Wow, someone's actually nuts enough to think the first Uncharted was a better game. I do have problems with the second game's story, but it's still better than the first's by a large margin.
I disagree -- now that I've played through about 90% of Uncharted 2, it's pretty clear that while it's better in some ways, it's basically an incremental improvement over the original Uncharted, and in some ways is clunkier. It's certainly not "nuts" for someone to prefer the first.
While the multiple locations in U2 are a bit more interesting, and the whole Shangrila thing is generally a cooler idea, the plot doesn't really seem remarkably better.
Graphically, U2 is a slight step up in some cases, mainly in the sheer scope of some of the outdoor scenes (the number of polygons they must be moving when you're jumping across roofs in ruined city... although, there's some obvious slowdown as a result). Also the snow is pretty nice looking (though it doesn't
feel like snow/ice when you move, since you're often just as agile as you are on dry land).
Gameplay seems more or less the same. I'm rather mystified by some of the comments that claim U2 has improved this or that aspect of gameplay, because for the most part, they seem darn near identical. [E.g. one comment I've seen is that "U2 more naturally incorporates cover, and doesn't have so much of the random-boxes-laying-around-for-cover feel of U1" -- but that doesn't seem true at all, as U2 is absolutely brimming with pointless-and-obviously-for-cover boxes etc.] Ah -- one aspect that really is better in U2 is that stealth and meleeing is a lot easier and more fun, and the game gives you lots of opportunities to make use of it.
The locations in U2 are definitely more interesting due the variety and sheer size of some of them, but the locations in U1 were great too.
The characterization is superb in both of them. I think the extra main characters do add something to U2, and the main U2 villain is a bit better, but the real gem in both cases is the main couple (their relationship seems genuinely sweet and natural). The "creepy" monsters in U1 were really creepy, and there's nothing to equal them in U2 (though the bulk of the enemy hordes are pretty much the same in both).
The dialog is very similar in tone, but the U2 dialogue often doesn't seem to flow as well, and the "humorous" one-liners tend to fall flat a lot more often in U2 than they did in the original.
I think some of the huge set-pieces in U2 feel rather out of place, because they scream "this is a game", instead of "this is a real place, however huge and incredible". Like the giant temple/whatever full of humongous moving gears and stuff that is obviously just silly; it feels like something out of Zelda (such locations fit in Zelda of course). One of the great strengths of the original is that despite the amazing scale and coolness of the locations, they were still
plausible in some way, like reality amplified greatly (instead of a pinball-machine amplified greatly). The majority of locations in U2 are like that too, of course, but somehow the ones that don't fit sort of cheapen the experience.
Some of the "improvements" also seem pretty dubious, like the slow-motion-tracer effect I guess is intended to make shooting easier. I dunno, but I had no problems with shooting in the original, and the new effect gives an odd impression, like I'm shooting a nerf gun or something... That kind of thing gives the impression that U2 gameplay was "dumbed down" to a slight degree (which seems silly to me since I had no problem with the original, and I'm a total klutz at playing video games).
Uncharted 2 is still an incredible (and fun!) game of course -- I think my real point is that Uncharted was an incredible game too, and they feel very very similar.
Topic: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Official Best Single-Player Game Ever Thread (Read 37061 times)
