Fisk ([info]fiskblack) wrote,
@ 2009-10-28 21:56:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Uncharted 2
I completed Uncharted 2 last night and really enjoyed it. It's one of those games that's so good, I'm tempted to buy another PS3 controller and invite Bonk over to co-op some missions. I'm rarely impressed with games, and I've always wondered how much longer I can be entertained and surprised by games with linear plots and action sequences you can't really deviate from. Well, I guess if they're very well done, if they're developing some neat characters and telling a good action story, they can easily grab me for that "interactive movie" sensation. For such a thing, a sandbox game isn't really appropriate. So far, Uncharted 2 is the best 2009 release I've played.

First off, the characters are a bit more developed in this game, than in the previous game. They've got hints of history and surprisingly enough, you sort of begin to give a damn about the game's main characters. This is a rare experience for me. The main villain is fairly one-dimensional. He's a cruel, ambitious, callous Russian war criminal commanding a personal army of Russian bad-asses. That's right, the swarthy hordes from the first game are gone. They present some very entertaining challenges. I've always said that Uncharted took the Gears of War cover system and perfected it, adding in melee elements to combat and making the enemy AI better. When you hide, they get annoyed and flush you out with grenades. They move to flank you, lay down covering fire, while soldiers wearing heavy ballistic armor move in for the kill with devastating shotguns. You rarely get the time to camp in one spot and pick off soldiers at your leisure. They've added more diverse ways of handle combat areas. There's a greater emphasis on action-stealth as an option in many areas, and there are battle areas that have pathways up and over obstacles as an option for flanking fortified opponents. And it wouldn't be an Uncharted game if the enemies didn't just keep coming out in huge numbers. Just when you think you've taken care of things and you're collecting ammo from dead bodies, their buddies show up in squad strength, pouring out of doorways and alleys, often with grenade launchers and GAU mini-guns.

The graphics are really outstanding. The combat controls are some of the most natural and easy to master I've ever felt in a video game, especially the grenade controls. Grenades are now a handy, appreciated tool in your firefight tool box in Uncharted 2. They aren't the difficult-to-master, hard-to-aim, maybe-you'll-get-lucky pains in the ass they are in most games. The pacing feels just right, and the character tension feels pretty natural for a video game. There's a palpable fear when you're climbing something that's slowly falling apart, dangling over a cliff. There's a real sense of terror and hopelessness in being chased by a T-72 through a Nepalese village, and the tank isn't acting like a boss in a boss fight in a video game. It's acting like it has a crew that has the full intention of killing you. Other than that, I think I appreciate this game because I can relate to a wise-cracking Nathan Drake, who seems to like the female ass as much as I do. There are several references to this peppered throughout the game, and they only served to draw me closer to the hero as the kind of person I'd like to kill a few beers with.

There are only a few gripes. They are quite minor. I'd like to see Drake with some more appropriate hand-wear, if he's going to be climbing by the tips of his fingernails on some of the least hospitable terrain on Earth. I don't ever want to see another visible laser beam on a gun in any video game or movie, ever again, for as long as I live. They are the stupidest things I can imagine, and only a shoulder-biting retard would ever put a visible laser beam on his gun. I would be content with seeing red dots appear around my character when I'm being targeted, and leave it up to ME to determine where they are coming from, as best as I can. That is, as long as you insist on giving "snipers" laser target systems, which are usually only fixed to weapons for short-range fighting. That sort of thoughtlessness makes me want to roll up a newspaper and bop the game developer on the nose, while saying "No!" repeatedly.

Otherwise, if you have a PS3, and you like third person action games, this game is your thing. Get it.



(39 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]patcat
2009-10-29 04:36 am UTC (link)
I've always taken visible lasers in video games to be one of those things one just has to suspend one's disbelief for -- a bit like gravity in Battlestar Galactica. Yeah, it's not realistic, but at least for me helps make the game easier to play. If you can buy Drake seeing in third person, you can buy visible lasers. ;)
Incidentally, the AI in U2 can be a bit silly at times; there's a multiplayer level in which enemies climb up after you while you do the same; leave someone on solid ground to shoot at them, and they'll equip two-handed weapons as soon as they're targeted -- with obvious messy results. This doesn't take away from such a good game -- the dialogue, especially, had me chuckling -- of course.
On the topic of PS3 games, have you played inFamous at all?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]remmus64
2009-10-29 11:50 am UTC (link)
have to agree with patcat, it would just be to frustrating to keep track of snipers if we had no visual clues, especially since game designers at least makes snipers quite accurate and damaging so sorry Naylor but I´m hitting your muzzle with a newspaper for suggesting that idea.

