|
Fututor Magnus posted:if the devs want to emphasise the story as the underpinning of the experience, why have the players play a game that has nothing to do with that experience? they want a character story where their emotions and experience define the game, but the player is kept walled away from actually having anything to do with that lest they mess up the developers' precious story. instead we get to jump and shoot people to keep us satisfied and wait for the game to feed us more story. we are jumpy shooty man, but we are not Nathan Drake. the game gives no fucks about the story we get to make through actual play, neither does it care to actually give us a part in the story it wants us to experience. I don't know if that's all necessary I guess, at least for me. Because I still care about Nathan Drake and am happy he got his happy ending even if there's not much story told through the gameplay. I don't think I need to have a part in the story of the game or connect completely with the protagonist, because this isn't a roleplaying game. Even still just through gameplay due to quips, animations, and conversations with other characters Nathan comes off as a likeable enough guy who i'm invested in and want to see succeed. Or at least see apologise to his wife for being an rear end in a top hat.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:if the devs want to emphasise the story as the underpinning of the experience, why have the players play a game that has nothing to do with that experience? they want a character story where their emotions and experience define the game, but the player is kept walled away from actually having anything to do with that lest they mess up the developers' precious story. instead we get to jump and shoot people to keep us satisfied and wait for the game to feed us more story. we are jumpy shooty man, but we are not Nathan Drake. the game gives no fucks about the story we get to make through actual play, neither does it care to actually give us a part in the story it wants us to experience. What about all those times when characters had back-and-forth moments during gameplay? Do those not count? And you had to make sure Nate survives until the next story cutscene, that was your job as a person playing the game besides having fun, does that not count too? I feel like you're going out of your way to say "it's not connecting with the game because I say so" in regards to increasingly more specific circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
perhaps the real ludonarrative dissonance is yours
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
SyntheticPolygon posted:I don't know if that's all necessary I guess, at least for me. Because I still care about Nathan Drake and am happy he got his happy ending even if there's not much story told through the gameplay. I don't think I need to have a part in the story of the game or connect completely with the protagonist, because this isn't a roleplaying game. Even still just through gameplay due to quips, animations, and conversations with other characters Nathan comes off as a likeable enough guy who i'm invested in and want to see succeed. Or at least see apologise to his wife for being an rear end in a top hat. Play tells a story, the only story we got to relate was of a guy shooting and getting shot and then the cutscenes negate even that story we got to say. "Here's this character that we want you to be empathise with but we won't let you control any of the actions that will get you to like or connect with the character and all the gameplay really means nothing" is the situation. I don't hate the character at all, it's just that the game is telling me that the actual tangible connection I have with the character cannot be allowed to affect what the game wants the character to be. Even MGSV's dumb "if you kill more people then ur devil horn grows longer" was better in that regard. CJacobs posted:What about all those times when characters had back-and-forth moments during gameplay? Do those not count? And you had to make sure Nate survives until the next story cutscene, that was your job as a person playing the game besides having fun, does that not count too? I feel like you're going out of your way to say "it's not connecting with the game because I say so" in regards to increasingly more specific circumstances. Did the player have any control over the dialogue? Did we ever get to create character moments of our own volition that mattered? You're right that our sole job is to make Nate survive the gameplay bits for the dev's story to happen as planned. We are not Nathan Drake, we are the game's guns and rope hook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:perhaps the real ludonarrative dissonance The real ludonarrative dissonance was the friends way made along the dead war criminal-strewn path.