Uncharted 2

[Bayushi_Kouya]

Nathan Drake strikes me as a character that was designed by committee, a very schizophrenic committee in love with Joss Whedon TV shows. The lovable everyman is in there, somewhere, but it's just barely peaking out under a hash of one-liners and action hero machismo. I found myself repeatedly asking, when Drake demonstrates some impressive mental muscles throughout the game (like when doing translations or recalling obscure bits of history) "Is this really the same guy?" Because he spends most of the game doing his best impression of a college drop-out screw-up.

I found myself cottoning to him in the first game because he seemed to be a man of conviction, not necessarily smart so much as dedicated to getting the job done. In the sequel, he seems to have mutated into this weird conglomeration of scholar and soldier.

None of this is helped by the game's script -- Drake objects to using guns on security guards at a Turkish museum, but apparently pumping thousands of rounds into bad guys who aim a gun at him is perfectly A.O.K. That touches on one of my principle complaints about the first game -- wholly crap do you kill a lot of dudes.

As always, I find myself agreeing with Yahtzee. It kind of seems like Naughty Dog was resting on their laurels when they made U2:AT. Lots of bits don't make sense, ESPECIALLY in a cinematic sense. Why introduce Chloe as a character, anyway? Would anything have prevented her and Flynn from being melded together as a single character?

 

[Bad Kermit]

So, I have to wonder if Yahtzee hates Han Solo as much as Drake. Same smug attitude. Same money-driven motivation. Same willingness to kill whomever he "needs" to kill.

 

[BlackWidower]

Why was it so late? I was missing it yesterday...oh well, good show.

 

[Woodsey]

Interesting that you label some of those with unique stories, whilst criticizing them earlier for being unoriginal and uncreative. Similarly interesting how the biggest compliment the game has received is that it's pretty, visual, and cinematic--all good qualities, but there's no good word to be had for gameplay. One would think an acclaimed game would have acclaim about the gameplay...hmmm...

There's been plenty of acclaim for the gameplay.

 

[Distorted Stu]

That article made me see how many characters in video games dont have a background life. We just see them being awesome/evil. Yes we get the odd background story from them such as Desmond in AC "oh i was a bar tender". I wonder if "Soap" has a wife or girlfriend...

 

[Crunchy English]

Brilliant. I should probably say something stupid so I can get featured in Extra Punctuation too.

Yes, Nathan Drake is a detestable pissant but KDR_11k has a good point. Lara Croft is much, much worse. I've never been so ashamed of myself while playing a video game. Tommy Vercetti was more empathetic.

Spoiler

Her friends die, she goes adventuring. Her friends shoot at her, she goes adventuring. Her house blows up, she goes adventuring. She kills her zombified mother, she goes adventuring.

Outside of specifics, she's not only an unlikeable ice-cold b**ch, she's also piss poor at her job. Smashing ancient clay pots, killing rare species of animals, etc.

Oh and back to Uncharted. Its not just the writing that's got some copious plagiarizing going on. The gameplay itself offers nothing new. Nothing. It just looks pretty and plays paint by numbers.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Interesting that you label some of those with unique stories, whilst criticizing them earlier for being unoriginal and uncreative. Similarly interesting how the biggest compliment the game has received is that it's pretty, visual, and cinematic--all good qualities, but there's no good word to be had for gameplay. One would think an acclaimed game would have acclaim about the gameplay...hmmm...

There's been plenty of acclaim for the gameplay.

All I've heard is that it's functional, or suited, or fitting--hardly acclaim.

 

[dubious_wolf]

" Brooetal Legend, " -yahtzee-

HAHAHA when I noticed this Dr. Peper shot out of my nose. Now my nose burns...
That is all.

Actually wait one point I will make Halo 2 has good story writting and I wish they had spent another year tightening up the campaign so that it lead more smoothly into the third one so add that one your list.

 

[rofflemao]

So, I have to wonder if Yahtzee hates Han Solo as much as Drake. Same smug attitude. Same money-driven motivation. Same willingness to kill whomever he "needs" to kill.

