Support NeoGAF

[zoukka]

Why do twin characters exist in the multiplayer? The game's story says nothing about secret clone experiments. This contradicts with the game's tone which is obviously not about clones.

Also how can the character climb that easily or heal himself after a little while? It's just not humanly possible. The story says nothing about superpowers.

You try too hard.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

As hard as that dude does try, he brings up a good point. For an every man, Nate sure seems awful strong.

 

[Zzoram]

One thing I've noticed on my 2nd time playing the game is that Elena's voice acting isn't quite up to snuff. Nathan and Sully have better voice acting.

 

[Zzoram]

As hard as that dude does try, he brings up a good point. For an every man, Nate sure seems awful strong.

I think him moving that car-sized boulder in chapter 2 just by pushing it makes it pretty clear that he's got superhuman strength.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

One thing I've noticed on my 2nd time playing the game is that Elena's voice acting isn't quite up to snuff.

oh no you didn't

 

[Zzoram]

oh no you didn't

Some of her lines just sound a little off. I like her character quite a lot, but it seemed like she phoned in a few of those lines.

Speaking of Elena, how many games have done a character like her other than Alyx from Half-Life 2? A strong female personality that is neither the main character nor hyper-sexualized.

 

[nib95]

I thought the whole "everyman" pitch was to specifically say that he ISN'T a military man, which only made his combat prowress all the more ridiculous.

That's a bit of a silly assumption imo. He's good at what he does, which is search for treasure in places and situations where ordinary people wouldn't. By ordinary, I mean people who aren't shady or unscrupulous, with a history of violence, murder, corruption etc. And by searching for treasure, I mean doing so by doing things that might be of questionable moral nature.

I mean, just look at the people Drake knew/knows in his games. the people he's worked with, along side or even against. Old acquaintances etc. Not the friendliest bunch. He might be an "everyman" in personality, but not job description or history.

Whilst I thought Drake fit the everyman description in some of the ways he acted. I never (whilst playing the games) thought he was totally innocent or inexperienced. The game doesn't hide the fact that he's pretty well versed in the things he does.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I think that trying to justify Nate's ability to mow down swarms of pirates using vague in-game canon is a bit of a lost cause, to be honest.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Ya I guess it's a problem in any story. Minions are always there, always die, and are always overlooked.

There need to be more stories about life as a minion. I hope some upcoming games will try that.

It would have to be a download game, or web game lol.

Grogs Journalew:
*Tuday I am accepted in the evil gang. Wee. Ihave a new gun, it's shiny. The other guys are nice to me, they let me get the next assignment. Currently I'm trying to guard this road. Oh look a flower, it sme

Drake: I'm so so so sososo sorry I killed Grog. I don't know what came over me. I don't know if I can go on living anymore. If anyone find this message please forgive me. I have a lot of expensive stuff in my jeep, take it as payment for the horrible sin I have committed. Also there's lots of ammo and 5 bullets left in this new gun as well. Goodbye cruel world.

(Gunshot) I thought I'd wright this in before I actually killed myself so you'll know how broken down I am for killing a bad guy. Ok now I'm going to pull the trigger.

 

[nib95]

Some of her lines just sound a little off. I like her character quite a lot, but it seemed like she phoned in a few of those lines.

Speaking of Elena, how many games have done a character like her other than Alyx from Half-Life 2? A strong female personality that is neither the main character nor hyper-sexualized.

People say, and have said exactly the same thing about film/cinema.

 

[Zzoram]

People say, and have said exactly the same thing about film/cinema.

Transformers 2 is a great example of that problem. Every single woman in the movie was hyper sexualized, even his mother.

 

[zoukka]

Transformers 2 is a great example of that problem. Every single woman in the movie was hyper sexualized, even his mother.

Eh I don't think it really is a problem in that movie. Fits in with all the other madness.

 

[sonicmj1]

I'm reminded of a similar thread we had in the past. In it, Naughty Dog dev arne responded to my concerns.

I join people who find Uncharted offputting, and a lot of that comes from the setting and tone of the game. It's not exactly horror per se, but the characters don't act as if they're professional soldiers who are used to combat. Much has been made of Naughty Dog's excellent dynamic animation blending that lets Nathan cower in cover and so forth. The question is, why? If Nathan is a character capable of singlehandedly taking down literally hundreds of pirates, why is he scared at all of anything on the island? It's much easier to stomach this sort of thing in Gears, where the characters bubble over with macho bravado, and fear basically nothing, than it is in Uncharted. By contrast, the always-navigable terrain, or the arcane puzzles, fit better with the universe because they're expected and acknowledged.