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:Play tells a story, the only story we got to relate was of a guy shooting and getting shot and then the cutscenes negate even that story we got to say. "Here's this character that we want you to be empathise with but we won't let you control any of the actions that will get you to like or connect with the character and all the gameplay really means nothing" is the situation. I don't hate the character at all, it's just that the game is telling me that the actual tangible connection I have with the character cannot be allowed to affect what the game wants the character to be. I don't think you need to control the actions of a character to empathise or connect with them. And the gameplay means something because it was fun and I enjoyed it and it connects events. Pretty simple parameters I know, but having fun's a mark of a good videogame imo. I even enjoyed the story and the cutscenes, had fun watching them. Maybe you enjoy videogames differently and the stuff I had fun with was things you hated, that's cool I guess. But you can't say it's impossible to care about the game's characters, gameplay or story, when I did. I don't need to be Nathan Drake to like the game Uncharted 4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
SyntheticPolygon posted:I don't think you need to control the actions of a character to empathise or connect with them. And the gameplay means something because it was fun and I enjoyed it and it connects events. Pretty simple parameters I know, but having fun's a mark of a good videogame imo. I even enjoyed the story and the cutscenes, had fun watching them. right, so if you enjoy a game that means all criticism of it is moot. i'm not claiming that i hate the characters, the gameplay, the story, or the general experience. i had fun, and i liked the characters, but the criticisms made in this thread against uncharted 4 stand regardless. it's not a bad game, clearly a lot of effort and cash went into making a pretty polished game. that doesn't mean that it hasn't got its flaws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
...I feel I've been slightly misrepresented, in this dumb derail I have unintentionally perpetuated. Again, I liked Spec Ops, and how it handles storytelling, but uh, the developers themselves gave quotes like: 'In response to complaints that the massacre was unnecessary or exploitative, Williams justified the scene by saying that the plot device was intended to evoke players' anger, and that a valid way to end the game is simply for the player to put the controller down and stop playing.[93]' At the end of the day, I guess the lesson to learn is 'no game or LP is good enough to prevent dumb derails'. I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
"how am i supposed to identity with someone if i can't control their every thought and action?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:right, so if you enjoy a game that means all criticism of it is moot. i'm not claiming that i hate the characters, the gameplay, the story, or the general experience. i had fun, and i liked the characters, but the criticisms made in this thread against uncharted 4 stand regardless. it's not a bad game, clearly a lot of effort and cash went into making a pretty polished game. that doesn't mean that it hasn't got its flaws. I'm not saying criticism is invalid just that your thing of how there's no reason for the player to empathise or connect with Nathan Drake because they have no role in the story or influencing character actions or whatever doesn't really fly for me. Because I did empathise with the character and like him, and I didn't need to have a 'role' in the story to do that. Like, not everyone feels that way I guess but you talked about it as "the player" not connecting with the character instead of yourself, as if it were a universal thing and I disagree with that notion at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:...I feel I've been slightly misrepresented, in this dumb derail I have unintentionally perpetuated. Again, I liked Spec Ops, and how it handles storytelling, but uh, the developers themselves gave quotes like: I don't think it's a bad thing if a game intentionally incites feelings of anger in the player. I think people make too much of the "you can put the controller down" comment or misconstrue it as meaning "you are a monster if you didn't stop playing" or something. The goal was more, IMO, to make the player question games in which the only real mechanic is to shoot people and move on, or stop playing. SyntheticPolygon posted:I'm not saying criticism is invalid just that your thing of how there's no reason for the player to empathise or connect with Nathan Drake because they have no role in the story or influencing character actions or whatever doesn't really fly for me. Because I did empathise with the character and like him, and I didn't need to have a 'role' in the story to do that. Like, not everyone feels that way I guess but you talked about it as "the player" not connecting with the character instead of yourself, as if it were a universal thing and I disagree with that notion at least. What I'm more referring to is the fact that, although I like the character, and the game likes the character, my interaction with the game has nothing to do with the character. It's like connecting with a movie's characters, it simply doesn't take advantage of the medium's possibilities. This is something I'm noting, and consider to be a criticism of this game among many others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:Did the player have any control over the dialogue? Did we ever get to create character moments of our own volition that mattered? Yes. There were optional dialogues you could have or not have, and points where it gave you dialogue choices too (the latter mostly toward the start). It's not an RPG, so they weren't everywhere, but it's significantly more than most shooters give you. Now as for "did they matter", that's a person-to-person thing for where you draw the line. I've heard people go so far as to say that even the choices in RPGs usually don't matter, because you still go through all the same dungeons and then fight the final boss. For me, the optional character moments in UC4 mattered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
