Never understood this argument in uncharted. Nate only ever kills mercenaries and thugs.
Aka he only ever kills people whose sole job is killing people
The argument is that Nate kills thousands of people and it doesn't turn him into a misanthrope or anything, he just laughs about it like he kicked them in the balls or something. It's moronic, but that's the argument.
>Made in 3 years with a budget of 50M for PS4 >Looks and plays better than vast majority of games made today with almost half the budget and development time
What went wrong with modern developers?
Friendly reminder that everything after 4 is shit and the og trilogy is kino
Lost Legacy is better than 4. Better puzzles, better weapon variety, better pacing.
It isn't cause the bad guys are frequently personified as one dimensional psychos. Even in UC4 where they wanted the tone to be more grounded the mercenaries are pretty believable depictions of people the world is just better off without.
And to expand further on this, as a result of the sheer number of enemies that Nate ploughs through, the combat doesn't feel as lethal as it could. To paraphrase Yahtzee, he just absorbs bullets and then sucks his thumb behind a wall for a few seconds
And to expand further on this, as a result of the sheer number of enemies that Nate ploughs through, the combat doesn't feel as lethal as it could. To paraphrase Yahtzee, he just absorbs bullets and then sucks his thumb behind a wall for a few seconds
>complaining about a video game character killing enemies >complaining about a video game character healing illogically
holy fricking pseud. please just leave the board
>graphics more realistic than ever before >animations were never as smooth as now >areas were never as photorealistic as nowadays >but we should still be constrained by archaic game design solutions because... BECAUSE IT'S THE NOOOOOORM!
frick you
you are the reason why video games are dead
HH
3 months ago
Anonymous
jesus you're so tiring. yeah, video games are dead because you kill too many enemies in uncharted. how about you just have a nice day
He's killed hundreds of men, justified or not that's going to have some serious psychological effects. The fact that he's still a happy-go-lucky guy, cracking jokes all the time, makes no sense.
and there are soldiers who have plenty of confirmed kills and go on to live normal lives. >NO EVERY SOLDIER HAS PTSD AND REGRETS EVERYTHING AND JUST WANTS TO GIVE CHILDREN CANDY AND LOVE
It doesn't matter what the in-gameplay context for it is. The point of mentioning ludo-narrative dissonance isn't "There isn't an in-universe or gameplay justification for the things you do in the gameplay", it's that the NARRATIVE of the game doesn't square itself with that gameplay. If you had someone like Nathan Drake, or literally any other video game protagonist, who spent 90% of their time murdering hundreds, even thousands, of people (be they mercenaries, foreign militaries, criminals, thugs, whatever), that person wouldn't just be some random, nameless Jimmy Joe. They would be the single most prolific mass murderer in history, they would be regarded by anyone who knows them as a human apocalypse. Even the bad guys in the story would be like "Hey isn't that the guy who singlehandedly killed like 10,000 people last year?"
Sort of like in RDR2 where you're initially just a wanted bandit for doing some robbery before the game, and yet over the course of the gameplay you murder hundreds and hundreds of guys trying to escape the law, and yet the game only ever seems to care that you did that one robbery and not the countless massacres after it.
The gays who cry about ludo narrative dissonance think a black chick beating up two dudes at once was realistic. The term is bullshit and only used by brainlets.
ND are kings when it comes to performance. I think there's one time in the first 3 uncharted games where the FPS goes below 30, in 2 when this one building collapses.
All video games are fundamentally meditations on the difference between Battle and Scene. In Battle, Nathan kills thousands of goons. In Scene, he is virtuous. His crimes in Battle don't affect his virtues in Scene.
Genuinely curious, why do you prefer 3 over 2?
For me 2 and 3 are basically the same in terms of gameplay experience but 2 had the more interesting and fun scenarios so I prefer that one.
I preferred 2 as well. The story and pacing was tighter, with a better payoff. Tibet was a perfect setting too. Lots of variety in one place and some fantastic set pieces. Also the graphics, for 2009, were astounding.
That's the one thing I'll give to Naughty Dog, those guys fricking crushed it when it came to technological progression, I'm still amazed what they achieved with the original Uncharted trilogy, they absolutely mogged everyone else at the time. I don't like the direction they went with The Last of Us but they are absolutely incredible when it comes to technical achievements, in the same way that Rockstar are.
