Why single out Drake, when every single action hero ever has the blood of countless goons and hencemen on their hands. From Indiana Jones to Link. I just don't understand it.

I think it's because he's so likable aside from that. Indiana Jones does the same thing though, you're right. Link doesn't really kill humans so...

As games look more realistic and develop better stories and characters, the experience of murdering the goon equivalent of the population of a small town becomes more and more of a disconnect.

Actually stop and think about how ludicrous it is for a guy who is meant to be in the real world (relatively speaking of course, just like Indiana Jones, there's that fantasy element) to be gunning down hundreds of people...or for anyone outside of the government to have that many armed gunmen in their employ in the first place.

Here is the developing problem of games trying to become more cinematic while still being games. And we're talking about the best example out there! It's probably something we'll just have to accept.

Most characters in any form of media outside of video games with any kind of depth don't spend the bulk of their time running up to bizarre amounts of guys and killing them with little rhyme or reason beside that they are in the way.

Action video games follow the same logic as action movies. How many times have you seen one guy take down entire groups of terrorists? It is not a disconnect at all.

Action video games follow the same logic as action movies. How many times have you seen one guy take down entire groups of terrorists? It is not a disconnect at all.

1. He likes killing and jokes about it.  
2. He kills people for treasure not revenge or to save the world.  
3. He is made out to be a lovable charming guy but he's contently murdering people. 

As long as he's cracking one-liners in between I'm ok with it.

1. He likes killing and jokes about it.  2. He kills people for treasure not revenge or to save the world.  3. He is made out to be a lovable charming guy but he's contently murdering people. 

Have I ever told you the definition of insanity? 

I don't want to spoil anything but you should go replay Uncharted 1 & 2. The ending to 3 will blow your mind if you understand what is ACTUALLY going on....Otherwise you might just be confused.

1. He likes killing and jokes about it.  2. He kills people for treasure not revenge or to save the world.  3. He is made out to be a lovable charming guy but he's contently murdering people. 

Truth is. None of his adventures are happening. He is really just tied to a bed in some hospital having an episode. 

@The_Laughing_Man said:

Truth is. None of his adventures are happening. He is really just tied to a bed in some hospital having an episode.

Ooooh, I knew Velvet Assassin was somehow connected.

I'd say Nathan Drake is a lot more sane than Arnold Schwarzenegger in Commando.

It could stem from the fact that Drake is a treasure hunter and not a mercenary or space marine. I don't think many people associate treasure hunters with cold blooded killers. I first realized that "holy shit Drake kills an ass load of dudes" when I finished UC2 and was thinking about how I wanted more puzzles and less action, hell maybe just less shooting. And has Indiana Jones really killed that many people? I'd think most of his kills were indirect, it been a while since I've seen an Indie film.

EDIT: okay I found a Indiana Jones kill count, which is 55 over 4 films (http://www.allouttabubblegum.com/main/?p=481), compare this to at least 200 (combining the two smallest head shot trophies) that Drake has, I'd say Drake is a tad more "insane" than Indie.

@chstupid said:

1. He likes killing and jokes about it.

I never remember him actually joking about a kill. I don't ever remember him saying "Haha, I just killed that guy. Yup! Stabbed him in the back. He never knew I was there. It was funny!" No, I only ever remember Nathan joking about benign things. Like him saying "Marco!" when he jumps into the pool. All the other things he says are usually just exclamations. Like "Omg, did that really just happen?," or something to that effect. Sure, they are humorous sometimes, but they are a far cry from him gleefully making jokes about the fact that he just killed someone...

Even if he does at some point make a joke about it, as I recall all the people that he is killing are bad people. They deserve it. Regardless even of that, I'd probably still be making jokes simply to cope. Bad person or not, it's probably always unnerving to kill someone. Maybe jokes are the characters way of coping?

@chstupid said:

2. He kills people for treasure not revenge or to save the world. 3. He is made out to be a lovable charming guy but he's contently murdering people.

As I recall, the bad guys in both games reveal themselves to be bad from the very beginning. In Uncharted 1, Nathan is being shot at first while on the boat within the first few moments, and then it's all down hill from there. If a group of bad guys shot at me first, in my mind that gives me the right to shoot back whenever I want from that first encounter onward. Next time I see that group, once I recognize that it's the same group of people working for the same person, I'm going to open fire. I'm not going to wait for them to start shooting first, because I already know that they will. They've already established that they are willing to shoot at me right off the bat. I don't need to discover that a second time.

