surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
"She has the eyes of a demon!" -This literally made me laugh out loud, in real life.
I totally agree with your arguments Mr.Sagat. I wrote a c-blog a while ago about how Uncharted 2 , although fun , was a complete technical mess. Especially towards the end of the game when, you come across nearly invincible enemies that resist way too much damage from guns. But have this special weakness to melee combat, which in most of the case would grant you a 1-hit kill every time.
I'm not going to go in all the details because I'll be hear all night. But I think the story was as boring as you mentioned it. The events I remember were those little things like the Tibetan village or the Pool on top of the hotel. There's nothing relevant to remember about anything, aside from that it's a blockbuster game.
I also agree with the "wish they were in movie journalism" criticism you brought up. I see a lot of reviewers think to highly of video games and how they can "change the world" with their message. That they're actually pretentious about the criticism and so call "JOURNALISTIC" integrity they are trying to evoke.
Luckily for me , Destructoid gives me a safe-haven from this and is down right honest about how they feel about video games.
We are never going to agree on every score given to every video games ever made. But at least we could hear the other side of the medal for certain "popular" games.
And it's exactly what you are doing mister!
Keep them coming!
I totally agree with your arguments Mr.Sagat. I wrote a c-blog a while ago about how Uncharted 2 , although fun , was a complete technical mess. Especially towards the end of the game when, you come across nearly invincible enemies that resist way too much damage from guns. But have this special weakness to melee combat, which in most of the case would grant you a 1-hit kill every time.
I'm not going to go in all the details because I'll be hear all night. But I think the story was as boring as you mentioned it. The events I remember were those little things like the Tibetan village or the Pool on top of the hotel. There's nothing relevant to remember about anything, aside from that it's a blockbuster game.
I also agree with the "wish they were in movie journalism" criticism you brought up. I see a lot of reviewers think to highly of video games and how they can "change the world" with their message. That they're actually pretentious about the criticism and so call "JOURNALISTIC" integrity they are trying to evoke.
Luckily for me , Destructoid gives me a safe-haven from this and is down right honest about how they feel about video games.
We are never going to agree on every score given to every video games ever made. But at least we could hear the other side of the medal for certain "popular" games.
And it's exactly what you are doing mister!
Keep them coming!
Jonathan Holmes hates fun confirmed?
I dunno Jon. I can see where you come from and for people who are similar to you your points are probably valid. I'm not very similar to you though, and I personally loved the game. The ending was lame as fuck, but I can live with that. The graphics were beautiful, the majority of the characters were at least interesting, and most importantly the interactions between Drake and everyone else continually brought a smile to my face. Hell, my wife even watched me play and enjoyed it.
It's doing nothing to truly push gaming forward as it's OWN medium, merely borrowing the language of cinema, but that doesn't mean it sucks.
Besides, it's not every week you buy a game that lets you jump out of a collapsing building while having a firefight. Hell, not every year.
I dunno Jon. I can see where you come from and for people who are similar to you your points are probably valid. I'm not very similar to you though, and I personally loved the game. The ending was lame as fuck, but I can live with that. The graphics were beautiful, the majority of the characters were at least interesting, and most importantly the interactions between Drake and everyone else continually brought a smile to my face. Hell, my wife even watched me play and enjoyed it.
It's doing nothing to truly push gaming forward as it's OWN medium, merely borrowing the language of cinema, but that doesn't mean it sucks.
Besides, it's not every week you buy a game that lets you jump out of a collapsing building while having a firefight. Hell, not every year.
im gonna go with sheir on dat
Die hard, nes 1991 or commodore 64 1990, but you can't confirm due to the lack of gameplay where the perspective is shown, as in the nes it is top down, whereas the commodore is 1st/3rd person
Die hard, nes 1991 or commodore 64 1990, but you can't confirm due to the lack of gameplay where the perspective is shown, as in the nes it is top down, whereas the commodore is 1st/3rd person
No one gave Uncharted 2 Game of the Year for it's story, Sagat. People liked it because there was genuinely a ton of effort put into it - it was hard to not play the game and think of the hundreds of man hours developing, designing and researching put into the smallest things. You seem to be against the idea of videogames turning into movies - which I agree with. However, Uncharted is an homage to those fluff movies - it isn't attempting to be "the videogame Indiana Jones", it's an homage to Indiana Jones that JUST HAPPENS to be a videogame.
Though I agree with the game journalists wishing they were movie journalists.
