
Modern video games are often compared to movies. Most aspire to be as revered as their cinematic equivalents. You only have to look at games like “The Last Of Us” to see that. Of course games with strong thematic narratives like “TLOU” have been successfully adapted into prestigious television shows. Most however have historically been forgettable tripe that either takes liberties with the source material or are based on properties that simply don’t transition well. The reality is that games function very differently to movies or television. They don’t even really cater to the same preference. Gaming by their very definition, are an interactive experience that requires user engagement to provide the entertainment. With movies and television, physical participation isn’t necessary, just the ability to concentrate, listen and most importantly, to shut up are the defining attributes to enjoying yourself. They don’t follow the same rules, so why do so many developers try to encroach on these restrictions, when they are in fact liberated without them?
Let’s take the Uncharted series for instance. You have adventurer Nathan Drake, travelling to exotic often inhospitable locations, to discover mythical treasures and cities. Bolstered by a supporting cast of heroes and villains, varied locales and cinematic set-pieces, Uncharted was the movie equivalent of a Blockbuster. But unlike it’s big screen comparative, one of the greatest advantages of narrative driven video games is that they aren’t restricted by character mortality. A basic function incorporated into any game is the ability to respawn. And as Nathan Drake I die a lot. So the illusion of immersion is shattered regularly. Of course if Indiana Jones was flattened by that boulder at the beginning of “Raiders”, and suddenly respawns, any potentially life threatening event that occurs after this, will be somewhat abated by his Lazarus like constitution. But it isn’t just the narrative armour, but the physical one of the actors portraying the character. The trouble with Indiana Jones, or more specifically Harrison Ford, is that he ages. Nathan Drake can be as old or young as the developer requires him to be. Who wouldn’t want more Indiana Jones adventures? The trouble is that you can’t do that with cinema. Harrison Ford will only be in his late 30’s for a finite amount of time. Whereas with a computer generated character such as Nathan Drake, well he is kind of immortal.
I guess what I’m saying is “make more Uncharted games!”. Or any slumbering franchise for that matter! I can respect that it was a story that had reached a natural conclusion and you wanted to end it on your terms. But why restrict a fictional character that doesn’t exist in the confines of conventional reality? Give it a few years. Let the stagnation of creativity simmer for a few years. Let the ideas and scenarios have some time to ruminate and then come back to it. With the characters unfazed by time. These adventures don’t need to be solemn and gritty. We were there for the ride. The minute you start imposing the fragility of life on a character that can survive plane crashes and scale sheer vertical surfaces like a sugar fuelled Spider-Man, then you are working in the wrong industry.
Are games too focused on realism? Let me know what you guys think in the comments below. Cheers.