games are games and life is life, remember that people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fiskblack
2009-10-29 05:34 pm UTC (link)
You can have other methods of warning, like glinting scopes and red dots instead of red lines. I don't buy that bullcrap. I think they just do it because it looks cool, even though it's silly as hell.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]remmus64
2009-10-29 05:39 pm UTC (link)
like you would see a red dot in either 3rd or 1st person and a glint is too vague of a hint to work, sorry but this is a cause I feel too much realism ruins rather then adds to a game experience for me fun comes first and realism is that icing on the cake that makes it just a bit sweeter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fiskblack
2009-10-29 05:47 pm UTC (link)
Nope. The laser sweeps are so broad in the game, and the glint can be made more vivid. Remember, the designers have full environmental controls and can do these things if they want. Snipers don't use lasers anyway. It's one of those deviations from reality that's so extreme and so counter-intuitive to anything even remotely related to common sense, it severely detracts. A lack of creative thinking in alternative methods of warning, shouldn't be an excuse.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]remmus64
2009-10-29 05:51 pm UTC (link)
true but not every tom, dick and harry knows how to look for scope glint or what a good sniper spot is, however a long, lethal looking laser beam makes it point well across, games have to sell and if that means bending things to make them suitable for a wide crowd, a side effect of a industry now so big it bypasses the movie industry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fiskblack
2009-10-29 06:09 pm UTC (link)
I've already stated the game developers have full creative control on warning methods and how obvious they can make them, up to and including initial shots that miss.

You're repeating assertions that I've already repudiated in prior comments. This generally means the conversation is over.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]agentexeider
2009-10-30 03:13 pm UTC (link)
Generally speaking when it comes to game design, unless its a "Box Feature" meaning a new or important feature that will be bullet pointed on the back of the box. or on the list of miner features, Game designers will go with what works to save time. like a movie its a question of what we want vs what we have time for. If they spend the effort to change the warning methods for the snipers, then other things will not get their time, and those other things might be things that SHOULD be prioritized. So if they went with lasers, its because it was judged not an issue. the ol' (If it aint broke don't fix it) motto.

now Uncharted 1 came out November '07 and this is October '09, Now depending on how long it took the publisher to decide to say "hey let's another one" Now online it is stated that they worked on it for 18 months, but there are several stages they have to go through, Concept and pre-production is hell and that's just the preparatory work, story boards, Game design doc, Technical design doc, getting together the Producers, Directors for Design, Technical, Art, and Audio. Audio Engineers, Coders, Animators, etc. Assets such as Software, Media. Insurance for all the above, Licensing for all the above, Budgeting for all the above. And somewhere in that mess, is Story and script, voice acting, cinematics, music and effects and blah blah blah.

So I'd say actual real work time once you got everyone hired, brought up to speed on their tools, remember new tools are always coming out so vets are constantly learning. So i would say real actual work time was about 12-14 months, and that is considered pretty fast Dev time for a game. Avg Dev time even with publisher schedules is usually double that, about 2 years, especially if your making a NEW game, meaning not just a sequel.

So a number of reasons could be for the fact they didn't do something like your suggesting. Time limitation, technology limitation (Game engine), priority (Scheduling), Funding limitation, or they flat just didn't think of it. Or any combination of the above listed.

You have to keep in mind anything you add, has to be checked with both the art and programming sides to ensure everything is going to plan, as well as QA ensuring it works, and again it could also be people in QA saying, "People are not going to see that." or something to that effect.

Also, the "the designers have full environmental controls and can do these things if they want." is not entirely accurate, now days a lot of middle ware engines, such as physics and environments are licensed out, and while a lot of the tool kits have a lot of options they may or may not have EXACTLY what your looking for they should have about 90%+ of what your looking for. this is where the technology limitation reason may come into play. the only way to have 100% control over everything would be to write your own engine completely, including physics, environ, interaction and game engines. Now back in the day of Pac-Man this was not a problem. (" Alright, 4-directions, Dude"). But in today's games, we are talking millions of lines of code and other assets. What is truly amazing to me about video games today is that they come out at all! :) and that they come out with in 2 years of the idea being thought up.

Nitpicking a little bit is okay, but don't let it ruin your experience, its a game to be enjoyed and have fun, that's the whole meaning of its function. So let's be kind to the good people at Naughty Dog and all those other game companies, they work hard! :P

sorry if i seem to drag on their for a bit but it takes alot to say about what goes into making a game.

PS. I got the new Ratchet and Clank Future game and it is fun as hell.

-AgentExeider

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fiskblack
2009-10-30 06:41 pm UTC (link)
What do you mean "be kind?" I just said this was the best 2009 game I've played.

