The Naughty Dog Agenda

[thefourfoldroot]

56 minutes ago, sheouttathere said:

 

I’m proud to be an American and I would appreciate it if you would save your political slams for Twitter along with the likeminded hatemongers on that site. 

 

Your bottom statement is relevant to this discussion and even inspiring imo. Maybe, “just maybe” you could learn to shave off the repulsive negativity before you post so that we can hear more of your gaming wisdom. Your words conjure up images that are hard to delete once read.  

His language was perhaps unnecassary, but he isn't wrong. It's not just the US either, here in Britain our main opposition party has been taken over by these extreme left turds and in such an organised way its almost admirably. There is a disease being allowed to fester in Western society because those carrying it are allowed to shut everybody down with claims of intolerance. The irony is sickening. 

Edited July 22, 2018 by thefourfoldroot

[Cassylvania]

While trying to remain as neutral as possible to this topic, there were probably other ways to do this. Ellie could have been a lesbian without all the grandstanding. I never got the impression she liked girls from TLoU (maybe from Left Behind, but that came later, and I haven't had the chance to play it). It just seems like something the developers decided her character should be, for current social and political issues, just like when Warner Bros. started their anti-drug propaganda in the 90's.

 

Now, on one hand, this is great from a progressive standpoint. Video games have been heavily criticized over the years for inciting violence, objectifying women, and turning children into devil-worshiping monsters. For once, it's nice to see video games leading the way. This is pushing the medium closer to the impact we'd only get from TV shows, movies, and literature. And if there's any developer out there who can juggle hot-button topics with great storytelling, it's probably Naughty Dog.

 

On the other hand, I can't help but feel this is forced. ND missed a big opportunity for turning Ellie gay. Without going into spoilers (even though I think this whole thread is one), she had several reasons at the end of TLoU to begin hating men, and that could've easily been the driving force in TLoU2. In fact, having not played Left Behind, I thought that WAS the idea when I saw the new trailer, and I thought that was so cool. I was even picturing a choice at the end of the game, where she has to decide between the woman she loves and the only guy she can reproduce with (for some reason that I'm sure ND could cook up), but...no. She's just suddenly a lesbian and always has been. That's the very definition of forced.

 

But I'm sure the game will be great.

[thefourfoldroot]

12 minutes ago, Cassylvania said:

While trying to remain as neutral as possible to this topic, there were probably other ways to do this. Ellie could have been a lesbian without all the grandstanding. I never got the impression she liked girls from TLoU (maybe from Left Behind, but that came later, and I haven't had the chance to play it). It just seems like something the developers decided her character should be, for current social and political issues, just like when Warner Bros. started their anti-drug propaganda in the 90's.

 

Now, on one hand, this is great from a progressive standpoint. Video games have been heavily criticized over the years for inciting violence, objectifying women, and turning children into devil-worshiping monsters. For once, it's nice to see video games leading the way. This is pushing the medium closer to the impact we'd only get from TV shows, movies, and literature. And if there's any developer out there who can juggle hot-button topics with great storytelling, it's probably Naughty Dog.

 

On the other hand, I can't help but feel this is forced. ND missed a big opportunity for turning Ellie gay. Without going into spoilers (even though I think this whole thread is one), she had several reasons at the end of TLoU to begin hating men, and that could've easily been the driving force in TLoU2. In fact, having not played Left Behind, I thought that WAS the idea when I saw the new trailer, and I thought that was so cool. I was even picturing a choice at the end of the game, where she has to decide between the woman she loves and the only guy she can reproduce with (for some reason that I'm sure ND could cook up), but...no. She's just suddenly a lesbian and always has been. That's the very definition of forced.

 

But I'm sure the game will be great.

You sound extremely reasonable. I would avoid the whole "turning gay because you hate men" argument though, as well as the "homosexuality is not Inate but learned thing" 

Edited July 22, 2018 by thefourfoldroot

[Cassylvania]

Just now, thefourfoldroot said:

You sound extremely reasonable. I would avoid the whole "turning gay because you hate men" argument though. 