Though I agree with the game journalists wishing they were movie journalists.
These arguments are plausible for nearly every single game for decades. Stop bitching, enjoy the games, end of story. Also, video games are not movies. By you statig that the standards are seemingly equivalent, you essentially are contradictig your own statements. iPhones suck otherwise I would post more. Please send me free suff.
Yeah, what Stakmaster said. Tons of people spend thousands of ours making bad games every year, and they don't get GOTY awards just for the effort.
I would agree that the Uncharted series is based mostly on scripted cinematic action fluff, and people love that stuff. It's also why the God of War series is so popular.
Personally, a scripted event (no matter how epic) is really only cool the first time. After that, the effect is lost on me.
Personally, a scripted event (no matter how epic) is really only cool the first time. After that, the effect is lost on me.
Too many games are trying to be movies. Let's not forget that games are primarily supposed to be for competition in some way or another (although it seems that there are already plenty of people who have forgotten that, or possibly never known it).
Uncharted 2 was enjoyable, but it didn't really do anything for me. After seeing the many Game of the Year awards it accumulated I expected something in a similar vein to Metal Gear Solid 3 in terms of story; the kind of thing I'd be thinking about months after I'd finished the final chapter. It was a little disappointing when all I got was an evolution of the first game, that took a little bit longer to finish. For me, even Killzone 2 managed a more satisfying story and conclusion.
The train and collapsing building segments were excellent though. Its a shame parts like that were few and far between.
The train and collapsing building segments were excellent though. Its a shame parts like that were few and far between.
I gotta say, I totally disagree with you. Especially about how entertainment movies are throw away fluff. Sure some of them ARE that. Totally, infact most are but like any genre of film, there are those considered classics. Die Hard, as you used as your background there, is considered a classic action flick infact it's considered THEE classic action flick to which most take inspiration from. Speed is another that took a different idea and ran with it as a feature film but still provided enough to be considered "action" and thus remembered by most who love that genre.
There are plenty of games that follow the action genre video games, though maybe not as much as say the fortune explorer like the Tomb Raiders and Indiana Jones' but it definitely oversaturates the market. Hell the game that alot consider GOTY (I know Game Trailers did) Modern Warfare 2 is your basic popcorn action army fare but yet to the players it appeals to it's "EPIC". If you think about it the winner for Best Picture at the Oscars this year was a Modern Warfare 2 type setting in "The Hurt Locker". Not exactly an action picture or as abrasive in it's army archetypes it still represented that lifestyle and was apparently good enough to win the Oscar. Again, I don't like Modern Warfare 2, nor did I really like The Hurt Locker but I guess there was enough interest there on both fronts to see something special when I think realistically and personally there wasn't anything that special to either. Hey, differing opinions.
I think Uncharted 2 atleast in terms of standing out however did have one of the most interesting, funny and just likable main protagonists to come out in the last few years. That to me was big ups for that game. Also the fact that it was a great combination of platforming, third person shooting and simplistic puzzles helps round out the experience. Easy controls and what not helps too. Plus while I understand the element of danger not being there, for me a person who can and will find many ways to die it was way less stressful. And trust me, I definitely found ways to die on those "easy" platforming areas. Is the plot simple and even forgettable? Sure, I mean I don't remember every detail but then again it's not trying to be anything different. It knows what it's strengths are and it plays to those instead of going for a deeper experience and as stated a thin plot in a video game hardly tanks Uncharted 2 considering many games of lesser quality not delivering on the fun factor which Uncharted 2 has in spades.
Then again there's always Crushing, which does ramp up the difficulty if you like dying alot.
There are plenty of games that follow the action genre video games, though maybe not as much as say the fortune explorer like the Tomb Raiders and Indiana Jones' but it definitely oversaturates the market. Hell the game that alot consider GOTY (I know Game Trailers did) Modern Warfare 2 is your basic popcorn action army fare but yet to the players it appeals to it's "EPIC". If you think about it the winner for Best Picture at the Oscars this year was a Modern Warfare 2 type setting in "The Hurt Locker". Not exactly an action picture or as abrasive in it's army archetypes it still represented that lifestyle and was apparently good enough to win the Oscar. Again, I don't like Modern Warfare 2, nor did I really like The Hurt Locker but I guess there was enough interest there on both fronts to see something special when I think realistically and personally there wasn't anything that special to either. Hey, differing opinions.
