Okay to be fair, Drake's Fortune is actually a fairly well regarded and popular game so it's not like it really needs defending, however I see a lot of Uncharted series posts on this sub and a common sentiment in those posts and the comments under them is that the first game is the weakest one, a kind of necessary but rocky first step that doesn't hold up that well in retrospect. It always grates on me a little, though, because for me it remains my favourite of the bunch.
Rather than do a full-on review of a game a lot of people have already talked about, I'd like to just go over a couple of the things that I think set it apart from its sequels. Admittedly, some of the things I like about it are probably the same things that turn other people off, but I do think from a certain point of view it has its own unique strengths.
- It's the only game in the series that maintains a tight, focused plot. Drake is chasing after a treasure, gets stranded on an island full of pirates and spends the remainder of the game trying to fight his way off. Over the course of his journey he slowly uncovers the mystery of what happened to the island's previous occupants and eventually discovers the true fate of his own personal idol, undergoing a simple but effective character arc as his illusions are shattered and he sees that the dogged pursuit of treasure leads to a sad end and that there are more important things in life. Elena experiences more-or-less the same arc, only replace "the treasure" with "the story", and then at the end they of course fall for each other and that serves as their "reward" - at least until Sully turns up right at the end with a boat full of treasure, and we end on a light, celebratory note.
The supernatural element isn't a mind-blowing twist but it's well done in my opinion, especially since they do a good job of building up to the reveal with little clues and teases that there's something more going on, and while the characters are not as distinct and memorable as those of later games, I feel like they do a better job of fulfilling their roles within the plot.
Now, the sequels are definitely a lot grander and more varied in their locations and set-pieces, but that variety comes at a cost of coherency, as the plot often has to make awkward and tenuous detours to get our protagonists to all the exotic locations within a single story (Uncharted 3's pirate armada plot cul-de-sac being probably the most infamous example.) I enjoy all of them but I wouldn't say any of the later games have a clean, refined story arc, and it's kind of silly how Drake has to keep re-experiencing the same character arc over and over with slight variations. Also, while the supernatural elements are more colourful and imaginative in 2/3, they feel both less earned and more predictable as a 3rd act twist.
- Enemies actually react to you trying to shoot them. I don't often see people bring this up or if they do it's usually as a negative, but I always thought it was kinda cool that enemies will recoil and duck when shot at and attempt to dodge out of the way if they notice you aiming at their head. Between that and how relentlessly they attack your position, it incentivizes you not to wait for openings to pop out of cover but rather to create them using suppressive fire so you can line up shots while the enemies recover from their stumbling. I can see how not understanding this could make the combat very frustrating for a lot people - hell, I'm sure I struggled with it the first time through - and it seems that it was annoying enough to most players that the subsequent games removed it altogether. To date, I can't think of a lot of other shooters where suppressive fire is a genuinely effective tool.
- It gets to the action quickly. As much as I enjoyed Uncharted 4's slow lead-in, it's also one of the reasons I have little desire to actually replay it. In general I'm not a huge fan of what I'd call "interactive cutscenes" where you as the player have very little agency and essentially have to just follow the games' instructions through a little scripted sequence and they kill my motivation to revisit a game. I don't actually remember if Uncharted 2 does this much, but 3 and 4 definitely do. Drake's Fortune, by comparison, wastes very little of the player's time in this way.
- The animations are better than 2/3. Again, this isn't something I ever see brought up so it maybe that I'm the only one who noticed, but some of the animations in Uncharted 2 & 3 look a little... off, particularly the jumping animations are really quite spastic. It's not a big deal, just a little thing that IMO makes the games feel a little stiffer.
So yeah, a couple of things I appreciate about the original Uncharted. The game definitely has its flaws, although I'd argue some of those flaws are a bit blown out of proportion (the river sections are lame but really not that bad, and TBH in 2007 I was too blown away but the water and the physics to really care that it wasn't that fun) and ultimately I do think it has enough going for it that it shouldn't be written off as just a stepping-stone for the better sequels.
I don't disagree with anything you've pointed out, but it's still easily the worst mainline Uncharted game.
