring. The Witcher 3 didn't go quite as far in that direction, but it was the same way for me. The combat in the Witcher is good, but not great, the story is good, but not great, etc. But the world is so well realized, it's fun for me to just be there, and TW3 does a better job than perhaps any other game than making the world feel like a real place to be inhabited.

Also, did I mention how absolutely beautiful this game is? I can't remember which podcast it was now, maybe Giant Bomb, but someone said that Uncharted is the first game that feels like it's truly come up on the other side of the Uncanny Vally, and I agree.

I think this is because of the mechanics. Remember how I said something like Bioshock Infinite looked great, but felt fake because when you tried to interact it was revealed as a facade? Well, Uncharted looks great AND it feels real. The market has hundreds of people actually moving around behaving realistically unlike Infinite's wind up puppets that are the citizens. You can climb everything, and stuff that looks like it should move and work moves and works. Take cover behind sand bags, and they empty as they fill with bullet holes (exposing you!). Tables and wooden structures crumble when under fire. Fruits and bottles explode when hit. The physics of the grappling hook and winch are not scripted but real. The tall grass sways as you pass and hides you from enemies. Trees and leaves sway in the wind. I mean, the clock tower sequence. Holy shit.

It's out of the Uncanny Valley because the world feels real mechanically.

I honestly hadn't really considered that, but I think you're absolutely right. Everything behaves basically exactly like I would expect it to, and that goes a long way towards selling the entire experience. I don't think I ever thought about how mechanics can play into the an Uncanny Valley just as much as visuals can.

Jeez, the more I talk about it, the more I just want to play it. I'm honestly starting to regret spending my day off today by running errands and doing productive things I needed to get done when I could have just spent the whole day playing Uncharted 4 . . .

It's out of the Uncanny Valley because the world feels real mechanically.

It's close, maybe at the foothills, but it's still in the valley for me. While watching youtube videos of the game I'll often lose that uneasy feeling, but then something will happen & I'll be pulled back down into that valley. I will say this, I notice the flaws more often in the cutscenes/trailer than I do watching gameplay footage. Perhaps that's because of the mechanics, or perhaps I've spent enough time playing realistic games that I'm not as disturbed by the flaws while in gameplay.

I've listened to a few video game podcasts last week that obvious brought up Uncharted 4. Every single one of them held up Uncharted 2 as the standard for Uncharted games. Why?

I didn't play the games as they were released--I played through all three for the first time over the last two months. Uncharted 3 is clearly the best of them by a long shot. The pacing is better, the story is the best (and without the supernatural bullshit), the set pieces are the best. Is it just nostalgia and Uncharted 2 being such a huge leap over Uncharted 1 and being sort of unprecedented at the time in which it was released, or do people genuinely believe 2 is the better game? I mean, I think it's pretty close, but playing them all back to back for the first time, 3 is clearly the stand out for me.

I've listened to a few video game podcasts last week that obvious brought up Uncharted 4. Every single one of them held up Uncharted 2 as the standard for Uncharted games. Why?

I didn't play the games as they were released--I played through all three for the first time over the last two months. Uncharted 3 is clearly the best of them by a long shot. The pacing is better, the story is the best (and without the supernatural bullshit), the set pieces are the best. Is it just nostalgia and Uncharted 2 being such a huge leap over Uncharted 1 and being sort of unprecedented at the time in which it was released, or do people genuinely believe 2 is the better game? I mean, I think it's pretty close, but playing them all back to back for the first time, 3 is clearly the stand out for me.

I think a lot of it has to do with people thinking the gameplay was the best in Uncharted 2.

I've listened to a few video game podcasts last week that obvious brought up Uncharted 4. Every single one of them held up Uncharted 2 as the standard for Uncharted games. Why?

I didn't play the games as they were released--I played through all three for the first time over the last two months. Uncharted 3 is clearly the best of them by a long shot. The pacing is better, the story is the best (and without the supernatural bullshit), the set pieces are the best. Is it just nostalgia and Uncharted 2 being such a huge leap over Uncharted 1 and being sort of unprecedented at the time in which it was released, or do people genuinely believe 2 is the better game? I mean, I think it's pretty close, but playing them all back to back for the first time, 3 is clearly the stand out for me.

Playing through them all for the first time, and while I'm 44% done with Uncharted 3, I'd say that it's been very small-scale compared to U2 (both the game and band), whereas Uncharted 2 started big (train wreck survival) and continued to have "big" moments throughout (including the fantastic train ride that led to the game's opening).

