Uncharted: Drake's Fortune

By Ellie Gibson Published 19 September, 2007

Playtime with Naughty Dog's new puppy.

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.

Howdy, cowboy

The gunfighting is also pretty straightforward, and Hennig says this is deliberate. "Most games have a very tactical style of gunplay, there's a lot of precision. When you look at the movies we draw our inspiration from the hero is not a super-soldier. He can get into a panic, he can get overwhelmed, he's overmanned and outgunned. We wanted the gunplay to have a Wild West feel rather than a military feel."

It's not all about running and gunning. You'll still need to make good use of cover if you want to survive for very long. This doesn't mean crouching down and waiting for enemies to come to you, however. You'll need to keep moving, dashing across open clearings and dive-rolling from one cover position to another.

And while all that's going on, you'll need to keep an eye out for snipers; they can kill you with one shot. This isn't as unforgiving as it might sound, because you can see the lasers on their scope as they track you. This gives you a couple of seconds to either move into safety or take them out. It's still tricky, mind.

Hennig explains that gunplay and combat are two "key pillars" of Uncharted, but this is still a Naughty Dog game and an action-adventure game. So the third pillar, and a hugely important one, is exploration. "One of the most inspiring things about this genre is the urge to explore, which I think we all share. It's a human urge," she observes.

H2Oh

'Uncharted: Drake's Fortune' Screenshot 4

The new Eurogamer offices. We're getting a pool table put in and everything.

During the demo we see three of the environments you get to run around. There's the interior of a fort, beautifully lit with blue-green tones and complete with spectacular water effects. Next up is an open area where you're surrounded by moss-covered ruins - Lara would feel right at home. And finally a monks' library, where you must solve a puzzle by turning statues in different directions.

Before you can get cracking on the puzzle, you need to deal with a load of gentlemen firing guns at your head. In fact, after we've played through each one a couple of times, a pattern emerges. You start off by taking out the snipers, then the enemies on the ground, and then you can do the puzzle-solving. We ask Hennig if this is how all the levels in the game play out.

"No, that's such a small sample," she replies. "There is an aspect of that as you can't very well solve a puzzle while someone's shooting at you. You need to clear the area then deal with the problem at hand."

The enemies are clever buggers, at least when they're at a distance. They take cover convincingly, observing your movements and changing their strategy. But walk straight up to them and they don't always know how to react, leaving you free to punch their heads in. They're also a bit deaf, so it's easy to creep up on them. A few are visually impaired and won't turn around if you walk straight past them. Still, this is pre-beta code, so there's time to iron out the niggles.

Hourly rate

Time could be an issue in a different context, however. Another journalist in our interview session asks how many hours of gameplay Uncharted offers. "It's hard to estimate. It depends on the player and how they play," Hennig replies. "I think we're looking at something like a 10-hour experience, but it's such a subjective thing."

Just recently, Heavenly Sword fell under heavy fire for lasting around 6 to 8 hours. There's a growing debate about game length, with many questions being raised about value for money and next-gen expectations. So what does Hennig think?

'Uncharted: Drake's Fortune' Screenshot 5

'So when it comes to sun and fun and goodness in the jungle, they all prefer the sunny funny one they call...'

"I don't know what we should do these days. People go out and buy DVDs of two-hour movies, and it's over. You've got something five times that long... It's not a bad price for the value, I think.

"It's getting harder and harder to make these games, there's a lot that goes into it," she continues. "We have to worry about how his eyes refract light the way Pixar does, but it still has to be interactive and run in real time. Sometimes that density of detail means you can only do so much. But I think if the experience is compelling enough, that's okay."

She's got a point. Just the other day we reviewed a game that can be completed in under an hour, and we gave it 9 out of 10. Mind you, that game costs GBP 4.25, not GBP 42.50. Uncharted is bound to take flack from those who like their adventures long lasting.

Let's just hope any such flack doesn't completely overshadow what Naughty Dog achieves with Uncharted. They're clearly working hard to push the action-adventure genre forward, and to make the most of what the PS3 has to offer. The question is whether this game has that Naughty Dog magic, or whether it has been left behind along with the fantasy elements and the cartoon visuals of previous games. Only one thing is clear: it is a bit like Tomb Raider.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (74) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • RatBastard #1 4 years ago

    The game looks ugly. Welcome to next-gen Plastiline(tm) shaders.

  • Scimarad #2 4 years ago

    "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 by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 08:22

  • morriss #3 4 years ago

    Did you play the game, Ellie? Did you enjoy it? I couldn't tell my the article.

  • sugapunk #4 4 years ago

    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.

  • TripSkyway #5 4 years ago

    Interesting read.

    Any idea if there'll be a demo?

  • morriss #6 4 years ago

    Will it support 1080i?

  • deepmenace #7 4 years ago

    first impressions?

    developer interview more like.

  • DonnieDarko333 #8 4 years ago

    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 #9 4 years ago

    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 #10 4 years ago

    "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 by 2 at 19/09/07 @ 08:56

  • stephenb #11 4 years ago

    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 #12 4 years ago

    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 by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 09:00

  • barnard666 #13 4 years ago

    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.

