Zero Punctuation: The Last of Us

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

JonahNYC:
I think it's time for Mailbag Showdown 2!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/37-Mailbag-Showdown

In short, GO TEAM RETARD!

This could be very interesting. ^^

I'm actually looking forward to a possible response.

EXos:

JonahNYC:
I think it's time for Mailbag Showdown 2!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/37-Mailbag-Showdown

In short, GO TEAM RETARD!

This could be very interesting. ^^

I'm actually looking forward to a possible response.

hmm I don't think I'd like it...
I mean, he won't reconsider, he can't...
So it's simply going to become a "follower bashing" episode.
I didn't like it when he did it back in the day, and I don't even like SSB ( I agree with a lot of his observations about the game ). That said, I suppose I would like him to show some awareness about the disappointment several ZP viewers, but somehow I don't think that will make a big difference.

Delcast:

EXos:

This could be very interesting. ^^

I'm actually looking forward to a possible response.

hmm I don't think I'd like it...
I mean, he won't reconsider, he can't...
So it's simply going to become a "follower bashing" episode.
I didn't like it when he did it back in the day, and I don't even like SSB ( I agree with a lot of his observations about the game ). That said, I suppose I would like him to show some awareness about the disappointment several ZP viewers, but somehow I don't think that will make a big difference.

Well to be honest seeing the amount of projecting that has been going on; how he's not a serious reviewer but a entertainer or even the accusation that he didn't play the game! Those people deserve a good bashing.

I've liked several games that yahtzee annihilated but I don't mind. I know I enjoyed it, like the Witcher.
So if you can't stand a negative review of your new favourite game then just put it past while playing it and wait for next week.
On the flip side I have bought some games according to his reviews like Just Cause 2.
Yahtzee is a good reviewer and unlike most "mainstream" reviewers he will go against popular releases. I've read plenty that would never cross a AAA-publisher.

To all those people, you included, that think that your opinion is the correct one. Suck it up buttercup.

Mick P.:

mjc0961:

Mick P.:
Yahtzee is just frustrated because he is cursed with the ability to imagine better games. Or that he has to keep reviewing awful games as a career. He literally has the worst job I can possibly imagine for myself. I would rather do anything than have to play these games for a living, much less say anything about them in public. I'd rather be in prison.

If you disagree with him, you just have low standards. He is right on the mark.

Says somebody who's already admitted to not having played the fucking game yet. How do you know if he's right on the mark? Oh yeah, you don't. Come back when you've actually played the game and actually have an informed opinion rather than just blatantly agreeing for no good reason.

That was in response to Yahtzee's reviews in general. I've seen everyone of them. Of the games I've actually played? Next to none. All thanks to Yahtzee, sweet wonderful Yahtzee. I would say what I think about people who've already played this game at its 50$ plus price point, but I will probably be banned. As much as that would be for my better. I can't help myself.

Please don't tell me you have a candlelit shrine to him. That would be bad.

I agree with yahtzee on most points, however the story was amazing, and I loved the main characters (even though like he said predictable)

but I also can say that it doesn't deserve a perfect score and all the praise its getting
Aside from the story there's almost nothing that appeals to me, don't get me wrong its still a very good game but I just don't think it deserves all the praise and perfect scores its getting, drop the story and the gameplay is kind of weak...

EXos:

Delcast:

EXos:

This could be very interesting. ^^

I'm actually looking forward to a possible response.

hmm I don't think I'd like it...
I mean, he won't reconsider, he can't...
So it's simply going to become a "follower bashing" episode.
I didn't like it when he did it back in the day, and I don't even like SSB ( I agree with a lot of his observations about the game ). That said, I suppose I would like him to show some awareness about the disappointment several ZP viewers, but somehow I don't think that will make a big difference.

Well to be honest seeing the amount of projecting that has been going on; how he's not a serious reviewer but a entertainer or even the accusation that he didn't play the game! Those people deserve a good bashing.

I've liked several games that yahtzee annihilated but I don't mind. I know I enjoyed it, like the Witcher.
So if you can't stand a negative review of your new favourite game then just put it past while playing it and wait for next week.
On the flip side I have bought some games according to his reviews like Just Cause 2.
Yahtzee is a good reviewer and unlike most "mainstream" reviewers he will go against popular releases. I've read plenty that would never cross a AAA-publisher.

To all those people, you included, that think that your opinion is the correct one. Suck it up buttercup.

Hah, it would be a little stupid if I didn't think my opinion was correct.. If I thought my opinion was incorrect, then I'd probably change it.

