Jump to navigation

Table of contents

Page Previous 1 2 Next

Advertisement

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune First Impressions

PlayStation 3 First Impressions by Ellie Gibson

19 September, 2007

Page 1 of 2. Page 2 ->

Might as well get it over with. Yes, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is a bit like Tomb Raider. But then Tomb Raider nicked a load of ideas off Indiana Jones. Which was inspired by '50s TV adventure serials, which were inspired by films like Gunga Din, which was inspired by a poem written in the previous century, which was... There's probably a cave painting somewhere of a stick figure being chased by a giant boulder into a pit of spikes, trying to make sure they don't lose their hat or puncture their breasts.

There's being lazy and derivative, then there's taking old ideas and making them fresh. It's about remaining true to what makes the original concept work, adding your own input to create something new, improved and unique. The film of Gunga Din is a lot more exciting than the boring old poem. The Indiana Jones films are funnier than the '50s TV adventure serials. Lara Croft has a better chest than Harrison Ford, and so it goes on.

Or does it? Has Naughty Dog got what it takes to move the action-adventure genre forward? The studio certainly did great things for platforming with Crash Bandicoot trilogy. It was followed with the superb Jak and Daxter games. Later instalments saw Daxter's name dropped from the title, GTA elements added and the series going in a darker direction. However, Naughty Dog's trademark cartoon style remained throughout.

Getting real

'Uncharted: Drake's Fortune' Screenshot 1

A much more sensible outfit for adventuring than glorified hotpants and a six-year-old's vest.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is different. You won't find any wumpa fruit, furry friends or double jumps here. The characters are human. The environments are realistic. The weapons are sniper rifles, grenades and AK-47s, not chunky laser beam blasters. But, as game director Amy Hennig explains, there are similarities with Crash and Jak.

"Uncharted is very much in the same spirit as those games," she says. "Larger than life action-adventure has been part of the Naughty Dog tradition from the beginning. It's about the power of the hardware now being able to express that realism. It doesn't feel like a big sea-change, but it was a new challenge."

There's certainly been a big shift in visual design. Hennig says they're calling it "stylised reality", explaining, "We're not going for photo-real, because we find that creepy ourselves. In a game development environment where so many people are going for this de-saturated, grim reality, we wanted to get the feel of a pulp adventure. There's a saturated, romantic quality to the whole thing."

This ties in with the other concept Naughty Dog has developed for Uncharted: "emotional realism". The idea is you care about the characters because you believe in them. That includes the game's hero, a modern-day treasure seeker called Nathan Drake. During his adventures he meets many allies and enemies who play key roles in the storyline.

Isn't it iconic?

'Uncharted: Drake's Fortune' Screenshot 2

Oh no, pirates! Contemporary ones! Who wear sunglasses instead of eyepatches! How disappointing.

"Emotional realism is about creating characters you can buy into as real, down-to-earth, authentic people. They're not over-drawn, over-the-top cartoon characters," says Hennig.

"The characters aren't photo-real, but they're still pretty believable. We wanted to find that mark between too iconic, too cartoony and too photo-realistic, and we're really happy with where we ended up."

Emotional realism is about how the characters behave along with how they look. If Nathan mistimes a jump, he stumbles. If guns are being fired at him, he recoils. If a bullet ricochets off the wall next to him, he flinches. According to Hennig, the very human aspect of Uncharted's main character is one of the key distinctions between this game and Tomb Raider. But surely there are some similarities...

"Oh, sure. They're both drawing on the same inspirations, way back to Prince of Persia. But the main difference is the characters," she says.

"Lara, to me, is a James Bond type of character. She's larger than life, possessing perfect acrobatic skills, graceful... All the things Nate isn't. He's more a Bruce Willis or a Harrison Ford, somebody who's flat-out at the edge of their ability but perseveres. That doesn't mean one is a better choice than the other, but it's very different... Nate is extraordinary because he's ordinary. That's unusual in videogames."

'Uncharted: Drake's Fortune' Screenshot 3

Some levels see you in charge of firearms while your chum keeps an eye on the TomTom.