People pick the weirdest hills to die on. Great LP as usual, gents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
DukeofCA posted:People pick the weirdest hills to die on. a lot of poor innocent mercenaries didn't get to choose the hills they died on 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
To try and steer the thread away from the verbal knife fights over the epilogue and the overall narrative... While it's over, here's a game all about dogs; the developer's putting a lot of effort into accurately modeling canine motion and behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Great job with the LP you guys! I thought the ending was a pretty heartwarming way to end the series (or at least Nathan's story). Although I find it a bit strange how Elena's Playstation still works in the epilogue. At least they sidestepped the issue on how much technology must have changed in 13 years by having them now live on some remote island (Hawaii?).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Zuzie posted:At least they sidestepped the issue on how much technology must have changed in 13 years by having them now live on some remote island (Hawaii?). For a little bit I thought the reaction to the winch-less jeep meant that they'd decided to live on libertalia
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Thanks for doing the LP guys. I am thoroughly entertained. Happy to go along for the ride with you two. Looking forward to Metal Gear, despite that games problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Well now I see how people can be bothered by Overwatch's story not having much effect on the gameplay beyond maps, costumes and characters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:Well now I see how people can be bothered by Overwatch's story not having much effect on the gameplay beyond maps, costumes and characters. the story of overwatch is all the characters are kissing all the other characters with their bullets
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
One thing about Nadine is she was both in the original version and the version we got, so I wonder if anything about her was changed, because I'd love to see the original outline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
darealkooky posted:Neil Druckmann is making an unfair comparison because none of the indy movies have a scene where he decides to become an archeologist because of his emotionally traumatic childhood and pressure from others. He just does it because he's a cool guy. Didn't he get into it trying to get his daddy to notice him? There was that whole scene at the start of Last Crusade where he escapes with a 500 year-old cross and goes running home to show it to Senior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Lovely LP, like I thought you two could do anything else, even with crap games, like OBSERVE_POOCHS for example. Also, so, the ending was twee as hell. Why does everything have to be gritty grimdark? Look at the house. Brightly lit, with lots of colors. Hell, even the sinks were brightly colored. The daughter was an adorable little dork girl. And the ending has happy with hope for the future. What exactly is the problem with that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Can anyone explain why "you have to give up the treasure" was a plot point by the end of the game? At earlier points, sure, but by the end it has completely lost all teeth. It doesn't contain a cursed mummy, it's not actually tree resin guarded by blue men, it didn't get consumed by a ridiculous sinkhole, it's just underwater in a sheltered cove. The only remaining threat to people seeking the treasure is other people seeking the treasure. That's a fine reason for Nadine to give up but after Drake kills Rafe there's nothing to stop them from just coming back a week later to do some excavation and scuba diving. Also the dog never pulls the classic pet move of walking directly in front of you then abruptly stopping to check you are still going the right way, forcing you to step around/over them. 0/10
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