Nathan doesn't want to kill dozens/hundreds of enemies. He's a man pushed to the edge, in a situation that he doesn't want to be in. to survive he'll continue to push himself to his own limits with every skill he has, but that doesn't mean he's comfortable or not afraid. the same goes for movies with protagonists that align closely with drake. they're not filled with a "i can take on the world" super action hero bravado. i think, at least for our game, people are perceiving that just because Drake CAN overcome all these obstacles (if you play the game well), that automatically means he has to have this confidence that he can do anything. but if you look at movies with characters who are similar, you'll find that no matter how many sequels, they stay humble, they stay fearful of death, no matter how many people they killed singlehandedly or whatever situation they managed to escape.

not ever protagonist in a GAME who managed to kick ass in the end has to fulfill the male power fantasy archetype.

I find Henning's explanation more satisfying (though it doesn't eliminate the issue), but my original post didn't fully capture the dynamics of the issue.

Still, it's a complicated and difficult thing. In most games, the primary way for the protagonist to interact with his environment and opposition is through direct violence. Rare is the game like Shenmue, where you solve your problems by getting a job and paying people money or whatever. And there's a reason Shenmue's appeal is niche. Yet the closer our characterizations get to reality, the less justifiable it will be to base a game around that sort of lethal interaction.

Some devs have experimented with this in mainstream games, and Sony seems to be leading the charge here. I felt that Shadow of the Colossus and Ico did a great job of giving the player a vulnerable protagonist, and limiting the amount of violence he was required to inflict to advance. It gave those sequences more impact. I'm curious as to how Heavy Rain pulls off its attempted reality. That could be a big leap forward if it's successful and accessible.

I feel that adding a greater degree of space and exploration, even if it's not active platforming, can work to reduce the overall violence level (Mirror's Edge was a platformer, but it doesn't require you to kill as often as other first-person games), but those games are still shorter and require an awful lot of asset creation for each hour of gameplay.

I like when people experiment with this, and I hope to see more of it. It's great to see that it even exists as an issue in Uncharted, as that indicates the expert level of characterization that Naughty Dog achieved. If we didn't see Nathan Drake as a somewhat human character, this wouldn't even be considered as a problem.

 

[Loudninja]

I thought the whole "everyman" pitch was to specifically say that he ISN'T a military man, which only made his combat prowress all the more ridiculous.

You looking into that way to much.

 

[fortified_concept]

Apart from the fact that the argument is terrible since it's a freaking game and there will always be surreal stuff (health packs that completely regenerate the character/regeneration over time, resurrections, saves, hordes of enemies killed by only one person etc etc etc) what the OP suggests is preposterous.

Compromising the gameplay for it to agree with the "tone" of the game is unheard of. Shooting is the most fun part of the game and we're supposed to lose it because people can't understand that games are games?

You try too hard.

I make a point. What's yours?

 

[aeolist]

I like that everyone who's disagreeing here is either entirely missing the point or avoiding any actual response and only making unfunny sarcastic jokes.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Apart from the fact that the argument is terrible since it's a freaking game and there will always be surreal stuff (health packs that completely regenerate the character/regeneration over time, resurrections, saves, hordes of enemies etc etc etc) what the OP suggests is preposterous.

Compromising the gameplay for the game to agree with reality is unheard of. Shooting is the most fun part of the game and we're supposed to lose it because people can't understand that games are games?

this topic arises specifically from Naughty Dog repeatedly trying to portray Nate as an everyman. in trying to create a believable character that is recognisable to anyone familiar with typical western entertainment culture, they've effectively placed a giant magnifying-glass on the issue that is the weird contrast between a characters actions and their behavior.

this is one of the most interesting topics in gaming at the moment, in my opinion, because we're at the stage now where we're on the brink of being able to do much more. so call off your fucking dog, this isn't a piss of Uncharted topic, it's just a conversation; no one is forcing you to take part in it.

 

[maxmars]

Yes, but the gameplay often required that you not actually stick to cover, because it would get you killed. When enemies rush you, it's much easier to stop them when you're just aiming and standing behind a wall than if you were stuck to the wall and occasionally leaning out to shoot.

Yeah that's my problem, you are an army of one at times.

