Why do people refer to Nathan Drake as a 'psychopathic killer'? I don't understand it. There are so many other game characters that kill as much or even more than he does and no one says the same thing about them. I see people comment that he shows no remorse or acknowledges the deaths of the people he kills but I'm pretty sure other characters are the same. Why should Nathan Drake cry over killing people that are OBVIOUSLY trying to kill him? It's not like these people are civilians and stuff. These are mercenaries or whatchumacall it's that are paid to kill and get killed. I don't think it'll be fun to play a game where you just run away from every bad guy you find instead of shooting them and what game nowadays doesn't put you in control of a one man army kind of guy?

Some examples of dudes killin dudes that aren't crazy dudes:

Shepard: He's trying to save every race in the universe!

Ratchet: He kills a bajillion aliens. That doesn't make him crazy.

Ezio: He kills to keep the world in peace from the actual crazy people. The Templars!

Starkiller: This kid isn't crazy, he was raised as child to kill the jedi and did the only thing he knew how to do until he was betrayed by Vader and realized what he was doing.

John Marston: Everyone knows John Marston ain't a crazy! He's being forced to kill his old gang in RDR because them government peoples. He left the killing behind him only to HAVE to return to it to ensure the safety of his wife and bitch ass son.

Isaac Clarke: Troll face.

Carl Johnson: This guy kills people but not for revenge or because he's crazy. He kills because he's a gangster. If that makes sense. I don't know where to go with this character since it's been a long time that I played San Andreas and I don't remember much about the story.

Niko Bellic: The guy isn't crazy. He just wants an American life and you just so happen to get run over kids parents. That doesn't mean the guys crazy. You kill more people in GTA IV then in Uncharted and you know it. So why don't we write him off as psychopathic?

Kratos: I'm probably going to get called off for this but I don't think he's crazy. The guys just pissed the fuck off and wants revenge on the bastards who turned their back on him.

So why do people troll on Drakey-poo? At the end of the day, he's basically saving the world from some nut who wants to take over the world by selling someone some mystical object that can turn people into crazies or juice them self up to become immortal. Therefore, he's just like every other game character trying to save the world and having to mow down 100's of dudes while he's at it. I probably won't reply tonight because I don't feel like conversing with people. But still, be free to discuss!

I kinda stopped at " y do ppl"  
 
But maybe its because hes more or less killing over treasure? Kinda like Lara Croft. 

Yeah, unless you're playing a stealth game where you have the option of simply knocking people out, pretty much every videogame character seems to murder countless people. And for the most part, those people are trying to murder you.

Drake kills hundreds of people, but they play him off like he doesn't do that.
Ezio kills hundreds of people, but he owns up to it.

Psychopath? No.

Sociopath - now we have a debate, and it's something that's adressed (not overtly) in Uncharted 3. Sociopaths tend to be quite charismatic and can be very persuasvive within a small circle of friends.

I hate to think of Sully buying into that. I'd like to think he'd cap that fool before he did too much damage.

I think the criticism is based on the disconnect between the character as the story presents him and what you are doing when you control him. He comes of as a happy-go-lucky adventurer with a complicated personal life and that really doesn't fit so well with the gameplay. He just seems to ignore the fact that he is killing hundreds of people. I think you are right that Niko also suffers from this criticism, though perhaps to a lesser extent as he is a known killer, but some of the other characters you mention don't. For example, Kratos and Ezio are killers in the story, so it makes sense that you kill a bunch of dudes when you are playing as them. The story acknowledges their behavior and while that behavior is kind of psychopathic, it is acknowledged by the story so it doesn't stand out as much.

@The_Laughing_Man: I don't type like that, I was just mimicking how people usually start threads on here. I'll delete that though so you can read it and other people won't be drawn away. Now read it!

@PrivateIronTFU: I know, but it annoys me when people point out Drake only and say he's crazy and stuff but every other game character is the same.

