I don't see anything wrong by trying to add a little more depth and thus perhaps a slightly darker tone to a game's story if you're mostly shooting and killing (bad?) people in it.
Sure people enjoyed Drake's character perhaps more because he filled this "everyday man" archetype, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have added a little more story to his character to make his actions more believable. I know the whole thing is unbelievable, but that's besides the point. It's about presenting a world that adds immersion to the player's actions, right? This doesn't mean't they have to change Drake into some buffed-up bald rude marine, but perhaps adding little hints that Drake is quite experienced with these extreme situations. For example after one of the first shoot-outs in the game have Elena comment on it by saying for example: "Oh my god Drake, you killed all of them!" and Drake replying: "It's not like I had much choice." Elena: "Who the hell are you anyway?" "You don't want to know." Haha I know, very cliche and silly. It would still however make the sitation perhaps slightly more believable in the game's world without removing Drake's "everyday man" charm. That makes the player's actions more believable and thus adding to its immersion.
Again, the problem isn't that a third person shooter game has lots of shooting, it's that (seemingly from the quote) Naughty Dog couldn't imagine any other way to make a game. They married that game to a slightly incongruous narrative because that's the part that makes a game different, supposedly.
I don't think anyone here is saying that they can't make shooters, they shouldn't make shooters or that uncharted shouldn't have shooting in it. It's that they made this gameplay/narrative dissonance problem for themselves, and that it needn't be the case. From my point of view, they don't seem to understand that from the specific interview quote.
I long for the day in which developers do this more. To everything that a player does - not just killing. Having characters in-game commenting or reacting differently based on the player's action is one of those "little things" in video games that enhance the experience. It's about ten years since your boss in Deus Ex scolded you for going into the women's toilet, and it's about time developers took notice.
Indeed and, well, it's just an evolution of what we have been getting all along, which is essential feedback for player actions. Providing more feedback simply makes for better storytelling on a moment to moment basis of what the player does aside from the pre-written, pre-designed shit provided as a framework of context by the game creators. As games are moving beyond gameplay that needs that essential feedback and starts demanding that our time 'playing' be focused also on lengthy story sequences and character dialogue, we need essential feedback if our actions with those characters are to really matter and stay consistent with what we do in the game. If you're going to push down the pre-built story and characters so heavily, you can't half-ass it for very long before this is a general expectation of games. For the polished game experience that relies upon uncontrollable cinematics as its primary storytelling method, our actions as players need to permeate all parts of the game and not just those parts in which we are directly in control of things.
It's disappointing that so many in this thread seem to miss a very simple point or take this as some sort of attack when, in basic terms, it's a compliment to Uncharted's writing as it's unlikely that anyone would have made this thread if Nate were simply another generic-enough stereotype of a character to inhabit for the player in this setting. And that goes back to what Margalis was talking about when saying that you can't have it both ways...you have to balance just how well-defined a player character is in order for their place in things to make sense without the need for extended explanation. Many games just need a generic construct for the player to take over for, while some are completely user-defined, and others, like Uncharted, are drawn in great detail by the game's storytelling. The more defined a character is (particularly in cutscenes), the greater the risk they can seem contrary to what the player does with them in the game...especially ones that afford the player a lot of freedom of actions that potentially ride one side of the line or the other...a line that may have been set down by characterization given in the game.
It's not a game breaker, but it can stick out for some folks. And I don't see how anyone is asking for Drake to sit for a moment and have an emotional reaction to what the player has done, like shoot twenty dudes in a row where, in UC, it's a requirement to progress. If they aren't going to go all the way and make a gameplay flow that fits what they want to do story-wise, then what I prefer, at the least, is to have alternate cutscenes/dialogue that reflects what I chose to do or what is going on in the game better.
chicken_ramen said:
B is basically Any Hennig's argument in the quote.
There's two camps here and I don't think the defensive camp really get the issue being complained about. I don't think Amy Hennig really answered the problem in what she said either.
Just to declare my bias up front, I found Uncharted's gunplay to be completely unsatisfying. I did like the characters and the acting though.