Han Solo is but a humble space pilot trying to eke out an existence that allows him freedom and security. He may seem self-serving and egocentric, but he prefers to make deals over exploitation and thievery. Additionally the films prove that he cares for his friends and their struggles because he knows they are righteous. Classic case of the little guy standing up to the man by living on his own terms.

Nathan Drake on the other hand commits single-handed genocide and endangers public safety solely for some phat loot. They may seem similar, but one of them has honor and integrity while the other just dicks around for his own jollies.

Yet, your standard for good game writing is, "Would I be interested in watching a movie or reading a book entirely about any of these characters?" Is game writing perhaps a different animal from something that is purely cinematic?

Good characterization is independent of medium whereas narrative is not. That's why movies based on books have the same characters, but the plot is heavily altered.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

0.o

*Goes to play Deus Ex*

That's better. All of this blathering led to one excellent point. If we don't give a damn about the character we are meant to embody, how can we give a damn about what they do with their lives.

If your character is charismatic as a brick, why would you care about their motivations and actions?

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

So, I have to wonder if Yahtzee hates Han Solo as much as Drake. Same smug attitude. Same money-driven motivation. Same willingness to kill whomever he "needs" to kill.

Han Solo is but a humble space pilot trying to eke out an existence that allows him freedom and security. He may seem self-serving and egocentric, but he prefers to make deals over exploitation and thievery. Additionally the films prove that he cares for his friends and their struggles because he knows they are righteous. Classic case of the little guy standing up to the man by living on his own terms.

Nathan Drake on the other hand commits single-handed genocide and endangers public safety solely for some phat loot. They may seem similar, but one of them has honor and integrity while the other just dicks around for his own jollies.

Yet, your standard for good game writing is, "Would I be interested in watching a movie or reading a book entirely about any of these characters?" Is game writing perhaps a different animal from something that is purely cinematic?

Good characterization is independent of medium whereas narrative is not. That's why movies based on books have the same characters, but the plot is heavily altered.

I do not mean to be petty, but I believe the pun is correctly spelled "phat lewt."

 

[dudeman0001]

I liked Nathan Drake, but I suppose Yahtzee is right in saying that he doesn't act very human (bullet absorbing and uber-physical strength aside). I did wonder at the intro, where he actually lived.

Me too! I also wonder how he met Harry and Chloe and Victor, what his family lifes been like, why he wouldn't get a job, stuff like that.

...and yeah, he did kinda blow the question off, but he had to run, there were gaurdians and shit everywhere, and the bridge was collapsing. It's also not fair how ZP blames Nate for everything bad that happens and acts like the main villain doesn't know any better. and he can't say for sure whether or not Jeff and Elena were dating.

 

[Newton10000]

Yahtzee should really play a PS3 Ratchet and Clank Game (Either one). It has a great story, interesting characters, great gameplay, satisfying guns, etc. Sounds like a great game for Yahtzee!

 

[Warstratigier]

You know everything else aside he does make points that are morally questioning when it comes to character development. Though also makes me think about the people that will defend a douchebag no matter what....the kind of people that will always stick to their own kind.

 

[hermes]

So, I have to wonder if Yahtzee hates Han Solo as much as Drake. Same smug attitude. Same money-driven motivation. Same willingness to kill whomever he "needs" to kill.

Han Solo is but a humble space pilot trying to eke out an existence that allows him freedom and security. He may seem self-serving and egocentric, but he prefers to make deals over exploitation and thievery. Additionally the films prove that he cares for his friends and their struggles because he knows they are righteous. Classic case of the little guy standing up to the man by living on his own terms.
Nathan Drake on the other hand commits single-handed genocide and endangers public safety solely for some phat loot. They may seem similar, but one of them has honor and integrity while the other just dicks around for his own jollies.

I don't want to squash your little love story with Han Solo there, but I think you might be talking of a different character... or you only saw the Return of the Jedi. Han Solo IS self-serving and egocentric for the most part of the first movie, he shoots people without hardly any provocation, would work for anyone providing that they pay, and its a smuggler that wouldn't care less about anyone else but himself.
I actually think Han Solo is a better comparition to Drake than Indiana Jones. Sure, it got the whole adventuring thing, but other than that he is a witty bandit that doesn't care who only cames to do the right thing because he end up on the other side of far worst men and both he and the woman he likes are too much into shit to turn back.

