Extra Punctuation: Uncharted 3 Should've Tried Harder
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I have to admit the whole getting ship sequance was one of my faviorete parts of the game but as mentioned in the artiule (not to mention every other reviewer and crtic) it didn't really need to be there. It felt like they should have just stuck with either the cargo plane or the ship( it probally would havr worked better if instead the city he washed up in the desert) but naghty dog kind of screwed themselves with this one. They couldnt get rid of the plane it was in the teaser and the actual game box art and they showed of the ship at E3 and since it ended up being one of the most talked about demo's if someone did notice that it didnt work with the overall plot they knew they couldn't take it out other wise we all be here saying what happen to that awesome ship sqeance they showed I really wanted to play that. yahtzee also talks about how the game hints that drake is not who he says he is and nothing comes of it. Uncharted 3 had a lot of plot points beasides this that arent concluded. For example when cutter breaks his leg this whole concept of tarrot cards are introduced and are even put in drakes journal but are never brought up again. it seemed like the script for this game went therw alot of rewrites which might explain the inconcenties. I still like this game regrdless but naugty dog is better then this.
Congratulations, you identified my favorite moment of SotC! Just because you can overcome obstacles, doesn't mean you're unbeatable, doesn't mean you're noble, doesn't mean you need to let go sometimes.Drake666 said:
OT, Yahtzee hit so many of my points on U3, both in the review and in this XC. I will always disagree with him on the writing, but whatever. Love to see someone else bring up the desert sequence...didn't make any sense at all, even when stretching your imagination. And the pirate sequence was unbelievably weak (though the ship was so cool).
I'll admit it, I don't own a ps3, so for better or for worse I can't say I've played these games much (just with friends), but I found this article a lot of fun.
If the games' set pieces really are that silly, it does kind of line up with a major problem I had in a few other games and with some films, there's just a limit to how far you're willing to suspend your disbelief.
Even in a world like Avatar, the plot usually follows a linear sequence of events, and while there's occasionally a moment or two that's a bit lucky it mostly makes sense in a blue...cat...kind of way.
I think my favorite example of this has to be Battlefield Earth. There's a scene where the human resistance finds not only Fort Knox, which the aliens haven't already raided, but there's inexplicably a collection of Harriers that still work after a thousand years inside. And then they learn how to use them in literally two weeks.
It just doesn't work, and more than anything else I think that's what breaks my sense of disbelief, and it's interesting to see Yahtzee talk about it for a bit.
If the games' set pieces really are that silly, it does kind of line up with a major problem I had in a few other games and with some films, there's just a limit to how far you're willing to suspend your disbelief.
Even in a world like Avatar, the plot usually follows a linear sequence of events, and while there's occasionally a moment or two that's a bit lucky it mostly makes sense in a blue...cat...kind of way.
I think my favorite example of this has to be Battlefield Earth. There's a scene where the human resistance finds not only Fort Knox, which the aliens haven't already raided, but there's inexplicably a collection of Harriers that still work after a thousand years inside. And then they learn how to use them in literally two weeks.
It just doesn't work, and more than anything else I think that's what breaks my sense of disbelief, and it's interesting to see Yahtzee talk about it for a bit.
I guess that's sort of what I mean. He has a "type." It's not really the same as a personality. A pile of meat has a "food group," but it isn't an "entree."Casual Shinji said:
Personality is something different from a set of characteristics. A person changes and grows over time, either for good or for ill. Nathan suffers from sitcom syndrome -- after all of the "zany antics," you have to be able to hit Reset so that you can start from the same position next time. See also: House.
Say what you want about Nathan Drake as a character, but I loved Uncharted 2 in large part for how well it told its story. It had a very strong and deliberate structure, and was far removed from the (IMO) mediocre first installment. But Uncharted 3 is not as good as Uncharted 2.
The set pieces are as great as ever, but in the story department, it feels like Uncharted 3 followed 2's formula and structure to a T. See if you can tell which game I'm describing here:
I was excited that the game seemed like it was going to be a more personal story about Nate (what with the childhood flashback and the whole "you got your pride tangled up in this" business), but I agree with Yahtzee in that it didn't amount to much in the end. I'm fine with him being a generic action hero if the plot is interesting enough by itself (as in UC2), but it feels like Naughty Dog missed the mark in making Nate's character more central to the story this time around, and that it could have been better if they'd done more with it.