I think Uncharted 2 atleast in terms of standing out however did have one of the most interesting, funny and just likable main protagonists to come out in the last few years. That to me was big ups for that game. Also the fact that it was a great combination of platforming, third person shooting and simplistic puzzles helps round out the experience. Easy controls and what not helps too. Plus while I understand the element of danger not being there, for me a person who can and will find many ways to die it was way less stressful. And trust me, I definitely found ways to die on those "easy" platforming areas. Is the plot simple and even forgettable? Sure, I mean I don't remember every detail but then again it's not trying to be anything different. It knows what it's strengths are and it plays to those instead of going for a deeper experience and as stated a thin plot in a video game hardly tanks Uncharted 2 considering many games of lesser quality not delivering on the fun factor which Uncharted 2 has in spades.
Then again there's always Crushing, which does ramp up the difficulty if you like dying alot.
I gotta say, I totally disagree with you. Especially about how entertainment movies are throw away fluff. Sure some of them ARE that. Totally, infact most are but like any genre of film, there are those considered classics. Die Hard, as you used as your background there, is considered a classic action flick infact it's considered THEE classic action flick to which most take inspiration from. Speed is another that took a different idea and ran with it as a feature film but still provided enough to be considered "action" and thus remembered by most who love that genre.
There are plenty of games that follow the action genre video games, though maybe not as much as say the fortune explorer like the Tomb Raiders and Indiana Jones' but it definitely oversaturates the market. Hell the game that alot consider GOTY (I know Game Trailers did) Modern Warfare 2 is your basic popcorn action army fare but yet to the players it appeals to it's "EPIC". If you think about it the winner for Best Picture at the Oscars this year was a Modern Warfare 2 type setting in "The Hurt Locker". Not exactly an action picture or as abrasive in it's army archetypes it still represented that lifestyle and was apparently good enough to win the Oscar. Again, I don't like Modern Warfare 2, nor did I really like The Hurt Locker but I guess there was enough interest there on both fronts to see something special when I think realistically and personally there wasn't anything that special to either. Hey, differing opinions.
I think Uncharted 2 atleast in terms of standing out however did have one of the most interesting, funny and just likable main protagonists to come out in the last few years. That to me was big ups for that game. Also the fact that it was a great combination of platforming, third person shooting and simplistic puzzles helps round out the experience. Easy controls and what not helps too. Plus while I understand the element of danger not being there, for me a person who can and will find many ways to die it was way less stressful. And trust me, I definitely found ways to die on those "easy" platforming areas. Is the plot simple and even forgettable? Sure, I mean I don't remember every detail but then again it's not trying to be anything different. It knows what it's strengths are and it plays to those instead of going for a deeper experience and as stated a thin plot in a video game hardly tanks Uncharted 2 considering many games of lesser quality not delivering on the fun factor which Uncharted 2 has in spades.
Then again there's always Crushing, which does ramp up the difficulty if you like dying alot.
There are plenty of games that follow the action genre video games, though maybe not as much as say the fortune explorer like the Tomb Raiders and Indiana Jones' but it definitely oversaturates the market. Hell the game that alot consider GOTY (I know Game Trailers did) Modern Warfare 2 is your basic popcorn action army fare but yet to the players it appeals to it's "EPIC". If you think about it the winner for Best Picture at the Oscars this year was a Modern Warfare 2 type setting in "The Hurt Locker". Not exactly an action picture or as abrasive in it's army archetypes it still represented that lifestyle and was apparently good enough to win the Oscar. Again, I don't like Modern Warfare 2, nor did I really like The Hurt Locker but I guess there was enough interest there on both fronts to see something special when I think realistically and personally there wasn't anything that special to either. Hey, differing opinions.
I think Uncharted 2 atleast in terms of standing out however did have one of the most interesting, funny and just likable main protagonists to come out in the last few years. That to me was big ups for that game. Also the fact that it was a great combination of platforming, third person shooting and simplistic puzzles helps round out the experience. Easy controls and what not helps too. Plus while I understand the element of danger not being there, for me a person who can and will find many ways to die it was way less stressful. And trust me, I definitely found ways to die on those "easy" platforming areas. Is the plot simple and even forgettable? Sure, I mean I don't remember every detail but then again it's not trying to be anything different. It knows what it's strengths are and it plays to those instead of going for a deeper experience and as stated a thin plot in a video game hardly tanks Uncharted 2 considering many games of lesser quality not delivering on the fun factor which Uncharted 2 has in spades.
Then again there's always Crushing, which does ramp up the difficulty if you like dying alot.
