Uncharted 2
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unsubtle troll is unsubtle.Arcane Azmadi said:
Drake is funny and witty, hence my suspension of disbelief stays neatly in tact when he kills people, only because he is that fun. And you could also make the argument that Yahtzee takes Drake very much out of context, since Drake actually has love interests, something that shows humanity, and he cares for others, and he shows remorse for all that he's done in the end of the game. He is a charismatic person that can put on his serious face when it is needed. Bond is witty and serious, but does people rag on him? I don't think so, seeing as how Bond is one of the most popular movie-franchises ever.
Hope you enjoy your prohibition.
[sub]Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition[/sub]
When you went to Lara's house, what did you see exactly that made her human? All I saw was a ton of relics that she used as exercise equipment or platforms and a bunch of killing. Granted that killing and jumping about is fun but honestly, how does that give her any humanity?KDR_11k said:
Even when she does show an emotion it is anger or revenge until the later series. I think they managed to make her a bit more human in some of the later games since she actually showed regret and they let us in on her stock tragic past. I kinda liked her when I finally understood why she was a contemptible ice queen.
Actually, I don't think you went too far, I'm kinda interested in this right now. The issue at hand with this extra punctuation is precisely the approach various players have towards Drake. It is pretty obvious that characters like Gordon Freeman, Lara Croft, the Doom marine, practically all GTA protagonists, etc. cannot be directly translated to another medium (the TR movies took a lot of creative liberties with Lara), because we don't know them as complete individual people but as gamer-shells, in a way. They live in a world that we "imagine" to work like a realistic fictional world, even if the gameplay presented to us is obviously flawed. We suspend our disbelief and fill in the gaps ourselves. To illustrate: when thinking in-universe, Gordon of HL2 surely talks, his massive body count would affect his mental state (particularly because he's an untrained, unprepared civilian), and his overthrowing of the combine citadel probably doesn't happen in one uninterrupted day, without rest or sleep. However, agreeing that this would detract from the experience and wanting an artificial challenge, the gamer is free to ignore those inconsistencies. He's actually playing through an allegorical rendering of the original story, streamlined and adapted to the medium and pretending to be a real account of the events, but relying on our suspension of disbelief.estro_pajo said: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.
Of course, gaming isn't really a new hobby, and in 2009 some amount of deconstruction is expected (and welcome). The villain asking Drake "How many people have you killed today?" is much like Adrian Veidt saying "Do you take me for a comic supervillain? I've already put my plan in motion 40 minutes ago." It messes with established conventions.
The problem in Uncharted 2 is that it cannot decide whether it's a videogame or an evolved, deconstructed game that merges various media. The action is cinematic and allows the stunts we only ever saw in cutscenes, the characters have a well-developed dialogue, it has a similar structure and pacing to pulp-adventure blockbuster movies, etc. Then again, it features obviously artificial and gamey elements like senseless puzzles and enemy-spamming the player. It's hard to decide what it's trying to be, and that's why some people see Drake as an undefined, hypocritical character.
We all KNOW that an archaeologist like Lara would never want to cause that amount of damage IRL, but it's too much of a bother to play an authentic archaeology simulator. We all KNOW that Gordon isn't really a mute, tireless automaton, but I wouldn't have him any other way - he shouldn't talk; while playing, I want to be Gordon. We have showed time and again that we can disregard inconsistencies that would be harmful to the experience, but it's hard to turn a blind eye to the gamey parts of Uncharted 2 when the game INSISTS to be a cinematic experience.
I could be alone in this argument, but everything uncharted 2 took from someone else was polished to mirrors shine. The game play is both better than gears of war and any tomb raider game. As for similarities between the game and Indiana Jones I really haven't seen any of those movies except for the kingdom of the crystal skull, but apparently that doesn't count. Honestly I don't see what I hope to achieve with this response. After all all I'm saying is my opinion and thoughts on the subject matter. Perhaps I'm looking for an argument, so I can feel angry about something because my life is so perfect in my nice comfy boring stress less would.
