I'm in Europe, so the prices might be a bit higher here. Honestly i havnt checked the PC prices lately, but i'd assume that it is somehwere around $1500 for what i want. But maybe it is lower for all that i know. I would need a new monitor as well since the old one i have is a 19" CRT Time to upgrade to a LCD one.
My current specs are AMD64 3500+ 2.2GHz, GeForce 6800GT and 1GB RAM. In other words, pretty old stuff I would need pretty much everything new. Only thing i could reuse is probably the harddrive, soundcard and mouse/keyboard.
EDIT: Oh, and the cabinet itself as well, that is a Tower, so i have good enough room. I would probably need a new PSU for it though. The one i have now is probably 500 or 600 watt or something i think.
Don't want to keep posting more because we're getting a bit off topic. But check out the link, there's plenty of info even in the first page if you want to get started.
Actually, that's for the last 2011 thread. Here is the new one.
Don't want to keep posting more because we're getting a bit off topic. But check out the link, there's plenty of info even in the first page if you want to get started.
Actually, that's for the last 2011 thread. Here is the new one.
I've briefly seen this thread now and then in the thread list, but never really checked much into it. I checked a bit on it now and maybe the prices are a bit cheaper than i first though. I'd probably check around when i find the right time for to upgrade, thanks for the link and tip!
Uncharted 1 and 2 are two of my favourite games of all-time, but trying to claim it's revolutionary is a bit of a stretch. It's a great benchmark for console games to aspire to in terms of production values, but I think that's about as revolutionary as it gets.
The retarded PC stuff didn't help this thread, either.
Uncharted 1 and 2 are two of my favourite games of all-time, but trying to claim it's revolutionary is a bit of a stretch. It's a great benchmark for console games to aspire to in terms of production values, but I think that's about as revolutionary as it gets.
The retarded PC stuff didn't help this thread, either.
Do you mean the most recent posts about the PC stuff? If so, that was just a friendly discussion as far as i saw it. I didnt read every post in this thread, so maybe you're referring to some other posts that i didnt see though.
Just thought that the 90% of pcs are weaker than the PS3 argument is probably true. Just keep in mind that most of the pcs are somewhere at our moms/grandmother house, and are very low tech.Also think of all the netbooks and laptops. Now if he had said weaker than 90% of all gaming pcs it would have been obliviously a different deal.
and the somewhat obligatory "why don't you love my crysis?" and "WTF, MW2 best pc game?!?!" felt very pc elitist to me
I see what you are saying, and you are right about the PC's. But Pacter was talking about gaming PC's, in a discussion about gaming. Not business PC's or Grandma's windows 95 email PC. Also stating that it costs exorberant amounts of money for a gaming PC.
And in general saying MW2 has better graphics than Crysis(even at medium settings) or that it was more original that Uncharted 2 is just false on the former and bit of a stretch for the latter.
And I LOVED Modern Warfare 2. (SP)
More on topic though, I don't really think UC2 was Revolutionary as much as Evolutionary. One of the best games I have played, but I think an evolutionary step is more like it.
When I think of revolutionary I think of Mario 64, Wolfenstein, Morrowind, Halo 2 multi, etc.
I love the Uncharted series for what it is but if you consider something that's spectacle over substance as revolutionary, I think you're mad.
UC 1 and 2 are cool for what they are but if you stripped away all the shiny graphics, they're very shallow from a mechanics standpoint. I'd much rather games move toward being more systemic and emergent.
There are games out there with more impressive voice acting, more engaging/intriguing characters, better stories and better "performances". Uncharted does these things well, but I really don't see it as above other things out there.
It doesn't pull me into its world in the same way as say a Shock game.
So we need to be in control when the characters are talking about things? Cutscenes still have the advantage here because they can be skipped. Interactive dialogue sequences ala Half-Life 2 are a complete drag during repeat playthroughs.
