Seriously, I ed at that. Must be the drums.

I get that a lot.

That's what I heard.

....or would you prefer I raided your tomb?

Far be for me to correct someone that's somewhat agreeing with me, but I don't have a problem with the story the developers wanted to tell, but rather how they tell it.

But thank you for somewhat agreeing with me.

That's more or less what I was saying Tracer.

pinata been telling you stories?

nice.

Suffice to say that I disagree w/ you guys on Uncharted 2. I think they raised the bar on HOW stories are told in video games along with raising the bar on the actual story.

True, but they raised no such bar concerning actual gameplay.

They did? Naughty Dog made an authored narrative using the borrowed language of narrative film. That's not new, nor is it something to strive for.

In my opinion Naught Dog's narrative choices were excellent. You might criticize the generic storyline and the characters but it's still an action game and not an Ingmar Bergman movie. The length of the cutscenes and their direction made me never want to skip them. Unfortunately videogame cutscenes have a great tradition of being skip worthy.

Maybe, but if so, it's the best action movie I've seen this year.

I'm of the opinion that there's a place in gaming for a game that makes you feel like you're playing a great action movie, and does so seamlessly without load screens and with dialogue transitioning flawlessly between cutscenes and gameplay.

When you're playing a human being who climbs and shoots, I'm not sure what folks are looking for in the way of innovation. I mostly just want it to work and have a good camera. I played Batman and Infamous on both sides of Uncharted 2, and both did more "innovative" gameplay stuff, but both had to have superpowers of some sort to do it. I thought the innovation was in the sheer density of the environments, the seamlessness of the storytelling, the quality of the writing and acting, and the control/camera improvements from the previous game.

I read this thread too. Looks like my van of rape will be making an additional stop in Wichita Falls this month.

Don't worry, it's small and it only lasts a few seconds.

It's about dominance.

I'm not criticizing the plot of the game. I'm criticizing how Naughty Dog told their story. I think it's fine if they want to make an interactive movie, but there are several key problems with using film language in a video game, among them loss of control and lessened emotional engagement with the story or characters.

Look, I think Uncharted 2 is a fun game. It's just not anything new, and it certainly doesn't push any important conventions or aid in the efforts at developing a video game language.

You can deliver this:

I felt engaged

Look, he's right, we're wrong. We all think we enjoyed the game and were interested by the story, but we were all Jedi mind-tricked by the use of film language. It's such a shame we can't see the light.

I think you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to not see SOME innovation in Uncharted 2's storytelling...not really in the story itself, but precisely in HOW it's delivered.

I was having a discussion with a buddy at work, and I think I finally articulated what I wanted to say about this. In other games, I feel like they build a character with a set of capabilities and then build the world to interact with that model, and they certainly did that in Uncharted as well, but there are several instances where Nathan's abilities adapt to the story, which makes him something more than just an avatar. I'm thinking about little things like adapting the way Nate moves through a narrow space differently for different scenes...and I'm also thinking of bigger things like how he moves after the train wreck and when he's dragging Jeff through the city.

Nate, himself, is also a pretty terriffic storytelling element in that he reacts to his environment and to the story in a way that I can't think of any other game doing. He stumbles and he loses handholds in a very fallible way, but somehow, it's never frustrating. I also love that Nate always seems to say what you're thinking...or at least verbalize what you're feeling...particularly after very intense scenes. It's endearing, and he feels just human enough that you actually care about him a bit.

Finally, I can't emphasize enough how much the lack of load/menu screens and the lack of clutter on the HUD impact how immersive the story is.

Articulated well and agree 100%. As to the first bolded sentence, that is exactly why the train sequence feels more immersive than Gears despite the fact you are doing the exact same thing. The little interuptions to show a 3 second cinematic of the helicopter rocket and Drake stumbling make it feel more immersive.

The other "little things" are exactly what I was trying to get across myself. It's those things that make the game, for me, and not the "Big 3" action sequences that everyone else loved. The "squeezing through narrow places" is a good one that I forgot. It's such a simple touch. I also loved the lack of a HUD.

As for agreeing with Tracer, the more he posts the more I disagree. Maybe I misunderstood his first post.

I really dug the story, but feel it is a bit forced and the gameplay suffers because of it. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a sandbox game, but just something that was a bit more open than it was. In the whole 12 hour experience there wasn't a single point where I'm thinking, "should I go left, or should I go right first" because there isn't one. The game is so linear it's just shy from being on rails.

I think it's more a complaint that the gameplay was setup to service the story, not the otherway around. And it's true. The game is extraordinarily linear, which I generally don't mind, but I was a bit taken aback by the lack of open areas to run around, explore, and the complete lack of difficulty with puzzles. You're running through the motions instead of figuring anything out for yourself.

This all makes for a great, extremely well packaged, interactive experience... But the gameplay is nothing unique or new or particularly amazing. Hell, even the controls felt a bit unrefined. I love the overall package, but as a "game" it was certainly lacking, it was an adventure game without the difficult puzzles crossed with an unrefined action game, and there are times where this is completely apparent.

I think Naughty Dog was afraid to alienate any gamer groups out there by taking any gameplay risks, and I can't blame them, they certainly poured a ton of money into it and made a memorable experience.

That said, I did find the characters engaging, so I have to disagree with Tracer on that point. In fact, most of the game was pretty engaging despite the lack of actual gaming.

Thank you! Now we can all move on.

Agreed, and very well said.. Come on who didn't laugh



I think I would have said the same thing in this instance so yes, he is the everyman, he feels more human than most characters.