>I don't like the direction they went with The Last of Us
Reposting this from other thread.
Tbqh the first one is a solid 7/10 . I recently played it for the fist time and the amount of tool that you get made each encounter a fun challenge. The problem is that, because its focus is the story, it tend to fall into tropes like forced walking sections or having long stretches without doing much. At least the story was good.
Curiously enough, even if this game is basically the one that popularized "movie games", it isnt as egregious as modern ones.
I wish there was a campaign or a mode that is focused mostly on encounters and let the story on a second plain.
Also
Joel did nothing wrong
the fireflies deserved to get genocided
druckman deserves a lynching
Very sensible takes, anon
I'm one of those people that loves the original Last of Us purely for the gameplay, which I legitimately enjoy a lot, but dislike it for the story (which I view as a complete ripoff of a superior story like Children of Men), and since TLOU2 focused even harder on story I didn't bother playing it despite my brother shilling it hard. But I love Joel and he's the only character I like so no way in hell will I play a game where he is butchered for the sake of a soulless lesbian.
But that said, even at the worst points of The Last of Us, the gameplay is still really damn good, even with TLOU2. I just wish Naughty Dog would use their legitimate talent for third person action for something that isn't a disgusting awards-bait piece of cringe.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Based gameplay bro, for the longest time i thought that TLOU was only the definition of movie game but i was pleasantly surprised at how good was the gameplay in those encounters. The feeling of chaining kills with the shiv to end up getting discovered by one enemy so you unga bunga the rest of the enemies with an assortment of molotovs, and shotgun shells, surviving with a sliver of health is one of the best feelings.
I personally liked the story mainly for the relationship between ellie and Joel, both being very good characters. It's sad that both of them got fricked in the sequel.
>I just wish Naughty Dog would use their legitimate talent for third person action for something that isn't a disgusting awards-bait piece of cringe.
Forget about Naughty Dog, they are already dead
Maybe it is because while i was playing 2 it was a case of Git Gud, but i felt that the design of the arenas in 3 and 1 incentives using Drake's mobility to go and be personal with the enemies while 2 i found myself playing like another cover shooter too often.
Also I personally prefer the scenarios from three (except Colombia, it was annoying).
This only happens in 4, the original trilogy was intentionally moronic and cheesy enough that it didn't matter, it was like watching a cartoon, very reminiscent of Indiana Jones where the main character kills dozens of nazis and arabs.
4 pretends to be grounded in reality, everything is serious with the only exception being the impossible situations Nathan is able to survive. It not only clashes with it's own story and gameplay but also with all the previous games, it makes it extremely hard to believe that mutant zombies, immortality, blue supehuman and giant spiders existed (and probably still exist) in the same universe, even though U4 explicitly acknowledge all those events as canon.
4 was basically Naughty Dog trying to marry the style and gameplay of Uncharted with the realism and gameplay of The Last of Us, and frick me was it jarring and annoying.
It's so obvious in hindsight that Naughty Dog didn't care about making Uncharted 4 consistent with the original trilogy and wanted to make it new and modern and "updated".
Never understood this argument in uncharted. Nate only ever kills mercenaries and thugs.
Aka he only ever kills people whose sole job is killing people
Has anyone actually argued this about Uncharted?
It's definitely relevant for The Last of Us, but not for Uncharted.
The argument is that Nate kills thousands of people and it doesn't turn him into a misanthrope or anything, he just laughs about it like he kicked them in the balls or something. It's moronic, but that's the argument.
>Made in 3 years with a budget of 50M for PS4
>Looks and plays better than vast majority of games made today with almost half the budget and development time
What went wrong with modern developers?
Lost Legacy is better than 4. Better puzzles, better weapon variety, better pacing.
yeah, but he's also the jokey wisecracking nice guy, the body count is at odds with the tone
It isn't cause the bad guys are frequently personified as one dimensional psychos. Even in UC4 where they wanted the tone to be more grounded the mercenaries are pretty believable depictions of people the world is just better off without.
Such a pseud argument. The game is rated T. And what’s the alternative? Should he be a soulless no nonsense mercenary instead?