So we need to be in control when the characters are talking about things? Cutscenes still have the advantage here because they can be skipped. Interactive dialogue sequences ala Half-Life 2 are a complete drag during repeat playthroughs.
I'm getting old, and what I say is in disagreement with 99% of neogaf on this topic, but,
I've seen it all and couldn't care less anymore about 'story' or 'acting' or developers trying to be directors (like the epic fucking fail Hideo Kojima has become).
What I want is for companies to put me back in the action as quickly as possible with a minimum of interruption. I wanted to buy a game, not a movie. Put your energy into multiplayer, creating community, and meta gaming and shit like that instead. In fact, if you eliminate cutscenes altogether and tell the story through items picked up along the way and actual in-game stuff I'm much more impressed.
We tend to look at cutscenes as a way for developers to enhance a title but I'm starting to view it as developers taking the easy way out.
The other thing I find annoying is that I'm constantly playing someone else. Nice immersion. Why the fuck would I want to be Nathan Drake? How about Tokyo Rain the plunderer? I realize it's important to your story, dialog, and cutscenes that there be a single character to address by name but eh if you want to impress me let me create my own hero and have him appear in cutscenes ala Halo Reach.
That being said I absolutely loved the Uncharted games' gameplay. It's just that replication of the 'movie' formula across so many titles is becoming really boring and I don't care to see the market flooded with these kind of games.
Next up, accepting a quest in a JRPG and talking to 150+ people in a town before setting off on adventure.
There are games out there with more impressive voice acting, more engaging/intriguing characters, better stories and better "performances". Uncharted does these things well, but I really don't see it as above other things out there.
It doesn't pull me into its world in the same way as say a Shock game.
Half Life 2 doesn't count because those are still cutscenes. I'm talking games where the player creates a story instead of being told one. Some games do it, not a lot. Plenty of games say they do that but are liars. It's really the best way for the medium to progress forward IMO
Strongly disagree. Without regulation or control or interaction from an outside creative force what's the story that's going to be told?
In an RPG I was weak but then I spent a bunch of my time and became insanely wealthy, insanely powerful, the end? That's hardly a compelling storyline(also, this is basically the level of storyline that the player is involved in in most RPGs, so, blah to RPG storylines for the most part). The fundamental problem is that it divorces the experiences of the player from any sort of arc, any sort of unifying force that takes the disparate events of a life and turn them into a story.
I believe what would be ultimately churned out, in a universe of ultimate freedom, is power fantasies to the exclusion of all else. Already that's the majority of gaming, molded as it is by the will of it's audience. The problem being is that I doubt there are many/any players out there who well and truly believe in the game worlds they play in. The actions the players take in these games are divorced of any consequence that could actually be, well, consequential and as such it is very easy to just wind up Power Trippin' Yo!
So there are a couple of questions. Can players ever come to truly believe in the games they play and if so how? I believe that short of a true holodeck situation it will prove impossible for players to believe in these worlds and as such they will behave in manners not conducive to story-telling or creating an experience.
The next question would be, does this inherently prevent games from being art? I don't believe so, but I think it might be folly to look to cinematic and narrative forms as ways of producing an emotional reaction. Already when playing a game, a shooter, an RPG, the action is removed from the character motivation within the narrative and more closely associated with the player motivation. That is the player plays to play, to engage in the gunplay, or other notable mechanics of the game, the why of the character doesn't really enter into it. Therein by styling and varying these sequences with intent I think it could be possible to interact more directly with players and hopefully find ways to create a meaningful reaction in them.
I think the Shock games have better voice acting, more engaging/intriguing characters and better stories. I think Ninja Theory games and LA Noire have better "performances". Then there are things like music and art direction, and a lot of games interest me more than Uncharted in those areas.
I found Uncharted enjoyable in the same way I find standard action/adventure movies enjoyable. Entertaining, but not really impactful beyond that. It really comes down to personal preference.