I really, really did not like that last boss fight. The timing was not good and I had a really hard time for whatever reason judging what direction the attacks were coming from. I can't tell you how many attempts I had to make on it. It's frustrating that they never introduced this beforehand as a game mechanic. I'm also kind of torn on whether it was a better idea to kill Sam at the end or not. I'm find with how it ended, but it did seem like they were trying for a theme of 'obsession can lead you to your doom' which they had going on the entire game with Sam but in the end he survives. Otherwise the game is very good, but I do think it drags out a bit too much at the beginning with the flashbacks. They did serve as alright tutorials but it went on a bit too long. Some other general comments: -I wish there was more Sully in this game, as he is the character with Nate most of the rest of the series, and he seems to have been sidelined due to the inclusion of Sam. It does make sense to a degree since the character is older, but it's a bit disappointing that the last time he really appears in a playable sequence it's mostly for the conversations and you don't have any gameplay beyond pulling and jumping. -The Madagascar sequence where you are hanging onto the truck is amazing and I wish there was more of that in this game, it improves on the section from Uncharted 3 where you use the horse to get around a convoy of vehicles. -The game looks absolutely amazing, no doubt about it. They really took advantage of the move to next gen. -I felt like the gunplay was less frustrating in this game compared to some of the earlier ones. I didn't have to restart sections nearly as often as I did in the others. I think it's the most satisfying combat of the series.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Thanks for the great LP, I'd probably never have seen the game without it and that would have been a crying shame. Regarding the "ludonarrative dissonance" thing: I'm not seeing it. Ludonarrative dissonance means aspects of the gameplay directly contradict aspects of the storyline, e.g. the main character says they hate violence but can indescriminately murder in the game (GTA IV), the main character is portrayed as weak in the narrative but is godly in the game (GTA: San Andreas, Max Payne 3), or the main character is given freedom act in an immoral manner in game but ultimately portrayed as a good guy in the narrative (Mass Effect, Bioshock). The allegation of dissonance here seems to be that "the main is portrayed as a good person" and "the main character kills large numbers of people" are contradictory. Welcome to the action genre. In all media (games, films, TV shows, books) action heroes kill dozens of people who happen to be employed by the bad guy, but we're still expected to identify with the hero and care about his (or on rare occasions her) struggles. It's not an issue of tension of game vs narrative, it's a tension of narrative vs everyday ethics. You can think that action heroes orphaning dozens of children while spouting witty quips is a problem, definitely, but you should realise it's a bigger issue than any one particular game/film/TV show/book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
I'm confused why people are Great LP. Amazing finale too. Am still disappointed we didn't get any pirate zombies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Darox posted:Can anyone explain why "you have to give up the treasure" was a plot point by the end of the game? At earlier points, sure, but by the end it has completely lost all teeth. It doesn't contain a cursed mummy, it's not actually tree resin guarded by blue men, it didn't get consumed by a ridiculous sinkhole, it's just underwater in a sheltered cove. The only remaining threat to people seeking the treasure is other people seeking the treasure. That's a fine reason for Nadine to give up but after Drake kills Rafe there's nothing to stop them from just coming back a week later to do some excavation and scuba diving. I think the point is that Drake gives up the risky/illegal treasure hunting life. Besides, with the amount of the cave that collapsed it's probably not safe to try diving there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Darox posted:Also the dog never pulls the classic pet move of walking directly in front of you then abruptly stopping to check you are still going the right way, forcing you to step around/over them. 0/10 Honestly I was a little disappointed that there wasn't the option to encourage the dog to drink from the toilet, like I did when I was a drat kid 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
it's a christ metaphor
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
Darox posted:Can anyone explain why "you have to give up the treasure" was a plot point by the end of the game? At earlier points, sure, but by the end it has completely lost all teeth. It doesn't contain a cursed mummy, it's not actually tree resin guarded by blue men, it didn't get consumed by a ridiculous sinkhole, it's just underwater in a sheltered cove. The only remaining threat to people seeking the treasure is other people seeking the treasure. That's a fine reason for Nadine to give up but after Drake kills Rafe there's nothing to stop them from just coming back a week later to do some excavation and scuba diving. I think that the "give up the treasure" plot point makes sense because there's no supernatural element to it. The treasure literally doesn't matter. Nate only went to the cave to get Sam back. Searching for this treasure nearly cost Nate his life and his marriage, and he realized that those are more important than tons of sunken pirate gold. Also, the dog never let off the most noxious gas known in existence while being somewhere near you, so add that to the list of classic pet moves that weren't in the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
