Support NeoGAF

[AniHawk]

He is every bit as relatable as Indiana Jones or John McClane -- which is to say, not very much. They're by design meant to be very unrealistic.

These types of characters are archetypes everyone wishes they were if shit were to hit the fan. Most of us are never going to be treasure hunters or terrorism's worst enemy, but people watch these films and imagine how awesome it would be if we were. If a group of terrorists were tearing a building apart, I'd love to be a hero who gets by with the skin of his teeth and save the day while being clever and charismatic. It's daydreaming nonsense that is not weighed down by the reality of people who do the things Indy and McClane do.

Just because Drake throws a few jokes here and there doesn't make him relatable any more than Indy. They're just being unapologetic badasses in a classic hollywood way. They're both people who are extremely lucky in the face of danger and often can't believe how lucky they are, in addition to being naturally witty, smart, and athletically unmatched. Drake is an "everyman" every bit as much as Indiana Jones is a University professor who takes vacations killing Nazis who want to use artifacts for evil.

there's a pretty big difference when drake doesn't exist in our world. i get to see john mcclane as a person. i understand that he's a dude whose marriage sucks and that he's a cop. got it. raiders doesn't start with indiana jones as a professor, but you do see him among real people and there's even slower moments of deliberation with other real people before he sets off on the adventure within that film.

nathan drake is introduced to us in which he crashes a plane, or is stuck on a dangling train depending on which game you start with. at no point in uncharted 2 is he shown interacting with real people. at no point do i get him as a person or where he belongs in relation to my reality. it's more of a pure fantasy.

They're all strange and you can deconstruct all three this same way, or gloss over their weirdness with pithy soundbites like you did for IJ and Mcclane. All three are takes on the relatable, everyman-styled hero; they don't have superpowers, can all be caught off-balance and are just slightly more skilled/capable versions of people in the way we probably like to view our ideal ourselves, just trying to do the rightest thing in a terrible situation while managing to beat the odds seemingly by the skin of their teeth.

yep they're all the same. that is a good point and well-made.

 

[Polioliolio]

He swam away.

Eh? This isn't about storytelling, it's about gameplay mechanics. In a third-person shooter you'll have to shoot many many baddies. You can argue that perhaps Uncharted, due to its tone, should be more platformer/puzzle and less an action/shooter, but even that is a different discussion than storytelling and writing.


But that guard doesn't die. He swims away safely. Look down next time.

He throws him into water, and you can clearly see the guard swimming away afterwards. Throughout the entire intro sequence you kill no one, only incapacitating them. They specifically went to great lengths to have Nate take on everyone non-lethally before they were threatening his life.

I swear to you, in my game, the guy hit the rocks and just laid there sprawled out.

 

[Darknight]

Did you play Uncharted 3?

They didn't make it black and white as in hero/villian but Nathan is a thief. He ran away from an orphanage when he was young and stole to survive eventually running into Sullivan then seeming to steal for profits. Ever since the first game they alluded to his shady past encounters and people he has dealt with before. If you honestly believe that "his" type of profession doesn't existed in this world then that is a very sheltered view of things.

He is not considered relatable because of his profession but more because of his attitude and outlook in every situation we see him in. He is not a murderer in the sense that he kills innocent people but he is not shying away from defending himself from people who want to kill him. And if you believe that he is been living this life since an early teen you can easily see how what he does can be shrugged off by him.

I see alot of people talk about the weight of killing a person and how they must all be severely affected. Have any of you talked to someone who has returned from a battlefield? Do they lament about the people they have shot while trying to protect themselves or their comrades? In the large scale of things if you want to ponder the individual weight of a life and every possible human connection with it.... chances are you are not on a battlefield. And if you were.... you would probably be dead or will soon die. At the point of conflict between you and another person who has a gun and you know is going to shoot you, whether it is on a battlefield or on a city street, you cease to think of the person as someone with a family member, a job, responsibilities, or even ponder their education level. That person becomes an aggressor. A threat to you at that moment and time. Most reasonable people will respond with a fight or flight reaction. As if we haven't seen mass shootings in public areas or school shootings. After Anders Breivik shot several of your friends and is coming at you with a gun do you honestly think you are going to ponder his life? If you had a gun would you not shoot at him to kill? What about an army of people like that?

