Reviews// Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

Posted 5 Oct 2009 16:33 by
Now we cut to the action. Drake and Flynn scale walls, creep across rooftops and take out opponents as they mount a daring robbery. It's here that the morality of this storyline has to be called into question because the "Job" is to steal a historical artefact from a museum - and during the process, Drake and Flynn attack, shoot and in some cases kill several of the guards. But these are not criminals, or even antagonists, at least not at first. They are just normal guys, doing their job, with wives and little cute daughters, (who will probably grow up to be smoking hot babes) waiting at home for them to go and read them a bedtime story (the potentially smoking hot daughters… not the wives). Instead, they will receive a letter from the museum director (the wives this time, not the future babe daughters), offering his condolences, and with a cheque for their last pay period and any accrued holiday pay.

The game progresses quickly, as Drake is dragged by circumstance into a number of situations that require him to explore stunning environments and fight a range of antagonists. There is a selection of weapons around the environment for him to use in combat, and these can be collected by tapping the triangle button while in proximity to them. Collect the same kind of weapon and it increases your ammo, collect a new kind and it swaps the weapon. You can carry one pistol and one long barrelled weapon at any one time. Weapons glint white, so they are easy to see in the environment. As you'd expect (and as we grew used to in the first game) when the action is about to heat up, you can usually tell by the increased availability of weapons as you enter the battle arena. While this proves vital for completion of the set-piece, it's still a shame, since it gives you a warning that destroys the potential for many surprise attacks.

Enemy intelligence is greatly improved in Uncharted 2. Instead of hunkering down behind cover and occasionally popping up in a manner that enables you to pick them off, they now advance, throw grenades and circle around to attack you from the flanks, or even from behind. The resulting battles are much more entertaining.

For close combat, you can melee attack - this is a matter of mashing the square button and occasionally using triangle to break a deadlock or enemy grasp - it's effective, but hardly sophisticated. Climbing is similarly easy, the X button does pretty much everything: it activates climbing mode, pulls you from hanging by your fingers up to a higher level, and jumps you from one hand-hold to ledge to another when it is out of arm's reach. Motion generally, and climbing specifically, are wonderfully fluid with none of the glitches and requirements for pinpoint positioning that plague so many games. There are no annoying death plummets when you fail to jump exactly at the end of a ledge. As a result, exploring feels wonderfully natural, and you can concentrate on playing the game, rather than fighting with the controls.

As the story progresses Drake is crossed, and double crossed, and triple crossed as allegiances change, or appear to change for purely expedient reasons (or do they?). The whole thing begins to show what a gem it is. Unlike many games where the pacing is wrong and the storytelling gets in the way of the action, in Uncharted 2, the story is so compelling, and the voice acting so good, that you never want to skip a cut-scene. And the cut-scenes are so short that you never feel the need to. And they actually add to the experience, they reveal things about the character's motivations that actually hep you in game. This, of course, is what most games aspire to - but shockingly few manage. While the games graphics are excellent, and occasionally breathtaking, the character modelling and facial animation are not up to the standards we saw in Heavenly Sword. But then, they very rarely are. They are good enough to carry this story, and certainly better than average.
<< prev    1 -2- 3 4   next >>

Read More Like This


Comments

Showing the 20 most recent comments. Read all 40.
DoctorDee 6 Oct 2009 11:21
21/40
@Rutabaga But that's very specifically what I did NOT do. The last line says

the slightly intellectually lightweight nature of the puzzling stop it getting the perfect scores Sony's puppet publications are giving it.

A perfect score is 100%, or 10/10 or (god help us) 21/20.

We gave it 96%. There is no mistaking the fact that this is a very special game. One of the most enjoyable that I have ever played. But that just makes the length (or lack thereof) more frustrating. The puzzling is rudimentary at best... when I think back to the hours I put into the puzzles in the original Tomb Raider, that disappoints me. I think the game is slightly too dumbed down. If it were longer, and had more puzzles, it might be worth 98%. But while NPCs get in the way, the graphics don;t come up to Gareth's high standards and there are some character intersection glitches, it can never score 100%.

Dreadknux 6 Oct 2009 11:46
22/40
Rutabaga wrote:
I think the problem stems from the nonsensical last sentence of the review accusing publications of being puppets for giving the game the same score as you have. Would that make you a puppet publication?

There's no difference, if you only read reviews by their scores. But of course, I'd personally like to think that the average gamer would take the time to read reviews instead of hang on the number at the end all of the time (and in this case, the very last sentence - there's about four pages worth of opinion in there, it's worth a read, I recommend it).

The difference would be beyond the review score. Where a few other reviews I have read have only had good things to say about the game, that makes their super-high score rather difficult to swallow. Too good to be true. Their 10/10's, 100%'s whatever - doesn't mean anything because there's no such thing as a perfectly perfect game, even for the "buy this if you love this type of game" crowd. No bad word is mentioned, no real experience of the game is passed onto the reader... alarm bells ring in my head.

I'd say those kind of reviews are somewhat more questionable than a review on SPOnG that objectively outlines good and irritating points, comes from someone who sounds like they actually played the game instead of read a press release, and still gives it 96%. You know, I feel like it actually gives that 96% some value.

