tomchick's Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception review

@Captain

Fully agree with you there, it's just more helpful to use something the consumer is going to able to relate to. And in cases where you are going to make outside comparisons, your best resource is a game that is nearly a clone of the one you are covering. UC3 is obviously working off what made UC2 successful, instead of say, FF12 trying to work off what made FFX successful, lol.

Purely for the reader, is all. Every game should be rated on the design itself pursues though.

Yeah, actually, those are both good points.

Holy crap! Has anyone taken a look at the hits on this review? Well over 12k in a day. It's funny how people say this was an attempt to gain hits. By making so much ado over the review, especially by tweeting it and sharing it to their friends on Facebook, they're the ones generating the hits.

I can understand their disbelief too. But the idea that any, or even most, of those comments are rational is quite laughable.

I couldn't help myself from responding to some of those comments, even though I know it's a waste of time. It's just hard to believe that not only are there people like this, but that they actually seem to represent a majority of gamers. Sadly, it really makes me feel like game reviews are pointless if most of their audience is incapable of comprehending -- let alone appreciating -- differences of opinion.

Well keep in mind that mainstream critics have conditioned readers into believing anything less than a score of 9 is a sub-par experience, and we have a game that has received very favorable reviews thus far.Although I see plenty of casual readers making fun of IGN's perfect 10 as well =p

Extremes attract, is all.

Hey RD, can we, um, lay off the personal attacks, please? Fanboys of this ilk are childish idiots. We're better than them, which is why we shouldn't be sinking to their level by saying stuff like that.

I have to agree with Suskie on this one. Here, have a glass of sherry, old chap.

But seriously, I concur with Suskie.

The facebook comments were good for a laugh.

Ok, I've played Uncharted 3, so hopefully I can add something to this discussion without being trollish. I will say upfront that I'm a fan of the Uncharted series and strongly disagree with some points of Tom's review.

I really like Uncharted. I love Uncharted 2. I really like Uncharted 3.

Uncharted 3 feels like equal parts Return of the Jedi and Last Crusade (very aware I'm stealing from IGN). It feels a bit like a retread in some parts (particularly the ending) and you kinda had higher hopes for it, but it is absolutely still worthy of the name and I would say superior to the original Uncharted.

Gameplay wise, there have been little additions and refinements. The melee combat is more streamlined, with the addition of more varied combat animations, including environment based takedowns. Yes, it feels very similar to Arkham City's combat. But different in that Batman's combat is all about flow and effortless-ness, whereas Drake is, shall we say, haphazard. It can easily be mistaken as a "bargain bin" version of Rocksteady's freeflow system, but Uncharted's system is slower and more clumsy for a reason.

Another way they've tweaked the gameplay is by consistently throwing platforming curveballs at the players. While in previous entries, times when a ledge would break and drop you on a new path were small surprises, these become a gameplay mechanic in Uncharted 3, constantly throwing the player off balance and forcing them to adapt to their new trajectory. There's also much more gunplay while climbing, but it was very "eh" to me, not super enjoyable, but a nice diversion.

The visuals are abrudly good to the point of being photorealistic. While not the huge leap that was seen in Uncharted 2, they definitely took a big step. Faces are sharper, textures are smoother, edges are crisper. I really don't know how much more anyone could get out of this engine. For evidence of this advancement, all anyone needs to do is play the original Uncharted and gasp at the difference.

Finally, the story. I hate to say something like this, but I don't think Tom got the point of the story. The point of the story is that Drake doesn't really appreciate all that Sully does for him. Drake, LIKE THE GAMER, takes his relationship with Sully for granted. Does that mean Drake wouldn't do anything to help Sully? No, it means Drake doesn't really think about all the danger he puts Sully in, and whether or not it's fair of him to do so. It's Sherlock Holmes and Watson meets Indiana Jones and Sean Connery.

Uncharted 3 pushes the gamer to care less about the various plot points (Atlantis of the Sands, meh) and more about the characters. The game isn't about Drake finding the treasure, it's about Drake figuring out himself, what's really important to him, and why he does what he's doing. Maybe some wished that the villains were more fleshed out, but I feel that they were left underserved as a way to emphasize that this was about Drake and Sully and Drake. That is the real heart of the story.

And the thing with Elena. Well, they don't ever flat out tell you what happened between this game and the last. But if you can't figure it out from the BOUNTIFUL hints they drop, then you must be blind.

I hope this has been helpful as a well thought out(ish) counterpoint. I suggest everyone play the game themselves and come up with their own opinions. Somehow, I get the feeling that people are really going to vary in opinion.

Thank you for taking the time to read Tom's review, and to consider his points. I wish that more people would do that. Your response was respectful and I believe you make some compelling arguments that make your perspective on the game easy to understand and appreciate.

A lot of people seem to believe that we post reviews here at HonestGamers as a way of trolling for hits. That's not true. We're big on meaningful discussion about games, typically in reviews. We rate games using the full 1-10 scale and we welcome diverse opinions on games. Thank you for making yourself a part of that process in this instance!

Well said Jason. Well said.

Hey, TheMitchell, your counterpoint post is better than a lot of reviews I've read for the game. You should think about (after a little revision) submitting it as such.