Nathan Drake isn't completely without acrobatic skills. He can jump long distances, hang off ledges and dive-roll behind cover. He's a skilled fighter, albeit one who trained on the streets rather than by frolicking around a country pile. "It's a down and dirty fighting style, with big, wild, off-balance haymakers, uppercuts, crosses, scissor-kicks... This is dirty fighting, and you've got to do what you've got to do," says Hennig.

Despite the range of moves at Nathan's disposal, the combat system isn't complex. Hands-on, the moves you pull off depend on the context you're in rather than the buttons you press. Approach an enemy from the front and press the square button and he'll unleash a volley of punches. Approach from behind and press the same button, and he'll snap their neck. It's not likely to satisfy beat-'em-up fans, but this is an action-adventure game after all.

To Page 2 ->

Advertisement

Are you excited about Uncharted: Drake's Fortune on PlayStation 3?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-50 of 78 in total | next 50 »

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
RatBastard
19/09/07 @ 07:20
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The game looks ugly. Welcome to next-gen Plastiline(tm) shaders.
Scimarad
19/09/07 @ 07:21
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"we wanted to get the feel of a pulp adventure. There's a saturated, romantic quality to the whole thing."

Spot on - I hadn't really noticed before but definitely true.

-edit-

Two posts and already someone to ignore! Byebye Ratbastard...
Edited 1 times, most recently on 19/09/07 @ 08:22
morriss
19/09/07 @ 07:23
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Did you play the game, Ellie? Did you enjoy it? I couldn't tell my the article.
sugapunk
19/09/07 @ 07:23
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Really looking forward to this but if they're saying it lasts 10 hours now, that could mean a 6-8 hour adventure like Heavenly Sword in reality. I hope not, this looks great.
Trip SkyWay
19/09/07 @ 07:23
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Interesting read.

Any idea if there'll be a demo?
morriss
19/09/07 @ 07:33
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Will it support 1080i?
deepmenace
19/09/07 @ 07:35
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
first impressions?

developer interview more like.
DonnieDarko333
19/09/07 @ 07:48
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Looks amazing! I'm slightly dissapointed with the length, it's going to be one of those games you don't want to finish and it does....quickly!

Other then that! Cannot wait for it!
Carlo
19/09/07 @ 07:51
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Sounds like the best bits of Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider and even a dash of Metal Gear Solid are ingredients that make this game.

Sounds perfect for me... Now, when's it out!
JedEvangelion
19/09/07 @ 07:51
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Emotional realism is about how the characters behave along with how they look. If Nathan mistimes a jump, he stumbles. If guns are being fired at him, he recoils."

Neither stumbling, nor recoiling from a bullet are emotions..?

10 hours is fairly average for this sort of game, so it feels odd to make such a big deal about it in the article.

Looking forward to the game very much, but disappointed with the piece - this wasn't much of a 'hands-on preview'.
Edited 2 times, most recently on 19/09/07 @ 08:56
stephenb
19/09/07 @ 07:52
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Really looking forward to this. But then Im a sucker for the whole ripping yarns, boys own adventure type stuff. Plus graphically it is looking fantastic This will be played Christmas morning if I can book the TV in advance of my daughters barbie dvd's.
Xerx3s
19/09/07 @ 07:59
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Ugly???? Are you retarded? I for one have never seen a game with as realistic lighting and folage it looks absolutely sumptious. Best looking game I've seen so far on next gen but I'm still not getting a PS3 though.

Crysis.

EDIT: I agree, it looks very nice but not the best looking game I've seen.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 19/09/07 @ 09:00
barnard666
19/09/07 @ 08:01
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
8 hours is about how long I want a game to be these days, I can always go back and play it again if I want to, I just hate not finishing games, and this is happening more and more to me these days, something like this or bioshoick, you need to be able to complete because the story is so important.

perhaps marketing is getting wise to this personal truism:
I completed an 8 hour game that was well honed and polished throughout - now etheres a sequel out, I'll buy it.

