Is Uncharted 2 that good?

criminolelawyer:

While for me linear isn't always a bad thing either, in Bioshock all i really wanted to do was explore. The game could have been sooooo much better if they had let us explore the potentially deep (no pun intended) world the developers could have created.

I agree 100%. This was my entire beef with Bioshock. A unique and colorful world and instead of letting you explore it, they plop you on rails for a slideshow.

I-Weapon-X:

i for one can't stand the vast majority of sandbox games

That's because while they seemingly offer ultimate freedom, it's pretty much cosmetic because there really is no substance in GTA style games. There needs to be a balance between the sandbox and rollercoaster approaches to game design. Something like Zelda is perfect for an adventure game imo.

 

Yea game reviews lately don't appeal to me:

Negatives for Linearity (don't care)
Negatives for Game Length (don't care)
Negatives for lack of Originality (is it fun? Don't care)

 

I read reviews for only one purpose: to find out what's wrong with the game. I want to know about problems with the game before I encounter them myself.

Chambered:

Well, if you want to get into discussing the last few chapters, then yeah, I have some big issues with the direction they took the story. Almost anything would have been better.

My girlfriend was having a blast watching me play, because it felt so much like watching a movie. At least until they pulled an Indiana Jones 4 on us. I hope the sequel does better in that department, but we'll see what they do!

I know this is a common gripe with the game, but I didn't mind the turn in the storyline at all.

criminolelawyer:

you miss the point, i dont tout Modern Warfare as an innovative game, as so many do for your beloved Bioshock.  I also never said Call of duty was not linear, because it most certianly is.

Now calling MW repetitive is ridiculous and an argument you will lose, especially compared to Bioshock. In MW you have an assault on a tanker (complete with escape), a gunship level, the coolest sneaking level ever in an FPS, and for the hell of it i'll throw in the mile high club. Whereas in bioshock i can think of one other level that didn't look exactly like the first level.

As far as weapons are concerned, MW is forced to use weapons that exist in the realworld. This is not an issue for me as i prefer real guns to halo type weapons, but there is a variety there that can suit the individual player. In bioshock you have machine gun, shotgun, etc. and granted you can power these guns but they still remain underpowered and plain boring. When i mentioned weapons i was intentionally precluding the powers, because i do think that was one of the bright spots.

Finally as far as story goes, I would agree with you that COD4 was nothing special.......until the final level where for the first time in a long long long time i actually cared what happened to my character, and to my teammates. That doesn't directly go to storyline but it does say something about how immersed i was able to get in my character, and that for me goes in with story.

Bioshock's story simply comes across to ME as a great premise, with writers who had no idea where to take it in the end. It WAS predictable and i found myself not giving two sh*ts if my character lived or died, or anyone for that matter. The end seemed forced and the final boss was a cop-out, and i found myself severely disappointed when i finished the game.

That being said Bioshock was by no means a bad game, it was a good game that just gets way to much credit. Now before you try and tell my opinion is incorrect again, i want to emphasis it was ONLY my opinion. I do not think anyone that disagrees w/ me is an idiot or even wrong for that matter.  By the way hexpane i know you love to argue, WE ALL know you love to argue, but just let it slide at that. Your game is good, I think its not as good and no amount of arguing you do is going to change my opinion on this game. Sooo thanks in advance for reading this and lets get back on topic!

 

By the way i hope uncharted 2 is as good as the hype says.

edit - nevermind

ding ding ding

mrkekeru:

I'm going to have to ask for some examples, because while I don't think linearity is necessarily a death sentence for a game (it was Bioshock's biggest problem by far I'd have to say), I cannot think of a single great but linear game that couldn't have been made better by less linearity.

 

We're not looking at how a game "could have been made better"  we are talking about real games as they exist.   Of course any game could be "better" if they did "X, Y and Z".

GTA series? Open world, but completely linear story.  Finish Mission A to proceed to mission B and islands are locked in linear progression.

