Nathan Drake is Already Spinning in His Future Digital Grave

Marky Mark and The Funky Drake 

I'm not "feelin it, feelin it"

Let me begin this post by admitting I am in utter disappointment in some recent Hollywood casting. Today, it was revealed that Mark "I'm a Star" Wahlberg will in fact be playing the iconic, fast talking, charming video game character Nathan Drake in the upcoming movie adaptation of the Uncharted series. To anyone who hasn't played the game, Uncharted can be best described as an action-adventure game about a fast-lipped treasure hunter named Nathan Drake. His bravado is contagious, yet his charm and compassion is utterly human and lovable. Uncharted takes a page from the original Indiana Jones trilogy, which weaves together impressive dialogue, realistic characters, and fascinating exploration set pieces that make me feel like I'm 10 years old again watching 'Raiders of the Last Ark' at my grandmother's house. Nathan Drake is a future inductee into the video game hall of fame...if such a thing existed. He's one of the most memorable characters to grace our gaming consoles, and thanks to the mindless imbeciles behind the movie version...they've ruined much of the anticipation I've had for this film.

David O. Russell, the man behind such films as "Three Kings," and "I ♥ Huckabees," is taking directorial and writing responsibilities for the Uncharted film. I never really had a problem with Russell signing on until today's boneheaded move. His relationship with Wahlberg is very well publicized. Both are good friends, and for the most part, work on great films together. I enjoyed both Kings and Huckabees, but I was really hoping Russell would think outside of the box on this project.

The first Uncharted game didn't release on the PS3 until 2007, with the second game blasting expectations, and our minds, in 2009. The series has a very humble and devoted following (myself included), so the source material is pretty fresh in everyone's mind. With that said, everyone has their expectations on what kind of person should play the titular hero, and only two plausible names come to mind. With much confidence that the internet trolls would agree with me, the two men who should be in Drake's shoes rather than Wahlberg are Nolan North, and Nathan Fillion. Here's why.

Nolan North

Nolan North isn't very well known to non-gamers. North is the voice behind Nathan Drake, as well as the body...sort of. Uncharted uses full-body motion capture in all of its cut scenes, with North providing the voice, facial expressions, and body movements. North would clearly be the top guy for the job, however regardless of the video game magic he brings, the guy isn't in what you would call tip-top shape. North is responsible for creating such a lovable character in the firts place, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt if the CIA didn't have him pushing too many pencils. As for Nathan Fillion, it's a crime pass on him for what seems like a prophetic role for him. First off, Fillion bears almost a twin-like resemblance to Nathan Drake. Second, Fillion has the perfect personality to compliment Drake. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the folks at Naughty Dog (the creators of Uncharted) wrote the character of Nathan Drake in homage to Fillion.  To anyone who's seen Fillion as Captain Mal in either the Firefly series or Serenity, you'll know he has the swagger, charm, and swashbuckling attitude that encompasses Drake. Thirdly, and probably the most important, Fillion wants the role...badly. He launched his own Twitter campaign last month in order to get him signed on for the movie. Fillion has a deep respect for the source material, and won't have to familiarize himself with the games the way Wahlberg will have to. Plus the guy's name IS Nathan. It seems too easy. It really is a shame Russell was so narrow-minded...almost to a Tim Burton resemblance of "hey, lemme just cast Johnny Depp in everything."

Why the hell can't David O. Russell see what I see in Fillion?

I can complain all I want about this casting choice...the fact of the matter is Marky Mark (yes..I will still call him that) WILL play Nathan Drake, and no one can do anything about...unless they give him a bad case of the shits by sneaking a large quantity of Maalox into his alcohol, which may or may not rupture his digestive tract. One can only dream right? Still, the only thing to look forward to at this point is the supporting cast. Rumor has it that Robert De Niro will play Drake's senior-aged crisis partner Victor "Sully" Sullivan, which is a solid pick in my eyes. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the same guy who bombed as a video game character, (Max Payne) and was atrocious in "The Happening," will be playing such a lovable role. And I'm sorry, Wahlberg isn't lovable. All we can hope for at this point is that he doesn't talk to animals mid firefight and tell them to "say hi to your mother for me."

I'm Nathan Drake...Say Hi to Your Mother For Me!

