Magic Mushroom
Member
A true action hero has one liners man.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Nathan Drake Didn't Kill a Security Guard in UC2
- Thread starter Muscle Wizard
- Start date
A true action hero has one liners man.
I don't know why people need to be defensive. Like, accept the cold hard facts. If Kirby fans can come to terms with the fact that the cute puffball is an Eldritch abomination, no one else should have qualms about the morals of other mass murderers.
As an aside, I think it would be pretty funny if a game after a while had the story kill off the protagonist and switch protagonists to the character that killed him.
As an aside, I think it would be pretty funny if a game after a while had the story kill off the protagonist and switch protagonists to the character that killed him.
I love that killing ~30 people is fine but 200 is completely unacceptable, none of the Indy movies lasted 8 hours each and didn't involved a TPS mechanic, yet Indy still found time to kill people but it's cool because reasons.
Ever heard of the Nuremberg Trials?
old manatee
Banned
Thanks for checking in, Fox News.
SystemUser
Member
Indy was killing Nazis in two of the three movies. You always get a free pass when it comes to killing Nazi. Drake was killing poor third world villagers wearing dirty t-shirts and trying to feed their families. I am pretty sure the Nuremberg Trials involved officers not peons that didn't even have uniforms.
I have no problem with Uncharted just playing devils advocate. I love Keanu!
Haha, I'm not the one complaining about violence in video games. Frankly, I think this discussion is baffling. If Drake's video game violence is a problem, how do these problems manifest themselves in real life?
Although yeah, he kills a lot of people. Only time it bothered me is in the first one though, but only because it gets boring after a while and that's basically all you do in the game.
That's essentially like Uncharted 1-9 though
Even the creators of Indy don't seem to be fine with that. Otherwise the kill count of Indy wouldn't be 0 / one for Crystal Skull.
And actually most of Indy's victims were Nazis. If Uncharted was all about killing Nazis, I would see it differently. The kill count is way too high anyway, but at least it would be "better".
Indy's goal also wasn't to keep the treasure. Drake's goal is exactly that. Indy's goals were noble. Drake is simply selfish and even risks the lives of his so called "friends", who are actually also psychopaths.
Oh right. This.
Playing manhunt feels more sane (and believable) than playing Uncharted despite the over-the-top executions.
James Earl Cash actually doesn't have any other chance. He is forced to do the things that he does. Drake however just wants "the treasure" and kills lots and lots of foreigners to get it.
In a way Uncharted games are like US politics. So at least that bit makes sense. Going to foreign countries. Murdering lots and lots of people. And then even having the audacity to call themselves the "good guys". I mean just look at Obama. Killing civilians including children in foreign countries every day using drones, but doing that with a smile on his face and great PR behind him. Do Americans consider him evil? Of course not. He's just killing people in foreign countries. That's totally fine. That's just like Drake. Although Drake does "funny" one liners, when he kills. Turn the tables around in those cases and it would be obvious how fucked up it actually is.
Drake being a killing machine only matters because Drake's personality is supposed to be this likable, charming guy. Since I tune out the garbage writing anyways, it's pretty easy to not give a shit and just kill the shit out of those peasants.
also don't forget in Raiders: Indiana Jones was searching for the arc to literally save mankind (and only killed Nazis). come on, not even remotely fair to compare the two.
also don't forget in Raiders: Indiana Jones was searching for the arc to literally save mankind (and only killed Nazis). come on, not even remotely fair to compare the two.
staticneuron
Member
I posted on this before...
and
Again, when playing a game, and the enemy is coming at you to maim or kill you with a weapon, ( soldier, angry villager, pirates, member of secret society, yadda yadda) and the main character kills them to survive then it wouldn't be considered murder in any civilized society out there. Questions about how he never dies after being shot a few times or the amount of baddies he's faced makes more sense (if you are all about ignoring the fact that it is fiction) than to present the argument that he is a murderer.
Wait, what?