I failed to complete oblivion, because it's simply giant and despite my 125 hours play time, I still see no need to get the expansion as there is still loads to do, I will also not be buying a sequel until I have squeezed the last bits of fun out of that game.

anyway back on topic, I will probably get this, it looks OK, and the length is actually a selling point for me.
squarejawhero
19/09/07 @ 08:05
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Looks nice... just a tad... doesn't stick in the mind.

'Spose it doesn't help if you're playing a generic male model, with the kind of hair normally reserved for rapists at clubs.
Les
19/09/07 @ 08:07
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Let's just hope any such flack doesn't completely overshadow what Naughty Dog achieves with Uncharted."

Not like you can't do anything about that...

/waits for the EG review that will slam the game because of its length...
morriss
19/09/07 @ 08:10
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You'll like it anyway, Les won't you?
Eighthours
19/09/07 @ 08:15
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'm looking forward to this one. Love Naughty Dog's work. Not massively convinced that the combat is going to be good at all, but hopefully the exploration and platforming aspects will make up for it.
Scimarad
19/09/07 @ 08:18
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
What's wrong with 10 hours anyway? I hardly ever get time to finish games.
Les
19/09/07 @ 08:21
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"You'll like it anyway, Les won't you?"

Why would I?
Killerbee
19/09/07 @ 08:21
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Looks and sounds very promising - apart from the bit about the one-shot-kill snipers. They are never fun in any game I've ever played.

The point about game length is interesting though - I'd kind of got used to games like this being about 13-15 hours in length for a PS2 generation title, but the "next-gen" stuff seems tobe coming in with sub-10 hour playing times.

Not a problem if it's ICO-level quality all the way through, but I'd be slightly concerned that gameplay development and level design time is being sacrificed so that the dev teams can work on making the leaves look nice in the jungle environments.
Yeevle
19/09/07 @ 08:28
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Um Bongo!

There I said it, happy now?
farticusmaximus
19/09/07 @ 08:34
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Are those screenies cut-scenes or gameplay stills? Unless it's gameplay stills there can be no comment on the graphics.

What's the frame rate like? Are there those stupid button-press sequences like in heavenly sword?

Not a very informative article I'm afraid..
tiddles
19/09/07 @ 08:38
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Looks and sounds very promising - apart from the bit about the one-shot-kill snipers. They are never fun in any game I've ever played.

Isn't the point that you see their laser beams first, so you get a chance to get out of their way before they shoot you?
jstar
19/09/07 @ 08:40
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
the point is that if it lasts only 6-8 hours it hardly feels like an adventure does it.
Les
19/09/07 @ 08:42
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Not a problem if it's ICO-level quality all the way through, but I'd be slightly concerned that gameplay development and level design time is being sacrificed so that the dev teams can work on making the leaves look nice in the jungle environments."

+1, though I'm afraid it'll mostly be about making the leaves look nice... :(

But it's a difficult subject, the one about playtime. Personally, I don’t mind a game being over in under 10 hours. As long as there are good incentives to play it again (great gameplay, good unlockables, medals, whatever). If it's just one time, 10 hours, it's no deal for me.

In the past, I used to only buy games with 25+ playtime. But with a huge stack of unfinished games lying around, I’m not sure whether that was an accurate measure to determine whether a game would be a worthwile investment or not…

There are very few games that have a story or game mechanic good enough to entertain for more than 10 or so hours (of course an arbitrary figure. Might as well be 5 or 15). Even the otherwise excellent Okami dragged on in the end. Just like with movies, music or books, there can be too much content and this drags down the overall quality.

I used to love JRPGs but lately, I’m finding that I just don’t have enough time to play them anymore. Take FF XII for example. It’s got an excellent battle engine and the story and setting is the best ever IMO. Unfortunately, the story is also quite complex and doesn’t work well if you play it only a couple of times a month. I will finish it eventually but much of the story and thus its impact will be lost on me because it took me over 6 months to get through it.