Halfway through Uncharted 3, and while the character interactions and gameplay are even better than in 2, the only real "big" sequence has been the castle fire. I guess those podcast folks that you listen to are really big on Hollywood sequences rather than on characters and story.

*shrug*

It's funny how playing through them, you see the slowly-developing skills that would ultimately lead to The Last of Us, but the two games couldn't be more different from one another...

Playing through them all for the first time, and while I'm 44% done with Uncharted 3, I'd say that it's been very small-scale compared to U2 (both the game and band), whereas Uncharted 2 started big (train wreck survival) and continued to have "big" moments throughout (including the fantastic train ride that led to the game's opening).

Halfway through Uncharted 3, and while the character interactions and gameplay are even better than in 2, the only real "big" sequence has been the castle fire. I guess those podcast folks that you listen to are really big on Hollywood sequences rather than on characters and story.

Oh, just wait. My favorite set piece from the first trilogy of games is in the last half of Uncharted 3. It's fantastic. It might have just been surpassed by the two great set piece moments in Chapter 11 of Uncharted 4, though. I don't know, it's close.

I've listened to a few video game podcasts last week that obvious brought up Uncharted 4. Every single one of them held up Uncharted 2 as the standard for Uncharted games. Why?

I didn't play the games as they were released--I played through all three for the first time over the last two months. Uncharted 3 is clearly the best of them by a long shot. The pacing is better, the story is the best (and without the supernatural bullshit), the set pieces are the best. Is it just nostalgia and Uncharted 2 being such a huge leap over Uncharted 1 and being sort of unprecedented at the time in which it was released, or do people genuinely believe 2 is the better game? I mean, I think it's pretty close, but playing them all back to back for the first time, 3 is clearly the stand out for me.

I think a lot of it has to do with people thinking the gameplay was the best in Uncharted 2.

And I definitely don't understand that at all. I think the controls and movement feel much better in 3, and the combat encounters are more interesting (if only just). I realize that's just a matter of opinion, but I strongly suspect it's not insignificant that I didn't experience Uncharted 2 when it was new. I think people remember it more fondly because it was the sort of the first great Uncharted game that really defined what those games are, and Uncharted 3, while technically better, just couldn't live up to the expectations that people had after Uncharted 2.

I've even seen a lot of folks say that Uncharted 4 isn't quite as good as Uncharted 2, and that just blows my mind, because that race ain't even close as far as I'm concerned. Uncharted 4 is so far above the rest of the Uncharted games that it's in another solar system. I guess I can't really proclaim that until I finish it, but it has literally been pitch perfect for the 8 hours and 11 chapters I've done.

I guess it's just sort of like how I can recognize that Reach is the best Halo game, but Halo 2 is still just maybe a notch above it for me, just because it was the game that defined what Halo was and what online console shooters were, and it hit while I was in high school and was able to play absurd amounts of it. Nostalgia means that nothing else can ever really match it.

Halfway through Uncharted 3, and while the character interactions and gameplay are even better than in 2, the only real "big" sequence has been the castle fire. I guess those podcast folks that you listen to are really big on Hollywood sequences rather than on characters and story.

3 had the coolest moment with the ship sinking. Here you have cover based combat, where your cover is now sliding around the deck and hold of the ship because it's sinking. So not only do you have to avoid getting crushed by the crates, but you have to constantly move around as they slide around the ship. Then, it starts sinking and flips sideways. Suddenly the climbing aspect of the game is turned upside down (literally). It was really cool looking at everything upside down and figuring out how to make my way out. It was the most balls out awesome level I'd ever played at the time. This was 'big'.

I looked at the multiplayer mode after finishing the campaign, and I see now there are microtransactions and an in game currency.

I'm now never touching multiplayer ever. So sad that a great game is tainted this way.

And I definitely don't understand that at all. I think the controls and movement feel much better in 3, and the combat encounters are more interesting (if only just). I realize that's just a matter of opinion, but I strongly suspect it's not insignificant that I didn't experience Uncharted 2 when it was new. I think people remember it more fondly because it was the sort of the first great Uncharted game that really defined what those games are, and Uncharted 3, while technically better, just couldn't live up to the expectations that people had after Uncharted 2.

Yep. You see the same thing in the Halo franchise. Also, a lot of people favor the train they rode in on.

I looked at the multiplayer mode after finishing the campaign, and I see now there are microtransactions and an in game currency.

