Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception - Part 1

[Havok83]

Thanks t: Seems weird that it'd be turned off though...

It is. I didnt even find out about that till after I beat the game which was quite annoying

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I think they did that because after people getting use to the idea of sprinting by pressing the left button down that they would instinctively press the button and accidentally switch sides when they didn't want to... That's just my theory anyway, could be completely wrong :P

 

[KALEL114]

I don't actually think that would have had much bearing. The story process is governed by tight deadlines and whoever was on writing duty would not have been split as 50/50 between to two projects as the devs would have been. In fact, most of the story work would have been done well before they started any serious game production.

I don't think you need to try and find a 'reason' as to why you didn't like the story as much, that's the very nature of any art or creative process, sometimes it just doesn't hit that spot in the right way. I actually thought U3 had the much, much better story in terms of character development, it simply didn't have as many punchy narrative plot points.

Not to mention that the series only has one head writer and that's Amy Hennig. She creates the story and scripts herself and is involved during the entire production. She did not write The Last of Us.

I think the biggest difference between Uncharted 2 and 3 is the absence of Game Director Bruce Straley. He did U2, but passed on U3 so he could work on The Last of Us.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

That sounds more likely.

I still don't think the story of U3 should be dismissed so easily. It just seemed to be missing more of the punchy pacing of U2 in relation to a balance of action and story. The story itself in U3 was quite deep. All those great moments when Drake was all "Cool, so now we need to go and do the thing to get the thing" and someone like Elena or Sully would just be like "Why, Nate?". Really shone a light on the whole heroic angle that get's used in every game and asked the question 'what ACTUALLY drives this person?' I'd say that's the focus of the game, whereas 2 was more about the blurred lines between good and bad, this just showed Nate's driven mainly by obsession.

 

[javi1024]

personally I wanted to know what Nate's last name really is. And I think I would've liked to see more flashback chapters integrated in the story. I was nice playing as 12(?) year old Nate. Would have been cool to see 15, 18, 21...

 

[Jick]

I don't actually think that would have had much bearing. The story process is governed by tight deadlines and whoever was on writing duty would not have been split as 50/50 between to two projects as the devs would have been. In fact, most of the story work would have been done well before they started any serious game production.

According to what I read recently in the Mapping the Development of Uncharted 3 (http://www.1up.com/features/mapping-uncharted-3-drake-deception), their development was quite a mess, actually. They knew, for example, that they wanted to have a sequence involving a plane crashing in the desert, but they had no idea how that would happen or why. They did that poster with Nathan in the desert, which eventually even became the cover of the game, but only later they thought about how the story would go there.

I think the same happened with the train sequence in the second game. They also said that, for many times, they planned to show us something, but that wasn't done in the right time, so they gave us another sequence. For instance, the burning chateau demo wasn't what they wanted to show first, it was supposed to be the part where Drake is in Ramese's ship. It was a messy and crazy development but they already had the due date of the game and they wanted to meet the deadline.

I even said sometime ago that Naughty Dog couldn't be working in another game because of those reasons. There was too much work to be done and a deadline to be met. But then, they said they had to split the team. I still can't imagine how they were able to do that. I don't know if the writer of the Uncharted games was also working on The Last of Us, though.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I've read that too and seen them talking about it in dev videos and I don't think you can blame the story on U3 for that since they've said that's how they did all the games, including one of the most memorable moments in the series, the train crash in U2.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I don't actually think that would have had much bearing. The story process is governed by tight deadlines and whoever was on writing duty would not have been split as 50/50 between to two projects as the devs would have been. In fact, most of the story work would have been done well before they started any serious game production.

I'm familiar with production schedules. I work in the creative industry. The deadline was too strict. Half the team moved onto another game. All these things add up. Everything was rushed. In order to meet the deadline with half a team, they needed to restructure everything. The only thing they could really take dev time away from to accommodate this would be writing. This really shows.

