MilkyJoe
Banned
That will do for me.
Like when people post that its stupid that hobbling injured Lara Croft can suddenly climb a cliff face... Its the game...
I don't get why people say Nathan Drake is an asshole that yearns to kill people
- Thread starter The Lamp
- Start date
That will do for me.
Like when people post that its stupid that hobbling injured Lara Croft can suddenly climb a cliff face... Its the game...
Industrialist
Member
Indeed. Someone tries to stop him from getting treasure that he has absolutely no rights to take, and he kills them. That's just fair play.
Same way as when I tried to rob that bank and killed the cashier and everybody else in the room that tried to stop me from taking the money.
I wanted something. They had it. They didn't want me to have it. Fair play, I say. Not cold-blooded at all.
Please never buy a gun, OP.
I know right? Much more productive to moan and whine about framerates and resolutions because higher numbers = better realism, or make screenshot comparison threads... Oh, wait.
Games man...
I remember as a kid this really bothered me when playing Golden Eye.
Like Bond kills a few people sure.. but in Golden Eye he kills thousands.
revolverjgw
Member
But Uncharted is ALSO "bad guys are up to no good, shoot them in the face". As many cinematic experiences are. It's no deeper than that and there's no attempt to be anything more than a pulpy action romp.
Odd, I don't recall seeing John McClaine or anyone else along those lines being called serial killers for thier actions.
Well, because the game is self aware about the fact
those mercenary guys may not have a choice in order to live. They also made their hero question his killing before going with an answer on its own. (Which is actually than he is a monster and it's too late for him but i will still save the day using his belief)
It's actually horrible if you think about it but it's still a semi realistic answer for a problem uncharted never answer which makes it more believable. And old Tomb Raider games were more about exploration and plateforming (see Tomb Raider Anniversary) than shooting people so we CAN make a big adventure game without the formula of Uncharted, it have been done before !
Finaika
Member
Everytime Drake kills a person, there should be a cutscene showing him crying.
When you get to the last guy he's really bitter and refuses to shake hands. You are not forgiven, you get no closure. Game ends.
I think the games would be a lot more consistent with Drake's character if they were just puzzle platformers where you sometimes have fistfights with goons. But that wouldn't be as cool as what we have now, so I'm happy with what we have, even if it is totally absurd and inconsistent.
Interestingly enough we had a thread where people acted like Miyamoto was out of touch for being concerned about the level of violence in the game pre release.
They ended up toning down the gore and made it a movie in the game's universe as a result of his suggestions. I think that worked well considering the game was still being aimed at teenagers and Bond films (From the few I've seen) aren't exactly bloodbaths.
CaviarMeths
Member
Oh wow, that would be a crazy twist to end the game with. I hope someone from ND is reading this thread.
GravityInsanity
Member
TheRedSnifit
Member
Uncharted is "I'm going to go get a treasure and kill everybody else who's trying to get it before me." And then later on, you discover that the guys you've been killing are bad guys and up to no good.
John McClaine didn't deliberately throw himself into a situation where he'd have to kill hundreds of people in pursuit of $$$.
travisbickle
Member
It's as if videogames are a stilted medium where the default act of expression given to the user is killing people?
Rwinterhalter
Neo Member
People who say Drake is a cold-blooded killer and intentionally overlooking the conventions of the genre in order to feel intellectually superior.
These same people would never make the same literal interpretation of a musical or other media genre where the conventions defy the rules of every day reality.
These same people would never make the same literal interpretation of a musical or other media genre where the conventions defy the rules of every day reality.
snoopeasystreet
Member
OK think Uncharted handles the dissonances better than most games. There's clearly two tiers of people in the world, the standard dudes and then the leaping, vaulting, highly abled story characters. The main problem I have with Drake is that the narrative frames him as the underdog when he is in fact, the most efficient killer the world has ever seen.
Visualante2
Member
Around the time it came out ludo narrative dissonance was a popular topic and it made sense to shine that light on the most popular games of the day. It stuck.
justsomeguy
Member
It's because he is an asshole that yearns to kill people.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I have big issues with how non-lethal takedowns and methods are typically used in games. In all games, going non-lethal is really annoying compared to just blowing everyone's heads off. It's a game, not real life. Don't make my trying to spare the virtual lives of my virtual enemies into a full-time job.
