Uncharted 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

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

"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.

Erkenbrand:
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.

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.

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.

I agree that the basis of the plot in Uncharted 2 is a tad on the blood thirsty side, since the start of the game is you snapping the neck of poor Turkish museum guards.

Uncharted 1 started with you being attacked, at least giving you the right to preform Pirate Genocide for the rest of the game? (Also how is Drake a racist for killing those pirates? Not his fault no whites were good enough to join the Pirate crew)

Uncharted 1 also gave us the feeling that we, the player, was joining Drake on his quest to follow in his ancestors journey... so in a sense Drake in the first game had a greater motive to pilfer and loot, than the Nate in the second game...

All psycho analysis of the game aside, I loved Uncharted 2. I like the game play, I like the graphics and was entertained.

PS: Would also like to add that the little sneaking you got to do in Uncharted 2 was waaay better than the sneaking in Metal Gear Solid 4. Go figure that an action adventure can give you better sneaking and stealth abilities than a game that is supposedly all about the stealth...

But wait! Drake didn't kill those people! In a new "interesting twist," it was really Jeff killing all those Russians!

But seriously, I don't know if Yahtzee actually did his homework. Sounds like he just watched a bunch of commercials and got distracted by the trilogy that is Indiana Jones.

Nerd-alert but Drake didn't kill Lazarevic, the Guardians did :) Fact of the day there kids!

What? No mention of BioShock in "Games with unique stories."? Yes they stole the narrative style from System Shock 2 (Stop reminding me PC gamers, it's getting old) but the story was well-written, well-voiced, and very original; hence my unhealthy obsession with it.

OP: I do enjoy a good story in a game, but I love certain games that have little to no story at all as well, Far Cry 2 is a prime example. Why didn't they use The Jackal more in that game? He was a really interesting character and they just shoved him to the back so I could go around blowing shit up, that's fine and dandy, but I would've liked to see more of him.

Really disliked the first game. Was actually paid to play it (unusual situation but I'm at a uni, so hey) and the question chappy couldn't stop gushing. Oh the acting, oh the movement, oh the visuals, oh the lines hohohohohohohohohoh. Drake's character is made to please the masses, easy humour, vaguely charismatic, shithead.

Anyway, watching all the vids prior to release and it looked really action packed. Dare I say innovative? No I'll pass on that one. I did laugh when the white shirted chick walked up to a gate, and a rocket was shot. And I expected a death scene spoiler, because the Russians were closing in. But no, she gets up unblodied and walks on. The power of reporter HP? Evasion?

Drake is now associated with stuff-questors. I hate him.

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!

...I'm sure you mean a PS2 Ratchet and Clank game.

The second or third, I'd reccomend.

I mean, sure, play the first one to get into the groove of the story, and find out who they are and what's going on, but if you like gameplay, it's vastly improved in the second and third installments.

The first PS3 Ratchet and Clank was an early PS3 release, and many of them were bad because they tried to use the motion-sensor capabilities of the PS3 remote, which is just annoying. Luckily, you can turn it off. It's an interesting game, but the PS2 games are still better.

I am yet to play the second PS3 title, as I prefer my Ratchet and Clank games to feature Ratchet and Clank, together. Them being seperate changes gameplay enough that I don't think I could get into it...

Anyway, onto the actual topic, "Game that's cool now but will be forgotten next year".

...I think that sums up my views on it. It's got nothing to make you say "Oh yeah, I'll play that again!" or "Man, I wish I could play that some more", or even "Hmm, maybe I shouldn't drop this game in a volcano, pretending that doing so will destroy Nathan Drake forever..."

It's "awesome", with it's "awesome" visuals, "awesome" killing and guns and blood and all those other things that in real life would be so mentally disturbing that you'd spend your life in a padded cell just to witness...
But soon, the next "awesome" game will come out, and this one will be forgotten. Especially if said next game is Assassin's Creed II, which, with all the hype, must have been thrown up by a surprisingly sneaky and violent Jesus.

Now, I'm not a fan of "awesome" games, they have no lasting appeal. But, I will say that I'm looking forward to Assassin's Creed II, if only because I'll be able to swim.

...And kill people. Can't forget that.

Wow, this comment's getting a bit wordy... I'll just stop now by saying that Uncharted II is not worth the same amount as a game with replayability, or one with an open world. There may be one too many open world games around, but they are/were a good idea. More for the players to do, and that generally means more entertainment, for the same general price as a game with a linear plot with buckets of "awesome" thrown in.