I liked the basement part of the fortress, the part where you have many pillars to hide behind. I got behind one, picked a few people, then moved away and got behind another for the next wave and so on. It felt very movie like.

 

[zoukka]

Compromising the gameplay for it to agree with the "tone" of the game is unheard of. Shooting is the most fun part of the game and we're supposed to lose it because people can't understand that games are games?

I would like to pulverize the grunts in Batman AA, yet I can't. Could it be that Batman killing people just doesn't fit his character??

 

[Alx]

I'm not sure how you can argue that the level of violence in Uncharted is inappropriate when you compare it to Indiana Jones movies. The nazi getting chopped to pieces by an aircraft prop(3:40) in Raiders of the Lost Ark puts anything in Uncharted to shame. It is also awesome BTW.

I think it's not really about the gore or even the body count, but the behaviour behind it.
Most kills in Indiana Jones are either made by accident or as a last resort. Actually what makes the character likeable is that he's trying to stay out of trouble all the time (but can't). He's not running around shooting dead anybody attacking him, and were it not for the life of his friends/relatives/own, he would be running in the opposite direction.

Of course that wouldn't make a good shooting game. But maybe you can't use any character profile to star a shooting game.
And I don't like the habit of considering that any game should be based on killing things, even if I'm more into Quake than Myst.

 

[sonicmj1]

Apart from the fact that the argument is terrible since it's a freaking game and there will always be surreal stuff (health packs that completely regenerate the character/regeneration over time, resurrections, saves, hordes of enemies killed by only one person etc etc etc) what the OP suggests is preposterous.

Compromising the gameplay for it to agree with the "tone" of the game is unheard of. Shooting is the most fun part of the game and we're supposed to lose it because people can't understand that games are games?

If you feel that shooting is the centerpiece of Uncharted, and if the expert characterization detracts from how some people enjoy the shooting, it would seem that the solution (if Uncharted is, first and foremost, a game about shooting) would be to change the plot and characterization to better fit the tone of the gameplay.

The act of "compromising" the gameplay to agree with the game's tone has occurred in a number of titles, such as Shenmue, Shadow of the Colossus, Killer7, and perhaps even Demon's Souls. While many of these games are niche, they have some fierce defenders who like them because they choose to make that compromise.

While you may disagree, it's certainly not an indefensible thing to do. To many, a game is more than the sum of its mechanics.

 

[Zzoram]

this topic arises specifically from Naughty Dog repeatedly trying to portray Nate as an everyman. in trying to create a believable character that is recognisable to anyone familiar with typical western entertainment culture, they've effectively placed a giant magnifying-glass on the issue that is the weird contrast between a characters actions and their behavior.

this is one of the most interesting topics in gaming at the moment, in my opinion, because we're at the stage now where we're on the brink of being able to do much more. so call off your fucking dog, this isn't a piss of Uncharted topic, it's just a conversation; no one is forcing you to take part in it.

Agreed. Nobody here is saying Uncharted is a bad game. It's quite obviously a great game. However, it's the great games that raise these types of questions because we don't have lesser problems to complain about.

 

[Lord Phol]

What do you mean by "No wonder the game industry looks like it does atm"? Talk about bering overly harsh. I see stuff like LBP, Scribblenaughts, Heavy Rain, Last Guardian etc and they balance out the spectrum quite nicely. It's not like there isn't an abundance of action/horror films (etc) in film either, but that's because it's popular and it sells. Doesn't mean we don't get the opposite side of the spectrum. Gaming is no different.

I actually love where gaming is right now. It's more diverse than it's ever been!

I might have been overly harsh I agree, just the few first pages got the best of me.
Sure there's diversity, which I'm glad for, but at the same time you keep seeing devolopers having to cramp in some online mode or shooting section at times just because that's what the crowd is constantly shouting for. Perhaps not that big of deal at the moment, but the amount of "NO ONLINE/NO GORE NO BUY!!" posts popping up doesn't exactly bode well for the future.

 

[fortified_concept]

this topic arises specifically from Naughty Dog repeatedly trying to portray Nate as an everyman. in trying to create a believable character that is recognisable to anyone familiar with typical western entertainment culture, they've effectively placed a giant magnifying-glass on the issue that is the weird contrast between a characters actions and their behavior.

this is one of the most interesting topics in gaming at the moment, in my opinion, because we're at the stage now where we're on the brink of being able to do much more. so call off your fucking dog, this isn't a piss of Uncharted topic.