In the second game, I remember it being a similar situation except for the first sequence. However, the very opening sequence isn't kills, it's all choking them out (or one guy falls from really high up into water), all of which you could easily argue that they survived, and were just fine. Once the guns come out, I seem to remember Nathan being shot at first. Hell, I don't even think he initially had a gun at all when he first starting getting shot at in Uncharted 2 (he might have had a tranquilizer gun). Later, he identifies his attackers, knows which guys are bad, and then starts killing them back.

All of the above indicates that none of what he is doing is "murder," as you put it. It should be looked at as self-defense, or as killing members of an enemy army. I feel like the motive, reasoning, and emotion behind Nathan killing those people is similar to soldiers killing each other in a war. Or at least I feel like that's what they are trying to portray.

As far as Nathan's motives for being in this situation never being that he's trying to "save the world." Isn't the bad guy at the ending of the second one totally about to get his hands on an incredibly powerful artifact, and then actually states that he is going to use it to gain control of the world? I mean, to me that counts as "saving the world." I'm not sure why you would think it wasn't. /shrug

@Ashen said:

EDIT: Okay I found a Indiana Jones kill count, which is 55 over 4 films (http://www.allouttabubblegum.com/main/?p=481), compare this to at least 200 (combining the two smallest head shot trophies) that Drake has, I'd say Drake is a tad more "insane" than Indie.

This brings me to my final point. It's an action game. If you were to turn the same storyline into a 2 hour movie, he would probably have a similar kill count as Indiana Jones. However, this is something that actually has to be padded out with gameplay, and that gameplay is usually going to be killing dudes. The game has to last 6-10 hours, not 2 hours like a movie... It's no different then Read Dead Redemption, or Grand Theft Auto 4. Those games portray two people that have quit their old ways, that want to be good, and are basically now decent individuals. Yet in those games you can still choose to go on a murderous rampage, even so far as killing innocent civilians (at least all of Nathan Drake's kills are "bad guys"). Why do they allow this? Because it extends the gameplay, they are more able to justify the 60 dollar price tag, and it entices more people to buy it. That's just how this medium works. It's true, sometimes the "gameplay" doesn't jive with the type of personality that the writers are trying to portray, but this doesn't make characters like Nathan Drake, John Marston, or Niko Bellic evil, or insane. It just means that you have to mentally separate the gameplay from the story a lot of the time.

Another Sony mascot with blood and oil on his hands. What is it with Sony and psychotic protagonists, guyz?

@MAST said:

@chstupid said:

1. He likes killing and jokes about it.

I never remember him actually joking about a kill. I don't ever remember him saying "Haha, I just killed that guy. Yup! Stabbed him in the back. He never knew I was there. It was funny!" No, I only ever remember Nathan joking about benign things. Like him saying "Marco!" when he jumps into the pool. All the other things he says are usually just exclamations. Like "Omg, did that really just happen?," or something to that effect. Sure, they are humorous sometimes, but they are a far cry from him gleefully making jokes about the fact that he just killed someone...

Even if he does at some point make a joke about it, as I recall all the people that he is killing are bad people. They deserve it. Regardless even of that, I'd probably still be making jokes simply to cope. Bad person or not, it's probably always unnerving to kill someone. Maybe jokes are the characters way of coping?

@chstupid said:

2. He kills people for treasure not revenge or to save the world. 3. He is made out to be a lovable charming guy but he's contently murdering people.

As I recall, the bad guys in both games reveal themselves to be bad from the very beginning. In Uncharted 1, Nathan is being shot at first while on the boat within the first few moments, and then it's all down hill from there. If a group of bad guys shot at me first, in my mind that gives me the right to shoot back whenever I want from that first encounter onward. Next time I see that group, once I recognize that it's the same group of people working for the same person, I'm going to open fire. I'm not going to wait for them to start shooting first, because I already know that they will. They've already established that they are willing to shoot at me right off the bat. I don't need to discover that a second time.

In the second game, I remember it being a similar situation except for the first sequence. However, the very opening sequence isn't kills, it's all choking them out (or one guy falls from really high up into water), all of which you could easily argue that they survived, and were just fine. Once the guns come out, I seem to remember Nathan being shot at first. Hell, I don't even think he initially had a gun at all when he first starting getting shot at in Uncharted 2 (he might have had a tranquilizer gun). Later, he identifies his attackers, knows which guys are bad, and then starts killing them back.

All of the above indicates that none of what he is doing is "murder," as you put it. It should be looked at as self-defense, or as killing members of an enemy army. I feel like the motive, reasoning, and emotion behind Nathan killing those people is similar to soldiers killing each other in a war. Or at least I feel like that's what they are trying to portray.

