Review by Yahtzee

Haven't watched it yet, but I am about to.
Okay, just finished it.  And it contains one spoiler from what I've seen.  Also, I've wanted to pick up this game, but I am lacking one PS3, a Copy of the game, or $500 to by both.

Oh well...  The game does look interesing, and I wish I had the massive wallet to afford the damn thing.

The twist and complete change in gameplay style near the end was definitely pretty weird and I can see why a lot of people didn't like it.  Personally, I thought it was reasonably fun and didn't ruin the game or anything but it was definitely much weaker than the rest of the game's firefights.  The last scenario or "end boss" was also pretty disappointing; not that it was bad, but it was definitely unexceptional and not a worthy climax for such a great game.

The one thing that really got me down about this title was that there are no boss fights.  This is a trend I'm seeing in a lot of modern games that really gets me down.  Games like Metal Gear Solid are defined by how creative and fun their boss fights are, and I feel like a title really loses something when they don't incorporate them.  I can definitely see why they'd get cut out of development  -- I imagine a good boss fight is a pretty expensive scenario to develop because there is a unique AI program and all sorts of other assetts that get used only once.  Still, I think a Hollywood-style game like this would have really benefitted from a handful of tense one-on-one encounters against memorable villains.  The "twist" at the end could have even been cleverly foreshadowed by seemingly out-of-place battles against monstrous enemies.

Yahtzee makes a good point about it being kind of bland (didn't someone in this topic say something similar?), but I don't really care. I liked Uncharted a lot. It's been my favorite non-FPS for the PS3 so far, and that's including Assassin's Creed. Like DS said, even though it was linear, it still had a really great sense of exploration, with all the treasures and stuff.

I never played Jak and Daxter, or Crash, and I'm just overall not really into these types of games (never played Prince of Persia or Tomb Raider), and everyone kept making a big deal out of it being "just like a summer popcorn movie" and those kind of movies are stupid so I was really expecting not to like this at all. But I did, so yeah.

I was under the impression that most games like this are short. Like I said though, I don't really play many action adventure games. How long does it take to run straight through one of the Prince of Persia games?

Uncharted has decent replay value though. Like, when I beat Heavenly Sword, I never touched it again. I really did feel ripped off with that game. It was short (shorter than Uncharted I think) and there was no reason to ever play it again. But Uncharted has all kinds of unlockables and difficulties. I started playing through it a second time, but stopped once I got UT3. I feel like I got my money's worth though. But I did buy it used. So who knows.

jesus christ, are you kidding me?  i don't care how cool it is, $65 with tax for a game that takes 10 hours to beat in single player mode and doesn't have some goddamn extensive multiplayer is a horrible ripoff and totally unacceptable.  this is why i hate this console generation; half of the games i've played so far have been relatively brief (under 20 hours), yet still cost tons and tons of money.  bioshock, assassin's creed... games like those are bad enough at ~20 hours, but 8-10 is obscene.  this takes me back to the early n64 days when the games were short, gay, and cost $60-70.  i guess it's okay if you're going to rent it, but i feel sorry for the people who bought it.  even selling it to places like gamestop like a week later after you beat it, you take a pretty heavy hit to the wallet, not to mention the fact that that's essentially just an incredibly expensive rental anyway.

Vidya Gayms have always been short and expensive so there's nothing new here.  I'd rather play something short and sweet than chug through another awful RPG full of fluff and filler.  Final Fantasy 12 wouldn't have been 90 hours long if you didn't have to wander back and forth and fight an army of monsters every time you tried to advance the storyline.

I actually agree with angry black man on this.  I distinctly remember (most) games being short but sweet back in the day.  The only obvious exception to this are RPG's.

Also, I remember back in the SNES/Genesis days games cost AT LEAST as much as they do now if not more (there are obviously some exceptions to this)

I would much prefer a great short game to a long  boning one. I'm also not really into multiplayer so I'm happier when more emphasis is put into the single player modes.