Movies that are supposed to be more realistic and follow the protagonist's character (because afterall the most important element of a movie is the storytelling) don't do that and put everymans in impossible situations that they manage to escape from and you expect from a game to do it? Especially since the game has to sacrifice gameplay -the main element of a game- to do it.

I have to repeat this. Asking to sacrifice gameplay to follow the game's tone is preposterous. You have higher standards for the storytelling of games than of multimillion dollar Hollywood movies.

 

[fortified_concept]

If you feel that shooting is the centerpiece of Uncharted, and if the expert characterization detracts from how some people enjoy the shooting, it would seem that the solution (if Uncharted is, first and foremost, a game about shooting) would be to change the plot and characterization to better fit the tone of the gameplay.

The act of "compromising" the gameplay to agree with the game's tone has occurred in a number of titles, such as Shenmue, Shadow of the Colossus, Killer7, and perhaps even Demon's Souls. While many of these games are niche, they have some fierce defenders who like them because they choose to make that compromise.

While you may disagree, it's certainly not an indefensible thing to do. To many, a game is more than the sum of its mechanics.

I don't want another braindead macho marine in Uncharted, thanks but no thanks. The character is likeable and very very funny which makes the presentation of the game amazing. And I doubt the games you're talking about compromised anything, it was the developers vision to make them that way as was Naughty Dog's vision to make a game that has a likable character and shooting.

 

[Spike]

Whatelse would you do in videogames? Drive forklifts?

Yes, and look for sailors.

 

[Shambles]

Are we really re-hashing the tired violence argument using Uncharted as an example? Sure, I can see how you might separate the hyper-violent Mad World type titles from the more mainstream ones as they exclusively serve the purpose of violence and make no apologies for it. You'll always have extremes in tastes in society. But trying to isolate Uncharted in the context violence compared to the other 50,000 shooters out there is splitting hairs. Look on your game shelf and ask yourself what games that you have that aren't based around killing enemies? (Pretty much just racers and sports games). Hell, even pixeljunk Monsters which is on the far end of the tameness-scale is centred around the endless slaughter of other creatures. I mean really how many WWII shooters have we had over the past 15 years? If most of us didn't enjoy killing other people on a screen these studios would have been out of business long ago. You can attempt to differentiate motives but whether it's the undead, german farmboys, those silly creatures in Ratchet and Clank, or those damn dirty pirates doesn't change the fact that you are in a killing simulation. I would imagine that you are either for that or against that.

It also seems that a lot of people are trying to mold Drake into some specific viewpoint to either support and debate certain ideas. The developers made the character exactly how they wanted to be. If you made a game with a superhero that had a taste for vengence by killing criminals when it wasn't necessary that isn't "out of place" in the story. It's the character being "out of place" as most of us are but completely within the vision of the story and gameworld. Thieves aren't always sketchy, murderers can be perfectly content and happy, and it's possible for treasure hunters to be comedically detached. If anything I find that it reflects modern society in the way that we detach ourselves from the suffering around us and as gamers who don't think twice after the 10,000th headshot in our games. Now I doubt that they intended the game as social commentary. It's more likely it's supposed to be a commercial product that is fun and stands out from the rest.

 

[aeolist]

Agreed. Nobody here is saying Uncharted is a bad game. It's quite obviously a great game. However, it's the great games that raise these types of questions because we don't have lesser problems to complain about.

In fact the only reason this discussion arises at all is because they did such a good job creating and fleshing out their characters and setting.

 

[SolidSnakex]

You can have extraordinary things happen, but then you have to have the character react in a believable way to maintain consistency.

Drake killed hundreds of people and didn't bat an eye.

So what is he supposed to do in the situations he's put in? Running will get him killed because there are too many enemies. It's kill or be killed. And like most people he'd rather kill than be killed.

Then you have the issue that's unavoidable, it has to be fun to the masses. To the masses the idea of a handful of enemies in a game and a ton of puzzles and platforming isn't fun. The fact that the platform genre is basically dead outside of Mario (in terms of popularity) and the adventure game genre is in the same state except it pretty much just relies on small and cheap PSN/XBLA/WiiWare titles now just illustrates that. So at the end of the day Naughty Dog is just asking you to detach yourself a bit and accept that he's killing a lot of people (that are trying to kill him) just as you do with him not bleeding out when he gets shot multiple times or how he doesn't have to stop and sit down so that he can catch his breath after running or climbing for awhile.