I've just seen this one feature on so many movies and games that it's smacking of thoughtlessness, by now. Like they don't even ask someone who knows anything remotely close to firearms and combat. When I said "full environmental controls", what I mean is, they can settle for a more realistic and noticeable warning system for the presence of snipers. They can exaggerate *real* warnings people look for when they're confronted with snipers, like glint, missed shots, or hell, even an accompanying character saying "watch out, snipers!" I seriously don't think would invoke a licensing decision regarding an outsourced physics engine.

Let's keep this on the subject at hand, please.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]agentexeider
2009-10-31 02:19 am UTC (link)
well I was being general as to why certain issues may arise, just trying to cover all my basis. and Again there are several valid reason why they use the sweeping laser vs some alternative. Time and Priority crunch, they didn't have time to do anything with it, and it was low on the list, if it was even on the list. Another is possible balance reasons, How these snipers work with other types of enemies. (IE, while your messing around with shorter range enemies, these guys can shoot you in the back with little to no warning, Player might miss the warning.) Depending on the balance change no lasers would be, it might be relegated to a higher difficulty level or soemthing. You have to make the game challenging but not insanely difficult when you play on NORMAL or whatever the equivalent is in your game. Another reason is they didn't think of it, and/or were focusing on something else.

Ultimately it comes down to the question, Does the snipers having, not having lasers present enough of a problem that it needs to be dealt with? Yes/No. Does it occur enough to be game breaking or otherwise annoying by either the majority or a fledgling minority? Yes/No. If Yes, then it is an issue and needs to be added to the list

Do we have enough time, energy, money, resources, etc to be able to resolve the issue in the time allotted? Yes/No

Now as far as personal opinion, yeah, i totally agree that they could do that, and would be interesting to see what new "detection" system they come up with. but again this would be something that is on the list of minor feature.

-AgentExeider


ps. Thinking about it for a bit, the fact that your seeing it in games alot makes me think that it might be a part of a AI tool kit as a piece of standard code. Not trying to make an excuse or anything, just commenting on why you might be seeing it regularly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]fiskblack
2009-10-31 08:03 am UTC (link)
Well, to make it easy, they might as well put a target reticle on every enemy soldier. If that's the issue.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]naylorfan90
2009-10-29 07:41 pm UTC (link)
Hey, if they are going to bend the rules for some things, why not others? What would be the point of such ridiculously realistic environments, if the people in them aren't as realistic? Besides, not every tom, dick and harry has ever held a sniper rifle in real life, but that doesn't keep them from kicking ass with them in a game. And what do you think people thought about the first open-world game? Change happens to games, and players either adapt to them or quit, so changing the way to detect snipers isn't that big a problem.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]faeriian
2009-11-07 03:00 pm UTC (link)
if people are ignorant of such things as to look for that glint, the devs could easily pause the game and point it out like they did when you first got grenades

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Lasers
[info]naylorfan90
2009-10-29 07:35 pm UTC (link)
Silly indeed. I mean, who the hell would give their STEALTH soldiers a bright red line leading back to them!? If I remember correctly, Killzone2 didn't do that, so there's a game you might like to try out. It also logically uses the most annoying of all videogame weapons: the flamethrower.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Lasers
[info]agentexeider
2009-10-31 02:27 am UTC (link)
Flamethrowers are bad ass, you have to know how to use them right, but they are bad ass, they appeal to the pyro in everybody. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Lasers
[info]naylorfan90
2009-10-31 03:41 am UTC (link)
I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear with what I meant in regards to flamethrowers. I meant that in Killzone2 they work in a more realistic fashion than most videogame 'throwers do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Lasers
[info]dontbannme
2009-10-31 11:46 pm UTC (link)
hmm... i think shellshock nam '67 has a pretty realistic flamethrower system, but cod WAW got it ok, and so did operation flashpoint

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Read my mind.
[info]dcrew
2009-10-30 04:14 am UTC (link)
Just yesterday, I was wondering what the odds were of seeing the new kids as adults and lo and behold, here's Abigail as one. Hope a fly doesn't get in there.

(Reply to this)


[info]grizzly47
2009-10-30 04:24 am UTC (link)
I love the imagination of Abigail. Either she's daydreaming.. or she was watching "The Fly."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dcrew
2009-11-02 02:45 pm UTC (link)
After seeing today's comic, it looks like both.

And if she did watch the remake of The Fly, that girl's got some guts. Coming from a horror movie lover, the remake was one of the most creepy movies I ever saw.

At least until I saw The Devil's Tomb.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

David Hedison's Fly or Jeff Goldblum's Fly?
[info]grizzly47
2009-11-06 06:17 pm UTC (link)
"Help Meeeeee. Pleeeessseeeee Help Meeeeeee...."


Well my suspicions were right... it was Goldblum's version of "THE FLY" that she watched (Much more creepy than David Hedison's 1958 original with Vincent Price).