And yeah, I'm one of the few that suggested that he hadn't played the complete game since his grasp of some of the basic components of it was shallow and (more than occasionally) straight up incorrect (Detached from liking the game on a more personal level, no-one can really expect anyone else to like the same things one does).
It is quite clear to most, how the game executes what he has lauded as great gameplay design choices, yet there is no mention of how successful it is in that sense (and even if it's not perfect it does a good job with several game-play systems). Moreover, not only does he point out "issues" that have been present in many recent games but he had previously ignored, but also he fails to mention other very noticeable problems in the mechanics of the game that would be very valid criticism.

In fact, as many have said, it simply feels different to most episodes, very uninspired and rather superficial.
I'm extremely nit-picky of even the games that I love, and I rarely find anything flawless (TLOU is far from flawless), but I try to keep the game's qualities separated from external factors. For example, I wouldn't let a certain developer cloud my judgement of a game's merits, I can say that Uncharted 2 was a great adventure game with spectacular sections, while I can honestly describe Uncharted 3 as a tiresome bloated AAA iterative exercise. This doesn't condemn or save Naughty Dog, so I think it should be possible to judge The Last of Us as its own game, very distinctive from the previous games by the company.
Seems to me that Yahtzee left too many external factors cloud his judgement on this one...

Maybe he didn't like it; Maybe he condemned it because of how much universal praise the game is getting and he doesn't want to fall into the mainstream; Maybe he really just can't disassociate Naughty Dog's stamp or its console exclusive status with the game, ...
But anyway it appears something external to the game itself prevented him from observing even what he himself often praises. Now I'm not up in arms about it, I don't like the game more or less because of this review, but I do feel that it has made a dent in my personal appreciation of ZP.

But hey, to each his own, I'm quite aware that in most forums online it's either black or white.

I'm pretty sure what I'm about to say has in one form or another been repeated by several posters by now, but I'm something of a lazy bugger and am not going to read through all 8 pages of comments before saying this.

The Last of Us doesn't need defending, Yahtzee himself has said that if you like a game then what he has to say shouldn't bother you. I enjoyed The Last of Us quite a bit, and am in fact replaying it, so while I found his review of the game amusing, I'm not bothered by what he said, hell even his motorboating joke didn't bother me that much. Yahtzee has made far worse jokes than that, specificly the miscarridge joke he made in his webcomics video.
Another game that I really liked that he pretty much completely dismissed was Castlevania Lords of Shadow, and he wrote that one off simply because it has a portal reference in it. I still got a laugh out of the video though.

Yahtzee is the reason I came to the escapist, and while I enjoy hearing his opinions on games they are just that, his opinions. Ultimately what he thinks of any given game has no bearing on how I feel about it.

P.S My apologies if I spelled miscarridge wrong, I don't have any kind of spell checker on this thing.

maddawg IAJI:

Mick P.:

That was in response to Yahtzee's reviews in general. I've seen everyone of them. Of the games I've actually played? Next to none. All thanks to Yahtzee, sweet wonderful Yahtzee.

I'm tempted on starting a kick starter for the sole purpose of buying you those games now. Simply because it sounds like you've missed some of the greatest games of the last 3 years. Seriously man. No borderlands? No Arkham Asylum/City? No Mass Effect? This post is just really depressing if its true.

Mick P.:
I would say what I think about people who've already played this game at its 50$ plus price point...

That they're playing a game with surprisngly tight controls, a fantastic narrative with strong anti-heroes and moving characters along side of a truly tense and atmospheric post apocalyptic world? I think that would be a fairly accurate statement.

If you could buy me the time to play these games too then that would be splendid. Anyway. I've been put on probation for this post. I think I am not long for this forum even though I do like it. So I might as well go out at the top of my game.

50$ is just too much to pay for a game in my book. Just like 1$ is too much to pay for a song. The games come down to a reasonable price in time. People who buy them before that time are just being taken advantage of by the publishers, and I can't blame the publishers for that, but its basically just a class based system, first class, second class, etc, for people with more money than they know what to do with.

gjkbgt:
I was seriously planning on getting a ps3 just to play this game
but now i'm not going to.

I got into a massive argument after the E3 2012 gameplay demo

i hated how after an apocalypse everyone just starts killing everyone else for no real reason

As the man says now these less of us surely the value of human life should have gone up. I mean if everyone i ever cared about was dead i'd do everything i could to avoid more pointless death.
Yes people would be angry and hate filled but at the ones who took there loved-ones away. The clickers not the humans (don't want to get into that)

So yes great review saved me a lot of heartache and 160

I think thats the point of the game from what everyone else is saying. From the comments im getting the feeling that the game fully calls out the violence against fellow men, portraying humans as selfish and irredeemable if they cant even pull together in the face of extinction. Its not like The Walking Dead, which sees each life as precious and everyone is, on some level, aware of that. This is a game of selfishness and desperation. Joel doesn't care about humanity, he cares about ellie, and he knows how selfish that is but he doesn't care.

