Uncharted 2

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Uncharted 2

Special Wednesday Edition: Yahtzee explains his disdain for Nathan Drake and Uncharted 2.

Read Full Article

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 really enjoy these articles, more so than ZP, and i agree for the most parts, though watching Drake feed his fish would just make me think that those poor fishies would die from hunger while he was out being a douche.

I still love Drake as a character. Yeah, he lacks in the humanity, but he's so charming that I can't criticize him. The game is one huge cliché, but I love it. The charm in Uncharted 2 takes it a long way, and even though it may not be original, it's extremely well polished. Also, when Nathan laughs in that sarcastic way it makes my heart swoon.

I don't see why people care about the plot in games as much as they do. The only game I've ever given a shit about the plot in was Battlefield Bad Company. But that might be because I prefer multiplayer.

Nice article, he brrings up some good points, but I haven't played the game so I cannot say much. However I can't understand why this game is considered to be so great when its concept is absolutely unoriginal and uncreative, and doesn't seem different from the first game at all.

Can't say I can really properly comment on this, as I haven't played the game or its predecessor. But I will say that making the main character a douchebag only works...wait, no, it never works.

All his points are for the most part spot on (some feel like nit-picky, personal gripes, but we'd do the same in that situation), however I can't help but have fun with this game. I watched the Uncharted 1 review way back when, and I only recently played it. I tried to hate Nathan, I really did, but it just wouldn't come. There's something charming and exciting about the whole thing. Kind of like the Tomb Raider movies

From what I've played it like this game a lot and its a lot of fun and has quite a few moments of awesome scenes and few funny jokes.

And its not shit dog brown and gray like so many games out today. The environment from jungles to snow capped mountains all look real

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...

oppp7:
I don't see why people care about the plot in games as much as they do. The only game I've ever given a shit about the plot in was Battlefield Bad Company. But that might be because I prefer multiplayer.

NICE!
That was a fun plot for a fun game, quite simply put.

"While some might find the character uninteresting, one must at least recognize that they have exceptional voice acting and, in a rare moment for a game, quality physical acting as well."

Thats a comment I've always hated seeing. It always reminds me of when they get John Hurt to read some gash autobiography (See 50 cents memoirs below). Although it sounds amazing, people should never hide use it the quality of the actual story/writing. Unfortunately some people can't tell them apart, case and point with the MGS series.

Isn't it ironic that even Mr. Alpha Self Important Bearded Tosser himself doesn't find Gaythan Drake relateable?

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.

I agree with everything Yahtzee says about the story and Drake as a character. Despite all this, I still loved the game, and I dispute his claim that it's wholly generic and doesn't do anything new. I would argue that the game does something new, in that it brings the high-octane action normally reserved solely for cutscenes as close to pure gameplay as I've yet witnessed.

There were points during the game where an action sequence started, and I just stopped moving and died because my brain has been so conditioned that when the action starts, it's a cutscene and I should just sit back and watch. I've never played a game that has me actually in (relative) control during those sequences. Add to that the fact that it is one of the best looking games I've ever seen, period, and really excellent pacing throughout the game, and you have a winner.

Seriously, I was trying to shoot guys on the train level during the mountain part and I was too busy picking my jaw up off the floor. And leaping out of a building as it collapses with you inside of it in a gameplay sequence? Maybe the story and core gameplay mechanics aren't original in the least, but the presentation and technical accomplishment is unreal.

Full disclosure: I've never played either of the Uncharted games. This is based mostly on the feedback I've heard from others and some bits I've seen played.

It never seemed to me that Nathan Drake was trying to be anything better or more enlightened than he already was. He appears to see himself as the paragon of the archeological adventurer, punching Indiana Jones in the face while shagging Lara Croft into submission.

I'm not saying heroes shouldn't have self-confidence, but being that kind of smug self-important jerk tends to make the "hero" somewhat unlikeable. In my humble opinion, at least.

AfterAscon:
"While some might find the character uninteresting, one must at least recognize that they have exceptional voice acting and, in a rare moment for a game, quality physical acting as well."

Thats a comment I've always hated seeing. It always reminds me of when they get John Hurt to read some gash autobiography (See 50 cents memoirs below). Although it sounds amazing, people should never hide use it the quality of the actual story/writing. Unfortunately some people can't tell them apart, case and point with the MGS series.

I gotta be honest, I never thought the voice acting in MGS was that good either, to be honest. It was better than average, but it doesn't hold a candle to many of the greats, or even some of the pretty goods. At least, this was my opinion of 1 and 2. I always felt they were a little short of emotion for a lot of the time. It's like saying Helena Bonham Carter made a good crazy lady in Sweeney Todd because she had funky hair and baked people in pies. Sure, what's behind it is fine, but if you actually pay attention, she's not all there. And yes, I'm saying I thought the writing in MGS was good.

Hilarious. But still, every other review bent over backwards for this game, so despite its cliches and dusturbing characters, it'll still go down in history as something better than it is. Kind of sad, really.

I enjoy his critique of Nathan Drake as a character.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

Woodsey:

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.

" 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.

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.

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.

Erkenbrand:
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.

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?

rofflemao:

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.

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.

Erkenbrand:
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."

Mintycabbage:
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.

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!

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.

rofflemao:

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.

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.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here