Nowadays though the trend is certainly leaning more to online multiplayer gaming.  A lot of people now won't even buy a game if it doesn't come with online multiplayer.

As I stated above though, I really don't care at all for online.

What?  No they haven't!  I'd say during the last generation, the average length of a game was probably somewhere around 15-20 hours.  Even non-RPG shit like platformers took a decent amount of time to beat.  Plus, they were like $40-50, new.  Now this game's HALF the length, and potentially 50% more expensive?  This isn't how it's always been, dawg.

Well, I don't know what games you are thinking of but Halo, Devil May Cry, Silent Hill, God of War, Ico, Ninja Gaiden, Shadow of the Colossus, any of the Ratchet and Clank/Jak games, Killer 7, Half-Life 2, Far Cry... all these cost 50 bux new and could be beaten in under 10 hours... maybe 12 if you were new to the genre or wanted to get everything.  The only games in my collection that lasted me 15+ hours in a straight playthrough (meaning no secret unlocking whatever) that weren't RPGs were Metal Gear Solid 3 and Resident Evil 4.  Everything else took half a day of dilligent playing to beat.

Marcus is right, but you have to agree $50 a game is better than prices varying due to content or how good the game is.  Here are some examples:

Phantasy Star 2:  This game cost $70, but it also came with a strategy guide, iirc.  And most games cost $30 in this Gen
Earthbound:  Same as above, but I KNOW this came with a guide.  (I own this game, so...)
Action 52: an NES game.  It boasted 52 games (which very few worked, and none were any good), and cost about $200.  I'm pretty sure NES games were around $20 to $30 around then

It's a bit dissappointing to pay $50 for a game you'll play only once, and beat in less than 15 hours, but...  Well look at it this way.

The Original Mario Bros. can be beaten in an hour, (warp pipes), and probably cost $30 new (or came with the system)  If you made a full run through, it would probably take you 4 to 5 hours.  And most NES (even SNES/Genesis)games are like this (not counting RPGs)  They relied on REPLAYABILITY more than length.

Hell, most NES games(That I have or played) can be beaten in an hour depending on skill/difficulty setting.  My point is, Yes $50 is a horrible price for a short game, but in retrospect the price/hour of play ratio has lowered.

I just wish games nowadays had the same replayability as older NES/SNES games

You also have to take in inflation and distribution.  The original NES Final Fantasy was 50 bux because it was distributed outside Japan but an American distributed game like Ultima was 20-30 dollars.  With that said, the economy didn't suck like it did in the 80s.  The economy is still pretty bad but people make more money now than they did 10 years ago hence the raised price.  If a democrat (particularly Clinton) takes over office the minimum wage is said to be raised from 5.85 an hour to 8-9 dollars an hour meaning the next next gen games will probably be even higher.

games are probably getting shorter because graphics are getting harder and harder + more time consuming to make, so adding more gameplay just adds that much more to the development time.

Yeah, that's a good point. Production costs are skyrocketing too. Uncharted apparently cost 30 million to make (for comparison, the first Jak and Daxter cost around 10 million). So if it's such a lengthy and costly process, it's not a surprise that games are getting shorter and costing more.

But still, they're not getting short enough that I think it's worth complaining over. Like, Uncharted is less than 10 hours at its bare minimum. If you don't speedrun straight through it in one sitting, and you get all the unlockables, I'd assume it's easily close to 20 hours. The only solid example of a cheapishly short game that comes to my mind is Heavenly Sword. That's the only game I've ever played where I felt like I deserved more game time for the money.

I guess the extra 10-20 dollars per game would be annoying, but this is the first generation where I've been actively buying all my own games. When I got my PS2, I was 11! So obviously the majority of my games were Christmas or birthday presents. So I guess I don't really notice the price differences.