This is the first "SWS" that I just simply disagree with. It seems that you're ragging on it simply for it's design paradigm rather than any legitimate reason.
The game is designed like an action movie, that's certain. But even though it's characters are cliched, they've still got more personality than the vast majority of video game characters we see nowadays. Sure, Nathan Drake might not be a Travis Touchdown, but he's probably the most interesting third-person shooter protagonist that we've seen in gaming. I'm also amazed that you don't find any humor in his ironic ability to be glib while killing hundreds of enemies.
In terms of the story and set pieces (and even the lack of death), how is Uncharted 2 any different than 2008 and presumably 2010 GOTY Mario Galaxy? Neither story is very original, but what's there is functional. There's a ton of creativity that went into both games, and both use ludicrously epic setpieces as an excuse for interesting gameplay. While Mario is more creative in it's level design, it took a lot of clever design to get sequences in both games to work. You can't look at scenes like the helicopter scene in U2 and say that it's badly designed. Sure, Uncharted uses movie tropes but that's BECAUSE THE GAME IS DESIGNED TO BE LIKE AN INDIANA JONES FILM. And yes, Uncharted has checkpoints, but they don't seem too much different from Galaxy's punishment-free Game Overs. Death has become almost a nonissue in modern gaming. Just look at Prince of Persia or Final Fantasy XIII!
I think the inherent problem with this SWS is that you're essentially dissing Uncharted 2 because it succeeds in what it was trying to do: be the videogame equivalent of an Action-Adventure film. Don't knock it for being what it is, it's like complaining about the inability to jump in Bionic Commando.
The game is designed like an action movie, that's certain. But even though it's characters are cliched, they've still got more personality than the vast majority of video game characters we see nowadays. Sure, Nathan Drake might not be a Travis Touchdown, but he's probably the most interesting third-person shooter protagonist that we've seen in gaming. I'm also amazed that you don't find any humor in his ironic ability to be glib while killing hundreds of enemies.
In terms of the story and set pieces (and even the lack of death), how is Uncharted 2 any different than 2008 and presumably 2010 GOTY Mario Galaxy? Neither story is very original, but what's there is functional. There's a ton of creativity that went into both games, and both use ludicrously epic setpieces as an excuse for interesting gameplay. While Mario is more creative in it's level design, it took a lot of clever design to get sequences in both games to work. You can't look at scenes like the helicopter scene in U2 and say that it's badly designed. Sure, Uncharted uses movie tropes but that's BECAUSE THE GAME IS DESIGNED TO BE LIKE AN INDIANA JONES FILM. And yes, Uncharted has checkpoints, but they don't seem too much different from Galaxy's punishment-free Game Overs. Death has become almost a nonissue in modern gaming. Just look at Prince of Persia or Final Fantasy XIII!
I think the inherent problem with this SWS is that you're essentially dissing Uncharted 2 because it succeeds in what it was trying to do: be the videogame equivalent of an Action-Adventure film. Don't knock it for being what it is, it's like complaining about the inability to jump in Bionic Commando.
This is the first Sagat video I've watched. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with your opinion of the game, I have to say I was saddened by the fact that the the rant just wasn't funny. The premise that this is Sagat talking games doesn't come to any sort of fruition at all. Might as well put a shirt on and lose the half-assed "voice" and just put it out there like that if your not going to deliver put more thought into the premise. Don't get me wrong, I know there isn't a ton of character to pull from with Sagat, but this was feeble.
Not to sound snooty, but a lot of movies get nominated for Academy Awards undeservedly simply on account of how much money they brought into the industry. Hell, no one but the most devoted James Cameron fan really thought that Avatar was the best movie that came out in 2009, but it was nominated, and nearly won. Not to mention all the Golden Globes it took home (no one gives a shit about the Golden Globes).
Just pointing that out since you made reference to Academy Awards several times as a sort of indication of highest quality. That aside, the message was clear enough, and for the most part I agree. While I was never really bored while playing the game, it didn't come off to me as my favorite game of 2009, or really anything close.
Just pointing that out since you made reference to Academy Awards several times as a sort of indication of highest quality. That aside, the message was clear enough, and for the most part I agree. While I was never really bored while playing the game, it didn't come off to me as my favorite game of 2009, or really anything close.
I hated Uncharted 1, and I thought the decent one was ok, but mostly because. 1. The graphics were pretty and 2. Nathan Drake was entertaining. Also, watching Alistar and Morrigan from Dragon Age bicker in different bodies was pretty entertaining too.
