Uncharted 2

[Bobtheduck]

It's mostly awesome. They took out balancing on the logs (which threw me off because I was expecting it every time),I guess they changed the grenade system, and the visuals aren't quite as consistent as they were in the first game, but where it looks good, it looks REALLY good (much like MGS4, actually)

I'm really liking this game so far, and I LOVED the intro. This game honestly feels like a movie that I'm playing, and without it being cutscene heavy like MGS4 (not that I mind that, but this is more "interactive movie" hater friendly in that regard)

Who has it? I'm just renting it, and I'll have to send it back Saturday, unfortunately.

[Nate]

Hmm, I've never understood why "feels like an interactive movie" is supposed to be a good thing.

Yeah, I know, this coming from the JRPG fan who just finished FFXII? True, there were portions of the game where I literally put down the controller and did nothing for long periods of time. But even so I think the longest cutscene in that game is...maybe 10 minutes long?

On top of that, the gameplay-to-cutscene ratio is pretty big in that game. My final save file was around 153 hours long and I guarantee less than 10% of that is time spent watching cutscenes. So while Final Fantasy does have pretty long cutscenes the gameplay available is even LONGER. So basically for every ten minutes spent watching a cutscene I spent two hours running around and doing things.

I dunno, maybe the review of Wet disillusioned me, but why should games try and be movies? They're not movies, they're GAMES. They should be games. Would you go see a movie that had text scrolling on the screen in an effort to be "more like a book?" Oh wait, didn't Uwe Boll have like a minute and a half text-scroll at the beginning of "Alone in the Dark?" And everybody HATED it.

I guess I am an "interactive movie hater" purely because it's lazy on the part of game developers. The less gameplay you have, the easier it is to make...and let's face it, outside of a very few rare examples, the writing and plot and voice acting of most games is not going to be as good as an average movie. Why? Because most game designers are not movie directors, or probably even screenwriters.

Oh well. I haven't even played this game so I have no idea if it's good or not. I'm just biased to start I suppose, but to me the phrase "feels like a movie that I'm playing" is a huge insult, not praise.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Nate, it could be that some people just like a good story no matter what medium it is. Even if it's somewhat interactive or not. =)

[Htom Sirveaux]

Most of the cutscenes in Uncharted 2 Among Thieves are actually fairly short. I think what Bob means is, it plays like an action/adventure movie in that even if the player weren't in control, it still has all the elements of a very entertaining film. Plus, such a statement speaks to the overall fluidity, as it has a bare minimum of noticeable transitions between areas or from cinematic sequence to gameplay.
Trust me, as the phrase "plays like a movie" applies to Uncharted 2, it's definitely a good thing.

I should know, I've been playing it all day.

[Barracuda777]

come on guys MGS4 is one of the greatest games ever made i put it in the same category as final fantasy 7 witch im currently playing. im really looking forward to metal gear rising

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I wouldn't put them in the same category... MGS is way too above the bar for FF7.

[Barracuda777]

ff7 was the mgs of its time and the story is amazing. yes they are the same category.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Aside from the fact that they both came out within one year of each other, I agree with Nate that "FF7 is like that retarded cousin that you have. You love him but he's retarded."

[Nate]

Hmm, well, I haven't played Uncharted 2 (and likely won't, as it's not my kind of game), so I won't carry that line of conversation further. The only thing I have to say is that if we're not talking about cutscene length then, I fail to understand the relevance of "plays like an interactive movie."

It speaks to the quality of the animation, but wouldn't it be simpler to say "great animation?" It may speak to the quality of the plot but wouldn't it be simpler to say "good plot?" (I don't know anything about the plot, I'm just using that as an example.)

I just...if it just means "it's like an action-adventure movie" then I don't get it? I don't understand comparing something in one medium to another. It'd be like seeing a great movie and saying "It's like a visual radio program!" or reading a book and saying "It's like a text-version of Super Mario Bros.!" but not meaning that literally (as in it's not an actual novelization of SMB, I'm just comparing it to that to show how good it is). *shrug* I guess it's just me and my old age. Dang kids these days.