Yahtzee sometimes misses the point in games, even though he lauds story, it seems like he occasionally really misses the mark on good storytelling. He doesn't seem to understand subtle or unstated development, which is the real strength of TLoU. I'd recommend to give this one a chance, if reviewers and the internet are agreeing on something, its generally at least worth checking out methinks.

Mick P.:

If you could buy me the time to play these games too then that would be splendid.

Full time student here who also works a full time job. Trust me, I know what it means to be busy and I've had days where I leave the apartment at 5 in the morning and don't get back until 11:00 at night, I still manage to find the time to at least enjoy a few games and on my days off, when I don't have plans or errands to run, you can bet your ass I power played my way through Last of Us and a few other games. Anyway.

Mick P.:

50$ is just too much to pay for a game in my book.

Fine, that's understandable, but with the used game market being as big as it is, there isn't an excuse for being able to pick up a triple A game for 20-40 bucks. Heck, Left 4 Dead 2 on Steam is down to 5 bucks. You can get the komplete (sic) edition of MK9 for 30 bucks if fighters are your thing. Maybe you prefer the Sims or something and if so, you can grab that at 15.00 bucks at Gamestop if its used. Fallout New Vegas? 20 bucks. Battlefield 3? 20 bucks. Arkham City GOTY edition? 20 bucks. [/quote]

Mick P.:
People who buy them before that time are just being taken advantage of by the publishers, and I can't blame the publishers for that, but its basically just a class based system, first class, second class, etc, for people with more money than they know what to do with.

Or you can do what a good portion of those gamers do, buy the game, play it, enjoy it, beat it and then sell it back while the buyback price is still high. Take Bioshock Infinite for example. I bought at full price, played it, beat it, Loved it! and then returned it for 40 bucks, lowering my net loss from 60 to 20 dollars, a price you wouldn't be able to get now. If you know how to play the system, you can be an avid gamer and still save money. I work in retail, its not like I make a lot of money, but I can find ways to pay my bills and still have a way to support a hobby that I've enjoyed every since I was a little kid.

Demongeneral109:
'

I keep on getting this response I didn't like E3 demo because you brutally killed a bunch of guys for no reason other then, it's the post apocalypse at that stuff happens.
And people defend that but saying yeah but it knows that killing people is bad and uses that to show how how horrible and evil people can be.

This is utterly stupid as far as arguments go.
The reason i didn't like the E3 demo was i didn't have context for why they were trying to kill me and i them.
And rather then giving context the game points at all the murder and goes "isn't it tragic people killing each other for no reason"

This is the worsted kind of storey telling the kind that really gets me mad where the writer makes up something doesn't explain it then points to the thing it made up as evidence for some bullshit theory.

So no not buying the game thank fuck for that

Did naughty dog jilt Yahtzee at the alter? Coz he really doesn't like 'em. Great review, don't agree with it... well some of it....well ok, the zombies, elle being invisable, allies runnning about like one man band loons are all valid but not the ending but then I am a selfish bastard of a man. Just ask the girlfriend and kids.

FargoDog:

Elizabeth in BioShock Infinite had the exact same problem of floating through combat with nary a scratch, but he never found that to be an issue in that game.

Except there was an actual reason behind that. The enemies weren't supposed to be shooting at her, so they didn't.

OT: You know, it's rather nice to see that, besides me and Shadman, there is actually another person who doesn't think this game is 10/10 FOREVAH, BEST GAME, PERFECT GAME, IS SO GUD!
I actually think it is worth more of a 6/10...

gjkbgt:

Demongeneral109:
'

I keep on getting this response I didn't like E3 demo because you brutally killed a bunch of guys for no reason other then, it's the post apocalypse at that stuff happens.
And people defend that but saying yeah but it knows that killing people is bad and uses that to show how how horrible and evil people can be.

This is utterly stupid as far as arguments go.
The reason i didn't like the E3 demo was i didn't have context for why they were trying to kill me and i them.
And rather then giving context the game points at all the murder and goes "isn't it tragic people killing each other for no reason"

This is the worsted kind of storey telling the kind that really gets me mad where the writer makes up something doesn't explain it then points to the thing it made up as evidence for some bullshit theory.

