Nathan Fillion Wants You to Stop Pestering the Uncharted Director

[Shoelip]

Kind of off topic, but all this makes me wonder if anyone would care if Kristen Bell didn't get cast as Lucy Stilwell in the seemingly impending Assassin's Creed movie considering she has experience in lead roles in TV, movies, and stage performance, and is both the VA and physical model for the character.

If that's a list of shooters, I will have to repeat the question: WTF is Fallout New Vegas doing on that list? And Fallout 3 for that matter? Maybe you hadn't heard, but they're RPGs, not shooters.

lul wut?


They may have RPG elements, but they're shooters man. You're in the first person perspective. And the main way you interact with the game is by shooting at things.

They're shooters.

Maybe RPG shooters. Or FPSRPG.

But they're still shooters.

You can be in third person and you can complete the whole game without using a gun. That's why they have a multitude of non-combat skills.

Edit: OT, I think Bradley Cooper would be a better choice, even though I like Fillion and he definitely looks the part.

Hm, I just have to cut in here and point out that the non-combat skills in the game are completely non-essential and you can easily finish the game without using them. You cannot however finish the game without killing stuff. The game is all about killing stuff. It's a Bethesda game for crying out loud. Oh yeah, and saying it's not an FPS because you can go to a third person perspective is about as sane as saying Rainbow Six Vegas isn't an FPS because you can go to a third person perspective.

It's been confirmed that a player can complete Fallout 3 while only being required to kill a single creature (a Radroach during the tutorial), and New Vegas can be completed without killing anything. So I sumbit that combat skills in the game are just as non-essential as non-combat skills depending upon your build and know-how.

All that means is that there's no part in the main storyline where you are locked into a situation where the only way to trigger the next event is for you personally to kill something. The NV tutorial for example is all about killing things, but it's optional. Then you can just run away from all the mindlessly suicidal/homicidal enemies you'll inevitably encounter unless you know in advance where they are and have planned to sneak past them. Avoid the majority of sidequests since they require combat for completion... etc. Yeah, maybe you can technically avoid killing anything in NV, but the same could be said for some levels of Doom. Just run past the imps and former humans to the keys, the doors, and eventually the exit.

Just because you can technically do it doesn't mean it isn't completely contrary to the intended purpose of the game.

 

[OutforEC]

Kind of off topic, but all this makes me wonder if anyone would care if Kristen Bell didn't get cast as Lucy Stilwell in the seemingly impending Assassin's Creed movie considering she has experience in lead roles in TV, movies, and stage performance, and is both the VA and physical model for the character.

If that's a list of shooters, I will have to repeat the question: WTF is Fallout New Vegas doing on that list? And Fallout 3 for that matter? Maybe you hadn't heard, but they're RPGs, not shooters.

lul wut?


They may have RPG elements, but they're shooters man. You're in the first person perspective. And the main way you interact with the game is by shooting at things.

They're shooters.

Maybe RPG shooters. Or FPSRPG.

But they're still shooters.

You can be in third person and you can complete the whole game without using a gun. That's why they have a multitude of non-combat skills.

Edit: OT, I think Bradley Cooper would be a better choice, even though I like Fillion and he definitely looks the part.

Hm, I just have to cut in here and point out that the non-combat skills in the game are completely non-essential and you can easily finish the game without using them. You cannot however finish the game without killing stuff. The game is all about killing stuff. It's a Bethesda game for crying out loud. Oh yeah, and saying it's not an FPS because you can go to a third person perspective is about as sane as saying Rainbow Six Vegas isn't an FPS because you can go to a third person perspective.

It's been confirmed that a player can complete Fallout 3 while only being required to kill a single creature (a Radroach during the tutorial), and New Vegas can be completed without killing anything. So I sumbit that combat skills in the game are just as non-essential as non-combat skills depending upon your build and know-how.