Well, fair enough, you could do this, but why would you? Video games are a very different medium that theatre or film are.Noelveiga said:
From our vantage point yes, the story in Uncharted 2 has arms and legs, but in mid-game it doesn't make any sense. Remember that the experience is filled with action and takes quite a few hours to complete, so the story that would normally serve well a 100min film gets lost somewhere in the middle of 12hrs non-stop shootfest.
All in all there is only one goal in this game - getting to Shambala. All is great until we realise that the sub-quests are not too well fleshed out. I tried to follow the story but nothing was happening - for the whole game I was getting capture and then running away (multiple times) and going to some obscure places to get clues how to get to even more obscure places while still the whole Shambala discovery was a very distant prospect.
Everything gets lost in the constant action in the midst of which we tend to forget what the hell is this little clue that we were looking for.
I'll make a quick reference here to Modern Warfare 2.
This game has (surprise surprise!) a story (and it's even interesting), but I had to look up this stuff online. In the course of the game so many things are happening so fast that I have no idea what's going on. It looks just like a bunch of random missions put together.
Eg the blizzard and heart sensor mission (early one, can't remember the name). That's a really cool mission, in the days of old it would be the stuff of legends - advancing through the blizzard with a suppressed, heart sensor mounted assault rifle, come on!!! But in MW2 the pacing is so fast that in 5-8mins (on veteran!) I was in some hangar, where the game instructed me to go upstairs to grab something and I don't know till this day what it was because I got there in 5sec flat and when I've grabbed it "Soap" said he's been spotted. So I ran to help him and then after like 2sec game told me to press a button. So I did and some stuff exploaded and then I was suddenly on a snowmobile and bam! the level was over.
What did just happened?
I'm saying now that this level is cool, but why haven't I realised this while I was playing it? The pacing left me no room to enjoy the game nor to understand what's going on. Maybe it was intentional, but it also ruins the whole story element of the game.
In Uncharted 2 all this little stuff, those sub-quests don't exist because they are to minor to acknowledge them and aim for the head at the same time.
Also I've liked Uncharted 1 much more. It had a clear sense of progression, while in U2 you fight same enemies throughout the game (some minor differences, yeah...). In U1 you start off with pirates and bums, then you have tougher pirates and THEN you have soldiers, which lets you know that the shit just got real. It makes you feel that it escalated, that something has changed. In U2 the environments are changing so often and the enemies in them are all the same so you have no feeling of progression at all. The narrative there sucks.
I've enjoyed the game, but I see that it suffers from the "sequel syndrome" - "Hey, let's do everything but like every explosion will be like 5 times bigger, every car chase will be like 4 times longer and instead of a car it will be an ATTACK CHOPPER". I think U2 outdid everything. Too much of everything is not better, it's just too much.
PS actually U2 is like Transformers 2 in a way. When those kids in T2 where in Egypt I've asked myself (and I have a university degree in film science so it's really hard to confuse me) "Ok, they're in Egypt, ok, but WHY?" and so I was thinking when Drake was in Nepal. It's not that the film or the game didn't state the purpose of the protagonists visit, but that in an action flick the viewer/gamer needs to be constantly aware of protagonists goals. It's called redundancy and it's being used in TV shows and films with fast-paced action where viewer can get distracted and lose some of the plot. This is necessary and a failure to make current objectives clear and compelling is a fault of the narration.
Nathan Drake has no discernible reason or motivation of any kind for his horrid behavior. That left us with a broad spectrum of possibilities for the reasons of his actions.KDR_11k said:
What glimpses we saw of Lara Croft's life not only gave no good discernible reason or motivation for her horrid behavior, but also those glimpses gave lots of potential bad reasons: she was already rich enough to be living in a castle! At best her only motivation is simply to be richer. At worst she gets off on killing the poor people or archeologists who are about to collect artifacts before she can. The only spectrum for the reasons of her actions are all bad.