So no not buying the game thank fuck for that

The demo might not give context. But the game itself does. You might want to actually experience the game for yourself before making that kind of judgement call.

Demongeneral109:

gjkbgt:
I was seriously planning on getting a ps3 just to play this game
but now i'm not going to.

I got into a massive argument after the E3 2012 gameplay demo

i hated how after an apocalypse everyone just starts killing everyone else for no real reason

As the man says now these less of us surely the value of human life should have gone up. I mean if everyone i ever cared about was dead i'd do everything i could to avoid more pointless death.
Yes people would be angry and hate filled but at the ones who took there loved-ones away. The clickers not the humans (don't want to get into that)

So yes great review saved me a lot of heartache and 160

I think thats the point of the game from what everyone else is saying. From the comments im getting the feeling that the game fully calls out the violence against fellow men, portraying humans as selfish and irredeemable if they cant even pull together in the face of extinction. Its not like The Walking Dead, which sees each life as precious and everyone is, on some level, aware of that. This is a game of selfishness and desperation. Joel doesn't care about humanity, he cares about ellie, and he knows how selfish that is but he doesn't care.

Yahtzee sometimes misses the point in games, even though he lauds story, it seems like he occasionally really misses the mark on good storytelling. He doesn't seem to understand subtle or unstated development, which is the real strength of TLoU. I'd recommend to give this one a chance, if reviewers and the internet are agreeing on something, its generally at least worth checking out methinks.

Keep in mind that in The Walking Dead the apocalypse just happened very recently whereas in The Last of us it happened twenty years ago.

That's twenty years of resources drying up, the infection spreading, and people dying through all kinds of causes. I wonder what the setting of The Walking Dead would look like after twenty years of in universe time?

A1:

The demo might not give context. But the game itself does. You might want to actually experience the game for yourself before making that kind of judgement call.

My god, did you even carry this thought through. did you think even for a micro second before you posted this absurdly dumb statement.
I'm not going to spend 160 to play a game i don't think i'm going to like.
That's why i watch review. Can't trust the game stop/ IGN reviews as they basically go by the games budget (10/10 of Cod Bl op 2)

review not overwhelmingly negative but critises the parts that were turning me off already. --> not buying game.

Also i got to say that this forum is really throwing up some read flags for me.

My problem is that everyone seems to except violence as justified automatically as part of the Zombie trop.
If that's the admission price to enjoy this game i'm not going to enjoy it.

It's just dumb I mean say the clickers where aliens not zombies, there is no way you would except an post alien invasion game where the main enemy if humans.
Or a terminator game where the main enemy are human bandits but it is just as likely and dumb.

So well done this game has gone from not worth buying a PS3 for, down to: Prob not worth getting even after i buy a PS3

gjkbgt:

A1:

The demo might not give context. But the game itself does. You might want to actually experience the game for yourself before making that kind of judgement call.

My god, did you even carry this thought through. did you think even for a micro second before you posted this absurdly dumb statement.
I'm not going to spend 160 to play a game i don't think i'm going to like.
That's why i watch review. Can't trust the game stop/ IGN reviews as they basically go by the games budget (10/10 of Cod Bl op 2)

review not overwhelmingly negative but critises the parts that were turning me off already. --> not buying game.

Also i got to say that this forum is really throwing up some read flags for me.

My problem is that everyone seems to except violence as justified automatically as part of the Zombie trop.
If that's the admission price to enjoy this game i'm not going to enjoy it.

It's just dumb I mean say the clickers where aliens not zombies, there is no way you would except an post alien invasion game where the main enemy if humans.
Or a terminator game where the main enemy are human bandits but it is just as likely and dumb.

So well done this game has gone from not worth buying a PS3 for, down to: Prob not worth getting even after i buy a PS3

If you do not believe a product is something that you're going to enjoy then so be it. It's only logical that you not buy it. But even so not having the means and/or the will to experience something for yourself still doesn't give you the right to make that kind of judgement call about it without having done so (experiencing it for yourself). If you don't have the means or the will then the best and most mature thing to do would be to withhold judgement indefinitely (even if indefinitely ends up meaning the rest of your life).

And there are simply many people who understand the plausibility of human on human violence in those kinds of situations. And there are very good reasons for understanding this.

But even so if you find that you are bothered or irritated by the things that people are saying on these forums then I'm afraid you have only yourself to blame.

No one is forcing you to read or respond to any of these posts on these forums. If you don't like what you've been reading around here then my suggestion would be to go somewhere else. Perhaps somewhere where people share your beliefs and opinions.