On the original PS3 version the controls felt clunky and heavy. Combat was annoying and repetitive, with inconsistent cover behavior and infuriating RNG-induced inaccuracy (plus a total lack of aim assist AFAIK). Certain poorly balanced arenas caused difficulty to spike randomly, and long sustained combat sections got boring. Framerates were poor which was especially vomit inducing with the PS3 motion blur.
Pretty much all of this was fixed for the PS4 remaster. As part of that collection, I think it stands shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the first trilogy. I'd actually recommend anyone new to the franchise start with Uncharted 1, but on PS4.
I wish Naughty Dog would do a definitive PC port based on the PS4 version.
Yeah, it deserves the Last Of Us treatment
Yeah, as someone without a Playstation, but who has heard good things about Uncharted, and loved the 2013 Tomb Raider game (which I hear is largely inspired by the Uncharted games), I'm still kind of baffled that the series hasn't been remastered and released for PC. I should be in the target demographic for it, but they don't want to give it to me, I guess.
Sure, they have the "Legacy of Thieves" on Steam, but that's the fourth and I think fifth games in the series? The fifth one being a spin-off, I think? I just don't know that I want to jump into a story-heavy series in the fourth mainline entry. Especially since the original title of 4 is "Thief's End". If it's the end... why would I start there?
(Okay I just looked it up briefly, there are a few other spin-off/side games before, I think all for mobile. The "Lost Legacy" was a "standalone expansion" to 4. So yeah, doesn't sound like the best place to jump into the series.)
Why they haven't released an "Uncharted Trilogy" to get PC players into the series, or something along those lines, is baffling to me.
I think the biggest problem with starting with 4 on Steam is that the games are pretty much all showcases of what the Playstation could do, so they jump in quality massively with each one. So starting with 4 and then backtracking makes the others feel pretty unplayable or at least frustrating.
TBH though the story isn't exactly some contemporary masterpiece. You're mostly playing it for the locations and scenery. So starting with 4 isn't really a bad thing. You can definitely fill in the gaps. If it were the only game in the series it'd still make sense.
You're probably right. But even the first few have their defenders, clearly lol.
I really like to start with the first entry in a series. I don't want to play sequels before I played the original. So when I started the Assassin's Creed series, I started with 1, then played 2-1, and 2-2, and I haven't gotten around to 2-3 yet. Even though the one I really want to play is 4. I gotta play 2-3 and 3 first. I would like to play a series in order, but my interest in sticking with a series often shifts before I do finish it. It's kind of a problem in some ways tbh lol.
So maybe I will jump to Uncharted 4 someday.
Though I still think they'd hook me in better if they released a remastered trilogy first haha.
Great write up. I agree on a lot of points. Uncharted 1 is great and has a very special vibe to it imo. It's definitely the weakest in the series but it also definitely has its strengths.
And you're definitely not the only one noticing that the jumping in 2 and 3 looks spastic. But I think all three PS3 Uncharted titles have pretty janky climbing and jumping animations, especially compared to the amazing animation in Uncharted 4 and Lost Legacy.
Only after the excellent follow-ups, did I realize Naughty Dog hadn’t quite perfected the Uncharted formula with the first game.
But it was definitely no stepping-stone, although it served as the perfect launch pad for the series. There’s plenty of moments from that game that I think of fondly, it’s really quite impressive how much they got right from the start. Blending some of my favorite movie genres and tropes with (at the time) innovative gameplay, good writing and characters, cinematic set pieces and level design.
Drakes Fortune may sit in the shadow of all the Uncharted games that came after, but that’s really just testament to how brilliant the whole series shines.
I played it after #2, and really enjoyed it. Probably about on par with #3 & #4, but nothing ever did top #2 for me.
While I agree with most people that the sequels had big improvements over the first, Drake’s Fortune is indeed my favourite of the series. It was fun when I played it back then, and it’s still fun when I play it now.
Bro, the controls and that GODAWFUL aiming are what makes it the weakest of the Uncharted games.
