@excast: The difference is in CoD you play the role of a soldier, Nathan Drake is supposed to be this kind of fun-loving, unserious everyman. Also the death toll is orders of magnitude higher in Uncharted than it is in Indiana Jones. To be fair most action games/movies fall into similar traps, you won't see many action movies held up as some of the greatest films of all time.
It's just weird that for a series ostensibly supposed to be a fun joyride thing, you're actually playing a cold-blooded killer mowing down hundreds along the way for trinkets. They've locked themselves into this narrative hole in the first game, have since tried to address it since then (Nathan Drake being more than what he seems and all), but haven't quite succeeded.
I do really like the series, it lost me in 3 and while this new one does look good nothing about it screams to me "yo you need to play this now."
(managed to make the argument of without using the ridiculous term ludonarrative dissonance once; that phrase is eyeroll-worthy)
I find it kinda weird that it's such a glowing review, 5/5, and yet doesn't address any of the problems Uncharted has had up till this point which 4 still hasn't addressed. Like "oh this is an Indiana Jones that goes and guns down hundreds of people without a thought." I read the Jim Sterling review which did address it, and his review did also address the fact that, yes, that and all the other narrative complaints which we've had in prior Uncharted games are still present here.
That's not saying it can't be still a great game, but I do find it odd that such criticisms didn't impact Dan's enjoyment, or his criticism of the game itself.
@df-1: That's exactly his point, this was never meant or marketed to be more than a very good remake of the original. The vibes I get from this review is that it's a very good game, but not quite a great game. It would need to dream a bit bigger. It's still tremendously impressive that they pulled off such a good game based on the original Ratchet in 2016, but needs something more to be truly awesome.
As to Skyrim, multiplayer would probably just feel outlandish in that game. However, there are totally ways that game could have been far better if the developers had taken more chances and dreamed bigger. The game was impressive from an immersion standpoint, they combined the graphics of Oblivion with a world that was far more distinctive with dungeons that actually felt somewhat unique. Additionally the way the systems were streamlined made it far easier for people who don't normally play RPG's to jump into the game.
That said, ask any hardcore TES fan who looks at those games critically and he'll tell you what ways it fell short of Morrowind, and he can possibly tell you newer, more innovative ways the game could have moved the genre forward. Off of the back of my head, the way the character customisation was toned down, and the fact that Morrowind just had way more shit crammed into every square inch of land that was also more interesting than Skyrim are two hard knocks to the latter.
Additionally, Dan pointing out that Ratchet doesn't try anything new is a good sign, especially from a guy who claims "Oh I'll play Mario and Zelda for till the day I die!" The end of that line of thinking is where the series becomes Pokemon: literally every game coming out is the same game just improved with more content.
I thought we'd moved past the old Gamespot era comments for reviews, on Giant Bomb at least? On some level I think people who are outraged at a 2/5 score either haven't played enough AAA shooters so that they aren't bored enough of them yet, or AAA shooters are ALL of what they play so they don't have something different to compare them to.
I feel like people are too used to the old scoring metrics where if the game looks pretty good, sounds pretty good, and is mostly competent, it would somehow add up to an 8/10, when it really deserved something more like a 5/10. There were so many incredibly mediocre or generic games back in the early-mid 2000's that got high scores just based on production values. Quantum Break getting a 2/5 shows that at least some reviewers have broken from that mindset and people being upset that a AAA that isn't completely broken like Unity, but didn't get a good score is mind-boggling.
It's another AAA shooter in a market crowded by them, except it's not as amazing as several other ones. Combine that with the more unique things like the TV bits not working out and you have a mediocre game.
And please let's not try and convert 2/5 into 4/10, if anyone actually believes that the two mean the same to people then they need a Psychology 101 class or a basic marketing class. And I find it rather hard to believe someone could actually believe that because why would you convert a 2/5 into a 4/10 in the first place? It's been over a DECADE now where we've known that people consider a 1-5/10 to be shit, which is precisely why GB chose to put in the 5 star system in the first place.
One is the PS4 isn't going to be able to "keep up with the PC;" it will at best be on par with mid-high PC's, more likely just medium PC's, for a year or two. Second, so far the only games I've really been able to make use out of the PS4 for have been the Last of Us Remastered (which I could've played on PS3 fwiw), and Bloodborne (which I ended up not caring for much).
If anything, this along with the Xbox news makes me pretty sure I'll be almost entirely a PC gamer in the future, as upgrading every couple of years for that rare gem I can't play on PC seems far less reasonable than the handful of games I can't play on PC.
Crazily enough whatever the NX is might be the best thing for "shit you can't play on PC" in the future.
Holy shit. @turboman for the love of all that is holy never stop making these, both the moments I watched and remember, and the ones I hadn't seen were fantastic
Belegorm's comments