 

[Margalis]

Choosing to spend budget on voice acting is compromising gameplay. So is spending time on water shaders, modeling a half-tuck, etc. That's really a silly road to go down, because games are not pure gameplay experiences. Not even something like Monopoly is a pure gameplay experience -- would Monopoly be as popular without the lovable dog and shoe?

There's no single most important part of a video game, and what a video game is can range all over the place. To say that the most important part of any game is "gameplay", where "gameplay" is defined as "shooting people in the face" is absurdly narrow.

The most important part of a video game is creating a compelling experience. What that means is highly variable.

Case in point: Silent Hill 5.

Are we really re-hashing the tired violence argument using Uncharted as an example?

No, we're actually not. What people are talking about is consistent story and characterization. Not that there's too much violence, just that the level of violence in the gameplay conflicts with the characterization. Nathan Drake is around and perpetrates terrible violence but the story and characterization don't reflect that at all.

 

[aeolist]

So what is he supposed to do in the situations he's put in? Running will get him killed because there are too many enemies. It's kill or be killed. And like most people he'd rather kill than be killed.

Then you have the issue that's unavoidable, it has to be fun to the masses. To the masses the idea of a handful of enemies in a game and a ton of puzzles and platforming isn't fun. The fact that the platform genre is basically dead outside of Mario (in terms of popularity) and the adventure game genre is in the same state except it pretty much just relies on small and cheap PSN/XBLA/WiiWare titles now just illustrates that. So at the end of the day Naughty Dog is just asking you to detach yourself a bit and accept that he's killing a lot of people (that are trying to kill him) just as you do with him not bleeding out when he gets shot multiple times or how he doesn't have to stop and sit down so that he can catch his breath after running or climbing for awhile.

I'm not saying he should give up and die, and it's quite reasonable to defend yourself in a violent situation. And once again, I'm not against violence in games and love bloody shooters.

But nobody in the world could kill as many people as Drake did in that game and have the same reactions unless he's a complete psychopath. It's just not possible.

The issue is that the things Drake does clash pretty badly with the character Naughty Dog creates through the cutscenes and dialog.

And if you're saying that the game is compromised by having to sell to a market that only wants pretty Gears of War clones then I can certainly agree with that. But it does mean that the game isn't everything it could have been and I can criticize it for that.

 

[jump_button]

Indiana Jones cutes a guy head off when fighting near a airplane :lol

 

[Shambles]

I'm not saying he should give up and die, and it's quite reasonable to defend yourself in a violent situation. And once again, I'm not against violence in games and love bloody shooters.

But nobody in the world could kill as many people as Drake did in that game and have the same reactions unless he's a complete psychopath. It's just not possible.

The issue is that the things Drake does clash pretty badly with the character Naughty Dog creates through the cutscenes and dialog.

And if you're saying that the game is compromised by having to sell to a market that only wants pretty Gears of War clones then I can certainly agree with that. But it does mean that the game isn't everything it could have been and I can criticize it for that.

How is this note-worthy? This is true for nearly all protagonists in shooter games. You don't really think that the average soldier goes to war and individually kills a couple thousand enemy combatants? This is a fact of shooters that has been true since they first arrived. I'm not sure how you could see this in one instance but turn a blind eye to all the others. I mean if you're really going to put up a poster child put up GTA4 where you can kill half the city and still go about pretending you're just an average criminal.

 

[sonicmj1]

I don't want another braindead macho marine in Uncharted, thanks but no thanks. The character is likeable and very very funny which makes the presentation of the game amazing. And I doubt the games you're talking about compromised anything, it was the developers vision to make them that way as was Naughty Dog's vision to make a game that has a likable character and shooting.

Why does it matter to you if you have a braindead macho marine or a Nathan Drake in your game about shooting? If Uncharted's multiplayer, with its interchangeable "Heroes" and "Villains" factions, is anything to judge Naughty Dog's views by, they don't think that there's any appreciable difference if the game is only about shooting (as UC2's multiplayer is).

As you state here, developers have a vision of how they want their game to turn out. Uncharted isn't about shooting, it's about being Nathan Drake, a friendly, rough-and-tumble explorer who knows his way around both a gun and an abandoned ruin. Both the story and the gameplay are essential to establishing that experience, and getting the player excited and engaged in the tale these characters create through their actions.