 

It's not the approach I would take, but at least it makes sense in the context of the story. She was betrayed by a number of guys throughout the game (some to the point of mental breakdown), while the women were at least honest with her. I don't think it's farfetched to think that the events of the first game could've turned her against men.

 

Even if you want to go with the argument that being gay isn't a choice, you could STILL do this, because it gives you a lead into exploring her sexuality. In fact, it's better this way, because you now have the freedom to decide if she's always been gay (and is trying to come to grips with it) or if she became that way due to the events in the first game. Whatever political argument you want to make could still be made, without having to redefine her character. That's how you can have your cake and eat it too.

[sheouttathere]

36 minutes ago, thefourfoldroot said:

His language was perhaps unnecassary, but he isn't wrong. It's not just the US either, here in Britain our main opposition party has been taken over by these extreme left turds and in such an organised way its almost admirably. There is a disease being allowed to fester in Western society because those carrying it are allowed to shut everybody down with claims of intolerance. The irony is sickening. 

 

Its his opinion - whether it is right or wrong  is subjective.  Dead wrong imo, but I wouldn’t tear down the President of my country even if I disagreed with every move he makes.  

 

My request stands. I thought this was a gaming website. If this is the kind of disloyal bs I am going to run into every time I read a thread about what I thought was video games, then thanks for the notice. 

 

On topic- if ND has an agenda other than increased revenue (which I don't believe they do) then they should be in politics themselves. 

[madbuk]

2 minutes ago, sheouttathere said:

 

Its his opinion - whether it is right or wrong  is subjective.  Dead wrong imo, but I wouldn’t tear down the President of my country even if I disagreed with every move he makes.  

 

My request stands. I thought this was a gaming website. If this is the kind of disloyal bs I am going to run into every time I read a thread about what I thought was video games, then thanks for the notice. 

 

On topic- if ND has an agenda other than increased revenue (which I don't believe they do) then they should be in politics themselves. 

So video games can't be political? Bioshock is very politically driven and they still ended up being well regarded

[thefourfoldroot]

4 minutes ago, sheouttathere said:

 

Its his opinion - whether it is right or wrong  is subjective.  Dead wrong imo, but I wouldn’t tear down the President of my country even if I disagreed with every move he makes.  

 

My request stands. I thought this was a gaming website. If this is the kind of disloyal bs I am going to run into every time I read a thread about what I thought was video games, then thanks for the notice. 

 

On topic- if ND has an agenda other than increased revenue (which I don't believe they do) then they should be in politics themselves. 

I've found few to no forum discussions about politics. If the site was awash with them I'd agree with you. Plus, I think the point of the thread was to encourage awareness of political agendas encroaching into our games... which is an awareness it seems you would be for (as am I) 

[Angus1343]

37 minutes ago, Cassylvania said:

While trying to remain as neutral as possible to this topic, there were probably other ways to do this. Ellie could have been a lesbian without all the grandstanding. I never got the impression she liked girls from TLoU (maybe from Left Behind, but that came later, and I haven't had the chance to play it). It just seems like something the developers decided her character should be, for current social and political issues, just like when Warner Bros. started their anti-drug propaganda in the 90's.

 

Now, on one hand, this is great from a progressive standpoint. Video games have been heavily criticized over the years for inciting violence, objectifying women, and turning children into devil-worshiping monsters. For once, it's nice to see video games leading the way. This is pushing the medium closer to the impact we'd only get from TV shows, movies, and literature. And if there's any developer out there who can juggle hot-button topics with great storytelling, it's probably Naughty Dog.

 

On the other hand, I can't help but feel this is forced. ND missed a big opportunity for turning Ellie gay. Without going into spoilers (even though I think this whole thread is one), she had several reasons at the end of TLoU to begin hating men, and that could've easily been the driving force in TLoU2. In fact, having not played Left Behind, I thought that WAS the idea when I saw the new trailer, and I thought that was so cool. I was even picturing a choice at the end of the game, where she has to decide between the woman she loves and the only guy she can reproduce with (for some reason that I'm sure ND could cook up), but...no. She's just suddenly a lesbian and always has been. That's the very definition of forced.

