Quantcast
Uncharted 4: A Thief's End Review Thread - MC: 93 / GR: 92.70%

Forums - Sony Discussion - Uncharted 4: A Thief's End Review Thread - MC: 93 / GR: 92.70%

Tagged games:

Veknoid_Outcast said:
Boutros said:

I mean the gameplay is as good as it gets. Playing the multiplayer makes that obvious. The shooting mechanics are on point (unlike in Uncharted 3) and the climbing has been refined. Playing with the rope is super fun (again more obvious in multiplayer). The one thing I don't really like and feel is a step down is the cover system. I don't find it as responsive as previous entries. But apart from that I don't know how you could say the gameplay is not interesting. It's a third-person shooter after all. Also in singleplayer the driving is really well made. How many games motivates you to find a path with more grip because the ground is made of mud and is slippery? Maybe it's a detail to some but to me it stands out a lot from other games that have driving portions. Also the winch is a super interesting idea that if anything is under used in the game. The swimming is also fun and responsive. I mean I could go on but it's not true at all that Naughty Dog didn't invest time working on polishing the gameplay.

Whoa, whoa. I didn't write that Naughty Dog didn't invest any time developing the gameplay in Uncharted 4, or that it's uninteresting. I said that the gameplay is uneven and the production values are all-time great. If the gamplay was also all-time great, the game would be unstoppable.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Uncharted 4 a lot. But I think you'll agree that Naughty Dog invested as much time and resources crafting a story and creating an engine as it did inventing interesting gameplay scenarios. I mean, that's what people expect from Uncharted.

The problem here is that movies and video games demand different things, and they don't always make good bedfellows. Naughty Dog is probably the best in the industry at weaving the two media together, but even they can't negotiate the difference every time. When a sequence unfolds according to a rigid script, it takes away from the agency of the player, which diminishes the gameplay possibilities.

Now, in terms of mechanics, you're right. Uncharted 4 is great. Shooting, moving, and climbing is all much improved since Drake's Deception. But gameplay is more than just mechanics. It's about how the player interacts with and experiences those mechanics.

Well you said "If Naughty Dog spent the same energy crafting interesting and involving gameplay, the game would be unstoppable".

And what I'm saying is that they've done that at least within the realm of possibilities. What you seem more troubled by are pacing issues. The balance between gameplay sections and cutscenes/walking sections. That's another issue. What I responded to was what you quoted from his review ("If Uncharted 4 played even half as good as it looked, it would be a masterpiece…"). He's strictly talking about gameplay here. And I don't think it's true that the game plays less than half as good as it looked for the reasons I gave.



Around the Network
Boutros said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Whoa, whoa. I didn't write that Naughty Dog didn't invest any time developing the gameplay in Uncharted 4, or that it's uninteresting. I said that the gameplay is uneven and the production values are all-time great. If the gamplay was also all-time great, the game would be unstoppable.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Uncharted 4 a lot. But I think you'll agree that Naughty Dog invested as much time and resources crafting a story and creating an engine as it did inventing interesting gameplay scenarios. I mean, that's what people expect from Uncharted.

The problem here is that movies and video games demand different things, and they don't always make good bedfellows. Naughty Dog is probably the best in the industry at weaving the two media together, but even they can't negotiate the difference every time. When a sequence unfolds according to a rigid script, it takes away from the agency of the player, which diminishes the gameplay possibilities.

Now, in terms of mechanics, you're right. Uncharted 4 is great. Shooting, moving, and climbing is all much improved since Drake's Deception. But gameplay is more than just mechanics. It's about how the player interacts with and experiences those mechanics.

Well you said "If Naughty Dog spent the same energy crafting interesting and involving gameplay, the game would be unstoppable".

And what I'm saying is that they've done that at least within the realm of possibilities. What you seem more troubled by are pacing issues. The balance between gameplay sections and cutscenes/walking sections. That's another issue. What I responded to was what you quoted from his review ("If Uncharted 4 played even half as good as it looked, it would be a masterpiece…"). He's strictly talking about gameplay here. And I don't think it's true that the game plays less than half as good as it looked for the reasons I gave.