I've always found the Uncharted games a lot like, say, the Indiana Jones series. That is to say, hugely enjoyable, a fun ride, lots of great performances, tight script, etc. And that is also to say - not revolutionary in the slightest.
Then again, I always felt like KoTOR was the first game that I really felt like what the OP was talking about (tangible performances, solid script, compelling characters, etc.) so that's just my two cents.
No reason to limit the kinds of stories that can be told in a video game. Some stories just can't work with an ICO kind of narrative. There will always be a place for cutscenes and non-interactive elements of storytelling.
After wading through this whole thread after I finally refreshed GAF, it's like so many responses didn't read the first line in the OP, and only the subject line.
The assertation here was:
I have no problem with asserting that the Uncharted series has revolutionized video game cinematics--and more importantly, acting.
And I had to read through a ton of gameplay this, characters that, graphics, narrative, etc. All valid points, but not what the OP was asking. Anyway, now that I have the rant out of the way.
Obviously I'm biased to begin with, but I wholly believe regardless of what you think about the final output, the process and the pipeline that the team here built for the uncharted games -- the roundtable rehreasals, the close collaboration between scriptwriter, mocap director and actors, doing mocap with the voice actors, capturing voice at the same time as mocap (and thus avoiding the ADR session issues with quality and intensity of performance), were unique when they were established. It's a process that is seeing more and more pick up by other studios as the quality of the story/performance needs to get better - but at one time, it was tv/movies and us with that kind of process.
That doesn't mean to say that is the only or that is the "right" process, but I think it clearly gave people another idea as to what is possible. Even Ninja Theory agrees with that process and, from what everyone here has told me since I wasn't here at the beginning - we were the first ones to adopt this performance capture ideal.
I think the Shock games have better voice acting, more engaging/intriguing characters and better stories. I think Ninja Theory games and LA Noire have better "performances". Then there are things like music and art direction, and a lot of games interest me more than Uncharted in those areas.
I found Uncharted enjoyable in the same way I find standard action/adventure movies enjoyable. Entertaining, but not really impactful beyond that. It really comes down to personal preference.
After wading through this whole thread after I finally refreshed GAF, it's like so many responses didn't read the first line in the OP, and only the subject line.
The assertation here was:
And I had to read through a ton of gameplay this, characters that, graphics, narrative, etc. All valid points, but not what the OP was asking. Anyway, now that I have the rant out of the way.
Obviously I'm biased to begin with, but I wholly believe regardless of what you think about the final output, the process and the pipeline that the team here built for the uncharted games -- the roundtable rehreasals, the close collaboration between scriptwriter, mocap director and actors, doing mocap with the voice actors, capturing voice at the same time as mocap (and thus avoiding the ADR session issues with quality and intensity of performance), were unique when they were established. It's a process that is seeing more and more pick up by other studios as the quality of the story/performance needs to get better - but at one time, it was tv/movies and us with that kind of process.
That doesn't mean to say that is the only or that is the "right" process, but I think it clearly gave people another idea as to what is possible. Even Ninja Theory agrees with that process and, from what everyone here has told me since I wasn't here at the beginning - we were the first ones to adopt this performance capture ideal.
Honestly? I enjoyed the gameplay in Uncharted 1 & 2, but to me, watching the cut-scenes, all the dialogue and even the script was like watching a boring TNT afternoon movie. It bored the hell outta me.
Very few characters that I really, really liked (like Chloe and Sullivan)
UC 1 and 2 are cool for what they are but if you stripped away all the shiny graphics, they're very shallow from a mechanics standpoint. I'd much rather games move toward being more systemic and emergent.
Agreed. And the problem with scripted games like CoD or Uncharted becoming popular is that we move further and further away from something that could actually be revolutionary. It's such a shame that developers are so obsessed with cutscenes and scripting - obsessed with mimicing Hollywood - instead of using the medium in a way a movie couldn't. Not that cutscenes aren't worthwhile and couldn't be a purpose in and of themselves. They could, but it would require a little more ambition than just copying Indiana Jones or other movies.