 

[squid5580]

Oh oh oh I hope they make the goldfish feeding a QTE in Uncharted 3.

 

[hermes]

"Then within 15 minutes he was swapping smarmy jokes about clowns with the girl he got to bang as his reward for his constant theft and murder."
He learned tibetan in the meantime, so I am guessing it took him a little more than 15 minutes to get to that cutscene after all that killing...

Also, can you really give me Bionic Commando and Madworld as examples of "unique" stories? Really? One that looks lifted from an 80s movie (you were in prison but now your country needs you thing), and another that has been used countless of time this side of smash TV. Which brings me to another point... I would rather have a common, well executed premise than an original, shity game. Sure, I may not get blown by the depth of the morality of Drake and his adventuring/murdering crusade; but sure as hell I am not going to be challenged for that in Darkest of days either. And, on top of that, I am not going to have a good time with the latter either.

 

[MmmFiber]

As you pointed out, a game attempting to emulate a movie is like a dog almost managing to be a cat. Yet, your standard for good game writing is, "Would I be interested in watching a movie or reading a book entirely about any of these characters?" Is game writing perhaps a different animal from something that is purely cinematic?

I think it is, for the most part. But, I lean more towards the side that has the lead video game character be more likable than a movie character. I can watch a movie with a character I personally don't like because it is entertaining, but I don't like playing games where the character that I play is someone I don't like/can't relate to. You know, because, I'm actually invested in playing as the character.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I think I heard a penny drop during this article.

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who see Drake as a charming bloke and those who see him as a guy who kills a lot of other guys. The main problem, though, is that it's impossible ( in todays market ) to make an action game without hordes of enemies to gun or chop down. So when you make an action game about a charming treasure hunter you're gonna have to give him obstacles. And the most simple obstacles are guys-to-shoot.

I agree 100% with the article, but I still really like this game.

 

[estro_pajo]

I see your point and in general I concur, but I can't say that I entirely agree.
I'd break it into to points - that about Drake and that about the game's story.

Uncharted 2 seriously lacks in the story department and I think that one of the reasons why so many people think otherwise is the very likeable persona of Drake.
While he's not this incredibly fleshed out character that you'd like to see as a movie protagonist, he manages to gain players sympathy.
I must say, despite all the faults this game has, I really like Nathan Drake. In a video game medium he's one of the best characters ever created.

You might disapprove, but please consider this: do the most well known video games icons have any personality? Mario? Gordon Freeman? Lara Croft? Some guy?
We know what those characters connote (ie Freeman=headcrab=crowbar=recently->gravity gun, Croft=tits etc) but they don't speak to us, literally and metaphorically. Drake for a change keeps a dialog with his audience going. He talks to us, comments on the events in the game, establishes a connection. This is something that Gordon Freeman could never do.

I generally like Uncharted 2, but not for its story (honestly there is none, just do a quick analysis of your goals in the game...) and actually not all that much for its repetitive and easy gameplay, but mostly for the non-stop chatterbox that is the main character. Though not all original and well characterised, he has a flavour of his own...

edit
Oh, and the killing thing again...
I'll be quick - even though it's not as well established as "film science" there is something as "video game science" and it's a humanistic subject. It deals with the theory of video games as a new medium, narration in it, the situation of the player etc etc and it has roots in theory of literature, anthropology, psychology and yadda yadda yadda... Anyway, many researchers agree that video game violence is not a real violence but only a way to express certain progression within a game that is also interesting to the player (something like Haneke's philosophy on violence a rebours). This could be used in a variety of ways which are not always known to game developers (they are yet to understand how important theory is to them - silly people ).
All in all it goes down to this - the outcome of character actions in a video game cannot be judged based on game mechanics. If violence is the core gameplay mechanic integral to experiencing a pleasure from the game it gets locked away in the "meta" level of its structure.
Ok, I went to far... I think though that you understand the basic idea.

Uncharted violence=unreal violence without consequences.