I don't think you need to try and find a 'reason' as to why you didn't like the story as much, that's the very nature of any art or creative process, sometimes it just doesn't hit that spot in the right way.

Understanding WHY things don't work out is integral. You gotta know the reason things get messed up so you can fix it for the next time. I, personally don't NEED to find a reason, as it is not my job to. But I, as a fan, however, can voice my opinion on what went wrong and why. As for Naughty Dog, they damn well better know the reason (which I'm sure they do) and I'm sure they will take advantage of that knowledge next time. They're too good of a company to allow it to happen again.

I actually thought U3 had the much, much better story in terms of character development, it simply didn't have as many punchy narrative plot points.

That's not the problem at all. For me anyway. Look at my original post about this on the previous page. There are many plot holes and poorly thought out/executed ideas. It has nothing to do with pacing or balance of action and story. It's quite simply that they rushed the writing, and didn't get a chance to really expand upon the ideas and themes they introduced. It WANTS to be deep and thought provoking and mysterious, but they didn't allow themselves the time to flesh it out (and in some cases even develop it past the initial mention).

I'm not trying to hate on the game. I love UC3. Its one of my favorite games of this past year. But I do feel let down by the story, since the last two were so good, and this one obviously has so much potential that didn't get to be adequately realized.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I don't know, a lot of those plotholes you mentioned were things I thought at one stage too but disappeared after my second playthrough. A lot of those things, especially concerning Talbot etc, are actually deliberate red herrings. After thinking on it, half of those things actually made sense and the story didn't seem as rushed to me.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I dunno, I don't see those things being red herrings at all. What plot revelation would those things be hiding? None that I recall.

I'm on my second play through. Perhaps my views will change as well, but for now I'll stand by my opinion.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Well, after the first two games, you are expecting there to be a supernatural twist and they play up Talbot and the organisation to be especially so, with Talbot seeming to be able to vanish into thin air, survive a gunshot wound, the tarot card and then the obvious one, the Fire Djins. The twist is that it's NOT supernatural, which is what you expect as that has been the standard. Instead they're a League of Shadows type organisation that uses fear against you. Because that is a big part of it too. Think of the first trailer, seeing Marlowe ask Drake 'What are you REALLY afraid of?' He pushes himself forwards irresponsibly and doesn't care about his own safety, much to the frustration of Sully and Elena but really it's the risk of his loved ones dying that is his biggest fear which I think is a fantastic character exploration. It explains so much of the characters motivations across all three games.

Also, regarding the 'someone should have died' point, I think that was the greatest red herring of them all.

Spoiler

I spent a large, large part of the game thinking Sully was going to die. Naughty Dogs decision to show their back story, focusing on their relationship, really made me think we might be getting ready to say goodbye to Sully. Then when he gets captured and Nate is chasing after him, playing with your expectations (the fake Sully on the cruise ship) it becomes almost assumed, with Elena worrying about Sully etc. Then you save him and you feel relieved, then they pull a total double red herring, they kill him off and then it turns out to be fake. For that 15 minutes where I thought Sully was dead, I was totally gutted and Drake as a character is almost completely defeated. Even when you find him again, I didn't completely trust that it was him. The final scene with all of them at the airport was probably my favourite ending yet, purely because it was heartwarming but didn't feel tokenistic. Personally, I think if they HAD killed Sully, it would have felt totally cliched. The third game so they HAVE to kill someone or do something dramatic, but Naughty Dog aren't governed by video game tropes and they haven't limited this series to a trilogy, they go with what serves the story in what they expect to be an ongoing story/saga.

 

[Lone]

Also, regarding the 'someone should have died' point, I think that was the greatest red herring of them all.

