Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception

mystic86

krudler wrote: »

Yes, its the PS3's crowning glory imo.

I agree.

NotorietyH

Some parts of this game are just terribly designed which is a real shame because it has stopped me from playing it. The weekend I got it I stopped playing at that f*cking ballroom stage, went back to it there and died at least another 20 times. Stupid, cheap, unbelievably frustrating deaths. I have absolutely no desire to keep playing the game now which is a real shame as I was enjoying it for the most part up until then. Too many times they throw you into a room with a few heavily armoured guys and swarms of regular guys attacking you with no real cover. Very frustrating. Can't remember getting this frustrated with Uncharted 2. Real shame. I thought this would be competing for my game of the year. Not even in the top 5, maybe even top 10 at this stage. Going back to it now, but that level is making me want to snap the disc in half.

Are there many more rooms where they throw three snipers, a grenade launcher guy and armoured pricks at you? If there are I'm just going to stop playing now. Story isn't really compelling me forward in any way either.

YouSavedMyLife

NotorietyH wrote: »

Some parts of this game are just terribly designed which is a real shame because it has stopped me from playing it. The weekend I got it I stopped playing at that f*cking ballroom stage, went back to it there and died at least another 20 times. Stupid, cheap, unbelievably frustrating deaths. I have absolutely no desire to keep playing the game now which is a real shame as I was enjoying it for the most part up until then. Too many times they throw you into a room with a few heavily armoured guys and swarms of regular guys attacking you with no real cover. Very frustrating. Can't remember getting this frustrated with Uncharted 2. Real shame. I thought this would be competing for my game of the year. Not even in the top 5, maybe even top 10 at this stage. Going back to it now, but that level is making me want to snap the disc in half.

Are there many more rooms where they throw three snipers, a grenade launcher guy and armoured pricks at you? If there are I'm just going to stop playing now. Story isn't really compelling me forward in any way either.

Put the game on the lowest difficulty. Should be manageable then.

kearneybobs

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

Put the game on the lowest difficulty. Should be manageable then.

But even if he does do that, his point still stands. On normal difficulty, he shouldn't have to do that, which is pretty much due to bad design.

NotorietyH

Yeah it's just bad game design in places. I have no problem with a difficult game, as long as it's challenging in a satisfying way, not in a cheap "We couldn't think of anything interesting to do with the combat in this part so we'll just throw loads of over-powered guys at you," tactic that they keep resorting to in this. It's by no means a bad game, it's a very good game, but those bad design choices keep it from being a great game for me.

I shouldn't have to drop down to the easiest difficulty setting. I've never had to do that with a game before, and I play a hell of a lot of games, often on the higher difficulty settings, I never drop below normal. It's just absolutely killed the flow of the game for me. I finished Uncharted 2 in one sitting basically, and this I stopped playing on it's launch weekend, and have finally got through the ballroom level just there tonight after picking it up again, but I'm just waiting for the same thing to happen again so I have no desire to keep playing . Have too many unplayed games sitting next to me so have no desire to push through the frustrating parts of Uncharted. The set pieces are fantastic and all that, and I will finish it eventually, but not for a good while I'd say, maybe over Christmas. Which considering Uncharted 3 wa sone of my most anticipated games of the year is disappointing. Still, have plenty of other games to play anyway! It takes an immense amount of frustration for me to complain about a game these days, if I don't like something I generally don't bother commenting on it, but I needed to vent about this!

YouSavedMyLife

I have to disagree, and i dislike the way people are throwing around the term "bad game design" like it actually has some merit. I would like a definition of what it actually means because as far as i can see from reading peoples posts it equates to the game being to hard. Take said ballroom section for example. I agree it was tough. One of the toughest gun sections in the game. But its not impossible. Take for example most of the Ninja Gaiden games on the SNES. All considered by many to be very difficult games, thus do all of those games have "bad game design"

If the Uncharted 3 game designers decided to take all the armoured soldiers and the snipers from that section would it be consider "Good game design" or not "bad game design"?

