Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
PlayStation 3
| Genre: | Action | ||
| Developer: | Naughty Dog | Official Site: | http://www.naughtydog.com |
| Publisher: | Sony | ||
| Release Date: | 4th November 2011 |
Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
| Genre: | Action |
| Developer: | Naughty Dog |
| Official Site: | http://www.naughtydog... |
| Publisher: | Sony |
| Release Date: | 4th November 2011 |
Uncharted 3 Review
Review By butters @ 09:48am 26/10/11
If you were being cynical you could say that Uncharted 3 is a misnomer. In fact a lot is charted; you navigate through levels by climbing up walls, jumping from ledges and swinging from chandeliers. You also solve puzzles and fight bad guys as you and a familiar cast of characters follow the clues from one exotic location to another. In other words it's just like Uncharted 2. It's just as well then that along with that familiar formula returns the amazing visuals, stunning backdrops, perfectly executed story and perhaps the best voice-acting in a video game. It would be delusional to say that the gameplay feels refined and that Naughty Dog have tweaked and smoothed out areas of weakness from Uncharted 2. The truth is it feels much the same as its predecessor, but you have to ask yourself "is that a problem?" The answer, emphatically, is no.
Rarely will you feel so loathe to rush through a game as when you play Uncharted 3. Whether it's London, a secluded french chateau, or an ancient medieval castle the visuals are both outstanding technically and flat out breathtaking. But you can do a lot more than stand on rooftops and admire the intricately crafted scenery and the impeccable recreation of your immediate surrounds. Naughty Dog have also used their visual prowess to bring many of the puzzles to life. From the small details of symbols carved into stone to sweeping statements of grandeur that adds to the sense that, as Nathan Drake, you really are chasing something spectacular.
Such impressive visual execution combines perfectly with fantastic voice acting and character animation. You may have seen the TV ad where the gamer's girlfriend keeps thinking he's watching a movie, but it really is that polished. While in most games characters stand like statues when silent or perform repetitive movements, in Uncharted 3 characters move with distinct realism and intent that matches either their role or their dialogue. The soundtrack adds another layer to the games appeal, perfectly matched to the moment and never overstated, it is another feather in the cap of the games technical achievement.
With the visual impact of the game so forceful it's a shame that there are one or two things to nitpick in the gameplay. Most of the gameplay involves climbing, running and jumping and in that respect it's solid, but if you're a fan of the uncharted series there has to come a time when you get a bit tired of the the scripted near-falls and slips and begin to see them as intrusive when they come a little too often. Having said that, several chapters come and go before Drake's Deception breaks out of its mold. A number of chapters follow the formula of explore, solve, get screwed by the bad guys and escape, a formula that is a bit contrived and irksome. It's not until this mold is broken that you get to really experience what a great game Drake's Deception is with its great balance of gameplay styles and puzzles that are creatively designed to mix it up enough to stop it from being repetitive, boring and frustrating.
Naughty Dog did miss out on improving in the weakest area of the Uncharted series, the shooting mechanics. Of course it's not meant to play like Gears of War but it still feels artificial and a little hollow. What is a minor shortcoming however, is compounded by unrealistic reactions of the oft-impervious NPCs. Too many times headshots do nothing while a clean shot to the back at close range is more likely to result in the intended victim turning around as if you hit him with a pellet gun. Armoured enemies are particularly egregious as multiple headshots might knock their beanie off, but they keep on coming. For Uncharted it's best to accept this arcade-style escapade early and apply bullets quite liberally when required ,as ammo and various weapons are plentiful.
There are other times of course when gunplay is not required and you resort to good ol' fisticuffs. It's a rather simple mechanics as you can attack, counter and throw your opponent and while it's not perfect it's very solid. The counter system can degenerate into frantic button pressing but the combat system cleverly integrates the environment as countering near an empty bottle will have it smashed over their head or Drake might face-plant them into a nearby wall. But given the volume of enemies you fight hand to hand is usually not an option, unless it is scripted into the game.