The Netflix Nix

The Blockbuster Video Killers Jack Up Their Prices

A bit of upsetting news was announced today by the notorious, red logo company that single handedly slayed the media giant once known as Blockbuster. Netflix says it is increasing subscription fees by $1 in response to the growing demand of online streaming. A subscription that allows customers to rent out one DVD at a time and stream unlimited content from the internet will now run about $9.99 a month instead of $8.99. Current Netflix customers won't see the increase until January, while new customers will penny up the new cost immediately. Other packages are available for those who fear sunlight and don't wish to walk out of their homes to pick up DVD's from the mailbox, as customers can sign up for an internet streaming only monthly deal, which will go for about $7.99. Announcements like this aren't new. Big name companies jacking up their rates is the way the capitalism game is played, but I have a minor gripe with Netflix's logic in the decision.

We know who won this bout

According to Netflix, the company is catering to it's slow, blob-like growing online streaming market. The popularity of streaming content online has skyrocketed over the past couple years, considering anyone with a Netflix account can stream movies and TV shows through their computer, DVD/Blu-Ray players, TV's, XBOX, PS3, Nintendo Wii, and most recently the I-phone. While it sounds logical to increase their prices, I have to point out the obvious key point to the price increase...HOW WILL THEY MAKE IT BETTER?!?! For anyone who's scrolled through Netflix's online library, at least 60-70% of what you find is garbage. I'm sure someone out in the cornfields of Nebraska would love to pay an extra $1 a month to see glorious titles like "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" or "Paranormal Entity," (not activity) -- but not me. If Netflix wants to justify this price increase, they need to expand or refine their online service.

One of the big problems that comes with the online service is the control, or lack thereof, customers have. Customers can browse movies, set up a queue and all the jazz, but we still can't control things like audio/subtitle tracks, or check out things like commentaries or behind the scenes footage that comes standard with many DVD's. I can't tell you how grateful I am to have subtitles whenever I watch a film that was shot overseas. You try watching a great film like "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" the first time without subtitles ya wankers! Not only that, movie nerds like myself love to listen to commentary tracks. I thrive on learning everything that went into making a particular film/show that I thoroughly enjoyed. Plus, many Asian film lovers enjoy watching their movies with the Japanese audio track. I personally don't, but the market is still there.

This is Oscar gold compared to some films on Netflix online

Besides the lack of technical control, many movies/tv shows on Netflix streaming market are obscure. Over the past couple months, I have noticed an increase in A-List Hollywood titles, but the ratio is still not in our favor. For every solid movie you find, you'll also come across 5 other campy films that not even SyFy channel would air at 3 in the afternoon. Plus, the justification of a growing online market contradicts the recent deal Netflix made with several Hollywood studios to release DVD's to subscribers 30 days later in exchange for more copies. How do you justify a price increase when you're not adding anything new to the online market, and you're making even more money through your DVDs?

DVD's, a bane to many capitalists

Just to be clear, I'm not complaining about online streaming. It's convenient, easy to use, and you avoid the clutter that comes with opening the DVD packaging slip. I, like so many others in this shaky economy, want to make sure we're getting what we're paying for. Maybe some new improvements are in fact coming to Netflix online market, but right now they're evidently not there. It's almost like going to the supermarket, and being told you have to pay more for bananas because people really like them, even though there's no shortage of them. I understand it's just business, but at least give me a better tasting banana if you're going to charge me extra for it.

The Lofty Promises of Cinematic Trailers

Video Game Trailers Taken with a Grain of Salt

Beautiful graphics, delicately chosen camera angles, A-List voice acting, and the promise of something grand in scale. These are the things that go into many of the most anticipated game trailers of our generation. These epic displays of art are there to hype our senses into overdrive, just enough so that we're begging for the next batch of details. While on paper this sounds great, the reality is that many game trailers should be viewed and enjoyed from a distance. Lofty promises are always great, but it's always easier to be disappointed than surprised. When it comes to riding the hype train of a certain game, the impeccably witty college football analyst Lee Corso comes to mind with his trademark catch phrase: "Not so fast my friends."

Rockstar, you know, the guys behind some small games like Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, and Manhunt, are putting all of their eggs in one basket this spring. The trailer for the upcoming, and highly anticipated open world game "LA Noire," released this month and it's getting quite the buzz, and all for good reason if I might add. If the film LA Confidential had a video game attached to it...this would be it. The game follows the story of a Los Angeles detective trying to piece together a recent murder. The game has the flair of the 1950's era, where men in flannel suits and border hats litter the gritty streets of LA. While the look of old LA seems to be intact, it's the tech of the game displayed in the trailer that has everyone turning their heads.