Thank you, TheMitchell. I will say that I like reviews that bravely challenge the norm, but I also like counterpoints that respectfully disagree. As everyone mentioned, you should consider revising and submitting that as a review.

I thought that was a really thorough and well written review. I was a bit pissed when I read the Eurogamer review, because it uses a huge amount of filler and weird canned language that doesn't fit with the score.

Then I played it myself, and thought it was much worse than the somewhat reserved reviews said. You can read my quick review of UC3 here, if you'd like.

This review goes into detail and explain exactly why the game falls short, though. In the way that you understand it's not some niggle or other that prompted a screed - it's just that the game doesn't hang together.

I mean, when I played this, I instantly started to hear this Lawrence quote in the background about how "all the revision in the world cannot save a bad first draft". And that's just how this game is. It's a hugely polished game on every turn, but every time you're playing or going somewhere you just don't know why. Like Tomchick says as well - there are gaps here with story that you're assumed to know about, but don't..

Fleinn: I completely agree with you, and you've said it as succinctly and accurately as can be said--the game doesn't hang together, and no amount of window dressing can save what is a decidedly rickety foundation.

..not sure if it's window-dressing :p I mean, it's good work. All the effects, animation.. the sand is /really/ well done for example. The spiders are ridiculous (if copied from somewhere else - but now it's done in real-time, and not CG). Same with the rolling levels - this is incredibly good work (if obviously marred by that idiotic armored dude that takes 300 shots to kill.

It's like they pimped a car, had a great plan for a road-trip, a detailed map, everyone was hyped - and then they somehow just ran into every fence and through every corner of every building that wasn't explicitly drawn on it or something, and never came to where they decided in the first place. And then it just looks haphazard and random, even when some of the sequences really are extremely well done.

I enjoyed walking through the museum as younger Nathan, for example. That was great. And they have a thread in the story that is.. almost showing up. And then it disappears in.. something... I don't know.

It's like they are about to do something utterly brilliant at every turn. And then somehow manage to bury the playable parts in utterly generic sequences. The last "battle" for example, suddenly disappears in a cutscene. And instead of a slow and interesting cat&mouse game there, you just get the "goon AI with no self-preservation", along with more moving platforms where there is a 100% guided route to follow, unless you want to die, etc.

..you know why this annoys me? It's because they have a budget and effect tech that other developers can only dream about. And what do they do with their resources? They make /this/.

You're arguing with me agreeing with you? Seriously?

I'm saying you can't polish something that's fundamentally unsound and expect brilliance. You know--what YOU said.

lol.. :p no, it's just that "window-dressing" makes it sound like the game is made up of small frilly details to cover up a broken foundation. It's more that it's just not put together well. The individual building blocks are extremely well made. That's what makes it all so annoying.

Just so you know, there are no random spawning enemies. Every enemy comes from the same place, every time. If that was a misquote there, I'm sorry. Your use of "scripted" and "random" in the same sentence threw me off.

Why is everyone hating so much on this game for no particular reason? I hear the same complaints ove rand over again.

"But sooner or later it degenerates into "white male Hero visits locations around the world and shoots his gun a lot", in blocked off set pieces - that for all the scripting has no real purpose or direction."

Ok, what did you expect from the game? Post-apcoalypse? Nate vs. Dragons? Watch Indiana Jones again. That's all it is. White guys fights bad guys and travels around the globe. That's the main focus of Indy, and its the same in Uncharted. If you're gonna get hung up on that, why not get hung up on the fact that Mass Effect is "White guy travels around the galaxy and shoots bad guys which devolves into boss battles and dungeons." Or Fallout is "Person travels around the Wasteland and shoots bad guys in an open world". Seriously, how is the above the game's fault? It's the main fricking conceit of the game.

"It should be a technically mindboogling set piece like nothing you have ever seen before. It should be as if watching a cutscene that you can control the events in. But what you see is a slightly mismatched sequence where the Hero has no goal, nothing to really walk towards - or any reason of any kind to have to walk across the ridge. And where your sense of direction is as muddled as Nate's."

The above is a quote in reference to the scene where Nate finds a well in the desert. Firstly, please proofread. And secondly, you're in the DAMN DESERT. YOU ARE LOST. THAT IS THE POINT!!! How can you're complaint be: "I was lost at this point" when you are supposed to be lost???

If you're saying the game doesn't have a clear goal, once again, you are missing the point. The idea is that you're supposed to question Drake's motivation for going after something like this, something so obscure and dangerous and out of the way that you say "WTF, Drake. This is stupid to go after." If you don't say that, the game isn't being effective.

"While hanging from a rope at the end of a truck-convoy dangling out the back of a cargo plane - what does the enemy soldier do? Scramble to climb back to safety? Oh, no - he fires his automatic rifle at Nate until he is pulled off.

He never runs out of ammo, either"

Last quote. This right here tells me all I need to know. If you are hanging there long enough to notice he doesn't run out of ammo, you clearly are missing the point of this game. Instead of "wow, lets see how long I can wait here while the guy fires off 800 rounds" you're supposed to be climbing up to get his gun! Any game will look bad when you accentuate its flaws. Its like if you were playing fallout and purposely ran your companion into a rock then, complained about their AI. See what I'm getting at?