@kingzetta said:

Drake kills hundreds of people, but they play him off like he doesn't do that. Ezio kills hundreds of people, but he owns up to it.

I guess that makes sense. But still, he's not crazy.

@The_Laughing_Man: I don't type like that, I was just mimicking how people usually start threads on here. I'll delete that though so you can read it and other people won't be drawn away. Now read it!

@PrivateIronTFU: I know, but it annoys me when people point out Drake only and say he's crazy and stuff but every other game character is the same.

@kingzetta said:

Drake kills hundreds of people, but they play him off like he doesn't do that. Ezio kills hundreds of people, but he owns up to it.

I guess that makes sense. But still, he's not crazy.

People just forget the fact that they are in fact playing an action game and not a movie. Indiana Jones in movie form = 5-10 kills, Indiana Jones in game form = Well over a hundred dead foes. You can apply this to literally any action hero.

If Uncharted was an actual movie, Drake would end up killing about a dozen foes because movies are short and aren't expected to have action bouncing off every couple of minutes to captivate a player.

There's an obvious disconnect between his character and the way he murders fools throughout the game. I just chalk it up to video games being video games. It's weird but not a game breaker for me.

@Dallas_Raines said:

People just forget the fact that they are in fact playing an action game and not a movie. Indiana Jones in movie form = 5-10 kills, Indiana Jones in game form = Well over a hundred dead foes. You can apply this to literally any action hero.

If Uncharted was an actual movie, Drake would end up killing about a dozen foes because movies are short and aren't expected to have action bouncing off every couple of minutes to captivate a player.

Yeah, if they ever do make that Uncharted movie, Drake obviously isn't going to kill hundreds of people. There's a very good chance he won't even kill one person. But for a video game, it's not very fun to just run around not shooting people. People are a little ridiculous about their complaints of Uncharted. They need to suspend their disbelief a tad.

@kingzetta said:

Drake kills hundreds of people, but they play him off like he doesn't do that. Ezio kills hundreds of people, but he owns up to it.

Not to mention, Drake is all airy about it and is constantly playing up the charming boyish goof in between killing sprees, which makes it really disturbing when you think about it.

Drake: *points two fingers at you like guns and smacks tongue, winks* "I will kill you, and feel nothing"

Personally I think we should focus on Samus.

She massacred the entire Metroid species just so the Space Pirates couldn't use them, and then when a baby Metroid latched onto her thinking she was it's mother, she donated it to science slavery.

Basically, Samus committed Space Government-sanctioned genocide, and she's the hero.

@Cameron said:

I think the criticism is based on the disconnect between the character as the story presents him and what you are doing when you control him. He comes of as a happy-go-lucky adventurer with a complicated personal life and that really doesn't fit so well with the gameplay. He just seems to ignore the fact that he is killing hundreds of people. I think you are right that Niko also suffers from this criticism, though perhaps to a lesser extent as he is a known killer, but some of the other characters you mention don't. For example, Kratos and Ezio are killers in the story, so it makes sense that you kill a bunch of dudes when you are playing as them. The story acknowledges their behavior and while that behavior is kind of psychopathic, it is acknowledged by the story so it doesn't stand out as much.

I'm going to go ahead and say maybe it's because the rating for the game. Since it's a T-rated game, maybe they don't want him to acknowledge the fact that he kills people like they do with Niko. For example, Niko would say something like 'Hey Roman, I killed those Arab assholes!' whereas Drake would say 'That's one less problem to worry about.' I think if he was to acknowledge the fact that he kills people, it would have to be more gritty and he would be a different character. I don't know if it makes sense to you but it does to me. If it doesn't, just ignore this. I have it in my head but it's kind of hard to explain without people saying 'wuhhh???'. Anyways, Kratos and Ezio are straight up killers but they do it for vengeance and for later to save the world. I know Drake isn't marketed as a killer, but he's doing what these other guys are doing. Wasting people so he can save the world and millions of other people. Hopefully this reply makes any sense to you. I have a headache and I'm tired so that's why my reply sucks. If I waited for tomorrow to reply, I would make more sense but I'm sure I would get lazy tomorrow and just ignore this thread. I just wanted to make this thread because I've been planning on making it for like a month now and finally felt got myself to make it.