Big question though.... What kind of arguments going to develop between Janie and Abby when Abby wants her Mac back?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: David Hedison's Fly or Jeff Goldblum's Fly?
[info]dcrew
2009-11-07 01:32 am UTC (link)
More than likely, she'll realize Abigail wasn't in her right mind when she did it and just give it back to her.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Abigail
[info]naylorfan90
2009-10-30 12:58 pm UTC (link)
Strange...she reminds me of a Better Days character in design, but I can't figure out which...

(Reply to this)

Abigail
[info]remmus64
2009-10-30 02:58 pm UTC (link)
he he I love the new strip with Abigail, especially the touch with her being adult but she still uses the vocabulary of a child "no peekies" just adorable. Wonder what the other kids have for adult dreams? :3

(Reply to this)

.
[info]dontbannme
2009-10-31 04:42 am UTC (link)
i agree, traditional hunting cross-hairs can be a lot more reliable than reflex sights so long as they are illuminated

(Reply to this)


[info]misswoof
2009-11-01 03:07 am UTC (link)
When I was a kid I always imagined myself being an adventurer and I would climb around on our tiny little playground set and would just imagine I'm climbing through trees and things and they had this large garden and stuff so I'd run around and pretend I'm attacking stuff. All the things you imagine as a kid makes childhood a great memorable time.
I noticed someone made a comment about Bonk not updating. I was going to ask you myself, but I didn't want to seem nosy, lol. I hope he starts updating again. I would love to see more of his work.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]agentexeider
2009-11-02 10:15 am UTC (link)
i remember making a robot or iron man suit or something, using cardboard boxes and spare dryer ducting. eventually i changed out to plastic boxes becuase the cardboard kept breaking. I wish i had a picture of it, pretty good for a 10 year old. And they say arts and crafts are useless. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]grizzly47
2009-11-02 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Did the same thing as a kid.

Built forts from the couch cushions; Used cardboard boxes to make spaceships (I'm an early NASA kid so it came with the territory of early flights); Used junk in the yard as castles, and had mock battles...


God I miss being a kid at times.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Abigail and Her Tooth
[info]naylorfan90
2009-11-02 01:32 pm UTC (link)
I hereby declare Abigail's reaction to losing a tooth to be the greatest reaction, by anyone, from any webcomic, to anything, ever. Who is with me?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Abigail and Her Tooth
[info]dcrew
2009-11-02 02:46 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I think her reaction is due to her thinking what happened in The Fly is happening to her than to the tooth itself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Abigail and Her Tooth
[info]naylorfan90
2009-11-02 04:03 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry, I didn't phrase my declaration correctly. That is what I meant. :) Thanks for correcting me! But do you agree, is that the greatest reaction ever?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Abigail and Her Tooth
[info]dcrew
2009-11-02 04:12 pm UTC (link)
Hmm, I can't really say since I haven't read many other online comics outside of this one. It was funny though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Abigail and Her Tooth
[info]eng050599
2009-11-02 05:14 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, The Fly is not the kind of movie I'd associate with a six year old. I forsee some night terrors in the future...at least when she allows herself to sleep.

Great lead up to the punch-line Jay.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Abigail and Her Tooth
[info]grizzly47
2009-11-06 04:30 am UTC (link)
I agree....


.... I wonder if that string of stuff is blood? (GASP) Could Abby be someone who faints at the sight of blood?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Abigail and Her Tooth
[info]naylorfan90
2009-11-06 04:46 am UTC (link)
Hm, that's a possibility. Good idea!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]autumnbear_1
2009-11-04 10:50 am UTC (link)
Abigail looks like a Saiyan from Dragonball with her long spiky hair! >_<

(Reply to this)

Red riding hood 2
[info]marmist88
2009-11-07 09:07 pm UTC (link)
Astonishing, really. The preparing pages were many, but then the sex scenes were worth the wait. I was fearing no blowjob was involved, but you did it too.
And as a final masterpiece, Pablo becoming a woman ! THAT WAS THE MOST EXCITING SCENE I saw in a long time and I can't wait too see what the wolves are gonna do to him in the next chapter ! Another win !

(Reply to this)

Sister Bonding...
[info]grizzly47
2009-11-09 05:09 am UTC (link)
Awh.. That's so cute!

Jay, this was a really sweet entry today.

(Reply to this)

Uncharted 2 co-op
[info]eagleofnone
2009-11-10 03:34 pm UTC (link)
Sorry to break it to you Jay; Uncharted's co-op only works online between two PS3s. But like everyone else I think that the sniper sights could be upgraded. However I kind of get the feeling that not knowing where the snipers are might dampen the action of the game itself. Like everything else in Uncharted 2, the snipers need to be as susceptible by gunfire as any other henchman type, so elevating their level of threat to the player would ultimately become counterproductive.

(Reply to this)


(39 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…