As far as Nathan's motives for being in this situation never being that he's trying to "save the world." Isn't the bad guy at the ending of the second one totally about to get his hands on an incredibly powerful artifact, and then actually states that he is going to use it to gain control of the world? I mean, to me that counts as "saving the world." I'm not sure why you would think it wasn't. /shrug

@Ashen said:

EDIT: Okay I found a Indiana Jones kill count, which is 55 over 4 films (http://www.allouttabubblegum.com/main/?p=481), compare this to at least 200 (combining the two smallest head shot trophies) that Drake has, I'd say Drake is a tad more "insane" than Indie.

This brings me to my final point. It's an action game. If you were to turn the same storyline into a 2 hour movie, he would probably have a similar kill count as Indiana Jones. However, this is something that actually has to be padded out with gameplay, and that gameplay is usually going to be killing dudes. The game has to last 6-10 hours, not 2 hours like a movie... It's no different then Read Dead Redemption, or Grand Theft Auto 4. Those games portray two people that have quit their old ways, that want to be good, and are basically now decent individuals. Yet in those games you can still choose to go on a murderous rampage, even so far as killing innocent civilians (at least all of Nathan Drake's kills are "bad guys"). Why do they allow this? Because it extends the gameplay, they are more able to justify the 60 dollar price tag, and it entices more people to buy it. That's just how this medium works. It's true, sometimes the "gameplay" doesn't jive with the type of personality that the writers are trying to portray, but this doesn't make characters like Nathan Drake, John Marston, or Niko Bellic evil, or insane. It just means that you have to mentally separate the gameplay from the story a lot of the time.

Where's the upvote button?

I'd say he gets singled out far too often for it, but sometimes when people talk about Drake being a merciless killing machine they're just using him because he's a good example of a general trend in action games and even many action movies where all protagonists are crazy murderers. I think what really exacerbates the problem with Drake though is that Uncharted is very cinematic and visually realistic, and so the Uncharted games seem closer to the real-world, meaning the parts of the games that obviously would seem out of place in the real-world stand out all the more.

@Wrighteous86:

C'mon bro, Moblins, Wizzrobes and Lizalfos are all clearly sentient creatures.

@chstupid said:

1. He likes killing and jokes about it.

I never remember him actually joking about a kill. I don't ever remember him saying "Haha, I just killed that guy. Yup! Stabbed him in the back. He never knew I was there. It was funny!" No, I only ever remember Nathan joking about benign things. Like him saying "Marco!" when he jumps into the pool. All the other things he says are usually just exclamations. Like "Omg, did that really just happen?," or something to that effect. Sure, they are humorous sometimes, but they are a far cry from him gleefully making jokes about the fact that he just killed someone...

which every way you look at it Drake is a mass murderer

Namely because the player is meant to identify with Nathan Drake, he's characterised as an all-American hero, and the games are realistic as well as narrative-centric. It feels like your actions ought to have more moral context to remain consistent with the characterisation: the disconnect between narrative and mechanics is really what brings it to the fore. He's meant to be a likeable, grounded individual despite having the blood of hundreds of racial 'others' on his hands. It's like a well-dressed businessman who slaughters prostitutes in his spare time. Does it matter if you like the game and/or story? Not really, but in terms of the game's ludonarrative structure it is significant for being poorly-handled and contradictory.

Well there was that bit at the end of UC2 where the villain says something about the amount of people that Drake has killed and everyone seemed to latch onto it for some reason.

@Slaker117:

"[stealing Tony's shoes]

John McClane: Nine million terrorists in the world and I gotta kill one with feet smaller than my sister."

"[Reading what McClane wrote on the dead terrorist's shirt]

Hans Gruber: "Now I have a machine gun. Ho ho ho."

"[John is fighting Karl]

John McClane: You should have heard your brother squeal when I broke his fucking neck."

"Marco: [chasing McClane to the end of a conference room table] You are dog now! No more table! Where are you going, pal? Next time you have a chance to kill someone, don't hesitate.

John McClane: [McClane shoots Marco through the table] Thanks for the advice."

Oh noes, I can never look at Die Hard the same way ever again. John McClane is clearly a demented being pretending to be 'human'. Wow, Dexter is basically a knockoff of Die Hard.

I don't know why Drake has to be defended so voraciously, Naughty Dog showed they weren't afraid to at least touch on the idea at the end of Uncharted 2 with Lazarevic anyway.