@PrivateIronTFU said:

@Dallas_Raines said:

People just forget the fact that they are in fact playing an action game and not a movie. Indiana Jones in movie form = 5-10 kills, Indiana Jones in game form = Well over a hundred dead foes. You can apply this to literally any action hero.

If Uncharted was an actual movie, Drake would end up killing about a dozen foes because movies are short and aren't expected to have action bouncing off every couple of minutes to captivate a player.

Yeah, if they ever do make that Uncharted movie, Drake obviously isn't going to kill hundreds of people. There's a very good chance he won't even kill one person. But for a video game, it's not very fun to just run around not shooting people. People are a little ridiculous about their complaints of Uncharted. They need to suspend their disbelief a tad.

Exactly! Just because he doesn't acknowledge it doesn't mean he's some crazy stone cold killer. I bet if he were to say 'OMG! I just killed 62 men out there! What is wrong with me!!!' instead of being a smartass, people would bitch about him being a bitch. I don't think people would have fun in Uncharted if they just did chase scenes and puzzles the whole game.

Personally I think we should focus on Samus.

She massacred the entire Metroid species just so the Space Pirates couldn't use them, and then when a baby Metroid latched onto her thinking she was it's mother, she donated it to science slavery.

Basically, Samus committed Space Government-sanctioned genocide, and she's the hero.

People call Drake a psychopathic killer?

@kingzetta said:

@awesomeusername said:

@kingzetta said:

Drake kills hundreds of people, but they play him off like he doesn't do that. Ezio kills hundreds of people, but he owns up to it.

I guess that makes sense. But still, he's not crazy.

People say he's a psychopath because he murders tons and tons of people and he does not bat an eye.

Kratos is the same way. He killed gods and would only scream for Zeus right after. So was Altair. In the beginning, his 2 assassin accomplices got trapped behind a wall with the bad guy and he just turned around and left without a word. Ratchet kills tons of aliens and shrugs his shoulders during cutscenes. Starkiller kills and reports back to Vader basically saying ' Hey boss, I got another one. Here's their sword.' Doesn't mean they're crazy. In the end, Drake isn't killing because he wants to. He's just trying to win a race against this other person who just happens to know that the treasure he's after can be used as a weapon against the world.

@JasonR86 said:

People call Drake a psychopathic killer?

Yupp. Lot's of people.

Some people really just over analyze things

In almost every video game, the hero is the guy who kills the most people.

It's a disconnect between how good the acting is, how likable the character, and the hundreds and hundreds of people he murders looking for treasure. As games look more realistic, and the people within them act more realistic, all the shooting and death starts tripping some serious cognitive dissonance. It will be interesting to see how games deal with it.

@awesomeusername said:

@kingzetta said:

@awesomeusername said:

@kingzetta said:

Drake kills hundreds of people, but they play him off like he doesn't do that. Ezio kills hundreds of people, but he owns up to it.

I guess that makes sense. But still, he's not crazy.

People say he's a psychopath because he murders tons and tons of people and he does not bat an eye.

Kratos is the same way. He killed gods and would only scream for Zeus right after. So was Altair. In the beginning, his 2 assassin accomplices got trapped behind a wall with the bad guy and he just turned around and left without a word. Ratchet kills tons of aliens and shrugs his shoulders during cutscenes. Starkiller kills and reports back to Vader basically saying ' Hey boss, I got another one. Here's their sword.' Doesn't mean they're crazy. In the end, Drake isn't killing because he wants to. He's just trying to win a race against this other person who just happens to know that the treasure he's after can be used as a weapon against the world.

