Why Nathan Drake Needs To Die

THE Uncharted series has arguably been the defining experience of PlayStation 3: fantastic gameplay, trailblazing graphics and a magical playability rarely matched by any studio on any console.

That, and it’s packed with more one-liners than Jimmy Carr doing cocaine (lawyer’s note: he doesn’t do cocaine, he just doesn’t pay tax).

 But the series’ brilliance is exactly why I don’t want another entry.

Naughty Dog are like Pixar. They don’t churn sequels for the sake of dollars, they carefully cultivate IPs, creating a second – or third – story in a franchise only if they think they can top the original. Uncharted 3 is Naughty Dog’s Toy Story 3, arguably the best in a brilliant series.

Crash Bandicoot gracefully made way for Jak & Daxter when the company’s output took a slightly more mature slant, then the eco-freak and his ottsel were binned in turn, despite protestations of fans (myself included) who wanted to see a lush HD sequel on PS3.

Now Naughty Dog faces a dilemma. Do they move Drake and Sully into the PS retirement home alongside Crash, Spyro and Parappa The Rapper, or do they bow to inevitable fan (and Sony) pressure and launch Uncharted 4 on PS4?

While it seems certain a fourth entry will appear, there is evidence to suggest Drake’s already unpacking his Atlases and eyeing up the shuffleboard rota.


 A rating leak for Uncharted: Fight for Fortune, described by a Brazilian ratings board as a ‘card/casino’ game is possible proof that the series is being sidelined for something new.

Adam Trueman: Nathan Drake beefcake?

Well, perhaps it’s time. Don’t get me wrong, I’m Uncharted’s biggest fan. I’ve played all three PS3 titles at least four times each, uncovered the treasures, committed entire clipscenes to memory and eyed up potential people to play Drake in a movie (that bloke who plays Adam Trueman in Casualty is the spit, by the way).
 

But, just like the rabid Star Wars fans who don’t want Episode 7 (let alone 8 or 9), I don’t want to see the series continued ‘just because’ it’s popular (read: makes buckets of dosh).

It already feels like Uncharted 3, plotwise, stretched things a bit. This evil could destroy the world! Let’s find the lost secret city! Again! Last time a train crashed. Let’s crash a plane! This massive, unkillable hand-to-hand combat fighter keeps turning up for some reason! The evil killer spiders are chasing us again but seem to play no actual role in the overarching plot!

I loved the game, but it didn’t make nearly as much sense as the first two, and I’m worried a fourth (discounting the Vita prequel) will be a further mixture of retreading and mild confusion.

One major positive about Crash and Jak is that they were left behind once they’d become outdated and the company went on to make fresher, more modern things.

Not for the first time, I’ll point out the absurdity of a seemingly conscientious, well-meaning bloke -  Drake - who ruthlessly guns down hordes of enemies and then bleats on about doing the right thing to lovely, concerned Elena.

Then there’s the general Indiana Jones-style ‘mythical fantasy’ bent underpinning the plots and the puzzles (who constructed these huge rooms full of metal bits to cast a shadow on a wall which would unlock a door, anyway?) and it all starts to feel like a series that has outlived its believability.

What’s the antitode? The Last Of Us, of course.

The gritty new IP may not be to everyone’s taste, but it shows exactly how the studio can transition from an almost comic-book style OTT adventure to a more realistic, more genuine and consequently more emotive experience without losing the gameplay, graphical and storytelling work that’s gone into Drake’s outings.

Sure, lead character Joel might crack wise once in a while. But it’s only to relieve the tension after he’s cracked the skull of a fellow survivor - intent on ending his and little Ellie’s lives in cold blood - in their desperate dog-eat-dog struggle for survival.

It’s the natural evolution: an even more grounded, gritty and groundbreaking series is about to be born – if the game lives up to its promise -  taking what’s been learned and applying it to gameplay created for 2013, not 2006.

That means it might well be time to pack Nathan off to the home, while we still remember the good times.

Come on now, Drake, there’s bingo in a minute. Sit down in that nice armchair by the fire. It’s for your own good.

Why Wii U will be brilliant - and ultimately fail

Gamers. We’re a fickle bunch. One minute, we want to waggle a white stick and pretend it’s a tennis racquet, the next we’re jumping in front of a camera pretending we can dance before tossing birds at pigs on the bog.