All the games which let you choose non-lethal vs. lethal are like this. MGS, Deus Ex, Splinter Cell. If you go non-lethal, you have take the guy down, and then hide him or else someone might find him and wake him up, which requires you to slowly drag him into a closet to stuff him inside of while another guy might find you while you're doing it, and repeat forever. Fuck that, I'll just headshot everyone who gets in my way so I can move on. I have a game backlog a mile long, I don't have time to babysit every unconscious virtual mook I non-lethally took down.
Make non-lethal methods less aggravating in games and I'll use them more.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
What if Nate's still high from 2 and this is Tartarus
Y-Yeah, well, in MGS in particular i feel like as it's not trying to be a shooter, playing it like a shooter is a bit of a shame... But to each his own ! I actually think playing in a non lethal way for this game in particular is a lot more fun.
..... I also don't play game to be stressed out by the fact i have other games waiting either... Or I just stop this game because i have thing i like better to do... Well it's another debate.
TheRedSnifit
Member
At least in MGS, non-lethal takedowns are easier. You don't have to worry about getting headshots; as long as you hit him, he'll eventually collapse.
Gravy Boat
Member
I don't think many people (at least people I know) hold the Uncharted story to high standards. People enjoy the epic set pieces and the character of Nathan Drake I thought, I've never heard anyone say the stories in the Uncharted games are great.
Also CoD and Battlefield get away with this because they're 'DudeBro Simulators'? Sounds like cherry picking.
I can't believe people are actually bothered about this. This could apply to almost any game that involves killing. Won't somebody think of the Goombas?
John McClaine is a police officer. By definition he chose a profession where he'd be put in situations where he'd have to kill people for money, moreso than a treasure hunter would. He's characterized in a similar fashion, with the one liners and such and kills lots of people in the Die Hard films but no one calls him a serial killer.
MilkyJoe
Banned
So not the same thing.
I don't understand this. What's the point in having them if they're indistinguishable from lethal methods?
I always thought this comic was a bit weird because this is the one dude in the games that actually doesn't die.
He kills to protect people though, not to get his hands on the next treasure.
Knock him out. Nobody needs to die.
Gravy Boat
Member
It's a good thing he doesn't die then.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I don't have the patience for games for games like Splinter Cell either (I find even the shooting parts slow and boring) but I find that you're exaggerating.
MGS5 had excellent non-lethal systems. It had fast animations, you could interrogate, use as body shield, fulton extract, knock out, choke out, hip throw them, throw them into other enemies. Manipulating with them was a very satisfying experience, and is a prime example for how smooth and slick enemy interactions should be done.
MGS5 sets a new standard for AI, and unlike Splinter Cell/Assassins Creed/Batman and similar games which have a modicum of ways to handle/kill/control enemies, they are mostly gimmicky or water down to contextualized button presses which is basically little gameplay besides the timing of pressing the button at the right time.
The tranq pistol and the slo-mo reflex mode in MGS5 had so much depth to them, and it was thanks to the AI how the game was able to shine above any competitor in this field.
Even so, MGS5 in other ways shares the offense with most of these games and what OP is talking about as well- When you kill hundreds and hundreds, you cheapen the impact of death and you become desensitized to it. It becomes malleable and boring. You just killed 500 guys, who gives a fuck?
In some games it doesn't matter. Just like in some Hollywood it doesn't matter. Crank, John Wick and Shoot Em Up are action escapist films of highest and most satisfying quality. They are kill porn bloodbath extravaganzas that celebrate the extinguishment of human life.
Same with some games.
But you have other games that try to tell a story with consequences and with believeable actors mimicking real life, and way to often they break the rules because they cannot move the plot forward or make engaging gameplay without making a few levels to the brim with conveniently placed bad guys looking at crates in fucking warehouses just standing around and perfectly speaking out loud about crucial sensitive information, while also leaving keycards and sensitive emails around everywhere.
Like sexualized characters, killing tons of characters just because the creators cannot write them off in other words effectively is just a proponent of the stories we mostly see in games. Why? Because 90% of all games revolve around the killing, elimination, deduction or similar. Be in jumping on shrooms in Mario or torturing people in Manhunt, most games revolve around the same concept.
