WorthPlaying previews "Uncharted:Drake's Fortune" for the Playstation 3.
Sadly, any game without online multi-player that has less than 15 hours of gameplay is a rental at best, at least in my opinion.
You're right. I never enjoyed Tomb Raider, or all the Prince of Persias, or ICO, or Shadow of the Collosus, or Resident Evil, or the two God of Wars....yuh they weren't worth a buy.
This game bores me. I watched the trailer, the graphics are OK but the gameplay was boring. I guess its because I dont like Tomb Raider either.
"I guess its because I dont like Tomb Raider either." Yes I guess that's why. Being a fan of God Of War, Tomb Raider, POP, Jak and Ratchet, ICO and SOTC....having a game like this to penetrate the sodden FPS world of gaming is a god send.
You should win the "worlds best sarcastic person ever" award! Your first post was excellent!
However, for people like me who like to game but Work, have a family, have friends don't mind short awesome games. Matter of fact, I wish there was more hardcore Short games to play that don't require hours to play. If I'm willing to buy a 2 hour movie for $20 and don't have a problem with paying $40 to $60 dollars for a game that last 15 to 20 hours. Even if the movie was $10 for 2 hours $60 dollars would only give me 12 hours of movie watching. I say get a life and you won't mind the short games............
Why spend $60 on a 8-10 hour game, with no online multi-player? When you can rent the same game for $5, and play it at your leisure for a week. Do you spend $20 on every movie that you watch? If this is the case, I suggest you get your ass back to Work because you don't know a thing about money management.
Not into God of War type games. Dont like repetitive button mashers. I thought ratchet was stupid. Never played jak but I hear its the same as ratchet,could be wrong. Shadow of the Colussus bored me to sleep so yea just difference in tastes I guess. Werent really alot of games on ps2 that I wanted to play which I was I didnt buy one. Oh and what the hell is ICO and POP?
ICO was the first PS2 game by the developers of Shadow of the Colossus; thus the name Team ICO. POP is I'm guessing Prince of Persia.
I know. You don't like those type of games. That was my point. But if you don't like these type of games (games which get 9 scores: ICo 90%, Shadow 92%, POP 93%, Tomb Raider 93%, Jak 88%, Ratchet 92%) then critising this title which is in the same genre which you dont like, doesn't make any sense. I don't like FPS games, but I don't go around saying "oh it looks boring". Because they do look boring to me. I don't get them. Thus, my comments are worthless, as I'm not a fan of the genre. All in all your comment is as relevant as a Vegetarian reviewing a steak dinner from a top French resteraunt, to which the Vegetarian responds after taking a bite; "This is disgusting". ps. how did you play Shadow of the COllossus if you didnt have a ps2?
I guess my question to you is... What game doesnt become repetitive?
Not every game needs online-multiplayer. Hell, some games should be focused more on the single-player experience; character depth, engrossing story, realization of environment and setting. I think this is what will make it like a movie, if at the end of the game you actually care what happens to the characters. Shadow of the Colossus, ICO did this brilliantly, as did Sands of Time, as did Super Mario on SNES!
Deep you really go on the defensive when someone talks bad about this game. Tell me what is it really doing differently, it uses GOW cover and shoot system, it uses POP movement. Please don't say that stupid 6000 animation line, who cares? Does it make the game any better? not really, does it matter that Drake's face changes depending on his appearence? No because its thrid person and you barely ever see his face.