Five years ago, Nintendo hit the big time with the Wii, a console which offered everyone from toddler to grandma the chance to pick up and play something – cheap, cheerful, simplicity. It made hot cake sales look positively glacial. You don’t need me to reiterate how it became the best-selling Nintendo home console of all time.

Here we are in 2012, and Nintendo is readying the follow-up – a beefy, hi-def box with a massive, complicated-looking tablet instead of a Wii Remote – and no daft sports mini-games in sight.

Wii U looks brilliant. It’s got amazing 1080p graphics (you know, the kind PS3 and Xbox had five years ago) and a tablet with all the modern gaming buttons, two sticks and a massive screen in the middle.

Yes, it’s odd, but it looks like it will truly add something to gaming. 

At E3 we saw how we can blow up explosives on the touch screen in Batman. In Call of Duty, no doubt we’ll be able to view maps and manage weapons on the fly. In FIFA, we’ll see a pitch overview during the game to track players, and be able to quickly make subs and manage the squad without letting your opponent see what you’re doing.

It’s got motion sensors, so in Mario Kart U, we’ll already have the wheel right in our hands.

The best part? It’s WAG-friendly. We’ve all been there: half-way through an epic boss fight, or a MW3 deathmatch that we’re actually winning, and suddenly up pops the wife and/or girlfriend to moan that ‘Eastenders is about to start. Are you gonna switch your game off?’. For Wii U, it’s not a problem. Switch the action to the controller screen, pop in some headphones and just keep playing.

All of this is superb stuff, and Nintendo’s really been hard at work to innovate again. The problem, though, is that nobody really wants it.

Wii went supernova because it instantly struck a chord with people. You see the remote, and you’re curious. You see Wii Sports Tennis – or if you’re a female aged 20-40, Wii Fit, and instantly see the appeal. You pick up, play, and enjoy. It’s so simple.

Not so for Wii U. The console comes as standard with the big lug of a tablet controller as well as a Wii Remote and nunchuk. Then, there’s the Pro controller you can buy (effectively a PS3/Xbox controller clone), the balance board, the zapper, the Mario Kart wheel, Motion Plus (if your controller is from pre-2010), all confirmed to work with Wii U. It’s a veritable sea of white plastic, and granny will drown, fast.

No longer is it pick up and play. Most games will use the tablet, but for multiplayer will insist on others using Wii Remotes. Some games – likely Zelda – will use the Wii Remote instead. Pikmin 3 lets you use both at once. Just imagine some poor kid trying to juggle the massive tablet while flailing a Wii Remote and nunchuk at the screen, and you start to see the issue.

It’s not the end of the world. People aren’t stupid. Those interested in games and technology will easily be able to fire up the right controller in the right game at the right time, and will enjoy the benefits each one brings. People like myself – and if you’re reading this, probably you – will buy it, will love it and will desperately try to shove the tablet into the hands of our brothers/mothers/grans and random strangers at parties. 

But then you’ll have to sit and explain how it all works and which remote to use and when – and that instantly kills the console as an experience for the non-techno savvy. 

What Nintendo ­­should ­have done is make a Wii 2 with cameras, just like Xbox Kinect. Make Wii Sports 2, put online play in it, and make it all controlled via the camera alone. People would go nuts for it because it combines the brand they love (Wii) with a fresh experience they are yet to be tired of (unlike Wii in 2012). Then do the same with Mario, with Zelda, with Donkey Kong – whatever it takes to keep the non-gaming crowd interested. Now Xbox Kinect is taking the Just Dance and Wii Sports crowd - and will do even more so if packed in with a cheap, friendly Xbox next generation - while Angry Birds eats 3DS sales, one smartphone at a time.

Wii U will be a great machine, and when games like New Super Mario Bros. U, Zelda HD and even HD minigame collection NintendoLand arrive – people will buy it.

But people bought games for the Wii because they wanted to play Wii. People will buy Wii U because they need it to play the games  - just like 3DS sales, which only reached respectable levels when Mario Kart 7 came out. 

It’s going to be a tough generation for Nintendo, by comparison. The hardcore gaming minority will enjoy Wii U – for everyone else, Mario, Zelda and Pokemon will get them through – but that’s all. Wii U is no Wii 2.