I'll just use this one quote so you'd know I'm replying to your post.Noelveiga said:
It all is part of the narrative, true, but to me, when you have too much of it the whole experience gets lost in it. When you change environment every level after a short while you stop caring, it doesn't impact you when it needs to (like the last levels should). In U1 it was more clear and the sense of progression was played out by the environment and colours that went from lush green to dusty grey and brown with professional soldiers. In U2 you change your companion every level so it also numbs you to any further changes. Things like that should be well implemented and well played within a screenplay, the accents need to be in right places, because when they are off the audience can get lost or don't get involved with a plot.
Indiana Jones is a good example, but as I've mentioned earlier, Indy is a 100min film where the action sequence en route to hidden treasure takes 9mins, while in U2 it takes at least 40mins up to an hour after which the gamer is not at his destination but has to wonder somewhere, then somewhere else, then do some acrobatics etc etc. There is a goal somewhere in the distance, but it got blurry in the course of the game.
Additionally I think that the sub-quests (I call them that) lack the impact that would make them interesting. I just think they're weak. Like when Chloe gets on a train and we need to "rescue" her. Why? She's perfectly safe, at least to my knowledge... So it's a goal in the game but I don't understand the reason for it. I think that in a game like Uncharted 2 gamer should always be reminded where he's going and what it is that he's trying to achieve. After a few shootouts and couple acrobatic segments the weak goal doesn't seem important at all.
That's why I'm saying that the only goal here is to get to Shambala.
It's a bit like System Shock 2 (just a title that pops to my head when I think about something like this). You have a goal, say, get to laboratory that is at the end of the corridor. So you go there but the ceiling suddenly collapses and you have to find a way around which takes you a battling 2hrs. At the end, if you weren't reminded what is is that you wanted, you've forgot what were you doing.
Games are specific, they take a long time to complete, usually dialog is sparse in action games and often gamer can't aim for the head and listen to some chatter at the same time. A gamer gets all excited about the action on screen, much more than when he's watching a film, and sometimes he just does what a game tells him to do (like a sudden prompt to press R1 - you don't know what for but it seems that it's important). There could be more bits of dialog sprinkled here and there that would remind you how important is your current task, or the goals could be more compelling and the path towards achieving them could be more straight forward.
I've never said I didn't like Uncharted 2, because I did. I've enjoyed it a lot, but also I think that the story is really on the weak side of the spectrum (and doesn't work for an action video game) and what fools most of the gamers to thinking otherwise are well written dialogs and likeable characters. That was my point - that we like our protagonists (villain isn't that great) and we enjoy the witty, snotty dialog, but where's the story? Constant goose chase is not a story. Just because something works for a 100min blockbuster doesn't mean it will work for a 12hrs immersive experience.
in my opinion, uncharted 2 was good, it's just stealth went tits-up after the first level it was used
Funny, every single game Yahtzee mentioned that he believes has a unique storyline I found to be quite generic storyline wise. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy some of those games, but overall I found the situations and progression of story in those games incredibly typical. On top of this EVERY SINGLE GAME OUT THERE is a B rate storyline from some other media format be it book, movie, or comic. And its B rated because its told in the most retarded fashion because god forbid the player get bored because there's nothing to kill and rape on the screen. The most grandiose and original stories in my favorite games all have blatantly stolen elements from other stories. This really makes the entire article a moot point. Especially since a lot of those stolen plots are from B movies themselves (ie Running Man).
Its just really hard for me to take a comedian's word seriously on these matters. I know modern day society (at least in the United States) is hell bent on getting their news through a comedian but I still have higher standards. I watch and read Zero Punctuation every week for entertainment but as for actual opinions on video games, I'll go elsewhere. Occasionally he'll like a game I do and on those occasions I find myself congratulating him for having good taste for once.