You can't try to hold Kratos up as a picture of mental health, here. That guy is clearly insane. Altair was raised as a merciless assassin, so of course he also is not even close to being a normal dude. Ratchet is a crazy alien cat thing in a world that might as well be a cartoon. His violence isn't quite the same. Starkiller is also an assassin, raised from when he was a kid by a genocidal cyborg wizard. All of those people are pretty far from being normal dudes. Drake is ostensibly just some guy who travels the world, explores, finds crazy things, hunts treasure, and occasionally fights off villains and henchmen. The problem with him is that he acts, and the story pretty much treats him like, a perfectly normal guy, when in fact he kills people by the boatload. It's a weird disconnect.

Nathan Drake AND Lara Croft are fucking crazy if you ask me. One mows down hordes of human lives one minute then laughs his ass off the next. The other slaughters endangered species and destroys countless priceless artifacts.

And that's why we love them.

@awesomeusername said:

@JasonR86 said:

People call Drake a psychopathic killer?

Yupp. Lot's of people.

These people are spending way too much time worrying about video games and the moral/ethical repercussions of the actions the protagonists take.

This is where the natural stumbling block for games as narrative pieces lies. Unlike movies or books, which can have a few action scenes, games must keep a constant level of play happening so that the player actually has something to do. Games that feature combat can't really get around this, so any game that tries to tell a wonderful story will always have levels and levels full of combat, with hundreds of enemies dying so that the protagonist can reach his/her goal. It's probably one of the reasons Roger Ebert can't see games as "art" and in that respect I can see where he's coming from. As much as games can tell stories their own way, most of the time combat heavy games must sacrifice storytelling for gameplay due to the natural structure of gameplay.

The main character in Uncharted jumps, runs, climbs, and dives around without ever getting tired, and gets loaded with bullets without dying in addition to killing scores of faceless men. On a fundamental level there is a disconnect between the type of character the narrative is trying to convey and the character the player plays as over the course of the game, and it's not something that can really be overcome.

Why do you care?

Why don't you care? It's funny, and interesting.

@kingzetta said:

@awesomeusername: but kratos is fucking crazy

I won't accept that! He's just... really sad. :(

Honestly, it doesn't bug me. It's not as though it's Prototype or that gory Wolverine game in which your whole goal is to eviscerate and brutally murder people, yet the protagonist is still being painted as some kind of hero. Drake isn't even really a hero, and UC3 explores that a lot, by just saying that he could give up his quest at any time he really feels like it. When he kills, he's kill people who work for even worse people, and have orders to kill Drake on sight.

The one complaint I could see leveled at Uncharted 3 is that the realism is kind of thrown by the wayside with regenerating health and the like. Sully and Drake easily manage to kill platoons of soldiers by themselves, and the entire scene on horseback left Drake's face wide open to get shot.

I think some of you, OP included, are missing the part where people call Nathan Drake a psychopathic killer jokingly. I am pretty sure nobody is actually critiquing the character when they do that.

@HandsomeDead said:

In almost every video game, the hero is the guy who kills the most people.

To be fair, they are bad people. Most of them have foreign accents and they dress funny.

He says "Oh, shave and a haircut." as he's blowing a man's brains out. That sounds pretty crazy to me.

@Alphazero said:

It's a disconnect between how good the acting is, how likable the character, and the hundreds and hundreds of people he murders looking for treasure. As games look more realistic, and the people within them act more realistic, all the shooting and death starts tripping some serious cognitive dissonance. It will be interesting to see how games deal with it.

@Brendan said:

This is where the natural stumbling block for games as narrative pieces lies. Unlike movies or books, which can have a few action scenes, games must keep a constant level of play happening so that the player actually has something to do. Games that feature combat can't really get around this, so any game that tries to tell a wonderful story will always have levels and levels full of combat, with hundreds of enemies dying so that the protagonist can reach his/her goal. It's probably one of the reasons Roger Ebert can't see games as "art" and in that respect I can see where he's coming from. As much as games can tell stories their own way, most of the time combat heavy games must sacrifice storytelling for gameplay due to the natural structure of gameplay.