Well, I don't know about percentages. Remember, I said the author was unduly harsh. I agree with the overall message though, which is that Uncharted 4 is as much concerned with telling a story and looking good as it is with playing well.

I think we're still caught up on mechanics vs. gameplay. Because, for me, any section where we have control is a gameplay section. So any chapter where we're just walking forward and looking at stuff or any level where we're autoplatforming is technically gameplay. And those end up being boring. When all I need to do as a player is press forward or hit a button to trigger a quick-time event, I start to tune out - no matter the gorgeous graphics on display. 

The biggest problem here, again, is the marriage of cinema and video games. Video games are special because we as players are given control. We can interact with and change the game. In a way there are two narrators, the developer and the player. Gameplay emerges out of the dialogue between those two narrators. With movies, conversely, there is a single narrator. The movie is always the same, no matter how many times you watch it. So, by making concessions to movies, Naughty Dog paints itself into a gameplay corner. If you want players to experience events in a certain way, you need to guide them and manipulate them. You need to funnel them. And that's where gameplay suffers.



Veknoid_Outcast said:
Boutros said:

Well you said "If Naughty Dog spent the same energy crafting interesting and involving gameplay, the game would be unstoppable".

And what I'm saying is that they've done that at least within the realm of possibilities. What you seem more troubled by are pacing issues. The balance between gameplay sections and cutscenes/walking sections. That's another issue. What I responded to was what you quoted from his review ("If Uncharted 4 played even half as good as it looked, it would be a masterpiece…"). He's strictly talking about gameplay here. And I don't think it's true that the game plays less than half as good as it looked for the reasons I gave.

Well, I don't know about percentages. Remember, I said the author was unduly harsh. I agree with the overall message though, which is that Uncharted 4 is as much concerned with telling a story and looking good as it is with playing well.

I think we're still caught up on mechanics vs. gameplay. Because, for me, any section where we have control is a gameplay section. So any chapter where we're just walking forward and looking at stuff or any level where we're autoplatforming is technically gameplay. And those end up being boring. When all I need to do as a player is press forward or hit a button to trigger a quick-time event, I start to tune out - no matter the gorgeous graphics on display. 

The biggest problem here, again, is the marriage of cinema and video games. Video games are special because we as players are given control. We can interact with and change the game. In a way there are two narrators, the developer and the player. Gameplay emerges out of the dialogue between those two narrators. With movies, conversely, there is a single narrator. The movie is always the same, no matter how many times you watch it. So, by making concessions to movies, Naughty Dog paints itself into a gameplay corner. If you want players to experience events in a certain way, you need to guide them and manipulate them. You need to funnel them. And that's where gameplay suffers.

They scaled down a lot on cutscenes in favor of those walking moments with dialogues. So I don't really see them as gameplay sections. I see them as cutscenes with added interaction lol



100 from Playstation Official Magazine Australia
50 from GameCritics



BraLoD said:
100 from Playstation Official Magazine Australia
50 from GameCritics

how many reviews left i know i ask the same Question a lot lol  sorry 



Around the Network
princevenom said:
BraLoD said:
100 from Playstation Official Magazine Australia
50 from GameCritics

how many reviews left i know i ask the same Question a lot lol  sorry 

I thought they would have stopped already, lol.
But we should still have Quarter to Three review, bumping it down to 92 after this 50.



i told you guys, the 92 drop is inevitable, to many late hipsters joining the party, sad to see some guys defending them even here...



Metacritic weights critics whereas I don't think Gamerankings does. So the 5 from the random critic probably won't have that significant an effect to the Metascore.

In any case, I am okay with Uncharted 4 having a slightly lower score, even if I certainly don't agree with giving the game a 5. While the game was very, very good, I still always feel like it was a bit of a let down after The Last of Us. That's not even a knock on the game itself -- more of a testament to how phenomenal and unforgettable TLOU was.



kyprime said:
i told you guys, the 92 drop is inevitable, to many late hipsters joining the party, sad to see some guys defending them even here...

It's not even 92 yet, nor do we even know if it's going down to 92. The 50 pushed it down just a tad but the 100 pushed it back up a tad as well. Do we even know if Q23 is even going to give the game a negative score?



117 pages ? I was sure nobody cares about metacritic.