All that means is that there's no part in the main storyline where you are locked into a situation where the only way to trigger the next event is for you personally to kill something. The NV tutorial for example is all about killing things, but it's optional. Then you can just run away from all the mindlessly suicidal/homicidal enemies you'll inevitably encounter unless you know in advance where they are and have planned to sneak past them. Avoid the majority of sidequests since they require combat for completion... etc. Yeah, maybe you can technically avoid killing anything in NV, but the same could be said for some levels of Doom. Just run past the imps and former humans to the keys, the doors, and eventually the exit.

Just because you can technically do it doesn't mean it isn't completely contrary to the intended purpose of the game.

From Wikipedia: "The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively, boundless of artificial structural constraints, and with there being "no right way" of playing the game."

I think of Fallout as an RPG with some possible FPS/TPS gameplay, and nothing I've seen so far in my 200+ hours of play has made that opinion change. 'Shooter', the word that originally started this tangent of ours, is one of the last words I would use to sum-up Fallout, since out of 5 different characters I've personally made, only one of them even uses a gun regularly. Stealth, Diplomacy, Melee Weapons, Explosives, all of these allow for much more freedom to play creatively than the average 'shooter'.

Of course, like all good sandbox games, YMMV.

 

[fenderstrat]

i like nathan as an actor, but i dont like how he's using nerds to reach his goals.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

Besides the fact that I think making a Uncharted movie is a bad idea and would just result in another Indiana Jones/Tomb Raider/National Treasure re-hash but there are also much richer and original game stories/settings to draw from than Uncharted of all things.

I don't see why people are so adamant for Fillion to get the role... he doesn't even particularly look like Nathan Drake, nor have his previous works been all that great either.
They've not been terrible either - but why exactly Nathan Fillion?

 

[Denamic]

Besides the fact that I think making a Uncharted movie is a bad idea and would just result in another Indiana Jones/Tomb Raider/National Treasure re-hash but there are also much richer and original game stories/settings to draw from than Uncharted of all things.

I don't see why people are so adamant for Fillion to get the role... he doesn't even particularly look like Nathan Drake, nor have his previous works been all that great either.
They've not been terrible either - but why exactly Nathan Fillion?

Because he's perfect, that's why.
He could play the perfect Nathan Drake.
The role was pretty much made for him.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

GTA IV
GTA VC
Fallout 3
RDR
Fallout NV
BFBC2
CoD Blops
Modern warfare 2
Matro 2033
Stalker
Halo

Yeah the shooting opposite ethnicities part is wrong.

You can't really count games like Fallout.
1.Ya you pick your race at the beginning, but in Fallout there are only about 3 "human" races. Irradiated, Ghoul, and Supper Mutant.
2.Those parts mentioned above are the only people who have any racial tension in the games.

Also, when people talk about race with "people" what they really mean is just our different colors. We are all of the human race. So when you put games where the enemies are all aliens that could be more correctly called racist because all the bad guys/girls are of a different race than human.

Also, I think that the complaint is more about the person you play as always being some white guy(almost never a girl either), and not some one with a different skin tone.

 

[Julianking93]

I... Sam Worthington?
Okay, I could kinda get Mark Wahlberg but... Sam Worthington?
WHAT???
First off, he's absolutely nothing like Nathan Drake, in looks or personality so who's dumbass idea was that?
Sorry for sounding like a ranting fanboy here (I don't even really like the Uncharted series) but the idea of him as the lead is just... stupid. Not only does he look nor act nothing like the main character... but the guy can't really act in general. He's decent enough in some things but for the most part, he's just kinda bland.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

Because he's perfect, that's why. [Don't hold back on the superlatives or anything ^^]
He could play the perfect Nathan Drake. [based on..?]
The role was pretty much made for him.[based on..?]

You do realise that you didn't actually give any reasons at all right there.
You're basically saying "just because"... which is the general vibe I seem to be getting
No concrete reasons, just some random and unfounded preference.
(In fact you could pretty much replace "Nathan Fillion" with any other actor and give those exact same "reasons" you did)

 

[OutforEC]

If that's a list of shooters, I will have to repeat the question: WTF is Fallout New Vegas doing on that list? And Fallout 3 for that matter? Maybe you hadn't heard, but they're RPGs, not shooters.

lul wut?


