Current Events > Uncharted 2 is wayyyyyyy better than 1 and Golden Abyss

(+) Yeah! (+)

Golden Abyss was already a step above 1, imo, but 2 is on a whole nother level. Just got to chapter 15 (circling back to the Media Res train section from the beginning), so Im about halfway through the game, I assume. So much more variety in the areas, and more opportunities for a couple stealth kills here and there, better level design overall, and the story is good enough, too. Although Ive always thought of Uncharted stories as loving homages of Indiana Jones-type movies.

It's also a kajillion billion trillion times better than The Last of Us 2.

Imo its the same deal with Uncharted 4, another drastically high improvement. 3 is a good game too just arguably feels like a 2 expansion pack lol

Golden Abyss was awful and pointless

Maybe its because 3 was the first Uncharted game I played but 2 isnt fun that fun to me. I cant help but compare them and 3 has much more interesting locations, more exciting moments and a more interesting story imo. Ive always been willing to give 1 a lot of leeway because it was the first game in the series but 2 just doesnt do anything interesting in my opinion. The only reason its worth playing is because it introduces Chloe. Id go as far as to say I enjoy 2 less than 1,3 and 4

Golden Abyss yes, but Drake's Fortune? Nah. Among Thieves has a better antagonist, gameplay and set pieces, and has multiplayer, but for story, dialogue, setting, and replay value, Drake's Fortune is better.

Golden Abyss's biggest flaw is that all of the "HOLY SHIT! INTUITIVE TOUCH SCREEN CONTROLS!" had already been done to death on the DS. So I felt more annoyed by them than anything.

Golden Abyss was an awful tech demo

Irony posted...

Golden Abyss was awful and pointless

Perfect for the platform it was made for

Uncharted 2 is bad ass and the set pieces are amazing. You fight a military helicopter, a military tank, a Lt. for a crazy war lord. Then the war lord himself and all of his minions.

Feline_Heart posted...

Maybe its because 3 was the first Uncharted game I played but 2 isnt fun that fun to me. I cant help but compare them and 3 has much more interesting locations, more exciting moments and a more interesting story imo. Ive always been willing to give 1 a lot of leeway because it was the first game in the series but 2 just doesnt do anything interesting in my opinion. The only reason its worth playing is because it introduces Chloe

Completely agree. Amy Hennig fucked up in Among Thieves when it came to establishing Chloe as a character by making her as a gutless piece of ass for the feuding white protagonist and white rival antagonist to have their turns with. Glad Amy tried to salvage Chloe's character in Drake's Deception but she had very little quality screentime, so the damage was already done. Chloe kind of redeemed herself in Lost Legacy though.

Uncharted 3 story was a disjointed mess that looked like it was rewritten halfway through.

It clearly looked like the game was intending for Talbot to be a djinni of some kind but they just abandon that idea towards the end.

Didnt U2 start that annoying train setpiece trend that any other Uncharted game just cant live without? That alone was a huge stink in the series for me.

2 and 3 are 10/10 games.

GameGodOfAll posted...

2 and 3 are 10/10 games.

2 and 4 for me

_HayleyWilliams posted...

2 and 4 for me

4's right up there too.

I put 3 at the top though. Think it's just as good as 2 with a few things slightly better.

They're all the same for me

aquablack posted...

Didnt U2 start that annoying train setpiece trend that any other Uncharted game just cant live without? That alone was a huge stink in the series for me.

Well it was awesome in U2 but I agree it's kind of overdone now.

The only other game that did something like that which ended up being awesome is Spec Ops the line because Walker says wait haven't we done this already?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Uncharted 3 story was a disjointed mess that looked like it was rewritten halfway through.

It clearly looked like the game was intending for Talbot to be a djinni of some kind but they just abandon that idea towards the end.

Agreed. He had a mysterious supernatural nature to him and some of the things he did, but it never amounted to anything plot wise.

aquablack posted...

Didnt U2 start that annoying train setpiece trend that any other Uncharted game just cant live without? That alone was a huge stink in the series for me.

Yeah, while the scene was cool from a visual standpoint it is ass to go through especially on following playthroughs. Same with the museum segment.

"Uncharted 2 is way better than 1" is perhaps the coldest take of all time

I remember how tiring it was in 1 whenever you'd enter a new room, jungle area or ruin or whatever a whole bunch of Mercs would pop out of nowhere.

The pacing of that game was horrible.

UC 1 was basically just jungle areas and tomb/temple areas. GA the same but with a couple of campsite areas as well. UC2 has so much more variety already.

4>2>>>>3>>>>>1

Number090684 posted...

Golden Abyss yes, but Drake's Fortune? Nah. Among Thieves has a better antagonist, gameplay and set pieces, and has multiplayer, but for story, dialogue, setting, and replay value, Drake's Fortune is better.

The gameplay jump between U1 and U2 trumps any story beats. Uncharted 1 had way too many shootout sections whether stealth was basically impossible and the shooting mechanic was janky as hell, and those were all back-loaded to endgame.

Feline_Heart posted... Maybe its because 3 was the first Uncharted game I played but 2 isnt fun that fun to me. I cant help but compare them and 3 has much more interesting locations, more exciting moments and a more interesting story imo. Ive always been willing to give 1 a lot of leeway because it was the first game in the series but 2 just doesnt do anything interesting in my opinion. The only reason its worth playing is because it introduces Chloe. Id go as far as to say I enjoy 2 less than 1,3 and 4

3 is a weird game because it unequivocally has the best setpieces in the whole series in the form of stuff like the mansion fire and the sand city at the end, but outside of that it's not very good on a technical level. The original release had a lot of weird glitchy problems and the rerelease didn't fix them at all. Weird framerate shit, broken animations, and really bad gunplay that feels like it was actively done wrong which Naughty Dog came out and attempted to claim it was "broken on purpose." And hey, maybe it was, because they fixed 1 and 2's shitty aiming system but they did nothing for 3.

2 might not reach the crazy bombastic levels of 3 from a visual standpoint, but like 95% of the game is the best gunfights in the whole series. It only really falls apart at the very end

Lost Legacy is probably the best one since it has the improved combat from 4 with none of the very long sequences of brainless climbing and dialogue to pad out the game.

But the stories of the other games are better and it's sort of a 'best of Uncharted' set piece wise.