Its just really hard for me to take a comedian's word seriously on these matters. I know modern day society (at least in the United States) is hell bent on getting their news through a comedian but I still have higher standards. I watch and read Zero Punctuation every week for entertainment but as for actual opinions on video games, I'll go elsewhere. Occasionally he'll like a game I do and on those occasions I find myself congratulating him for having good taste for once.
Well I have to say usually I like and agree with most of the things Yahtzee Croshaw talks about in his reviews. I have to say I completely disagree with you on Uncharted 2.
Sure, Uncharted 1 was not that great (in fact it was very hard to play through for me and I stopped playing after a couple of hours -- combat was repetitive and not very fun). AI was too good of a shot and always knew exactly where you were. Overall pacing of the game was a bit flawed as well.
Now take Uncharted 2, combat is fun! The pacing of the game is spectacular! The game feels like I'm playing a Summer Action movie that never lets up! It's what Indiana Jones 4 should have been (I say this as a HUGE Indiana Jones fan that will only admit to 3 films in the series).
You complain about the fact that Drake has killed a bunch of guys yet seem to forget that it's a GAME and in a GAME it's fun to defeat opponents. I'm not sure Die Hard the Movie becoming a game and only have less than 12 terrorist would really work as your total number of enemies unless the game only lasted 3 hours and then no one would buy it due to reviews panning it for being a short game.
Further more if you really look at it, Uncharted 2 is basically a modern day version of God of War (yet some how you like God of War but not this?) I just don't get it. Okay sure the story is not deep, but then again most summer action films aren't either -- so what? As long as they're entertaining and exciting with likable characters and good acting/voice acting.
But I think that's where the rub is, Yahtzee Croshaw does not like Nathan Drake (I still don't think that bias is worth the panning you gave the game). I happen to like him and the game. I'm looking forward to getting the time to play a 2nd play through and felt it was one of the most action packed fun (well designed) and utterly beautiful games I've got to play in a long time -- I can't remember sweating as much playing a game as it.
Sure, Uncharted 1 was not that great (in fact it was very hard to play through for me and I stopped playing after a couple of hours -- combat was repetitive and not very fun). AI was too good of a shot and always knew exactly where you were. Overall pacing of the game was a bit flawed as well.
Now take Uncharted 2, combat is fun! The pacing of the game is spectacular! The game feels like I'm playing a Summer Action movie that never lets up! It's what Indiana Jones 4 should have been (I say this as a HUGE Indiana Jones fan that will only admit to 3 films in the series).
You complain about the fact that Drake has killed a bunch of guys yet seem to forget that it's a GAME and in a GAME it's fun to defeat opponents. I'm not sure Die Hard the Movie becoming a game and only have less than 12 terrorist would really work as your total number of enemies unless the game only lasted 3 hours and then no one would buy it due to reviews panning it for being a short game.
Further more if you really look at it, Uncharted 2 is basically a modern day version of God of War (yet some how you like God of War but not this?) I just don't get it. Okay sure the story is not deep, but then again most summer action films aren't either -- so what? As long as they're entertaining and exciting with likable characters and good acting/voice acting.
But I think that's where the rub is, Yahtzee Croshaw does not like Nathan Drake (I still don't think that bias is worth the panning you gave the game). I happen to like him and the game. I'm looking forward to getting the time to play a 2nd play through and felt it was one of the most action packed fun (well designed) and utterly beautiful games I've got to play in a long time -- I can't remember sweating as much playing a game as it.
Great dissection of the game character. Although, examine the protagonists in most games. I ask, are any of them actually likable, decent, rational human beings that you could relate to? Most of them are sociopaths or silent enigmatic super-soldiers. Even the seemingly most benign of game characters, Mario, fits this profile. Then again, Yahtzee has already pointed that out.