[Bobtheduck]

Hmm, I've never understood why "feels like an interactive movie" is supposed to be a good thing.

Yeah, I know, this coming from the JRPG fan who just finished FFXII? True, there were portions of the game where I literally put down the controller and did nothing for long periods of time. But even so I think the longest cutscene in that game is...maybe 10 minutes long?

Well, your answer no doubt stems from aversion (which I disagree with, but I digress) to cutscene heavy games.

This game honestly feels like a movie that I'm playing, and without it being cutscene heavy like MGS4 (not that I mind that, but this is more "interactive movie" hater friendly in that regard)

Uncharted 2 has gameplay portions that play out like movies. They're not (exclusively, or even majority) QTEs, but the camera work (often the player has no camera control, to the benefit of the experience) and the way things play out feels like an action movie.

As for "games should be games" I don't feel the need to separate things. "That peanut butter is ruining my chocolate! That Chocolate is ruining my peanut butter!" There is nothing inherent in a game that says it shouldn't have story, that you should be in control the entire time... "That's not why I play games!" I think, as you said, being a Final Fantasy fan (or even a Zelda fan, which has quite boring portions of "can't do anything" that you can't even skip (or... you can't in OoT, I guess I never tried while I was playing Twilight Princess), which isn't the case in games like MGS) does indeed make your declaration a bit less authoritative, but it is your opinion. I won't try to fight your opinion.

I, personally, find Interactive Movies of this caliber (MGS4 and Uncharted) to be the height of my entertainment. I also find the majority of the "gameplay" in RPGs like Final Fantasy 12 to be the exact opposite of fun. For me, to grind is a chore, something I do in order to ensure my succession through the game. To refer to the hours spent grinding as superior to the storytelling is exactly what I DON'T want. I do like boss fights (well, good ones) and certain gameplay sequences, but those tend to make up a much smaller portion of the game. I'm willing to go through the work of grinding and sometimes walking long empty stretches so I can see the story progress.

[Cognitive Gear]

I want to add my own 2 cents on this topic:

"Plays like a movie", as it applies to Uncharted, is actually a good thing. The way that it uses camera angles and interactive hurdles really gives it that feeling of adventure that is missing from many games today. I honestly don't know if the effect would work on someone who hasn't seen any adventure movies, but it's still a whole lot of fun. Uncharted uses gameplay mechanics to emulate that adventure movie feel.

"Plays like a movie" as it applies to a game like Metal Gear, in my opinion, is not a compliment. My personal experience with the MGS series has been that of watching a poorly scripted CG movie unfold with small bits of decent gameplay in between. To me, this really comes off as one medium trying it's hardest to pretend that it is something different, which is detrimental to the development of the medium as a whole. (This is my opinion, no offense meant to Metal Gear fans.)

On topic: I cannot wait to get my hands on Uncharted 2. The first game was one of the bet single player experiences I have ever had, and it looks like this one will be as well.

[Barracuda777]

exactly MGS4 was so cut scene heavy for the die hard fans who not only love the gameplay (beautfully redone if i may add) but the characters whom all had deep intricate storys of there own. i mean sure mgs4 has 8 hours of cut scenes but it felt like a half hour cause it was so well done heck iwanted more. Hideo Kojima said during production that this is what he wanted the game to be from the start.

[Bobtheduck]

And I like MGS4 better than the less cut-scene intensive games, but it is just tastes... I would say getting past rules about what something "should" be, too, but I won't argue that point now.

Uncharted isn't like that. The opening scene in Uncharted 2 is so well done, I was amazed the whole time (except for some REALLY bad textures... As I said, the visuals aren't as consistent this time around as they were in the first game)

[Barracuda777]

true enough. and i agree with you. i would most likely not enjoy a game soo cut scene heavy if i wasent soo into the story. soo it really comes down to taste and if we dont agree on something soo trivial as games we just have to agree to disagree.