It's not fair to say that Uncharted 3 is a mixed bag of good and bad, it's a bag of amazingly good sprinkled with some aspects that could be improved. But playing through Drake's Deception there are times when you wonder if Naughty Dog are taking the mickey out of you. Partly it's the disbelief that the bad guys manage to follow you to hidden location after hidden location regardless of how you traversed the secret passages. Partly it's that they always turn up in perfectly tailored suits and polished shoes. Of course, scripted falls also make an appearance in the disbelief category as falling debris consistently fails to alert, well anyone, despite the fact that you're trying to be stealthy. But the icing on the cake has to be your dramatic escape from a burning building as you're confronted by wave after wave of henchman lying in wait. Waiting in a burning building; that's collapsing; and on fire. Really? It's a strange outcome for a game so carefully crafted that such inconsistencies appear at all.
Drake's Deception is driven -- like previous Uncharted games -- by the compelling and flawlessly executed story which is matched perfectly by the stunning visuals. Without doubt it's at the pinnacle of storytelling in video games. The puzzle solving is also a boon, intricate in detail with enough leeway to let you do all the thinking. It's a little disappointing then, that the shooting mechanics have the same shortcomings as Uncharted 2 and that it takes too long to get going. It's as though an opportunity has been missed to combine a game that entertains so well with one that plays flawlessly. Yet be that as it may the end result for Uncharted 3 is plenty good enough.
Rarely will you feel so loathe to rush through a game as when you play Uncharted 3. Whether it's London, a secluded french chateau, or an ancient medieval castle the visuals are both outstanding technically and flat out breathtaking. But you can do a lot more than stand on rooftops and admire the intricately crafted scenery and the impeccable recreation of your immediate surrounds. Naughty Dog have also used their visual prowess to bring many of the puzzles to life. From the small details of symbols carved into stone to sweeping statements of grandeur that adds to the sense that, as Nathan Drake, you really are chasing something spectacular.
Such impressive visual execution combines perfectly with fantastic voice acting and character animation. You may have seen the TV ad where the gamer's girlfriend keeps thinking he's watching a movie, but it really is that polished. While in most games characters stand like statues when silent or perform repetitive movements, in Uncharted 3 characters move with distinct realism and intent that matches either their role or their dialogue. The soundtrack adds another layer to the games appeal, perfectly matched to the moment and never overstated, it is another feather in the cap of the games technical achievement.
With the visual impact of the game so forceful it's a shame that there are one or two things to nitpick in the gameplay. Most of the gameplay involves climbing, running and jumping and in that respect it's solid, but if you're a fan of the uncharted series there has to come a time when you get a bit tired of the the scripted near-falls and slips and begin to see them as intrusive when they come a little too often. Having said that, several chapters come and go before Drake's Deception breaks out of its mold. A number of chapters follow the formula of explore, solve, get screwed by the bad guys and escape, a formula that is a bit contrived and irksome. It's not until this mold is broken that you get to really experience what a great game Drake's Deception is with its great balance of gameplay styles and puzzles that are creatively designed to mix it up enough to stop it from being repetitive, boring and frustrating.
Naughty Dog did miss out on improving in the weakest area of the Uncharted series, the shooting mechanics. Of course it's not meant to play like Gears of War but it still feels artificial and a little hollow. What is a minor shortcoming however, is compounded by unrealistic reactions of the oft-impervious NPCs. Too many times headshots do nothing while a clean shot to the back at close range is more likely to result in the intended victim turning around as if you hit him with a pellet gun. Armoured enemies are particularly egregious as multiple headshots might knock their beanie off, but they keep on coming. For Uncharted it's best to accept this arcade-style escapade early and apply bullets quite liberally when required ,as ammo and various weapons are plentiful.
There are other times of course when gunplay is not required and you resort to good ol' fisticuffs. It's a rather simple mechanics as you can attack, counter and throw your opponent and while it's not perfect it's very solid. The counter system can degenerate into frantic button pressing but the combat system cleverly integrates the environment as countering near an empty bottle will have it smashed over their head or Drake might face-plant them into a nearby wall. But given the volume of enemies you fight hand to hand is usually not an option, unless it is scripted into the game.