I'm now never touching multiplayer ever. So sad that a great game is tainted this way.

I'll always get a chuckle out of that.

By the way, you do know that all of the microtransactions are cosmetic, right?
And the in-game currency lets you choose an unlock path, as opposed to arbitrary milestones.

I looked at the multiplayer mode after finishing the campaign, and I see now there are microtransactions and an in game currency.

I'm now never touching multiplayer ever. So sad that a great game is tainted this way.

I'll always get a chuckle out of that.

By the way, you do know that all of the microtransactions are cosmetic, right?
And the in-game currency lets you choose an unlock path, as opposed to arbitrary milestones.

I don't care.

I looked at the multiplayer mode after finishing the campaign, and I see now there are microtransactions and an in game currency.

I'm now never touching multiplayer ever. So sad that a great game is tainted this way.

I'll always get a chuckle out of that.

By the way, you do know that all of the microtransactions are cosmetic, right?
And the in-game currency lets you choose an unlock path, as opposed to arbitrary milestones.

I don't care.

Hence the chuckle.

Your irrational hatred of game mechanics and completely sensible business practices that benefit players is an oddity.

I'm happy that all multiplayer content will be free for all players, and given the amount (and quality) of The Last of Us' multiplayer content, there's a lot to look forward to.

I've listened to a few video game podcasts last week that obvious brought up Uncharted 4. Every single one of them held up Uncharted 2 as the standard for Uncharted games. Why?

I didn't play the games as they were released--I played through all three for the first time over the last two months. Uncharted 3 is clearly the best of them by a long shot. The pacing is better, the story is the best (and without the supernatural bullshit), the set pieces are the best. Is it just nostalgia and Uncharted 2 being such a huge leap over Uncharted 1 and being sort of unprecedented at the time in which it was released, or do people genuinely believe 2 is the better game? I mean, I think it's pretty close, but playing them all back to back for the first time, 3 is clearly the stand out for me.

So I haven't played Uncharted 3 for myself... but I was listening to a bunch of podcasts when it came out, and I have a fairly clear memory of what reviewers were complaining about at the time.

The general opinion that I heard repeated many times was that Uncharted 3 was great "in a bubble", but being the 3rd in the series harmed many people's perception of it because it did too little to improve on the previous games and repeated too many of the same mistakes. I remember hearing lots of "the gunplay still sucks... how can they continue to fill the game with so much shooting without making the combat any fun?" and that sort of thing. I specifically remember hearing several people complain about some of the "chase" sequences (again, I haven't played the game, but from people's descriptions it sounded to me like the game had sequences similar to "run along a path as everything is collapsing" sequences in Tomb Raider)... people complained that the camera angles and path layout made those sequences confusing, and that it wasn't always clear which way to go, which would lead to a lot of frustrating deaths.

Anyway, I can't vouch for any of this stuff myself, but those are some of the most common comments I heard about the game back when it came out.

And I will say I agree with them about the gunplay, even 4 feels about the same. It's kind of a shame because it feels good in Last of Us, but that's I suppose mostly because it's intended to feel more difficult to shoot in that game. In an action game series it's disappointing the shooting mechanics aren't tighter.

The general opinion that I heard repeated many times was that Uncharted 3 was great "in a bubble", but being the 3rd in the series harmed many people's perception of it because it did too little to improve on the previous games and repeated too many of the same mistakes. I remember hearing lots of "the gunplay still sucks... how can they continue to fill the game with so much shooting without making the combat any fun?" and that sort of thing. I specifically remember hearing several people complain about some of the "chase" sequences

I played these games much later, but from what I hear the aiming was bad, and later they released a patch to fix it.

I can understand why 3 would disappoint after 2, because it is really just a bigger better version of it. You are kind of doing the same things, only with a different story. There are standout moments like the ship, but it is overall very similar.

With regards to chases, even in 4, we have yet another vehicle chase sequence. Granted this time in 4 it's taken way up a notch, but you are still just shooting guys and jumping from car to car (after of course being dragged around on a rope which is really sweet). I am surprised we don't have yet, for example, a James Bond style ski chase or something similar to mix it up. I can totally see Drake skiing down a mountain outrunning an avalanche, shooting all the bad guys while doing it, then base jumping off a cliff to safety. That would in fact be MORe realistic than some of his stunts :-p

But yeah. 3 was just a better version of 2, whereas 2 really was a huge leap forward, both in terms of graphics and in terms of mechanics.