Interrogations are a key element to LA Noire

Rockstar is teaming up with a small company called Team Bondi to create LA Noire. Team Bondi was started up by a man named Brendan McNamera, who was also the man behind the 2002 PS2 game "The Getaway." If you ever played Getaway, you'll know that story reigned over gameplay in that British caper, and that's the direction LA Noire seems to be taking. New motion capture technology is being implemented in the game that is expected to outperform current motion capture technology, ultimately rendering one-to-one facial recognition from actors. Nervous facial ticks, eyebrow movement, lip synching is expected to be unparalleled in LA Noire, and after watching the trailer, I would agree. Don't believe me? Take a look for yourself....

More L.A. Noire Videos

Now you notice why the game is getting such hype, but here's my problem with it. We don't see any of the gameplay elements. What ultimately makes a game successful is its gameplay. Without it, well, there wouldn't be much of a reason to call it a video game. What we do know is that if Rockstar is behind this game, we can expect the usual open-world sandbox style found in games like GTA and Red Dead. However, at no point in the trailer does it show anything resembling shootouts, car chases, or even side missions. Not that they're not there, but I'm not going to hop on the bandwagon just yet until I see some hard physical evidence.

Lets explore this dull, repetitive, FF XIV world together!

I've learned the hard way you can't judge a book by it's cover, and it's happened over the course of video game history. Most recently, games like Final Fantasy XIII and XIV released lush, beautiful, and jaw dropping cinematic trailers that had RPG nerds worldwide changing their Japanese tailored undies. Once the games came out though, they were met with less than stellar reviews...especially XIV. Another overly hyped game...Fable. Since the very first game, director Peter Molyneux offered grand promises of his open world game that haven't quite lived up to their promises. Again, it was a game that was receiving plenty of media attention, but fans felt they were duped. Fable II and III were also touted with hefty promises, but also failed to live up to expectations.

Little did the police know they were dealing with a kid throwing a churrasco at the wall.

Despite my trepidation, I was deeply impressed with the tech behind the LA Noire trailer. The facial tweaks and gestures were unlike anything I've ever seen, even in some of the highest quality mo-cap games like Uncharted and Red Dead. It's almost as if you could feel the breath of these digital characters as they deliver their top-notch lines. From what I've read in Game Informer, the facial animations will prove to be a key element in the gameplay as you interrogate suspects and witnesses. As the detective, you'll have to determine whether a suspect is lying to you just by their body language and nonverbal communication. Eyes roll, facial twitches, sweat pouring, pitches in their voice...all these elements will help you get to the truth of the investigation, which offers a new and unique gaming concept we haven't seen before. How you go about the interrogations is a cause for concern, as gamers will be forced to choose between three different choices in their conversations, similar to what we've seen in games like Mass Effect. Hopefully, conversations will be more intuitive and less predictable than Mass Effect, but we'll see what happens.

It's blood.....Son of  a bitch!

There's a lot left to be heard in terms of the action moments of the game. While LA Noire does have the makings of a classic gaming experience, we still won't know how it controls until it releases sometime this spring. Rockstar usually has a great track record in delivering the finest action sandbox games in the market, but hopefully it doesn't play like a Grand Theft Auto in Cold War Los Angeles. I loved the experience to be had with Red Dead Redemption, but the game controlled way too similar to Grand Theft Auto IV. All I know is I won't be fooled again by a beautiful trailer until I see some cold, hard gameplay footage. Until then, I'll be doing my own detective work on LA Noire until the day it hits store shelves.

I've Got a Rare Case of Sequel-itis

Too Many Twos and Threes out There

While this is usually the goal in gaming, sometimes bigger is not always better

The latest and greatest in the Call of Duty franchise has hit store shelves this week. Black Ops came out Tuesday and is probably selling like hotcakes at a fat camp. I too am one of the millions of gamers out there who got their hands on the latest military shooter game, and although I am not yet done with the game, I am left with a feeling of emptiness as I play, but that is nothing against the development team of the game. From the ground up anyone can see that Black Ops is a beautiful and polished game, but there's an all too familiar "been there, done that" feel that could end up biting the Call of Duty franchise in the ass...and they're not the only ones.

