Support NeoGAF

[SolidSnakex]

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.

But what is the problem with how he's presented in the cutscenes? I always bring this up in this argument, but in the very first game and in the very first cutscene that we see Drake in, we see pirates coming toward his boat and what does he do in that cutscene? He walks over and grabs a briefcase containing two pistols. In other words, the game shows and tells you right from the jump that this guy will kill in a kill or be killed situation. In that cutscene he knows exactly what's about to happen because he's clearly been through it before (as has Sully).

 

[Metal B]

If people want to video games be art, they can't just hand wave away interpretations of them as soon as they don't like the output.
Errant Signal once analyst, that the game mechanics of Civilization are heavily in contrast to the overall theme of the game. The gameplay is about becoming the best and only civilization to rule them all, while the theme is about human greatest archivments as a species together. Nationalismus and multiculturalism just don't go hand in hand and create an diconnection, if you really think about it.

And we should be able to think about, what message a game can have, even if the designers never implied it that way.

 

[PartTimeWarrior]

I don't know about yearning to kill people, but a person who has killed that many people, even in self defense, would be seriously fucked up psychologically. That fact that he's never shown a lick of remorse over the fact that he's killed thousands of people tells me that he's kind of a sociopath.

It's... It's a video game. He's a video game character

 

[Professor Beef]

...y'all "drake is a sociopath" posters need to learn to pick your battles.

 

[Keasar]

Few ever talk about Sam Fisher (the Micheal Ironside one) and how he makes quips during his missions while possibly slitting the throats of people in the dark.

So yeah, its a bit funny that people single out Nathan Drake.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

If you've got a wife and kids, don't work as a mercenary. Simple as that.

They was not mercs, they were security.. not exactly a life threatining job.

 

[Domaje]

Naughty Dog should add a cinematic scene at the end of the game where Drake shakes hands with all his enemies in the hospital.

 

[Ranma]

But Doom doesn't suck its own dick by calling itself a cinematic experience. If the devs want to treat their game like s movie then people will call out the bullshit like in a movie.

like there are no action movies where the hero goes on a Killing spree? Never watched Commando? Or did you actually feel sorry for the bad guys?

 

[SSReborn]

Naughty Dog should add a cinematic scene at the end of the game where Drake shakes hands with all his enemies in the hospital.

Lol someone beat you to it bud.

 

[pa22word]

It's... It's a video game. He's a video game character

I mean as long as you consider games as nothing more than toys I guess that's an okay answer.

Naughty dog on the other hand clearly wants their games to be held to a higher standard than that, hence the criticism. Problem is the entire thing falls apart when you look even a little below the surface and realize that the game is just a dumb action game with a pretentious presentation.

 

[Professor Beef]

I mean as long as you consider games as nothing more than toys I guess that's an okay answer.

Naughty dog on the other hand clearly wants their games to be held to a higher standard than that, hence the criticism. Problem is the entire thing falls apart when you look even a little below the surface and realize that the game is just a dumb action game with a pretentious presentation.

Honest question: when did Naughty Dog EVER say they wanted Uncharted to be taken seriously?

 

[Manny Calavera]

I was shocked to find out that this is actually a serious debate that people have.

It's a video game. Dumb shit doesn't make sense.

What I basically came to post. The whole thing is ridiculous and not even worth an argument. There are hundreds of great games and movies we could nitpick with something similar type of arguments. Plus the simple answer it's self defense. Why does Indy get into situations where he has to kill Nazis or cult people?

 

[Magic Mushroom]

Honest question: when did Naughty Dog EVER say they wanted Uncharted to be taken seriously?

Yeah, it's cleary cut from the same pulp cloth as Indiana Jones.

 

[mclem]

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.

You know, I'd probably be more interested in replaying an Uncharted game if there was an option (probably unlockable after completion) to strip out all non-narratively-crucial combat. It'd be quicker, at least. Also quite nice for searching for collectables, so there's a gameplay benefit as well as the 'more satisfying storyline' one!

 

[Dremark]

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.

I looked it up out of curiosity, he kills 10 in Die Hard, 24 in Die Hard 2 and 13 in each of the other films he's in.

I'll straight out admit it's not the perfect comparison, McClane kills a lot less people than Drake kills and he most certainly has better reasons for it.

However one of the big issues people bring up is that he's portrayed as a likable character yet isn't bothered by all the killing and this rings true for both of them.