Yea, Uncharted may exist in a stylized version of reality, but people who honestly believe that they would turn into socrates in a life or death situation are living in another special version of reality.



Yes the game implies that he is familiar with this lifestyle (actually every game does), but it doesn't imply that he sets out to kill people as a main goal. Also the games are careful about drawing any moral lines because if you really pay attention drake and his friends aren't considered good either. They are just not as bad as the people they are up against.

He is every bit as relatable as Indiana Jones or John McClane -- which is to say, not very much. They're by design meant to be very unrealistic.

These types of characters are archetypes everyone wishes they were if shit were to hit the fan. Most of us are never going to be treasure hunters or terrorism's worst enemy, but people watch these films and imagine how awesome it would be if we were. If a group of terrorists were tearing a building apart, I'd love to be a hero who gets by with the skin of his teeth and save the day while being clever and charismatic. It's daydreaming nonsense that is not weighed down by the reality of people who do the things Indy and McClane do.

Just because Drake throws a few jokes here and there doesn't make him relatable any more than Indy. They're just being unapologetic badasses in a classic hollywood way. They're both people who are extremely lucky in the face of danger and often can't believe how lucky they are, in addition to being naturally witty, smart, and athletically unmatched. Drake is an "everyman" every bit as much as Indiana Jones is a University professor who takes vacations killing Nazis who want to use artifacts for evil.

This is some ether right here. Well said. I cant wrap my head around the mental gymnastics to make Drake/Uncharted some demonized product from some people while ignoring one of the most popular films it takes inspiration from and all other software products before it.

 

[staticneuron]

this goes against the whole swashbuckling tone the series was trying to establish with the first two games. it sounds to me like the writers at naughty dog realized too late they they didn't know what kind of creature they created and tried to make it more sympathetic. am i supposed to feel sorry for drake that he got put into a series of globetrotting adventures since he was a kid, or am i supposed to think it's awesome? because i would think the developers want me to think it was awesome since he's such a lovable guy and hunting treasure is fun.

trying to find real reasons for why nathan drake is a crazy man is a mistake. instead of making the series into the last of us, they should have made it more like saints row. make it stupider and crazier. turn it into a parody of itself and have some fun. anything else feels like bad fanfiction.

No it is not. His shady past and his acclimation to the violence is set in the very first Uncharted and his encounter with the pirates. His supposed history with Eddy Raja. It is then reinforced by the sequel and the intro sequence to that and the friends he has (Harry and Chloe).

If you played the first two games and got the impression that Nathan Drake was a lovable guy who is some sort of hero, then you were not paying attention at all.

All the third game did, was not to get you to feel sympathy but for you to have an understanding of Nathans behavior, motivation and his connection to Sully.

there's a pretty big difference when drake doesn't exist in our world. i get to see john mcclane as a person. i understand that he's a dude whose marriage sucks and that he's a cop. got it. raiders doesn't start with indiana jones as a professor, but you do see him among real people and there's even slower moments of deliberation with other real people before he sets off on the adventure within that film.

nathan drake is introduced to us in which he crashes a plane, or is stuck on a dangling train depending on which game you start with. at no point in uncharted 2 is he shown interacting with real people. at no point do i get him as a person or where he belongs in relation to my reality. it's more of a pure fantasy.



yep they're all the same. that is a good point and well-made.

This all has to do with you. Nothing in the three games are spelled out. The vast majority of it is implied but at the same token the implications are not subtle. Again in the first uncharted in the very start given the words that comes out of nathans mouth you quickly find out what side of the law he is on and his respect for a particular area (which is none). The second game has him in a heist and his banter with the people show his trust level with everyone. The third gives an insight to his past, which you described as if the writers made some sort of mistake earlier and are trying to backtrack. They writers have been really consistent and it seems as if you created some sort of expectation and persona of Nathan that is entirely at odds with what was presented in the games themselves. Considering how many people seem to understand Nathan and his motivations seem to imply it has nothing to do with the writers writing and more to do with some interpretation you have created instead of gleaned from the games.

 

[LastNac]

LastNac asked question at 47:14. Led to a nice conversation after the panel too.


Also, Neil is right.