This Holiday season is shaping up to be an impressive line-up of high caliber video games. Halo Reach, Fable III, Fallout: New Vegas, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and even Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood are sure to keep gamers in their dark, cheese puff covered rooms for hours on end, but there is an inherent problem with having too many sequels. It's easy for a publisher to funnel all their cash into an established game franchise, but it won't last forever. I love playing these games as much as the next guy, but gamers will eventually start to see the similarities in gameplay, and slowly start to abandon their interest in the franchise. Personally, I'm passing up the opportunity to play games like New Vegas, Fable III, and Assassin's Creed (mostly due to my economic status) because they don't catch my attention in terms of deep, engaging, and most importantly original gameplay. There's just not enough to warrant me into coughing up another $60 for something that I already know what to expect from. Call of Duty: Black Ops may not be re-inventing the M16 with it's approach to first person shooters, but the online capabilities are still going strong and is worth the buy-in alone.

Halo was once the king of gaming franchises, but Call of Duty is the new chief in town

The thing that scares me is to see a critically and commercially prime, established franchise get benched because of repetitious gameplay. Look at Halo and Call of Duty. When Halo 2 released on the original XBOX in 2004, no one could foresee another franchise knocking Master Chief off his mantle. Once Halo 3 released in 2007, it was still profitable in terms of sales, but Bungie seemed to play it safe and keep the major gameplay elements that were established back in its first game in 2001 the same. Most gamers felt a little let down, but it was still a solid game. Now I fear the same thing is happening with the Call of Duty franchise. Call of Duty 4 changed the way gamers play shooters both in single player and online, and ultimately became the proverbial 800 lb. gorilla in the video game industry. Modern Warfare 2 polished the gaming experience further, but now with Black Ops, I feel history is repeating itself. Black Ops may be a great game, but gamers will start to lose interest if the next Call of Duty doesn't reinvent itself. Granted, the Black Ops development team (Treyarch) is different from the team of both Modern Warfare games (the now dissolved Infinity Ward), but now Activision wants to release a Call of Duty game once every year...which isn't a smart decision. Development will be rushed similar to how EA Sports games work, and gamers will be over-saturated in repetitive gameplay.

That's for calling my mom a slut!

So what needs to be done? Frankly, I have no clue. What I DO notice is the growing popularity of downloadable content. Games like Splosion Man, Braid, Limbo, Shadow Complex, and even Castle Crashers are wonderful, and lengthy, games that can be purchased online for about $10. While most of these games don't really bring anything new in terms of revolutionary gameplay...for example Splosion Man is a Mario-like platformer, while Shadow Complex is a military Metroid type game...they offer gamers new Intellectual Properties to explore. Games like Limbo and Splosion Man are simple platforming adventure games, but the art style and presentation is something that's never been seen before. Limbo gave us a unique black and white, almost silent film animation, and it was fun and new to us. Console game makers need to take a page in how downloadable games present themselves. Sometimes you don't really have to come up with something new and engaging in terms of gameplay, but you can mask it by presenting it in a way that's never been done before. Plus, downloadable games are cheap. Gamers don't have to beat themselves up too much if they end up not liking a particular game. 

Sequels are teetering on a fine line of originality

Sequels are here to stay; it's a fact. However sometimes too much a good thing can turn dull and dry. Developers need to spread out their games and make us beg like Oliver Twist to play some more. Publishers need to spread their games apart because if not, they'll end up turning into the Dynasty Warrior Franchise...which I'm sure is already working on releasing it's 7th game sometime in the near future, except now you can press the same button fifty five times instead of sixty.

Open For Less Business

Open World Games Becoming Too Expansive?

Dude...Where do I go?

Fallout, Red Dead Redemption, Fable, Assassin's Creed, Elder Scrolls, Grand Theft Auto, Borderlands. All of these games have one thing in common, and that's the creation of a sprawling, expansive environment for gamers to waste dozens of hours in. But...is there an inherent drawback to games like this? I recently found myself going through a second playthrough of Red Dead Redemption, and found that with minor differences in the way I approach certain environments, the game was essentially the same. That's not to say that makes Red Dead a bad game, but I started to notice that the foggy perception gamers have with an open world game isn't all it's cracked up to be.