NotorietyH

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

I have to disagree, and i dislike the way people are throwing around the term "bad game design" like it actually has some merit. I would like a definition of what it actually means because as far as i can see from reading peoples posts it equates to the game being to hard. Take said ballroom section for example. I agree it was tough. One of the toughest gun sections in the game. But its not impossible. Take for example most of the Ninja Gaiden games on the SNES. All considered by many to be very difficult games, thus do all of those games have "bad game design"

If the Uncharted 3 game designers decided to take all the armoured soldiers and the snipers from that section would it be consider "Good game design" or not "bad game design"?

I didn't say it was impossible, I didn't say it had to be easy. I said it was hard in a cheap and uninspired way that contradict the way that you instinctively play the game. As I said I have no problem with a game being hard, when it's in a satisfyingly challenging way. For the most part Uncharted 3 presents its combat as a cover-based shooter, and those sections contradict that by forcing you into cover only to have a heavily armoured guy waltz up behind you unseen and one shot you with his shotgun. They could have presented that scenario in a much more interesting way where you did actually have to utilize cover properly rather than get through the situation through blind luck which is what it felt like to me.

That section is badly designed, because it's playing against the very mechanics of the game that have been established throughout the series. I'll say it again, I have no problem with hard or difficult games, I've played through nearly every level of Super Meat Boy and enjoyed every second of it because it was incredibly well designed, the mechanics were flawless and when I died I felt like it was my fault, not the games. I played through Gear of War 3 on a higher diffilculty setting and there were plenty of times where I had to replay a section again and again to get through it, but never got as frustrated as I did with Uncharted 3 because the sections were generally well designed and there were much less cheap deaths. There were no sections of Gears of War where I felt I got through the section through sheer dumb luck because it took a couple of seconds longer for the one-shot tank to get to me. It's a badly designed section, and it stands out more because most of the game is well designed.

Retr0gamer

There's a big difference between tough butfair game design and badly designed arbitary difficulty, otherwise know as a dick move.

NunianVonFuch

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

Take for example most of the Ninja Gaiden games on the SNES. All considered by many to be very difficult games, thus do all of those games have "bad game design"

It's considered bad game design because it goes against the difficulty curve up until that point. Ninja Gaiden and others are consistently hard. If you haven't managed the players expectations and the lead up to a really challenging section, it's the game designers fault. Like if that impossible section was at the end of the game, or near enough, it would be acceptable as things would be expected to get harder throughout.

Throwing it in in the middle and then getting easier again straight afterwards is bad design, a spike in the difficulty curve that shouldn't happen.

Well said gents

kearneybobs

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

I have to disagree, and i dislike the way people are throwing around the term "bad game design" like it actually has some merit. I would like a definition of what it actually means because as far as i can see from reading peoples posts it equates to the game being to hard. Take said ballroom section for example. I agree it was tough. One of the toughest gun sections in the game. But its not impossible. Take for example most of the Ninja Gaiden games on the SNES. All considered by many to be very difficult games, thus do all of those games have "bad game design"

If the Uncharted 3 game designers decided to take all the armoured soldiers and the snipers from that section would it be consider "Good game design" or not "bad game design"?

Those sections of the game (the ballroom and the cargohold of the ship) completely remove any fun from the game and it turns into being a chore.
Those parts aren't fun. They are needlessly frustrating. Usually the challenge in the Uncharted games the combat sequences are almost a puzzle in itself, deciphering which enemy to take out next and going about it the right way, yet at those sections enemies spawn behind you out of some sort of monster closet. It was disliked in Doom, and it's pretty much dislike here.

When the game goes from moving along very smoothly to coming to a halt very abruptly, there is something wrong. Everyone seems to have had trouble at those sections of the game on normal. Is there something wrong with how everybody has been playing the game?

Those sections of the game aren't helped by the shoddy aiming mechanics (which have thankfully been fixed if you want them to be). It would be interesting to see if those parts of the game are any better with the revamped shooting mechanics.