Bottom line, stop acting like these "flaws" are actual things that hamper gameplay. They are built-in conceits of the game. Platforming, set-pieces, and fast action are what this game is about. If you want to complain the pacing is off, yeah, sure it is a bit. It's a video game, so the act structure gets muddled a bit. Honestly, I thought that the ship sequence was unnecessary from a plot standpoint. But it was a technically awesome sequence that was a blast to play. And it's also the sequence everyone seems to love. So don't complain about a muddled story and love the sequence where the story is muddled and the character advances not at all (more pointing at Tom than anyone else).

Seriously, I understand not everyone's gonna love this game. And I'm in a place where more people seem to dislike it than not. But you gotta judge it based upon genre and content. Don't expect it to be something it wasn't gonna be anyways.

Also, can someone who played the game please tell me what they couldn't figure out about Drake and Elena. It was absolutely plain as day to me. I mean, were you watching the cutscenes? Or did you just skip them all?

lol.. :p no, it's just that "window-dressing" makes it sound like the game is made up of small frilly details to cover up a broken foundation.

Eh?

window dressing
noun
Definition of WINDOW DRESSING
1
: the display of merchandise in a retail store window
2
a : the act or an instance of making something appear deceptively attractive or favorable

C'mon son!

:p I know, I know. ..but see, the effects aren't deceptions. They really are unbelievably good. The problem is that outside the opening fight and a very short (but incredibly sweet) desert walk, the entire thing could just as well really have been a cutscene.

..seriously, though, I know it means the same thing. It's just that they have developed a set of 3d context tools here to let the player control a cinema quality scene in real time. There really isn't anything like this out there right now. And then ND basically asks you to play a script you don't know - perfectly - or you are going to die. They basically don't use the dynamic game-time effects for anything but extremely tightly scripted sequences. Uncharted had you wade through the submarine, for example, and choose the timing of the sequence. UC3 doesn't reach up to that..

@theMitchell:Ok, what did you expect from the game? Post-apcoalypse? Nate vs. Dragons? Watch Indiana Jones again. That's all it is. White guys fights bad guys and travels around the globe. That's the main focus of Indy, and its the same in Uncharted.

..apologies for hijacking the thread - this is about Tomchick's review. But.. I expected to have a goal of some sort. It's as simple as seeing an open window somewhere a few floors up (instead of having to leap randomly at the first and best ledge, while Nathan almost says word for word: "I'm going to randomly go and jump on things".. you know). Or having some sort of lever up on a ledge to climb towards during a puzzle. Or just seeing a constellation, or having any sort of point of reference when walking in the desert. It's those kinds of low-level design problems that turn up.

They did this so well in UC2 and UDF.. so why not this time?

I mean, Elena comments on it in the story. Sully comments on it in the story. "Why are you doing this, what do you hope to accomplish?". And Drake says nothing. Apparently he doesn't know either. He's just randomly finding things and doing stuff..

It was possible to avoid that when directing the game. That you had a perspective where you as the player would see a goal on the map. Or you would recognise something from a code or another location that would clue you in. That you were basically scouring the place from a completely different perspective than the rest. That's what the two previous games do so well - Nathan only has eyes for the clues and the treasure. You know, "Oh, I got to free Elena! ...and hey, what's this tower doing here with this stonework and that symbol, I got to find out... hold on Elena!" :D.. While the other people in the story have different points of view. UC2 has the resin and the maps, etc. Same thing - Nate only sees a clue - the other guys see a crypt and dead bodies everywhere.

You saw that so clearly while playing in the two other games. But in UC3 you can only spy it during the cutscenes. While the game-time is delegated away to.. a bunch of tightly scripted sequences with no real aim other than to go through them..

(I don't know - is that Amy Hennig's comment on the nature of video-games this time?)

p.s. ..and yes, the enemies in several of the maps are scripted to turn up behind you, when you cross a line, or you defeat the first set of enemies. I guess that doesn't make it random.. sorry about that..

You do things in life to be cool,,,and even if anyone on your site would back you up...You can't be the only person of all review to give such a low score.., That means you are the only cool person who would have integrity and spitting on everyone around you...Enjoy your fame and the fact that some people talk about you but if the owner of the site or anyone in your mod...have any sense of marketing or you want to continue to exist...well you know what you have to do. Marketing stunts is a great thing but for a gaming site called honest gamers and doing in sensationalism as your doing...Well that will be the end of your site

Honest Gamers RIP 11/02/2011 cause of decease Tomchicks

Oh yes enjoy the hits while it last :-) and also,,,any review you will do in the future from this site will be regarded as a joke,,,,it's sad as you have build up quite well in the past:-)

That last post made my head hurt...

Btw, so you're saying you thought the site was pretty good until it gave a low score to a game you think is good?

Fun Fact: I have yet to actually read this review that has garnered so much discussion.

Stop using so many fucking ellipses.

EDIT: FOR THE LAST TIME WHY IS "FUCK" UNCENSORED BUT "GOD DAMN" IS?