The gameplay really wasn't that great for a cover shooter. It was leaps and bounds above the first game, sure, but this wasn't Gears of War (oh no! I compared it to an Xbox game! Clearly biased!). It was still super clunky.
Same goes for the platforming. I was never challenged, and when I was it usually was because the game did things unfair, like give no prompts where to jump and have me rely on luck. It wanted to be Prince of Persia in this regard, but it didn't polish that either.
Story was predictable too, sure, but it was fluff as mentioned so I didn't care.
The killer was just the gameplay felt unpolished. I'm guessing in the inevitable Uncharted 3 they'll probably have it down, but I think most people just saw the amazing graphics and funny quips from Nolan North and just threw GOTY awards at the thing. I never beat the game either; I got about 3/4 of the way through, got stuck on an unfair jump, and never had the motivation to pick it back up and rough through it.
The gameplay really wasn't that great for a cover shooter. It was leaps and bounds above the first game, sure, but this wasn't Gears of War (oh no! I compared it to an Xbox game! Clearly biased!). It was still super clunky.
Same goes for the platforming. I was never challenged, and when I was it usually was because the game did things unfair, like give no prompts where to jump and have me rely on luck. It wanted to be Prince of Persia in this regard, but it didn't polish that either.
Story was predictable too, sure, but it was fluff as mentioned so I didn't care.
The killer was just the gameplay felt unpolished. I'm guessing in the inevitable Uncharted 3 they'll probably have it down, but I think most people just saw the amazing graphics and funny quips from Nolan North and just threw GOTY awards at the thing. I never beat the game either; I got about 3/4 of the way through, got stuck on an unfair jump, and never had the motivation to pick it back up and rough through it.
I found the Uncharted games to be pretty boring, too.
I think some people just need to get over their HDTVs, because all I saw was a poor man's Indiana Jones meshed with a mediocre third person shooter. The platforming had potential, but often felt too linear.
I think some people just need to get over their HDTVs, because all I saw was a poor man's Indiana Jones meshed with a mediocre third person shooter. The platforming had potential, but often felt too linear.
@Danzflor:
I don't think anyone is saying it did. Pretty much everyone who played it realized that it was derivative, but that really doesn't matter. People enjoyed it because it was well-paced, beautiful, had a very likable cast, and, most importantly, was just a fun game. It was never trying to be anything else.
I don't think anyone is saying it did. Pretty much everyone who played it realized that it was derivative, but that really doesn't matter. People enjoyed it because it was well-paced, beautiful, had a very likable cast, and, most importantly, was just a fun game. It was never trying to be anything else.
I can agree on some of the ideas about the game. I enjoyed my time playing through it, but the nonchalant attitude that the characters had about the death-defying stuff they do was totally out of place and off-putting. It reinforced the idea that there actually is no danger in these supposedly dangerous situations.
I too saw Harry Flynn's double crossing coming from a mile away, but I didn't really have the same issues with the cookie cutter characters. For what they set out to do, Elena is absolutely perfect. You, as the player, are meant to fall in love with her, and there's no way not to do just that.
I too saw Harry Flynn's double crossing coming from a mile away, but I didn't really have the same issues with the cookie cutter characters. For what they set out to do, Elena is absolutely perfect. You, as the player, are meant to fall in love with her, and there's no way not to do just that.
Game of the Year is a little different than Best Picture. That said there is a definite cinematic feel to the game, and there is no denying parallels between it and Indiana Jones or National Treasure, but then again there isn't much separating those previously mentioned two between Tomb Raider either. So, you could either take that as a concession that video games of this genre want to be like movies, or that the genre isn't held in just one medium. There are a lot of comic books, novels, and cool stories told by bros that are pretty similar and while this may not be your thing, and you can easily see past all the glitz and explosion that puts a false layer of tension.
That's a fault of the genre's pathos and not with a video game. As a game it is still is very fun to play, has multiple difficultly levels, larger and varied environments, and pretty much oozes quality. What you're confusing for lack of quality, or rather unworthiness, is simply a genre issue. And while you think that there is no danger and the player simply is unable to die, well, chief, let me tell you from experience that you can die. It happens, and if you're not very good at video games, like me, then it happens a lot. You may have died once or twice two if you actually played through the game, then who knows, you might have died once or twice too. Not only that, but the game does support harder difficulties, although you didn't mention trying them, so either I have to assume you played it on hard in good faith to your argument, or assume that you played on normal and blew past a difficulty that is at the entry level, when we both know that you're not a casual gamer.