[Htom Sirveaux]

I just...if it just means "it's like an action-adventure movie" then I don't get it? I don't understand comparing something in one medium to another. It'd be like seeing a great movie and saying "It's like a visual radio program!" or reading a book and saying "It's like a text-version of Super Mario Bros.!" but not meaning that literally (as in it's not an actual novelization of SMB, I'm just comparing it to that to show how good it is). *shrug* I guess it's just me and my old age. Dang kids these days.

That's not exactly a fair assessment though, because of course radio lacks visual stimuli, books lack sound, and both (with the exception of Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books and children's radio programs where you'd clap to bring the tinkly fairy back to life) lack audience interaction. Or, it's an oversimplification, like "Moby Dick is a book about a guy hunting a whale."
If I've seen a game franchise suitable for making into a movie, Uncharted is it. Not that I'd want that. Game-to-movie adaptations rarely go well. If you don't dig action/adventure games or cinematic sequences (long or short, and I reiterate, the ones in Uncharted are kept brief), that's fine. I just want you to understand that, cinematic sequences aside (having become a standard in all but the simplest of video games), "like a movie" refers to things like great story and visual effects, immersive gameplay, etc.
The opening "scene" that Bob refers to has the player in control as the main character must climb up the side of a series of train cars hanging vertically over a cliff. If someone were to walk in the room just then, their first remark would likely be "what are you watching?" That's what "plays like a movie" means. Emphasis on plays.

Anyways, it's the most fun I've had with any game this year, and that's ultimately what matters.

[Barracuda777]

well put.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

So... is Uncharted somewhat similar to say... Indigo Prophecy? That movie to me was the pinnacle of "plays like a movie" kind of game.

[Bobtheduck]

So... is Uncharted somewhat similar to say... Indigo Prophecy? That movie to me was the pinnacle of "plays like a movie" kind of game.

No, it's not like that. It's actually more on the normal 'game' end of the scale than MGS4 (while IP is further away from the normal 'games' on the scale). The reason I said it plays like a movie is because they game essentially performs stunts around you and the camera does crazy, cinematic things. It's hard to explain, really.

[sdzero]

I just got the game today and it is a worthy sequal to the original. I recommend renting the game if you are not sure about it and see the game for yourself.

[Jingo Jaden]

Got it and finished it on my first day. Nice game overall in my opinion. I would go nuts and rate it 9,5 like everyone else, but it is hard to deny the production value on the product.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Wet was a fun game, but it fell short on the gameplay aspect. It was attempting to be an interactive tribute to the grindhouse chop socky kind of films, which I think in the feel of them it at least succeeded. I know that games are art and trying to establish themselves as their own separate medium, but I'm not sure I ever understood the hate for the "interactive movie" thing.

[Bobtheduck]

but I'm not sure I ever understood the hate for the "interactive movie" thing.

I never have, either... I still remember when I first got Final Fantasy 8 and Metal Gear Solid... These elaborate, often beautiful (more FF8 than MGS for reasons that should be obvious) cutscenes were what motivated me to keep going in the games. I felt like I had finally found what I wanted in games when I got them. I still feel like that about games in those series (though I still think FF6 had a better story than 8 or 10, I feel it would have been enhanced with nice prerendered or in PS3 level realtime cut scenes... and indeed was enhanced by 3 prerendered sequences on PS1, and they were incredible... it's just a shame it was actually a somewhat poor port in other respects (mostly disc loading...))

Of course, I've been learning for a while I can't fault people for their tastes, even when I think them unresearched (because my tastes may similarly be unresearched in other areas)

[Nate]

Well, your answer no doubt stems from aversion (which I disagree with, but I digress) to cutscene heavy games.

I have played Final Fantasy X and over 50%](often the player has no camera control, to the benefit of the experience)[/QUOTE]
I will never, ever see "taking away an important part of control for the player" as a benefit. Ever. Especially something as MASSIVELY important as camera control. I have played many, MANY games where I have said in frustration, "I could probably do better at this if the [edit] camera wasn't stationary/would move the way I want it/wasn't so touchy!"