I always had a soft spot for it for many of the reasons you mentioned, especially the plot and the shooting at enemies thing. It's like the first season of breaking bad for me, it's a bit different and less grandiose than the sequels, but it had its own unique charm too. Glad to see im not alone.
i played the first one and stopped there.
i loved the parkour elements and the story, but the combat was bad (to me)
it felt like it was there only to make the game longer not to mention illogical mob placement(mobs on the middle of a river shooting at you, how the f. did they get there?...)
at one point i just wanted the game to end
The sequence with the submarine at the beginning will forever be seared in my memory. It felt like a truly next-gen moment. Looked stunning when it came out.
The negative comments I've read usually have to do with the game not holding up or the other ones being much better. Also I think a lot of people probably didn't play it until years after it released, like when the sequels came out. I got it on release, it was a superb game. It may not of held up as well as the other ones in the series, but it was one of my favorite games at the time.
I thought it was always bad, I played it back in the day and the gunplay was just awful.
When Uncharted: Drake's Fortune released in 2007, IGN gave it a highly positive 9.1/10, calling it "Amazing" and awarding it an Editor's Choice, highlighting its thrilling adventure and cinematic quality. IGN Ratings for the First Game (Uncharted: Drake's Fortune) Score: 9.1/10 Verdict: Amazing, Editor's Choice Reviewer: Greg Miller Release Date: November 2007 (on PlayStation 3)
While I agree with the U4s slow start, I also feel ND games have chapter select for exactly that reason.
The final boss fight of the game basically negates anything good about the game whatsoever. It's that bad. The mutant area was also pretty terrible, like a Temu version of Left 4 Dead. So while the game isn't horrendous for its entire runtime, it has specific moments of utter trash that bring it down. Nathan Drake is also a jerk and not nearly as likeable. The game very nearly made me stop playing the series.
also the technical leap between 1 and 2 feels so weird for being on the same system. maybe it's not a technical leap, but an absolute refinement of vision within the same tech.
I almost skipped the series as a whole because of that first game. I wouldn’t even say it doesn’t hold up well. I’d say it’s more of a detriment to anyone to play it first.
But then again here you are saying it’s your favorite so what the heck do I know lol
As I've mentioned in other Uncharted related threads, I've only played the Legacy of Thieves edition because it's the only one available on PC.
I wish Naughty Dog would release the rest on PC. I really wouldn't mind playing them all.
Naughty Dog leaned into their strengths with the later games, which is environment design. The environments in these games are jaw-droppingly gorgeous so I'm totally fine with the introduction of new, exotic locales at the expense of the writing because the writing wasn't good to begin with.
I mean this sentence could also apply to the 3rd and 4th games. How many times does this guy need to relearn the same lesson?
I've already ranted enough about these games (which you may have read recently) so I won't go any further but to say that I don't consider Drake's Fortune the worst in the series. I put it #2 behind Among Thieves.
I hate interactive cutscenes as you called them, so I haven't gone back to 3 in a long time and haven't bothered with 4. 2 suffers from it as well but I don't think quite as bad.
Have you tried Lost Legacy? How's it on that front?
Uncharted 1's jungle island setting is probably my favorite of the series to explore and the one I appreciated the most as the first game was very much an early "graphics showcase" kind of game for the PS3. It was nice to go through a gunfight and then the game gets quiet with just ambient noise as you jump around. The sequels felt a lot more scripted with set pieces so that you're pushing forward more often than not. I don't remember being as interested in the settings in the other games after the scripted multi-stage gunfights had concluded, if there was even time at all to explore the levels before a cutscene takes you away. The flaw of the first game was something I enjoyed, really if anything I could've used less gun fights in future games and more stealth and puzzles (they kind of went the opposite and made Drake into Rambo).
Didn't know it needed defending
Did you literally just read the title and make that comment before reading the first line of the post?
I read the whole thing, my original comment is my response
Probably unpopular opinion but in my opinion Uncharted 4 was the weakest game. Uncharted 1 gets dragged down by some gameplay choices but is by no means a bad game
I think it sucks. Definitely more of a tech demo than well made game
I don't think you're wrong about it being a tech demo. All Uncharted games were kinda like that. 4 is absolutely a showcase of what the PS4 can do. There is a ton of stuff in that game they did specifically to push the system and show it off.
More tech demo than interesting game