  • Les #14 4 years ago

    "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 #15 4 years ago

    You'll like it anyway, Les won't you?

  • Eighthours #16 4 years ago

    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 #17 4 years ago

    What's wrong with 10 hours anyway? I hardly ever get time to finish games.

  • Les #18 4 years ago

    "You'll like it anyway, Les won't you?"

    Why would I?

  • Killerbee #19 4 years ago

    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 #20 4 years ago

    Um Bongo!

    There I said it, happy now?

  • tiddles #21 4 years ago

    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?

  • Les #22 4 years ago

    "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 by 2 at 19/09/07 @ 10:33

  • mkreku #23 4 years ago

    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 #24 4 years ago

    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 #25 4 years ago

    This is the one game on the PS3 that has me interested.... oh well.

  • Darren #26 4 years ago

    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 #27 4 years ago

    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 #28 4 years ago

    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 #29 4 years ago

    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 #30 4 years ago

    “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 by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 10:16

  • SteveB #31 4 years ago

    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 #32 4 years ago

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

  • zuljin #33 4 years ago

    @miiiguel
    "...Fellow PS3'ers..."

    *ERROR*

  • Les #34 4 years ago

    and another one for the ignore list... :(

  • Vandrius #35 4 years ago

    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 #36 4 years ago

    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 #37 4 years ago

    short, easy games for the win. life is challenging enough without fun being hard.

  • tonynibbles #38 4 years ago

    Played the demo last week and really enjoyed it!

  • RatBastard #39 4 years ago

    @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 #40 4 years ago

    Now that Gears game..., so short it makes me sick!

    Uncharted is what ? 10 hours and 37 minutes, that's the sweet spot!
    Edited by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 10:36

  • Darren #41 4 years ago

    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 #42 4 years ago

    Bioshock didn't last me even 10 hours. GOTY indeed.

  • Brodie #43 4 years ago

    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 #44 4 years ago

    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 by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 11:07

  • Moz #45 4 years ago

    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 #46 4 years ago

    Skin does look rather shiny but given the jungle setting, they're probably just sweating... ;)

  • George-Roper #47 4 years ago

    @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.

  • Beano #48 4 years ago

    At noon the bots come out...

  • UncleLou #49 4 years ago

    Sounds good, although I agree with the comments that it doesn't look too hot. It really is the shiniest game ever. Looks a bit like it takes place in Barbieland.

  • groovychainsaw #50 4 years ago

    Just rent it - last couple of games with short time-spans and not much replayability (and I don't know about you, but I can't think of an action-adventure recently with much replayability, barring tacked-on collectables...) i got through in 3 days, then took back. Don't need to spend more than £3 (or a subscription rental service). Problem solved. Stop complaining about length...

  • el_pollo_diablo #51 4 years ago

    Sorry but in what way was this article any kind of preview of a game? Developer interview perhaps, but certainly not a preview.
    Edited by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 11:29

  • miiiguel #52 4 years ago

    The "problem" with these games (it's not really a problem to me, as I like to collect video-games), is that you aren't going to replay it again, that's a fact. Can you imagine replaying Tomb Raider, after doing all the Achievements? "historical items" shelf...

  • belziah #53 4 years ago

    @xerx3s

    Which next gen console are you gonna be playing CRYSIS on?

    @my-gel

    Did the 9 hours I clocked Gears in stop it from being the most visceral fun I had last year? No. Was it a revolution in gameplay? No. Does your mother look upon you with a foul taste in her mouth? If she could feel shame, then probably.

    You sound more bitter and sad with each passing day, pathetic really.

  • miiiguel #54 4 years ago

    My mother can't taste anything really, as she died last year..., and yeah, you can say I'm sad.

  • belziah #55 4 years ago

    I can understand how such a tragic event could turn you into the willful fuckwit you are, but I think you should get professional counselling instead of trying to work through your obvious issues on a gaming website.

    I mean this with utmost sincerity and I'm sorry for your loss.
    Edited by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 11:48

  • miiiguel #56 4 years ago

    Not a tragedy, it's just life. The only avoidable issues, imho, is to adress to family members on a gaming site. I only talk about games, you prefer to talk about my family to express your biterness. But then again, it's cool. Just chill...

    /hands a handshake, and a... Xanax/
    Edited by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 11:50

  • SteveB #57 4 years ago

    The new videos on gametrailers look a bit disappointing. I loved the original Jak & Daxter (before it went all teenage angst on us) so I still hold out hope that the final game will be good.

  • Les #58 4 years ago

    "I loved the original Jak & Daxter (before it went all teenage angst on us) so I still hold out hope that the final game will be good."

    If you're hoping this will turn into something similar to Jack & Daxter before it's being released, you're out of luck...

  • belziah #59 4 years ago

    My only bitterness is towards your willful ignorance, and to end it, I'll put you on ignore.

  • smartgun #60 4 years ago

    "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."

    Ordinary. Except he can snap peoples necks from behind. And proficiently use sniper rifles and grenades. Why can't he just be an explorer? And why fill every game with generic FPS paraphenalia? Please don't let this be a wasted opportunity.