...Then again, being a gamer in Australia means I can't comment on fair pricing and getting your money's worth... I wont be able to walk for a month after buying Assassin's Creed II, thanks to the blood loss.

I don't think Americans eat Cornish pasties.

Any PS3 Fanboy and Uncharted player knows that nothing in Uncharted 2 is actually unique, other than its amazing graphics.

Even though it literally steals everything it does from something else, it does this so well I can't help but admire it regardless.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Not to justify Uncharted 2, which was stupid, but not much originality in games this year, even among what you named

Borderlands: Wasteland space planet and lost treasure- not original
Modern Warfare 2: Creatively executed, but pretty much ripped off of Tom Clancy's works, I felt like I was playing Splinter Cell: Bullet Hose edition
Brooetal Legend: Rips off of pretty much everything in heavy metal
Batman: Arkham Asylum: Hasn't this thing been done in the comics, movies, and tv shows a million times already?
Darkest of Days: You got me, this was pretty original
Overlord 2: Same as the first game, so not really original
Infamous: Ripped off Prototype
Prototype: Ripped off Infamous
Bionic Commando: The name speaks for itself
Velvet Assassin: Kind of original, but loses points for being based on a real person
Madworld: Deathmatch tv show. I think Manhunt did something like this.

I don't get it did everyone forget that

I mean sure Nathan Drake started as a criminal, but at the end he sure seemed to make the type of decision that any "hero" worth admiring would make. Seriously does everyone want the same "do no wrong" type hero in every game they play? The fact that you were playing as a criminal/hero made it more interesting. I think it is also funny because at least he's not out killing innocent people like say, Niko Bellic, Alex Mercer, your character from Fallout 3, or any of those other games that let you make moral choices for your character.

*sigh*

I feel for your cause, Yahtzee.

More game writers need to get a grip on what makes a character likable vs unlikable.

Schafer's got the right idea, as did the Sands of Time and Beyond Good and Evil and a host of other games I can think of.

If any of game writers read and, maybe, just maybe, understand what the second to last paragraph is asking of them, then the gaming world would be a better place, if only a little bit.

Xiado:
Not to justify Uncharted 2, which was stupid, but not much originality in games this year, even among what you named

Borderlands: Wasteland space planet and lost treasure- not original
Modern Warfare 2: Creatively executed, but pretty much ripped off of Tom Clancy's works, I felt like I was playing Splinter Cell: Bullet Hose edition
Brooetal Legend: Rips off of pretty much everything in heavy metal
Batman: Arkham Asylum: Hasn't this thing been done in the comics, movies, and tv shows a million times already?
Darkest of Days: You got me, this was pretty original
Overlord 2: Same as the first game, so not really original
Infamous: Ripped off Prototype
Prototype: Ripped off Infamous
Bionic Commando: The name speaks for itself
Velvet Assassin: Kind of original, but loses points for being based on a real person
Madworld: Deathmatch tv show. I think Manhunt did something like this.

have no fear, the nitpick train is here!

Borderlands: Wasteland space planet and lost treasure- not original
-for the life of me, i cant recall the last game where you were searching for lost treasure on inhospitaple wasteland planet...

Modern Warfare 2: Creatively executed, but pretty much ripped off of Tom Clancy's works, I felt like I was playing Splinter Cell: Bullet Hose edition
- Dont have that much knowledge on Clancy's works but I'd hazard to guess that the general atmosphere is around in evry wargame... difficult to say

Brooetal Legend: Rips off of pretty much everything in heavy metal
-ahh my friend, but he was refering to its originality in GAMES, not in general world (on side note wtf would classify as original nowdays anyway EVRYthings been done with something, just not WITH evrything)

Batman: Arkham Asylum: Hasn't this thing been done in the comics, movies, and tv shows a million times already?
-once more youre list does not include games, name last game where you assumed the role of a crimefighter who infiltrates asylum taken over by its inhabitants.

Darkest of Days: You got me, this was pretty original
- no arguments here

Infamous: Ripped off Prototype
Prototype: Ripped off Infamous
-true enough, but when its two games amids hundreds of others I think we can call the story original. Also the stories arent exactly identical...