I'm not here to argue whether this is Game of the Year with you, and while it seems like I am, I'm not. You're just biased, and I can very clearly see you saying that no game in that genre deserves Game of the Years status, and not just Uncharted. That you brought counterpoints as example in your previous videos, and not in this one, I am taking your opinion with a grain of salt because you're talking a lot of shit about a game that has a lot of very fun gameplay and honest to goodness polish without bringing up a single thing from that year applied in a game that works to make it Game of the Year caliber.
You can't make a three minute video bashing a single game on its genre's failings without addressing qualifiers whatsoever for what makes a game good, or mention good games even, and not turn off a few people who can see that you're arguing from bias. You hate summer blockbusters. I hate RTS's, but I would never make an argument that Starcraft is in a crummy genre and that should prevent it from receiving accolades. Take off your blinders.
That's a fault of the genre's pathos and not with a video game. As a game it is still is very fun to play, has multiple difficultly levels, larger and varied environments, and pretty much oozes quality. What you're confusing for lack of quality, or rather unworthiness, is simply a genre issue. And while you think that there is no danger and the player simply is unable to die, well, chief, let me tell you from experience that you can die. It happens, and if you're not very good at video games, like me, then it happens a lot. You may have died once or twice two if you actually played through the game, then who knows, you might have died once or twice too. Not only that, but the game does support harder difficulties, although you didn't mention trying them, so either I have to assume you played it on hard in good faith to your argument, or assume that you played on normal and blew past a difficulty that is at the entry level, when we both know that you're not a casual gamer.
I'm not here to argue whether this is Game of the Year with you, and while it seems like I am, I'm not. You're just biased, and I can very clearly see you saying that no game in that genre deserves Game of the Years status, and not just Uncharted. That you brought counterpoints as example in your previous videos, and not in this one, I am taking your opinion with a grain of salt because you're talking a lot of shit about a game that has a lot of very fun gameplay and honest to goodness polish without bringing up a single thing from that year applied in a game that works to make it Game of the Year caliber.
You can't make a three minute video bashing a single game on its genre's failings without addressing qualifiers whatsoever for what makes a game good, or mention good games even, and not turn off a few people who can see that you're arguing from bias. You hate summer blockbusters. I hate RTS's, but I would never make an argument that Starcraft is in a crummy genre and that should prevent it from receiving accolades. Take off your blinders.
Why is it that anyone could find this video funny? It was the most boring video I've watched in all of 2010. I'm not even sure why you're dressed as Sagat if you're not going to even act the part. I mean, you don't say any of names of Sagat's moves, like a proper parody, comedic skit would/should. So, this isn't all for laughs, but then WHY ARE YOU DRESSED AS SAGAT? You know why because you wish you could be a funny journalist, but this is just pathetic.
Also, you know why so many Game-journalists considered this the best game of last year, and you don't? Your opinion sucks almost as much as your attempt at comedy, and/or they might be right.
Sorry if that was douchey, but this video is no better than my comments above. It doesn't matter if you have your own opinion on a game, just don't shit on a perfectly decent game and force it down our throats. If you didn't enjoy the game, just say so don't force your opinion on us. And don't call every game-journalist that gave this game of the year pathetic, it may not be your game of the year, but it might be theirs solely because they may have genuinely enjoyed it.
Also, you know why so many Game-journalists considered this the best game of last year, and you don't? Your opinion sucks almost as much as your attempt at comedy, and/or they might be right.
Sorry if that was douchey, but this video is no better than my comments above. It doesn't matter if you have your own opinion on a game, just don't shit on a perfectly decent game and force it down our throats. If you didn't enjoy the game, just say so don't force your opinion on us. And don't call every game-journalist that gave this game of the year pathetic, it may not be your game of the year, but it might be theirs solely because they may have genuinely enjoyed it.
Ahh.. I'm starting to see the direction of this series.. Sagat nitpicks critically acclaimed games that a lot of people like.
I don't really disagree with the points, because yes, most of Uncharted 2 in terms of how the characters interacted and how the story unfolded was very predictable. I still had a lot of fun with it though, aside from that awful final boss.
Sagat is starting to sound a lot like some bitchy art house film critic(I miss you Rev Ant), shouting bile upon the masses because Transformers 2 made a ton of money despite being one of worst movies made in a while, but no one went to some French silent film about a boy playing with string in a landfill(aka didn't give New Super Mario Bros Wii the GOTY last year).