The problem isn't that a shooter has lots of shooting in it. The problem is that Naughty Dog seem to think here that games are shooters. In the Hennig quote she says the only type of character games people will get if the narrative matches the metaphor are military games. I think the answer is a complete cop out. It seems to suggest that games are just shooting lots of stuff, and that to make a different type of game you just dress the shooting in different locations and characters. You have to abstract gaming out to a significant level before all possible mechanics are simply killing/overcoming obstacles. That any given game mechanic (suitable to string a character based narrative around) would only fit well with a military setting is completely untrue and perhaps indicative of why the game was just so combat heavy. It's the only mechanic they came up with.
Again, the problem isn't that a third person shooter game has lots of shooting, it's that (seemingly from the quote) Naughty Dog couldn't imagine any other way to make a game. They married that game to a slightly incongruous narrative because that's the part that makes a game different, supposedly.
I don't think anyone here is saying that they can't make shooters, they shouldn't make shooters or that uncharted shouldn't have shooting in it. It's that they made this gameplay/narrative dissonance problem for themselves, and that it needn't be the case. From my point of view, they don't seem to understand that from the specific interview quote.
Exactly. There's nothing forcing them to adopt the cover-shooter game design as is without appropriate changes to reflect their characters and setting. They didn't want to mold it to fit as that would obviously have taken a great deal more effort. I'm not saying they were lazy exactly, just that they weren't taking tremendous risks with the basic design to suit their unique offerings in their presentation.
They aren't zombies - they are the Spaniards infected by the virus and inbred for generations and generations (and I assume haven't seen light). It didn't really get explained well
Good point, though. One of my favorite things about Shenmue is how few and far between the battles are (compared to other games, of course). The only issue I had with that design choice was the slow rate at which I learned the fighting system. (Yeah, you can spar with Fuku-san occasionally and practice in vacant lots, but that doesn't prepare you for a real, intense battle). They fixed that to some degree in Shenmue 2, with the ability to spar with the street fighters for money whenever you wanted.
And, of course, so many self-described "hardcore gamers" hated that about Shenmue, which I guess says a lot. Gamers, on the whole, expect and want to mow down hundreds of enemies and aren't happy unless they're able to do that constantly.
Zzoram said:
I think the point is that games haven't gotten past that crutch. When will games get more interesting things to do than defeat hordes of faceless enemies to pad the hours?
It's a very interesting point that the OP brings. Anyone taking it as a Naughty Dog / Uncharted bashing needs to take a break for this thread's good, for the issue clearly applies to other games.
And not an easy problem to solve. Games need to be longer than movies, which automatically means they need to have more action sequences (especially in action games).
Plus how do you make a fighting system that makes you feel like an everyman ? Certainly not impossible, but then again how many gamers (gaffers and others) would like to play a game where you're not instantly badass ?
People complain more and more everytime of the "generic character" syndrom, where all of them are angry guys seeking revenge etc etc.
But isn't this problem also directly gameplay-related ? If you're gonna have the player kill thousands of guys on his own, there's not a lot of different character-types that would match this type of gameplay.
According the OP (haven't played the game myself), Uncharted is proof that it gets weird.
This could also be applied to GTA IV, in a different fashion. Basically the story is supposed to be about a guy who arrives in the USA and didn't ask anything from anybody but got carried away into bad stuff because of the mafia/gangs and despite his good will.
Fine, but I'm sure the first thing we all did when we took control of Bellic was breaking into a car, drove it dangerously and far too fast, eventually leading to an accident, or a chase with the police, and don't get me started on all the pedestrians that got bumped into in the process; and that was way before any mafia/gang/thug was involved.
So. Are games doomed to angry-badass characters ? D:
No. The audience is there, it just needs to have the right games to bring 'em out. Appealing to only the reliable audiences composed of traditional power-fantasy craving gamers isn't going to make it easy to see new types of games and different types of writing. It's going to have to take real risks in design and not clinging to the same ol' shit that we see year in and year out.
Not to mention the fact that a good number of those deaths(possibly most of them) weren't directly his fault, those deaths take place over multiple movies, he didn't just shoot everyone(or alternatively snap their freaking necks), and I don't remember the writers claiming that Indy was ever Normal McAverageguy to hype him up.
Come on guys, you can't just say "Indiana Jones" whenever people find something wrong with Uncharted's narrative, or characters or what have you.
Really the OP's point isn't a problem for me(it's a game and all that), but it's a pretty good point.