 

But I'm sure the game will be great.

I agree with this, left behind felt extremely unnecessary after the main game

[Wavergray]

2 hours ago, RedRodriguez87 said:

 

Because again, its something that makes gamer uncomfortable, and in the case here, something they can't easily ignore. 

 

"I don't have a problem with gays BUT" seems to be a common theme around here.

 

It's actually not about uncomfortableness, is more worrying that the story is being compromised to push a agenda half-heartedly.

 

Generally sexual orientation doesn't really matter, because there are too many other aspects of someone's personality that you could judge them by. Sure there are tons of people who don't get this, just as there are tons of people who don't care either way. So if you're in a world where most people don't care or don't understand, it is totally okay to have an agenda to "educate" people on the issue. Where the problem start to arise, is if you only push/enforce that agenda half-heartedly or when the person who is pushing the agenda doesn't get it themselves and unfortunately most of the people who are pushing the LGBT+ agenda in the entertainment media currently fall into one of those campes. 

 

When it comes to the LGBT+ agenda, the biggest misstep that happens because of the two problems above is making a character gay or trans and then having no other aspects of interest to that character. Everytime I tell my brother and friends who happens to be gay, that a character in a story is gay,they always say "oh that's cool", but then they ask for extra information about the other aspects of the character and 8 times out of 10 there's really nothing else to say about the character. Then they get pissed off and we always end up having a conversation about how half-hearted that is and that pandering is bad.  All the people who I know that are gay, have many aspects to them besides the fact that they gay, and when asked about representation in media they would like is a good well-rounded character with many aspects that happen to be gay. They did like the fact that in Dragon Age 2 you could romance most of the characters regardless of gender, they also understood that is not the right way to go about things.

 

So now we get to Ellie. In TLOU we learned about her character traits and in TLOU:LB we found out she was gay. Did learning she was gay change anything about what we learned about her in the first game? No, not really. So up into this point in the Last of Us storyline Ellie well-rounded character with many aspects, who happens to be gay in a post-apocalyptic world. Now you have a character who grew organically in the first game and then later you found out they were gay. In a post-apocalyptic world setting there are tons of things you could do with this character, especially given the fact that she is immune to the zombie disease. Now we get to TLOU:P2 and all of a sudden is super important that she's gay. We barely know anything about the story of this game so far, but one of the first things that is super important to point out is that Ellie is gay? On top of that they won't even tell us why it's important that she's gay within the confines of a story. This heavy reinforcement of a fact that at least 50% of TLOU fans already knew about a character, for seemingly no important story based reason, is a cause for concern.

 

Currently it feels like pandering and it makes it seem like Ellie as a character has devolved in terms of well-roundedness. This may end up not being the case when the game is actually released, but currently the people from Naughty Dog who have talked about the game have had this level of tone-deafness that is worrisome. They don't seem to get that there is more to a character besides their sexual orientation.

[sheouttathere]

6 minutes ago, madbuk said:

So video games can't be political? Bioshock is very politically driven and they still ended up being well regarded

 

Of course they can be and are political at times, but once they start pushing any non- gaming agenda ahead of making good games, they run the risk of alienating their intended target - gamers. 

 

4 minutes ago, thefourfoldroot said:

I've found few to no forum discussions about politics. If the site was awash with them I'd agree with you. Plus, I think the point of the thread was to encourage awareness of political agendas encroaching into our games... which is an awareness it seems you would be for (as am I) 

 

You're probably right about not seeing a whole bunch of political discussions. Unfortunately, I recently ran into some other of this guy's offensive political rants on status updates and still haven't gotten over the sting. But hey, if I can't stand the fire I'll just have to get out of the heat. ☺️ 

 

Truth is, I don't care for ND for many other reasons, so I'd be avoiding all their political leanings anway. 