Bionic Commando: The name speaks for itself
-true enough

Velvet Assassin: Kind of original, but loses points for being based on a real person
-eeh so how does that change the fact that its original in GAMES..?

Madworld: Deathmatch tv show. I think Manhunt did something like this.
-Agreed but once again its two games amids hundreds

I think the main problem perhaps isn't the character but how he's delivered. Nathan Drake is a mass-murdering egotistical materialistic dickhole yet the way he's delivered is as this ultra-cool swashbuckling adventurer that is universally loved by everyone. We're obviously mean to think about him in the latter but his general attitude as the former makes this near impossible.

Yahtzee:
Indiana "It Belongs In A Museum" Jones is motivated by the pursuit of academic knowledge. We get to see him in his downtime teaching college students and fending off jailbait, and he often seems quite reluctant to go on adventures. He has a troubled relationship with his dad. Most importantly, he only ever kills Nazis, who are basically the unbuttered popcorn of the villain world - you can have as much as you like and not feel guilty. Indiana Jones is a flawed, conscientious, beaten-down man who pushes himself onward to fight for something bigger than himself.

What about in Temple of Doom (which is set earliest of the four three movies)? He seems rather like a treasure hunter in that one (I don't think his characterization is very consistent, really). Starts off doing archeology for a Hong Kong gangster, seems quite willing to have a shoot out with a bunch of lesser gangsters, and wants to find those stripy rocks because there's diamonds in them.

Of course, he doesn't actually kill many gangsters because that chick loses his gun, and for a fictional character willingness to do something is rather different from actually doing it.

And of course, he ends up giving the rock to the villagers, an altruistic act.

And importantly, he very often comes off as less than badass throughout (such as when stopping the mining cart with his feet. Sure he solved the problem with his body like a real man, but he looked kind of foolish doing it), making him likable through human frailty.

So even as a rogue, he's rather better than Nathan Drake.

Xiado:
Not to justify Uncharted 2, which was stupid, but not much originality in games this year, even among what you named

Borderlands: Wasteland space planet and lost treasure- not original

Not original how? Generic wasteland planet and similarities to the Vaults in Fallout not withstanding, I can't remember a single game that has had a story like this.

Modern Warfare 2: Creatively executed, but pretty much ripped off of Tom Clancy's works, I felt like I was playing Splinter Cell: Bullet Hose edition

Can't entirely disagree with this one, but what story regarding modern-day international conflicts doesn't rip off Tom Clancy? Besides, it's not like he has a copyright on the premise. That sort of idiocy is reserved for Tim Langdell.

Brooetal Legend: Rips off of pretty much everything in heavy metal

I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with the story? With concept art, aesthetics, environment, and the like, you bet it's the same. That was the point. But that really doesn't have anything to do with story.

Batman: Arkham Asylum: Hasn't this thing been done in the comics, movies, and tv shows a million times already?

Yeah, the graphic novel Arkham Asylum: A Serious House On Serious Earth basically spawned the entire concept of the game, with other ideas taken from the other facets of the series. But I've never played a game like this before. Can you name one?

Darkest of Days: You got me, this was pretty original

Agreed.

Overlord 2: Same as the first game, so not really original

Okay, but how about the first game? That one was pretty original.

Infamous: Ripped off Prototype
Prototype: Ripped off Infamous

Considering they both came out at the same time, that just doesn't make sense. Regardless, just because they have the same basic concept on the vaguest level (guy with super-powers in city trying to discover how he got powers) doesn't necessarily mean that the intricacies of the plot are the same. For instance, [Prototype] just gives the story as an excuse to kill as many people as you want/can. At least inFamous tries to give a deeper storyline. It might not succeed entirely, but it tries.

I also realize that this is not a very well-worded argument to defend the originality of these games. I think I just get frustrated when people put [Prototype] and inFamous in the same basket when one is a slaughter-sim and the other actually tries to formulate a story out of the premise. (Can you guess which one I enjoyed more?)

Bionic Commando: The name speaks for itself

Agreed.

Velvet Assassin: Kind of original, but loses points for being based on a real person

I can't defend Velvet Assassin too much, as I haven't actually played it or experienced the story first-hand, but saying it's not an original concept because it was based on a real person is just ludicrous. I don't know if I agree with the milking of a real person's life for profit, but it's an original story if I've ever heard one, whether it's fictional or not.

Madworld: Deathmatch tv show. I think Manhunt did something like this.