They may have RPG elements, but they're shooters man. You're in the first person perspective. And the main way you interact with the game is by shooting at things.

They're shooters.

Maybe RPG shooters. Or FPSRPG.

But they're still shooters.

You can be in third person and you can complete the whole game without using a gun. That's why they have a multitude of non-combat skills.

Edit: OT, I think Bradley Cooper would be a better choice, even though I like Fillion and he definitely looks the part.

You can complete Crysis 2 by killing very, very ,very few people if you abuse the stealth system. And to my knowledge. The ones you do kill, you can do with the butt of your gun.

Is Crysis then not a shooter?

Fallout is at it's core, a shooter. Regardless of whether the game can be completed without killing things. The gameplay is based on shooting things.

Also Gears is a shooter. That's all in the third person.

You stated that Fallout is, and I quote "in the first person perspective". I stated that it can be played in the third person as well.

You stated that Fallout is a shooter. I stated that the gameplay, rather than being based on shooting things, can be accomplished in other ways. Ways that the developers put into the game specifically to facilitate different ways to achieve your objectives.

Borderlands is a shooter with RPG elements. Fallout is an RPG with shooter elements.

 

[Denamic]

You do realise that you didn't actually give any reasons at all right there.
You're basically saying "just because"... which is the general vibe I seem to be getting
No concrete reasons, just some random and unfounded preference.
(In fact you could pretty much replace "Nathan Fillion" with any other actor and give those exact same "reasons" you did)

No you couldn't.
Because they aren't Nathan Fillion.

 

[OutforEC]

It is in the first person perspective.

You pick up a gun and shoot things. It isn't a side option added on to a completely different game. Shooting things is a large part of it.

Whether you like it or not. It's a shooter.

All I can say is that I'm glad my first-hand experience has been vastly different than yours.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

No you couldn't.
Because they aren't Nathan Fillion.

Ah-ha. Fanboy. Should have just said so in your first post and saved us some time.
It was either going to be that or someone extremely young

 

[Susan Arendt]

Besides the fact that I think making a Uncharted movie is a bad idea and would just result in another Indiana Jones/Tomb Raider/National Treasure re-hash but there are also much richer and original game stories/settings to draw from than Uncharted of all things.

I don't see why people are so adamant for Fillion to get the role... he doesn't even particularly look like Nathan Drake, nor have his previous works been all that great either.
They've not been terrible either - but why exactly Nathan Fillion?

Because he's perfect, that's why.
He could play the perfect Nathan Drake.
The role was pretty much made for him.

Nathan Drake is, in part, based on Captain Malcolm Reynolds, which makes Nathan Fillion an obvious choice.

That said, as much as I adore NF, I think he's a touch too old to play Nate Drake. And he needs an ensemble to shine - I think whoever ends up playing Drake needs to be able to own the screen all by themselves.

 

[xchurchx]

why do we want this guy to be nathan drake? everyone says he looks like drake and i can say, no, he dosn't! i'm starting to get a little tired of this guy's name apearing on all threads linked to the game

 

[elcamino41383]

Not Sam Worthington! the man cannnot act, Why has he become the go to guy when you need bland and uninteresting.

Avatar? Nobody went to see it because Worthington was in it, Clash of the Titans? The bloody Kraken manages to emote more than that man

Agreed 100%. Wahlberg wasn't a good choice for Drake either but this is even worse.

 

[pandorum]

Not Sam Worthington! the man cannnot act, Why has he become the go to guy when you need bland and uninteresting.

Avatar? Nobody went to see it because Worthington was in it, Clash of the Titans? The bloody Kraken manages to emote more than that man

you sir are stupid Avatar is the biggest grossing movie ever. That is a fact, it made Sam's career, only sam is trying to destroy it now