 

[ImplyingYouCare]

5 hours ago, Undead Wolf said:

Actually...

  Reveal hidden contents

Ellie IS the only immune person known to exist in that game. When Joel told Ellie there's a whole lot more like her, he was lying so she didn't feel bad about it. Of course she saw through the lie but accepted what he said anyway (the scene right before the credits roll). I thought everyone knew that.

 

 

Spoiler

Joel is definitely lying to her at the end, but I was talking about the scenes before that with the hospital and the recordings you find at the end. I thought that what they were talking about was how they've experimented on other people before, but I guess they were just other infected people and not immune ones.

 

I looked up the one line I was thinking about and apparently I misread it, and so did a ton of other people because it's poorly worded. "The cause of her immunity is uncertain. As we've seen in all past cases, the antigenic titers of the patient's Cordyceps remain high in both the serum and the cerebrospinal fluid." I assumed he meant it was the same as all other cases of immunity in the people they had failed with before, but apparently it's just baseline infection. So I'm wrong, sorry about that, I only played this once back when it came out and didn't remember it correctly. 

 

 

[DarkHpokinsn]

21 hours ago, Carol said:

First of all, I want to say that if the games are good, I don’t care about this “agenda”.

 

That said, I am a fan of Naughty Dog, but I don’t follow everything they do or say obsessively. After having watched the video, I can agree that this “agenda” is becoming a bit too much and maybe even a bit ridiculous.

 

An example of this is something that is mentioned in the video: the role of Nadine as a villain in Uncharted 4. If you played the game, you know that when you’re trying to fight her, no matter how many buttons you press, nothing happens and Drake always ends up defeated. Why? Well, Nadine is a girl and it’s politically and socially incorrect to have to beat a woman in a game. And I can even agree with this! But then don’t add a female villain/boss to your game, with certain parts of this game that only have the appearance of having gameplay, but that are merely cinematic, because there’s a character you aren’t supposed to beat! This is ridiculous and absurd! Drake can beat extremely powerful enemies (the infamous brutes); there’s no way he can’t beat a woman, no matter how strong she is! It’s good that you have these concerns, but then don’t add female bosses to your game!

 

About the characters’ sexual orientation, I couldn’t care less about Ellie, Nadine or Chloe being lesbians. “The Last of Us” is a masterpiece and “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” is an extremely fun and light game, that I loved playing. As a gamer, that’s all I care about.

You had a lot of good points here then you went and said Chole and Nadine were lesbians which they are not, like at all. 

[Carol]

6 minutes ago, DarkHpokinsn said:

You had a lot of good points here then you went and said Chole and Nadine were lesbians which they are not, like at all. 

 

Watch the video.

Apparently, two girls or two guys can’t just be friends anymore.

[DarkHpokinsn]

1 minute ago, Carol said:

 

Watch the video.

Apparently, two girls or two guys can’t just be friends anymore.

Watched it a while ago, that’s the mindset of the modern day SJW types for ya. 

[Charizarzar]

2 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

While trying to remain as neutral as possible to this topic, there were probably other ways to do this. Ellie could have been a lesbian without all the grandstanding. I never got the impression she liked girls from TLoU (maybe from Left Behind, but that came later, and I haven't had the chance to play it). It just seems like something the developers decided her character should be, for current social and political issues, just like when Warner Bros. started their anti-drug propaganda in the 90's.

 

Now, on one hand, this is great from a progressive standpoint. Video games have been heavily criticized over the years for inciting violence, objectifying women, and turning children into devil-worshiping monsters. For once, it's nice to see video games leading the way. This is pushing the medium closer to the impact we'd only get from TV shows, movies, and literature. And if there's any developer out there who can juggle hot-button topics with great storytelling, it's probably Naughty Dog.