Elder Scrolls - all quests have 99% linear progression

Zelda - all zeldas are linear, even MM.  You need item/weapon/morph X to open dungeon Y

Bioshock - get plasmid X to open area Y

Back to the COD4 vs. Bioshock (both great games btw, I find it absurd that COD4 is "amazing" but Bioshock is "overhyped")

I also find it humorous that Biochocks "weapons are boring" but COD4's weapons are "realistic".  Is a shotgun not realistic?  Bioshock is set in an alternate "real world"  What type of weapon would you expect and what would make a weapon in a FPS set in a "real world" "exciting"?   Rocket launcher?  Needler?  Sling Shot?  Gravity Gun?

 

Hey if you don't like Bioshock, you don't like it.  But the facts are it stands out as a unique game, unlike anything else released that year and while it was not "100% new" (system shock, deus ex) it certainly stood out from the crowd that year, and beyond.

I-Weapon-X:

cheeznrice:

Very much my opinion of the first one and I thought Gears was a flaming turd on a disc, but at least it had the Hammer of Dawn.

 

 

never had so much fun killing myself

 

With that said, i really look forward to the single player and co-op aspects of the game but probably won't really deal with the multi from what i've seen in the beta

i think the multi is overrated. i did not know about co op might be worth a rent when i see some gameplay 

Hexpane:

We're not looking at how a game "could have been made better"  we are talking about real games as they exist.   Of course any game could be "better" if they did "X, Y and Z".

Have some imagination. Looking at a game's flaws and correcting them is how they get better

Hexpane:

GTA series? Open world, but completely linear story.  Finish Mission A to proceed to mission B and islands are locked in linear progression.

Elder Scrolls - all quests have 99% linear progression

Zelda - all zeldas are linear, even MM.  You need item/weapon/morph X to open dungeon Y

Bioshock - get plasmid X to open area Y

You completely missed the point, Yes those games are linear in their story progression, I just said I thought Zelda was well-balanced in that regard. What I mean is that Bioshock is also geographically linear, allowing for little deviation from the rigidly linear path. You may go to the fire temple/water temple/etc in that order in Zelda but you can fool around and explore as much as you want. There is none of that in Bioshock,. which means the well-designed setting is almost wasted.

mrkekeru:

 Have some imagination. Looking at a game's flaws and correcting them is how they get better

 Complaining that a game is "too linear" on a message board is not a way to "correct flaws".  And most game designers, reviewers, and gamers would agree that linearity is not a "flaw" it's a design choice, that 99% of games use.

Everyone can "imagine" a great game.  That is not hard.  So many message board people always list out ways game X could be better.  Anyone can do that.  The hard part is actually making a game that is playable.  Every kid or adult in the world can imagine a GTA game where every building had working doors and more NPCs inside.

Anyone can imagine a Bioshock game that was sandbox and had a huge open city.  Just like I can imagine Star Wars prequels that were not about medichlorians and a baby bowl cut vader.  Anyone can imagine a REturn of the Jedi with wookies instead of Ewoks.

Rating games on "could be better" criteria is something IGN reviewers like Greg Miller do.   It's a pointless activity that anyone off the street could do.

I judge games on what they are, not what they might be.  I prefer RPG style combat to "twitch" style.  But that doesnt mean COD4 is "overhyped" because it does not offer a combat mechanic I would prefer.  It's a FPS and I accept it for what it is.

mrkekeru:

You completely missed the point, Yes those games are linear in their story progression, I just said I thought Zelda was well-balanced in that regard. What I mean is that Bioshock is also geographically linear, allowing for little deviation from the rigidly linear path. You may go to the fire temple/water temple/etc in that order in Zelda but you can fool around and explore as much as you want. There is none of that in Bioshock,. which means the well-designed setting is almost wasted.

First of all, I don't know if you realize this but repeating the phrase "you completely missed the point" is a very condescending approach to a discussion.  I did not "miss the point" I actually stated my own point, that is 99% of games are  linear.

So not only did I not "miss the point" i backed up my point with facts, and other users have already agreed with my point that most games are linear, most great games are linear, and most "non linear" games are actually 90% linear.

Zelda is linear.   You can goof around on side quests.  Bioshock has no side quests, only objectives.  Bioshock is not a RPG, expecting it to have side quests is poor management of your expectations.

Side quests do not make a game non linear.  You can wander around in Bioshock just like you can in zelda.  You can go back to any area you want as long as it's not physically sealed off, just like zelda.