That would be more convincing if Nathan and Elena didn't go on to spend the next dozen years searching for ancient treasures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Darox posted:That would be more convincing if Nathan and Elena didn't go on to spend the next dozen years searching for ancient treasures. Together and not behind each other's back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
They're not angered that Sam wants half a billion in gold bullion and historical artefacts, the problem is that he's put his and their lives in danger and sabotaged Elena and Nate's relationship for it. Salvaging is fine, reckless endangerment is not. Remember that Sam's eventual main argument - "Rafe doesn't deserve this" - doesn't hold any water. Who gives a poo poo if the rich idiot claims he did all the work? Split the treasure, know that you and your brother were the ones to finish your mum's quest, and optionally bad-mouth Rafe any time he tries to publicly claim he did more than just finance the operation (because who cares if he tries to blackball you? You have retirement money from just your cut alone). The obsession with massive piles of money when you could be happy with far less as long as you're proud of what you've done and your family is with you - that's the kicker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Darox posted:Can anyone explain why "you have to give up the treasure" was a plot point by the end of the game? At earlier points, sure, but by the end it has completely lost all teeth. It doesn't contain a cursed mummy, it's not actually tree resin guarded by blue men, it didn't get consumed by a ridiculous sinkhole, it's just underwater in a sheltered cove. The only remaining threat to people seeking the treasure is other people seeking the treasure. That's a fine reason for Nadine to give up but after Drake kills Rafe there's nothing to stop them from just coming back a week later to do some excavation and scuba diving. When both Rafe and Nadine were in play, it mattered on a more thematic level because it was about not letting the obsession that steered Nate for so many years leading into and including U3 lead Sam and Nate to either death or irreparable damage to the latter's relationships. As the villains start to fall away it becomes more practical, Nadine leaves but Rafe's obsession and hatred makes him a more immediate priority and when he dies they need to leave the treasure because the boat is on fire and exploding and sinking. Regarding the ending: I think that both Uncharted 3 and 4 did a lot of the legwork in characterizing Nate and his relationship to Elena in a way that makes the ending feel earned. If the games kept being the overly Indiana Jones type adventures where there isn't much to develop Nate outside the arc of an IJ movie then it would have felt about as weird as everything to do with Crystal Skull, but starting with 3 Naughty Dog did put more of an effort in making Nate a more complex character. The ending was a nice if toeing the line of excessively sweet payoff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
To me the big ~*~ludonarrative dissonance~*~ in the games isn't the killing, it's the whole recurring theme about how treasure hunting is dangerous and Nate could die. Because in the gameplay, he literally can't. Just about every jump he does is insanely dangerous and would probably kill someone who wasn't the PC of an shooter-platformer, but in the game they're all just simple navigational obstacles. The peak of this for me is in the chapter where you're heading back to the plane and Nate has decided he no longer wants to risk his life on this, and then a few minutes later, with everyone's full cooperation and consent, makes a fifteen foot leap over a chasm to grab the other edge by the skin of his teeth. For someone actually concerned about safety, it would be insane, but the game never treats it as anything but Nate's normal way of moving about. So it creates this weird situation where in the actual plot of the game Nate is a mortal human being who we should empathize with his wife's concern for his safety, while in gameplay he's Superman and will never miss a jump or be killed in a gunfight unless the cutscenes dictate it. And unlike the killing thing, that part isn't optional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Or unless you, playing as Nate, misses the jump or dies in a firefight. Anyway this game was super rad and absolutely gorgeous to look at. Thanks again for another great LP and as always I look forward to the next one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Good game, good let's play, poo poo posters in the thread. Thanks lp d00dz for making a fun thing to watch. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Darox posted:That would be more convincing if Nathan and Elena didn't go on to spend the next dozen years searching for ancient treasures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Spudd posted:Good game, good let's play, poo poo posters in the thread. Thanks lp d00dz for making a fun thing to watch. God forbid people have criticisms
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:52
|
|