 

[jrush64]

While I agree that it's a game. My own problem, especially with Uncharted 3 was that they threw too many bad guys at you to kill. It's been a while since I played Uncharted 2 so i don't know if it's the same. But I definitely noticed it with 3.

I guess I wish there was an almost even balance between adventuring and actual shooting.

 

[Augustus McCrae]

For those wondering he says

"You have to stick to your guns and ignore Neogaf as much as you can. "

Words to live by.

 

[Yopis]

This thread is proof that Druckmann should ignore NeoGAF as much as possible.

Truly people try so hard around here to out-think the room.

 

[B.O.O.M]

well yeah..I pretty much agree with him. I have expressed my opinion on the matter which is also along the same line of thinking.

 

[Neuromancer]

I'm insulted. I understand his point, but I don't think it's very nice to say 'I'm going to ignore a forum of 150 thousand people, some of them our most passionate fans, because I don't agree with them. Haha!'

 

[blurr]

While I agree that it's a game. My own problem, especially with Uncharted 3 was that they threw too many bad guys at you to kill. It's been a while since I played Uncharted 2 so i don't know if it's the same. But I definitely noticed it with 3.

I guess I wish there was an almost even balance between adventuring and actual shooting.

Totally agree, in the UC4 demo much recently, I was glad that Drake chose to avoid killing any of the men towards the end of it and just moved forward.

 

[AniHawk]

This all has to do with you. Nothing in the three games are spelled out. The vast majority of it is implied but at the same token the implications are not subtle. Again in the first uncharted in the very start given the words that comes out of nathans mouth you quickly find out what side of the law he is on and his respect for a particular area (which is none). The second game has him in a heist and his banter with the people show his trust level with everyone. The third gives an insight to his past, which you described as if the writers made some sort of mistake. They writers have been really consistent and it seems as if you created some sort of expectation and persona of Nathan that is entirely at odds with what was presented in the games themselves. Considering how many people seem to understand Nathan and his motivations seem to imply it has nothing to do with the writers writing and more to do with some interpretation you have created instead of gleaned from the games.

so it seems to me you're arguing in favor that nathan drake is some sort of unrepentant killer who knowingly gets into situations that makes him an unrepentant killer. i would agree. that is sort of what makes him a compelling villain - more so that he finds time to crack wise about the situations he finds himself in. why then, would so many people be up in arms about that not being nathan drake's personality and his willingness to kill when it was apparently spelled out for us by naughty dog themselves?

 

[Cyrano]

I'm kind of insulted. I understand his point, but I don't think it's very nice to say 'I'm going to ignore a forum of 150 thousands people, some of them our most passionate fans, because I don't agree with them. Haha!'

It's a legit manner of response. I don't feel it's necessarily informed to not listen to others about the work you create, but eh. I think it's just a backlash from a flood of too many opinions and a now ubiquitous access to people via the internet.

Death of the author and all that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVm65tlhqw8

 

[Branduil]

Yup.

GAF: "He is an EVERYMAN, WHY IS HE KILLING PEOPLE??!!"
ND: Its a video game
GAF: "But but, he is not supposed to be a bald headed marine with combat experience!"
ND: Its a video game
GAF: "Why does Drake look like a human if he moves like a robot"
ND: Its a video game
GAF: "Drake shoots instead of raid tombs I mean, solve puzzles and read books at the library!"
ND: ....
GAF: "Why doesnt he think of his WIFE and his CHILDREN before going out on adventures? I know I wouldnt risk my FAMILY if I had to save the world!!!"
ND: ....
GAF: "I just secretly want to bang Drake or he ram me but he isnt real! Fuck you ND!! T_T"
ND: ok that does it *closes GAF tab*

If it's just a video game then why does Naughty Dog get so much praise for their writing/cinematic elements?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim Uncharted is just a video game when it suits you and then turn around and praise its narrative when you want it to be acknowledged as the pinnacle of cinematic gaming.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

This thread is proof that Druckmann should ignore NeoGAF as much as possible.

Hahahah, yup.

If it's just a video game then why does Naughty Dog get so much praise for their writing/cinematic elements?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim Uncharted is just a video game when it suits you and then turn around and praise its narrative when you want it to be acknowledged as the pinnacle of cinematic gaming.

