Uncharted 2

[LazyAza]

I pretty much agree with Yahtzee on everything he said.
Half the time in U2 the game is trying to tell a character driven story and have you care about the good guys but the other half of the time all they're doing is shooting and killing everything they come in to contact with. Even in the stealth level of U2 Drake kills a few of the guards, whether it be via neck snapping or as Yahtzee mentioned pulling them off a ledge. If he's suppose to be the 'likable ladies man' protagonist Naughtydog want him to be why is he killing innocent people while trying to steal shit?

They went to so much trouble to incorporate a stealth mechanic in the game and what do they have the player use it for? more killing. Something as simple as a different sound effect and a few altered animations here and there would have made all the difference in U2.

Uncharted 2 was such a brilliant game, I sure as hell liked it but just like all modern games it is brought down by endless non stop killing. You cant take a game seriously, no matter how well written and acted it supposedly is if it boils down to the same tired old formula. If anything U2 is a perfect example of how far games still have to go story wise if this game is apparently the 'best so far' in that regard.

 

[madman485]

first of all, i just want to say that i'm a total fanboy for the series and thus everything i say can and probably should be considered a moot point BUT...

i want to point out that about halfway through the adventure, it becomes apparent that what theyre going after is a source of power, and at this point drake's motivation shifts from "gunna git sum treshur and some lulz" to "im gonna stop that war criminal from becoming redonkulously powerful". so he's not a total greedy twit the whole way through.

also as much as i try to hate nate (which is not a lot at all) i just can't. i love his persona and i play the game for the entertainment value.

i would like to point out as well that yahtzee complains about drake being someone motivatied solely by greed and yet he himself made a game ABOUT someone being a total twit and robbing places for pure greed, treasure, and lulz.

 

[Doug]

So how does that stack up with Lara Croft? I mean, we do see some parts of her private life but you still consider her evil.

I think he said in the Uncharted (1) review that they'd make a happy couple.

 

[Mr.Black]

Yahtzee is just annoying now. These extra punctuation reviews make him seem like a cranky old bastard that tries to hate everything.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

I still love Drake as a character. Yeah, he lacks in the humanity, but he's so charming that I can't criticize him.

Why the fuck not? So he's charming; if you believe people who actually knew him, so was Saddam Hussein. If your standards are so low that you will simply overlook a person's drastic flaws because of a single appealing feature then I have one word for you: BIMBO. I bet you like Edward "creepy, emotionless, abusive, jerkass stalker" Cullen as well because "he's so GORGEOUS!"

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I couldn't agree any more with Yahtzee here. Drake is absolutely unlikeable, my biggest problem being that he murders non-Americans like a Nazi (but without the prosecute-y holocaust bullshit).

 

[FROGGEman2]

WAITWAITWAITWAITWAITWAITwait.

MW2 = Russia invades America /=/ original.

Just sayin'.

 

[FROGGEman2]

-EDIT-

 

[Cherry Cola]

I still love Drake as a character. Yeah, he lacks in the humanity, but he's so charming that I can't criticize him.

Why the fuck not? So he's charming; if you believe people who actually knew him, so was Saddam Hussein. If your standards are so low that you will simply overlook a person's drastic flaws because of a single appealing feature then I have one word for you: BIMBO. I bet you like Edward "creepy, emotionless, abusive, jerkass stalker" Cullen as well because "he's so GORGEOUS!"

Unsubtle troll is unsubtle.

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]

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

So how does that stack up with Lara Croft? I mean, we do see some parts of her private life but you still consider her evil.

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?

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.

 

[Seneschal]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Knifewounds]

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.

 

[estro_pajo]

I was gonna go all Aristotle's Poetics on your posts

Well, fair enough, you could do this, but why would you? Video games are a very different medium that theatre or film are.

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.

 

[Orekoya]

So how does that stack up with Lara Croft? I mean, we do see some parts of her private life but you still consider her evil.

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.

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.