StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So, after a long, time of reading reviews and listening to people swoon over this game, I finally picked it up c ouple days ago and I returned it this morning after playing through to chapter 6.

Someone please help me understand why this was ZOMG GOTY!1111!1oneronerar

The graphics were *okay* just okay. Granted the facial capture was really good, but you could tell that the body cap was done separately, and the faces just didn't look quite...right. The approach to making the character models "pretty" seemed to be RAR!USE MOAR SHADARZ!1!1! and while the environments were quite beautiful, and the environmental effects were as well. But this served to actually detract from the game, as all of the character models outside of the cutscenes looked sort of...pasted on, out of place. (Kind of like in those old hanna barbera cartoons where you could tell what section of wall was going to slide open to reveal a monster or whatever - it just looked "wrong")

The controls were just absolutely horrendous. The free climbing was cumbersome and clunky (You have to press X at the TOP OF A LADDER to make Nathan Drake finish the ascent, for example) (Granted, perhaps I'm spoiled by ubisoft's really superb approach to free running/climbing). the cover system was atrocious and unresponsive (Sorry, I feel like when I'm in hard cover like a giant slab of granite, I should not be able to be, like...I dunno, SHOT?).

The Story, oh the story. this one stumped me the most. It seemed that the story could've been written by any one of a number of shitty prime-time TV show episode writers. It just...wow, did I not get it. it wasn't intriguing, it wasn't ZOMGCLIFFHANGAR it was just...a story. Yet, any review you read or person I've spoken to about it will just gush about how awesome the story is, how it explores the deep relationship between Chloe and Drake and blah blah blah. I didn't see that, and all I heard was Chloe's middle-aged 2-pack-a-day voice coming from the body and face of a 24 year old supermodel.

Did I do it wrong?

I don't remember how any review praised the "deep" relationship between Chloe and Nate. Most I heard them say was that the way everyone bounced off each other was fun and engaging, not that it was deep. It's not supposed to be.

As for the rest of the game, well, it's obviously a matter of personal taste. I enjoyed it a lot, it was fast paced without being frustrating (sometimes he'd do something I didn't quite want him to do, but once I was accustomed to the controls and how he moved it didn't really happen much at all). The story was an entertaining b-movie style rollercoaster. It's not war and peace, but given the visuals (that didn't particularly strike me as particularly wrong, but again, if that's how you see them... meh...) and the action set-pieces its a very fun experience.

Not sure what you want us to say here, really. We obviously can't tell you why you're wrong and the game is awesome and others (myself included) would no doubt consider you a tard to try and do the opposite. Maybe you should have just posted this as a vent?

Chardok wrote:So, after a long, time of reading reviews and listening to people swoon over this game, I finally picked it up couple days ago and I returned it this morning after playing through to chapter 6.

Someone please help me understand why this was ZOMG GOTY!1111!1oneronerar

I'm pretty sure I've said it's overrated any number of times.

You ain't nerd virgin enough to understand the greatness biznatch!

But honestly, Chards, are you surprised? Given the sheer ability of rentals or very cheap gaming within months of release the fanboys and the publishers have to overblow every aspect of hype and substance a product has to the coke addicted space hampsters out there.

As a game, you aren't far off what I thought and was glad I borrowed it. One of the few benefits of knowing a friend who has more games then Gamestop usually does.

General Zod wrote:

Chardok wrote:So, after a long, time of reading reviews and listening to people swoon over this game, I finally picked it up couple days ago and I returned it this morning after playing through to chapter 6.

Someone please help me understand why this was ZOMG GOTY!1111!1oneronerar

I'm pretty sure I've said it's overrated any number of times.

I know you have. But I don't think it's simply overrated, I thought it was crap. I enjoyed Alpha Protocol more than U2 and that seems wrong. I was curious to know why sooooo many people felt this was goty material and what precisely was so great about it. AC2 actually looks and plays better than U2 which should be impossible. So do I just not "get it"?

Chardok wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Chardok wrote:So, after a long, time of reading reviews and listening to people swoon over this game, I finally picked it up couple days ago and I returned it this morning after playing through to chapter 6.

Someone please help me understand why this was ZOMG GOTY!1111!1oneronerar

I'm pretty sure I've said it's overrated any number of times.

I know you have. But I don't think it's simply overrated, I thought it was crap. I enjoyed Alpha Protocol more than U2 and that seems wrong. I was curious to know why sooooo many people felt this was goty material and what precisely was so great about it. AC2 actually looks and plays better than U2 which should be impossible. So do I just not "get it"?