 

On the other hand, I can't help but feel this is forced. ND missed a big opportunity for turning Ellie gay. Without going into spoilers (even though I think this whole thread is one), she had several reasons at the end of TLoU to begin hating men, and that could've easily been the driving force in TLoU2. In fact, having not played Left Behind, I thought that WAS the idea when I saw the new trailer, and I thought that was so cool. I was even picturing a choice at the end of the game, where she has to decide between the woman she loves and the only guy she can reproduce with (for some reason that I'm sure ND could cook up), but...no. She's just suddenly a lesbian and always has been. That's the very definition of forced.

 

But I'm sure the game will be great.

 

The only context we got for her being gay/bi (until it was established by Neil) was in Left Behind, so it’s pretty necessary to play that or at least watch the cutscenes. It didn’t feel forced in that game at all imo, she just seemed to get caught up in the moment.

[McP485]

It's almost like a lesbian being humanity's last hope opens up amazing story opportunities.

[BlindMango]

Had to delete some recent posts that started to derail the topic and resorted to basic name-calling and drama. C'mon guys, please avoid - thanks! 

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by BlindMango

[Soufwar]

On 7/22/2018 at 6:49 AM, pinkrobot_pb said:

I think the problem is that since then it's become a major topic. You're either in favour or against and that kills all nuance. It's not so much what does or does not happen in a movie, TV show or video game, it's the emphasis that is put on it by both creators and consumers. And the "Look at us we are so cool for doing this" mentality is what irks even this ancient hippie anarchist right here.

I am not against inclusiveness, I am very much for it, if you know me personally you would know why I say this. Its just that pushing an agenda hard backfires and just shows you as intolerant instead of what you’re trying to say, by doing this ND is alienating everyone else (especially people who are genuinely worried about their favorite characters like Joel, Bill, Tommy...) and they put them in the same basket as the stupid pricks who always cry cuck and beta male to anyone who supports the marginalized minorities. 

On 7/22/2018 at 6:29 PM, BlindMango said:

Had to delete some recent posts that started to derail the topic and resorted to basic name-calling and drama. C'mon guys, please avoid - thanks! 

 

Its a very sensitive subject to a lot of people. In my case, I don’t have a problem with what ND is trying to say, I don’t have a problem with how they’re saying it, I have a problem with them treating genuinely worried people about the game in the same vein DICE was treating those same people about Battlefield V before they realized that they messed up, I don’t want ND to to do the same mistake, those are my 5 cents on this topic. 

[Nemmy_Wemmy]

On July 22, 2018 at 0:55 AM, nyonmyan said:

People were making kids in far worse circumstances, including Nazi occupation, Stone Age and Black Plague period. And we exist today thanks to these people, by the way.

I agree with your statement mostly but this, lol this..how is Nazis, the Stone Age, and the Black Plague far worse then literal zombies and a worldwide apocalypse with untold amounts of rape, murder, torture and multiple other horrors, and that's not even talking about all the zombies ready to eat ya face  ?  haha just made me giggle  take care friend haha

[Zolkovo]

On 21/07/2018 at 11:39 PM, Carol said:

[...] An example of this is something that is mentioned in the video: the role of Nadine as a villain in Uncharted 4. If you played the game, you know that when you’re trying to fight her, no matter how many buttons you press, nothing happens and Drake always ends up defeated. Why? Well, Nadine is a girl and it’s politically and socially incorrect to have to beat a woman in a game. And I can even agree with this! But then don’t add a female villain/boss to your game, with certain parts of this game that only have the appearance of having gameplay, but that are merely cinematic, because there’s a character you aren’t supposed to beat! This is ridiculous and absurd! Drake can beat extremely powerful enemies (the infamous brutes); there’s no way he can’t beat a woman, no matter how strong she is! It’s good that you have these concerns, but then don’t add female bosses to your game! [...]

 

In Lost Legacy, both Chloe and Nadine get overpowered by Asav near the middle of the game. In a 2 vs 1 situation no less, so not sure how Naughty Dog are adhering to the "political and social implications of beating a woman in-game". Even at the end of the game it takes two women to actually beat the unassuming & unarmed (male) boss so obviously they couldn't care less about political correctness.