What makes an open world or sandbox game work is it's environment. Without it, there's not much incentive for gamers to wander through it. Players can explore that extra canyon, or look to see what's under that bridge over yonder, or maybe even check out that campfire way in the distance. As great as this sounds, it's baffling to me that my want to explore something will leave me unrewarded most of the time. During my 2nd playthrough of Red Dead, I wandered into an abandoned mine shaft that was being inhabited by a local gang. With ease, I took out the inaccurate, gun-toting baddies with my trusty carbine repeater (I didn't even have to use my dead-eye). Hoping to be rewarded for my trials and tribulations, I was left the dank mine with nothing in my pocket. It was beyond frustrating to come to the realization that I wasted about a half hour exploring the wild west, only to come across a mildly lengthy enemy encounter which left me empty handed. It left me feeling like Rockstar (the developers of Red Dead) are laughing at me while they light their cigars with wads of burning cash.

So...I'll get that shiny orb when I kill you right?

I came to the realization that this happens in a lot of games. The last time I got as frustrated as my Red Dead encounter was when I played Elder Scrolls IV. Everyone talks about how that series is the game changer of open world exploration in video games, but again, I wandered into an old mage temple, only to have wasted about a half hour fighting random mob encounters and to leave empty handed. Before I get drowned by the number of ccomplaints fans of these games have, I will admit that there are some benefits to exploring certain environments. Gamers will eventually come across that ruined city that is housing that mystical, ultimate weapon, that can only be obtained by beating that rare, incredibly difficult boss character, but the effort in finding that location on your own can only be achieved by either A) a 13-year-old goofball who has no social activities other than when his World of Warcraft guild gets together, or B) somone who is getting paid to do it...which I totally condone. I want to be rewarded every time I take a stroll off the beaten path and explore something new, regardless of its difficulty. There's not much incentive for me to take out that gang ridden mine shaft for nothing when I can do the same thing by going along with the story campaign.

Even a game like Fallout 3, a critically acclaimed and all too fun game was also getting on my nerves because of its vastly large and menacing post-apocalyptic world. There are no vehicles in the game, which leaves traveling from lcoation to location a major chore and treacherous time waster. In your journey you'll come across a variety of enemy encounters (which are insanely brutal during your first playthrough) that are preventing you from reaching your next objective. With no easier way to explore the world, and the vicious enemies you'll undoubtedly come across WILL kill you, ultimately forcing you to double back and wander the world some more. It just seems childish and masochistic sometimes. Most sane gamers like myself tend to stick with the main storyline. Sure we may wander off the main path every once in a while, but it seems to pay off rarely when we do. Overall, we as gamers are becoming more enthralled by the propect of a good storyline, and it helps the pacing of a game the way the developers intended. Pacing is pivotal in any game, you never want your players doing one thing for too long, or too little. In giving players the choice to explore the environment themselves (without the aid of a strategy guide) they are unknowingly entering into their own gameplay experience, and it's a big gamble. I can only wander aimlessly for so long before my interest is no longer peaked.

Open world exploration done right. Now if only I could find that haystack.

Regardless of my gripes with certain open world games, they're still a blast to play once you know what you want out of it. The way I accomplish this....strategy guides and walkthroughs. Never be ashamed in using online guides or walkthroughs when necessary. Some gamers are into the whole aspect of discovering the vast, open world all by themselves, but to me, I play games to get immediate satisfaction, and I can't do that when I'm forced to spend 20 hours wandering a desert, only to find that the mystical weapon I was looking for is over on the other side of the world. It just seems like a cop out to me in order to get me to play longer. Instead, give us a reason to search the world. Tell us something like "Hey, if you search this area over here, there are some fetch quests you can do, or beat-up quests, or some gambling to partake in." To me, Assassin's Creed II perfected the open world genre because it labeled every type of activity you can do in the game. It gave me an incentive to explore the environment by forcing me to traverse all of Renaissance Italy by forcing me to discover lookout points so I can see what else I could do. I want to control my game, not the other way around.

Until more games handle their open world formula similar to Assassin's Creed or better, I leave the searching and wandering to the people who DO have time for that, and I'll find out later whether it's worth discovering. Most of the time I'd rather just go from point A to point B in order to get the story going and enjoy whatever gameplay elements are to come. Good or bad, open world games will be on the market for years to come, and I'll still play em. They're still a marvel to behold and enormous in scope, which is definitely  a testament to the talent found in most developers today. I just wish I could find the patience to handle the anti-climactic encounters.