I'm kinda team chalice here...

For me, U1 added something fresh and new to gaming: charisma, charm, Hollywoodization, the use of dialogue to keep the narrative going. Not all completely new by any means, but working perfectly together.

U2 refined that. I still loved it. But it was already polishing the existing model.

U3 was too much for me. More polish, but I'd overdosed.

My worry is this looks like yet more polish again, but again no real invention. My hopes for it are: I've not played one for a while, it does look more open, so maybe slightly cleverer AI knocking about, and me needing to validate my purchase of my ps4. I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Less sure it'll be totes amazeballs. We'll see.

Heh EXTRAPOLATION IS ALWAYS LEGIT

I agree with that, fuck a QTE. I bet there's still a few in there though.

There's a 5 minute QTE per bullet.

g.man wrote:

seriously impressive g.man

4 has the same directors as 2, I think.

Liking those meatier gun sounds. Found the old ones were a bit on the tinny side, which could grate during longer play sessions.

The iterative process of game design does lead to a convoluted array of series' highs and lows. It's a perfectly solid approach, but it often leads to a current-day sense of diminishing returns, and when said game's retro years come into effect, it often finds itself between two poles: neither the fully-realised version, nor the origin.

I played so much of Tekken 2 that I wasn't as keen on Tekken 3. Ditto WipEout 2097 and WipEout 3: SE. But I played those later editions via emulation recently, and I found them both astoundingly good. Even if I didn't rate them, they both pushed the PS to its limits (WipEout 3: SE ran at a higher framerate and resolution than the vast majority of other PS games). A minute's menu-tinkering, and straight in; mayber two main menu options - choose a car/toon/ship, and off ya go.

It's hard to say how much of my faded interest was down to fatigue, since I was finding so many new forms to enjoy back then. What I'm trying to say - I think - is that, as franchises progress, 'good' ceases to be good enough. As a retro gamer, you might one day think 'Wow, this is such pure, refined gameplay; why did I overlook it?'. But in the here-and-now, I feel that most gamers desire definitive, differentiated experiences. If Uncharted 4 did something really ballsy - ditching most of its campaign's combat, say - it could once again stand as champion on its own podium.

But obviously, if people like 1-2-3 in A, you try for 1-2-3-4-5-6 in B. Those of us who tire early and leave are short-tailers. I fully expect to enjoy Uncharted 4's multiplayer, though. I love U2's 3D engine - the way it looks and feels, and especially the way that, via the vast peripheral vision of third-person, it heavily rewards forethought, patience and experience.

* * * * *

Apropos, I was sure that I'd already written a wee rant on Uncharted 3's maps, but it doesn't look like I have. I could write lots of things, but I'll focus on one map - Airstrip.

Airstrip's central hangar is a light to gaming moths. It houses every respawning power weapon, and also offers the most escape routes from pursuers. But since the map's design channels everyone inside, you lose the ability to guard yourself against randomness if you want to see regular action. Fringing the map is much, much wiser (especially if you make coordinated sweeps as a team), but Airstrip dictates a duller, slower game for playing that way.

Uncharted 2 has a late chapter called "Cat and Mouse", a title that perfectly describes the attraction of U2's stalker-based, tension-filled multiplayer. A scenario: you see an opponent who hasn't yet seen you, but save for a Dragon headshot, the distance is too great for a guaranteed kill. You can still engage, and you never know... but the smart thing to do is to use your knowledge of the map, alongside your experience of others' behaviours in it, and try to stalk them while remaining unseen. That could be by trying to get behind them, or trying to telegraph their route in order to ambush them.

In the case of the former, you have to be careful not to rush, because that means (on a well-designed map) making yourself more visible. If you feel that you can't catch up to them without risky play, it's best to predict their path and - if you've time - cover-hunt through the open areas in-between safe opportunities for runs.

The addition of a sprint button was easily Uncharted 3's worst mistake. Same scenario: you see an opponent who hasn't yet seen you; you herp-derp-sprint in their general direction; you then die to someone who's done the same thing to you. The Last of Us's main multiplayer-design problem is its staccato, craft-attack, craft-attack rhythm. But it also suffers badly from poor map design, for it's often impossible to get ahead of someone for an ambush. Its pathways are simply too long for the most part (which forces linear movement), with too few corridor-linking deviations.

Anyway, Uncharted 2's my favourite multishooter because of its heavy reliance on players' wits. Reactions can be critical, but only occasionally. Its best maps are designed to encourage weaving, octagonal lines of movement, with exposed central areas that have their own pros and cons, affording a slowish-paced game with lots of map-fringing and predictive stalking.

Brooks wrote:

Tomb-bloke's utter superhumanity is looking even more ridiculous now. AAA games are a mess.

But isn't this just the nature of this series?

This is The Mummy of video games. Granted, we have yet, I believe, to see something like The History of Violence in video games, but it doesn't invalidate the merits of over-the-top, action packed, entertainment.

So true. Uncharted 3 fell victim to this. It just becomes preposterous after an hour or two.

Either of what you mentioned in your last sentence really.

I'm all for preposterous set pieces, but when it starts to clash with the narrative and the characterisation, it puts me off.

Drake seems quite vulnerable in cut scenes bless him, he needs mothering, always getting captured or getting himself into sticky situations: - the player takes over, he becomes a bloodthirsty, acrobatic, weapons expert for three hours, with the occasional comical quip thrown in.

I suppose they have to continue the series in the manner of the rest of the games, but, the more real looking it gets, the more graphic the violence becomes, making it harder to empathise with Drake.

Swap Drake for James Brown.

I've only played U2, and while it was a very pretty and reasonably enjoyable romp it was mired with issues for me. 
The balance between action and adventure just felt all wrong. It was virtually puzzle free, the climbing/platforming fell on just the wrong side of being far too easy, set pieces (I'm looking at you, world's longest train) outstayed their welcome massively, and towering above everything else, the genocidal levels of killing by the protagonist were a massive turn off. Rather akin to casting Arnold Schwarzenegger as Indiana Jones. The violence was just completely at odds with the characterisation and story.
Oh, and Quick Time Events can suck a fat one too.
It's a shame, because with better direction it could have been something really quite special.

fumbled the ball

g.man

My feelings about uncharted are mixed in with how tedious the third person cover shooter has become through its total ubiquity. All of the uncharted games are way too dependent on long sequences of doing the same thing. That beautifully rendered jungle clearing you've just entered. Well, there's going to be about 40 guys turning up in a minute so just hide behind this rock and shoot them all one after the other. There will be two or possibly three places they spawn from so just aim there. Then climb. Then cutscene. Then 40 guys turn up to be shot.

This isn't bad in itself but I've shot approximately 8 bajillion men from a stationary cover position during the last gen and not inclined to take any more lives. Gears at least has much more flanking and chaos to get you to switch up. The way Uncharted varies it's repetition are not very entertaining - climbing sections etc. I played 1 and 2 and enjoyed them (but agree with g that things like the train really dragged) but got way too bored of the whole thing to stomach more than an hour or two of 3. Gears was the same, I quit 3 a few hours in.

The genre needs a big revamp.