So don't get me wrong, I still like long games. And if two games are of equal, consistent quality, I'd rather get the longer game. But that long game should facilitate playing it over a spread out period.
Edited 2 times, most recently on 19/09/07 @ 10:33
mkreku
19/09/07 @ 08:45
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
At least the graphical style is spot on. I think they've nailed that "video game look" to avoid the uncanny valley effect while still making it beautiful and pretty realistic to watch. I like it a lot.
Darren
19/09/07 @ 08:45
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
This game looks great... definitely appears to be THE next-gen Tomb Raider by the looks of things unlike that half-good (platform bits), half-bad (bike bits) Tomb Raider Legend!!!
Ace_McCloud
19/09/07 @ 08:47
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
This is the one game on the PS3 that has me interested.... oh well.
Darren
19/09/07 @ 08:48
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Forgot to add that I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that Naughty Dog didn't claim their game lasts a lot longer than Heavenly Sword... when we had games like the original Tomb Raider lasting upwards of 20 hours (certainly Anniversary has for me), you kind of expect this game to be of a comparable length otherwise what IS the point of Blu-ray for games?
Der_tolle_Emil
19/09/07 @ 08:55
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
This is one of the very few titles I am really interested in that come out on the PS3. I had a chance to play the demo at the games convention and the fact that it is a bit like Tomb Raider is what raised my interest. Playing it though I was a bit disappointed. It certainly looks nice (nothing ground breaking though) but at least the demo felt unpolished. You can hide behind rocks and trees Gears of War style but I encountered situations where my character was standing right in front of a tree when I started to aim. Such things shouldn't happen because there are only a few locations where you can actually hide so the chances of running into that specific problem are quite high.

Some parts also felt a bit like trial and error - suddenly three enemies stand right in front of you and you just die.

What I can say all of the negative things could be fixed in the final version - the game itself is fine mostly but still unremarkable and with the flaws so far it's not what I hoped it would be.
kangarootoo
19/09/07 @ 09:02
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
On the subject of total playtime, I have gone back to Halo and Hitman: Blood Money countless times.

I honestly don't have the faintest idea how long a single play through of either game would take, because its never actually mattered.

I plan on playing through Bioshock again also.

I've played through the original Deus Ex about 4 times I would expect.

If you asked me how many times I played through (as in looped the score) Asteroids on the Atari 2600, I would have to say something like "every saturday morning for about 2 years of my life".

I am unlikely to play through Oblivion again as its just too damn big for that. If it were shorter, I proably would play through again. Would I get the same number of gameplay hours from the title? Who knows, and really who cares?

Point being, if a game is fun and you play through it again as a result, you get your moneys worth. If a game sucks, who cares how long it lasts. Would you even finish it if it wasn't fun to play?
miiiguel
19/09/07 @ 09:05
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Fellow PS3'ers, we know that even if the article said the game's only 4 hours you'd come with some lame excuse to say 4-hours game is the way to go. Who cares about those epics, right ? (until they start appearing on PS3, because, they will).
It's understandable, and you have my sympathy.
Les
19/09/07 @ 09:09
#33
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
“If a game sucks, who cares how long it lasts. Would you even finish it if it wasn't fun to play?”

True, but I think the discussion is about game length with the assumption being that the game is actually worth playing.

And there are plenty of examples of games that are fun to play but the game mechanics or story or whatever just aren't good enough to keep you interested long enough to finish it in a reasonable time frame. I thought Metroid Prime was a wonderful game for instance. And the hours I spent on it were well spent. But at some point, I lost interest/wanted to play something else. When I got back to Metroid again (several months later) I noticed I had to re-learn its control scheme again and I got consistently slaughtered by the strong enemies because I was already nearing the end. I never finished the game, which is a waste I guess.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 19/09/07 @ 10:16
SteveB
19/09/07 @ 09:16
#34
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I think these 'short' games are only short for those people who have the time to commit to big single sessions of gaming.

For me I find a lot of these so called short games too long. Bioshock for example, I bought on release day and I still haven't finished. For me it could do with being a bit shorter as it feels padded in places.
LeD
19/09/07 @ 09:16
#35
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Another slap in the Cell-less Blu-Ray-less 360. Ouch!
zuljin
19/09/07 @ 09:17
#36
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@miiiguel
"...Fellow PS3'ers..."

*ERROR*
Les
19/09/07 @ 09:18
#37
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
and another one for the ignore list... :(
Vandrius
19/09/07 @ 09:18
#38
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Mmmm... if its heavily replayable, 10h would be fine.