The tone would feel more consistent if he killed a fraction of the enemies that he does. There's too much combat as padding in all of the games
And to expand further on this, as a result of the sheer number of enemies that Nate ploughs through, the combat doesn't feel as lethal as it could. To paraphrase Yahtzee, he just absorbs bullets and then sucks his thumb behind a wall for a few seconds
iirc one of the devs not Druckman said that screen losing colour is not bullets hitting him but his luck ruining out.
He doesn't absorb bullets. The devs said the health is pretty much his luck running out. When it hits zero a shot actually lands
>complaining about a video game character killing enemies
>complaining about a video game character healing illogically
holy fricking pseud. please just leave the board
>graphics more realistic than ever before
>animations were never as smooth as now
>areas were never as photorealistic as nowadays
>but we should still be constrained by archaic game design solutions because... BECAUSE IT'S THE NOOOOOORM!
frick you
you are the reason why video games are dead
HH
jesus you're so tiring. yeah, video games are dead because you kill too many enemies in uncharted. how about you just have a nice day
frick you and die Wolfenstein sucks dick
I'm sorry you feel threatened by a simple discussion. Feel free to lurk more if you feel so insecure about participating.
it's clearly trying to emulate action movies, clearly you've noticed the similarities to stuff like indiana jones, right?
yeah, but Indiana Jones directly kills about 5 people across the entire saga
Who told you that?
at what magical number murder do you have to stop acting as a wiseass
I don't care about the number, just make it consistent with how the story and characters are presented
it's the same as indiana jones
>but theyd on't kill the exact same number of people
doesn't matter
you're telling me these are in any way comparable
So basically if i manage to get at least 10 drakes i can conquer a complete continent?
Neat
so, again, at what magical number do you stop acting like a wiseass? at 1000? at 3999?
see
it's emulating movies that aren't consistent either
He's killed hundreds of men, justified or not that's going to have some serious psychological effects. The fact that he's still a happy-go-lucky guy, cracking jokes all the time, makes no sense.
most of the crew that dropped the bomb on hiroshima later went on to not give a frick
They didn't shoot them directly though. They were just flying on a plane.
and there are soldiers who have plenty of confirmed kills and go on to live normal lives.
>NO EVERY SOLDIER HAS PTSD AND REGRETS EVERYTHING AND JUST WANTS TO GIVE CHILDREN CANDY AND LOVE
It doesn't matter what the in-gameplay context for it is. The point of mentioning ludo-narrative dissonance isn't "There isn't an in-universe or gameplay justification for the things you do in the gameplay", it's that the NARRATIVE of the game doesn't square itself with that gameplay. If you had someone like Nathan Drake, or literally any other video game protagonist, who spent 90% of their time murdering hundreds, even thousands, of people (be they mercenaries, foreign militaries, criminals, thugs, whatever), that person wouldn't just be some random, nameless Jimmy Joe. They would be the single most prolific mass murderer in history, they would be regarded by anyone who knows them as a human apocalypse. Even the bad guys in the story would be like "Hey isn't that the guy who singlehandedly killed like 10,000 people last year?"
Sort of like in RDR2 where you're initially just a wanted bandit for doing some robbery before the game, and yet over the course of the gameplay you murder hundreds and hundreds of guys trying to escape the law, and yet the game only ever seems to care that you did that one robbery and not the countless massacres after it.
>Dad how come you have a shotgun in that pic
>Well, your mother and i murdered a few thousand mercenaries
Lazarovic knew the score
?t=220
Friendly reminder that everything after 4 is shit and the og trilogy is kino
>missing out how CHAD Asav btfo Nadine
they really fricked up the ragdolls in 4. everything was just a canned animation and it looked really stiff and shitty
Uncharted ended with the third game, that's my head-canon and I don't care what anyone else says, it's true
The 4th one is the best one by a longshot lol
It's like with Gears, Ganker - Video Games hates good Gameplay
4 has amazing gameplay but holy shit is there too many cutscenes/slow-walking-disguised-cutscenes, and it takes itself too seriously.
>This movie is a better game than the ones that are actually games
Ok
Also it has a black woman
yuck
lol
lmao even
based
Only ever heard the term "ludonarrative" from trannies
The gays who cry about ludo narrative dissonance think a black chick beating up two dudes at once was realistic. The term is bullshit and only used by brainlets.