Because they are writing within the confines of the genre, which has the player suspend their disbelief as they would do with any other medium in the action/adventure genre.

You don't need to dive into the moral and physiological implications of the qualms of a man killing other men in the genre which Uncharted takes place to have great writing...

 

[kaching]

yep they're all the same. that is a good point and well-made.

So why do I feel like I've been trolled?

Incidentally, your point about Drake not existing in our world isn't true either. Uncharted 1 starts with him on a boat with Elena filming a documentary. Which is about as much "real world" grounding as you get for either Jones' or Mcclane's origin story before things escalate quickly.

If it's just a video game then why does Naughty Dog get so much praise for their writing/cinematic elements?

Because it's generally achieving more in those categories than most videogames do. Doing things better or best in category is generally praiseworthy, regardless of the relative weight or significance it has on the fate of humanity in general. We celebrate achievements for lots of things in their own distinct contexts - is this a new concept for you?

 

[AniHawk]

So why do I feel like I've been trolled?

Incidentally, your point about Drake not existing in our world isn't true either. Uncharted 1 starts with him on a boat with Elena filming a documentary. Which is about as much "real world" grounding as you get for either Jones' or Mcclane's origin story before things escalate quickly.

i cannot believe what a missed opportunity it was not making elena the main character. i mean hooooly shit.

the game should have been her trying to keep up with drake, but they get separated and she has to do all sorts of puzzles and shit to catch up with him. and then when she does he's just slaughtered a score of people and he laughs about her timing.

and then it takes a darker turn because the man is obviously a lunatic who must be stopped. but she has to pretend she's still on his side until his terror can end. she's saving him from himself, really.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Not really, the context suggests Drake is a treasure hunter, not a killer.

The very first time you meet Drake, you kill like a dozen people as soon as you take control of him.

 

[Darknight]

I'm insulted. I understand his point, but I don't think it's very nice to say 'I'm going to ignore a forum of 150 thousand people, some of them our most passionate fans, because I don't agree with them. Haha!'

If you take that as a "personal insult", I would really try to spend less time online. I dont think he dismisses his/ND's fans per say. Just that GAF sometimes just makes the shitties things a bigger deal than they are such as "Drake is a mass murderer" bit. Thats something that Im glad they can ignore and continue working on their game.

If ND will be placed on such critique, all major game devs and their projects would have to be "moderated" to be less violent as well and lets go about censoring films and other media while we are at it.

 

[jay]

If it's just a video game then why does Naughty Dog get so much praise for their writing/cinematic elements?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim Uncharted is just a video game when it suits you and then turn around and praise its narrative when you want it to be acknowledged as the pinnacle of cinematic gaming.

And then hail The Last of Us as an amazing achievement in story telling. It's apparent that Naughty Dog doesn't actually believe the "it's just a video game" thing.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

If you take that as a "personal insult", I would really try to spend less time online. I dont think he dismisses his/ND's fans per say. Just that GAF sometimes just makes the shitties things a bigger deal than they are such as "Drake is a mass murderer" bit. Thats something that Im glad they can ignore and continue working on their game.

If ND will be placed on such critique, all major game devs and their projects would have to be "moderated" to be less violent as well and lets go about censoring films and other media while we are at it.

Huh

Huh?

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

I think he's right. It's escapism. Also he's right in " Don't ever listen to Gaf" . We are a terrible mess of uncontrollable hatred

 

[ibyea]

If you take that as a "personal insult", I would really try to spend less time online. I dont think he dismisses his/ND's fans per say. Just that GAF sometimes just makes the shitties things a bigger deal than they are such as "Drake is a mass murderer" bit. Thats something that Im glad they can ignore and continue working on their game.

If ND will be placed on such critique, all major game devs and their projects would have to be "moderated" to be less violent as well and lets go about censoring films and other media while we are at it.

That is one hell of a slippery slope. You do realize the criticism is not the excessive violence but the over reliance of it causes some people to break suspension of disbelief?

 

[Branduil]

Hahahah, yup.

Because they are writing within the confines of the genre, which has the player suspend their disbelief as they would do with any other medium in the action/adventure genre.