No the statue was referred to as being cursed by the island's inhabitants. But was later revealed as a virus/mutagen towards the end. That's why Navarro planned to sell it as a weapon
Never thought of it until you pointed out, and it's true. But you know, if ND keep the enemys to a "makes sense" level, the game would loose some of his greatest moments and it will resemble more to the firsts Tomb Raiders.
So many people here are completely missing the point.
Yeah, not shooting in a third person shooter would be dumb, but NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.
Yeah, the body count being in the 100's or 1000's would make no difference, but NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.
Yeah, movies can be as much or even more violent, but NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.
Yeah, it's pretty much nitpicking and not ruining one of the best games on the PS3, but NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.
What people are (or probably should be) discussing is the fact the central part of the gameplay, shooting swarms of pirates/mercenaries in the face to progress, has a serious disconnect with the much more lighthearted mood and tone of the story. It's just a matter of consistency, and - yes - people whining that "it's just a game", "it happens everywhere", "RPGs are even more weird/creepy" or "don't touch my precious PS3 exxxxclusive" are part of the problem.
Uncharted is just an example, and is often chosen because - thanks to Naughty Dog's excellent characterization, and their brave choices for setting and tone in a generation dominated by gritty bald space marines blowing up aliens - it's probably one of the most blatant ones. The issue stands out, people notice and want to discuss, but it has little to do with Uncharted by itself and much more to do with videogames in general and the maturity of this media. Yeah, I'm talking about maturity because we're talking about a media where Rated M for Mature means having the screen splattered in red, filled with decapitations and parallaxmapped polygonal boobies. AKA the very definition of 13 year old males' interests, very narrow and far from mature, which set pretty harsh limitations on game designers's freedom nowadays.
I think Tiktaalik had it right in these posts (sorry man if I'm quoting just a few selected lines, I'm trying to get to my point, so feel free to contradict me if I somehow misinterpreted yours):
Tiktaalik said:
It feels really weird to go to this island as an "every day man" and mow down like 700 pirates.
The problem with the Indiana Jones example is that while yes he does kill people, if you really break it down there are a ton action sequences in those movies that come down to big chases or physical brawls. I fail to see why it would be impossible to replace "headshot gameplay" with grabbing a guy and throwing him into a pile of boxes, the latter idea probably being what Indiana Jones would do.
Indeed the recent Batman: Arkham Asylum I think had a very accurate and movielike portrayal of action and violence and I think proved that this sort of thing is possible.
I focused on these posts because they're more aligned with my opinion on the matter, my (small, in the grand scheme of things) issue with Uncharted lies in basically a few game design choices - probably caused by what the market wants, AKA mindlessly shooting stuff and blowing up shit - that end up feeling weird because of the way videogames in general are evolving. We're going towards Hollywood blockbuster experiences that cost millions, ultrarealistic graphixx and shaderz, but in the end we're always playing the same games as twenty years ago and we're dangerously close to a gameplay uncanny valley where the disconnect between realistic presentation and unrealistic gameplay becomes so blatant to reduce the overall immersion.
You notice something is odd, you can make excuses like "oh well, who cares, it's just a game", but this undeniably makes the overall experience worse: you shouldn't think it's just a game, you should enjoy the experience forgetting you're playing a game (AKA the exact opposite).
And this is where the problem is mostly lying at: the user who said we need a dictionary to expand our gaming vocabulary had it right, gameplay needs to evolve too and a designer must never forget consistency. If you're designing an adventure game that feels like a shooter to appeal to the shooting crowd, you still need to try and stay consistent, there's always a good way to do it. Either you do, or people will notice.
Modern tech allows a much more varied gameplay, and this can help a designer greatly: you can go on the old route of filling the game with hordes of faceless grunts, or add destructible elements (other than generic explosive barrels, for fuck's sake... if you're exploring ancient ruins you should be able to set up traps or make stuff crumble over them rendering them unconscious) to the scenery. Chasing or more fast-paced escape scenes. A bit more stealth (you could be stealthy two or three times during the whole game, and other pirates pretty much always noticed you and started shooting) or the ability to avoid enemies instead of being forced to kill them all to progress. Events and twists (like the awesome
collapsing wooden structure
). This is a smart way to take some focus out of excessive, out of place, gunplay and build a much more compelling experience, and I'm happy the Uncharted designers actually used it a bit. I'm aware hordes of goons are a faster and cheaper way to populate your game but I think they really went overboard, thus making the disconnect really noticeable, and some scenes repetitive or even predictable (every time you saw a large area full of covers you knew a shooting sequence would be coming, and you knew the horde would have ended with one or two muscled dudes wielding a shotgun trying to one-shot kill you). A different balance, maybe even limited to shorter waves of enemies and a few more tricks up your sleeve when fighting them, would have helped a lot if you ask me.
tl;dr version: yes, Uncharted suffers from this disconnect, which leads to a gameplay uncanny valley that doesn't hurt the game much, but could have been limited a bit by rebalancing some stuff here and there. But Uncharted is just an example that stands out, designers in general should always stay consistent or people will notice and feel something is off.