@MEATBALL said:

I don't know why Drake has to be defended so voraciously, Naughty Dog showed they weren't afraid to at least touch on the idea at the end of Uncharted 2 with Lazarevic anyway.

...and I don't know why stuff like this has to be pointed out at all. It's not even close to being an uncommon thing, but here comes a title exclusive to a platform most people don't see as their primary and most don't even own and suddenly it's a big deal. On some sites Uncharted 2 was marked down (heavily) because it didn't "innovate" enough. How many games actually innovate in any remarkable way these days? Add to that that the game actually did innovate with the spectacular environments and movie-like scripted events at least I hadn't seen before. It's an aside, but still, it speaks to the same phenomenon.

or for anyone outside of the government to have that many armed gunmen in their employ in the first place.

He's presented as a likeable everyman who just happens to be caught up in a bad situation but he kills hundreds of people.  I get that it's all self defense, but there comes a point where there has to be some signs of remorse or at least reflection.  The problem is the game contrivance that demands the player mow down dozens of guys to progress to the next room.  It's an inaccuracy not limited to Uncharted.  Look at any Call of Duty game.  Real soldiers in combat don't kill that many enemy soldiers.  I believe it takes 5 confirmed kills to become a fighter ace.  Far fewer than the 50 or more usually required for an achievement trophy.  Action games focus on killing other people (or aliens) and that's what has to evolve.  Game designers need to come up with some other mechanic that is exciting but doesn't involve mass murder.  I know it's fiction, but that still doesn't mean it's any less distracting.   Because we like and maybe even aspire to imitate some of Drake's qualities, it becomes glaringly problematic. 
 
I always wind up asking myself, where do all these enemy guys come from?  Why are they so intent on killing me even when they've seen me kill a dozen of their comrades right in front of them.  Perhaps if the enemies had more human qualities we'd be less inclined to just gun them all down.  Maybe if after a buddy got his head blown off by my awesome shot, the other henchman would freak out and run off.  Maybe you'd find him cowering and weeping somewhere else on the map.   Or, designers could add "loot" to all the corpses the player leaves in their wake.  In addition to ammunition, the player would collect family photos of the fallen, mementos and good luck charms from their children, and audio tapes from lovers asking them to come home.  These little additions might not change the game play, but they could cause the player to reflect on their actions and that might motivate them to find other ways around a situation (provided one exists).

@hckling said:

@MEATBALL said:

I don't know why Drake has to be defended so voraciously, Naughty Dog showed they weren't afraid to at least touch on the idea at the end of Uncharted 2 with Lazarevic anyway.

...and I don't know why stuff like this has to be pointed out at all. It's not even close to being an uncommon thing, but here comes a title exclusive to a platform most people don't see as their primary and most don't even own and suddenly it's a big deal. On some sites Uncharted 2 was marked down (heavily) because it didn't "innovate" enough. How many games actually innovate in any remarkable way these days? Add to that that the game actually did innovate with the spectacular environments and movie-like scripted events at least I hadn't seen before. It's an aside, but still, it speaks to the same phenomenon.

I don't think that's the reason it's brought up at all. Maybe some random trolls might bring it up as some kind of ammo in immature console wars or whatever, but the majority of both critics and players both recognise the title as one of the best games of this gen and the best title of 2009. The biggest reason Drake is singled out as a "psychopath" is because Uncharted 2 is one of the better examples of film-like storytelling in videogames, not because of any childish vendetta against the PS3. Similar complaints are made about the disconnect between Rockstar protagonists like Niko and John Marston and the actions players take in-game. While I don't find this disconnect much of a bother, myself, I do think it's a discussion worth having as the medium grows and we attempt to understand better ways to mesh storytelling and the most important part of the medium - gameplay - together.

@Slaker117 said:

@hckling: Honestly, you sound extremely defensive for no good reason. You're suggesting that we pick on Drake because Uncharted is a PS3 exclusive and seem upset at some negative comments in reviews despite the fact that it was among, if not the, biggest critical success of it's year of release. Furthermore, pretty environments and scripting simply isn't innovative. Incredibly well executed, yes, but not new. The reason we single out Nathan is because he is otherwise likable in a way that is rarely achieved in video games. We want to side with him because he's a fun personality. But when he goes around killing scores and scores of people without a second thought, it becomes jarring. A relatable character is a mass murder, and that's a point of conflict. While I'm sure there are some people who are bias against him because of what consoles they do or don't own, it's a perfectly valid criticism among people who can handle a discussion about a platform exclusive.