You don't need to dive into the moral and physiological implications of the qualms of a man killing other men in the genre which Uncharted takes place to have great writing...

But Indiana Jones, the closest Nathan Drake analogue in film, doesn't kill nearly as many people.

Suspension of disbelief isn't something people owe a story, it's something a story earns. If people are having that suspension broken by the weirdly huge body counts of a treasure-hunting rogue, it might be a good idea think about how the violence is contextualized in the story.

 

[Cyrano]

Because they are writing within the confines of the genre, which has the player suspend their disbelief as they would do with any other medium in the action/adventure genre.

You don't need to dive into the moral and physiological implications of the qualms of a man killing other men in the genre which Uncharted takes place to have great writing...

And despite this, synthesis is a thing that's important to a lot of creative works and critics. Also, having done a lot of genre research on genre, I can tell you right now the entire reasoning of "genre demands" is an arbitrary defense with no real weight (in videogames moreso than any other media). It's like saying Pokemon demands monster catching when there are now multiple licensed Pokemon games all of which have nothing to do with monster catching. They're doing it because they want to do it because it's what they're comfortable with.

But uh, yeah I always expect people to want to be more cerebral than they are when it comes to making decisions. Couldn't just say, "we made this fun shooting thing and wanted people to have fun with it." Too honest, probably.

 

[Kageshinzo]

I'm insulted. I understand his point, but I don't think it's very nice to say 'I'm going to ignore a forum of 150 thousand people, some of them our most passionate fans, because I don't agree with them. Haha!'

Why would you feel insulted, unless you identify yourself personally with NeoGAF? He is not singling out ND/Uncharted fans in particular; he is calling out GAF as a majority entity. And what he is saying is true. This place can be a toxic mess most times.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

And then hail The Last of Us as an amazing achievement in story telling. It's apparent that Naughty Dog doesn't actually believe the "it's just a video game" thing.

It's called The Last of Us, and it deals with that issue with the main character. Because that universe is grounded in a reality separate from Uncharted, it has it's own sets of suspension of disbeliefs when it comes to it's narrative and themes, so it chooses to tackle and show that issue of violence and the tole it takes on a man and it's appropriate.

Attempting to openly justify why Drake is killing so many people in the genre it's set will break disbelief that the genre already has engrained in so many people. We've come to accept it, throughout movies and TV and games. What would Indiana Jones be like if he started to ponder the people he killed in the middle of the first movie?

You don't point out the unrealistic nature of something when it's set in it's own rules. That's like pointing out the paradoxes of time travel in a Terminator movie, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MOVIE.

Yes, we understand that Terminator doesn't really make sense, but we don't ponder the logistics of which alternate timeline, if at all, we are in right after the T1000 tries to stab John in the face. We accept within this universe, and genre of time travel that things are the way they are, and it's best to leave it be instead of pointing it out and attempting to justify or actually make sense of it, as doing so will only tear open that fragile cloth of suspension of disbelief.

 

[Bold One]

Would you say that about Destiny?

you could say that about almost any game,

I have been in a great many Destiny threads, some posters will have some great suggestions, but in general its a shit-post festival

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

i cannot believe what a missed opportunity it was not making elena the main character. i mean hooooly shit.

the game should have been her trying to keep up with drake, but they get separated and she has to do all sorts of puzzles and shit to catch up with him. and then when she does he's just slaughtered a score of people and he laughs about her timing.

and then it takes a darker turn because the man is obviously a lunatic who must be stopped. but she has to pretend she's still on his side until his terror can end. she's saving him from himself, really.

Uncharted 4 needs to have Nathan Drake ripping people's teeth off with a knife so that he can shove a grenade down their throat, laughing while he does it, while one of his companions looks on in horror. This is the Ani canon.

 

[-griffy-]

I'm insulted. I understand his point, but I don't think it's very nice to say 'I'm going to ignore a forum of 150 thousand people, some of them our most passionate fans, because I don't agree with them. Haha!'