As such Uncharted is as far from revolutionary as can be. It's a typical blockbuster like Gears of War, Call of Duty or other games of that ilk. They are as predictable as Monday following Sunday. Not that they aren't well produced...
But for something revolutionary look for games that do things for the first time - introducing checkpoints, scrolling instead of static screens, creating Z-targeting to work around problems arising due to 3D interaction etc - or perhaps tries to use gaming as a medium in a new and interesting way. When TGC talks about how one of the major underlying themes in Journey is how people communicate, when the means of expression is limited and what will evolve from those circumstances, that sounds like something that might genuinely break new ground. Obviously it's too early to call it revolutionary at this point, but at least the concept sounds different, which is a start.
You could probably nominate Uncharted the series of the generation... they are really good games, but to me it feels like summer blockbuster movies: there's a lot of flash, there's a lot of action, but I just get bored with the lack of atmosphere.
I'm not saying one can't enjoy games like this. But to make a comparison, I get more enticed by watching Shutter Island than watching, say, Transformer 2, and I get more involved playing Catherine than playing Call of Duty.
Agreed -- and to my point, they were doing performance capture to get their voices + mocap to ensure the animation and voice matched up properly (although not always with all the actors in the same room since their tech wouldn't permit that).
You're talking about tech and not performance. Good performance is a combination of good writing and actual execution on stage.
Are you telling me Aaron Staton going "what have we got?", then squint, purse lips, "YOU KILLED HER YOU LYING BITCH! I SHOULD SHOVE MY GUN UP YOUR ASS RIGHT NOW!", "wait I take that back", "that's all for now", repeated ad nauseum is "pretty great"?
The TECH is impressive because it basically records the face, the performances themselves aren't that great unless we're focusing only on the facial capture, the physical performances are actually quite wooden.
Strongly disagree. Without regulation or control or interaction from an outside creative force what's the story that's going to be told?
In an RPG I was weak but then I spent a bunch of my time and became insanely wealthy, insanely powerful, the end? That's hardly a compelling storyline(also, this is basically the level of storyline that the player is involved in in most RPGs, so, blah to RPG storylines for the most part). The fundamental problem is that it divorces the experiences of the player from any sort of arc, any sort of unifying force that takes the disparate events of a life and turn them into a story.
I believe what would be ultimately churned out, in a universe of ultimate freedom, is power fantasies to the exclusion of all else. Already that's the majority of gaming, molded as it is by the will of it's audience. The problem being is that I doubt there are many/any players out there who well and truly believe in the game worlds they play in. The actions the players take in these games are divorced of any consequence that could actually be, well, consequential and as such it is very easy to just wind up Power Trippin' Yo!
So there are a couple of questions. Can players ever come to truly believe in the games they play and if so how? I believe that short of a true holodeck situation it will prove impossible for players to believe in these worlds and as such they will behave in manners not conducive to story-telling or creating an experience.
The next question would be, does this inherently prevent games from being art? I don't believe so, but I think it might be folly to look to cinematic and narrative forms as ways of producing an emotional reaction. Already when playing a game, a shooter, an RPG, the action is removed from the character motivation within the narrative and more closely associated with the player motivation. That is the player plays to play, to engage in the gunplay, or other notable mechanics of the game, the why of the character doesn't really enter into it. Therein by styling and varying these sequences with intent I think it could be possible to interact more directly with players and hopefully find ways to create a meaningful reaction in them.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't want to get rid of authorial control. What I do believe is that the reach of the author ends where the player's decision making capabilities begins. I also believe that any moment in which the player has no control over their avatar's decisions is wasted.