Even as recently as last night on Dissidia where I couldn't dodge an enemy's attacks properly because you can't control the camera, and it went into a "chase sequence" where the camera goes all dramatic, I couldn't see the enemy properly to see what he was doing, and thus was unable to dodge his attacks because the camera wanted to be all "dramatic" and "intense" but got stuck in a wall.

and the way things play out feels like an action movie.

I can't accept this, because the difference between an action movie and a game is that a movie is usually short, and doesn't need involvement from a player. When I watch Predator and they have that scene where they shoot blindly into the jungle, that's awesome. But they do it ONCE. When you do it oh, SIX times (like a low-budget ripoff movie called "Robowar" did), it gets boring and loses its coolness.

So when you have a guy in a movie do a slow-motion dive dodging bullets in the Matrix and shooting his guns, that's pretty cool. But if he did that thirty times in the space of five minutes you'd be thinking "Man this is boring, do something else!"

That's the problem with "cinematic" games. You can do cool stuff for a while, but then it becomes repetitive which really detracts from the fun of the experience. With a game like God of War II, which does a lot of fancy cinematic QTE type finishers on an enemy, they solved the problem by having a LOT of different types of enemies, so you'd fight a few that you did the finisher on, but it never got too repetitive because you'd only see it four or five times before you moved on to a different set of enemies.

There is nothing inherent in a game that says it shouldn't have story, that you should be in control the entire time...

I never said games shouldn't have a story. In fact I encourage it, especially as technology has evolved. Super Mario Bros. didn't need much of a story, and the NES wouldn't have had the capacity to support much of one anyway. However we expect more from games today, especially as Final Fantasy has gone from "randomly wander around and find some dungeons" to something much bigger. The original Final Fantasy's approach wouldn't work in a modern game, because the original limitations were more or less limitations of the hardware rather than the designers' lack of creativity.

As far as the "in control the whole time." No, the player doesn't have to be in control the WHOLE time, but they DO need to be in control a good portion. Because that's the DEFINITION of a game. If I play Monopoly with my family, I'm not always going to be doing something physically. I'm not always moving my piece or rolling dice or handling money. But I am doing it at least SOME of the time.

Part of a game is part of involvement. If I go to a basketball game and sit in the bleachers and watch, have I played a game? No, because I haven't interacted. I can yell and scream and cheer but I can't have any effect on the game itself. I am not involved. That's what separates a game from being a spectator. It's the difference between fantasy football (actively choosing a team, keeping track of stats) and watching a single football team play a game.

There's no shame in making a game! Let's take MGS4, which I've never played and will never play. I don't know how long the longest cutscene is and I won't make up a number, but I'm sure it's long. Okay, fine. If Kojima wanted to make a movie, why didn't he make a movie? I didn't mind too much the cutscenes in FFXII but I can see why someone would get irritated. I have a bit more patience than most twitch gamers today, but seriously, if I have to sit for more than twenty minutes with absolutely zero involvement or control over anything, that's absurd. ABSURD. I am playing a game to PLAY it. If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie.

And I don't have an aversion to cutscene heavy games as I stated above, with the list of games I have played and enjoyed (and even FFXII, though I hated the combat system, I loved the world and story, so I beat it completely). The difference is, like I said, if I want to watch something where I have no control over the characters or what they're doing or the plot, I'll go watch some TV shows. At least after 22 minutes I won't be saying "So when can I pick up the controller and play?"

Again. There is NO SHAME in making a movie! There is nothing wrong with cutscenes either! But let me put it like this. Let's say you bought a DVD of your favorite movie and every ten minutes it said "PRESS PLAY TO CONTINUE WATCHING THE MOVIE." Wouldn't that be annoying? Why? Because you bought the movie to watch the movie, not to press buttons every ten minutes. A movie is meant to be watched; a game is meant to be played. If you don't want to play something, why would you get a game? If you don't want to watch something, why would you get a movie?