All he's saying is sometimes you can't listen to the peanut gallery or you'll lose sight of what you're trying to make. He tweeted this over the weekend, he obviously isn't simply ignoring NeoGAF altogether.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

It's a pulpy action-adventure. The "bad guys" get thwarted at every turn (read: killed) and the star makes a quip. Yes, the death count is absurdly high, but I think it was Hennig who said that gameplay is an abstraction. Obviously the stuff happening in a third-person shooter can't be taken seriously on a literal level. People for example can't get shot repeatedly and heal by crouching for five seconds or finding a "health pack" randomly lying on the ground. It's nice to add some realism, but only if it makes the game more fun rather than less, and that's not a trivial thing to accomplish.

 

[Hugstable]

I'm insulted. I understand his point, but I don't think it's very nice to say 'I'm going to ignore a forum of 150 thousand people, some of them our most passionate fans, because I don't agree with them. Haha!'

Ehh if he keeps creating games as amazing as what he creates, he can ignore us all he wants! If I was a dev I wouldn't trust reading Neogaf that much, it's gotta be tough to find legit criticism in the sea of trolling. Honestly though, Neogaf has probably been one of the most civil forums I've ever discussed at bar none, even with alot of the trolling and conspiracy theories I've been seeing pop up recently.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

But Indiana Jones, the closest Nathan Drake analogue in film, doesn't kill nearly as many people.

Suspension of disbelief isn't something people owe a story, it's something a story earns. If people are having that suspension broken by the weirdly huge body counts of a treasure-hunting rogue, it might be a good idea think about how the violence is contextualized in the story.

Games by nature will always have more killing than a movie counterpart in the same genre.

Games last longer, and demand more gameplay than story telling. Killing 12 people without giving a fuck is equally as ridiculous when it comes from an archeologists who shows zero remorse or trama from his actions.

So yea, at some point you need to remember "it's a game", and in the action genre of games the body count is going to be far higher and illogical than it's brothers in separate mediums.

Having Uncharted out of nowhere attempt to justify it's body count would be far more jarring than it simply ignoring it.

 

[AniHawk]

Uncharted 4 needs to have Nathan Drake ripping people's teeth off with a knife so that he can shove a grenade down their throat, laughing while he does it, while one of his companions looks on in horror. This is the Ani canon.

no it's totally fine though because it was in self-defense.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

LastNac asked question at 47:14. Led to a nice conversation after the panel too.


Also, Neil is right.

Look at this guy

Over here asking questions and conversing post-panel

Regular game journalist, this one

 

[staticneuron]

so it seems to me you're arguing in favor that nathan drake is some sort of unrepentant killer who knowingly gets into situations that makes him an unrepentant killer. i would agree. that is sort of what makes him a compelling villain - more so that he finds time to crack wise about the situations he finds himself in. why then, would so many people be up in arms about that not being nathan drake's personality and his willingness to kill when it was apparently spelled out for us by naughty dog themselves?

Again I am going to repost this here in because it seems as if this is missed the first time.

He is not a murderer in the sense that he kills innocent people but he is not shying away from defending himself from people who want to kill him. And if you believe that he is been living this life since an early teen you can easily see how what he does can be shrugged off by him.

I see alot of people talk about the weight of killing a person and how they must all be severely affected. Have any of you talked to someone who has returned from a battlefield? Do they lament about the people they have shot while trying to protect themselves or their comrades? In the large scale of things if you want to ponder the individual weight of a life and every possible human connection with it.... chances are you are not on a battlefield. And if you were.... you would probably be dead or will soon die. At the point of conflict between you and another person who has a gun and you know is going to shoot you, whether it is on a battlefield or on a city street, you cease to think of the person as someone with a family member, a job, responsibilities, or even ponder their education level. That person becomes an aggressor. A threat to you at that moment and time. Most reasonable people will respond with a fight or flight reaction. As if we haven't seen mass shootings in public areas or school shootings. After Anders Breivik shot several of your friends and is coming at you with a gun do you honestly think you are going to ponder his life? If you had a gun would you not shoot at him to kill? What about an army of people like that?

Yea, Uncharted may exist in a stylized version of reality, but people who honestly believe that they would turn into socrates in a life or death situation are living in another special version of reality.



Yes the game implies that he is familiar with this lifestyle (actually every game does), but it doesn't imply that he sets out to kill people as a main goal. Also the games are careful about drawing any moral lines because if you really pay attention drake and his friends aren't considered good either. They are just not as bad as the people they are up against.