The main character in Uncharted jumps, runs, climbs, and dives around without ever getting tired, and gets loaded with bullets without dying in addition to killing scores of faceless men. On a fundamental level there is a disconnect between the type of character the narrative is trying to convey and the character the player plays as over the course of the game, and it's not something that can really be overcome.

What you guys say makes sense and you're right. There really isn't a way around it, especially with the kind of audience developers have to bring in this day and age. Shooting guys in the face makes people happy and keeps them entertained and if they were to make a game solely on climbing stuff and being chased around the whole game, it wouldn't draw much attention. I could see how people would feel about the game now with the direction they put the narrative in and how the game is played. But this is the way to make money and keep people interested. He still isn't crazy though!

I agree with a lot of what people have been saying here. It is about the disconnect. Drake is sold in the cut-scenes as this goofy, charismatic and funny sitcom character of a guy, who goes around in the pursuit of lost treasures with a boyish enthusiasm; but then this is offset with him slaughtering hundreds of dudes with ruthless efficiency and he doesn't even blink at it as if he's been doing this his entire life. And he can turn around the next second and crack wise with his mates about their wacky shenanigans without a hint of remorse or reflection over what he is actually doing.

This problem exists for almost every video game character but some games at least try to address it. Ezio kills a lot of people but he acknowledges it; he became an assassin after being unwillingly dragged into a centuries old war when his family were executed, and he is resigned to the fact that he now has to fight for this cause until he dies. Same with John Marston, he constantly admits that he is just an amoral killer who is stuck in a vicious cycle because of his past and now he has to keep killing to save his family, even though he knows it will catch up with him someday; and he does end up paying for his sins, with his life and essentially with the life of his son.

But I bet when Nathan Drake retires from his treasure hunting career and begins to reminisce about the good old days, he won't even remember the several cemeteries worth of bodies he has left behind him!

@JTMosh said:

He says "Oh, shave and a haircut." as he's blowing a man's brains out. That sounds pretty crazy to me.

Never heard that one before. But that's funny! Not mean.

@EchoEcho said:

I think some of you, OP included, are missing the part where people call Nathan Drake a psychopathic killer jokingly. I am pretty sure nobody is actually critiquing the character when they do that.

No, some people are serious. Maybe not all of them, but I've seen people argue about him really being crazy.

@Red said:

by just saying that he could give up his quest at any time he really feels like it. When he kills, he's kill people who work for even worse people, and have orders to kill Drake on sight.

Exactly, he can't be called crazy because it's basically self-defense while at the same time saving millions and millions of civilians in the world from the bad guys who want to control some ancient artifact that can destroy the whole world. It's not like he wants to go on a killing spree, he has to because humanity could be destroyed by these villains he's facing.

I always thought it was really dumb when people say this kind of stuff. It's a video game. What's he suppose to do? Have a cup of tea with them?

It's a light hearted video game, not really something to look that deeply into.

If he were a really guy, oh yeah, he'd be nuts. And probably wouldn't regenerate from bullets quite as well either.

@awesomeusername said:

@EchoEcho said:

I think some of you, OP included, are missing the part where people call Nathan Drake a psychopathic killer jokingly. I am pretty sure nobody is actually critiquing the character when they do that.

No, some people are serious. Maybe not all of them, but I've seen people argue about him really being crazy.

I have apparently managed to not see any of that. I have, however, seen lots of people making jokes about it. But really, aren't you arguing about whether or not he's crazy? If some people want to seriously think he's crazy, I say let them. Not like it matters in the end -- you're still allowed to think he's not.

@JasonR86 said:

@awesomeusername said:

@JasonR86 said:

People call Drake a psychopathic killer?

Yupp. Lot's of people.

These people are spending way too much time worrying about video games and the moral/ethical repercussions of the actions the protagonists take.

I know.