Killwise I'd have a stronger case with John Rambo but, depending on the film, his killing is actually reflected back on in a negative light so he'd make more sense being compared to someone like Snake, IMO at least.

 

[redcrayon]

I don't really get where people get the impression that he's a bloodthirsty serial killer. He's just doing what he's gotta do to get his treasure

Why is he so entitled to the treasure? He's a thief, if you had to kill a hundred security guys trying to stop you from nicking a load of jewels from a bank, 'I was just doing what I gotta do to get mah treasure' really isn't an excuse that stands up in the cold light of day.

The only reason that hundreds of people die in Uncharted is both Nathan Drake and the mercenaries deciding that they need to kill everyone who gets in their way, I don't think think he's any better than they are, which is why I find the cut scenes making him out to be a wisecracking regular guy quite amusing, when it's usually the day after he's been executing people with a sniper rifle and bouncing their heads off of stone coffins.

Of course, it's a game, and you need to fill x amount of hours of content, but I think Uncharted is chained by shooter conventions, whichs means Drakes main way of solving problem's is playing whack-a-mole from behind a convenient wall. I'd love to see his thief/adventurer/worldly traveller skill set used more the way it's hinted at in the cut scenes, so more options for talking your way out of trouble, disguises etc, rather than filling the run time by having yet another wave of half a dozen suicidal goons running into an arena. The bizarrely suicidal approach of 'I'll just improvise' when walking towards an enemy camp while carrying a machine gun is a bit over-done too, wouldn't a reasonably smart chap come up with something better every now and then?

It would be nice to see the shooting arenas being an option when things go wrong, rather than making up 90% of the gameplay. I suppose it's a difference of whether you want Uncharted to be closer to Commando or Indiana Jones.

 

[Superflat]

80's and 90's action heroes weren't afraid to get their hands dirty because the world they existed in were black and white; and it's not so different from the Uncharted world. Nothing in Nate's adventures imply any of the goons he kills have even a slight shade of grey. They are all bloodthirsty mercenaries aiding someone who wants to end the world.


In the series there's hardly any blood, no dismemberment/impaling, and all the enemies have stunt-man-esque death animations for a reason. Most of the action in the series is rather PG.

Naughty dog on the other hand clearly wants their games to be held to a higher standard than that, hence the criticism. Problem is the entire thing falls apart when you look even a little below the surface and realize that the game is just a dumb action game with a pretentious presentation.

This makes no sense to me

 

[Manny Calavera]

Yeah, it's cleary cut from the same pulp cloth as Indiana Jones.

Exactly and it has the whole 80's adventure feeling going on. Might have some moments of drama, but mostly it's just good old light hearted adventure. Not dark and serious like The Last of Us.

 

[Stereogatari]

People always shoot him first.

 

[Strife91]

What if Nate apologized to the victims families at the end of the game?

 

[Dremark]

If people want to video games be art, they can't just hand wave away interpretations of them as soon as they don't like the output.
Errant Signal once analyst, that the game mechanics of Civilization are heavily in contrast to the overall theme of the game. The gameplay is about becoming the best and only civilization to rule them all, while the theme is about human greatest archivments as a species together. Nationalismus and multiculturalism just don't go hand in hand and create an diconnection, if you really think about it.

And we should be able to think about, what message a game can have, even if the designers never implied it that way.

Civilization is based off history and a lot of nations became huge world powers through military conquest. I'd personally say that the fact that there are ways to finish the game other than by using the violent conquest if the world us what shows the themes of human achievement.

It's a combination of the themes the developers want to show but also a reflection of our society and past.

 

[redcrayon]

80's and 90's action heroes weren't afraid to get their hands dirty because the world they existed in were black and white; and it's not so different from the Uncharted world. Nothing in Nate's adventures imply any of the goons he kills have even a slight shade of grey. They are all bloodthirsty mercenaries aiding someone who wants to end the world.

The whole 'antagonist wants to end the world' thing is usually revealed long after Drake has killed hundreds of his employees by trying to steal whatever treasure they are after for no better reason than ' I want to steal it too'. The fact that later on a slightly better (and very convenient) justification turns up later on doesn't stop his initial motivation being purely self-interest.

In the series there's hardly any blood, no dismemberment/impaling, and all the enemies have stunt-man-esque death animations for a reason. Most of the action in the series is rather PG

Agree here, I love that kind of stuff about it, it feels a bit more Spielberg.