So your talk about unrepentant killer just sounds like judgmental nonsense about a fictional character based off some sort of odd view of reality and morality which somehow means that if you kill aggressors in self defense that you must be in remorse or repentant. That somehow if Drake is in a position in which people try to kill him, then drake must be somehow responsible for his aggressors actions. I am just going to assume you are either kidding or trolling at this point.

 

[Game4life]

LastNac asked question at 47:14. Led to a nice conversation after the panel too.


Also, Neil is right.

You should have asked him which he thought was the better game. UC2 or UC3

 

[kaching]

i cannot believe what a missed opportunity it was not making elena the main character. i mean hooooly shit.

the game should have been her trying to keep up with drake, but they get separated and she has to do all sorts of puzzles and shit to catch up with him. and then when she does he's just slaughtered a score of people and he laughs about her timing.

and then it takes a darker turn because the man is obviously a lunatic who must be stopped. but she has to pretend she's still on his side until his terror can end. she's saving him from himself, really.

*shrugs* whynotboth.gif? It's equally weird and filled with plenty of conceits that would be no more complimentary of *her* character, if you want to dissect it with the totally rational mind.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

It's a pulpy action-adventure. The "bad guys" get thwarted at every turn (read: killed) and the star makes a quip. Yes, the death count is absurdly high, but I think it was Hennig who said that gameplay is an abstraction. Obviously the stuff happening in a third-person shooter can't be taken seriously on a literal level. People for example can't get shot repeatedly and heal by crouching for five seconds or finding a "health pack" randomly lying on the ground. It's nice to add some realism, but only if it makes the game more fun rather than less, and that's not a trivial thing to accomplish.

I think this is what bothers me about the calls for "realism" or whatever in regards to the body count. We're bothered by Drake killing hundreds, but we don't mind that you can regenerate health in seconds and survive thousands of bullets hitting you over the course of a 10 hour adventure? Hennig was spot on when she said the gameplay is an abstraction. "It's a game" is often used as a lame handwaving mechanism to thwart critcism, but in the case of some mechanics, it's legitimate to point out that this is indeed a game and the shooting has to work within the confines of the medium.

 

[AniHawk]

Again I am going to repost this here in because it seems as if this is missed the first time.

So your talk about unrepentant killer just sounds like judgmental nonsense about a fictional character based off some sort of odd view of reality and morality which somehow means that if you kill aggressors in self defense that you must be in remorse or repentant. That somehow if you are in a position in which people try to kill drake, then drake must be somehow responsible for his aggressors actions. I am just going to assume you are either kidding or trolling at this point.

i misread nothing. nathan drake willingly puts himself in situations where he will be killing people. he does it multiple times. either he's incredibly stupid, or he doesn't care. it might work if he had something he believed in, but he doesn't. so i can't connect with him.

 

[barit]

But Indiana Jones, the closest Nathan Drake analogue in film, doesn't kill nearly as many people.

Suspension of disbelief isn't something people owe a story, it's something a story earns. If people are having that suspension broken by the weirdly huge body counts of a treasure-hunting rogue, it might be a good idea think about how the violence is contextualized in the story.

Maybe because Indy has only 2h time in every movie? Give him 10h-12h and I bet he would kill more bad guys then you could count. All this talk about Drake is a mass murderer is such nonsense and only shows how good the Uncharted games really are because haters can't find any meaningful critic against it

 

[Imm0rt4l]

I totally agree with him.

 

[viveks86]

13 pages over a joke? He must be right, then…

 

[staticneuron]

i misread nothing. nathan drake willingly puts himself in situations where he will be killing people. he does it multiple times. either he's incredibly stupid, or he doesn't care. it might work if he had something he believed in, but he doesn't. so i can't connect with him.

Yeah. I think you are trolling at this point. In the intro of Uncharted how does get to those coordinates? How on earth does he know pirates will be there? How about the people on the island that shoot down his plane? He knew they were going to be there? What about the events of uncharted 3?

The only aspect of any of the three games in which I can say he invited somewhat is him trying to find mystical items before Lazarević gets his hands on them which puts him directly in the path of danger. Other than that, there is nothing about the games that really imply that Drake puts himself in the situation versus them being an unintended and often unplanned aspect of his treasure hunting adventures.