Game developers don't know how to make Mamma Mia or Lost in Translations into engaging gameplay. we are still stuck in a quagmire pointing at moving at objects and see virtual blood appearing. or jumping on them. or driving them down. killing them in RTS games, fighting games, role playing games, whatever.
In Uncharted usually it's kill or be killed so I'm totally fine with Nathan killing thousands of goons, I thought great he cares that they are just security guards, but then the game forces you to throw one of the roof. So fucking stupid. What were they thinking here?
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the villains of Die Hard movies generally terrorists who threaten to blow up hundreds/thousands of innocent people?
TerryLee81
Member
Haha this is great.
revolverjgw
Member
They were thinking "this is a crazy pulp universe so there's no reason why this guy can't survive this fall, even though in real life he'd killed, because that's how things work in this kind of universe"
The guy can be seen swimming away, he doesn't die and Drake knew he wouldn't
I'm mostly just bummed out that I don't like the Uncharted series and ludo-narrative dissonance is an easy target.
Of course the real problem I have is that the entirety of Uncharted is that scene in the first Hobbit movie where they get on a platform in the goblin caves and then the platform falls for several miles for like half a minute. Once the scene has gone on for five seconds, it ceases to matter. All tension is lost. When a horror movie or game does a jump scare, it's cheap, but it's effective. But it stops being effective if the monster stays in front of you screaming for minutes while a maniac in the background furiously tortures a violin. Uncharted is the action equivalent of that.
But ain't nobody gonna read all that garbage so I just say "Nathan Drake is a monster" instead.
Of course the real problem I have is that the entirety of Uncharted is that scene in the first Hobbit movie where they get on a platform in the goblin caves and then the platform falls for several miles for like half a minute. Once the scene has gone on for five seconds, it ceases to matter. All tension is lost. When a horror movie or game does a jump scare, it's cheap, but it's effective. But it stops being effective if the monster stays in front of you screaming for minutes while a maniac in the background furiously tortures a violin. Uncharted is the action equivalent of that.
But ain't nobody gonna read all that garbage so I just say "Nathan Drake is a monster" instead.
That's correct. I wasn't under the impression that the villians in Uncharted were exactly upstanding people either though.
I personally don't have an issue with how either are portrayed, but I'm seeing posts claiming that Uncharted is being called out like movies are for this type of thing because it's presented as being a cinematic experience rather than a "dudebro" shooter.
I don't actually see movies criticized for this though.
Ivan Amiibo
Banned
He's a terrible person and people who like him are terrible people
Bear Force One
Banned
I've never heard anyone argue this. Huh.
Fairly
Ridiculous IMO.
Fairly
Ridiculous IMO.
While I think the criticism is silly, I just watched Die Hard yesterday and John McClaine kills what... 10 dudes tops? Nate kills hundreds, and his motivations to do so are not heroic (at least initially).
It's just that there's a dissonance between narrative and gameplay. Doesn't bother me though.
They are distinguishable in MGS. Non lethal method has a impact on gameplay and also helps the character feel more humane during cut scenes.
Truth is ND didn't care or pay much attention to dissonances
I think that's the problem. It's a videogame, with concessions to how videogames play out, but Nate is presented in cutscenes as a movie action hero; it's the clash that doesn't work. Indiana Jones was frequently pitted against an actual army, and yet the narrative of the films had him being responsible for the deaths of a fraction of the people Nate is.
Nate would not be a problem if Uncharted wasn't a shooter.
What this thread has taught me: uncharted series is apparently on the same level narratively as ninja gaiden 2, with the only difference being at least one of them knows what it is.
I mean it's fine if you want to call uncharted a dumb action game with a dumb action game story. Just don't sit there on some high horse and claim it's some form of high art just because naughty dog spent 40 million dollars on cenematic schlock to make it more palatable.
I mean it's fine if you want to call uncharted a dumb action game with a dumb action game story. Just don't sit there on some high horse and claim it's some form of high art just because naughty dog spent 40 million dollars on cenematic schlock to make it more palatable.
It's the same with Last of us.
That really putted me off even just by watching a let's play.
In those games you're "one man army" XD
That's one specific guard in Istanbul; since those are innocent in terms of the storyline, they are only at worst incapacitated. When it moves on to Lazarevic's standing army, though, you'd better believe lots of people go splat.
Played Uncharted 2 on day one (IIRC), and certain I saw it on my playthrough.