Dreams-Visions
Member
wrong thread
Freeman
Banned
Drake is a mass murderer, there is no way to deny it. The game is still really good, tho I wish ND had found a way around having to kill so many goons.
He shows no mercy,he is hardly affected by all the bloodshed, he puts people in danger, he doesn't regret, he does it for money.
He shows no mercy,he is hardly affected by all the bloodshed, he puts people in danger, he doesn't regret, he does it for money.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
I'm more bothered that by the end,
That was some super-duper shitty writing.
all it took was the main antagonist. who Drake had gotten to know was a lot more dangerous and terrible than any of the henchmen he had faced, was able to convince him not to kill him by using the whole, "You're just like me," spiel.
Notice how the movie in which Indy kills the fewest people is also the worst, coincident? UC and Indy movies usually start out the same, first they try to find some treasure but it later turns out to be about something more important. Did you play UC2, Drake was chasing a guy the basically wanted to be the next Hitler/Stalin. They might not have worn swastika's on their arm but they were not good people.
Gun Animal
Member
It would be fine if killing people were an option (like MGS, for example) but in Uncharted the majority of enemies in the game need to be killed in order to advance the story. That's dumb and lazy. The game objectives should match the character's objectives, so the only way Uncharted's objectives make sense is if Drake's true objective is to kill a lot of people. That's why people say Nathan Drake is a sociopath/psychopath etc etc.
If there were more opportunities to avoid killing people (stealth, outrunning/outmaneuvering, AI reacting realistically to cover fire, less-than-lethal weapons) no one would care.
Otherwise, embrace the character's implied bloodthirst. That seems like what they're doing with U4, honestly.
If there were more opportunities to avoid killing people (stealth, outrunning/outmaneuvering, AI reacting realistically to cover fire, less-than-lethal weapons) no one would care.
Otherwise, embrace the character's implied bloodthirst. That seems like what they're doing with U4, honestly.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Blazkowicz isn't really treated as a cartoon hero, though. Like, the game goes out of its way to show that the Kreisau Circle are a bunch of ruthless sociopaths who are only good in comparison to, you know, the Nazis. In fact, there's at least one point where Blazkowicz is called out for killing a bunch of soldiers who have families, and overall the subject is treated much, much more seriously.
SystemUser
Member
Have you played the first Uncharted? You aren't fighting PMC style henchmen. Most of the people you kill look like the screenshot below. I always assume they were recruited locally since their ethnicity changes based on location. I think they just gave them guns and told them they would get paid at the end of the day. These guys were standing outside of a Home Depot this morning and now they are dead at the hands of Drake.
I am not saying Uncharted is bad or shouldn't be made because Nathan Drake is a murderous psychopath. I mean my favorite GTA character is Trevor.
The Artisan
Member
The "Nathan Drake is a homicidal maniac" argument has always been weak to me. Aside from the fact that it's a video game, and a third person shooter where the primary gameplay element is to shoot things, it's often glossed over that the people that Drake does kill, and not just defeat using fisticuffs are ACTIVELY TRYING TO KILL HIM. If someone is shooting at you unprovoked, and you have a gun as well, it's reasonable to me to shoot back.
Drake is often investigating whatever it is he is investigating, and then crazy people show up and start shooting at him, or burning down the chateau he's in, so what do you expect him to do? Honestly. Should he just let them kill him? He actively tries to escape these situations, yet he is often still pursued by the people shooting at him.
No, I don't subscribe to the heartless killer philosophy.
Drake is often investigating whatever it is he is investigating, and then crazy people show up and start shooting at him, or burning down the chateau he's in, so what do you expect him to do? Honestly. Should he just let them kill him? He actively tries to escape these situations, yet he is often still pursued by the people shooting at him.
No, I don't subscribe to the heartless killer philosophy.
SystemUser
Member
Most Drake missions start with a section that you can stealth. You can kill tons of guys that don't know that Drake exists.
akachan ningen
Member
It's the cold way he does it. He even cracks jokes. If he threw up once in a while, it wouldn't be as bad.