1. I'm defending the genre and not the game, since both comments were armed against the genre and not the game itself. No multiplayer - not relevant. "Bores me" - subjective response by someone who doesn't like Tomb Raider, or any other game in the genre. 2. You do see his face quite a lot as you take cover. You can see his face change expressions during gameplay levels, and it is something that previewers remarked upon during their time with the game. 3. Yes the animation system is very good, creating animation unrivalled in any game. It doesn't matter how many he does, it's the effect it causes - realistic movement which can be layered, creating a responsive character who you wont see doing the same thing twice. 4. They are the best devs out there. Naughty Dog are unrivalled in action platformers, and unrivalled in technology (animation and graphics). 5. GOW uses Kill Switch cover system. POP uses Tomb Raider movement and animation techniques. Almost every FPS is the same, with either WW2 or Aliens. Using the same techniques and gamplay, a similar narrative, a similar motivation, and similar mechanics - and yet when done well learning from peers, they can hit the top (for fans of the genre). Yet you're criticising a game for learning from the best and combining the techniques to create the best adventure experience? By your logic, every FPS ever created is just a reincarnation of DOOM. 6. Tomb Raider combat has always been clumsy...it was even clumsy in POP - so to have a game which can mix it correctly and have platforming done well....would IN FACT be very original, and a revolution in the action adventure genre. 7. There are three games that get my juices going. Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed. You see the simmilarites? Yes it's a genre I love....and IF they can create three games which are perfect for what they are, while both bringing new things to the table, they will create the ULTIMATE experience for me as a gamer. And in my first year of experiencing "next"gen graphics. I feel very lucky that they are catering for me, as most devs prefer not to and go for the safe option.
Believe it or not gears of war would have borrowed a thing or two from other great games but does that make it any less of a great game no. All you one minded individuals are really amazining
You're ONE to Talk. hypocrite.
you never say anything nice. not about a game or a person or anything. wow your negative. have fun w/ that. don`t get me wrong i talk about things i don`t like too. but you basically just attack people, not games or consoles.
dont start comparing this game to Tomb Raider,or Pop,or anything else. sure you can see some similarities..afterall it was expired by those type of games..but i'm sure that naughty dog will take things to a whole new level. the game doesn't have to online for it to be good or for you to be able to keep playing it. knowing what ND has done with the J&D series,even if this game was 10 hours long,they would put something in it that just has you hooked so that you could keep playing. maybe you guys are talking about all of those comparison to tomb raider because the game looks so good that thats the only thing ya can say to try to bash it.(some ppl also call Uncharted Laracroft with no boobs) how come when a good looking game comes out,someone has to come from somewhere to try to bash it? i understand you guys have ya own opinion on stuff,but if ya dont like something,just dont come near it. ya know the game Ghost rider? it was pretty clear that it was inspired by God of War....but,imo,it was nothing like GOW..it sucked.. my point is just because the game has somethings in common with another game that dont usually mean they are going to be the exact same thing. the same goes for heavenly sword. the game looks so good that the closest comment anyone could say to try to bash it is"goddess of war" . sure they have some similarities,but until we play it we cant say its a total rip-off of GOW. according to the ppl who've played the game,they have some similarities,but HS is also unique in its on way. another thing is they have only showed us only part of Uncharted,HS,and Halo 3 and yet ppl are allready assuming things. you guys need to grow up.
On uncharted will it have mulitplayer? Deep u know or anyone?
DOubt it, but we don't know. I expect they are concentrating on the single player...though this question hasn't been asked of the game. If I were to ask one of the devs, I doubt they'd tell me either.
is not the best developer for this genre they're knwon for Jak and Crash not Prince of Persia type of games.
Yus they are known for JAK. When i say this genre I mean action/combat platforming. I have grouped the genre together, but I feel it is a legitimate comparison. And when I say they are the best techies, I mean they are the best techies. Jak3 has some of the best graphics on the PS2, and definately the best animation. Well that's bullet point number 4. Care to address the rest? To below: I've never bought a game to experience multiplayer, except for Burnout and Timesplitters. Though I buy games off the net for £30 (retail £40-50). Plus I love going back and playing through the games again. DOuble Plus - though I admire your opinion, it still ignores these games "Tomb Raider, or all the Prince of Persias, or ICO, or Shadow of the Collosus, or the two God of Wars" - though if you only rent these games, I suppose that is your way.
I don't know your situation, nor do I care. But $60 for game that I can beat in one weekend is not the route that I care to take. I'll spend $5 and rent it.
Re4 - 12-15 hours (played it 5 times) SOTC- 8-10 hours (played it 3 times, playing it now) and RE4 was one of the best games made. EVER. it`s well worth the $60, i can spend 60 going out, for one night. or ordering food. $60 is well worth a game you`ll want to play mulitple times. and w/ renting you have to play it within a set ammount of time. me i like to bounce back and forth between games to keep them feeling fresh.