The set pieces are as great as ever, but in the story department, it feels like Uncharted 3 followed 2's formula and structure to a T. See if you can tell which game I'm describing here:
The game opens with a dramatic action sequence which leaves Nate looking like he's seen better days. Then there's a flashback to bring the player up to speed, which ends with an ironically optimistic piece of dialogue to give the cut back to present Nate some dramatic flair. Present Nate then gets up and fights through a bunch of enemies to get the item he was after.
Later on, after Nate fails to rescue the ally who was working undercover with the enemy, he finds himself wandering through some harsh terrain. It looks like he isn't going to make it, but then he's rescued by a native of the land who takes him back to his village.
After some recovery time and a fight with a moving convoy, Nate gets to the lost city and defeats the antagonist. He's given the choice to kill or spare him/her, and he chooses the latter, but they die anyway. Then he escapes the city as it crumbles down. Game ends with him sharing a sentimental moment with Elena.
Later on, after Nate fails to rescue the ally who was working undercover with the enemy, he finds himself wandering through some harsh terrain. It looks like he isn't going to make it, but then he's rescued by a native of the land who takes him back to his village.
After some recovery time and a fight with a moving convoy, Nate gets to the lost city and defeats the antagonist. He's given the choice to kill or spare him/her, and he chooses the latter, but they die anyway. Then he escapes the city as it crumbles down. Game ends with him sharing a sentimental moment with Elena.
I was excited that the game seemed like it was going to be a more personal story about Nate (what with the childhood flashback and the whole "you got your pride tangled up in this" business), but I agree with Yahtzee in that it didn't amount to much in the end. I'm fine with him being a generic action hero if the plot is interesting enough by itself (as in UC2), but it feels like Naughty Dog missed the mark in making Nate's character more central to the story this time around, and that it could have been better if they'd done more with it.
Sometimes I think when you rush to defend your opinion of a game you forget that other people are allowed to have different opinions of what FUN is.dnose said:
He knows the games are fun he admitted it himself He just doesn't like the writing. Is it so wrong to expect a triple a story to have a well rounded character? Jak from Jak and daxter has a better arc than Nathan drake (Naughty dog made both titles in case you were wondering about the comparison).dnose said:
I wish you would have mentioned which of the 10-or-so games released in the past 20 days you were going to review next. Now I'm stuck assuming you're going to stick to "Shooter Season 2011" with Modern Warfare 3 and Saints Row the Third (after all, SR3 would let you back into this "villains are more interesting" subtheme you have going on).
That is... presumptuous to say the least. I honestly doubt Yahtzee rags on Uncharted due to jealousy or insecurities about his personality.Therumancer said:You know Yahtzee, you might as well just come out and say you love Uncharted and everything about it. I've been observing this for a while now, and it seems like you trot out all these same complaints every game, but in the end still wind up playing these games through to their conclusion, one after another, where major releases of AAA titles you genuinely loathe seem to be delayed for crazy amounts of time or simply "forgotten" entirely, sometimes with you mentioning it specifically in text in your videos.
Perhaps it's that your ashamed because it's the kind of Cheeseburger and Coke gameplay you claim to hate, or simply that the Joss Whedonesque quippping is exactly the kind of gimmick that you yourself practice and you feel it steals your thunder. Drake sort of being like your Trilby character gone AAA with a better budget (and honestly given that your a guy who has made games about a thief, I've wondered at the criticisms of other games basically about thieves).
I'm not an uncharted player because I really don't get into shooters, but looking at this and your complaints it seems well... like you as a smug bastard should like games about a smug bastard but feel obligated to badmouth them. Or simply "thou dost protest too much".
He rags on Uncharted's plot and characters because people enjoy when Yahtzee's negative. As someone who's played Uncharted, it admittedly has consistently fun gameplay, but the story has some cracks and the main character is pretty annoying, so he focuses on those aspects instead.
Also, your argument falls flat because he absolutely adores Prince of Persia: Sands of Time which has a wise-cracking thief as the main character. If anything, he dislikes these games because they pale in comparison to SOT in his eyes.