 

[hoserx]

What if Nate apologized to the victims families at the end of the game?

What if it turns out all of his victims survived, and he goes to visit them all at a hospital at the end?

edit: beaten 1000 times

 

[Jito]

Some people take games way too seriously and over analyse everything. Didn't Neil compare uncharted to dumb over the top action movies? Like, where are the people complaing about how many Nazis are killed by Indy?

 

[Atomski]

Few ever talk about Sam Fisher (the Micheal Ironside one) and how he makes quips during his missions while possibly slitting the throats of people in the dark.

So yeah, its a bit funny that people single out Nathan Drake.

One is a ruthless secret agent who kills to stop wars.. the other is just a cool guy who hunts treasure.

Yeah I think its still easier to call out Nathan Drake.

 

[Superflat]

Why is he so entitled to the treasure? He's a thief, if you had to kill a hundred security guys trying to stop you from nicking a load of jewels from a bank, 'I was just doing what I gotta do to get mah treasure' really isn't an excuse that stands up in the cold light of day.

That scenario never happens. It's convenient scenario writing, but it's always been like that for these kinds of action-adventure pulps.

They place Drake in a place of "moral superiority" by being a thrill-seeking treasure hunter instead of a leader of a merc army who seeks god-powers to take over or destroy the world, which the villains always have been (much like the indiana jones series). It's been shown that the villains are not above decimating villages, innocents and even killing their own to get what they want, which (by movie/video game logic) justifies their deaths.

The whole 'antagonist wants to end the world' thing is usually revealed long after Drake has killed hundreds of his employees by trying to steal whatever treasure they are after for no better reason than ' I want it too'.

It's definitiely a coincidence if observed as a real life scenario, but c'mon, we all know they're bad guys.

 

[Tunahead]

I think for the sake of realism, a future Uncharted game should have Nathan Drake struggling to come to terms with finding out he has breast cancer. Furthermore,

 

[mclem]

But what is the problem with how he's presented in the cutscenes? I always bring this up in this argument, but in the very first game and in the very first cutscene that we see Drake in, we see pirates coming toward his boat and what does he do in that cutscene? He walks over and grabs a briefcase containing two pistols. In other words, the game shows and tells you right from the jump that this guy will kill in a kill or be killed situation. In that cutscene he knows exactly what's about to happen because he's clearly been through it before (as has Sully).

I'm fine with Drake killing people as the storyline dictates; the problem I have is that that doesn't match up with the amount of people he kills as the gameplay dictates. Both things work at odds with one another.

To be fair, while it's so often phrased as 'Drake is a casual psychopath', I don't think that's really representative of the issue, here. I think where this really falls down is the ludicrous amount of troops and weaponry at the disposal of the villains. Drake guns down an army because the gameplay places an army in front of him for him to gun down. The gameplay does that. The story doesn't, really.

The army only exists because it's a game. It really doesn't fit particularly well in terms of the storyline, and that's what's jarring.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Yeah, all his kills were in self-defense. And if he didn't kill a bunch of dudes, the game wouldn't be fun.

 

[Haganeren]

That scenario never happens.

They place Drake in a place of "moral superiority" by being a thrill-seeking treasure hunter instead of a leader of a merc army who seeks god-powers to take over or destroy the world, which the villains always have been (much like the indiana jones series). It's been shown that the villains are not above decimating villages, innocents and even killing their own to get what they want, which (by movie/video game logic) justifies their deaths.



It's definitiely a coincidence if observed as a real life scenario, but c'mon, we all know they're bad guys.

The leader may be..... And i think Nathan try to save them when he have the choice.
But the goons ? No, maybe it's a way to earn a quick buck for them they aren't more "evil" than Nathan, i don't even count security guard from museum in Uncharted 2.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Few ever talk about Sam Fisher (the Micheal Ironside one) and how he makes quips during his missions while possibly slitting the throats of people in the dark.

So yeah, its a bit funny that people single out Nathan Drake.

World safety =/= personal gain

 

[Dremark]

I think for the sake of realism, a future Uncharted game should have Nathan Drake struggling to come to terms with finding out he has breast cancer. Furthermore,

I thought this was an Archer reference to begin with. What was this actually from? Gaming in the Clinton years?

 

[Professor Beef]

The leader may be..... And i think Nathan try to save them when he have the choice.
But the goons ? No, maybe it's a way to earn a quick buck for them they aren't more "evil" than Nathan, i don't even count security guard from museum in Uncharted 2.

This is some "the guys on the 2nd death star were innocent" bullshit reasoning. Guarantee they knew exactly what they were getting into when they saw the amount of zeroes that were on their paychecks.

 

[PKrockin]

I think for the sake of realism, a future Uncharted game should have Nathan Drake struggling to come to terms with finding out he has breast cancer. Furthermore,

I can only imagine the drama of a vulnerable Nathan Drake persisting in his adventures despite his illness. Frankly, whoever doesn't like this idea is stupid. I know it's insulting, but it's also true.

 

[Domaje]

It would be cool if the new Uncharted focused more on a "non lethal" gameplay. More stealth, better enemy IA. Something like a simplified Metal Gear Solid.

Also it would be amazing if in some situations you can recruit a enemy dissident and do a bit of the game with his help.

 

[GreyOcelot]

I'm fine with Drake killing people as the storyline dictates; the problem I have is that that doesn't match up with the amount of people he kills as the gameplay dictates. Both things work at odds with one another.

To be fair, while it's so often phrased as 'Drake is a casual psychopath', I don't think that's really representative of the issue, here. I think where this really falls down is the ludicrous amount of troops and weaponry at the disposal of the villains. Drake guns down an army because the gameplay places an army in front of him for him to gun down. The gameplay does that. The story doesn't, really.

The army only exists because it's a game. It really doesn't fit particularly well in terms of the storyline, and that's what's jarring.

this is sooo silly. it's a video game bruh. think of it like this. the scene in the last crusade when indy blasts 3 dudes with a machine gun = 1 action sequence in uncharted where he kills 30 enemies. the game wouldn't even be a video game if there weren't a bunch of enemies to shoot and kill. thats like 80% of the gameplay loop.

 

[Dremark]

World safety =/= personal gain

At the end of the day Sam is collecting a pay check. He does it because he is seeking personal gain and enjoys the killing. What a psychopath.

 

[Ghost Slayer]

I only thought this was a joke when I heard it first time in the collection review thread. Now I see people take it very serious

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Naughty Dog should add a cinematic scene at the end of the game where Drake shakes hands with all his enemies in the hospital.

Lol, good one!!

But seriously guys, are we expecting drake to go on a soul searching journey every time he kills a bad guy?

Same applies to Lara

 

[Professor Beef]

I can only imagine the drama of a vulnerable Nathan Drake persisting in his adventures despite his illness. Frankly, whoever doesn't like this idea is stupid. I know it's insulting, but it's also true.

I can already see Sully chomping down on a cigar that he snuck into Drake's hospital room. "Well Nate, I knew it'd be boobs that took you out of commission, just didn't expect them to be yours."

 

[Jito]

World safety =/= personal gain

Drake is saving the world by the end of each game though, the villain always wants to use the ancient treasure for world domination so drake has to stop them.

 

[redcrayon]

That scenario never happens.

They place Drake in a place of "moral superiority" by being a thrill-seeking treasure hunter instead of a leader of a merc army who seeks god-powers to take over or destroy the world, which the villains always have been (much like the indiana jones series). It's been shown that the villains are not above decimating villages, innocents and even killing their own to get what they want, which (by movie/video game logic) justifies their deaths.

That moral superiority happens towards the end, sure, but at the start of the games he's happily trading gunfire with people for no better reason than both parties are thieves that want the same thing. Drake just happens to be the underdog in being severely outnumbered and rarely having much of a plan, so he comes across as lucky, goofy and likable. If Drake employed a small army rather than killing everyone personally, there wouldn't be much of a difference between the parties at all, until you get to the point where villain's plan is revealed and Drake's motivation of I want it to put on my shelf' is much better in comparison to 'I want it to become all-powerful'.

 

[mclem]

They was not mercs, they were security.. not exactly a life threatining job.

Just because people keep referencing this comic...

There are multiple instances where Drake knocks people off cliff edges.

The security personnel in Istanbul - one sequence towards the start, the tutorial for plucking people off a cliff, IIRC - can be seen landing in water and swimming away.

You drag lots more people off a cliff than just him. The guy in the comic is clearly one of Lazarovic's troops, from later in the storyline. I *think* - and it's been a long time since I've played it, so I'm not sure - there's one such soldier in question that I've always associated with the comic, and it's towards the start of the 'tank in a village stalking Drake' level.

 

[Freeman]

Get over it, the guy is a charming murderous sociopath.

Some non lethal options would be great tho, let us have some control over the body count.

Doesn't change the fact that the games are great and that Drake is straight up gangsta.

 

[RamzaIsCool]

Every gaming universe has it's own set of rules. It's pretty clear that in Uncharted games, the enemy soldiers/ pirates or whatever are just a barrier to the next objective. They have no bearing on the story whatsoever and are ignored in cutscenes. I just don't understand people having problems with Drake murdering 100s of people, but if he murders only 35 thru out the game it's all of a sudden ok. Murder is murder right, even it's only 1 person. So if we go on that route should ND take out all enemy's? And why stop at bitching about the whole massmurderer thing. Why not address the fact that Drake can take thousands of bullets in gameplay, but when he got shot in a cutscene he allmost died right there!

 

[TheRedSnifit]

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.

John McClaine became a police officer for the express purpose of protecting people. Nathan Drake became a treasure hunter for the express purpose of getting treasure. When McClaine kills people in Die Hard, it's because he's been trapped, through no fault of his own, in a situation where he has no choice but to kill. When Drake kills people, it's because he's deliberately thrown himself in a situation where he gets to kill.

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?

I don't think this is the case. Uncharted's popularity is hinged on large part on Nathan Drake being an ordinary, charming, likable fellow who's caught up in a situation beyond his control. But the gameplay segments completely contradict this, to the point where you'd might as well be controlling a different character.

Uncharted gets singled out because the story/characterization and cutscenes clash more than nearly any other game I can think of. It's then compounded by the insistence of its fans and developers that it be regarded as a "cinematic experience", despite the fact that a movie that unironically featured a charming every-man massacring people out of greed would be hammered for being absurd.

 

[mclem]

this is sooo silly. it's a video game bruh. think of it like this. the scene in the last crusade when indy blasts 3 dudes with a machine gun = 1 action sequence in uncharted where he kills 30 enemies. the game wouldn't even be a video game if there weren't a bunch of enemies to shoot and kill. thats like 80% of the gameplay loop.

Well, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. That's the problem. The concessions towards being a game jar against the storyline.

 

[Big Baybee]

Is this the only video game where people focus on the fact that the main protagonist kills a lot of people? I don't get it.

 

[Tunahead]

I thought this was an Archer reference to begin with. What was this actually from? Gaming in the Clinton years?

Yes. I will take literally any excuse I can get, no matter how contrived, to remind people of Gaming In The Clinton Years against their will.

 

[Haganeren]

This is some "the guys on the 2nd death star were innocent" bullshit reasoning. Guarantee they knew exactly what they were getting into when they saw the amount of zeroes that were on their paychecks.

It's not as if they were one argument which will win everything for this debate.
Uncharted is a mix between "contemporary world", "lovable and "normal" dude", "realistic aesthetic and geography", "motivation of the protagonist which is personal gain", "humans that aren't really bad guys as opposed to creatures or evil zombie in other games" and maybe other argument i forgot.

You can say that that movie or that video game did some of those argument too but all that together ? I fail to see it and this is why Nathan Drake is seen as an asshole that yearns to kill people. You may or may not care but i think it's still there for a reason and not "because it's Internet".

this is sooo silly. it's a video game bruh. think of it like this. the scene in the last crusade when indy blasts 3 dudes with a machine gun = 1 action sequence in uncharted where he kills 30 enemies. the game wouldn't even be a video game if there weren't a bunch of enemies to shoot and kill. thats like 80% of the gameplay loop.

And again, that's wrong, you CAN make a game with that story and a more cohesive gameplay like being more about plateforming, puzzle resolution and infiltration which will make more sense with the narrative than what we have right now... Or at LEAST you can agree Nathan shouldn't yell "Woohoo" when he push an ennemy to its death.

This is something Naugty Dog failed, yeah it's not THAT important as the game is still enjoyable but it's still something they failed.

Every gaming universe has it's own set of rules. It's pretty clear that in Uncharted games, the enemy soldiers/ pirates or whatever are just a barrier to the next objective.

Yes, but the main point is that as we can believe Nathan can take a lot of bullet, somehow, the fact he can kills so many people seems disturbing for a lot of people. (well, in a positive way, nobody hate the game for that)
Why ? And why this game in particular ? I think a lot of people answered in part on that problematic, saying there is no problem at all is just ignoring the fact it still disturb a lot of people.