Yeah, I like the game and when I see it being picked apart for no reason it rubs me the wrong way.

Your definition of innovation is different from mine. Innovation doesn't have to be gameplay related, it can just as well be in the presentation and Uncharted 2 did things I'd never experienced in a game before. I also found the ending to Modern Warfare innovative in its execution, if that puts things into perspective.

Having a main character who kills lots of people is not new to any medium. Having just played through Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood, Ezio is an example of a character who has many more deaths on his conscience than does Drake (at least in my playthrough). Not to mention he initiates combat 95% of the times, against common city guards who are really just doing their jobs with a few exceptions.

Considering the amount of media out there where the main guy is a "likeable mass murderer", the fact that Drake keeps being the focus of attention is weird. The only explanation I can think of is the platform he lives on. Perhaps there is some other factor singling him out, but I don't see it.

I had wondered about this Drake focus too.  then I played Uncharted 2.  In the 2nd level you are fighting museum guards.  Total innocents.  You are doing silent takedowns that look a lot like neck breaks, but I'm not positive so I assume in this case he's just choking them out.  Then you toss a guy off a roof 300 feet down and kill or at least cripple him for life.  That seemed odd to put in. 

@The_Laughing_Man said:

Truth is. None of his adventures are happening. He is really just tied to a bed in some hospital having an episode.

Ooooh, I knew Velvet Assassin was somehow connected.

Indiana Jones is a ruthless, grim, and suave character. Dude will you fuck you up and not even think about it. Nathan Drake is a happy-go-lucky kind of guy, which just kind of makes it creepy when he flings someone off a cliff and cracks wise as they fall a mile to their death. 
 
But it is a stupid argument. The Uncharted universe takes place somewhere that is distinctly not here. It's a caricature of real life, and just about as cartoony as your INfamous's and your Ratchet and Clank's.

Have I ever told you the definition of insanity? 

I had wondered about this Drake focus too.  then I played Uncharted 2.  In the 2nd level you are fighting museum guards.  Total innocents.  You are doing silent takedowns that look a lot like neck breaks, but I'm not positive so I assume in this case he's just choking them out.  Then you toss a guy off a roof 300 feet down and kill or at least cripple him for life.  That seemed odd to put in. 

I just realized something, Uncharted is rated T. Does that seem weird to anyone else? I'd say a game like Halo: Reach is no more bloody or violent, and you aren't even fighting humans, yet it gets an M.

I don't understand any of your logic.

Drake kills lots of people. So does pretty much every other action character ever. Why is Drake somehow worse? Maybe he should just let them kill him, right?

Oh and that second level, you don't kill anyone. He climbs out of the water, and all of those 'neck breaks' are non-lethal, you just cut off oxygen until they faint and then lower them to the ground.

I just realized something, Uncharted is rated T. Does that seem weird to anyone else? I'd say a game like Halo: Reach is no more bloody or violent, and you aren't even fighting humans, yet it gets an M.

@hckling said:

@MEATBALL said:

I don't know why Drake has to be defended so voraciously, Naughty Dog showed they weren't afraid to at least touch on the idea at the end of Uncharted 2 with Lazarevic anyway.

...and I don't know why stuff like this has to be pointed out at all. It's not even close to being an uncommon thing, but here comes a title exclusive to a platform most people don't see as their primary and most don't even own and suddenly it's a big deal. On some sites Uncharted 2 was marked down (heavily) because it didn't "innovate" enough. How many games actually innovate in any remarkable way these days? Add to that that the game actually did innovate with the spectacular environments and movie-like scripted events at least I hadn't seen before. It's an aside, but still, it speaks to the same phenomenon.

I don't think that's the reason it's brought up at all. Maybe some random trolls might bring it up as some kind of ammo in immature console wars or whatever, but the majority of both critics and players both recognise the title as one of the best games of this gen and the best title of 2009. The biggest reason Drake is singled out as a "psychopath" is because Uncharted 2 is one of the better examples of film-like storytelling in videogames, not because of any childish vendetta against the PS3. Similar complaints are made about the disconnect between Rockstar protagonists like Niko and John Marston and the actions players take in-game. While I don't find this disconnect much of a bother, myself, I do think it's a discussion worth having as the medium grows and we attempt to understand better ways to mesh storytelling and the most important part of the medium - gameplay - together.

I think people who think Drake is a psychopath should really learn what it means to truly be a psychopath. And by that I don't mean skimming a Wikipedia article on it.
 
Drake is very clearly not a psychopath.

This is why classic cartoon villains usually have armies of robots.