Having loved the game, I basically agree with everything you just said. About halfway or so through, they forget about story. The first half is great! Shit's happening not entirely based on pure luck, and crazy magician crap is flying this way and that. What happens? Well, like Yahtzee says, some huge coincidences later, you're in an ancient, beautiful city, doing more crazy shit... And you never learn a God damn thing. I hope if they do make another one (which I don't know if I want them too, even if they've been some of the best games I've ever played), they'll answer some of these questions. We'll probably never know how Toabit does his crazy disappearing/somehow living acts. Overall, I didn't find the experience quite as satisfying in the story/local department. Everything else was up to snuff, but seriously... Why mention his name being fake and not touching up on it? THAT'S PRETTY DAMN BIG IN THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I will say this though... if you don't like the game's whitty dialogue (which you are sure to put in quotes), would it have been better to go your route and reference a huge cock or multi-cunted hooker three times an episode I mean chapter?
I will say this though... if you don't like the game's whitty dialogue (which you are sure to put in quotes), would it have been better to go your route and reference a huge cock or multi-cunted hooker three times an episode I mean chapter?
I think your missing the intended humor here. I probably should have included a few smileys to make the phrasing clear, I usually do.Glass Joe the Champ said:That is... presumptuous to say the least. I honestly doubt Yahtzee rags on Uncharted due to jealousy or insecurities about his personality.Therumancer said:You know Yahtzee, you might as well just come out and say you love Uncharted and everything about it. I've been observing this for a while now, and it seems like you trot out all these same complaints every game, but in the end still wind up playing these games through to their conclusion, one after another, where major releases of AAA titles you genuinely loathe seem to be delayed for crazy amounts of time or simply "forgotten" entirely, sometimes with you mentioning it specifically in text in your videos.
Perhaps it's that your ashamed because it's the kind of Cheeseburger and Coke gameplay you claim to hate, or simply that the Joss Whedonesque quippping is exactly the kind of gimmick that you yourself practice and you feel it steals your thunder. Drake sort of being like your Trilby character gone AAA with a better budget (and honestly given that your a guy who has made games about a thief, I've wondered at the criticisms of other games basically about thieves).
I'm not an uncharted player because I really don't get into shooters, but looking at this and your complaints it seems well... like you as a smug bastard should like games about a smug bastard but feel obligated to badmouth them. Or simply "thou dost protest too much".
He rags on Uncharted's plot and characters because people enjoy when Yahtzee's negative. As someone who's played Uncharted, it admittedly has consistently fun gameplay, but the story has some cracks and the main character is pretty annoying, so he focuses on those aspects instead.
Also, your argument falls flat because he absolutely adores Prince of Persia: Sands of Time which has a wise-cracking thief as the main character. If anything, he dislikes these games because they pale in comparison to SOT in his eyes.
thas pure BS!!!G-Force said:
1- he destroys every single treasure he finds!!!!! and all that BS about Drake not being his name and him trying to prove something gets nowhere. The "i have to prove i'm better" is just stupid, hell even the rest of the characters says that to him. We have no real backstory about WHY did he as a child wanted to get the treasure, probably the will answer that question in uncharted 4
2- this excuse has been used in the 2 game to move the plot so it kind of lost any impact, besides that how about BEFORE sully gets captured?? sully himself says "KID THIS AIN'T WORTHY!!!!"
hell even the enemys motivation is stupid...money? there is a friking bulding in fire!!! who the hell just stays inside there. May they were under that drug? probably but the game never explains
1. It's not like he went out with the intention of destroying those treasures. In UC1 the golden man was cursed and in 2 the Fountain of Youth turned out to be way more elaborate and was destroyed in the firefight he had. Both cases Drake never intended to destroy what he found but happened as a consequence in preventing his enemy from getting his hands on them. There are plenty of smaller adventures he's been on (Eye of Indra for one) that show him going for less grand artifacts and NOT breaking them.meromero said:
2. Just because it's been used in two games does not mean it doesn't exist. Your point is that he has NO MOTIVATION not that you agree if it's a good one. Rescuing Sully is a motivation and it exists therefore your point falls apart. Also for the bad guys their reason was not money, it was power and control which was what Cutter said at first and later repeated by Drake.
That was my first thought when he just "happened upon" the hidden city in the desert. Like, "You guys couldn't have made a 5-second scene where he steals a sip off a dead guy's canteen? No..? We're just gonna go with it then... alright."
Frankly, this would have been a good time for Drake to 'reflect' more on his childhood, and perhaps his "real name". It would have been a great follow up to their shoehorned "poetic" desert sequence. He takes out a lone-guard, chugs his canteen, and passes out during a sandstorm. Cue the character flashback sequence, then resume spilling blood in the sand afterward.