There are differences between the two, but I get the point. Still, can you name any other games like those? Just because it's happened once doesn't make it unoriginal. It's stuff that has happened twenty times over or more that gets old (space marine fighting alien hordes, for instance).

All in all, though, a games basic premise does not immediately define its story. If anyone is truly a proponent of original stories in games, they simply wouldn't try to confine every game into Premise A, B or C. Defining a story in such broad terms doesn't help convince developers to make more original games; it just makes them lose hope because their work, no matter how original, will immediately fall into a category with a bunch of other games. I will admit, there are some games out there that have far better stories than others, and they stand above the rest. But take some time to actually experience the nuances of each story and you will realize that most games have very original stories, even despite some similarities it may have with other games.

Also remember that some games with other attributes that are less than stellar may have original story ideas. I hated Haze with the very core of my being because of it's redundant gameplay, it's horrible voice acting and sub-par graphics, but, for the life of me, I can't think of another game that had the same sort of storyline. Same goes with Turok (though that's just kind of the space marine thing with dinosaurs added). Just some food for thought.

OT: I loved both Uncharted games specifically because of the voice acting, the motion-capture acting, the characters and the setpieces. The story is standard tomb-raiding fare taken directly from Indiana Jones and Tomb Raider, but the characters are what really sell it for me. Nathan Drake is basically Harrison Ford (as people have mentioned earlier, he's kind of like a combination of Han Solo and Indiana Jones), though I do agree that I would like to see more about his past. I'd especially be interested in seeing how he and Sully met, considering Sully seems to help get him into and out of trouble most of the time.

Of course, this is just my opinion, so take it all with a grain of salt. Still, I love those games, so, while I can see some of Yahtzee's points, I can't say that I agree with the article as a whole.

I said he was a smug unlikeable tosser and I hate him. He might make an effective villain

Hell yes.

We now need a game where the villain is a cocky tomb-raiding thief who can shrug off hundreds of bullets... and is always a step behind you, the protagonist, nevertheless constantly finding ways to steal your shit with a band of plucky sidekicks.

Kermi:
We now need a game where the villain is a cocky tomb-raiding thief who can shrug off hundreds of bullets... and is always a step behind you, the protagonist, nevertheless constantly finding ways to steal your shit with a band of plucky sidekicks.

Love this idea. Just the part about the antagonist being behind you is interesting. The problem is how to keep this ass from ruining your day. Neat idea when the player is usually chasing after the villian to stop something they're doing to something or someone else.

The PC would need to contrast with the Drake. Reserved loner(but with no angst)? Would he be trying to benefit himself like the Drake, but just be less of an ass about it? Or maybe have him be morally superior to him instead, as Yahtzee described Indiana Jones?

All pretty valid criticisms. Shame the game was too good(and produced by Naughty Dog) for me to hate.

Oh, and yeah, Drake is an unlikeable cunt. Oddly, I don't care, because I'm more concerned with having fun. Yeah, that mindset doesn't help advance gaming as an art medium, but I started playing games to do something fun in my free time. Is a game with an amazing story and interesting characters fun? Possibly. Are those things necessary for a game to be thoroughly enjoyable? no.

While I think Yahtzee's hatred of Nathan Drake is a little harsh, I must admit that he's not the most likeable player character. Most of the time this doesn't bother me though, when you're actually playing, it's the supporting cast that make the game what it is, and they're all excellent.

hermes200:

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.

Yes, that's true. But Han Solo is also very well characterized(I can't compare him to Nathan Drake because I haven't played Uncharted 1 or 2). Yes, Han is a selfish bastard who in general doesn't give a shit who he hurts, but we see as he goes through relationships and conflict with the other characters that he has the ability to feel for others which makes him likable, so his flaws then serve to make him human(I'm not knocking Drake, as I said I haven't played Uncharted so as far as I know Nathan Drake could be the same way, I'm just pointing out differences that I see between the Han Solo and who Yhatzee describes as Nathan Drake)

What kind of humanity do yoo want from Drake? The Rambo screwed-over-by-those-to-whom-you-were-loyal humanity or the Darth Vader 'I miss my mommy' humanity?

I don't invest all that much interest in the story of the game. I'm not out to analyse the characters or the plot, if I enjoy it enough that it makes me want to keep playing then as far as I'm concerned the storytellers have been successful. I enjoyed Uncharted 2 a lot, but if Yahtzee or anyone else didn't then that's fine too. At the end of the day he's out to entertain, and he still entertains me pretty consistently regardless of whether or not I agree with what he says.