The  difference is no bushes to burn down  for gems.  Is the setting in Uncharted 1 wasted because there are no side quests?  What about Halo 1, Gears of War? Half Life?  Chrono Trigger? name any game.. they are all linear.

Even the most well known sandbox games like GTA and Saints row are linear.  With "non linear" side quests.  The story is 100% linear in both games. 

Same for Fallout 3, the story is linear, the quest modes are linear, even the expansion packs have linear presentation.

 

Hexpane:

And most game designers, reviewers, and gamers would agree that linearity is not a "flaw" it's a design choice, that 99% of games use.

Okay, then it is a poor design choice that should not be implemented as often.

Hexpane:

Everyone can "imagine" a great game.  That is not hard.  So many message board people always list out ways game X could be better.  Anyone can do that.  The hard part is actually making a game that is playable.  Every kid or adult in the world can imagine a GTA game where every building had working doors and more NPCs inside.

I realize that would be too unfeasible to make. I don't want a completely open real-life simulator, I just wanted a larger degree of freedom. Alternate paths, dead ends, whatever. I'm not asking for underwater morrowind.

Hexpane:

I judge games on what they are, not what they might be.

Okay. And my opinion of the Bioshock that was released, was that it was a decent shooter that was rather dull in some areas and interesting in others. And it could have been made better with some rather easy design decisions.

Hexpane:

First of all, I don't know if you realize this but repeating the phrase "you completely missed the point" is a very condescending approach to a discussion.  I did not "miss the point" I actually stated my own point, that is 99% of games are  linear.

Don't mean to talk down.

Hexpane:

Bioshock is not a RPG, expecting it to have side quests is poor management of your expectations.

It was heavily billed as an FPS/RPG as the successor to System Shock 2 before its release. Even if it did turn out a straight action game, I would have been satisfied if it delivered on that front, which in my opinion it didn't, but we're beyond that. Yes I realize most games are linear, and making a beat em up or action game non-linear would do nothing for the gameplay when it's the action you came for. I wanted to explore in Bioshock so I was disappointed

Hexpane:

Side quests do not make a game non linear.  You can wander around in Bioshock just like you can in zelda.  You can go back to any area you want as long as it's not physically sealed off, just like zelda.

.Quite. My concern was with the sheer two-dimensionality of it all though. Even Zelda has branches and such keeping it from being a completely straight path.And even if you don't believe it is less linear than Bioshock, I think the Zelda series, along with some of the others you mention, do a lot better at least pretending to have openness, whereas Bioshock just felt like a hallway lined with set pieces.

Hexpane:

Is the setting in Uncharted 1 wasted because there are no side quests?  What about Halo 1, Gears of War? Half Life?  Chrono Trigger? name any game.. they are all linear.

Well I'm not a fan of all those games, but I imagine they have their draws, and more importantly, Halo, HL, GoW are not supposedly FPS/RPG or as you put it FPA. They are straight action. If I knew Bioshock was a straight FPS I would not have played it. Perhaps I was foolish to expect anything better in this day and age but right after its release I couldn't stop hearing about it's rich 'immersive atmosphere' and such.

Hexpane:

Even the most well known sandbox games like GTA and Saints row are linear.  With "non linear" side quests.  The story is 100% linear in both games.

Same for Fallout 3, the story is linear, the quest modes are linear, even the expansion packs have linear presentation.

Well, that's how it works when things work on linear time. Like I said before, I'm not asking for completely different storyline paths, just a bit of geogrphic flexibility, or even the illusion of such. A detour, a secret path, whatever. Most games have chronological linearity. It would be near impossible to make a game otherwise satisfactorily. I don't have a problem with that. What I disliked about Bioshock was the spacial linearity. That is all.

ok. but like i said b4, its been out 2+ years.

i dunno if im pickin this up. i think its kinda overhyped. i didnt like uncharted 1 all that much. after i beat it, i was just kinda like, yea, i guess i played a pretty good game. nothing spectacular.

Watch the game in action.  Review is pretty much what I thought it would be... Nothing new but extremely well executed game.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-uncharted-2/57257

 

cheeznrice:

 

Very much my opinion of the first one and I thought Gears was a flaming turd on a disc

 

I hated uncharted and loved gears of war... Odd?