Spoiler

I spent a large, large part of the game thinking Sully was going to die. Naughty Dogs decision to show their back story, focusing on their relationship, really made me think we might be getting ready to say goodbye to Sully. Then when he gets captured and Nate is chasing after him, playing with your expectations (the fake Sully on the cruise ship) it becomes almost assumed, with Elena worrying about Sully etc. Then you save him and you feel relieved, then they pull a total double red herring, they kill him off and then it turns out to be fake. For that 15 minutes where I thought Sully was dead, I was totally gutted and Drake as a character is almost completely defeated. Even when you find him again, I didn't completely trust that it was him. The final scene with all of them at the airport was probably my favourite ending yet, purely because it was heartwarming but didn't feel tokenistic. Personally, I think if they HAD killed Sully, it would have felt totally cliched. The third game so they HAVE to kill someone or do something dramatic, but Naughty Dog aren't governed by video game tropes and they haven't limited this series to a trilogy, they go with what serves the story in what they expect to be an ongoing story/saga.

I totally went berserker mode in game when that happened. No guns. Just fists and manly tears.

 

[TheBat812]

Well, after the first two games, you are expecting there to be a supernatural twist and they play up Talbot and the organisation to be especially so, with Talbot seeming to be able to vanish into thin air, survive a gunshot wound, the tarot card and then the obvious one, the Fire Djins. The twist is that it's NOT supernatural, which is what you expect as that has been the standard. Instead they're a League of Shadows type organisation that uses fear against you. Because that is a big part of it too. Think of the first trailer, seeing Marlowe ask Drake 'What are you REALLY afraid of?' He pushes himself forwards irresponsibly and doesn't care about his own safety, much to the frustration of Sully and Elena but really it's the risk of his loved ones dying that is his biggest fear which I think is a fantastic character exploration. It explains so much of the characters motivations across all three games.

Also, regarding the 'someone should have died' point, I think that was the greatest red herring of them all.

Spoiler

I spent a large, large part of the game thinking Sully was going to die. Naughty Dogs decision to show their back story, focusing on their relationship, really made me think we might be getting ready to say goodbye to Sully. Then when he gets captured and Nate is chasing after him, playing with your expectations (the fake Sully on the cruise ship) it becomes almost assumed, with Elena worrying about Sully etc. Then you save him and you feel relieved, then they pull a total double red herring, they kill him off and then it turns out to be fake. For that 15 minutes where I thought Sully was dead, I was totally gutted and Drake as a character is almost completely defeated. Even when you find him again, I didn't completely trust that it was him. The final scene with all of them at the airport was probably my favourite ending yet, purely because it was heartwarming but didn't feel tokenistic. Personally, I think if they HAD killed Sully, it would have felt totally cliched. The third game so they HAVE to kill someone or do something dramatic, but Naughty Dog aren't governed by video game tropes and they haven't limited this series to a trilogy, they go with what serves the story in what they expect to be an ongoing story/saga.

Ya, I agree with you on all points. Loved the story in this one, thought it dug deeper and the risks they took story/character-wise paid off.

I personally don't think Uncharted 2's story was at all superior to this one. While 2 is fun to play through, and the story is solid, bringing us from points A to B, there isn't really much at stake. Like you said, the whole story with Sully really leads the player in a certain direction. It really hit hard when it happened for me.

Ya, Uncharted 2 has the whole light/dark angle with the two chicks, but it is a simple adventure story with a funny and charming main character. 3 really offers more (for me).

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

The issue I had with the plot of Uncharted 3 was that it didn't really pay off. The build up to the 3rd act is pretty darned good (Ramses' general pointlessness aside) but then just as its about to climax, particularly after Sully's "death" the game just seemed to be in a rush to end as quickly as possible.

Cutter, Chloe, the roving band he met in the desert and especially Elena should have had more impact on the finale. I don't think they really ended up saying anything new about Nate and Sully's father/son relationship that we didn't know at the start and Marlowe and Talbot ended up being rather bland villains despite some great early stuff from the both of them.