To return to Half Life for a moment, Gordon Freeman has a Ph D in Theoretical Physics from MIT, and yet can't interact with simple computer panels. Every time I have to mess with a giant head-sized electrical plug in HL2, I think to myself, "Dur.... I'm a scientist...beep boop beep." And then I proceed to whack electronics with a crowbar for a bit.
To return to Half Life for a moment, Gordon Freeman has a Ph D in Theoretical Physics from MIT, and yet can't interact with simple computer panels. Every time I have to mess with a giant head-sized electrical plug in HL2, I think to myself, "Dur.... I'm a scientist...beep boop beep." And then I proceed to whack electronics with a crowbar for a bit.
A simple thing that might have eased the disconnect a bit (at least for me personally) is that it always seemed like Drake was killing these pirates to get to where he was going. If it was illustrated more like Drake on the run from them, it might've been different. But he was an "everyman" going head on into conflicts with shitloads of pirates
I agree completely. Drake didn't feel like he was being hunted down, he often felt like the one hunting down people (sometimes you can even see them quietly patrolling areas, and they only react when they see you invading them).
A simple thing that might have eased the disconnect a bit (at least for me personally) is that it always seemed like Drake was killing these pirates to get to where he was going. If it was illustrated more like Drake on the run from them, it might've been different. But he was an "everyman" going head on into conflicts with shitloads of pirates
I always thought it would be interesting to play an action adventure as a homocidal sociopath who believes he is doing the "right" thing. And as the story progresses as a player you slowly realize you're in fact playing the bad guy.
Of course the game should then give you the option to continue on your killing path or let you try to set the things "right" you've done "wrong" up until that point. As some sort of twisted moral dilemma.
I agree completely. Drake didn't feel like he was being hunted down, he often felt like the one hunting down people (sometimes you can even see them quietly patrolling areas, and they only react when they see you invading them).
The game starts with Nate hunting for Francis Drake's coffin underwater and getting assaulted by 10 pirate ships. And he's not being hunted down?
And no, Drake is not a "every day man" character. Well, he is when you compare him to lambda western shooters characters who usually look like they took tons of amphetamines, and are complete machos. But he's still a treasure hunter, who had issues with authorities in the past.
I don't see any discrepancy between Drake's background and personality and what he does ingame.
I mean, do you know many archeology professors that are badass with a whip, kick ass all around the world and make nazis and other usual baddies bite the dust? I don't. So arguing that Nathan Drake and Indiany Jones are worlds apart and that the latter is "classy" or whatever is kind of silly.
Uncharted, and Drake, are pretty much a tribute to pulp action movies. It's not because he is kinda light-hearted and makes jokes that having him kill evil pirates is totally out-of-character.
The game starts with Nate hunting for Francis Drake's coffin underwater and getting assaulted by 10 pirate ships. And he's not being hunted down?
And no, Drake is not a "every day man" character. Well, he is when you compare him to lambda western shooters characters who usually look like they took tons of amphetamines, and are complete machos. But he's still a treasure hunter, who had issues with authorities in the past.
I don't see any discrepancy between Drake's background and personality and what he does ingame.
I mean, do you know many archeology professors that are badass with a whip, kick ass all around the world and make nazis and other usual baddies bite the dust? I don't. So arguing that Nathan Drake and Indiany Jones are worlds apart and that the latter is "classy" or whatever is kind of silly.
Uncharted, and Drake, are pretty much a tribute to pulp action movies. It's not because he is kinda light-hearted and makes jokes that having him kill evil pirates is totally out-of-character.
That felt right at the start, but then you eventually get to a point where it seems like he's trudging across these islands and decimating everyone in his path. Rather than avoiding or being on the run, it seems like you're going to the enemies rather than them searching for you. I mean half the time the poor blokes are just having a smoke and watching their supplies before being annihilated by the Drake. I'm not saying it'd be easy to avoid this, that's just how it felt to me at certain points.