Just a few more things I want to point out though: Uncharted got good ratings across the board. And also, I looked up some of the games that've been mentioned, and a lot of them can also be beaten in roughly 10 hours.

God of War (second source)
Jak and Daxter (second source)
Shadow of the Colossus (second source)
Ratchet and Clank (second source)

So it just goes to show that the length you hear about all depends on who you're hearing it from, how good they are, and how much of the game they played. I got over ten hours of gameplay out of Uncharted, and I didn't even 100% it.

-edit-
And also, a lot of the shorter games that've come out recently do have multiplayer. Like Gears of War or CoD4 (and even GTA4 is suppose to have it). So yeah. I really think overly short games are the exception, not the rule.

but i definitely think it's something that's a serious problem.  it's a bad trend!  games that are more expensive and, in many cases, significantly shorter than they should be?  is this what you want?

Obviously I don't think anyone would really want that, but I just don't think it's as big of a "trend" as you're making it out to be. Can you give many examples of games that are 10 hours or less and don't have multiplayer?

-edit-

i'd sort of rather go back to the days of regular-looking 3d and not this ultra hi-def shit that a) costs substantially more, and b) takes much longer to develop.  i think i've had a bad experience with my 360, but there haven't been too many games that have really utilized the ultra enhanced visuals in a way that really justifies the cost they come at (going beyond games being more expensive, even).  mostly it's just "whoaa.... look at his cape flow," which is hardly even worth it.

Yeah, I can agree with this. From my experience the only genre that I think really benefits from HD (so far at least) is first person shooters, and that's just because I think the intensity factor is turned up and you get really engrossed in them the more realistic they feel. I'm mainly thinking of CoD4 when I say this.

But still, they're not getting short enough that I think it's worth complaining over. Like, Uncharted is less than 10 hours at its bare minimum. If you don't speedrun straight through it in one sitting, and you get all the unlockables, I'd assume it's easily close to 20 hours. The only solid example of a cheapishly short game that comes to my mind is Heavenly Sword. That's the only game I've ever played where I felt like I deserved more game time for the money.

Yes, I can attest to this, I beat Uncharted in about 6-7 hours when I originally first played it but I didn't get any of the unlockables or anything.  Now I'm going through it again and so far I'm about 5 hours in (maybe half way through) trying to get some of the unlockables done and taking my time checking out the prettiness.

Heavenly sword was really short my boyfriend bought it when it first came out and I think he beat it in 3 sittings.

anyway, maybe i'm just ULTRASLOW when i beat games, because none of those games took me any less than fifteen hours, and probably closer to twenty (this isn't factoring in idle time, obviously).  but then, this wouldn't explain why it took me about ten to beat ac, unless gamemaster marcus can do it in five.

If I still have my Jak 3 save I'll take a picture to show you my time.  It was from going to beginning to end, finding most of the precusor orb thingies, and going from one mission to the other.  Jak and Daxter took me an entire day to beat (getting everything) and Jak 2 took me 8 hours.  It's not like there's anything to see or explore in the games besides GO TO POINT A PLAY MISSION B.

Regardless, the time it takes to beat a videogame depends completely on what you expect to get out of it.  It took me 120 hours to beat Dragon Quest VIII because I insisted on getting everything and seeing the extra ending.  If I didn't bother, it would have taken me 80 hours.  Same thing goes with Uncharted.  There is no multiplayer and the single player is short but there's a lot of unlockables to find and that accounts for something.  A lot of older games also contained tons of fluff like making you collect shit just to continue on.  Need I bring up Rare's games from the N64 days where you had to gather 30,000 items just to pass a level?  Look at Goldeneye; Rare's shortest game where the storymode could be literally beaten in 6 hours by even the most casual of FPS gamer but the multiplayer lasted forever (if you actually had friends who'd play it with you).  I'm all for long games, but I DO NOT WANT FILLER TO ARTIFICIALLY LENGTHEN MY GAMES.  It is more ridiculous to pay full price for some shit that FORCES you into a lengthy game than it is for a game that's short but was actually WELL DEVELOPED.