U2 had a bigger marketing budget than Alpha Protocol did. I think that's really the big thing here. As it is the main issue I had with it is the combat started to feel the same after about halfway through, where pretty much the only way to present a threat was to zerg rush you with swarms of enemies.

Chardok wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Chardok wrote:So, after a long, time of reading reviews and listening to people swoon over this game, I finally picked it up couple days ago and I returned it this morning after playing through to chapter 6.

Someone please help me understand why this was ZOMG GOTY!1111!1oneronerar

I'm pretty sure I've said it's overrated any number of times.

I know you have. But I don't think it's simply overrated, I thought it was crap. I enjoyed Alpha Protocol more than U2 and that seems wrong. I was curious to know why sooooo many people felt this was goty material and what precisely was so great about it. AC2 actually looks and plays better than U2 which should be impossible. So do I just not "get it"?

Nah, just not drinking enough Sony/Naughty Dog Kool-aid and your tastes are enough your own that you didn't think the material they did was so revolutionary. It did some things good, but when hype enters the mind, people relate to it so they do not feel outed by such.

Some really did enjoy the game, it appealed to something they liked. You didn't, and thus you'll likely never see why the hype nor the massive love it got.

As for AC2? They did what UC2 didn't, they actually improved things. As for AP? Alpha Protocol didn't even recieve a thousandth of the hype UC2 does and did. Thus it managed to impress you because of the game and not some jabbering retard on TV.

Ghost Rider wrote:Nah, just not drinking enough Sony/Naughty Dog Kool-aid and your tastes are enough your own that you didn't think the material they did was so revolutionary. It did some things good, but when hype enters the mind, people relate to it so they do not feel outed by such.

Some really did enjoy the game, it appealed to something they liked. You didn't, and thus you'll likely never see why the hype nor the massive love it got.

As for AC2? They did what UC2 didn't, they actually improved things. As for AP? Alpha Protocol didn't even recieve a thousandth of the hype UC2 does and did. Thus it managed to impress you because of the game and not some jabbering retard on TV.

A thoughtful, insightful, smart post in G&C that doesn't involve building a computer? This nonsense has to stop. I think you're absolutely right. AC2 was a huge improvement and UC2 was completely samey, just prettier than UC and AP won on it's own merits despite the lack of budget. Makes perfect sense....You've actually given me insight into myself! I'm going to go implode real quick. *poof*

Chardok wrote:So, after a long, time of reading reviews and listening to people swoon over this game, I finally picked it up c ouple days ago and I returned it this morning after playing through to chapter 6.

Someone please help me understand why this was ZOMG GOTY!1111!1oneronerar

The graphics were *okay* just okay. Granted the facial capture was really good, but you could tell that the body cap was done separately, and the faces just didn't look quite...right. The approach to making the character models "pretty" seemed to be RAR!USE MOAR SHADARZ!1!1! and while the environments were quite beautiful, and the environmental effects were as well. But this served to actually detract from the game, as all of the character models outside of the cutscenes looked sort of...pasted on, out of place. (Kind of like in those old hanna barbera cartoons where you could tell what section of wall was going to slide open to reveal a monster or whatever - it just looked "wrong")

The controls were just absolutely horrendous. The free climbing was cumbersome and clunky (You have to press X at the TOP OF A LADDER to make Nathan Drake finish the ascent, for example) (Granted, perhaps I'm spoiled by ubisoft's really superb approach to free running/climbing). the cover system was atrocious and unresponsive (Sorry, I feel like when I'm in hard cover like a giant slab of granite, I should not be able to be, like...I dunno, SHOT?).

The Story, oh the story. this one stumped me the most. It seemed that the story could've been written by any one of a number of shitty prime-time TV show episode writers. It just...wow, did I not get it. it wasn't intriguing, it wasn't ZOMGCLIFFHANGAR it was just...a story. Yet, any review you read or person I've spoken to about it will just gush about how awesome the story is, how it explores the deep relationship between Chloe and Drake and blah blah blah. I didn't see that, and all I heard was Chloe's middle-aged 2-pack-a-day voice coming from the body and face of a 24 year old supermodel.

Did I do it wrong?

So the many set pieces, choreographed environment interaction scenes, funny banter between likable characters, huge scale, and multiplayer did nothing for you? Not being sarcastic, I'm actually asking. I mean, if you say so, you're entitled to your opinion, but wow, there's an assessment I thought I'd never see about this game.