I think backing away from Sully's death was a major misstep. When he got shot I was so impressed with how utterly brutal and quick it was and that they had the balls to do it. My first feeling after seeing that and then Marlow and Talbot was "NATHAN - ****ING GET THEM," they had me completely invested by that point. And then Sully was alive again and all was well and the tension of the plot just evaporated before my eyes. They ended up more or less playing the whole thing a bit safe and consequence free.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

The issue I had with the plot of Uncharted 3 was that it didn't really pay off. The build up to the 3rd act is pretty darned good (Ramses' general pointlessness aside) but then just as its about to climax, particularly after Sully's "death" the game just seemed to be in a rush to end as quickly as possible.

Cutter, Chloe, the roving band he met in the desert and especially Elena should have had more impact on the finale. I don't think they really ended up saying anything new about Nate and Sully's father/son relationship that we didn't know at the start and Marlowe and Talbot ended up being rather bland villains despite some great early stuff from the both of them.

I think backing away from Sully's death was a major misstep. When he got shot I was so impressed with how utterly brutal and quick it was and that they had the balls to do it. My first feeling after seeing that and then Marlow and Talbot was "NATHAN - ****ING GET THEM," they had me completely invested by that point. And then Sully was alive again and all was well and the tension of the plot just evaporated before my eyes. They ended up more or less playing the whole thing a bit safe and consequence free.

Yea i agree with this. I think killing him only to bring him back was far more "gamey" or cliche than actually removing him from the series.

 

[Superhero 101]

yes i think that if they would have killed sully the game would have a had a more deeper effect. and would have made the story really more meaningful. That scene where Sully gets "shot" and seeing the emotion in Drake's eyes was just so emotional i really loved it.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I think it definitely would have been more cliched and less fulfilling if he had died. It was telegraphed that he was going to die for the whole game, so if he had there would have been even less pay off. And it is very much a video game trope that for the big third game or third part of a trilogy, they kill of a character who has been around for all 3 games. You only need to look at some of the biggest 3rd game titles to see this trend. Uncharted, for me, has always been a step above the standard blockbuster game narrative and I would have been sorely disappointed if they had resorted to such a cheap way of forcing an emotive response.

And I DON'T think it was another 'happy' ending. For me, each game has been important as far as Drake learning some about himself and growing up. This game was probably the most revealing of his back story, he grew up as a streetwise pickpocket and even as an adult male was still incredibly emotionally mature.

In 3, I think scenes like Nate falling asleep on Elena's lap, showing Nates total emotional breakdowns in the drugged scenes, him becoming a broken man when he thinks Sully is dead, are far superior narrative hooks than the simple blockbuster cliches of 'Which character will die?'. Instead of Nate going on a Marcus Fenix style 'That's it, they're all gonna pay' style thing we get a really human reaction.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Right because killing a character only to bring them back isn't cliche?

S**t they've damn done that TWICE now.

I mean i agree with a lot of what you say, but stating bringing him back from the dead, again, isn't 'cliche', is hard to swallow.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Well, depending on how it's handled it could be cliched but in most cases when that cliche is used, the character death is a shock and then they undermine the shock with the reveal said character is still alive. In this instance, they foreshadowed his death for most of the game so him being alive was more of a revelation than it was undoing drama.

Also, I think you're looking at this too much as a straight forward narrative. Where I think U3 differs from U2 is it is much more character driven than it is plot concept. This is a story about Drake, first and foremost, and Sully's 'Death' isn't cliched so long as the effect we see it have on Drake doesn't feel shallow, which in my opinion, it did not.

Also, I think the reason U3 felt different storywise is because Naughty Dog made the clear choice to treat Uncharted as an indefenite ongiong series, like a TV show, rather than a big, 'Epic' trilogy. Those big, crunching story beats that were lacking in U3 are less important to that format than strong character development. It's a nice approach to a game saga.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Yea I agree with a lot of that, ecspecially the character development. I agree with you in that I felt as tho 3 was prob the best of the 3. The scene with Elena that you mentioned could be one of my fav scenes in any game.