Lord Malachite
Gold Member
Sometimes I think continuity gets forgotten, though. Return To Castle Wolfenstein, Wolfenstein (2009), and The New Order are a trilogy. While one can play TNO without playing the others and follow the plot without trouble, nuances are mixed. Consider who Caroline Becker was in Wolfenstein (2009) as opposed to TNO. She was brutally raped and violated and then left for dead, it's no wonder her personality transformed. The world changed a lot and made what's left of the Kreisau Circle into monsters--but the Nazis themselves transformed from political and social ideologists (albeit definitely evil ones) to brutal dictators with the entire world under their thumb, crushing hope altogether. Part of the theme of TNO seems to be that in order to destroy a monster, you must become one.
You're right. The real problem is that the enemies in these games are all inhuman, single-minded killers who only exist to try to kill Drake. They don't show any normal human reactions like fear or run away when they realize they're all getting killed.
The Artisan
Member
what? what are you trying to say there?
and the enemies didn't light up the building he was in in golden abyss. chase did that to distract them or something.
CambriaRising
Member
I learned something today.
BeatResetsTheWorld
Banned
What I find odd is how many people will jump to Uncharted's defense when talking about it's story, and acting and all the cinematic qualities of it, how it merges action and storytelling better than most games yet completely disregard the dissonance caused by the gameplay.
It's like you guys have this weird perception that gameplay and story are and should be wholly separate when, considering we're talking about videogames they have to be looked at holistically. It wouldn't that hard to offer more nonlethal options. Or have some sort of reaction to him killing, maybe slight changes in his demeanor, even if they don't go as far as having alternate cutscenes
It's like you guys have this weird perception that gameplay and story are and should be wholly separate when, considering we're talking about videogames they have to be looked at holistically. It wouldn't that hard to offer more nonlethal options. Or have some sort of reaction to him killing, maybe slight changes in his demeanor, even if they don't go as far as having alternate cutscenes
Hidden One
Member
New to me.
Not really. Don't forget that Sully and Drake jumped off a cliff into water from a distance that should also be fatal and were unscathed. Our real world logic clearly doesn't apply to Uncharted.
The Artisan
Member
of course not but these games are obviously emulating reality with their spot on graphics. on Ps3 and soon to be on Ps4
TheRedSnifit
Member
But Drake dies if he falls off of that particular cliff.
That's just an example of the gameplay being inconsistent with the story, which is nothing new in video games.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
What I find odd is how many people do not understand pulp adventure. I am sorry but if you can like Han Solo or Indiana Jones there is no way you can have problems with Drake and if you dont like all of them then you simply do not like pulp and are free to move to a genre you like. There is nothing to discuss about dissonance in this genre.
theusedversion
Member
I don't get the people who complain about the amount of shooting and about the lack of realistic emotional responses to said shooting. They are unrealistic games. Do you also get upset because of the supernatural aspect in the games? Or the insane and impossible jumps Drake pulls off? Or the unbelievable set pieces that happen constantly through out the game? If not then, then you don't make any sense. If you do, then you want a completely different game because Uncharted was never meant to be anything but bombastic and unbelievable.
As far as the shooting, that's one of the core focuses of the gameplay. Being realistic is not. Having Drake shoot maybe 5-10 people and maybe a couple of fist fights for the entirety of the game would be so incredibly boring. You're better off watching a movie or visual novel if that's what you want. I seriously hope the developers do not listen to these complaints because it would ruin the game.
Maybe they can put a special mode in the game that removes all the enemies so you can just run through it. No killing!!!
Maybe put a stamina meter on him and make him become extremely tired very quickly to be more realistic.
Edit: Or maybe they could add a realistic mode that has one shot kills and effectively make the game unbeatable.
