Where the first game was quite simplistic in its story, and the second game felt like grandiose set pieces roughly linked together with obscure story arcs, the third game highlighted some excellent story-telling attributes. I cared about these characters more than ever before (not just because I played the first two games), while the story truly captured my interest and attention. The story-telling in Uncharted 3 felt much more cohesive and complete (with the exception of Cutter and Chloe leaving early), and thanks to this more matured story-telling, Nathan Drake felt like he finally had more depth than the “let's blow some stuff up to get treasure and the girl” protagonist. Turns out, Drake battles being the same scared young orphan that Sullivan found so many years ago. Nathan's name isn't really Nathan Drake? The aspect of killing so many people is finally addressed and even used well in the storyline? The enemy (as a whole) feels much more menacing to the world? The game offered so much more story-telling depth than the previous two titles, and made me care more for the two big supporting characters – Sully and Elena. I believe the excellent way the story is told actually made the set pieces only seem like they weren't as awesome and epic in scale; the game felt much more fluid.
As soon as I finished the games, I talked with various friends who had been wanting me to play the game for some time; I explained which game was my favorite (if you didn't catch it, the third was, by far, my favorite) often being met with a, “What?! The second game is SO much better!” Interestingly enough, though, others I spoke with who had never played the games originally felt exactly like I did; the series continuously got better with each iteration. My theory? Those veterans of the series played the games when they released, or they didn't play the games back to back; so that aspect, combined with the obvious jump in overall quality between the first and second titles, set the standard incredibly high in the minds of many Uncharted fans; all of this leading to what seemed like a lesser title in Uncharted 3. Having that huge jump in quality between the first and second game really overshadowed the brilliance and polish of the third title.
Regardless, I'm extremely glad I was able to play through the first three titles in the series. I would recommend them to anyone who has an interest in action-adventure titles; they are very entertaining as a whole, and the Nathan Drake Collection is a darn good deal for PS4 owners.
What are your thoughts on the Uncharted games, after revisiting them years after their initial release? Which title is your favorite?
Well, my thoughts on the first game are quite simple: it's not very good. In fact, I might even argue that it is a bad game. Before I get bombarded with hate, let me plead my case. Firstly, the characters are endearing and compelling enough to complete the game; they, and to finish the story, were the reason I finished the title. Outside of that, though? The gameplay was frustrating, the animations (outside of cutscenes) were quite stiff, and the locales were largely boring. Even the premise was questionable: a man, with the aid of his cohorts, kills plenty of people for treasure, only stumbling upon preventing a worldwide catastrophe. When I really thought about the story afterward, I thought to myself, “Why am I rooting for this protagonist?” Now, I understand the people he is taking out on his way to the goal aren't necessarily decent people, but all of this for a treasure [initially]? It seems a little odd to me.
When I began the second game, I wasn't too sure what to expect. Believe it or not, I had kept myself from much of the story in the Uncharted series with hopes of playing them one day. So, when the game began with Nathan Drake hanging perilously from a section of train in the snowy peaks of some unknown mountain range, I was quite excited. I followed Nathan's story through a completely war-torn city, the previously stated mountain range while being chased by yetis, and even to what is described as the tree of life. The set pieces in the second game are amazingly crafted and epic in scope, to be certain. The gameplay even improved quite a bit, with the cover system the most improved (though not perfect). By the end of the game, however, I felt like something was missing, despite being in complete awe of the locales and set pieces (that falling building scene was so cool!) I couldn't quite put my finger on it…that is, until I played the third game.
Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception further improved the gameplay mechanics; I no longer felt any frustration due to the controls, nor did I die as often. The characters in the third were as good as the previous games, as well – personally, I loved Charlie Cutter and was saddened by his sudden disappearance in the title, apparently due to filming The Hobbit (looking at you, Peter Jackson). The set pieces, though, weren't nearly as epic. Well, let me rephrase that: the set pieces were relatively subtle in grandeur compared to the second game. What I mean is this: if you sit and think about the various moments in the third game, that's when you realize how awesome they actually are. There was one key component to the third game, however, that made me realize my opinion would be different from the veteran Uncharted fans.
The Uncharted series thus far has been quite the heralded franchise when speaking to PS3 owners. Every single one of my friends who owned a PS3 continuously told me to play the games if I ever had the chance to – it was a little difficult for me since I was having plenty of fun with my Xbox 360. Not playing the titles wasn't due to lack of interest; the Indiana Jones-like feel to the set pieces and story always intrigued me.
With Uncharted 4: A Thief's End on the horizon with a March 2016 release date, I finally had the chance to play the first three games; all thanks to the remastered collection which was released last month. Upon finishing them all and chatting with friends and colleagues about “which was my favorite,” I discovered something interesting.
Going into the series, I was always told the same thing: the first is tolerable, the second is definitely the best, and the third is ok. So, how did my step into the franchise years after they originally released match up with the veterans to the series?
