Uncharted & The Last Of Us: Beauty Is No Substitute For Good Gameplay
There is a new trend in gaming that has been growing over the last few years, festering and breeding with itself like some sort of disgusting toxic bacteria that has somehow managed to take control of peoples minds and convince them its actually something wonderful and innovative. I am of course referring to the trend of skimping on gameplay and content in favour of pretty (yet ultimately pointless) scenery and set-pieces. Many game studios have adopted this trait in their recent titles, yet the focus here will be on Naughty Dog, developers of the Uncharted series, due to their persistent forgetfulness in how theyre supposed to be making video-games and not interactive films. Now before you skip the rest of the article and start complaining, tell me if this sounds familiar: You stand on a mountain road looking out over a vast landscape. Its beautiful, divine, full of detail and life and excitement, somewhere youd give anything to explore, to experience the glorious treasures it has to offer. You then look back at the playable area. Its a five foot wide path that you have to follow in a straight line (or in the more interesting sections, a slightly curvy line) before reaching a climbing section identical to all the other 15,000 climbing sections in the game, excluding the differing pretty backgrounds. You complete that, massacre a group of faceless soldiers, then walk in another straight line until you get to another climbing section or massacre spot, maybe passing another awe inspiring background as you go. This, my friend, is not the mark of a good game. All these pretty backdrops work as no more than extremely expensive wallpaper, providing the illusion that you are playing in an intricate world while you are in fact repeating the same three or four repetitive tasks over and over again. The second two Uncharted games, along with EAs Dead Space 3, lack original plot, likable characters, and diversity in their gameplay, yet the developers expect to get away with it because of theyve included attractive scenery in the distance. And you know whats the most depressing part about it? They do. Now, you may not see any problem with using flashy scenery to get people interested, and youre right, theres no problem with that at all. If youre making a film! In films the key component is how everything looks, with the details being necessary to convince us the characters are part of a fluid world we only get a taster of in our 90 minutes spent with them. In video-games, which can come in anywhere between six and 100 hours, that is not the case. Players have control of the lead character, they are not simply watching someone go about their business with no influence over their actions. When a background shows the image of a great big world were not allowed to explore it can only harm immersion, pointing out to intelligent players that their characters world is but a mirage, as the area theyre physically capable of accessing is an exiguous woodlouse compared to the provocative dragon that is land portrayed beyond. This reminds players that they are playing a tech boys creation and not taking part in the world of an explorer, a realisation capable of ruining even the greatest gaming experience. This is less of an issue with Dead Space 3, as Isaacs exploration of space at the games beginning does make players feel like they are part of a huge galaxy rather than just a man stood looking at a massive green screen. However, there is another problem caused by this environmental showboating that is far more severe.