Its not perfect. Combat itself is slightly repetitive, but the games throws so much at you in the middle of it often enough it never really became much of an issue. The dry spots did seem dryer when compared to the game at its best. And the final boss to be honest doesn't seems for like body guard for someone with more of a personality, but he did have his moments. I mean his line "how many people have you killed today Drake?" actually made me think back through the game and go "holy shit, he's right".

The game isn't perfect, but it has flat out done things that I have never seen before in a game, or a movie for that matter. GOTY for 2009, hell yes.

Besides, the game earned its own hype by showing itself off. Its not like anyone went, "hey remember that super awesome game that Naughty Dog made 2 years back about thief, well its getting a sequel and its gonna be fucking awesome" (though Uncharted 3 is already getting that treatment). Drake's Fortune was fun, but it definitely had its flaws, Among Thieves fixes them.

Whiplash wrote: The game isn't perfect, but it has flat out done things that I have never seen before in a game, or a movie for that matter.

Like . . . what? Because I'm having a hard time thinking of anything in UC2 that hasn't been done before by at least half a dozen games.

General Zod wrote:

Whiplash wrote: The game isn't perfect, but it has flat out done things that I have never seen before in a game, or a movie for that matter.

Like . . . what? Because I'm having a hard time thinking of anything in UC2 that hasn't been done before by at least half a dozen games.

Going in and out of a train seamlessly to shoot up the badies.
Having me run around a building as it collapses in real time.
Shooting people while sliding down a bridge.
And watching part of a cargo train blow up right in front of me outside of a cutscene.

Edit: Not to mention, going from a jungle local, to a cave, then to an icy mountain area without having to see a single loading screen.

Whiplash wrote: Going in and out of a train seamlessly to shoot up the badies.

Gears of War.

Having me run around a building as it collapses in real time.

Prototype.

Shooting people while sliding down a bridge.

LOL seriously? Tomb Raider did this years ago.

And watching part of a cargo train blow up right in front of me outside of a cutscene.

Nothing The Force Unleashed didn't do better. Or Metal Gear Solid for that matter.

Edit: Not to mention, going from a jungle local, to a cave, then to an icy mountain area without having to see a single loading screen.

Not a very impressive feat, and I seem to recall quite a few loading screens.

The graphics were *okay* just okay.

Aren't you a 360 gamer?

The controls were just absolutely horrendous. The free climbing was cumbersome and clunky (You have to press X at the TOP OF A LADDER to make Nathan Drake finish the ascent, for example) (Granted, perhaps I'm spoiled by ubisoft's really superb approach to free running/climbing).

The controls are Gears of War with a jump button that works perfectly fine. There is no free climbing, you just press X to jump / ascend, O to drop / let go. Complaining that this game doesn't have Parkour is one of the silliest things I've seen all week. It seems like you're summoning problems out of thin air.

And Assassin's Creed as the benchmark for controls? Really? Those games are fucking terrible for platforming because it frequently does things you didn't want them to do, randomly jumping out in a direction because you held onto a button slightly too long, etc.

the cover system was atrocious and unresponsive (Sorry, I feel like when I'm in hard cover like a giant slab of granite, I should not be able to be, like...I dunno, SHOT?).

You've posted this entirely without context. If you get flanked, you get fucking shot. If you're aiming out of cover, you get shot. I played the whole game twice without noticing this "problem", and this is literally the first time I've seen someone mention it.

The Story, oh the story. this one stumped me the most.

The story is pure Indiana Jones, exactly like the last one. I recall people praising the quality of the character writing and interaction, I don't recall anybody praising the story as particularly deep or engaging. It's adventure film schlock, and that's kind of the point.

I didn't see that, and all I heard was Chloe's middle-aged 2-pack-a-day voice coming from the body and face of a 24 year old supermodel.

You mean the voice of Claudia Black coming out of a character model based on Claudia Black?

Did I do it wrong?

Yes. There is more personality in Drake's Journal that comes up when you press Select then there is in the whole Gears of War series.

Nothing The Force Unleashed didn't do better.

The Force Unleashed was and is a steaming piece of shit. Just saying.

adam_grif wrote: The Force Unleashed was and is a steaming piece of shit. Just saying.

That was the sound of my point flying over your head.

adam_grif wrote:

The graphics were *okay* just okay.

Aren't you a 360 gamer?

I'm an everything gamer, bro. I just do 360 primarily.