Also I get the sense that the shooting is supposed to 'suck'. You're not supposed to be able to mow people down like you can in Destiny. That actually makes thinks a bit more tense.

And I will say I agree with them about the gunplay, even 4 feels about the same. It's kind of a shame because it feels good in Last of Us, but that's I suppose mostly because it's intended to feel more difficult to shoot in that game. In an action game series it's disappointing the shooting mechanics aren't tighter.

In Last of Us, every bullet counts, so to miss because of dodgy controls would be terrible. In Uncharted, you're being shot at all the time and outnumbered, so it makes sense you can't just pop off headshots from 100 yards away. For what it's worth the shooting in the Nathan Drake collection and in 4 feels just fine. However I remember the original game on PS3 to be unbearable to control.

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

After finishing Uncharted 4, the thing that stood out to me was how ALIVE the environments felt. More specifically, they felt like they used to be alive. Walking through Libertalia I absolutely got the sense that actual people lived there, and that it thrived in its day. You could see and feel the history.

But now I think about Destiny, and how Venus and Mars were supposed hotspots of the golden age, yet neither feel remotely like you can sense any past human presence. None. The past feels very 'dead' because of the Destiny environments. There's not much sense of human habitation, or a glimpse of what life was like. This is in huge contrast to Uncharted. And we are even searching for golden age relics!

I simply can't look at Destiny the same way anymore, and I hope we will be treated to some of that much needed life in beautiful environments designed only for current gen in Destiny 2 (or is it Des2ny?)

And I will say I agree with them about the gunplay, even 4 feels about the same. It's kind of a shame because it feels good in Last of Us, but that's I suppose mostly because it's intended to feel more difficult to shoot in that game. In an action game series it's disappointing the shooting mechanics aren't tighter.

In Last of Us, every bullet counts, so to miss because of dodgy controls would be terrible. In Uncharted, you're being shot at all the time and outnumbered, so it makes sense you can't just pop off headshots from 100 yards away. For what it's worth the shooting in the Nathan Drake collection and in 4 feels just fine. However I remember the original game on PS3 to be unbearable to control.

Same. The jerky movements, gimmicky six-axis integration, and terrible aiming are why I never bothered getting into the Uncharted series. None of these issues were present in The Nathan Drake Collection. The games have felt more or less right throughout (although the shooting in U3 is the smoothest by far), and I really enjoyed the Uncharted 4 Beta's shooting and movement.
I never expected Drake to be a military commando when it comes to shooting (heck, he was raised by nuns), so it's never really bothered me, since the controls were responsive.

- No text -

After finishing Uncharted 4, the thing that stood out to me was how ALIVE the environments felt. More specifically, they felt like they used to be alive. Walking through Libertalia I absolutely got the sense that actual people lived there, and that it thrived in its day. You could see and feel the history.

Can you nail down what exactly is missing from Destiny's environments? What specifically could be changed to make them more ... formerly alive? (this is a completely honest question here. How does one make their environments feel more lived in?)

- No text -

After finishing Uncharted 4, the thing that stood out to me was how ALIVE the environments felt. More specifically, they felt like they used to be alive. Walking through Libertalia I absolutely got the sense that actual people lived there, and that it thrived in its day. You could see and feel the history.

Can you nail down what exactly is missing from Destiny's environments? What specifically could be changed to make them more ... formerly alive? (this is a completely honest question here. How does one make their environments feel more lived in?)

I had the same feeling in Destiny. Large buildings with pointless and big empty rooms, random spacing between buildings, no sign of logical roads, infrastructure, businesses, houses, offices, life...

The environments feel fake.

After finishing Uncharted 4, the thing that stood out to me was how ALIVE the environments felt. More specifically, they felt like they used to be alive. Walking through Libertalia I absolutely got the sense that actual people lived there, and that it thrived in its day. You could see and feel the history.

Can you nail down what exactly is missing from Destiny's environments? What specifically could be changed to make them more ... formerly alive? (this is a completely honest question here. How does one make their environments feel more lived in?)

I haven't played Uncharted 4, but one of the many things that jumped out at me about The Last of Us is what an incredible job Naughty Dog did in creating environments that felt like they had "real history" to them. Almost everywhere you look, you see little details that tell a story. There's the base-level stuff like "I'm walking through an abandoned city". Then the more specific details like "this used to be a library, this was a cafe, this was a school". And then it gets into the much deeper, more subtle stuff like "There's a bunch of furniture arranged in this hallway in a way that makes me feel like someone tried to hole-up here for safety", or "this ballroom is all decorated for a highschool prom... the plates are still on the tables... this place must have been filled with kids when everything went down".

