MrNeoshredder

@JoeyRavn:

I'm honestly not trying to troll. I was trying to explain my opinion and I think I did it in a way that seemed like I was just trolling.

@Oldirtybearon:

Couple things there. Skyrim's story was actually pretty well thought out and explained. Skyrim's controls clunky? How? Targeting reticule doesn't jump all over the place. Even thought I still don't think Skyrim deserves a 10/10 (cause it's streamlined as shit) it doesn't really have any of those issues.

@DespoticDave:

The thing is, Mass Effect was supposed to be an RPG mixed with a third person shooter, but in the second game, they dumbed down the already extremely simple RPG elements, instead of expanding them. I enjoyed those sections where you flew down to the planet and explored it in the land rover(or whatever the hell it's called), besides, it wasn't any more repetitive than scanning every inch of the planet and sending probes down like in the second game. I feel like they really don't focus enough on the RPG element, stop pushing that element out, I want it in there! Make it so you can talk to half of the random NPC's you meet along the way. It makes it an infinitely more enjoyable and immersive experience. I want to learn more about the Mass Effect universe first hand, from people that live in the world. You see, that's what games like Dragon Age miss, and what games like Skyrim have, you can't feel attached or immersed in a certain world unless you talk to people who live in that world. If this was their true vision, they're not taking it in the right direction. Keep it an RPG, don't streamline the damn RPG elements, expand upon them. You see, that's what I see is constantly wrong in the gaming industry today. If some aspect of a game is received poorly, they improve upon it in the completely wrong way. Lockpicking from Oblivion? Throw it out, just take the lockpicking system from Fallout 3 and use that in Skyrim. Again, referring to Oblivion. The difficulty too easy? Well, instead of developing a good and fair amount of challenge throughout, let's just make Fallout:New Vegas hard as shit, so if you take five steps out of the starter town, you get gang-raped by a pack of cazadors. Street Figher 4 rely too much on flash over skill and precision? That's cool, in this new update, we've added buttfuckingly overpowered special moves that you earn by getting your ass beat, that are even more overpowered than the special moves you earn from playing good. I just wish for once, a game developer would take everything wrong from their first game, and make it better in the second instead of making it worse or completely removing it, as Mass Effect 2 did by removing the already simple RPG elements.

@Hunkulese:

No. What I'm saying is, they keep reviewing Uncharted games as interactive movies instead of games. They seem to have forgotten the most important aspect of a game, the gameplay. The gameplay in Uncharted is nothing new, its not bad, but not exceptionally fantastic either, it's just "pretty good". Now if a game has a good story and set pieces but the gameplay takes a back seat to all that, how is that in anyway 10/10 material? The story and action set pieces in a game should NEVER be what a game relies on to make it a good one, but the gameplay should make it exceptional and the story and set pieces should compliment that. A game can exist without story or set pieces, a game cannot exist without gameplay. It's kind of like saying a movie cannot exist without a plot, but it CAN exist without special effects, the special effects just compliment the movie. Now, what these reviewers are doing, are putting "special effects" or the story and set pieces in this case in priority over the actual gameplay. It's just like how nearly every reviewer gave Mass Effect 2 near perfect scores, even thought they seemed to have overlooked the fact that the dumbing down, or "streamlining" of the RPG elements has turned Mass Effect 2 into much, much less of an RPG and more into a Gears Of War clone. Did they take this into account when rating the game? No. They just took the new story, which by the way amounted to all the characters overusing the word "suicide mission" way more times than necessary to provide a sense of impending doom, but really just ended up wearing out its welcome the tenth time you've heard "suicide mission" uttered by one of the characters. Anyway, they took this, and the voice acting, and the cinematic into account without even thinking about the dumbed down RPG elements and how it negatively affected the gameplay, and they gave it a 9/10. Well hot damn. If they keep this up, I can say without a doubt in my mind that Mass Effect 3 will turn out to be a Gears Of War clone in disguise. If I wanted to play Gears Of War, I'd just play Gears Of War. Same can said about any of the Uncharted's, if I wanted to play Tomb Raider, I'd just play Tomb Raider. Uncharted's base gameplay basically just takes a bunch of elements from other games and touches them up a little. Is that bad? No. Is the game fun? Yes. However, if it really doesn't do anything original or inventive with its gameplay, is it still worthy of a perfect score? Hell no!

@Hunkulese:

Excuse me for wanting a GAME reviewer to review a GAME not as an interactive movie, but as a GAME.

