Uncharted 2!

[Branden_Lucero]

What the fuck do you expect when you come into the topic and say something like that without any reasoning or explanation? It makes it seem like you're purely trolling. I'm not saying you are, but that's what it looks like.

"This game sucks."
Oh yeah? Why?
"I don't feel like explaining it."
...


...how do you expect people to react?

they should react as if it was an opinion, something that everyone has. if you hated Zelda, i'm not gonna ask you why you hated, despite it being one of my most favorite franchises. you have the right to keep it to yourself just as i have the right to not ask you.

[Vector]

It doesn't work that way, especially when you start calling people names.

[Branden_Lucero]

It doesn't work that way, especially when you start calling people names.

he called me a fanboy, which is the most ridiculous term anyone ever uses, yet i have a 2 PS3s, 1 Wii, 3 360s, a high end PC, 2 PSPs, and a DS. therefore, he shouldn't be calling me something that i don't relate to. i'm a gamer, simple as that. i'm not a hardcore gamer, or a casual gamer, i'm just a plain old gamer. i don't need to be labeled.

[Rombie]

^ Personally I just find it classic that you will put all this effort into defending yourself and your position rather than just answering the original and simple question of what you haven't liked about it.

Personally I couldn't give a rats ass, people don't always like things others do, but I can definently agree you're baiting the sort of responce you got through your comments. You can't really be that surprised at it.

[Archelon]

I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure I'd say it's my Game of the Year. I think the hype killed it for me, which seems to happen a lot these days. I'm starting to think I should just do total media blackout on all games period.

I certainly liked it more than Uncharted 1, but much like the first game, this one just didn't really click with me for some reason, and I'm not entirely sure why. Then again, very few games "click" with me these days, so that probably speaks more to my current state of mind than the current state of gaming. Several times this generation I've considered just taking a break from gaming for awhile, but that's neither here nor there.

My favorite part of the game, as with the first one, is the platforming. I would like to see more open ended exploration and platforming in the next game, because it was still incredibly linear, but I enjoyed what was there. Platforming is still Naughty Dog's specialty, so I'd love to see them place more of an emphasis on it, but I realize Uncharted is more of a third person shooter than a platformer, so that may be asking for too much. Of course, I'd also settle for a new Jak&Daxter (no, The Lost Frontier does not count). That way both bases would be covered, but alas.

The thing is, even with the massive improvements made to the gunplay from the first game, on more than one occasion I still found myself wishing I could just skip past the next big battle and get right to the platforming section following it. They also still have a few kinks to iron out in the cover system. While a lot of people don't like the "stickiness" of Gears of War's cover system, I came to really appreciate it each time I would try to do a dive roll into a cover only to get shot in the head by an enemy because Nate was left standing there in the open instead of crouching down behind the wall or structure. Sometimes it worked, but many others it didn't. I also found it particularly odd when I would shoot enemies square in the head (I'm talking about enemies who weren't wearing helmets), but they wouldn't die. This was an issue in the first game as well.

And as great as the writing and characters are, there were a few too many cutscenes for my tastes. It made me think of what happened with Devil May Cry 4. The cutscenes in Devil May Cry 3 were so popular that they ended up going overboard with them in DMC4, with the total time amounting to approximately two hours of cutscenes. Uncharted 2 wasn't nearly that bad, but I couldn't get the thought out of my head.

I was also kind of disappointed that with all of the effort they put into making the rest of the characters nuanced, believable, and relatable, Lazarevic just turned out to be another typical cliched villain. I guess maybe they felt like they needed someone who was completely and totally evil to try and emphasize Nate's better qualities in spite of his, shall we say, rather flexible moral compass. It's not that big of an issue, but for the third game, I'd like to see an antagonist who hits a bit closer to home. Someone Nate knows personally, maybe even was friends with at one time, if not still friends with, but who has a very different world view. Not necessarily an evil one, but one that puts him/her at odds with Nate.

I suppose you could argue that Chloe and Flynn fit that role, but seriously, did anyone honestly believe that Chloe wouldn't turn out to be a good "guy" or Flynn wouldn't screw Nate the first chance he got? I'm talking more about the type of character who you know you're going to have to fight, most likely kill, but you don't want to. I'd like to see how the writers would have Nate handle such a situation.

[Branden_Lucero]

^ Personally I just find it classic that you will put all this effort into defending yourself and your position rather than just answering the original and simple question of what you haven't liked about it.

Personally I couldn't give a rats ass, people don't always like things others do, but I can definently agree you're baiting the sort of responce you got through your comments. You can't really be that surprised at it.

people can take a response as a "grain of salt". it shouldn't hurt them for not knowing, hell, maybe its better off that they not know anyways. if i bothered stating why i didn't like this or that, then its only going to debate into just another flaming argument.

[Branden_Lucero]

anywho, just completed it on Normal. i'd rate it a 9 out of 10, the same score i give the original. it started off too slow for me, which was the reason why it was starting to disappoint, but then it picked up the pace later so in the end i enjoyed it (with obvious flaws for me), but for some reason i can't help but think that the 1st one had more cutscenes. and that's all anyone needs to know. carry on.

[ajrich17901]

Uncharted 2 definetly deserves GOTY, its the only game that came out within the last 2 years that was actualy fun to play, had a good story, and looked amazing. Its definetly one of my fav games ever.

[Stu]

Do many people on here bother with the online? I traded my copy in shortly after completion but i'm sorta craving it again!

he called me a fanboy

Actually he didn't, he ASKED IF YOU WERE a fanboy.

Sterling effort in creating a drama out of game you've rated a nine anyway

[Branden_Lucero]

little late aren't you. that was like 2 weeks ago.