NotorietyH

kearneybobs wrote: »

Those sections of the game aren't helped by the shoddy aiming mechanics (which have thankfully been fixed if you want them to be). It would be interesting to see if those parts of the game are any better with the revamped shooting mechanics.

They aren't. I stopped playing launch weekend and started it again last night after the patch. Though I would've been rustier at the start after not playing it for a couple of weeks. It's marginally better, but not by much.

Zero-Cool

Game has shipped, should get it soon. Was the patch released to fix the aiming? I only heard the aiming was bad, havn't tried it yet.

NotorietyH

sheehy83 wrote: »

Game has shipped, should get it soon. Was the patch released to fix the aiming? I only heard the aiming was bad, havn't tried it yet.

Yep last week i think. I didn't find the aiming too bad to begin with, but it's definitely better now.

YouSavedMyLife

I still dont buy it. I would just consider that section hard. Sure for most of the game you can sit behind one section of cover and pick guys off. But in that section you actually have to move from cover to cover and work your ass off. I would consider this hard. As for the enemies spawning behind you. I would consider this a problem if there was no cover between you and the enemies, but there is.

But i will agree with NunianVonFuch. There was a difficulty spike at that point and the sections before and after where not nearly as difficult. If this is considered bad game design then yes im sold. But it honestly didnt bother me as much as it seems to be bothering other people here as i just see it as being a hard section.

Speaking of which i think ill start my crushing run through of the game today

Retr0gamer

I've not played the game but enemies spawning behind the player and killing them without warning is atrocious game design and an example of arbituary difficulty by killing the player through no fault of their own. Tough games like Super Meat Boy are difficult but the challenge is presented before the player so if you mess up it's your fault.

Strange that such a big developer would make such a mistake. It does reek of a rushed release and testing.

NotorietyH

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

I still dont buy it. I would just consider that section hard. Sure for most of the game you can sit behind one section of cover and pick guys off. But in that section you actually have to move from cover to cover and work your ass off. I would consider this hard. As for the enemies spawning behind you. I would consider this a problem if there was no cover between you and the enemies, but there is.

But i will agree with NunianVonFuch. There was a difficulty spike at that point and the sections before and after where not nearly as difficult. If this is considered bad game design then yes im sold. But it honestly didnt bother me as much as it seems to be bothering other people here as i just see it as being a hard section.

Speaking of which i think ill start my crushing run through of the game today

But there wasn't tonnes of cover to move behind that's my point. I was checkpointed at the end of the room where the big crates were and the second I moved from behind them I was either hit by a grenade launcher or sniper. Staying behind the crates to try and take out the balcony I had the armoured guys just waltzing up to or guys spawning behind or beside me and there was no cover for me to move to. I didn't suddenly get bad at games for that section of the game and miraculously recover my form five minutes later. If I had the option to move from cover to cover, the basic mechanics of the game, I would've done that and found it tough and challenging but fair enough.

johnny_ultimate

I actually got past the ballroom first (or at least second) time around on hard difficulty. Actually turned into a very intense fight, with some frantic shotgun blasts giving a real kick.

As for bad game design? I thought the pre-ballroom asshole armoured guy was much, much cheaper. On hard, that was a ****ing nightmare as trying to avoid him while tackling the grunts was a massive pain.

richymcdermott

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I actually got past the ballroom first (or at least second) time around on hard difficulty. Actually turned into a very intense fight, with some frantic shotgun blasts giving a real kick.

As for bad game design? I thought the pre-ballroom asshole armoured guy was much, much cheaper. On hard, that was a ****ing nightmare as trying to avoid him while tackling the grunts was a massive pain.