It's not fair to say that Uncharted 3 is a mixed bag of good and bad, it's a bag of amazingly good sprinkled with some aspects that could be improved. But playing through Drake's Deception there are times when you wonder if Naughty Dog are taking the mickey out of you. Partly it's the disbelief that the bad guys manage to follow you to hidden location after hidden location regardless of how you traversed the secret passages. Partly it's that they always turn up in perfectly tailored suits and polished shoes. Of course, scripted falls also make an appearance in the disbelief category as falling debris consistently fails to alert, well anyone, despite the fact that you're trying to be stealthy. But the icing on the cake has to be your dramatic escape from a burning building as you're confronted by wave after wave of henchman lying in wait. Waiting in a burning building; that's collapsing; and on fire. Really? It's a strange outcome for a game so carefully crafted that such inconsistencies appear at all.
Drake's Deception is driven -- like previous Uncharted games -- by the compelling and flawlessly executed story which is matched perfectly by the stunning visuals. Without doubt it's at the pinnacle of storytelling in video games. The puzzle solving is also a boon, intricate in detail with enough leeway to let you do all the thinking. It's a little disappointing then, that the shooting mechanics have the same shortcomings as Uncharted 2 and that it takes too long to get going. It's as though an opportunity has been missed to combine a game that entertains so well with one that plays flawlessly. Yet be that as it may the end result for Uncharted 3 is plenty good enough.
|
What we liked
|
What we didn't like
|
More
|
We gave it:
9.3
OUT OF 10
|
Latest Comments
31 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 12:13pm 26/10/11
Posted 12:16pm 26/10/11
Posted 12:34pm 26/10/11
Posted 02:57pm 26/10/11
Bought a PS3 for Dark Souls, but I'm glad to see that there are still other reasons to have one!
Posted 03:48pm 26/10/11
Posted 04:10pm 26/10/11
"Too many times headshots do nothing while a clean shot to the back at close range is more likely to result in the intended victim turning around as if you hit him with a pellet gun. Armoured enemies are particularly egregious as multiple headshots might knock their beanie off, but they keep on coming."
Have you played uncharted before? Its always been like that. Mini bosses have helmets which need to be shot off before you can actually head shot them and if you're coming up from behind you'd be better off with a silent melee kill rather than shooting in the back of the head and/or back.
Its getting a 10 on other review sites.
Posted 04:30pm 26/10/11
I've seen the other scores, it takes too long to get into the awesome sections to be a 10.
Posted 04:44pm 26/10/11
Posted 04:48pm 26/10/11
Posted 05:07pm 26/10/11
since when are headshots mandatory for a good game?
Posted 05:21pm 26/10/11
I'm not convinced there is a quantifiable difference between 9.1, 9.3 and 9.7
Posted 06:17pm 26/10/11
And to reinforce the point that Outlaw made, there are still head shots, I was simply complaining that they're not an instant kill, even on unarmoured enemies. I like my head shots clean, like in Deus Ex.
Posted 06:38pm 26/10/11
i agree. in fact i believe there shouldn't be any scores at the end of reviews. the review should speak for itself.
last edited by ravn0s at 18:38:01 26/Oct/11
Posted 07:19pm 26/10/11
I can see the reasons behind it, but it seems more to do with marketing than having a metric to measure games. People are more likely to click on a review if they know it has a number, not to mention getting exposure on sites like metacritic.
There's a great piece by Patrick Klepek on Giant Bomb dealing with pretty much this exact issue.
Posted 08:13pm 26/10/11
The fact is, that sometimes bonuses in the industry are tied to a Metacritic rating, which is unfortunate.
David Jaffe had a great writeup on his thoughts of the Eurogamer score.
http://davidjaffe.biz/
Posted 08:45pm 26/10/11
So I've been wondering, how have movie reviews managed to fight this? 7-8 on imdb or rotten tomatoes (70-80% I guess) are basically the best movies that come out each year and the truly special few get 8-9 and then it leaves room for the movies of the decade/top 100 of all time type gems to receive a meaningful score.
At the end of the day, what the hell does 9.3 vs 9.8 mean ? Can a reviewer hope to be objective with so little wiggle room? Obviously reviews are largely subjective but with a clearly defined scoring system and real values that is minimised. At this point, 'the score' seems superfluous to a pro/con system and the body of a review yet it limps on regardless.
This is the absurdity at work. The 8 is the exception that proves the rule, its been widely criticised when it should be praised for being perhaps the best thought out critique and is given what is really a very good score under any sane scoring system. It's disingenuous to justify what amounts to caving under industry pressure, scoring between 9 and 10 (despite the reasonable content of the review) with what is in fact one of the few shining beacons remaining.