I still feel that bringing Sully back, yet again, killed the early work they did. But I can't complain too much as I do like sully

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

I think it definitely would have been more cliched and less fulfilling if he had died. It was telegraphed that he was going to die for the whole game, so if he had there would have been even less pay off.

That would have largely been the point wouldn't it? That everyone was warning him that his obsession was going to have fatal consequences and Nate's inability to recognize or admit that they were right ends up resulting in said fatal consequences? That he ends up learning the lesson without having to face the consequences kind of felt like a narrative cheat so that Nate gets to have his cake and eat it too. Good foreshadowing is not cliche and I thought they had done some very good foreshadowing up until that point.

And it is very much a video game trope that for the big third game or third part of a trilogy, they kill of a character who has been around for all 3 games. You only need to look at some of the biggest 3rd game titles to see this trend. Uncharted, for me, has always been a step above the standard blockbuster game narrative and I would have been sorely disappointed if they had resorted to such a cheap way of forcing an emotive response.

To be honest, imo I felt like what we got was much more hollywood blockbuster in how safe it played things. They had some interesting ideas in here and the father/son relationship was compelling but ultimately they just didn't push any of those ideas forward in interesting ways.

And really, regardless of whether or not something is a trope the main rule of storytelling holds true - its not the story you tell but it is how you tell it. I think Uncharted 2 is a story full of tropes but ultimately they present those tropes as part of a narrative that is just stronger and more tightly constructed than its successor.

Though I want to say just as an addendum that I don't think Uncharted 3's story is bad, I think there's a lot of good there and some ambitious ideas - I just think the last act does a real disservice to what they had been setting up prior.

In 3, I think scenes like Nate falling asleep on Elena's lap, showing Nates total emotional breakdowns in the drugged scenes, him becoming a broken man when he thinks Sully is dead, are far superior narrative hooks than the simple blockbuster cliches of 'Which character will die?'. Instead of Nate going on a Marcus Fenix style 'That's it, they're all gonna pay' style thing we get a really human reaction.

I think the decision to save Marlowe, for example, would have been a much more dramatic one had Sully been dead. As it is at the end there are no real stakes for Nathan when it comes to his decision to let go of his obsession/anger; the place is already crumbling and as far as the decision about whether or not to kill Marlowe, Nathan has never been particularly bloodthirsty so without any real incentive there was absolutely no tension about what he would end up doing. The character of Nathan Drake is ultimately not challenged by what happens in the final act of U3.

 

[Spider-Who?]

The "death" of Sully was really powerful for me, like others of said. As powerful as his "death" was, the reveal that he was in fact alive and completely unharmed was equally infuriating. I think most of my problem had to do with HOW they revealed it. It should have had far more emotional weight to it than "Holy crap? You're alive? Is it really you? Oh, it is, lulz. Let's go".

Perhaps they could have gone a Last Crusade route with it (if the macguffin had healing properties). Or perhaps it was just a matter of Nate getting back to Sully's body after the final fight to see that he was still (barely) alive, and the end of the story could be Nate dealing with the guilt as Sully is healing in ICU, and the could wrap up with exposition between Nathan and Elana with Nathan acknowledging his obsession and the reality of the danger it comes with. They just needed SOMETHING to keep the emotional weight and fear of consequence they kept talking about throughout the game. Sully's death showed a lot of potential for that pay off, but how they "fixed" it was incredibly weak and killed all of what they tried to do with it.

Though I want to say just as an addendum that I don't think Uncharted 3's story is bad, I think there's a lot of good there and some ambitious ideas - I just think the last act does a real disservice to what they had been setting up prior.

The character of Nathan Drake is ultimately not challenged by what happens in the final act of U3.

Fully agree.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I still haven't even opened UC3 yet (finished Arkham City and Skyward Sword). But does it have an offline co-op or MP?

 

[The Squirrel]

I know it has offline co-op. But it's the same options as the online co-op.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

It does have offline MP too but I can't imagine you doing much outside of PvP unless you can system link or something for the PS3, which I've never tried or heard about before.