 

FYI, the real reason Drake wasn't able to finish off Nadine at any point was because the LL story arch was already in pre-development. It was originally planned to be released as DLC for UC4.

 

Not aimed at you, but people tend to over-anaylse anything and everything these days. Just play the god damn game and have a good time. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Zolkovo

[Carol]

6 hours ago, Zolkovo said:

 

In Lost Legacy, both Chloe and Nadine get overpowered by Asav near the middle of the game. In a 2 vs 1 situation no less, so not sure how Naughty Dog are adhering to the "political and social implications of beating a woman in-game". Even at the end of the game it takes two women to actually beat the unassuming & unarmed (male) boss so obviously they couldn't care less about political correctness.

 

FYI, the real reason Drake wasn't able to finish off Nadine at any point was because the LL story arch was already in pre-development. It was originally planned to be released as DLC for UC4.

 

Not aimed at you, but people tend to over-anaylse anything and everything these days. Just play the god damn game and have a good time. If you don't like it, don't play it.

 

I still stand by my point. Whatever the case is, the boss fights with Nadine shouldn’t have been in the game, if you weren’t supposed to defeat her. I’m 31 and I can’t even remember when I started playing games. Never in my life I played a good game, that included a boss fight, that was apparently normal (meaning you had to defeat the boss, through gameplay means), but, that was, deceitfully, merely cinematic, because there’s an untouchable character. Putting the controller down (or pressing useless buttons) in a boss fight and the game proceeding normally is something I have never seen in a good game.

Also, don’t even talk about The Lost Legacy! “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” is a much better game and much more loyal to the Uncharted formula than Uncharted 4 will ever be! The two of them aren’t even comparable, in my view. Furthermore, you are clearly forgetting a clear distinction that ND makes in their games: heroes and villains. A hero (Drake) can’t beat a woman, but, of course, a villain (Asav) can. How isn’t this concerned with political or social correctness?

 I love Naughty Dog, I played literally thousands of hours of their games, but I’m not a blind fan...

Edited July 28, 2018 by Carol

[Zolkovo]

3 hours ago, Carol said:

I still stand by my point. Whatever the case is, the boss fights with Nadine shouldn’t have been in the game, if you weren’t supposed to defeat her. I’m 31 and I can’t even remember when I started playing games. Never in my life I played a good game, that included a boss fight, that was apparently normal (meaning you had to defeat the boss, through gameplay means), but, that was, deceitfully, merely cinematic, because there’s an untouchable character. Putting the controller down (or pressing useless buttons) in a boss fight and the game proceeding normally is something I have never seen in a good game.

Also, don’t even talk about The Lost Legacy! “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” is a much better game and much more loyal to the Uncharted formula than Uncharted 4 will ever be! The two of them aren’t even comparable, in my view. Furthermore, you are clearly forgetting a clear distinction that ND makes in their games: heroes and villains. A hero (Drake) can’t beat a woman, but, of course, a villain (Asav) can. How isn’t this concerned with political or social correctness?

 I love Naughty Dog, I played literally thousands of hours of their games, but I’m not a blind fan...

 

Nadine could have just as easily been a male character and no one would have battered an eyelid. And is it even that unbelievable that she could be Ronda Rousey-esk (real-life example). Nadine was the leader of a private army which was previously run by her father. Nadine most likely grew up not just learning to fight, but constantly having to prove herself in that kind of environment. It's definitely believable that she could one-up Nate in hand-to-hand combat. Wouldn't have mattered whether the character was portrayed as male or female. It's different and refreshing. She's also not inherently a villain as we later find out, a hired mercenary is all she was in UC4.