@Storms:

And? So what? Why does that need voice acting? Why not just save the voice acting for stuff other than randomly generated directions? Lots of RPGs do that.

@Hunkulese:

Well using action set pieces and pre rendered in game cinematic is what COD's campaign did. So I guess if you like looking at cool stuff instead of actually doing cool stuff, then Uncharted is for you. Sorry, that's the only way I can see it. Uncharted is so good because its more like a movie, and less like a game. I fail to see why we have the urge to keep trying to change games into movies. This is why I have such a problem with cut-scenes and cinematics, it takes you out of the experience, it makes you feel like you're watching a movie, if you want a truely immersive experience, story should be told through the gameplay only. It seems like every twenty to thirty minutes Drake is doing some pre-rendered animation to jump out of a plane or jump to a train or something like that instead of you controlling him to do so. This game is less game, and more like interactive movie to me. If you play the game solely for the story and set-pieces, I would consider that an interactive movie more than a game. If Uncharted only had the gameplay, the platforming and third person shooting, would it be as acclaimed as it is now? Oh, and lets not forget that ever-so lovely quick time even boss sequence. Yes! Of course! Why spend hours designing a challenging and fun final boss when we can just make a pre-rendered cinematic of Drake fighting him then put in timed button presses to make the player feel like he's doing something! Even as an interactive movie I would probably only give it an 8/10, it's full of pretty good, but forgettable lackluster action, and the story, while not perfect, is pretty well told. A professional game reviewer though, should rate this game, as a game, not an interactive movie. I would maybe give this, as a game, a 7/10, but not a 10/10, that's reserved for games that you remember for a lifetime, and let me tell you, when the next generation comes around, and the year is 2030, everybody is going to still remember Mario. Everybody is going to still remember Silent Hill. Everbody is still going to remember Doom. As games like Mario and Doom were remember for their fantastic and trend setting gameplay, Uncharted is only praised because of its graphical fidelity and amazing set pieces, and in 2030, unique and trend setting gameplay will be scarce, but I'll garrentee you, every game is going to have much better technology, graphics, and action set-pieces, and Drake will just be known as "That spiky haired Indiana Jones." In fact, the story of Uncharted itself is nearly ripped off from the Firefly series. Archaeologist, with the same spiky hair cut I might add, finds mysterious artifact. Check. Bad guys want the artifact for their own nefarious purposes. Check. Archaeologist, along with female associate and father, constantly keep escaping clutches of bad guys while hunting down the truth about this mysterious relic. Check. Supernatural events start happening. Check. It's all there, the story isn't even that original either.

@Landon:

Ehhh, not really. The only RPG out there that exceeds the pure scale of Daggerfall is that of WOW. Daggerfall still has one of the deepest conversation systems in any RPG, I've yet to see a modern RPG in which you can ask people for directions to any place in any town. Witcher 2 is an action RPG hybrid. Skyrim is streamlined from the other games, the class system removed, the alternate routes in dungeons cut out. And Final Fantasy 13, I don't really think I need to say anything about. I wouldn't consider Uncharted to be in 10/10 territory. It's platforming and combat are mediocre at best, the only thing that holds it together are its action set pieces and story, which are actually really good, but the point is, to be a 10/10 game, everything should be good.

@Hunkulese:

I'm comparing them because for its time, Daggerfall was revolutionary. Uncharted.....yeah, not so unique in the gameplay aspect.

@Hunkulese:

Well, for one Uncharted's core gameplay is mediocre if you disregard all the flashy set pieces and graphics. Even by modern standards I think it's mediocre. Second, 10/10 scores should only go to a truly revolutionary and greatly designed masterpieces. Think of what Uncharted's core gameplay would be like. Disregard anything that happens that isn't happening directly because of your actions be it the set pieces or cutscenes. That's the core gameplay. Now do you honestly think the core gameplay of Uncharted deserves a 10/10? Even with all those things, what do they add exactly? The set pieces add the illusion of it being exiting because the core game-play is nothing special? I think any game that not only uses its graphical fidelity as a main appeal and aspect of its experience, but also bases its success on it, doesn't deserve that success. That's basically how Avatar became the *ahem* "BEST MOVIE EVAR!" by using its visual appeal without focusing on what really makes a movie a movie: story. That's what they did, they used visual appeal and a (objectively) good story instead of focusing on what makes a 10/10 game, a 10/10 game: awesome and unique gameplay. The core gameplay is mediocre and not unique in any way. It basically just takes a third person shooter and combines it with Tomb Raider style parkour.