The best way to convey this experience may not be through perfectly balanced and enjoyable gameplay, though. In Ico, your character frequently combats shadow warriors with little more than a stick, and the combat mechanics consist of little more than mashing Square. Theoretically, they could be more involved, and your character more capable. They are not, because Ico is a game about being a motivated youngster attempting to escape a castle with a girl, not a game about being good at hitting things with a stick. In this way, the gameplay is "compromised" to better suit the tone and the character. This is one example, but many more exist.

Naughty Dog feels that the best way for Nathan Drake to interact with the environment is to shoot many, many enemy mercenaries. That is their decision as developers. That said, there is no reason in particular why it would be impossible for Nathan Drake to go about things in a different way in the game. That way might even be less "fun" from a gameplay standpoint, but it might better fit the tone created by the setting and character.

Certainly, this stance is nitpicky as hell, because it's essentially criticizing the creators for not using their premise to make the game you felt they should make. But if this disconnect between character and gameplay in Uncharted were solely imagined by an individual, it wouldn't keep coming up in different places. Creating a plausible and consistent world is a process that involves both story/characterization and gameplay, and sometimes, it can be more important than either individually.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

How is this note-worthy? This is true for nearly all protagonists in shooter games. You don't really think that the average soldier goes to war and individually kills a couple thousand enemy combatants? This is a fact of shooters that has been true since they first arrived. I'm not sure how you could see this in one instance but turn a blind eye to all the others. I mean if you're really going to put up a poster child put up GTA4 where you can kill half the city and still go about pretending you're just an average criminal.

see:

this topic arises specifically from Naughty Dog repeatedly trying to portray Nate as an everyman. in trying to create a believable character that is recognisable to anyone familiar with typical western entertainment culture, they've effectively placed a giant magnifying-glass on the issue that is the weird contrast between a characters actions and their behavior.

In GTAIV, Niko is HIRED to kill people. While there are still some BIG leaps of faith required in that game, as a result of the general tone of the world R* created, it doesn't stand out quite as much.

And for the record, the last time this topic really came up was with was GTAIV.

 

[aeolist]

How is this note-worthy? This is true for nearly all protagonists in shooter games. You don't really think that the average soldier goes to war and individually kills a couple thousand enemy combatants? This is a fact of shooters that has been true since they first arrived. I'm not sure how you could see this in one instance but turn a blind eye to all the others. I mean if you're really going to put up a poster child put up GTA4 where you can kill half the city and still go about pretending you're just an average criminal.

Uncharted is the only shooter I've played where the character was developed and believable enough for this to be an issue. In every other game you're silent or unrealistically macho so it didn't ever bother me.

Naughty Dog did such a good job making Drake that it made the game you run him through completely incongruous.

 

[Ashes]

People should start quoting Milgram and Zimbardo. That would put an end to the everyman bullshit.

Forget games. This every man thing is pissing me off. It is like soft porn. Its padding reality. every day people can kill and do kill.

Every soldier who has fought in every war is a normal human being in strange circumstances. Some are teachers, others are comedians, others are doctors.

What you are really trying to say, is that 'good guys' should not be sociopaths, right?

In terms of story consistency, your doing sin, (no not actual sin) by mixing genres.

He isn't a sociopath, he isn't killing needlessly or enjoying the killing. It would go against the grain of the genre to take a serious tone. the audience should and does generally understand that.
Take the film medium, killing tons of pirates in a pirate film is okay for example, and no one would think worse about it. But in serious films like Saving Private Ryan or Apocalypse Now, you have to tackle it, right?

Lets take the option that Drake kills less then ten people in the entire game. That's still mass murder. So you can't kill a single person in the entire game. Cause its homicide.

Do you know how many people would ridicule the game for incorporating homicide laws in Uncharted 3?

Mirrors Edge was a game where they took the route where it was possible to finish the game without killing. Did I get any satisfaction out of finishing the game without killing anyone? was the character more rounded and realistic in anyway, or fit in better in the context? No because it was fucking torture. Its a game. Flawed in that some of its audience can't accept the intended medium, genre and tone of the piece.

 

[fortified_concept]

Why does it matter to you if you have a braindead macho marine or a Nathan Drake in your game about shooting? If Uncharted's multiplayer, with its interchangeable "Heroes" and "Villains" factions, is anything to judge Naughty Dog's views by, they don't think that there's any appreciable difference if the game is only about shooting (as UC2's multiplayer is).