 

I mean if you're going to whine about gender PC, then I'm surprised no one's brought up race. You can argue that it's an anti-slavery agenda in the same vein as all this feminist bs. Especially given that she's the first black (female) character to be introduced in Uncharted. I remember people being outraged about Nadine being voice acted by a white woman, just as utterly ridiculous.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Zolkovo

[Carol]

36 minutes ago, Zolkovo said:

 

Nadine could have just as easily been a male character and no one would have battered an eyelid. And is it even that unbelievable that she could be Ronda Rousey-esk (real-life example). Nadine was the leader of a private army which was previously run by her father. Nadine most likely grew up not just learning to fight, but constantly having to prove herself in that kind of environment. It's definitely believable that she could one-up Nate in hand-to-hand combat. Wouldn't have mattered whether the character was portrayed as male or female. It's different and refreshing. She's also not inherently a villain as we later find out, a hired mercenary is all she was in UC4.

 

I mean if you're going to whine about gender PC, then I'm surprised no one's brought up race. You can argue that it's an anti-slavery agenda in the same vein as all this feminist bs. Especially given that she's the first black (female) character to be introduced in Uncharted. I remember people being outraged about Nadine being voice acted by a white woman, just as utterly ridiculous.

 

In general, a man always has more strength than a woman, no matter how strong she is or how much training she has.

If you think that she

 

is stronger than any of these brutes or can, believably, beat them,

 

 

then, it's your opinion and I respect it, but I, as a girl, don't agree. Drake can, with some difficulty, beat these guys, so if Nadine can so easily defeat Drake, she should be able to defeat them too. This may be believable to you, but isn't to me.

[Vadrael]

I usually stay away from games with a hidden agenda. I loved The last of US, but when i saw the TLOU2 Trailer it was clear to me that i wont buy that game.

Dont get me wrong i dont buy  the games because of the kiss itself and more that they choose to promote the game with an agenda made trailer instead of showing relevant stuff we wanted to see. I knew all along the Eli was lesbian and it shouldnt matter if its normal in their opinion but they choose to make it their main attention seeker. I miss times when that stuff were part of the substory you will explore while playing just like in the first game but building a game upon a agenda just for the sake of it isnt about video games anymore and therefore i dont support that.

[Zolkovo]

1 hour ago, Carol said:

[...] then, it's your opinion and I respect it, but I, as a girl, don't agree. Drake can, with some difficulty, beat these guys, so if Nadine can so easily defeat Drake, she should be able to defeat them too. This may be believable to you, but isn't to me.

 

I do appreciate what you're saying but the problem is we've only played the games from Nathan Drake's point of view for most of the franchise. During that time whose to say Nadine also hasn't been knocking out Brutes or defeating mystical bosses. Everyone's assuming she's lived a mundane uneventful life but we simply do not know, and her back-story suggests otherwise.

 

Since we're all over-analysing here let's take a look at the bigger picture:

• Let's not forget the fights between Drake and Nadine were always cut short. Even the end-game bosses have the upper-hand for the majority of the fight until nearer the end where Drake pulls something out of his ass.
• In UC4, Drake had also been out of commission for a long time having taken up a diving career and settled down with Elena. Of course he was bound to be rusty too, whereas Nadine was still fresh from the embers of military-grade fighting.
• In addition to the 4 years of low key life, he is 39 in UC4 whereas Nadine is in her prime (no confirmed sources but believed to be in her early 30s). She has youth on her side and even most professional fighters are lucky to be fighting close to their 40s in the real world.
• We know from lost legacy that she is just as capable of making impossible jumps, incredible climbs etc. which I'm sure wasn't something she plucked out of thin-air but honed over many years of presumably the same kinda stuff. This clearly indicates immense upper body strength and rugged mental fortitude.

Perhaps I just find this kinda prejudice against women especially irksome as I was a Taekwondo Instructor for a long time and my girls could easily run rings around men twice their size and triple their tournament experience. A lot of it just comes down to circumstance, mind-set and technique.

 

I can see I'm not going to sway you from your stance but I respect your opinion too. I certainly know at least one woman on this very website who could handle most men on here with relative ease, regardless of their background 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Zolkovo