Well, boo hoo. People like big dumb action movies/games. Its fun to just sit there and stare in awe at something that, while contrived, is still infinitely more exciting than your own boring ass life.
I don't really disagree with the points, because yes, most of Uncharted 2 in terms of how the characters interacted and how the story unfolded was very predictable. I still had a lot of fun with it though, aside from that awful final boss.
Sagat is starting to sound a lot like some bitchy art house film critic(I miss you Rev Ant), shouting bile upon the masses because Transformers 2 made a ton of money despite being one of worst movies made in a while, but no one went to some French silent film about a boy playing with string in a landfill(aka didn't give New Super Mario Bros Wii the GOTY last year).
Well, boo hoo. People like big dumb action movies/games. Its fun to just sit there and stare in awe at something that, while contrived, is still infinitely more exciting than your own boring ass life.
I love this guy! He's totally insane, but he (usually) makes pretty good points. But I don't agree with him as to why games like Uncharted 2 get game of the year. It's not because video game journalists wish they were movie journalists. I think that it's because video games generally are held to lower standards than movies. You take a game like Uncharted 2, which has a metascore somewhere in the mid to upper 90's (I don't want to check right now) , and turn it into a movie, and its score would drop at least 40 points. The problem is that gamers just aren't interested in having more meaningful experiences with their games, which is shame because videogames have so much potential as a form of entertainment.
I don't think Uncharted was boring, at least in terms of gameplay. However I do agree that it, and games like it are taking up too many movie conventions. I want games to make their own conventions and I want to discover them. Its like a silent movie with captions. Thats just a fledgling medium aping the what came before, literature, in that case. I feel like thats what Uncharted is to games.
It was still fun shooting dudes though.
It was still fun shooting dudes though.
I thought uncharted 2 was fun and not boring, but dude, you just kicked some major fucking ass.good job man.
I love you destructoid I really do it's just so sad that so many of your articles are really just complaints on the way games are made today. One second your "journalists" say that games need to tell a better story and have a better narrative, then the next second complain that it's too much like a movie?? Maybe you should just stick to your 8-bit games since it's cool to only like old games and hate on anything new...
I liked the music in this video. :)
Oh and good arguments. I don't necessarily agree with most of them myself, but good nonetheless.
Oh and good arguments. I don't necessarily agree with most of them myself, but good nonetheless.
"One second your "journalists" say that games need to tell a better story and have a better narrative, then the next second complain that it's too much like a movie??"
Because having a good narrative TOTALLY MEANS making your game boring and cliche and trashy and ripping off blockbuster action films.
Because having a good narrative TOTALLY MEANS making your game boring and cliche and trashy and ripping off blockbuster action films.
I really enjoyed this one.
For some reason most of these big popular titles are completely uninteresting to me. I was probably off playing something like No More Heroes while my roommate was gushing about Uncharted. While I haven't played it between this video and what you have talked about on Bit Transmission I think you nailed my feelings exactly. I'm never going to identify with these big budget titles but what I enjoy is still getting made...even if it barely makes enough money to continue on like that.
For some reason most of these big popular titles are completely uninteresting to me. I was probably off playing something like No More Heroes while my roommate was gushing about Uncharted. While I haven't played it between this video and what you have talked about on Bit Transmission I think you nailed my feelings exactly. I'm never going to identify with these big budget titles but what I enjoy is still getting made...even if it barely makes enough money to continue on like that.
To everyone asking "Is this suppose to be funny?", the answer is no. Sundays With Sagat is the story of one lone mad man named Jonathan Holmes and his undying commitment to brainwashing the un-bathed masses that is the Destructoid readership into believing that life is but a joke, but you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate.
Wait, was my comment supposed to be funny?
*I've never played Uncharted but I heard the same thing about MGS4. I've never played a game that was more movie then game but I can't see that being a good thing. Games are suppose to be games not movies. The only game that I can think of that mixed movie and game exceptionally well was Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube. Well, at least in my opinion. Also, keep up the good work Holmes.
Wait, was my comment supposed to be funny?
*I've never played Uncharted but I heard the same thing about MGS4. I've never played a game that was more movie then game but I can't see that being a good thing. Games are suppose to be games not movies. The only game that I can think of that mixed movie and game exceptionally well was Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube. Well, at least in my opinion. Also, keep up the good work Holmes.
