I'll try to keep this short and get to the point.
UC3 continues the tradition of being an outstanding cinematic experience, has a lot of exciting moments and creates wonderful characterizations. In these respects, I can't say I've played another game that offered better. It is visually stunning, in particular because there is so much attention to little details in the environments, I love the camera angles in the quasi cinematic-gameplay sequences (the running scenes for example), and the characters in the game are very well fleshed out. It comes as no surprise therefore that I looked forward to the cinematic sequences, which showcases these features of the game that I have praised.
If there is a game that shows how cinematics can, with the right execution, greatly enhance a gaming experience, UC is it.
But that's the thing though, cinematics ENHANCE the gaming experience, not replace it. Sad to say, I found some of UC3's gameplay mechanics to be horribly frustrating in some material ways.
Movement mechanics in UC has always been twitchy and camera angles during gameplay can sometimes be very awkward. Naughty Dog did not address these problems, so Nathan had to run around circles to get from point A to B quite frequently. Frequent enough to frustrate.
The real complaint though is the shooting mechanics. There's a lot said about this in the forums, and Naughty Dog responded with a technical breakdown of how their gun mechanics are more realistic etc. Sorry, but I've played enough shooters to know when the mechanics are off, and UC3 is frustratingly off despite the tech analysis. Aiming, shooting and hitting mechanics are all off, and it makes the shooting sequences a very un-fun chore. And since shooting is about half the gameplay in campaign mode, that's quite significant. Needless to say, multiplayer is tarnished by these mechanics.
Thankfully, the other half of the gameplay is done much better this time, ie. the platforming. Used to be that I found the platforming sequences to be boring and unchallenging, but Naughty Dog have made this aspect of gameplay less straightforward and I found myself enjoying them a lot more.
I also enjoyed the melee mechanics (Batman is of course better though), but I have to say the shooting and fighting mechanics are not married in harmony. So for example I'm taking cover and an enemy rushes me. At close range I have to melee him, but that takes me way out of cover and bullets from a half dozen other enemies are flying at me while I am forced to dramatically pounce and punch in order to take down that one guy.
So there, cinematics are first class, gameplay not so much. For that reason I can't give it the score that most review sites have given it. This was a sometimes outstanding, sometimes good 10 hours experience for me, but I may go back to it for another run after I finish Skyrim and the Horde dlc content.
During MCM Comic Con London X EGX, CGM got the chance to be part of a press group interview with the stars of the Uncharted titles, namely the legendary Nolan North, who played protagonist Nathan Drake, Emily Rose, who portrayed Elena Fisher and Richard McGonagle, who took on the role of Victor ‘Sully’ Sullivan,
Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception has a lot to live up to as Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is an incredible and near-perfect game.
I cant even say what the point was its easily the worst story in the series. The online was a whole lot of fun though but overall doesn't come even close to 2
It was a step back for sure. Personally, I thought even the MP was way better in U2. Solid game, glad I played it. I just think they didn't push as hard as they did with U2.
The "young Drake" portion was pretty top notch, story-wise. But yeah, everything outside of that I felt was inferior.
Villains were all over the place in this… one second they wanted Drake dead, the next they needed him, then they want him dead again, then they coulda killed him, but poisoned his friend instead, then coulda shot him again, but had brunch with him, then needed him alive, then coulda mowed him down, but decided to kill him by fire and let him escape… Uncharted 2 was way better. 😅😅
=D Sounds crazy. I don't remember any of that. Played it on ps3 and I remember thinking that why was this game so bashed compared to second one. I liked it.
Another thing that annoyed me about UC3 events was the agent Talbot teleporting around Turkey. It just felt off to me, and made no sense.
Also, for about one third of the game, you go on a wild goose chase to rescue Sully, who wasn't even there to be rescued, and you end up back where you started again. There was simply no pay off for all the events you go through, so it fell flat in that regard as if they couldn't figure out how to make the game longer, so they decided to side-track you to do something with no pay off, hoping you wouldn't notice due to all the incredible action set pieces they made.
Overall though, even with its flaws, I still enjoy the game.
This was actually my least favorite in the series. Didn't have that same impact that part 2 set.
Uncharted 2 is the pinnacle of the series (to me).
Granted, 4 had the best story in my opinion, but 2 was the overall best game.
A decade after its release, how does Uncharted 3 fare today? Does its story still work? Was its precursor’s legacy a bedrock or quicksand for its own aspirations?
Replies(2)When arguably the weakest game in the series is still awesome and more fun than most games today, you know you're onto a winner!
I'd extend "arguably" before awesome too. Many technically demanding scenes were jaw-dropping for the time, but it's tough to ignore the sub-par context propelling the action forward.
Tough for you, perhaps, and that's fine. I enjoyed it very much. Perhaps a little less than the others in the series, but then the bar is extremely high.
I remember being blown away by the water and sand tech in U3 for the time too. It certainly was a visual treat!
It is very good, but when I originally played Uncharted 3 it was the most disappointed I'd ever been in a video-game because Uncharted 2 was just that good. I enjoyed 3 much more when I replayed it in the Nathan Drake Collection though. I could just enjoy it for what it is and accept that it's not Uncharted 2 - it's not a roller coaster, and it doesn't balance and rotate between action, puzzles, platforming and set-pieces in the same way.