And I agree you're right about his background, but Naughty Dog were the ones pitching him as the average joe.
The game starts with Nate hunting for Francis Drake's coffin underwater and getting assaulted by 10 pirate ships. And he's not being hunted down?
And no, Drake is not a "every day man" character. Well, he is when you compare him to lambda western shooters characters who usually look like they took tons of amphetamines, and are complete machos. But he's still a treasure hunter, who had issues with authorities in the past.
I don't see any discrepancy between Drake's background and personality and what he does ingame.
I mean, do you know many archeology professors that are badass with a whip, kick ass all around the world and make nazis and other usual baddies bite the dust? I don't. So arguing that Nathan Drake and Indiany Jones are worlds apart and that the latter is "classy" or whatever is kind of silly.
Uncharted, and Drake, are pretty much a tribute to pulp action movies. It's not because he is kinda light-hearted and makes jokes that having him kill evil pirates is totally out-of-character.
Way to take a sentence out of context. Did you miss my gigantic post up here? I just said he often feels like the one who's hunting because this is what I ironically ended up feeling sometimes during gameplay, but my actual point was in my previous post.
That felt right at the start, but then you eventually get to a point where it seems like he's trudging across these islands and decimating everyone in his path. Rather than avoiding or being on the run, it seems like you're going to the enemies rather than them searching for you. I mean half the time the poor blokes are just having a smoke and watching their supplies before being annihilated by the Drake. I'm not saying it'd be easy to avoid this, that's just how it felt to me at certain points.
And I agree you're right about his background, but Naughty Dog were the ones pitching him as the average joe.
The OP's point is valid, and was just as valid in 1997 when Eidos thought it would be a good idea to turn Lara Croft into a mass murderer by loading Tomb Raider 2 down with tons of human enemies. Ugh.
Just one of the reasons why the original TR was a much better game.
I think his attitude is what makes Nathan so bad ass.
He is constantly afraid, reluctant to fight and has his back against a wall. Yet, he always comes out on top against any odds and not because he is a coward who constantly runs.
Even he is surprised to still be alive after every battle. I think that's what makes him an everyman.
Yeah, ND's idea of an average joe is rather deranged. I know a lot of average men o) but none of them really fit Drake's description
-The good looks of a model
-The dexterity of a gymnast
-The determination to hold a risky and unstable job
-The strength to kill a man twice his size with a 3 punch combo and fling himself between large gaps with ease
-A high proficiency with a range of military grade weaponry
-The mentality to shrug off an upcoming mercenary/pirate raid and calmly pick up a gun to shoot them all in the face, then proceeding to make a witty remark when done
Everyman indeed *rolls eyes*.
Also what the hell kind of mercenary group is thousands of men strong and doesn't call it quits when getting completely massacred?
That felt right at the start, but then you eventually get to a point where it seems like he's trudging across these islands and decimating everyone in his path. Rather than avoiding or being on the run, it seems like you're going to the enemies rather than them searching for you. I mean half the time the poor blokes are just having a smoke and watching their supplies before being annihilated by the Drake. I'm not saying it'd be easy to avoid this, that's just how it felt to me at certain points.
And I agree you're right about his background, but Naughty Dog were the ones pitching him as the average joe.
Well I've always been a fan of "the plot should support the game mechanics" school of game design. If naughty dog wanted countless baddies for us to slaughter, they needed a better justification then "They're hired mercenaries for one rich shady dude".
Also as I said earlier, the supernatural elements made me facepalm.
I'm going to play some Uncharted tonight to refresh my memory before hopping back into this thread.
I feel that it's okay to break the illusion of realism in a story (be it games, films, fiction, etc) as long as it doesn't break the rules that have been established by the world the story takes place in. As an example, if it's established that the story takes place in a world that werewolves exist, I won't laugh off the inclusion of said beasts as unrealistic.
So what it comes down to, for me, is how the characters act based on the established rules of the world that Uncharted takes place in. It's been too long since I've played the game to comment directly on it but I'll contribute something to this thread later on.
I can say that I do feel that characterizing Drake as a "murderer" seems like a bit of a stretch, but I could be wrong. My memory of playing Uncharted isn't of Nate needlessly killing, or killing for fun. I could be wrong.