As for a lack of these qualities preventing a game from being art, of course not. But it is art that is completely missing the point of the medium it's chosen which prevents it from being considered of a high artistic quality (read: not the same as completely bad in every way!!!) similar to the way a film suddenly popping up a black screen with text saying AND THEN BIG CHIEF THROWS THE WATER FOUNTAIN THROUGH THE WINDOW AND MAKES HIS ESCAPE FROM THE INSTITUTION
I've already said it wasn't revolutionary, but a super polished, refined experience that accomplished what ND was attempting. It has some of the best voice acting and characterization in any game. Saying one game is "better" due to being able to go wherever you want is just something I don't agree with.
No reason to limit the kinds of stories that can be told in a video game. Some stories just can't work with an ICO kind of narrative. There will always be a place for cutscenes and non-interactive elements of storytelling.
I just think each medium should play to its strengths. Like how a novel can contain many underlying threads and layered meaning in words and metaphor and how film can cross cut to promote a thematic effect.
Here is a list of what I would call good storytelling in games:
CoD4
nuke crawl
MGS4
microwave crawl
MGS3
Russian roulette, shooting the boss
Bioshock
would you kindly
braid
final level reverse
bastion
carrying zulf
streets of rage
pvp final boss
Each one might not be a complete thought in itself, but it uses the strength of the medium (that is, interactivity), to great effect in order to enhance and further either the plot or the thematic spine of each game.
I think each one is also representative of the type of powerful moments that are attainable when exposition is thrown to the wayside. Don't tell a player how to feel or what to feel, but make them actually experience an emotion through something, through a change in action or tone that is reflected in gameplay.
I'm not saying that if a game doesn't do these things, that it automatically becomes bad. Like I would say James Joyce's "The Dead" is a better story than Harry Potter, more subtle and mature, but I still love Harry Potter for its charm and world building. I don't think every game needs to be the "Citizen Kane" of the medium, I'm not arguing high art here, but maybe a basic artistic value that seems lacking in mainstream titles today.
I am also a big supporter of what used to be called emergent gameplay, and I love having actual significant input in the course of a story (as in The Witcher 2).
I'm not one of the people arguing that Valve are master storytellers, though I do believe they at least try. What they did with Portal 2 was fantastic, since even during expository sequence the player was kept moving forward. HL2 had a lot of standing around and waiting, and trust me I'll complain about that just as soon as anyone else.
I was talking down on exposition a lot earlier, but I don't think that UC1 or 2 are necessarily good examples of failed exposition. They are presented well, and no they don't have the greatest scripts in the world but they're far more than serviceable. They're good adaptations of an Indiana Jones adventure/spelunking flick, with likeable characters in exciting situations. My basic problem with the UC series (and "problem" might even be the wrong word, "observation" could work better), is that they still rob the player of control by breaking up gameplay through cutscenes, and there is a separation of story from gameplay by having Nate be some kind of indestructible superhuman, mowing down entire legions of men to get what he wants. It lacks the consistency to make it a truly good story. That's no different than the vast majority of games out there, but I'm not trying to single out UC specifically and wag my finger at it. I'm just responding to the prompt in the OP.
An example of bad game exposition I'd say would be the first Mass Effect. There were moments in that game where you literally scrolled through text screens instead of playing or watching anything, negating all purpose behind the idea of "video game." And there are also late-game info dumps, unprompted and unwarranted, that do nothing at all except the base function of moving the plot forward. Some people can forgive that, but I don't. I think it's amateurishly poor storytelling.
There's always the argument that games are games and shouldn't need to tell a story, and I agree with that. But when they try to be something more, why don't they do a better job at it? It could be the terminology that's the problem, with the idea of "game" being hard to shrug off after years of use (like posters earlier in the thread laughing off the term "interactive cinematic experience"). A game denotes something very specific, and story isn't necessarily a part of that. But I see something else rising out of that, something that's broken the surface a few times here and there, and I don't know if it'll ever be accepted or taken seriously while still thought of as a plaything.
The Xtortionist said:
So we need to be in control when the characters are talking about things? Cutscenes still have the advantage here because they can be skipped. Interactive dialogue sequences ala Half-Life 2 are a complete drag during repeat playthroughs.