Uncharted 3's gameplay is a bit more compartmentalized and focused on one thing at a time. I'm not surprised the scrapped version of Uncharted 4 was going to have no gunplay for the first half. It's also paced much differently - it takes a long time to get to the notable set-pieces. Uncharted 2 is insane from Nepal onwards which is about an hour into the game. haha.
I did like the introduction of chase sequences, and I love first hour (bar fight, young Drake) and from the airplane sequence onwards but I just think the rest of it just sort of meanders along without as much purpose as 2.
When it comes to the script, you can feel the absence of Neil Druckmann and Josh Scherr (writer on every other console Uncharted game). Drake gets hit in the face, and the game goes on a random side plot for an hour to give you some boat set-pieces. He then washes up on a beach close to where Elena is staying to get you back to the real plot. Drake just says "How convenient" to try make you laugh off how sloppy the plot got.
In retrospect, I'm not sure if Naughty Dog were ready to work on 2 different games at once. 3 clearly had production issues that 1 and 2 didn't have, and Hennig's version of 4 didn't work out. They had to crunch so hard to get the rebooted version done on time that Bruce Straley gave up making video-games.
I'll give you some props for the extra analysis. I remember Druckmann climbing his way to a writer spot in UC2, but wasn't aware of Josh Scherr. I didn't know that was the reason for Straley's departure either. That's pretty damn rough.
They had to make some weird choices as far as story went because the actor for Cutter had to bail which left a few holes in the story.
Uncharted is one of my favourite series and while the leap from 2 to 3 was not nearly as big as the leap from 1 to 2, I think it was an amazing experience none the less.
Graham McTavish's departure wasn't easy, but I don't think that would fix many holes tbh. Because the main issue to consider is the precarious mindset Naughty Dog was operating on: an increased emphasis in set pieces that HAD to go in and worrying about the context later.
I really liked part 3 ( Among Thieves is still the best in my opinion) My only complaint was the interactions with the villains and how they were a missed opportunity, Linda MacMahon (Marlowe) was an interesting antagonist due to the history with Sully and Nate but it fails basically flat especially with her ending. And I couldn't care about Navaro 2.0.
What I did love and made me care was Cutter, in the short time he was in the game you could feel that the guy was a good treasure hunter for example when he pulled his own notebook with the clues he founds so the team can escape a room.
It was a small touch that add a lot to the character.
I have mixed feelings on the series. I still own all of them on the PS3, and the collection for PS4, but I didn't truly "love" any of the games until 4.
They're good games, but they always stumble on some element.
The first is good, but the climbing mechanics weren't exactly fine tuned with the first showing. Not to mention the spongey enemies if you played on anything past normal; but you're then faced with a fairly unchallenging game experience.
The second mostly fixed the climbing, but added in a pretty clumsy stealth mechanic.
Three was just two with a new story.
Four got it right though.
I don't remember once getting annoyed by any mechanic had in the game.
I know that everyone has a soft spot for 2, and 3 is sort of the black sheep of the series; but they did, overall, get progressively better. Which doesn't always happen.
It's funny to think that this is the only review to be counted under the main Uncharted 3 section. First review is under the catalog "Uncharted 3", while the last review (before this one) is under "Uncharted 3: Drake Deception" (< missing the 's after Drake if you can't find the mistake).
Your review is too short to be considered a good and complete opinion, but there are still some good points.
I completely disagree with your complain on the gameplay and controls. I don't need to explain, but I think it's only a matter of getting used to them and to adapt a bit to the controls and timing of the game.
Both shooting and combat mechanics are fine, nothing incredible of course, but other TPS games don't have much better controls and gameplay. Not at all.
I totally agree with this : "cinematics ENHANCE the gaming experience, not replace it". It's a very good point.
In the end, 8.8 it's a low score for one of the best game of this gen.
"Movement mechanics in UC has always been twitchy and camera angles during gameplay can sometimes be very awkward. Naughty Dog did not address these problems, so Nathan had to run around circles to get from point A to B quite frequently. Frequent enough to frustrate."
I never experienced such problems, Drake always went where I wanted him to go without any problems.
"So for example I'm taking cover and an enemy rushes me. At close range I have to melee him, but that takes me way out of cover and bullets from a half dozen other enemies are flying at me while I am forced to dramatically pounce and punch in order to take down that one guy."
I always thought that was done with purpose and it's totally right. It would be ridiculous if Drake could just stand or crouch still in cover and punch the enemy to death without exposing himself. Or should the other enemies stop shooting when you're having a fist fight? No.. Should you be able to kill your enemies with 2-3 very quick melee jabs with the butt of your weapon like in many other fps games out there? No. Should the enemies stand still on the other side and not try to flank you from several directions? No. It's not the games fault if you can't kill them fast enough and let them get close enough to you.
I've seen a lot of people complaining about this but haven't seen one argument that provides a better way to do it. Actually I haven't seen one single reason why this actually is a bad thing, other than the fact that they might die when that happens. But that's not the games fault. You should know when to aim & shoot, when to throw a grenade, when to melee and when to run & gun. I knew and I had no problems at all with these supposedly "bad mechanics". The aiming was the only "bad mechanic" that bugged me, but the recent patch helped a lot.
This is the perfect review for this game. The shooting mechanics definitely made the game less enjoyable for me. I'm very anal about my controls in a shooting game and I find it very unacceptable to have lag in a shooting game, especially a game of this caliber. Takes away from having a smooth shooting experience.
Kudos for the upcoming patch but that doesn't help me since I already beaten the game.