[Stu]

I didn't realise you being in the wrong had an expiration date.

[Branden_Lucero]

never was in the wrong. never could have been. movin' on now.

[BahamutRetsu]

I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure I'd say it's my Game of the Year. I think the hype killed it for me, which seems to happen a lot these days. I'm starting to think I should just do total media blackout on all games period.

I certainly liked it more than Uncharted 1, but much like the first game, this one just didn't really click with me for some reason, and I'm not entirely sure why. Then again, very few games "click" with me these days, so that probably speaks more to my current state of mind than the current state of gaming. Several times this generation I've considered just taking a break from gaming for awhile, but that's neither here nor there.

My favorite part of the game, as with the first one, is the platforming. I would like to see more open ended exploration and platforming in the next game, because it was still incredibly linear, but I enjoyed what was there. Platforming is still Naughty Dog's specialty, so I'd love to see them place more of an emphasis on it, but I realize Uncharted is more of a third person shooter than a platformer, so that may be asking for too much. Of course, I'd also settle for a new Jak&Daxter (no, The Lost Frontier does not count). That way both bases would be covered, but alas.

The thing is, even with the massive improvements made to the gunplay from the first game, on more than one occasion I still found myself wishing I could just skip past the next big battle and get right to the platforming section following it. They also still have a few kinks to iron out in the cover system. While a lot of people don't like the "stickiness" of Gears of War's cover system, I came to really appreciate it each time I would try to do a dive roll into a cover only to get shot in the head by an enemy because Nate was left standing there in the open instead of crouching down behind the wall or structure. Sometimes it worked, but many others it didn't. I also found it particularly odd when I would shoot enemies square in the head (I'm talking about enemies who weren't wearing helmets), but they wouldn't die. This was an issue in the first game as well.

And as great as the writing and characters are, there were a few too many cutscenes for my tastes. It made me think of what happened with Devil May Cry 4. The cutscenes in Devil May Cry 3 were so popular that they ended up going overboard with them in DMC4, with the total time amounting to approximately two hours of cutscenes. Uncharted 2 wasn't nearly that bad, but I couldn't get the thought out of my head.

I was also kind of disappointed that with all of the effort they put into making the rest of the characters nuanced, believable, and relatable, Lazarevic just turned out to be another typical cliched villain. I guess maybe they felt like they needed someone who was completely and totally evil to try and emphasize Nate's better qualities in spite of his, shall we say, rather flexible moral compass. It's not that big of an issue, but for the third game, I'd like to see an antagonist who hits a bit closer to home. Someone Nate knows personally, maybe even was friends with at one time, if not still friends with, but who has a very different world view. Not necessarily an evil one, but one that puts him/her at odds with Nate.

I suppose you could argue that Chloe and Flynn fit that role, but seriously, did anyone honestly believe that Chloe wouldn't turn out to be a good "guy" or Flynn wouldn't screw Nate the first chance he got? I'm talking more about the type of character who you know you're going to have to fight, most likely kill, but you don't want to. I'd like to see how the writers would have Nate handle such a situation.

Reminds me of Liquid Snake fights in MGS1 and especially MGS4... I knew they have to fight to the death, but I didn't want for that to happen. And both of them didn't want too. But they HAD to. It's kind of hard to describe.. They were both closest friends/brothers and worst enemies, at the same time.

I felt sad firing RPG's at Wesker, cuz a part of me was sympathetic to his ultimate goal, but the way he wanted to reach this was unacceptable. And I also felt like I was killing my favorite RE character... Forever. In REmake Wesker was both cool and evil in a way you WANTED to kick his ass. Chris was a normal guy back then too... I liked him in REmake and CV and even in UC. But RE5 turned him into a nerd, and so nerdy steroid Chris became the main antagonist of RE5 to me. I was rooting for Wesker till the very end. And when it was over I felt like a main protagonist was killed. RE5 presented these characters in a very wrong way.

I liked Uncharted 2, it was awesome. Not perfect of course. It has its share of flaws. As for Lazarevic... I liked him as an antagonist. Sure he's cliche, but so are all Uncharted games. They were made to be cliche on purpose. I liked his facial expressions. Really magnificent work there ND. And I really liked the big amount of cutscenes. They never felt unnecessary. To me, the more cutscenes there are, the better.

After DSC I'll get AC2. I liked AC1 and now when reviews for AC2 are so stellar, it's a must buy for me.

[Jill's Boob]

I know Uncharted 2 is old news now, but here is a very good article from IGN about how excellent the narrative is in Uncharted 2, and how other developers could really learn from them.

This is very true for our beloved RE franchise, which is mentioned:

Nathan Drake, the hero in Naughty Dog's Uncharted 2, is more realistic, funny, charming, likable and altogether human in 30 minutes than Leon S. Kennedy is through an entire career of Resident Evil games. Capcom's survival horror franchise is always at the forefront of graphics technology and atmosphere. But it's also one of the medium's worst narrative offenders, drowning in painfully poor storytelling and cliched one-dimensional heroes spewing bad dialog.

Series like Resident Evil and countless others could learn a lot from Uncharted 2, a storytelling showpiece that successfully obliterates the wall that has traditionally separated gameplay and narrative.

Read the full article here: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/104/1044396p1.html

[TheSelfishGene]

Thanks for that.

RE games since UC have just been horrible with their story telling.
Most of anything of any interest in depth has been relegated to menus. Even before that the stories weren't that great, but they were at least told well (in my opinion) in RE1 and RE2.
And as for characters... Oh dear.
Best characters in the series were in RE2 - because they were ripped 1:1 from Aliens