Yes, that's exactly the thing I am against. Straight expository dialogue sequences are little better than cutscenes. They achieve the same purpose, and I think they are both largely unnecessary if a game succeeds in dynamically telling its story through other mechanics.
I tend to think that uncharted fails to make good use of the videogame medium to tell a story. The fact that so much is done through static cutscenes, where as a game like half life 2 has several moments where you can run about during the moments does a much more revolutionary job of using the medium.
Cod4 had some amazing moments, the sniper crawl, the nuke, even no russian, all moments I think do an amazing job of using the medium even though I dislike the story.
Even halo 3 had some interesting moments, particular when the flood transforms infront of you, and when the gravemind slow. To me story telling needs to be persistant and I don't get that as much from uncharted as I do other games.
The Uncharted series is the best new IP to come out of this gen for me. And Uncharted 2 thus far is the pinnacle. It's just that the game does just about everything to AAA levels, which is a rarity. If Uncharted 3 is Uncharted 2 with a better MP experience, then I'll need some new boxer-briefs. It's story and the acting of the scenes is untouchable by most games.
Sorta-OT, but I really do hope that Uncharted 4 is a PS4 launch title. Don't shelve the Uncharted franchise or pass it to another dev next gen Naughty Dog!
I tend to think that uncharted fails to make good use of the videogame medium to tell a story. The fact that so much is done through static cutscenes, where as a game like half life 2 has several moments where you can run about during the moments does a much more revolutionary job of using the medium.
Cod4 had some amazing moments, the sniper crawl, the nuke, even no russian, all moments I think do an amazing job of using the medium even though I dislike the story.
Even halo 3 had some interesting moments, particular when the flood transforms infront of you, and when the gravemind slow. To me story telling needs to be persistant and I don't get that as much from uncharted as I do other games.
Have you played Uncharted? The majority of story and dialogue is done through the gameplay, in fact very little of it is done in the cutscenes compared to other products out there
I feel the same way as the OP. Uncharted 2 was the most cinematic game experience I've had where I still felt like I was playing a fully interactive game. The game is the 'tightest' gameplay experience I've ever had I think, where start to finish, it was just such a tightly, well made, and thoroughly made game. While I've liked some games more -- Fallout 3, Half-Life 2, GTA:SA, and many others -- Uncharted 2 felt more well made than the other games, like there were no points in the game where I felt like something was overlook.
Oh.
Well, except for the storyline 60% of the way through the game. But let's just forget about that.
I have no problem with asserting that the Uncharted series has revolutionized video game cinematics--and more importantly, acting. I can't think of another game or series (besides L.A. Noire) where I feel like I'm watching actors PERFORM. When an Uncharted cinematic comes on, I don't get that instinctive feeling of, "Cool video game cutscene time!" I become engrossed with it not unlike a movie or TV scene. Not only that, but this is the first series where I feel like I care who's doing the voice-work and the motion capture performances. I associate Nolan North, Emily Rose, Claudia Black, and Richard McGonagle with their respective characters in a way I haven't encountered in other games. Sure, I know David Hayter does Snake, but in a different, more "video game fact" kind of way. Even still, the Metal Gear Solid series doesn't hold a candle to Uncharted's level of writing, voice acting, and, like I mentioned before, ACTOR PERFORMANCES.
Have you ever played the Yakuza games? They pulled this off last gen, especially with the second one (in English) because the voice work wasn't destroyed in localization.