>SNORELINE
how do these games perform on the PS3? does the fps drop everywhere, or is it relatively stable?
ND are kings when it comes to performance. I think there's one time in the first 3 uncharted games where the FPS goes below 30, in 2 when this one building collapses.
All video games are fundamentally meditations on the difference between Battle and Scene. In Battle, Nathan kills thousands of goons. In Scene, he is virtuous. His crimes in Battle don't affect his virtues in Scene.
>All video games are fundamentally meditations
Hylic detected.
Only played recently the first three
For me
1>3>2
All were good.
Genuinely curious, why do you prefer 3 over 2?
For me 2 and 3 are basically the same in terms of gameplay experience but 2 had the more interesting and fun scenarios so I prefer that one.
I preferred 2 as well. The story and pacing was tighter, with a better payoff. Tibet was a perfect setting too. Lots of variety in one place and some fantastic set pieces. Also the graphics, for 2009, were astounding.
That's the one thing I'll give to Naughty Dog, those guys fricking crushed it when it came to technological progression, I'm still amazed what they achieved with the original Uncharted trilogy, they absolutely mogged everyone else at the time. I don't like the direction they went with The Last of Us but they are absolutely incredible when it comes to technical achievements, in the same way that Rockstar are.
>I don't like the direction they went with The Last of Us
Reposting this from other thread.
Tbqh the first one is a solid 7/10 . I recently played it for the fist time and the amount of tool that you get made each encounter a fun challenge. The problem is that, because its focus is the story, it tend to fall into tropes like forced walking sections or having long stretches without doing much. At least the story was good.
Curiously enough, even if this game is basically the one that popularized "movie games", it isnt as egregious as modern ones.
I wish there was a campaign or a mode that is focused mostly on encounters and let the story on a second plain.
Also
Joel did nothing wrong
the fireflies deserved to get genocided
druckman deserves a lynching
Very sensible takes, anon
I'm one of those people that loves the original Last of Us purely for the gameplay, which I legitimately enjoy a lot, but dislike it for the story (which I view as a complete ripoff of a superior story like Children of Men), and since TLOU2 focused even harder on story I didn't bother playing it despite my brother shilling it hard. But I love Joel and he's the only character I like so no way in hell will I play a game where he is butchered for the sake of a soulless lesbian.
But that said, even at the worst points of The Last of Us, the gameplay is still really damn good, even with TLOU2. I just wish Naughty Dog would use their legitimate talent for third person action for something that isn't a disgusting awards-bait piece of cringe.
Based gameplay bro, for the longest time i thought that TLOU was only the definition of movie game but i was pleasantly surprised at how good was the gameplay in those encounters. The feeling of chaining kills with the shiv to end up getting discovered by one enemy so you unga bunga the rest of the enemies with an assortment of molotovs, and shotgun shells, surviving with a sliver of health is one of the best feelings.
I personally liked the story mainly for the relationship between ellie and Joel, both being very good characters. It's sad that both of them got fricked in the sequel.
>I just wish Naughty Dog would use their legitimate talent for third person action for something that isn't a disgusting awards-bait piece of cringe.
Forget about Naughty Dog, they are already dead
Maybe it is because while i was playing 2 it was a case of Git Gud, but i felt that the design of the arenas in 3 and 1 incentives using Drake's mobility to go and be personal with the enemies while 2 i found myself playing like another cover shooter too often.
Also I personally prefer the scenarios from three (except Colombia, it was annoying).
This only happens in 4, the original trilogy was intentionally moronic and cheesy enough that it didn't matter, it was like watching a cartoon, very reminiscent of Indiana Jones where the main character kills dozens of nazis and arabs.
4 pretends to be grounded in reality, everything is serious with the only exception being the impossible situations Nathan is able to survive. It not only clashes with it's own story and gameplay but also with all the previous games, it makes it extremely hard to believe that mutant zombies, immortality, blue supehuman and giant spiders existed (and probably still exist) in the same universe, even though U4 explicitly acknowledge all those events as canon.
4 was basically Naughty Dog trying to marry the style and gameplay of Uncharted with the realism and gameplay of The Last of Us, and frick me was it jarring and annoying.
It's so obvious in hindsight that Naughty Dog didn't care about making Uncharted 4 consistent with the original trilogy and wanted to make it new and modern and "updated".