Try fighting him on crushing , its a nightmare:pac:

gizmo

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

I have to disagree, and i dislike the way people are throwing around the term "bad game design" like it actually has some merit. I would like a definition of what it actually means because as far as i can see from reading peoples posts it equates to the game being to hard. Take said ballroom section for example. I agree it was tough. One of the toughest gun sections in the game. But its not impossible. Take for example most of the Ninja Gaiden games on the SNES. All considered by many to be very difficult games, thus do all of those games have "bad game design"

If the Uncharted 3 game designers decided to take all the armoured soldiers and the snipers from that section would it be consider "Good game design" or not "bad game design"?

The ballroom scene is perhaps the best example to use because it contains the most examples of the worst aspects of combat in the game.

• Enemies who can fire grenade launcher rounds and throw grenades with pin point accuracy.
• Throwing armoured enemies (who are overpowered in the first place) at you when you're trying to take down the above enemies who already have the advantage of the high ground.
• Giving you only one usable bit of cover in the room which also causes the camera to zoom in on Drake thus obscuring your view.
• Throwing ground based enemies at you who will happily enage you in hand to hand combat, driving you both out of cover where their mates are perfectly happy to fill both of you full of holes.

So, how could that scene be improved? Well, off the top of my head, the top floor could have been collapsed with the aid of destructible supports. That would have introduced the always welcome feature of risk vs reward. The distance between your cover and the enemy spawn areas should been increased to allow you more time to react to enemies coming from different directions and stop them from sneaking up on you. Finally, cover to the left and the right of the middle one should have been made available. You could have made each bit of cover destructible if you wished to add a little more danger.

General points-wise...

• Enemies shouldn't be so incredibly accurate with grenades/launchers.
• Armoured enemies should be more vunerable in certain areas of their body i.e. they shouldn't be able to take a shotgun blast to the head on Normal once their helmet has been knocked off.
• If an enemy engages you in hand to hand combat then their mates shouldn't attempt to murder you both.

With respect to combat in general, there could have simply been less of it. As I said earlier, these sections seemed to have been increased at the expense of exploration scenes and puzzles. Personally, I look at the Uncharted series as an Indiana Jones type experience, primarily about the adventure aspect but not afraid to get its hands dirty should the situation deteriorate. This, to echo what Retr0gamer said above, is indicitive of a rushed devleopment process and altogether surprising from a team like Naughty Dog.

mystic86

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I've not played the game but enemies spawning behind the player and killing them without warning is atrocious game design and an example of arbituary difficulty by killing the player through no fault of their own. Tough games like Super Meat Boy are difficult but the challenge is presented before the player so if you mess up it's your fault.

Strange that such a big developer would make such a mistake. It does reek of a rushed release and testing.

I don't remember any spawning behind me.

I do remember them flanking me (visibly!) while I'm dealing with other threats.

kearneybobs

mystic86 wrote: »

I don't remember any spawning behind me.

I do remember them flanking me (visibly!) while I'm dealing with other threats.

I'm fairly sure they were spawning behind me, out of camera shot. Camera facing towards the main area covered behind the crates where you take out the first guy when you come in, I found myself getting shot from behind when I'm 99% sure that there was no way that an enemy could get behind me.

tok9

I don't think anyone spawned behind me either on hard but that said I do agree that it was a tough situation to get out of. Must have taken me 10 goes anyway.

NotorietyH

kearneybobs wrote: »

I'm fairly sure they were spawning behind me, out of camera shot. Camera facing towards the main area covered behind the crates where you take out the first guy when you come in, I found myself getting shot from behind when I'm 99% sure that there was no way that an enemy could get behind me.

They definitely spawn behind you up there, happened me a couple of times.

mystic86

NotorietyH wrote: »

They definitely spawn behind you up there, happened me a couple of times.