As far as games being shorter and graphics being more expensive and developers only focusing on graphics and blah blah blah that's all bullshit.  Games have always been expensive and games have always tried to keep up with the latest graphics.  I don't know what these magical long ass PS1/N64 games you're thinking of are but for the most part I'm having trouble of thinking up any major video game from that era that wasn't an RPG and lasted more than 10 or so hours of casual play.  If you ignored all the extra stars, Mario 64 could probably be beaten in 12 hours going at an average pace.  If you went straight through Ocarina of Time, the same could be said about that game.  Hell, Wind Waker was the shortest Zelda yet but they tried to ramp up gameplay time by making you find all those stupid tri-force pieces. 

Again, this all goes back to the "what do you expect from a game" thing.  I can breeze through a game if I just cruise through all the cinematics and this applies to almost every game made.  The games getting more expensive are just so developers can cover the increase in cost and the economy has fluctuated since the PS1 days.  50$ in 1995 is the same as 60$ today.  Unless you're buying every new game release that gets shatted out, I don't see how this is much of a problem.  Most people save money for the games they want to buy but unless you're like "OOH GENERIC FPS MUST HAVE THIS!!" everytime something is released then how can you complain about spending money on a hobby?  It's not anyone is forcing the controller in your hands and saying "HURF DURF BUY THIS VIDYA GAYM!!"

Hell, if you only buy the AAA releases each year then you're looking at, what, maybe 4 or 5 games a year?  I pay more money paying my phone bill than I do video games and I use my cell phone maybe once a week to call my parents.  Shit, I pay more money in gas driving to ebgames in a month than I do on a single video game.  Shit's expensive, yes, but at most I buy one new video game at full price maybe every month or so?  The last 360 game I bought was Assassin's Creed last November and I JUST got all the achievements last week.  The last Wii game I bought was No More Heroes and there isn't a single Wii game I'll end up buying until Smash Bros Brawl comes out next month.  The last PS3 game I bought was Uncharted which came out last November or so and I won't be buying another PS3 game until MGS4 or LittleBigPlanet comes out (whichever is first).  I usually replay games too or get all the achievements if they're fun so 60$ every month isn't something to cry about.  If your financial situation isn't as good as mine is then obviously you should be more frugal in your game spending.

FINALLY there are numerous vendors that are easily available and sell games for less than the market value.  I almost always buy USED but if this isn't available I turn to ebay or amazon for my purchases.  Simply WAITING A WEEK lowers the value of most games by 20%.  One week after it's release and BioShock was 50$ on Amazon case and everything.  Last week, gamestop nationwide had a sale of Assassin's Creed at 44$ (odd price, I know).  If you go on ebay, you can usually bid on the popular games that flood the market and if you find an auction that ends late at night then you can snatch that up for a steal too.  I assume you have a credit card or debit card.  It's not too much waiting 7 days for a game to be delivered to your house.

My point is, step back out of your nostalgia covered world and seriously look at the games that came out in each generation.  Ignore the ones that took you a long time to beat and count the number of games that can seriously be beaten in one fucking sitting.  You'd be surprised to note that it's probably the same exact ratio of games that could be beaten ridiculously fast now.

EDIT: I'm actually glad you spoke of idle time because that's another gameplay factor.  I usually only play maybe an hour of videogames during the weekdays and maybe 5 or 6 hours on weekends.  It took me a month or so to beat BioShock and the same time for Assassin's Creed.  Maybe you stretched your ps2 game playing days over the course of several days but if you actually sat down and timed yourself playing a game in ONE SITTING you'd be surprised how quickly you can make it through.  Saying that it took you several weeks to play the game in several sittings versus beating a game in one 15 hour sitting is a moot point.  Give me a saturday where I do nothing and I can guarantee you that I'll complain about how short videogames are.