Then again, I'm trying to remember how long the first tomb raider was...

Bah. 100+ hour FF games FTW! :-D
Beano
19/09/07 @ 09:26
#39
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Funny... I remember how much Tomb Raider legend's 5-6 hour length and Gears Of War's 6-7 hour length was defended by various "xbots"... and now a 10 hour PS3 game is under attack buy the same people. Gee!

Personally I'm more interested in the quality of gameplay and not if it's 10 or 15 hours long. If Uncharted is fun to play, I can live with 10 hours.
deepmenace
19/09/07 @ 09:27
#40
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
short, easy games for the win. life is challenging enough without fun being hard.
tonynibbles
19/09/07 @ 09:29
#41
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Played the demo last week and really enjoyed it!
RatBastard
19/09/07 @ 09:33
#42
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Dabo

"Ugly???? Are you retarded? I for one have never seen a game with as realistic lighting and folage it looks absolutely sumptious. Best looking game I've seen so far on next gen but I'm still not getting a PS3 though."

If you have a fetish for human skin that looks like plastic, I would agree. Example of good-looking game with shaders that handles even non-plastic materials is Crysis, at least from screenshots.
miiiguel
19/09/07 @ 09:35
#43
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Now that Gears game..., so short it makes me sick!

Uncharted is what ? 10 hours and 37 minutes, that's the sweet spot!
Edited 1 times, most recently on 19/09/07 @ 10:36
Darren
19/09/07 @ 09:39
#44
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
BioShock lasted me 35+ hours on my first playthrough (on Medium difficulty). That's a decent length for a game regardless of whether it had multiplayer or not (which wouldn't have interested me anyway). A single player game length of 15-20 hours is perfect for me, anything longer is a bonus, so in that respect games like Heavenly Sword and Gears of War are too short. I'm hoping that Uncharted: Drake's Fortune lasts me at least 15 hours...
mkreku
19/09/07 @ 09:39
#45
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Bioshock didn't last me even 10 hours. GOTY indeed.
Brodie
19/09/07 @ 10:02
#46
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Look! He's punching some black people! Call the anti-Resident Evil 5 mob and let them know they've got a new game to pick on...
miiiguel
19/09/07 @ 10:07
#47
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Finished BioShock in 25 hours (normal, got all the Audio Diaries), then did it on Easy (just to get the Tonic's Achievement and save the little weirdos one), now doing on Hard (and you guys who say it's way too easy should try, it's quite hard, I'm allways on the red line ammo-wise, and money-wise). Then again, I never rush to fisnish games, I take my time.
Achievements brought (me) quite a bit of replay value.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 19/09/07 @ 11:07
Moz
19/09/07 @ 10:08
#48
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
10 hours sounds about right to me, sure I got through Gear of War quicker then that (well except the end boss but I don't think spending several houring repeating the same 10 minutes of game really counts as it get bloody annoiing)

My thinking is that for a good story and single player experience 10 hours is about right (RPG type games being the exception).

If you wanting a longer lasting action experience then go for online features.

I feel sorry for FPS and Action adventure games makers they have a really tough job because they have to worry about narative and lots of level design, rather then say a sports game designer that makes a selection of cars and tracks and people will be happy going round and round each track for hours on end.
Les
19/09/07 @ 10:09
#49
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Skin does look rather shiny but given the jungle setting, they're probably just sweating... ;)
George Roper
19/09/07 @ 10:11
#50
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@LeD

"Another slap in the Cell-less Blu-Ray-less 360. Ouch!"

I hope that was sacrasm because if this is a 'slap' on the 360s chops, the 360 will counter with a roundhouse kick that will send the PS3 flying squarely into the middle of next week.

The sheer amount of quality titles that the 360 already has, never mind what it has to look forward to, shadows the PS3 at every possible step.

I'll see your Uncharted (which I predict will join Heavenly Sword and Lair as 'happily mediocore') and raise you a bone-crunching Halo 3 + Mass Effect.

Comments: 1-50 of 78 in total | next 50 »

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery