I don't get why people say Nathan Drake is an asshole that yearns to kill people

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I refuse to believe anyone would put this much thought and analysis over a videogame character.

It's much more likely that this is the internet, and some people are actually this bored and decide to entertain themselves and troll away,

That's pretty cool to be above discussing video games on a video game forum.

Seriously dude, would you believe they would do it for a literary or film character?
 
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I refuse to believe anyone would put this much thought and analysis over a videogame character.

It's much more likely that this is the internet, and some people are actually this bored and decide to entertain themselves and troll away,

Yeah, how quaint of people to be discussing and analyzing a fictional character. They never do that for film or lit.
 
mario.jpg
Holy Shit. My sides
 
Gonna just disagree here. The reasons and motivations are 100% suitable for the tone. Indiana Jones thinks it's worth killing tons of people, causing wanton destruction, and putting friends at risk for the sake of putting an artifact in a museum. Han Solo is a space theif who shoots first. Nathan Drake is really no different.

Duke Nukem has such a ridiculous tone that it wouldn't matter if his motivation was a bad guy stole his sandwhich. Look at John Wick, dude murders everyone because they killed his dog.

Different tones of stories require different levels of motivation. The Uncharted series has a very clear tone and morality. If you took those actions and put them in the real world, or something super gritty like the Tomb Raider reboot yeah he'd totally be a terrifying murderous psychopath, but that's not the tone so he isn't.

Well, that's the thing, no i don't thing it fits the tone at all. The way Nathan Drake behave in the civilized world makes me thing of a normal guy, not at all like a guy like Han Solo which i can totally portray being egoistical and okay by killing people all he wants.

Contrary to Duke Nukem, it doesn't seems to be a parody either, just "a light headed adventure". Even Indiana Jones have some of justification with having nazi (which are instantaneously recognized as "bad people") in the movie.... And even that, if an Indiana Jones movie began with Indiana jumping around, killing nazis with a huge smile and his face and being "cool", it would have been a huge tone shift, i don't see how it's related to Nathan Drake.

No, the narrative is more suited for an old school Tomb Raider game with platform, puzzle and action from time to time.... And the gameplay is a very heavy Third Person Shooter instead because... Well... It sells better or Naughty Dog prefer this gameplay.

But in my opinion, you can't say the two blend that well and no, being an adventure game don't really matter that much, we all know this is "only" a video game. ( I really don't like this argument )
 
Well, that's the thing, no i don't thing it fits the tone at all. The way Nathan Drake behave in the civilized world makes me thing of a normal guy, not at all like a guy like Han Solo which i can totally portray being egoistical and okay by killing people all he wants.

Why do you think this? Han Solo is probably the closest fictional character to Drake. Both are egotistical, selfish, wise-cracking thieves who have no problems killing bad guys who over the course of an adventure learn they have the capability to be heroic and selfless and it was in them all along and their jokey-carefree demeanor is actually a front they put up because they are kind of damaged individuals and it's easier for them to laugh about something than be up front about what they're feeling.

And the "it's only a video-game" excuse doesn't necessarily fly, but there is something to interpreting actions in video games differently than in movies, because how differently they function. Shooting in video games is an efficient, satisfying, understandable, and clear way for a player to interact with a story and as they act as external physical manifestations of the obstacles Nate and other video game characters overcome. So of course Indy only kills like 10 people and Nate kills 100. It works for the medium imo as a successful tool in the storytelling and player engagement, even if it creates some dissonance in cutscenes where being hit by a bullet is suddenly lethal or whatever. And I think Uncharted's blend of platforming, setpieces, and scrappy action sequences are a much better fit for the tone and subject matter of capturing the pulp action adventure tone than a pure puzzle platformer would be, and it offers the narrative higher stakes and more effective motivation for Drake to become the more heroic character by the end of the game.
 
Yeah, how quaint of people to be discussing and analyzing a fictional character. They never do that for film or lit.
What a novel idea.

In regards to Drake, it shouldn't really impact your enjoyment of the game but there is a huge cognitive dissonance between cutscene Drake and gameplay Drake.

Drake in cinematics is a snarky, generally good-hearted person. Gameplay Drake is a dick who jokes about shooting people in the head.

Saying they saved the world from the supernatural stuff in the first game is also disingenuous as they didn't know any of that going into the adventure and they were the primary cause of it getting released in the first place.
 
I think the problem is that the "critics" think Uncharted should be taken seriously, when most Uncharted fan would be upset if Uncharted actually started taking itself too seriously. It actually got to a point where Naughty Dog had to re-confirm to people that Uncharted would remain the way it was after the rumors of Uncharted 4 being more "serious".

It's a cartoon, is the home alone kid a psychopath because he tortures two people in so many different ways? Everything in the franchise is cartoonish, including violence, no one ever said "Uncharted should be taken seriously", a serious Uncharted would have a boring story & toned down gameplay.

It seems that the only people that take Uncharted more than it actually is (a comedy-action game) are the "mass murder" people. Nobody is under the illusion that it's actually more than it is other than "you", just like nobody takes comedy movies seriously.
 
Have him shake hands with all the people he killed in the hospital if it bothers you. I don't see the big deal about it. It's a game that doesn't take itself too seriously, and you have to kill people to advance. You could use non-lethal means, but why would you do that when everyone is using lethal means against you? (and this would take away the suspense). And it's funny, the Last of Us has the same amount of kills, it's just that maybe half are zombies and half are humans (technically zombies are still human anyway), but no one complains about that game.
 
Indiana Jones kills like a couple dozen people on each adventure, Nathan Drake kills a couple hundred.
Oh, I see. Couple of dozens = OK. It only gets into "evil psychopath" if it passes an arbitrary threshold.

I'm glad we're calling video games cheap garbage though I guess.
CoD and Battlefield are DudeBro Simulators™. They don't pretend to be any deeper than "Bad guys are up to no good, shoot them in the face."

Whereas Naughty Dog and its fans insist that Uncharted is a Cinematic Experience™, and as such the story is held to higher standards than "It's a videogame, deal with it." As was said earlier, if you treat a game like a movie then people will call out the bullshit like in a movie.
Are you guys being serious? When Uncharted is called "cinematic", it's in reference to the pulpy action/adventure flicks of the 80's like Indiana Jones, not Citizen Kane. LOL

The Metal Gear series let's you avoid killing people and actively encourages you to do so. I'm pretty sure it originated no kill runs or at least was one of the pioneers of it. At points some if the games even call you out for enjoying killing/doing it excessively. Not really sure how it's hypocritical considering almost all killing in the entire series is optional.
Because it still glorifies violence through those sexy guns, war gadgets, etc.

I completely agree with Joe Abercrombie (a fantasy writer) on the various hypocritical ways of MGS here: http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2015/11/11/metal-gear-solid-v/

If you work for an evil dictator, pirate, or murderous secret organisation, it doesn't matter whether you have kids or a family, you're obviously going to be in the firing line and you're a bad person who probably had it coming.

That's not to say Nate himself is a great guy, he's reckless, greedy, violent and enjoys the thrill of questionable things, but he does have some semblance of a good heart, and has risked his skin to save humanity several times when it's counted, so there's that.
Stop being so reasonable, this is a thread about silly hyperboles and tortured logic. xD
 
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.

most of those games if you headshot them and left the body there someone would find it and raise the alarm so you're incentivized to move the body anyways.
 
Play Golden Abyss on the vita if you want to understand the true monster that is Nathan Drake. He murders an entire PMC who is stationed at site who is hired by nathan's buddy who hired the PMC to rescue nate's girlfriend (with ulterior motives to also find treasure). The PMC doesn't do anything fucked up to anybody, they are just standing around and in their first encounter Nate goes "oh shit, guys with guns. I guess I better kill them". He also frequently calls them "bastards" and various names in order to rationalize his murderous rampage to himself.

We're all the heroes of our own stories, indeed.
 
This shit is annoying. ITS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. Seriously, stop with all this argument. It's a game, get over it. Heard it come up about Tomb Raider and that's the same shit. ITS. A. GAME.

This discussion in particular is the most ridiculous conversation. I hate it so much, and it's probably my biggest gaming pet peeve.
 
Why cant they just do it like MGS? Solid Snake and Big Boss kill hundreds of people, but are portrayed as physiologically fucked up in every way, borderline sociopathic, and that they "enjoy" all of it.

Venom has PTSD, and full blown demonic hallucinations because of all the people he's killed.
 
i would have no problem with it if its wasn't for the art style. The more realistic it looks the more unreal scenarios like this stand out. I don't buy the it's a video game arguement, you can only make a game if it involves killing? I guess it's easy filling.
 
This shit is annoying. ITS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. Seriously, stop with all this argument. It's a game, get over it. Heard it come up about Tomb Raider and that's the same shit. ITS. A. GAME.

This discussion in particular is the most ridiculous conversation. I hate it so much, and it's probably my biggest gaming pet peeve.

Ah yes, the good old "Video games, lolz" argument.
 
Yearns is perhaps the wrong word. We dont know that.

But it is undebatable that he -

1 Kills an unbelievably large number of people.
2 Doesnt really seem be guilt ridden over it. Wisecracking in fact.
3 Could have avoided most of that blood bath. (stealth? different route?)
4 Keeps going on adventures repeatedly knowing fully well what will happen.

So its pretty clear that he is an asshole. And perhaps a complete psychopath. Like Lara.
 
Yeah I don't get it either. Action game protagonist kills tons of mooks who violently attack him. Well... duh?

The dissonance is far worse in Tomb Raider (2013), because she acts all remorseful at killing a dear, and ten twenty minutes later she's doing gruesome shotgun executions and yelling "come at me, assholes" (paraphrased).

Edit: I feel the hypocrisy/dissonance between the game's narrative and the game's content is even worse in MGS. "War is such a terrible thing and eats away at our humanity blah blah blah... oh here, pick up this sweet, sweet customized gun full of cool badass parts". lol umm

I agree that the dissonance is worse in Tomb Raider, i couldn't finish the game thanks to that.

However MGS was an horrible example, since in mgs it's up to the player unlike in Uncharted, if you want you can complete pretty much any MGS game without killing anybody except bosses. Also Snake unlike Drake is an career soldier so it makes more sense for him to be in that sort of situations.

EDIT:

I actually couldn't finish Max payne 3 thanks to the story clashing with the gameplay so hard.
you killed hundreds of bad guys and in the story they didn't acknowledge it in anyway in the story. For an example in a flash back Max goes to a bar and kicks some mafia kids ass, the kid then proceeds to go and get back up and you need to shoot your way through hundreds of them.

If the story is serious enough the gameplay should reflect that too, i just can't get behind games that don't find the right balance.
 
Ah yes, the good old "Video games, lolz" argument.

I don't think "it's a video game" is a valid excuse, but Uncharted doesn't need one, the game never asked for the player to take it seriously, it's as serious as comedy action movies where everything that happens is "cartoonish".
 
I don't see why people are making the Indiana Jones comparison when we're talking about motivations. Indiana Jones is sent by government agents to stop the Nazis from getting their hands on a priceless historical artifact that will potentially make them unstoppable. He kills the Nazis to this end. In Temple of Doom the treasure is secondary to stopping a bunch of child slave drivers who make human sacrifices. Nathan Drake kills hundreds of thugs/mercenaries because he wants a bunch of sweet gold swag for himself.

If you're so tired of people saying that this bothered them a bit feel free to not click on the thread.
 
There's no real need to defend this guys. Clearly a lot of people feel weird about the narrative clashing with the gameplay. It's not something we just fabricated to piss off the uncharted defense force. The reason why other games don't get called out for this is because they handle it properly for the most part. Naughty dog themselves handle it much better in another of their own games, the last of us. There's a reason why people call uncharted out for all the slaughter and not last of us. Last of us tells us again and again that we have to sometimes commit horrible atrocities to survive. It's pretty much the main theme of the game. Uncharted is about 'yay, treasure' it's a deeper problem for me that uncharted relies far too much on the gunplay. I feel like the series is pretty great but it could be so much more. I think it's ridiculous that I even need to say this but obviously everything I'm posting is just an opinion. It's ok if you don't feel the Same way.
 
This thread is discriminating against people that genuinely love asshole characters. How dare y'all?! OPEN A THREAD AND TURN ON YOUR LOCATION I WANNA FIGHT
 
If people are truly wanting to go into the deep end, explain how Drake is a true psychopath with examples of his words and actions in the game. Has Drake ever shown true insidious intent? Placed his life and well being above his friends? Come out as the lone survivor of a confrontation with a smile on his face? Shown signs of ego-mania or implications that he was emotionally and physically manipulating everyone he surrounds himself with?
 
At least the enemies in Indiana Jones seemed to die after a single shot... the waves and waves of bullet sponges in Uncharted totally turn me off from the whole experience. I hate bullet sponges. The Last of Us has this problem too, albeit to a lesser extent, but that game is framed around society crumbling to a kill or be killed environment and fighting tooth and nail for survival is commonplace, where Uncharted is far too lighthearted to mix well with the slaughtering.
 
My problem isn't a moral one, it's that the relatable Drake they present and the kind of adventure they show doesn't fit well with the hordes of enemies you kill. Plus, too many action sequences that go on for too long with mediocre action mechanics and bullet sponge enemies don't make for a fun game.

In the end, it doesn't do platforming well and it doesn't do shooting particularly well either, leaving just the set pieces and action movie vibe built on mediocre to reasonable mechanics, which is why I don't really care that much for Uncharted, despite having enjoyed 2.
 
By this logic Mario and Sonic are serial killers. Goombas have families too.

You could probably make a case against Mario.. not really Sonic though. Sonic breaks robots that hold other defenseless animals captive. The only deaths he's ever really responsible for are Tails... constantly... :P
 
Some of you take this way to seriously, It's ok to like a character in video games who's a mass murderer. Kirby is my favorite character, and he's arguably worse than Drake! At least Drake doesn't suffer his enemies whole to send them to some unknown dimension inside kirby's belly forever. Those poor Waddle-dees, their families will never be the same
 
Hes no different than any video game hero that needs to shoot people.

Some thinker probably came up with this mass murderer angle on a blog and everyone likes to trot out that discussion so they have something to argue about.
 
I don't think "it's a video game" is a valid excuse, but Uncharted doesn't need one, the game never asked for the player to take it seriously, it's as serious as comedy action movies where everything that happens is "cartoonish".

Yep.

This is almost as stupid as "why not phoenix down on Aeris?"

There's a lot of gameplay "dissonance" in FF VII also.

Why am I killing all these animals to level up my materia? That's not something "Cloud-O" is probably going to do in the real narrative.

He definitely doesn't do that in the movie.

The answer is actually "yes it's a videogame and these are the gameplay elements".

But GAF has too much of a hard-on for seeing everything that is contrary is wrong in absolute terms.

The answer is: yes, it's a fucking videogame. It needs gameplay, and Uncharted is not a survival horror game.

Look at like any game and the same problem creeps up....

Jedi Knight II.... if he's such a good jedi, why have I killed literally thousands of Imperials and massacred every base I've come across? If he's such a powerful Jedi person, can't he just sleuth his way in like in the movies to do all the objectives?

Well no you can't, it's a videogame and an action game, not a point and click adventure game.
 
Indy didn't kill thousands of people though. I mean, if we're making that comparison.

I don't think the kill count matters that much really. That's something that you can kinda attribute as a difference in delivery media (though the games would be much, much better if there was less tedious, bullet-spongey, wave based encounters).

I haven't watched the Indy movies, but already people in this thread have given valid reasons for Indy to be killing people from the outset, whereas Drake does so for personal gain as the initial motivator.
 
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.

The people after the treasure are more violent and have more evil intentions than Drake. He's basically a vigilante in some respects.

Lmao at the gun comment.
 
Okay...so what was he suppose to do in that situation, because any other way I see it, either that dude dies or Nate dies.

Beat him up to near death like in Batman but avoiding all his critical points. Befriend him and he becomes the awesome masked side kick named Cliff.

Maybe Uncharted needs a Pacifist run.
 
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 $$$.

In U1 he doesn't kill anyone that isn't trying to stop him from escaping the island.

In U2 he doesn't go after Flynn and Lazarovich until Flynn gets him thrown in Turkish prison for months. At that point it's vengeance and getting back what's his from people that cheated him. People try to kill him along the way, so he shoots back. They even put in the detail of the security guard swimming to safety before this point.

Ill comment on U3 later when I'm done with it.
 
indiana jones is a male wish fulfillment fantasy. he's kind of a perfect man. part of the allure is that he's like this guy with a double life, who goes out and finds treasure in these grand adventures and beats up actual bad guys. like history in the last 100 years keeps going back to nazis because they were the one thing everyone could agree on as being the biggest assholes since a whole world war was fought because of them and they tortured killed millions of people in their own country and across europe in the worst ways because they were racist evil shitheads... Rest of the post


Well that was an insightful reply and an interesting read. I agree with most of what you wrote, especially how you described Indy. I guess I personally had somehow more idolized image of Nathan Drake, I always assumed he was one of the good guys. He does seem to be caring and has some of that same charm as Indy. He even goes after Chloe when he has no reason to trust her. I guess it's how the game represents the bad guys, they all almost all the time just evil and even some of Drake's friends can't wait to betray him. I just personally think Drake is maybe a more flawed version of Indy. Maybe it just helps my identifying with Drake and maybe it also affects that Indy is still to this day probably my all time favorite movie character.
 
Indy didn't kill thousands of people though. I mean, if we're making that comparison.

And this is where the "it's a video game" defense comes in. How is it not a valid defense? Games require gameplay. Something for the player to actually DO. It seems that some people want to restrain any game that has a somewhat realistic story with specific gameplay mechanics. That's just not how video games work. If you care that much about massive killing (or anything that doesn't jive with reality), then play games that cater to those sensibilities. They do exist.
 
This shit is annoying. ITS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. Seriously, stop with all this argument. It's a game, get over it. Heard it come up about Tomb Raider and that's the same shit. ITS. A. GAME.

This discussion in particular is the most ridiculous conversation. I hate it so much, and it's probably my biggest gaming pet peeve.

It seems you have an opinion on this, and that's OK. Others also have an opinion, some of which likely differ from yours. That's OK, too. Next time, try sharing your opinion in a cogent manner instead of posting some delirious screed attempting to halt all conversation.

If you want gaming to be taken seriously as an artistic medium, this type of discussion should be embraced, even if it involves opinions that differ from yours. In fact, that's the entire point. Film and literature have evolved past this. It's fine for video games to do the same.
 
Of course the answer is that it's supposed to be pulp, ala Indiana Jones, + vidyagames gotta be fun, over 12ish hours...

It would be cool to see a game where they spend all that encounter design effort on, like, 6 guys that Drake has to go after and deal with over the course of the whole narrative, and are as tough as him, and have their own routines for running away and ambushing and so forth. Not 6 bosses but a combo crew of characters that do all the things NPCs do but can't really die as easily. Probably have to dial down Drake's own bullet sponginess to balance it.

edit

OR OR think of a system where combat can become stalemated and you can switch to a dialog tree to 'defeat' or unnerve the other guy, think that cellar shootout scene in Inglorious Bastards
 
I kind of like that some people struggle with it so much. It's a topic that is brought up in Raiders of the Lost Ark, about how Belloq and Indy are not so different, even though Indy thinks he's doing things for all the right reasons, and taking out a lot of people in the process (and not just Nazis). I don't put much serious thought into it (it's a game, it's fiction, etc.), but I think it's a quality that makes him a more complex character. It'd be boring if he was just one-note one way or the other.
 
Who gives a fuck. This whole issue started because some fanboy somewhere wanted to poke holes into the series narrative and knew that it would troll people because it's a console exclusive, narrative driven game.

Drake = Indiana Jones

End of story.


It's pretty simple. This argument is such the elaborate troll IMO.
 
Top Bottom