?

what stage of the game precisely are we talking about?

kearneybobs

mystic86 wrote: »

?

what stage of the game precisely are we talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YjuD6BaG-e8#t=600s

If you get spotted at the 10 minute mark you get destroyed by enemies. Inundated. They spawn behind you. They did for me anyway. If you take cover at the crates where he knocks the guy out just after he walks in, the spawn behind you from where you came in the revolving door (not exactly that spot. either side of the door at the top of the stairs.)

mystic86

kearneybobs wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YjuD6BaG-e8#t=600s

If you get spotted at the 10 minute mark you get destroyed by enemies. Inundated. They spawn behind you. They did for me anyway. If you take cover at the crates where he knocks the guy out just after he walks in, the spawn behind you from where you came in the revolving door (not exactly that spot. either side of the door at the top of the stairs.)

that youtube video - that guy is getting so frustrated - why doesn't he just use his gun and get on with it!

anyway, for me i went over to the crates that are just in front of the 'stage' and all the action was in front of me...

NotorietyH

mystic86 wrote: »

that youtube video - that guy is getting so frustrated - why doesn't he just use his gun and get on with it!

anyway, for me i went over to the crates that are just in front of the 'stage' and all the action was in front of me...

Yeah that's where I was, by the big crates and it was still stupefyingly frustrating. You get in cover, grenade either kills you or knocks you back, guys come in from the sides, you step out to try and punch the armoured guy before he one shots you and you get hit by a sniper. It's a badly designed section. It doesn't mean the whole game is badly designed, but there are sections of the game that are very poorly implemented, and it's taken from the experience dramatically for me, to the point that even though I'm passed that point, I couldn't be arsed playing any more of it for a while, so they've ruined what was for the most part a very compelling experience.

mystic86

NotorietyH wrote: »

it was still stupefyingly frustrating. You get in cover, grenade either kills you or knocks you back, guys come in from the sides, you step out to try and punch the armoured guy before he one shots you and you get hit by a sniper. It's a badly designed section.

I agree with this much.

Mark Hamill

mystic86 wrote: »

I don't remember any spawning behind me.

I do remember them flanking me (visibly!) while I'm dealing with other threats.

Enemies spawn behind you twice in the cargo hold part, when you get to the checkpoint (so when you restart, you are at one end, the boat is tilting and the hold is starting to fill with water). The cargo hold is a box with high metal grill balconies at each end, the first enemies ( four f***ing snipers) spawn on the one right above and behind you (which you wont see, because its behind the camera) on one balcony, and when you move to the other side for different cover and take them out, enemies spawn on the balcony that is now above/behind you. You can see the level here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbTPeYstcjU

That's not the most irritating combat part in the game though, that award goes to the sandstorm level later on where machine gun mounted cars could hit you, while you were running, with pin point accuracy, despite being in a sandstorm so dense that at the same distance, I could only see them by their gun flare.

Also I cant be the only one who thinks that it robbed its last level straight from Uncharted 2?

Both are ancient cities, one with Jungle motive, the other desert, both have over powered enemies (natives and djinn), both having you looking for the lowest part, both end with you running along a pathway breaking up as the city collapses and has you in a scene where one of your NPC friends has a fight with someone who you have to shoot from an awkward position.

tok9

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That's not the most irritating combat part in the game though, that award goes to the sandstorm level later on where machine gun mounted cars could hit you, while you were running, with pin point accuracy, despite being in a sandstorm so dense that at the same distance, I could only see them by their gun flare.

Ya this is the most frustrating part since they have no problem being able to spot you but it was impossible to see them.

Also why was there so little stealth in the game? Lets take the ball room for example. What was the point in making you think you could do it silently by placing the first easy target but then having to go all out action!? Having the choice to go all out or with stealth would have been nice.

Also I cant be the only one who thinks that it robbed its last level straight from Uncharted 2?

Both are ancient cities, one with Jungle motive, the other desert, both have over powered enemies (natives and djinn), both having you looking for the lowest part, both end with you running along a pathway breaking up as the city collapses and has you in a scene where one of your NPC friends has a fight with someone who you have to shoot from an awkward position.

The more I think about it the more I remember how awesome UC2 was and I agree with the above. I think it's fair to say that a lot of UC3 is very similiar to UC2.

That said it is still well worth playing and one of the most enjoyable games I've played so far this year but if there is a UC4, they definitely need change it up a bit.