  • SteveB #61 4 years ago

    @les - no I didn't mean it would be like J&D, just that the developers have a good track record, so that even though the videos look under whelming the final game could still be good. Phew.

  • drumbaby #62 4 years ago

    Me wanty.

  • Carrybagma #63 4 years ago

    I'm liking Ellie's stuff more and more. It's becoming more.. I dunno, Mugwumlike. That's good, right?

  • Les #64 4 years ago

    "I'm liking Ellie's stuff more and more. It's becoming more.. I dunno, Mugwumlike. That's good, right?"

    No clue what you mean, but for me she's one of the worst around here... I liked EG better when they didn't try so hard to be the Sun of video game journalism...

  • Artemis_Matsas #65 4 years ago

    This game sounds better and better with every new preview. Can't wait.

  • bushwod #66 4 years ago

    I have to agree with the negative comments about the visual style.

    Although it wouldn't make any difference to the gameplay, I really dislike this kind of generic, super shiny graphics that a lot of games put out. At least games like ratchet and clank or Mario Galaxy have their own art direction, but every time I look at screens for this it just look so, 'generic'.

    This certianly isn't the only game to commit this offense, but I would say it's one of the worse offenders.

  • Lov3 #67 4 years ago

    I like tomb raider. Ergo, I am interested in this game.

    EDIT: although they should change their texture renderer. Yeuch.
    Edited by 1 at 19/09/07 @ 14:52

  • Kenshin001 #68 4 years ago

    "I like tomb raider. Ergo, I am interested in this game."

    Yeah, me too. Could be a good successor to the Tomb Raider series now that is getting a bit long in the tooth. ND seem to have a pretty good pedigree behind them so this game should be pretty cool.

  • mono_eric3 #69 4 years ago

    The style is great but the rendering is over-done. The sixaxis bits and the combat are appauling.

    It just doesn't feel anywhere near as good a game as Tomb Raider Legend in my opinion, but that is based on early stuff though so hopefully the final thing will live up to what people want.

    D.

  • Lim-Dul #70 4 years ago

    Looks like a totally generic TPS.

  • m0thr4 #71 4 years ago

    "I like it when developers say "how hard it is" to do this or that..."

    I like it even more when they run, crying, to the Threespeech website (or similar) to complain about the low review scores and the poor sales. I particularly enjoyed Insomniac's excuse as to why the graphics in Resistance were not as good as those in Gears of War, despite the extra storage space they had to play with.

    By now, video games should surely know what we like and what we don't like... and what we don't like is spending £40-50 on something that lasts only 10 hours and has no replay value.

    Comparing games to movies is also a bit lame. I only actually buy movies that I would watch 5 times or more so, in fact, I'm getting around 10+ hours of entertainment for a lot less than the cost of a video game.

    EDIT: I was actually quite looking forward to this game until I read this interview... but when I hear a company setting up excuses so far in advance, it makes me wonder whether the game is running into development difficulties that may make it into the final release.
    Edited by 1 at 03/10/07 @ 13:12

  • Les #72 4 years ago

    "I particularly enjoyed Insomniac's excuse as to why the graphics in Resistance were not as good as those in Gears of War, despite the extra storage space they had to play with."

    But you clearly didn't understand it...

  • Apologie #73 4 years ago

    Game of the year material..., Drake's Fortune will deliver some of the best graphics, gameplay and argument ever seen in a game..., brilliant.

    Can't wait

  • Atropos #74 4 years ago

    I just completed the review code of this game, and I have to say I was pretty damn impressed. (my company's in a building with a PS3 firm, that's how I get access to this; I'm not a reviewer)

    In simple terms: If you'd call this game "Gears of Indy", you'd not be far off. Slightly less martially inclined than Gears, it still has a similar feel to the firefights.

    Not only did I stay at work until 1.30am last night to finish it off, one of my co-workers ALSO stayed behind, just to watch me play and see how the story'd pan out. He described it as 'not that different from watching a decent action-movie'.

    And yes, before yesterday I had completed 40%, and I played for 6 1/2 hours last night, so 10-12 hours is about right.

    The Good:
    - Amazing Graphics
    - Very Satisfying, brutally punishing fire-fights, with some proper dodging and weaving from the AI opponents.
    - Excellent story in the adventure-hokum tradition, backed up by some great voice-acting.
    - Nice mix of action and adventuring
    - Easy to control
    - Never felt 'lost'
    - Excellent atmosphere

    The Bad
    - Puzzles are too easy, most of the time the solution is handed to you on a plate.
    - Jumping and dodging is context-sensitive (á la Gears of War), so you never feel like you're really 'making the jump'.
    - Linear, you're never in doubt where to go (this is also a good point, in my book).
    - Hand-to-hand combat is underused and under-developed

    In Conclusion:
    I loved it; I actually (blasphemy, I know) enjoyed this somewhat more than Gears of War, probably due to the superior story and atmosphere. The first "must have" game exclusive to the PS3.

    9/10