I'm going to have to disagree on some of the games cited as having unique storylines though. InFamous, Bionic Commando, and Prototype ESPECIALLY, since they all share essentially the same interchangeable story outline.
MadWorld is also un-unique in both the game world (Manhunt) and in general (Running Man).
I'm going to have to disagree on some of the games cited as having unique storylines though. InFamous, Bionic Commando, and Prototype ESPECIALLY, since they all share essentially the same interchangeable story outline.
MadWorld is also un-unique in both the game world (Manhunt) and in general (Running Man).
Sorry buddy, had to quote you.Xiado said:
You can't judge a game like that, otherwise EVERY game sounds uninteresting.
Otherwise:
Bioshock: Underwater, not original
System Shock 2: Oh it's set in space, not original.
See the problem there?
Batman: Arkham Asylum: Though I have a personal problem with the game. To say it's unoriginal is just... wrong. This is a unique VIDEO GAME. The story for the game was not in the comics, I believe it was made for the game.
Infamous: It was fairly unique. You can't call it a Prototype ripoff because the games were released at the same time. >.>
Prototype: It was also unique. Your powers were varied and interesting. You can't call it an Infamous ripoff because it was released at the same time as Infamous.
I dont care if a game plays out like a movie, so long as the gameplay is sound
in many cases, it can enhance the gameplay experience, but so long as they dont change the gameplay to make it more 'cinematic', that sucks
in many cases, it can enhance the gameplay experience, but so long as they dont change the gameplay to make it more 'cinematic', that sucks
I can appreciate Yahtzee's criticisms of Drake's character, but I think he's being a bit of a hypocrite as well. He makes a valid argument that what works for a movie doesn't necessarily work for a game, but he doesn't acknowledge the opposite is true as well. Since movies are a passive experience already it's easier for directors and writers to take time out to flesh out character minutia like feeding one's goldfish. Video games on the other hand have to keep a lively pace going and keep the player involved, so what cutscenes are used have to be used sparingly. On top of that Uncharted has to keep us engaged for 10hrs while Indy only has to entertain for just a couple. So like it or not killing enemies, while incongruous with the character, is necessary to make the game fulfilling.
Funnily enough Yahtzee has said in the past that the best writing and visual media are succinct and punchy and that's pretty much Uncharted in a nutshell. But then he's also criticized games that do flesh out characters in the way that he's describing like MGS and Mass Effect.
Also I sense his nostalgia is getting the best of him because I don't remember Indiana being that deep of a character either and had the Uncharted games been set in a time period where he could kill Nazis the game would be branded a Indiana Jones rip-off instead of just mislabeled that way. Yahtzee speaks as if the Indy films aren't popcorn entertainment themselves when they're actually the ultimate popcorn entertainment, which is why they're so memorable to begin with.
Uncharted is the same way, complete and total popcorn entertainment, but executed in a thrilling enough way to be memorable and to stick with us long after we've played games with more thematic heft. Despite being popcorn Indy is more memorable than most Oscar winning movies and I suspect Uncharted 2 will have a similar impact on games.
Funnily enough Yahtzee has said in the past that the best writing and visual media are succinct and punchy and that's pretty much Uncharted in a nutshell. But then he's also criticized games that do flesh out characters in the way that he's describing like MGS and Mass Effect.
Also I sense his nostalgia is getting the best of him because I don't remember Indiana being that deep of a character either and had the Uncharted games been set in a time period where he could kill Nazis the game would be branded a Indiana Jones rip-off instead of just mislabeled that way. Yahtzee speaks as if the Indy films aren't popcorn entertainment themselves when they're actually the ultimate popcorn entertainment, which is why they're so memorable to begin with.
Uncharted is the same way, complete and total popcorn entertainment, but executed in a thrilling enough way to be memorable and to stick with us long after we've played games with more thematic heft. Despite being popcorn Indy is more memorable than most Oscar winning movies and I suspect Uncharted 2 will have a similar impact on games.