Thats the 3rd time youve said that in your post, guess what? I dont care whether you rent it or buy it. Do what you will. I too like to take my time on a game I too like to replay great games I too like the action adventure genre I will be buying this game... Do you see me posting 3 times saying the same thing? No. Go find something else to do.
If faboys don't get it then great. It's the reason why their console has been criticized for catering to one genre. Go play FPS and let the Sony fans enjoy all the different types of games. After seen the video I've downloaded on my PS3, anyone claiming this game to be ugly or something that isn't innovative is clearly biased. This game is going to rock.
The vid on the PSN is much much better than the downloadable versions on the net!
well I guess I need to see the the PSN video then because from what I've seen the graphics are decent at best. I guess I'm just used to mind blowing graphics like Gears, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc.
Well maybe you need to open your eyes and see the beauty of the game.
I dont understand people complaining about a game like this because theres no "online multiplayer" as if this were the holy grail of gaming. What wrong with a good, immersive single player game that sucks you into the experience like a involving movie, or heavan forbid, a good book. Not everything has to be an online trash talking blast fest. Hey dont get me wrong, you can have all the multiplayer shooters you like, and Xbox is the right console for them. Just dont dont get upset with a game because it doesn't care about that. Honestly, for me at least, if I want to play against people, I go and play cricket, or golf, or billards, or darts or something. Something social. When I'm playing computer games, I'm playing against the challenge the dev has set up for me, and I'm playing against myself. I like playing within the blockwork that they've created. I dont think online lets to play as creatively as single player. Online you have to react to everyone else, where's SP you can play at your pace. I'll give you an example. One of my favourite shooters, Farcry. Beach. Roughly 12 guys walking around, they dont know I'm there. I swim up and hide in a bush with my silienced MP5. I use rocks to draw guards away from the groups. TAP. Headshot. One guard notices something. Comes up to investigate. Before he gets to and sees the body, TAP. Headshot. One by one I pick them off without ever alerting more than 1 or 2 at a time. It takes about 20 minutes, but at the end I'm standing amongst a dozen bodies and I've never been seen. I feel great because I've exploited the rules and laws of the game/world to my benifit and come out shinning. Now this is how my buddy plays the same level. He sit on a sand bar off the beach. Spots as many guys as possible with the binoculars so they are painted onto the radar. Then with the snipers rifle he just starts shooting anyone. He kills about 3 or 4 before he switches to the M16 because all the guys are running into the water towards him. He mows the rest down and is done in about a minute. So I guess if we were getting paided by the hour, he's 20 times more efficient than me. But does that make my way wrong? Or do we just enjoy different things in a game? Trying to watch my same friend play Manhunt is infuriating as he just wants to run in all (two) guns blazing. As you can imagine, he's not very good at Manhunt. Anyway I prefer SP games for their flexibilty and this insistence people have lately that a SP game with no online isn't good enough anymore is crap. And anyone who thinks a SP game you can beat in under 20 hours has no replayability needs to look at why they game in the first place. I was (still am) so disappointed with Warhawk going Multi only. I loved the original and was looking forward to a big, deep campain mode, fighting motherships and hundreds of fighters. Oh well. I'll still have Uncharted.
You know what would be awesome with this game? Co-op.
funny how people fail to see that the PS2 had many offline only title games and they still were huge success in sales, i must have played through my ps2 games countless times because they were that fun OFFLINE .
to think a game needs online to be fun to play is just plain dumb.
You know what I am realizing with ps3 games, is the developers are focusing on one aspect of the game, no multiplayer means they can focus more on the single player with better graphics, a game like motor storm where the graphics were great but it lacked in content, why because the developer only focused on the graphics/physics. the only game I can think of that had the total package was resistance, it had multiplayer and a good single player with good not great graphics. what I am trying to say is that the games for the ps3 will always lack in something until the developers put their focus on all aspect of the game, not just graphics. Look at the 360 games all have multiplayer and a single player with pretty good graphics.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.