Posted 08:48pm 26/10/11
Posted 09:22pm 26/10/11
Posted 09:30pm 26/10/11
Posted 09:50pm 26/10/11
On the contrary, the quantifiable differences are 0.2 and 0.4 respectively. I understand that you probably meant qualitative difference though. :)
I agree, I don't know why everyone gets their panties in a bunch over whether a game got this score or that score.
An individual score is pretty meaningless, that's the sole reason why metacritic exists.
I'd be pretty annoyed if part of my compensation package was tied to something like a metacritic score if what Linker said is true as well - the direct control someone could exert on that metric is extremely limited.
Posted 09:54pm 26/10/11
Posted 09:26am 27/10/11
Rubbish Typically movie tie-ins etc.
Common Rubbish++ At least they had a good go. If your kids like the tie-in license then you will at least not want to hang yourself after playing it with them.
Decent Quality Indie games primarily, fun budget games, or tripe from major developers.
Good Decent but flawed somehow technically, could be promising with some patches. If you are a fanboy of the studio / series / genre you probably won't care and will enjoy the game.
Epic Pretty f*****g good all round. If you have the cash handy, buy this game, will appeal to new players unfamiliar with the studio / series / genre.
Gold Its gold, baby! Mortgage your house, sell the kids. If you do not get this title you will miss out, and you will regret it when people are talking about it as a classic in 5-10 years.
Posted 10:36pm 26/10/11
Posted 10:48pm 26/10/11
The first thing I arrive at is that, when you step back from the face-value similarities, they really are worlds apart. A film reviewer sits down for 2, 3 hours tops the knock out 600 words. I sat down with Battlefield 3 for three whole f*****g days, was completely absorbed in it and the write-up was over 3000 words.
My gestating hypothesis on why there's plenty of 1 and .5 star movie reviews and comparatively sod all 10 and 20% game reviews is firstly that almost every big budget game has at least some redeeming qualities -- you have hours worth of experience to find good nuggets of fun, compared to a 90 minute movie in which a weak start can sour the whole viewing -- and secondly, film review publications in general can review a much greater quantity of movies that an equivalent game site.
With AG and other sites our size (and really everyone until you get up to the IGN and Gamespot level), we don't review a great deal of games that have a good chance of sucking, because we're too busy trying to cover all the games that show actual promise (and that we're keen on playing ourselves) first.
A single film critic could feasibly review like 14 movies a week and do a decent job of it. If a single game reviewer tried to cover more than about 3 bigger games in a week-- maybe 4 tops -- I'd seriously question their ability to form a valid opinion on any one of them.
So I'm not saying that's 100% why things are how they are, but just something to think about next time someone starts waxing on that game reviews contain too much praise. imo film and games offer very different experiences and you can't just compare like for like.
Posted 11:12pm 26/10/11
I think a rating system or 5 point star system would be more informative, like what Hogfather suggested. The way it is now, there's so much clustering of AAA titles around the 9-10 mark, and the number system implies that "oh uncharted 3 is not as good as batman coz its 0.4 lower", which is just ridiculous.
Posted 12:42am 27/10/11
Thanks Professor :P
Posted 01:25am 27/10/11
The decimal number usage is a bit silly though. 9.5 is fine but 9.3/9.8? That's strange.
If you take this score, divide by 2 and round down you get 4.5. That's a damn good score out of 5. I don't think I've seen the SBS guy and girl give anything that was this good when reviewing a film!
Posted 09:29am 27/10/11
I like all of that but find that decimal final score is crazy. Maybe its designed to generated arguments on the forums?
All we really need to know is if the reviewer thinks its GOTY material, a very good game, s*** you will like if you're a series fanboy, or f*****g garbage to avoid. That's what you are really after from a review, isn't it?
Posted 09:48am 27/10/11
Posted 09:49am 27/10/11
I like 1up's way of scoring games where they just grade them, like A+ or B or C or whatever. Even though it still is a score, it seems to be a lot less contentious and easier to swallow than assigning a hard number to a game.
Posted 03:26pm 28/10/11
Uncharted 3 is like Mike Vick. Awesome to watch but at crucial times lacks the finesse needed to be considered perfect.
Although unlike Mike Vick there is no illegal dog fighting in Uncharted.