@DexterKid said:

I agree with a lot of what people have been saying here. It is about the disconnect. Drake is sold in the cut-scenes as this goofy, charismatic and funny sitcom character of a guy, who goes around in the pursuit of lost treasures with a boyish enthusiasm; but then this is offset with him slaughtering hundreds of dudes with ruthless efficiency and he doesn't even blink at it as if he's been doing this his entire life. And he can turn around the next second and crack wise with his mates about their wacky shenanigans without a hint of remorse or reflection over what he is actually doing.

This problem exists for almost every video game characters but some games at least try to address it. Ezio kills a lot of people but he acknowledges it; he became an assassin after being unwillingly dragged into a centuries old war when his family were executed, and he is resigned to the fact that he now has to fight for this cause until he dies. Same with John Marston, he constantly admits that he is just an amoral killer who is stuck in a vicious cycle because of his past and now he has to keep killing to save his family even though he knows it will catch up with him someday; and he does end up paying for his sins, with his life and essentially with the life of his son.

But I bet when Nathan Drake retires from his treasure hunting career and begins to reminisce about the good old days, he won't even remember the several cemeteries worth of bodies he has left behind him!

I understand that it feels disjointed but hey... I don't feel like re-writing thing's I've already said. Yeah he makes jokes and acts like nothing happened, but at the end, he's saving millions of lives from people who want to take over the world. So those 'cemeteries worth of bodies' is worth it. They're trying to kill him while trying to unlock some great power to take over the world. If they don't die, millions of innocent people will die. Try comparing that.

Millions of innocent people dead or mercs/thugs/villains dead.

His killing has reason to it like Ezios. Some greater power is trying to take over the world with other-worldly technology and they must stop them at all costs. He isn't portrayed as a killer like Ezio but he's doing the right thing.

@EchoEcho said:

@awesomeusername said:

@EchoEcho said:

I think some of you, OP included, are missing the part where people call Nathan Drake a psychopathic killer jokingly. I am pretty sure nobody is actually critiquing the character when they do that.

No, some people are serious. Maybe not all of them, but I've seen people argue about him really being crazy.

I have apparently managed to not see any of that. I have, however, seen lots of people making jokes about it. But really, aren't you arguing about whether or not he's crazy? If some people want to seriously think he's crazy, I say let them. Not like it matters in the end -- you're still allowed to think he's not.

You don't see much of it, but there are people who throw that around seriously. I'm not arguing whether he's crazy or not because I know he's not. I'm trying to start up a thread for why people call him crazy so we can discuss it. People could think he's crazy, I'm not mad about it. I just want to start up a conversation with people about it. It is a game website after all so I can bring it up. It doesn't matter, I just thought it was an interesting topic and it could bring up some form of debate.

@awesomeusername: I think you are missing the point a bit friend. It's not just about justifying the actions of the character within the context of the plot. It's more about the mentality behind it and reaction of the character to those actions.

As someone else already said in this thread, video game makers are going to have to address this issue soon. Because as it stands, our only way of interacting with these beautifully rendered and richly detailed virtual worlds is by sending bullets flying through people's skulls every 5 seconds for 6 to 8 hours. And its reached a point where we are not even phased by it, its just accepted as our primary way of self expression in video games. I think this will have to change if the medium is to ever connect with more people and tell more emotionally resonant stories. And the first step to getting there is for these characters to actually start recognising and reflecting on what it is that they are doing for a living, rather than just ignoring it altogether like the big ol' elephant in the room that it is.

Also to your point: Drake doesn't set out to save the world. He goes to hunt treasure and thrills, and if all the killing happens to do some good for the world then that's just a bonus. At no point does he sit back and try to make peace with what he is doing.

Simply stated this is kind of the problem that breaks the story of the game for me, not that I'm really big on the moral implications of it or anything, but the idea that Drake and his ragtag group of misfits consistently kills hundreds if not thousands of what should be otherwise competent mercenaries over the course of the game is completely ridiculous. I can understand a couple dozen, but even then that's a bit of a stretch. The world Nathan Drake inhabits will soon enough run out of private security contractors by my estimation, as they'll all be dead.