To refer to the hours spent grinding as superior to the storytelling is exactly what I DON'T want.

And yet the funny thing is I don't like grinding and agree that if grinding is superior to storytelling, that's the worst thing that can happen (it's why I refuse to play MMOs, as the entire game is ABOUT the grind).

With FFXII I never grinded, not once. I got my characters to level 99 by naturally playing the game. The ONLY time I had to grind a bit was when I was searching for ingredients to the Tournesol, but then I was looking for specific items. Even then, it had a certain level of interactivity (I had to find enemies to kill) and I was involved ("It dropped a loot bag! Did it have what I need? Crap, on to the next one").

I've dropped RPGs I liked (Disgaea for example) because the grind became tedious and boring. I'd have to level my characters for three or four hours just to play further in the storyline. That shouldn't happen, and if it does, it's bad, I agree.

I just want you to understand that, cinematic sequences aside (having become a standard in all but the simplest of video games), "like a movie" refers to things like great story and visual effects, immersive gameplay, etc.

I still don't get the comparison. How does "great story" immediately translate to "movie?" So nothing but movies have great stories? Visual effects, okay. I'll give you that one. That's a valid comparison. Immersive gameplay DEFINITELY doesn't fit the movie comparison as movies have no gameplay.

So, only one of those three things you say possibly translate to "like a movie."

But even then I've never played a game and went "Man this is like a great movie." I've always played a game and said "Man this is a great game." Maybe it's my fault for not automatically thinking game = movie, my brain is pretty compartmentalized. So perhaps I'm the one to blame for thinking "game" instead of "movie" when I play a game.

If someone were to walk in the room just then, their first remark would likely be "what are you watching?"

Actually during a cutscene on FFXII (when Ashe is talking to the Occuria and receives the Treaty-Blade), my mom walked in and asked what I was watching. Of course, it was a cutscene, so I wasn't actively playing it, but still.

Man this is a pretty interesting discussion.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Dude, much of your argument seems to be based on mentally substituting the somewhat ambiguous "feels like" for the more definite "is". A game director wants to direct a game. A game is not a movie, but it's not a bad thing if it feels like one at various points during play (and I say again, play. I'm not talking about cutscenes at all, here). Let me clarify some things.

Here by "great story" I mean a story for a game that would also work well as a movie. Perhaps I could have put it more succinctly, but just wasn't at my eloquent best at the moment. "Immersive gameplay" goes back to the aforementioned first few minutes of Uncharted 2. Everything working together to create such an intense, dynamic experience, it totally felt like the line between cinema and gameplay had become blurred.
I really don't think it's such a difficult phrase to understand. You clearly dislike the idea, but that's not the issue.



You know what, nevermind. I don't wanna argue. This wasn't supposed to be an argument. I just wanna talk about Uncharted 2 like the title of the thread suggests.

So for those who are playing it, what was your favorite part? What did you like or dislike about the game? What do you think it did better or worse than the first one?

For me, among the many improvements I didn't even expect, I love the fact that you can now throw grenades without having to switch weapons entirely. Only, sometimes the trajectory thing will work for me and sometimes he'll just go right on ahead and lob it without letting me direct the . . . er . . . direction. Maybe it depends on something specific which I haven't figured out yet.
Speaking of grenades, I've run into one glitch. Twice, I found myself trapped inside a piece of the environment. The first time was inside a crate, I forget what the second was. I couldn't move, jump, or fight my way out but both times I threw a grenade to blow myself up and start over from the last checkpoint.

[Scarecrow]

I love it ^_^ I get what you mean about feels like playing a movie... it's exciting to play. I wish you could stealth a bit better though. It seems a lot of areas even though they say "Do it quietly" are really set up for a shoot out... cause it seems no matter how careful I am or whatever, it turns into a shoot out regardless...

Anyway, fun game. Not very far into it but looking forward to playing more...