As you state here, developers have a vision of how they want their game to turn out. Uncharted isn't about shooting, it's about being Nathan Drake, a friendly, rough-and-tumble explorer who knows his way around both a gun and an abandoned ruin. Both the story and the gameplay are essential to establishing that experience, and getting the player excited and engaged in the tale these characters create through their actions.

The best way to convey this experience may not be through perfectly balanced and enjoyable gameplay, though. In Ico, your character frequently combats shadow warriors with little more than a stick, and the combat mechanics consist of little more than mashing Square. Theoretically, they could be more involved, and your character more capable. They are not, because Ico is a game about being a motivated youngster attempting to escape a castle with a girl, not a game about being good at hitting things with a stick. In this way, the gameplay is "compromised" to better suit the tone and the character. This is one example, but many more exist.

Naughty Dog feels that the best way for Nathan Drake to interact with the environment is to shoot many, many enemy mercenaries. That is their decision as developers. That said, there is no reason in particular why it would be impossible for Nathan Drake to go about things in a different way in the game. That way might even be less "fun" from a gameplay standpoint, but it might better fit the tone created by the setting and character.

Certainly, this stance is nitpicky as hell, because it's essentially criticizing the creators for not using their premise to make the game you felt they should make. But if this disconnect between character and gameplay in Uncharted were solely imagined by an individual, it wouldn't keep coming up in different places. Creating a plausible and consistent world is a process that involves both story/characterization and gameplay, and sometimes, it can be more important than either individually.

What I'm saying is that I care about the presentation of a game very much but I'm not anal enough to think about the psychological implications of a game character resulting from the gameplay of the game. Anyone that anal doesn't like 99.9% of games, movies and books.

 

[Shambles]

this topic arises specifically from Naughty Dog repeatedly trying to portray Nate as an everyman. in trying to create a believable character that is recognisable to anyone familiar with typical western entertainment culture, they've effectively placed a giant magnifying-glass on the issue that is the weird contrast between a characters actions and their behavior.

This is what I meant earlier about trying to force our perspectives of the character onto the character itself, when really it's more about us adapting our perspectives to what the character really is. He is relaxed, charismatic, likable AND has no remorse for killing those who attack him, similar to the vast majority of characters in the genres of shooters which, according to the sales figures, we are ok with and enjoy. The killing is all done in plain site without any attempt to disguise what he is doing. He laughs in the face of death and in the face of killing and many love him for it.

 

[SolidSnakex]

But nobody in the world could kill as many people as Drake did in that game and have the same reactions unless he's a complete psychopath. It's just not possible.

Here's some dialog from the start of U1

Nathan: Uh... Pirates.

Elena: Pirates?!

Nathan: Yeah, the modern kind. They don't take prisoners.

Nathan: ...least not male prisoners.

Elena: Wait, what are you talking about?

Elena: Uh, sh - shouldn't we call the authorities or something?

Nathan: That'd be a great idea, but we don't exactly have a permit to be here.

Elena: What?

Nathan: Yeah, so unless you wanna end up in a Panamanian jail we should probably handle this ourselves.

Nathan starts loading the gun.

Elena: Wh - What's worse?

Nathan: You obviously haven't been in a Panamanian jail.

Now I bring this up largely to show that this isn't Drake's first time treasure hunting. In other words he's done this before and has likely had to kill before (which is why he keeps a gun on him). Which also means he could already have a comfort zone with defending his life in a way in which it'd mean that he'd have to take someone elses (who again, is trying to take his). Now that doesn't make him some mass murderer or psychopath. Because he's not actively looking to kill someone. He's just defending his own life.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Movies that are supposed to be more realistic and follow the protagonist's character (because afterall the most important element of a movie is the storytelling) don't do that and put everymans in impossible situations that they manage to escape from and you expect from a game to do it? Especially since the game has to sacrifice gameplay -the main element of a game- to do it.

I have to repeat this. Asking to sacrifice gameplay to follow the game's tone is preposterous. You have higher standards for the storytelling of games than of multimillion dollar Hollywood movies.

comparing movies to video games in this regard is a really messy, unattractive area of this discussion that I have no desire to take part in. It leads into all sorts of headache inducing branches, including, but not limited to: "well, maybe movies are just dumb nowadays", "video games pacing and presentation vary greatly from movies, how many enemies are dealt with over time is dramatically different" and "should we be content just molding the standard movies set long ago to fit a form of entertainment that is drastically different".

