This post will be 99% rant, I won’t even try to deny it.
A friend lent me a copy of Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection. During the last week I tried to play it as a priority in my free time, out of curiosity for a praised and honored saga that emerged as one of the most famous Sony exclusives worldwide. Now, at 82% into the third chapter, I have one or two things to say. And I will do it on the internet, because I’m frustrated and angry.
Let’s start with the good things. There are a lot of them: level design is amazing, characters are well written, narrative is epic. All stuff that Naughty Dog took on a “next level” with The Last of Us imho. However, the excellence that can be found in Uncharted is destroyed by many issues that I truly fail to tolerate.
First, the nonsense that breaks all the premises: infinite armies of enemies that pop up from nowhere inside ancient tombs, taking routes inaccessible for the protagonist – who has to always struggle with deadly puzzles, while his foes don’t – and being armed like freaking SWAT teams all the time. Just to kill one thief/mercenary/archeologist. With bazookas. Of course. Not to mention that the protagonist is often taken into custody by villains that, for some unspoken reason, do not kill him. So what’s the point of sending an army of trained mercenaries? Duh. All these contradictions are so absurd that the whole scripted story loses credibility, unless the player accepts all the nonsense and goes on. Which is a pre-condition of playing games and watching movies, but to this point it ceases to be tolerable and becomes annoying. Clashing with the narrative premises.
This points to another problem: the hours and hours of countless gunfights, with enemies that spawn behind the character, messy controls, odd hitboxes (missile to the head -> not even a scratch -> ok). I think that those situations are there just to “dilute” the game so that it lasts more than 8 hours per playthrough, because many shootings are completely irrelevant for the narrative (main focus of the game alongside exploration and “sense of wonder” as far as I’m concerned). More importantly, gunfights break the rhythm of gameplay creating stalls and frustrating the player with the above mentioned issues. The result is a boring experience that absorbs all the good stuff seen before.
Then you have 4 (F-O-U-R) iterations of the very same game that feel damn redundant. No need to expand this concept further.
So I asked myself: do we truly need games to be like this? With hours of pointless activities meant just to see “what’s next” and nothing more? Sequels over sequels of the same stuff repeated in order to sell, bringing nothing really interesting to the table (say “hi” to Mass Effect: Andromeda)? If the answers are yes, I think that there’s something broken in the way we approach games nowadays.
For example, I remember The Order 1886 being strongly criticized by media and customers because it was “too short” or “too guided”. While it brought some new balance between scripted narrative and player interaction, adopting at the same time very functional storytelling techniques (similarly to Uncharted, to be honest) from established audiovisual language. Still, that “short” playthrough didn’t have dead moments, or frustrating situations due to messy control systems. Was it “worse” than Naughty Dog’s games just because it lasted less time? I don’t think so. Yet they had very different impact and critical response. Neither I think that Uncharted would have been a worse game without all that shooting nonsense.
On the contrary: it could have been a way cooler experience. And I’m talking as a gamer here, without going too much into the academic stuff on purpose.
I told you it was mostly a rant.