I'm not much of a writer, but this seemed like a missed opportunity to me.
Frankly, this would have been a good time for Drake to 'reflect' more on his childhood, and perhaps his "real name". It would have been a great follow up to their shoehorned "poetic" desert sequence. He takes out a lone-guard, chugs his canteen, and passes out during a sandstorm. Cue the character flashback sequence, then resume spilling blood in the sand afterward.
I'm not much of a writer, but this seemed like a missed opportunity to me.
1. well he didn't want to destroy both of the bigest descovers made by human kind, but he did! its like finding a book with all the answers of life and then forgeting it in the bus. As an archeologist/ treasure hunter he has caused the bigest damage to human culture a single man have ever done. And how about that part whe he makes a drawing in a 400 years old? he doesnt care!. It's not even about money, he loses BILLONS of dolars worth in treasures every time an complete ancient city is destroyed, and he doesnt care.G-Force said:
2. well you got me here, he does have a motivation AFTER sully is captures. In video games when someone is captures you get a free ticket to not care about motivation anymore. But what is the motivation BEFORE that??? my point is that he has to go for A LOT! he contantly get shot, specially during gameplay where he get shot every 2 seconds....why?? after that fire scene there is no reason to keep on going and risking your life...sure he wants to prove something but come on thats BS
and for the bad guys, i am no talking about the main villan, but the regular agents who take cover and start shooting you....in the midle of a burning colapsing bulding!!! men the health program they have must very really good!
1. And the untold damages that the villains in UC 1,2 and 3 are just things worth mentioning right? UC 1 the statue was not destroyed, just sank to the bottom of the sea. Meanwhile the cities in UC 2 and 3 were never meant to be seen by human eyes. Remember Drake is never to shoot first and its only through the escalation of the villain's actions that ultimately cause the cities to be lost.meromero said:
2.He stays in it cause he does not want Marlow to win, plain and simple. Even before we know what she's really after, they've already raised the stakes so high that Drake would not be able to back down now. Drake is a very prideful man and the only thing worse than abandoning a treasure hunt is to roll over and admit another person got the best of him when the pressure is on. He's gone too far to back out especially at the point where Kutter broke his leg where he scolded Drake for even thinking to stop his search.
It also doesn't help his conscious that it was Marlow who almost got him killed in South America where she saw him as a scared little boy. Finding the Atlantis of the Sands is Drake's own way of proving he's able to surpass her.
Also with motivations on the Fodder, it's always been a staple of the Uncharted Series. In the first game the enemies would rather shoot at you than the zombies underground. In the second game they fought off the guardians but still made sure you were killed, all that Uncharted 3 does is follow this pattern.
Yeah in U2 when he was mortally wounded and freezing to death I was like oh shit now theirs bad guys no way this will be the usual gameplay cause Drake is fucked! and then you proceed to do the usual gameplay and the disconnect between the story and the gameplay is extremely jarring.
In U3 when they did the same thing, with Drake being at deaths door after wandering in a desert and then magically being able to fight at full strength and dexterity mere seconds after he encounters more guys. urgh, made me angry.
That's what has always been the huge problem with the Uncharted games, NaughtyDog seems to have no idea how to properly weave the story with the gameplay. By far the stupidest thing is how in story Drake is established as this nice, caring, normal guy but then in gameplay is brutally murdering thousands of people. In many cases having the option to simply knock them out, but no even when in stealth he has to break their fucking necks like he's god damn Kratos.
In U3 when they did the same thing, with Drake being at deaths door after wandering in a desert and then magically being able to fight at full strength and dexterity mere seconds after he encounters more guys. urgh, made me angry.
That's what has always been the huge problem with the Uncharted games, NaughtyDog seems to have no idea how to properly weave the story with the gameplay. By far the stupidest thing is how in story Drake is established as this nice, caring, normal guy but then in gameplay is brutally murdering thousands of people. In many cases having the option to simply knock them out, but no even when in stealth he has to break their fucking necks like he's god damn Kratos.
i usually don't buy the "he doesn't shoot first" to justify a mass murder and in UN3 HE destroyed the city so its his fault. And pride to beat someone he doesn't really know sounds stupy to risk your life and those around you. But i think at this point its just a matter of opinion and in the there is a higher reason as motivation the characters acts, even if it doesn't work very well for me. Anyway this i am just saying the same aguments again and its geting lateG-Force said:
it was nice having a discussion with you ^^ you have some intersting points