I remember having these same feelings when playing Uncharted. However, I feel that Naughty Dog tried to tone down the violence by keeping the blood to a minimum, earning the game a Teen rating. I'm not arguing that amount of killing in this game isn't incongruous with Drake as an everyman, but I believe making the violence a little more cartoony and unrealistic helped alleviate this a bit.
That felt right at the start, but then you eventually get to a point where it seems like he's trudging across these islands and decimating everyone in his path. Rather than avoiding or being on the run, it seems like you're going to the enemies rather than them searching for you. I mean half the time the poor blokes are just having a smoke and watching their supplies before being annihilated by the Drake. I'm not saying it'd be easy to avoid this, that's just how it felt to me at certain points.
And I agree you're right about his background, but Naughty Dog were the ones pitching him as the average joe.
Well I dunno. You never purposedly go somewhere just to kill baddies. It's not like there is a scene where Drake goes like "omg I found their outpost, let's suprise them while they sleep and slit everyone's throat lolz". At no point in the game did he take the initiative,, and that is illustrated by the fact that the bad guys are already whenever he goes.
He had his boat blown up, his plane shot down, his best friend almost killed, etc etc etc.
And again, I'm really not sure that they advertised Drake as the average Joe. However, they did design and presented him as a different character than your average shooter hero.
Jocchan said:
Way to take a sentence out of context. Did you miss my gigantic post up here? I just said he often feels like the one who's hunting because this is what I ironically ended up feeling sometimes during gameplay, but my actual point was in my previous post.
Well I dunno, you wrote that, not me. You also agreed on the fact that Indy is supposedly classy and doesn't kill without a reason, which is totally wrong IMO. I never felt it was the case in the game, and muck like light-hearted and not I'm-a-big-macho-on-a-killing-spree characters, he kills the bad guys to survive. I don't see any inconsistency in that.
Wow, that's a lot of replies. I kind of agree with the OP. I was always a little bit put off by the casual approach to killing in the game, as it sort of flies against the otherwise decent characterization. Especially in the opening scene on the boat, you'd think at least Elena would have some reaction to being suddenly asked to murder someone with a gun. In order to pad their length, and provide the type of challenges gamers are used to, games tend to make killing a routine affair, instead of something that would probably have a profound psychological effect on anyone who did it even once.
I've always found that a little weird about games. Think about the biggest badasses or the most murderous bastards or the most successful soldiers out there. I would bet that not one person in history has killed as many people in combat as Nathan Drake did over the course of that game. Think of the swordsmen or duelists that have become legends over the course of time. I doubt there are any of them who killed more than a hundred people over the course of their entire lives. Each battle was a life or death affair. You very rarely get that feeling in games, obviously because the designer doesn't want to frustrate the gamer with what they might perceive as a cheap death. I kind of liked the one-shot kill guys in Uncharted. It gave a real feeling of danger that's pretty rare. Of course, it did result in me replaying certain sections more times than I would have liked, so it's probably not too practical in the end.
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.
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.
I remember playing the demo of Uncharted 1 back in the day, and there was just something holding it back from being really awesome, and I think you just perfectly explained what it was, OP.
Once I started playing the game, I realized that he wasn't quite the "everyman in the wrong situation" that I thought he was gonna be. That didn't really take away from his character for me, he just turned out to be more of a "affable hero/explorer type who isn't afraid of killing dudes", and that's still an interesting guy to follow in the context of that game.
I dunno, I can see why people are bothered by it, but it didn't really bother me.
You can better simulate everyman Drake if you play it on Crushing where you die just about every time you stick your head out from cover and end up replaying each area 20 times.
Misread your post. I read it as "when doesn't this happen" . Anyway I was joking a bit. But yeah there were defiantly parts in the game were you yourself were setting up the ambushes. I guess the problem is video game level design doesn't really replicate what real terrain is like, so you're constantly bottle necked into set pieces when in real life you could, you know, take a small detour and sneak around the enemy camp using the dense foliage to stay out of sight rather then being forced through it.