This is a problem across all game genres though. In reality a masterful swordsman could maybe defeat 3 competent ones given luck, any more and they'd overwhelm him easily. Similarly the best marksman in the world would have his work cut out for him against anything much greater than 4 to 1 odds or so if the people pursuing him are familiar with how to handle their weapons and working together. I don't know how games are going to solve this, and I don't know that it needs to be solved. In general to me though it seems people too easily accept the concept that their video game protagonists are gods who can take infinite punishment, as long as there are chest high walls to hide behind.

I think the particular problem, people have with Nathan Drake in this context is that even after all this apparent death he's still a gleeful treasure hunter crackin' wise at the same time. Additionally the cut-scenes interspersed throughout the action will depict Drake as human and injured, which when they directly follow scenes where you took at least 25 bullets to various body parts are a little hard from some people to get behind. Go watch the Indiana Jones movies again and count up the total number of people directly killed by Indy across the series. There are individual encounters in uncharted that you kill more men than that.

Just my two cents.

There was this moment near the beginning of Uncharted 2 where, in the middle of sneaking around this museum and knocking out security guards (because they're innocent men, of course), I straight up yanked one off a cliff and into the ocean about a hundred feet below. Pretty sure that guy died.

Before Uncharted 1 did Nathan Drake ever kill anyone? If not I must admit he seems to take it really well. He never seems to have a breakdown when he kills his first enemy.

@DexterKid: I'm not missing the point. I fully understand what's being said here. I agree with what everyones saying but I'm defending the character as a video game character, not a real person. Yeah he kills people and doesn't seem to care but it's a video game. Shooting dudes in the face is the easy way to go this generation if developers want money. What happens in most video games are impossible and that's why games are great. Yes, the games get more realistic looking and characters are more fleshed out but taking it seriously is stupid. It's meant for entertainment. More games can be made without guns everywhere. Look at Heavy Rain. The characters can be related to many people and the story is very emotional without the use of shooting 100's of people. We can have more games like that if people were more open minded but people love shooting more then anything else and that's why we don't have games like Heavy Rain. Hence, why we won't get much games like Heavy Rain.

My point is, it's a game. Yeah, it'd be a bit more emotional and engaging if he just sat down in a part of the game and said 'jeez, I've killed a lot of people' and thought about it but not many people care about character development. They just want to get to the part where they shoot it up some more. I'm not saying I'm like that because I play games for their story and characters. But with the gamers of today, none of that matters. Yes, Drake doesn't feel guilt when he should but it's a game where you have to kill 100's of people so having him react like a real person everytime he kills a person is just silly. Uncharted is played for the story, visuals and acting. Not for emotional character development so Drake is fine. People talking about this are practically saying they wish games were as realistic as real life. Imagine Uncharted the way you want it, wouldn't be much fun wouldn't it?

Zoran Lazarevic: You think I am a monster. But you're no different from me, Drake. How many men have you killed? How many... just today?

I think that little sentence is what really set people off on a tizzy. Zoran's been such an imposing and terrifying figure throughout the game and then he drops that truthbomb that really set all of Nate's actions over the course of the game in stark contrast. Especially the way he says it with such great voicework and conviction.

And as many other's have mentioned there's a big cognitive dissonance between the happy go lucky charming rogue that is Nathan Drake to the borderline irredeemable psycho that is Kratos or the assassin who has given up all, but the tenets and the creeds of his guild in Ezio.

Then again, have a closer look at Kirby.

Do you feel differently about him now?

Probably because he is portrayed to be a lovable funny guy, but then he just randomly goes and murders 100s of people.

@BelligerentEngine said:

In reality a masterful swordsman could maybe defeat 3 competent ones given luck, any more and they'd overwhelm him easily. Similarly the best marksman in the world would have his work cut out for him against anything much greater than 4 to 1 odds or so if the people pursuing him are familiar with how to handle their weapons and working together.

And think how much fun a game like this would be.