For one, I can't remember it ever "not" being a goal to make a video game as immersive as a movie. Hasn't that been the goal the whole time with big production games?
@EternalDeathSlayer: Essentially he did, for those that may not have played the game they will get the wrong idea about Uncharted 2, and I'm sure you can agree. I don't mean to say that he literally forced his opinion on anyone by tying them down and taping their eyelids open, and while I can stop watching, some who expected some form of humor from this and did not have the opportunity to play this game may not, and could get the wrong idea about this, or any other game described in this fashion.
As I said, he's entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't have to form his opinion in a way to sell or in this case not sell the game. I'm sure his primary concern wasn't to tell people to not buy this game, yet that's the vibe I'm getting. Here's a similar example:
Not forced: I hated Uncharted 2
Forced: Uncharted 2 Sucks
As I said, he's entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't have to form his opinion in a way to sell or in this case not sell the game. I'm sure his primary concern wasn't to tell people to not buy this game, yet that's the vibe I'm getting. Here's a similar example:
Not forced: I hated Uncharted 2
Forced: Uncharted 2 Sucks
every time i go to destructoid every article i read is about gamers bashing games. whats with destructoid? Sure uncharted 2 had a predictable story but i still thought it was amazing! best characters too, not like your xbox bulky deep voiced idiots. peace.
Gamers are self entitled brats.
What's with all this "Games aren't supposed to be like movies" crap? Since when do you lot define the rules of a creative medium?
Games can and SHOULD be like movies. They can and SHOULD be like a great novel. They can and SHOULD be like boardgames, or sports, or a million other cultural expressions. How does imposing artificial limits on creative expression help a creative medium in ANY way?
If you don't like a particular example, don't consume it. Rocket science, it is not.
You're the same people who say shortsighted things like "Story is not important" or "Graphics are not gameplay" or "Games aren't art" as though you personally have the authority to define what is and is not art. You have the hubris to tell me as a consumer that I am wrong to enjoy story or the immersion that good art direction can inspire?
Since this all seems to be about the term "gameplay", let's take a second to point out that you use it like it means something specific, something quantifiable, and something which you can use to dump on games which don't fit your uncertain standards. "Gameplay" is NOT a specific thing, it is a term used to describe the combination of mechanics, rules and presentation that goes into a video game. It does not impose limits on the ratio of those elements, or how they are combined, and for the love of this creative industry, I hope it never does.
Destructoid's "journalists" are just adding to the problem.
They have, for the most part, forsaken relevant editorialising and friendly debate for the sake of 4chan-esque scathing petulence. I've enjoyed the occasional comedic editorial, but lately this place has become less informative, and more like a bunch of spoilt brats with toxic attitudes and painfully uneducated vitriol.
If you're going to copy someone else's presentation, make it someone other than Yahtzee. He's funny, but he's not at all relevant.
What's with all this "Games aren't supposed to be like movies" crap? Since when do you lot define the rules of a creative medium?
Games can and SHOULD be like movies. They can and SHOULD be like a great novel. They can and SHOULD be like boardgames, or sports, or a million other cultural expressions. How does imposing artificial limits on creative expression help a creative medium in ANY way?
If you don't like a particular example, don't consume it. Rocket science, it is not.
You're the same people who say shortsighted things like "Story is not important" or "Graphics are not gameplay" or "Games aren't art" as though you personally have the authority to define what is and is not art. You have the hubris to tell me as a consumer that I am wrong to enjoy story or the immersion that good art direction can inspire?
Since this all seems to be about the term "gameplay", let's take a second to point out that you use it like it means something specific, something quantifiable, and something which you can use to dump on games which don't fit your uncertain standards. "Gameplay" is NOT a specific thing, it is a term used to describe the combination of mechanics, rules and presentation that goes into a video game. It does not impose limits on the ratio of those elements, or how they are combined, and for the love of this creative industry, I hope it never does.
Destructoid's "journalists" are just adding to the problem.
They have, for the most part, forsaken relevant editorialising and friendly debate for the sake of 4chan-esque scathing petulence. I've enjoyed the occasional comedic editorial, but lately this place has become less informative, and more like a bunch of spoilt brats with toxic attitudes and painfully uneducated vitriol.
If you're going to copy someone else's presentation, make it someone other than Yahtzee. He's funny, but he's not at all relevant.
Die Hard, Commodore 64, and it came out in 1990. As an extra bonus it's publisher was Activision n_n
follow