Maybe this is going a bit in the other direction in making the problem worse, but does anyone else feel that the game would be better if it had a bit more blood/violence to it? Not like Gears-style buckets of gore and dismemberment, but just a bit of blood when you shoot dudes, sometimes. At least then it would feel a bit more honest, even if still just as incongruous.
edit: holy fuck this was a dumb post. shows you how much I've played uncharted, I completely forgot that the game was already like this
Yeah, ND's idea of an average joe is rather deranged. I know a lot of average men o) but none of them really fit Drake's description
-The good looks of a model
-The dexterity of a gymnast
-The determination to hold a risky and unstable job
-The strength to kill a man twice his size with a 3 punch combo and fling himself between large gaps with ease
-A high proficiency with a range of military grade weaponry
-The mentality to shrug off an upcoming mercenary/pirate raid and calmly pick up a gun to shoot them all in the face, then proceeding to make a witty remark when done
It was a bad idea to call Drake an everyman other than in contrast to the more extreme 'badass' protagonists. But Uncharted (and Indy) are heavily inspired in pulp serials. Drake's a pulp hero. Uncharted's world is a pulp world. That's why he punches like a sledgehammer and kills nameless goons without a thought, despite there being little reason for him to have these abilities. It isn't the real world, but it's own (IMO) internally consistent one, it sticks well the genre. It requires suspension of disbelief.
Also what the hell kind of mercenary group is thousands of men strong and doesn't call it quits when getting completely massacred?
Fair enough, but to avoid the double-standard this should be held against all games. I can't think of a single one where the enemies just capitulate before your invincible super-soldier's increasingly unlikely conquests. Pretty much all games would fail this test. Or, alternately, you could accept the gaming medium's own contrivances -- goons exist to be shot.
Well I dunno, you wrote that, not me. You also agreed on the fact that Indy is supposedly classy and doesn't kill without a reason, which is totally wrong IMO. I never felt it was the case in the game, and muck like light-hearted and not I'm-a-big-macho-on-a-killing-spree characters, he kills the bad guys to survive. I don't see any inconsistency in that.
I agreed on the fact Indy doesn't go around with an AK shooting Nazis in the face, which - I hope we can agree on this - is a bit different from what happens during most of the gameplay in Uncharted. I'm not denying Drake's motivation (trying to survive in an island full of mercenaries trying to kill him), it would be completely silly, but the excessive focus on shooting (again, see my long-ass post) sometimes can make it hard for his motivation to get to the player intact during the actual gameplay. If you don't feel anything's off, that's good for you. But some people do find a few inconsistencies, and the fact you don't doesn't mean they're not there.
EDIT:
obonicus said:
It was a bad idea to call Drake an everyman other than in contrast to the more extreme 'badass' protagonists. But Uncharted (and Indy) are heavily inspired in pulp serials. Drake's a pulp hero. Uncharted's world is a pulp world. That's why he punches like a sledgehammer and kills nameless goons without a thought, despite there being little reason for him to have these abilities. It isn't the real world, but it's own (IMO) internally consistent one, it sticks well the genre. It requires suspension of disbelief.
Fair enough, but to avoid the double-standard this should be held against all games. I can't think of a single one where the enemies just capitulate before your invincible super-soldier's increasingly unlikely conquests. Pretty much all games would fail this test. Or, alternately, you could accept the gaming medium's own contrivances -- goons exist to be shot.
Cannon fodder and redshirts exist in every media, but the fact videogames still have to rely on tons of them is a symptom of this media's lack of maturity.
i think you make a great point, aeolist. that's a pretty astute observation that i don't think i would have consciously picked up on.
AltogetherAndrews said:
Maybe this doesn't belong in this thread, but why is body count and shooter focus the new current standard for problem conflict resolution? Yes, it's a video game, but does that mean that mass murder is the best possible option? I'm absolutely part of the problem, if there is a problem, but I think it's interesting that so many of my games focus on dealing death to ridiculously large amounts of enemies.
another great point. this sort of adventure game would have been better served by a small group or even a single antagonist who makes drake's life hard. firefights could have been limited but extremely polished and directed, and shooting to kill could have been a last option. this would serve a dual purpose: not only would it jibe better with what aeolist points out about it being incongruous with the character and tone of the game, but it would also make the gunfights you do have some gravitas.
but trying to explain the concept of "less is more" and "restraint" to many people in creative fields is a fool's errand.
BattleMonkey said:
Shooting game has shooting lots of shit in it, news at 11.
Uncharted is not an adventure game, it's not an Indiana Jones movie, it's a shooter.
ops miss read your post Need to edit my responce :lol.