And it would be the same if SPOnG (or anyone else) gave the game (or any other game) 96%, 98%, or whatever - the actual content of the review is what's important, and that might be why such things are mentioned here.

Having read some shocking reviews in even printed mags most recently, I can't really say I blame Marcus for mentioning it.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Rutabaga 6 Oct 2009 12:19
23/40
DoctorDee wrote:
A perfect score is 100%, or 10/10 or (god help us) 21/20...
We gave it 96%.....it can never score 100%.


I would say 96% is a 10/10. That's the problem I had with your last sentence, and I think a lot of others had. You could of said. "It's not the perfect game other publications would have you believe" and I think everyone would of been happy with that. But to accuse others of being a puppet of Sony for awarding, at the most 4% more than you have, sounds ridiculous.
SPInGSPOnG 6 Oct 2009 12:31
24/40
Rutabaga wrote:
But to accuse others of being a puppet of Sony for awarding, at the most 4% more than you have, sounds ridiculous.

Perfect is not scalable. Something is either perfect or it is not.

Ergo, logically his statement is perfectly ;-) acceptable.
Most people, you apparently included Rutabaga, have difficulty with this concept. I hear people say "more perfect" and "less perfect" all the time, there people clearly have no idea what perfect means.

But where perfection is concerned, 4% is a HUGE margin. a score of 99.99999999999% renders something infinitely less perfect than 100%.
Rutabaga 6 Oct 2009 12:55
25/40
Rod Todd wrote:
Rutabaga wrote:
But to accuse others of being a puppet of Sony for awarding, at the most 4% more than you have, sounds ridiculous.

Perfect is not scalable. Something is either perfect or it is not.

Ergo, logically his statement is perfectly ;-) acceptable.
Most people, you apparently included Rutabaga, have difficulty with this concept. I hear people say "more perfect" and "less perfect" all the time, there people clearly have no idea what perfect means.

But where perfection is concerned, 4% is a HUGE margin. a score of 99.99999999999% renders something infinitely less perfect than 100%.


What are you going on about? My issue is as I keep repeating myself the fact that the reviewer saw fit to accuse publications of being puppets for awarding at most 4% more than he did. The statement would of only made sense if it had got a 70% or 80%.

Reviews (because people seem to like them) have a scoring system, be it out of 5, 10 or 100%. If a game gets 5/5 or 10 out of 10 why would it have to be perfect? The problem stems from % scoring in that if your saying nothing can be 100%, then what are you marking out of; 99? It's a flawed system.

The bit in bold indicates your lack of perfection.
miacid 6 Oct 2009 13:25
26/40
How about we ignore the 96% score and pretend it's not there!

Now going back to the review, the point as I see it, is that Marcus is saying it's a great game

"Marcus" wrote:
Uncharted 2 one of the greatest games I've played


but it has got a few little bugs and could have been better.

"Marcus" wrote:
The (occasionally fatal) obstruction by your computer controlled companion, and the slightly intellectually lightweight nature of the puzzling stop it getting the perfect scores


Whereas the official magazines are just saying good things about it without pointing out any of it's flaws , which isn't giving us the game buying public a fair overview of what to expect.
TimSpong 6 Oct 2009 13:40
27/40
miacid wrote:
How about we ignore the 96% score and pretend it's not there!


Frankly, I'd love to drop review scores entirely and I have done for some time. I'd prefer to go with:

1) Buy it new.

2) Buy it pre-owned/budget.

3) Don't buy it for yourself.

4) Buy it for a friend.

5) Smack the friend who bought it for you.

Cheers

Tim
SPInGSPOnG 6 Oct 2009 15:22
28/40
Rutabaga wrote:
The bit in bold indicates your lack of perfection.

Is it that you REALLY do not get it, or are you being purposefully obtuse? The "bit in bold" is misquoted. What I said was it would render it infinitely less perfect. As in: not perfect at all.
Rutabaga 6 Oct 2009 15:42
29/40
Rod Todd wrote:
Rutabaga wrote:
The bit in bold indicates your lack of perfection.

Is it that you REALLY do not get it, or are you being purposefully obtuse? The "bit in bold" is misquoted. What I said was it would render it infinitely less perfect. As in: not perfect at all.


I'll admit you've lost me as you appear to of gone off at a tangent concerning yourself with the dictionary definition of perfect for some reason. Percentage scores are always flawed by this definition if your not allowed to score up to 100%. I've always thought out of 5 or 10 is the best system.

Back on topic: 96% is a brilliant score for a game, calling publications puppets for scoring a few percent more is crazy.
king skins 6 Oct 2009 16:27
30/40
Tim Smith wrote:
miacid wrote:
How about we ignore the 96% score and pretend it's not there!


Frankly, I'd love to drop review scores entirely and I have done for some time. I'd prefer to go with:

1) Buy it new.
2) Buy it pre-owned/budget.
3) Don't buy it for yourself.
4) Buy it for a friend.
5) Smack the friend who bought it for you.