Edit2: And an emotional mode where as soon as Drake kills someone, he drops to his knees and starts crying and the player gets a game over screen. ;P
As far as the shooting, that's one of the core focuses of the gameplay. Being realistic is not. Having Drake shoot maybe 5-10 people and maybe a couple of fist fights for the entirety of the game would be so incredibly boring. You're better off watching a movie or visual novel if that's what you want. I seriously hope the developers do not listen to these complaints because it would ruin the game.
Maybe they can put a special mode in the game that removes all the enemies so you can just run through it. No killing!!!
Maybe put a stamina meter on him and make him become extremely tired very quickly to be more realistic.Edit: Or maybe they could add a realistic mode that has one shot kills and effectively make the game unbeatable.
Edit2: And an emotional mode where as soon as Drake kills someone, he drops to his knees and starts crying and the player gets a game over screen. ;P
Auto-Reply
Member
I've seen an interview with the wife of this guard, he drowned!
lol
BeatResetsTheWorld
Banned
Because no one questions that they're mass murdering psychopaths
BabyFaceKillah
Member
Because Kratos and GTA protagonist are mass murdering psychopaths.
If memory serves there's some sort of issue with the final confrontation with Granny Rags that can lead to knocking her out erroneously counting as a kill. That's the only other level I had any trouble with.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
To all of you saying "who cares it's just a game", well ND seem to care pretty much about it. Because if they don't, why bother making a distinction of Drake using a tranquilizer gun or creating animation for that one guy swimming away?
Clearly they're interested in the whole debate.
Clearly they're interested in the whole debate.
SystemUser
Member
I don't get the people who complain about the amount of shooting and about the lack of realistic emotional responses to said shooting. They are unrealistic games. Do you also get upset because of the supernatural aspect in the games? Or the insane and impossible jumps Drake pulls off? Or the unbelievable set pieces that happen constantly through out the game? If not then, then you don't make any sense. If you do, then you want a completely different game because Uncharted was never meant to be anything but bombastic and unbelievable.
As far as the shooting, that's one of the core focuses of the gameplay. Being realistic is not. Having Drake shoot maybe 5-10 people and maybe a couple of fist fights for the entirety of the game would be so incredibly boring. You're better off watching a movie or visual novel if that's what you want. I seriously hope the developers do not listen to these complaints because it would ruin the game.
Maybe they can put a special mode in the game that removes all the enemies so you can just run through it. No killing!!!
Edit: Or maybe they could add a realistic mode that has one shot kills and effectively make the game unbeatable.
Edit2: And an emotional mode where as soon as Drake kills someone, he drops to his knees and starts crying and the player gets a game over screen. ;P
I don't see anyone arguing that the game needs to be realistic. We are arguing that he is a psychopath that steals ancient artifacts and kills people for a living. He is the same as a GTA protagonist other than the fact that law enforcement has never caught up with him.
I like GTA and I like Uncharted both are games where you play as a bad guy.
Neff
Member
Nobody is taking it seriously, at least I hope not.
But it's hard to suspend disbelief when Drake
a) makes a firm point of not wanting to kill the security guards during the first level.
b) throws one of them from a drop which, from a physics issue regarding the ratio of height to water, is near-guaranteed to kill a human being (in addition to being unaware as to whether the guard can swim or not), and then
c) apparently shows no remorse for or acknowledgement of his actions.
It just makes ND look like they didn't think things through very much is all.
This. What else can you do when there are hundreds or thousands of men wanting to kill you? You can't reason with them or anything.
I've noticed that the people who bring this up tend to give zero fucks that it's completely incorrect.
Like, the reality of that scene is not important enough to acknowledge because that scene isn't what they actually want to talk about. I've literally seen people argue that in real life he'd be dead. There isn't much you can do for people who are deliberate fucking morons.
Like, the reality of that scene is not important enough to acknowledge because that scene isn't what they actually want to talk about. I've literally seen people argue that in real life he'd be dead. There isn't much you can do for people who are deliberate fucking morons.