And then, on top of all that, you have the finer, specific storytelling that happens through a combination of everything I mentioned above, combined with little notes or journals you find along the way, combined with dialog between the player characters as they uncover a specific series of events. You literally discover the stories of specific groups or individuals as you move through the game by piecing together clues from all of these little details.

It really is a masterpiece in terms of environmental storytelling. Much as I adore Destiny's environments from an art-design point of view, they really do pale in comparison to Naughty Dog's work when it comes to communicating the living history of each location. Bungie didn't go much deeper than "here are some buildings" or "here is a cave". There really isn't much to tell the player that "this used to be an academy" aside from your Ghost telling you as much. The cosmodrome has a bit more detail in this regard, but not as much as I'd like to see in the future.

It really is a masterpiece in terms of environmental storytelling. Much as I adore Destiny's environments from an art-design point of view, they really do pale in comparison to Naughty Dog's work when it comes to communicating the living history of each location. Bungie didn't go much deeper than "here are some buildings" or "here is a cave". There really isn't much to tell the player that "this used to be an academy" aside from your Ghost telling you as much. The cosmodrome has a bit more detail in this regard, but not as much as I'd like to see in the future.

Yes, you've pretty much nailed it. Especially given the context of the game and the rich universe Bungie has created, it really is quite a shame.

There really isn't much to tell the player that "this used to be an academy" aside from your Ghost telling you as much.

They needed more in the style of the statues and library hall.

The biggest weak spot IMO is Mars. Great cities have character; New Alexandria has a gleaming exoskeleton of white curves and struts, New Mombasa has a huge chevron of grand skyscrapers, Seattle has Space Noodles, everyone hates Lynnwood. What descriptions can be applied to Freehold, besides that it's covered in sand? Speaking of which, nobody even ever even uses the city's name. Prior to this post, "Freehold" was used a total of 11 times on DBO, most of which were lore material quotes, mission description quotes, and references to "Freehold Station" for game play reasons. There are a total of 3 instances in the history of DBO where someone used the city's name spontaneously. It looks nice enough, but what ponderings are there to have? Where's the carcass of a great palace that once loomed over the area, where's the huge underground skate park, where's the derelict moa burger stand? I wonder what sorts of fish the denizens wrapped in their TPS reports in these medium-sized buildings.

Because I'm sure they're doing blood sacrifices or something. It's the only explanation I can think of to explain this game.

Just when I think, "This can't possibly get any better . . ." the next chapter proves me wrong. Just when I think I've seen how pretty this game can be, the next chapter takes us to an even prettier location.

I just finished Chapter 15 (How did I not see that coming?!). I want to keep going, but if I don't stop now I'll be up all night finishing it (and probably immediately starting over).

Naughty Dog is truly on another level right now. I cannot wait to see what they're going to do next (and I'm desperately hoping it's not The Last of Us 2).

It's by no means a perfect game, and I will certainly point out the few flaws that are there when I type up a review, but yeah. It's just on a whole new level. Interestingly they scrapped 8 months of work on the game and took the story in a new direction. They should teach Bungie how to do that!

The ending is perfect by the way.

There really isn't much to tell the player that "this used to be an academy" aside from your Ghost telling you as much.

They needed more in the style of the statues and library hall.

The biggest weak spot IMO is Mars. Great cities have character; New Alexandria has a gleaming exoskeleton of white curves and struts, New Mombasa has a huge chevron of grand skyscrapers, Seattle has Space Noodles, everyone hates Lynnwood. What descriptions can be applied to Freehold, besides that it's covered in sand? Speaking of which, nobody even ever even uses the city's name. Prior to this post, "Freehold" was used a total of 11 times on DBO, most of which were lore material quotes, mission description quotes, and references to "Freehold Station" for game play reasons. There are a total of 3 instances in the history of DBO where someone used the city's name spontaneously. It looks nice enough, but what ponderings are there to have? Where's the carcass of a great palace that once loomed over the area, where's the huge underground skate park, where's the derelict moa burger stand? I wonder what sorts of fish the denizens wrapped in their TPS reports in these medium-sized buildings.

I was just hanging out by the main OWT transit hub entrance area of Freehold yesterday, farming Vex majors for a bounty, and thought about how cool of a play space it would be if it was part of some kick-ass campaign mission, filled with allied and enemy forces fighting each other with vehicles (a la New Mombasa/Outskirts), instead of a static MMO environment with periodically respawning enemies.