Cheers

Tim


I agree, but not with the 1-5 thing. Just have the review on its own with a summary at the end.
TimSpong 6 Oct 2009 16:36
31/40
king skins wrote:
I agree, but not with the 1-5 thing. Just have the review on its own with a summary at the end.


Yeah, the 1-5 thing is tongue in cheek. What does everybody else think about dropping scores and so that people have to read the review and make some kind of decision based on that?
cheers

Tim
Dreadknux 6 Oct 2009 17:16
32/40
Aw, I liked the 1-5. :3

I've thought for a while that numbers are just way too much hassle than they're worth - this topic is pretty much proof that many people simply don't read the review or jump on the number as a means to try to contradict what was said in the review.

Somewhere people lost the concept that the number is merely a quick-fire indicator to supplement the full text, not a basis on which the review text is bound to. But while getting rid of the scores allow for the audience to truly read the piece to obtain the definitive view of the outlet, the Internet isn't the best medium to read long articles in itself. The average 'net user skims, rather than reads, and picks up highlights along the way.

Maybe lose the score, keep the Summary at the end (as that appears to be sufficient for a 'roundup' paragraph or something) would help. Perhaps a small "Plus / Minus" segment with what was loved/hated? Assuming such an idea isn't considered too... well, 'beige'.
PreciousRoi 6 Oct 2009 19:55
33/40
meh.

I say keep the scores...no reason to let inmates bussed in from outside the asylum any say in the matter

Y'know, I had thought that most of the fanboys had migrated to the 360 (and I was more than a little depressed by this) but I suppose this proves that Sony is still the fanboy platform of choice. That or something about the PS3 MAKES you stupid. I just don't get it...
king skins 6 Oct 2009 23:12
34/40
Edge tried to drop the scores from their reviews in one issue and everyone complained, even though they published the scores at the end of the review section. You might loose some readers...

To be honest I do flick to the end of some reviews to see the score and then decide if i want to read the review, but I only do that for games I'm vaguely interested in, but if I read a review I read the whole thing.

It would be controversial but its something I've thought magazines/website should have done a long time ago.
miacid 7 Oct 2009 07:51
35/40
king skins wrote:
Edge tried to drop the scores from their reviews in one issue and everyone complained, even though they published the scores at the end of the review section.


If I remember correctly they used P.N. 03 as an example piece that they got other industry types to review

king skins wrote:
To be honest I do flick to the end of some reviews to see the score and then decide if i want to read the review, but I only do that for games I'm vaguely interested in, but if I read a review I read the whole thing.

It would be controversial but its something I've thought magazines/website should have done a long time ago.


I do a similar thing as well, I think getting rid of the score is worth trying with the added inclusion of something like the plus, minus/good, bad & ugly points at the end.

Then maybe include something like how many people in the SPOnG office are playing it.

Do I feel a poll coming .....
DoctorDee 7 Oct 2009 08:41
36/40
miacid wrote:
Then maybe include something like how many people in the SPOnG office are playing it.

Its certainly a good idea, the level of "office buzz" for a game is often a very good indicator of how good the game is.

But for Uncharted (for instance) it would be a bad indicator, because we only had a single copy, and it was Pre-release code which would only play on the debug (Test) PS3. And because it was (originally) embargoed until October 6th, I took the PS3 Test and the code home and played it at my leisure. ALthough I completed it in 12 hours, I did so in five sessions (about 3 x 2 hours and 2 x 3 hours)... so no one else in the office got too much of a chance to play it.

They have played it of course, a little before I took the Test home and since the review was finished last Friday. And the general feelings are very positive. TimSPOnG was not a big fan at first, but it won him over eventually.

In the end, the embargo was lifted early, but instead of rush our review for the new earlier embargo date, we decided to hold back publication until Monday when the review was complete, since the game is not out until the 16th.
TimSpong 7 Oct 2009 08:50
37/40
DoctorDee wrote:
But for Uncharted (for instance) it would be a bad indicator, because we only had a single copy, and it was Pre-release code which would only play on the debug (Test) PS3.


Just to clarify... it was Review code that had not been cut to retail release disc so had to be played on the debug. Nothing from the copy Dee reviewed was changed in the retail release... or I would have said so at the start of the copy.

Cheers

Tim
miacid 7 Oct 2009 08:59
38/40
DoctorDee wrote:
But for Uncharted (for instance) it would be a bad indicator, because we only had a single copy, and it was Pre-release code which would only play on the debug (Test) PS3.


Yeah I see the problem, especially as most of the games you review are pre-release, you could include which games are being played in the office that week, although that doesn't really help with the review side of things, unless perhaps you include the last 3 games the reviewer choose to play.
SAD1_WW5 <--- PS3 ID 7 Oct 2009 11:48
39/40
I think the BETA sucks the whole Uncharted franchise fails Xbxo 360 FTW
SAD1_WW5 <--- PS3 ID 7 Oct 2009 11:49
40/40
I think the BETA sucks the whole Uncharted franchise fails Xbox 360 FTW BTW i have a PS3 but i Know Xbox OWNZ all FABLE 2
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.