 

[Cyrano]

13 pages over a joke? He must be right, then…

If the thread dies before the thirteenth page is turned Neil will forever be cursed.

OooOoooOOOOoooooOOOoooo....

 

[AniHawk]

Yeah. I think you are trolling at this point. In the intro of Uncharted how does get to those coordinates? How on earth does he know pirates will be there? How about the people on the island that shoot down his plane? He knew they were going to be there? What about the events of uncharted 3?

The only aspect of any of the three games in which I can say he invited somewhat is him trying to find mystical items before Lazarević gets his hands on them which puts him directly in the path of danger. Other than that, there is nothing about the games that really imply that Drake puts himself in the situation versus them being an unintended and often unplanned aspect of his treasure hunting adventures.

see i would think if a guy had a bad past and run-ins with unsavory characters, he'd be a little wary about the path forward. yet he time and time again (and maybe more than we realize given what you have explained about his history), throws himself into danger, knowing he may have to kill people. i mean shit, he could have just quit uncharted 2 once he saw a pretty heavily protected camp headed by a rather scary group of people, but he decides to just go ahead and do what he wanted to anyway. again, he's either stupid and doesn't learn from his own past, or he just doesn't care that he might be killing people in a few short minutes.

 

[SeventhSon]

I'm insulted. I understand his point, but I don't think it's very nice to say 'I'm going to ignore a forum of 150 thousand people, some of them our most passionate fans, because I don't agree with them. Haha!'

Plus, didn't NeoGAF help fix Uncharted 3?

 

[Branduil]

Maybe because Indy has only 2h time in every movie? Give him 10h-12h and I bet he would kill more bad guys then you could count. All this talk about Drake is a mass murderer is such nonsense and only shows how good the Uncharted games really are because haters can't find any meaningful critic against it

LOL

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

see i would think if a guy had a bad past and run-ins with unsavory characters, he'd be a little wary about the path forward. yet he time and time again (and maybe more than we realize given what you have explained about his history), throws himself into danger, knowing he may have to kill people. i mean shit, he could have just quit uncharted 2 once he saw a pretty heavily protected camp headed by a rather scary group of people, but he decides to just go ahead and do what he wanted to anyway. again, he's either stupid and doesn't learn from his own past, or he just doesn't care that he might be killing people in a few short minutes.

If we apply logic of a sane, normal person into every story we would have extremely boring stories.

And our hero saw the treasure ahead, but noticed many foes in his way. Calculating the odds he deemed it would be reckless to go after his dream and he went home and found a nice 9 to 5 job that supplied good benefits for his family the end.

 

[Famassu]

so it seems to me you're arguing in favor that nathan drake is some sort of unrepentant killer who knowingly gets into situations that makes him an unrepentant killer. i would agree. that is sort of what makes him a compelling villain - more so that he finds time to crack wise about the situations he finds himself in. why then, would so many people be up in arms about that not being nathan drake's personality and his willingness to kill when it was apparently spelled out for us by naughty dog themselves?

You can't be serious. Nathan Drake is literally the Indiana Jones of the gaming world. Much like no one gives a shit when Indiana Jones kills some Nazis (while being oh-so-charming), no one should give a shit when similarly bad men are killed in Uncharted. Just because Drake kills more people in absolute numbers means jack shit when 1) these are games that are ~4-6x longer than your usual 1,5-2h movies & 2) it's a video game, you usually need to keep things engaging (for a lot of people) and one way to do that is to throw enemies at the gamer. And because it's a game, they either have to make singular enemies that are deadly (but then those have to be bullet sponges because if they are too easy to kill, the game loses all of its tension) or throw a number of less deadly singular enemies who can still offer you some challenge when they group against you. Or make Drake really vulnerable (i.e. dies from one or two hits), but those kinds of trial & error games can get extremely frustrating for a majority of gamers.

It's one aspect in games where gameplay can go and SHOULD go above any kind of narrative reasoning. Maybe it doesn't paint Drake in the bestestest of lights and makes him seem like a psycopath if you think about it too much, but I think in these kinds of things I can suspend my disbelief and accept that it's a game and not let it hamper my enjoyment of the storyline & characters otherwise.