And that made me real depressed, 'cause pretty much everywhere in Destiny feels like that for me.

STAHP IT! you guys are really making me want to play Uncharted 4 ;)

One thing I will say about Naughty Dog: that team knows how to put together a complete "vision" for the game they're making, and then deliver it. There are elements to the Uncharted games that I'm not crazy about, but virtually every single aspect of those games feels deliberate, well thought out, and intentional (whether I personally like it or not). It makes their games feel complete and cohesive in a way that few games do.

Thinking back to Destiny, it is funny how "all over the place" the game feels in many ways, and I don't think that's a fluke or a failure to deliver. I've seen/read several interviews over the past 18 months where Bungie employees have mentioned the fact that the team is still discovering "what Destiny is"... and I think that's clear when I play the game. It doesn't feel "authored" in the way that Naughty Dog games do. It feels like a collection of ideas and systems and goals, some more thought out than others, some well executed, others not. Of course, Naughty Dog games are nowhere near as "groundbreaking" as Destiny is aiming to be. But again, I think that is a conscious choice on ND's part: they keep the scope of their games to a size that they can nail damn-near flawlessly. If there is something they want to include in their game, but they lack the time or resources to nail it out of the park, they cut the feature.

Concentrated coolness ;)

STAHP IT! you guys are really making me want to play Uncharted 4 ;)

I've only stopped playing because I had to go to the doctor, because my hard on for this game has been raging for much more than 4 hours and I gotta get that checked out.

STAHP IT! you guys are really making me want to play Uncharted 4 ;)

You absolutely should play this game. It's my game of the year right now without question.

I don't really know how game sharing works, but I'd be happy to hook up with you for that if you want to play it.

While I thought the story was great and extremely well done for what it was, I had this little itch.

The main conflict for Drake was ostensibly that he'd be torn between a life of danger and adventure vs a normal life with Elena. This was played up a little bit, but I was never that convinced by that angle to the character, simply because I never felt like he was plausibly tempted into leaving his normal life.

It's established that Nate's really only doing it to save his brother, and as soon as he finds out his brother is not in danger should he not get the treasure, he loses interest in even finding it. This was pretty apparent even from the get go, and while Elena was hurt and disappointed, I feel like it'd have been worse had it not been for altruism.

What would I change to heighten this aspect of the conflict?

First of all, I would eliminate Drake's altruistic motive to save his brother and replace it with a selfish one. The twist involving Alcazar being a made up story was interesting, but didn't really take that well and didn't have many repercussions in the end. You could just have dropped that, because a plausible motive was already there: it was the treasure they'd been looking for all along. Nate's hope died with his brother, and now that his brother is alive his thirst for the treasure could be too. So have his brother come back, with a new clue, and tempt him to resume where he left off. Because this treasure was important to both of them and their mother, Nathan should simply take the job for selfish reasons.

This now makes his lying to and betrayal of Elena hit even harder.

I've heard some complaints that the last section of the game is too long, and I do agree there is a long stretch where no meaningful story progression happens. We could solve this by bringing back Chloe.

Nate could realize he needs extra help, and call on Chloe to assist. The two of them could get right back into things, and while rediscovering his love for adventure, he could also rediscover her. I always got the sense that she tapped into Nate's darker side. They could potentially (or actually!) start an affair. So, this could place doubts into his own head about Elena. He loves the life of adventure, and here's a woman who loves it too. Can he go back? Does he want to go back?

Now I think if that were done he'd actually be tempted both ways, and it would make all his subsequent decisions have more weight. I never got the sense he'd actually abandon Elena, but doing it this way would put that possibility on the table. This would also make the ending even better than it already is, since he'd have made the tough choice to leave it behind.

My two cents on improving an already wonderful tale.

I don't really have anything to add, but I agree on all counts.

Hiding what he was doing from Elena never really made sense to me in the first place, given that he was ostensibly doing it to save his brother's life. He lied just to add that tension to the story, and I don't think it worked that well given the context.

Sam's lie about the break-out and the debt was interesting, if only because I somehow actually didn't see that coming, even though it seems like it should be obvious in retrospect.

Edit: Also, I do think bringing Chloe in the manner you describe would have been absolutely perfect, especially given the note you can find from her in Nathan's attic. Plus, there can never be enough Claudia Black.