I have no problem with asserting that the Uncharted series has revolutionized video game cinematics--and more importantly, acting. I can't think of another game or series (besides L.A. Noire) where I feel like I'm watching actors PERFORM. When an Uncharted cinematic comes on, I don't get that instinctive feeling of, "Cool video game cutscene time!" I become engrossed with it not unlike a movie or TV scene. Not only that, but this is the first series where I feel like I care who's doing the voice-work and the motion capture performances. I associate Nolan North, Emily Rose, Claudia Black, and Richard McGonagle with their respective characters in a way I haven't encountered in other games. Sure, I know David Hayter does Snake, but in a different, more "video game fact" kind of way. Even still, the Metal Gear Solid series doesn't hold a candle to Uncharted's level of writing, voice acting, and, like I mentioned before, ACTOR PERFORMANCES.
Do you see this as becoming a trend for the next generation? Will video game advertisements feature "Starring..." bullets? You can see the influence the Uncharted series has had on many video games. Hell, take a look at Killzone 3; the majority of its dialogue and character banter--although pretty atrocious for the most part and lacking any real personality--is still reminiscent of something from Uncharted. Of course, no other games compare, in my opinion, which makes me wonder what is Naughty Dog doing that other developers can't seem to emulate?
lol i'm curious to see your list of top rated movies...
although its a great game uncharted's writing and acting was more cheesy than jerry's fav snack...and that blonde chick had such a fucking annoying voice. i literally muted the sound when she spoke.
Poimandres said:
A blatant lie?
I think the Shock games have better voice acting, more engaging/intriguing characters and better stories. I think Ninja Theory games and LA Noire have better "performances". Then there are things like music and art direction, and a lot of games interest me more than Uncharted in those areas.
I found Uncharted enjoyable in the same way I find standard action/adventure movies enjoyable. Entertaining, but not really impactful beyond that. It really comes down to personal preference.
I love the story so much... But I wish there was more of an epilogue.. a more meaty ending like in a jRPG.
They have very "lighthearted hollywood fare" endings with Drake and Elena sharing a chuckle or whatever, but I'd love just a HINT more drama/importance.
Yes, that's exactly the thing I am against. Straight expository dialogue sequences are little better than cutscenes. They achieve the same purpose, and I think they are both largely unnecessary if a game succeeds in dynamically telling its story through other mechanics.
UC2 had it's share of playable storytelling moments (climbing the train/hobbling through the wreckage, using the torch in the Borneo ruins, carrying Jeff, exploring the village, mountaineering with Tenzin), but expecting zero exposition in a story of it's scope is being a bit unfair to the game I think. A lack of exposition works in games like Portal 2 and Demon's Souls because their stories aren't heavily emphasized; they don't drive the gameplay. Though I don't think it's good or bad, just different. UC2 has countless playable moments that would be cutscenes in many other games, and what cutscenes there are are generally short and to the point, well-directed, and well-acted. I don't think they could have done it any better.
Uncharted 1 and 2 are two of my favourite games of all-time, but trying to claim it's revolutionary is a bit of a stretch. It's a great benchmark for console games to aspire to in terms of production values, but I think that's about as revolutionary as it gets.
The retarded PC stuff didn't help this thread, either.
Yep, this. Calling Uncharted 2 "revolutionary" simply because it has great motion-capture is nearing GTAIV levels of hyperbolic praise. Uncharted 2 was a "jack-of-all-trades" kind of game, it didn't do anything new or make any attempts to reinvent the wheel, but it refined the genre (action-platformer) to a spit-shined level of quality.
Although I will argue to the ends of the Earth that UC2's gunplay was, at best, the definition of average. My enjoyment of the game came from the traversal and puzzle-solving mechanics, but the combat was simply aggravating at times. Also, I still feel the
blue snow mutants near the end
were the narrative equivalent of aliens in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The "Okay....you had me up until now..." sort of moment.
That one was not great. It was "more" than Uncharted 2... but I wouldn't say it was "better".
I only say jRPG because they are videogames that generally have meaty endings.. but I might as well compare it to most movies.
I just want to feel emotions for the characters, and get pumped for the next installment. As it is, it's kind of like "well that's over. share a laugh. [fade to black]" It ends way too abruptly. A real ending would push Uncharted games over the top.
Time to upgrade to a LCD one.