I don't see gow Yahtzee can hate Nathan Drake but like Garrett of Thief fame, who kills just as easily but is also a sarcastic misanthropic psychopath with a God complex.

Nathan Drake dosent have a backstory. He was grown in a lab by scientists trying to weaponize cliches. It's fitting that he is the protagonist in a game who has done the same. It brings nothing new, but it dosent need to. It's a popcorn game. As mindless and shallow as Drake himself.
I had tons of fun playing this game. I got what i payed for. Polished predictable action adventure with treasures and legends and puzzels so easy the actions never stops. It's long enough to be worth the money and short enough to not outstay its welcome. Its the same reason Zombieland is fun. Brings nothing new (exept maby

) but it dosent need to. It's not there to bring something new, its mindless entertainment to give your brain a rest from thinking. If you dont want that, dont buy it. Its not the fucking god of "cinematic" gameing, whatever that meens. And it's no way GotY. Dragon Age Origins has 100 times more cliches and generic gameplay then UC 2, and still pulls off beeing 100 times more immersive and interesting. Batman AA well, just rocks. And CoD MW 2 may be like playing a Tom Clancy novel. But playing a Tom Clancy novel is a hell of a lot more fun and interesting then reading one. UC 2 is popcorn entertainment to the end, but GotY. No way!

TundraWolf:

Madworld: Deathmatch tv show. I think Manhunt did something like this.

There are differences between the two, but I get the point. Still, can you name any other games like those? Just because it's happened once doesn't make it unoriginal. It's stuff that has happened twenty times over or more that gets old (space marine fighting alien hordes, for instance).

You mean, futuristics game shows as "game premise" to justify mass killing? Ok... Here are some:
- Fatal Review
- F-Zero
- Madworld
- MegaRace
- MTV Celebrity Deadmatch
- Rage
- Ratchet Deadlocked
- Serious Sam
- Smash TV
- The Grid
- Unreal Tournament
- Whacked!
- Zhadnost: The People's Party

Not to menction the entire premise is lifted of The Running Man (that has its own game), which on itself must have come from somewhere...

Ah very true, Not only does it seem bland it is infact bland.
Glad I don't own a ps3.

sumanoskae:

hermes200:

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.

Yes, that's true. But Han Solo is also very well characterized(I can't compare him to Nathan Drake because I haven't played Uncharted 1 or 2). Yes, Han is a selfish bastard who in general doesn't give a shit who he hurts, but we see as he goes through relationships and conflict with the other characters that he has the ability to feel for others which makes him likable, so his flaws then serve to make him human(I'm not knocking Drake, as I said I haven't played Uncharted so as far as I know Nathan Drake could be the same way, I'm just pointing out differences that I see between the Han Solo and who Yhatzee describes as Nathan Drake)

For what is worth, I believe its a very good comparition. Yatzhee's opinion on Drake as a character is a little over-the-top. Sure, he is a smug, but a likeable smug (kind of like Solo, specially on the first movie - before the character change). It is true that he can kill several hundreds of people with little remorse, but almost any action character can be blamed for that, and they were mercenaries that felt little remorse in killing inocents, women and children, to begin with. He even does some stuff without personal gain, like figthing to stop the bad guys when there was no treasure to collect or carry an inocent, wounded man through a war zone when it would have been more convenient to let him to his fate.
I am not saying he is the best, most likeable, new character of this generation but, as far as action characters go, we can certainly get far worst.

Well shit. Don't I feel like a tosser?
He did get annoyed when Flynn proposed the use of guns in the museum by the way. I also thought the point of Flynn's character was to show what Drake isn't.

Well shit. Don't I feel like a tosser. Drake objected to Flynn's suggestion of using guns in the museum by the way. Flynn to me seemed like he existed to show what Drake isn't. Even though both are very similar, Drake has a shred of morality.
I'm a total fanboy for defending this game and my opinion should be completly disregarded anyway.

Xiado:
Darkest of Days: You got me, this was pretty original.

An original premise? Yes. An incredibly stupid premise that makes no sense? Yes.

Originality does not excuse stupidity, an idea can be original but that doesn't mean that it's good.

 Pages PREV 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