The controls are Gears of War with a jump button that works perfectly fine. There is no free climbing, you just press X to jump / ascend, O to drop / let go. Complaining that this game doesn't have Parkour is one of the silliest things I've seen all week. It seems like you're summoning problems out of thin air.

I should not have to press X, especially when CLIMING A FUCKING LADDER. That's retarded.

And Assassin's Creed as the benchmark for controls? Really? Those games are fucking terrible for platforming because it frequently does things you didn't want them to do, randomly jumping out in a direction because you held onto a button slightly too long, etc.

Then you're doing it wrong. AC free running/free climbing controls are superb. ESPECIALLY in Brotherhood. It was poo in AC, decent in II, but SUPERB in Broho. I never once jumped off a thing I did not intend to jump off of, and anytime I missed a thing I was aiming for it was a consequence of the terrible camera controls.

You've posted this entirely without context. If you get flanked, you get fucking shot. If you're aiming out of cover, you get shot. I played the whole game twice without noticing this "problem", and this is literally the first time I've seen someone mention it.

Context: I'm BEHIND A GIANT SLAB OF GRANITE AND DUDES ARE SHOTTZING ME. 100% defilade, and I'm being shotted. I'm not retarded, I understand being flanked and I wouldn't complain about a game mechanic like this if I could possibly rationalize why I was being shotted.

You mean the voice of Claudia Black coming out of a character model based on Claudia Black?

No, I mean a middle aged 2-pack-a-day voice coming out of a 24 year old supermodel's body. You can't stutter while typing, right?

Yes. There is more personality in Drake's Journal that comes up when you press Select then there is in the whole Gears of War series.

Eh...I felt more attached to Dom and Maria than I did to Nate, Sully, and Chloe. So, I guess you're wrong there.

Backgrounds were incredibly pretty.

err...


err...


I'm out, I lost interest and gave it back after about chapter 8.


Oh, and hilarious clipping issues mean that enemies throw grenades at the cover you're hiding behind and the grenades clip into and stick on the cover rather than plinking off, 'sploding you. Because, y'know, solid combat mechanics are secondary to the pretty backgrounds, just like in the first game.

I'm an everything gamer, bro. I just do 360 primarily.

You're primarily a 360 gamer, but you think Uncharted has "just OK" graphics? Do you have some giant pair of fanboy goggles that makes 360 games look way better than normal, or is this just some elaborate troll thread? It's not just the backgrounds that look amazing, the character models are high detail and look beautiful, and the animation work is second to none in gaming.

I should not have to press X, especially when CLIMING A FUCKING LADDER. That's retarded.

You tap X to climb up on shit? So fucking what? It's one button press, and takes about 5 minutes to get used to. Actually it makes it easier to fight when you're hanging off a ledge because you can use the ledge as cover (and do several times in the game). Putting it on X means you don't accidentally let go of Aim with the stick still pressed somewhat up and accidentally climb up and get shot in the fucking face. Which I'm sure you'd whine about no end if it happened to you judging by this thread.

Then you're doing it wrong. AC free running/free climbing controls are superb. ESPECIALLY in Brotherhood. It was poo in AC, decent in II, but SUPERB in Broho. I never once jumped off a thing I did not intend to jump off of, and anytime I missed a thing I was aiming for it was a consequence of the terrible camera controls.

AC being dogshit for precision platforming is a widely recognized issue. The fact that after 2 revisions and 30+ hours of gametime with these controls across 3 games you no-longer do anything like that does not mean they are "good" for that sort of thing. They are highly imprecise. After 15 hours with AC2 I got pretty good at platforming sections too, but only because I'd adjusted to the crappy controls.

Context: I'm BEHIND A GIANT SLAB OF GRANITE AND DUDES ARE SHOTTZING ME. 100% defilade, and I'm being shotted. I'm not retarded, I understand being flanked and I wouldn't complain about a game mechanic like this if I could possibly rationalize why I was being shotted.

I don't suppose you tried inching slightly right to stop "getting shottzed"? This never happened to me that I can recall. Even if it does happen periodically, it's a fucking tiny issue. But don't let me stop you from complaining more.

No, I mean a middle aged 2-pack-a-day voice coming out of a 24 year old supermodel's body. You can't stutter while typing, right?

She is voiced by Claudia Black, and she is a digitized model of Claudia Black, motion captured by Claudia Black. You are fucking complaining that the characters are TOO REALISTIC now.

Eh...I felt more attached to Dom and Maria than I did to Nate, Sully, and Chloe. So, I guess you're wrong there.

MAAARIIIIAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

Anyway I'm out, spending Christmas day with my family.

adam_grif wrote: You're primarily a 360 gamer, but you think Uncharted has "just OK" graphics? Do you have some giant pair of fanboy goggles that makes 360 games look way better than normal, or is this just some elaborate troll thread? It's not just the backgrounds that look amazing, the character models are high detail and look beautiful, and the animation work is second to none in gaming.

I think my irony meter just exploded.

Hey, AC being shit at playthrough is 'widely recognised' becaus he says so. Probably by the same people who gave him the AP cool-aid he refuses to challenge with facts.

But he said Gears has no character, so he's obviously trolling. Merry Christmas guys!

The original Uncharted was a wholly underwhelming experience and I was unsurprised to hear the 2nd game is even more boring. I feel like the Uncharted games are proof of the fact that you can make even the most bland and mediocre titles sell like crack if you just market them obnoxiously enough.

Having read some interviews with the dev team, it seems like they focused on improving things that most actual gamers wouldn't give two fucks about - making better use of the Cell processor, having more details in the far distance, better weather effects, that sort of thing.

On the whole though, I don't think it's a bad game - I actually thought it managed to get a good balance of being challenging without being outright frustrating (at least until the last stages where one mutant Smurf could kill you in the blink of the eye). The problem for me is that there's barely any replay value, and it doesn't really do anything that Tomb Raider: Legend didn't do back in 2005.

The problem for me is that there's barely any replay value, and it doesn't really do anything that Tomb Raider: Legend didn't do back in 2005.

1. The U2 campaign is 8+ hours long, which is "above average" by modern standards. It has the collectible treasures and achievements ("Trophies") for the OCD crowd, and a full multiplayer suite. I'm not sure which games you're comparing this to when you're saying it has "no replay value".

2. Tomb Raider Legends came out in 2006, but that minor nitpick aside, it's not even in the same genre as uncharted. The similarities are; common source of inspiration (Indianna Jones), both feature platforming and puzzles. The core gameplay of U2 is very much a polished cover shooter.

Game length is irrelevant to 'replay' value, and plenty of 8 hour games don't motivate to replay or have any real flexibility.

adam_grif wrote:The core gameplay of U2 is very much a polished cover shooter.

The trouble is that the polish is all in the graphics and animation, and not in the mechanics of a cover shooter. Hence grenade clipping problems, and one piece of hilarity my mate encountered where Drake stepped off a train and died in a canned animation QTE.

Even Japanese people can make better cover shooters (Vanquish), and their entire nation despises shooting games.

Vendetta wrote:
The trouble is that the polish is all in the graphics and animation, and not in the mechanics of a cover shooter. Hence grenade clipping problems, and one piece of hilarity my mate encountered where Drake stepped off a train and died in a canned animation QTE.

What, a grenade landed on top of your cover, and instead of running away you just assumed a grenade next to your head wouldn't hurt you? Or is this some other obscure glitch that I never had, that appeared once in your 10 hours of playtime? I also don't know which QTE on the train you're talking about, since I don't remember any.

Even if had encountered every single problem in this thread in triplicate, even if I had an irrational fear of pressing X to climb ladders, even if I thought that Claudia Black's voice ruined Chloe, even if I thought Assassin's Creed controls were the bomb for platforming, Uncharted 2 would still be a fucking fantastic game.

This is yet another thread where reasoning with the people here is utterly impossible - if you say "I liked the game" they go "NO ITS SO OVERRATED, I HAD X Y Z PROBLEM WITH IT". If you say "well everyone else liked it too" they say "YOU ONLY LIKE IT BECAUSE OF MARKETING HYPE, THE GAME IS REALLY CRAP". Nothing I do or say will ever convince anybody of anything, because everybody has already decided that they hate the game. Hawkeye hasn't even played it but he already thinks the game is crap, apparently based on what other people around here told him. Wonderful.

Shit, I mean if you guys said "This game is really derivative and I don't like it that much", I could totally understand that. But people complaining about the graphics? People complaining that you press X to climb ladders? Saying that the cover shooting is terrible and unpolished? Seriously guys?

Even Japanese people can make better cover shooters (Vanquish), and their entire nation despises shooting games.

Vanquish isn't great because of its cover system, it's great because you have crazy fucking rocket boots, bullet time and ultra fast paced gameplay. I'm also not sure how Vanquish, a 2010 game and the best Japanese shooter to come out since Resident Evil 4 (which is only arguably a shooter), somehow diminishes the quality of Uncharted 2, which came out the year before hand.