It other words, it's incredibly inelegant. Keeping the discussion based around video games and video games alone, and the standards that have only recently (last ten years or so) started taking shape is much more interesting to me.

Comparing Uncharted and the way it deals with enemies to Raiders is like trying to fit a square peg into a circle hole. Sure, if you hack away at it long enough you might be able to force it through, but why bother when there's a circle peg sitting right beside you.

 

[Margalis]

GTA has similar problems and is another game where the cutscenes / voice acting / etc badly mismatch what happens in the game itself. Many of the more level-headed reviewers picked up on that and a lot of the backlash came from the realization in retrospect that the characters' in game actions diverged wildly from the plotline.

 

[sonicmj1]

How is this note-worthy? This is true for nearly all protagonists in shooter games. You don't really think that the average soldier goes to war and individually kills a couple thousand enemy combatants? This is a fact of shooters that has been true since they first arrived. I'm not sure how you could see this in one instance but turn a blind eye to all the others. I mean if you're really going to put up a poster child put up GTA4 where you can kill half the city and still go about pretending you're just an average criminal.

The only movies I've seen that remind me of video games in this sense are Commando and Hard Boiled. In both films, the protagonists attack enemy lairs swarming with bad guys, and singlehandedly perpetuate violence against dozens of faceless foes. This sort of works in the context of the movie, because the characters are established as fearless, incredibly competent, and incredibly motivated. Even then, it's odd to see Arnold running through open ground to cover, getting missed by hails of bullets, and then popping up to mow down five men at a time with his machine gun, over and over and over. The focus of the film becomes the display of violence, not the plot or characterization.

In the best action movies, violence tends to be limited, and the bodycount rarely racks up as quickly. This both makes the obstacles that do exist (limited as they are) seem more perilous individually, and leaves lots of room for the plot and characters. Compare John McClane's successful defeat of twelve terrorists to Inspector Tequila's dispatching of hordes of gun-smuggling goons. Though the characters are similar, McClane seems to face greater odds, even in an objectively less perilous situation.

What Uncharted's example shows me is that even when a game absolutely nails its non-interactive elements, as Uncharted does, the gameplay plays a huge role in what sort of emotional impact is conveyed, and unless that evolves equally, the ability of the game to convey compelling characters is hampered.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

OP, so what you are saying that in 3rd person shooter, we should not shoot?

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Man you guys, I don't know, it's like you're trying to mold Uncharted into something it's not. It's not about shooting? The story is there to keep you going, giving you something (a reward) for overcoming a task (tough enemies + map layout + the weapons the enemies are using). When you finish a task you are rewarded by being shown the next segment in the story. You are also rewarded for solving the puzzles in the same way. Then when you beat the game you're going at it again because it's challenging and you want to get skill points to unlock stuff (more rewards). This is a game, a game about shooting. The rewards are the story, behind the scenes footage, skins, and such. The story is just part of the game<-. They can't sell just the story alone and call it a game.

Sorry for talking stupid. Uncharted is wacky, what's with all the guns and why isn't the whole game about stealth/avoiding violence? Naughty dog need to make the game 100% stealth, 30% platforming, 0% violence, and 600% story. Maybe their next franchise will hit the nail on the head, Blood Lust, the story of a frog trying to get a princess to kiss him.

 

[Raist]

It's a game, and a TPS. What are you expecting exactly?

And in Indy movies you have people getting their hearts ripped off, squashed by a mill, and being lied to by Indy so that they eventually pick the wrong grail and melt in 5ecs. Etc etc.
Sure, he doesn't kill 250 people per movie, but it has its share of violence.

 

[fortified_concept]

Btw all JRPG characters are psychotic butchers who have the fetish of murdering humans and animals with a sword. Don't let their cutey appearance fool you.

 

[Alx]

Indiana Jones cutes a guy head off when fighting near a airplane :lol

Well, technically he didn't do it, and he reacted like most sane people would (hiding his face) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4LVNDxbj38#t=3m34s

 

[aeolist]

Yes that is what I am saying

You should never shoot people in games

All of you are so clever for unmasking my devious hidden motivations

 

[zoukka]

Btw all JRPG characters are psychotic butchers who have the fetish of murdering humans and animals with a sword. Don't let their cutey appearance fool you.

Last time I checked Drake wasn't an elf, didn't live in another planet and wasn't written by Japanese pervs :b