A1:
[.

Wow this might actual be fun.

Firstly. it is bad etiquette to imply that the reason someone didn't like something is that the subject matter is beyond them.
The whole may people understand this, implied shame you're not one of them.
You don't know how i am could be a nuclear physicist or a games designer. i could work conflict resolution for the un. A professional writer, a doctor, aid work & army major.
could be more or less qualified then you so don't assume. (one of those is my real job BTW)

The fun part. I originality posted to say i found the review useful in my decision about buying the game. You asked me to justify you accuse me for not giving the game a fair trial. I explain why i didn't give the game a fair trial you tell me it's my right not to give give game a fair trial as long as i don't make statements judgments on it's quality. Forgetting it was you who asked me to make statements judging the games quality.
also like you're so holy i bet you make/laugh at twilight is shit jokes

And as for your closing statement that i found to be almost sexual it was deliciously ironic

beware the circle jerk. never go places where everyone agrees.
No i don't have to read/reply neither do you if you disagree then you can feel free to go somewhere else too.
Also surely its people who like the last of use who should go somewhere else as this is the comments from a video that doesn't like that game.
I came her to review the posted ZP can sometimes miss out details and clearly it's a much loved game. I wanted to know why . The results were useful, they reaffirmed my discussion.

Well that was fun.
Any other point you want to resolve just shout

gjkbgt:

A1:
[.

Wow this might actual be fun.

Firstly. it is bad etiquette to imply that the reason someone didn't like something is that the subject matter is beyond them.
The whole may people understand this, implied shame you're not one of them.
You don't know how i am could be a nuclear physicist or a games designer. i could work conflict resolution for the un. A professional writer, a doctor, aid work & army major.
could be more or less qualified then you so don't assume. (one of those is my real job BTW)

The fun part. I originality posted to say i found the review useful in my decision about buying the game. You asked me to justify you accuse me for not giving the game a fair trial. I explain why i didn't give the game a fair trial you tell me it's my right not to give give game a fair trial as long as i don't make statements judgments on it's quality. Forgetting it was you who asked me to make statements judging the games quality.
also like you're so holy i bet you make/laugh at twilight is shit jokes

And as for your closing statement that i found to be almost sexual it was deliciously ironic

beware the circle jerk. never go places where everyone agrees.
No i don't have to read/reply neither do you if you disagree then you can feel free to go somewhere else too.
Also surely its people who like the last of use who should go somewhere else as this is the comments from a video that doesn't like that game.
I came her to review the posted ZP can sometimes miss out details and clearly it's a much loved game. I wanted to know why . The results were useful, they reaffirmed my discussion.

Well that was fun.
Any other point you want to resolve just shout

Okay. There seems to be stuff to clear up. I don't know where most, if not all, of that stuff you just brought up is coming from.

I never implied that the subject matter was beyond you. It's possible that you might have felt like I was doing that but I wasn't and I didn't. I know that I don't know anything about you and I never implied or insinuated that I did. And I didn't assume anything. What I did was counter the arguments you made about humanity.

I never asked you to justify anything. I never accused you of not giving the game a fair trial. I only suggested that you might want to experience the game for yourself before making judgement calls about it. That was not an accusation. That was a suggestion and it was made after you had already established that you hadn't played the game.

I never asked you to make statements judging the games quality. In fact I never asked you to do anything.

You also seemed to indicate that what people were saying on these forums was bothering you. I made a suggestion based on that.

And while I don't speak for anyone else here I myself never said or implied that what anyone on these forums was saying was bothering me.

EDIT: And you seem to be making fun of at least one of the things I said. So you really don't seem to be in a position to accuse anyone of bad etiquette.

Delcast:

Meh, I thought I was having a thoughtful conversation .. not just a rhetorical exercise with someone just shielding on cynisism ... you clearly didn't pay much attention to what I said..

I don't get why you feel the need to be disingenuous out of the box, but it makes me less interested in what you have to say.

I'm sorry that you see me criticising you for making up points on which to attack Yahztee as a defense of cynicism, but I'm beholden to honesty, and that wasn't honest. I don't enjoy Yahtzee's cynicism outside the context of it entertains me.

And again, nobody seems to mind his cynicism when it's a game they don't like. but whatever.

Delcast:
you often tend to be here just to tell people how dumb and wrong they are being for having a certain opinion...

See? See right there? that's kind of my point. I'm not sure if you're lying or just incorrectly inferring, but that's simply not true. You are attacking a made-up point. You did this to Yahtzee, and you're doing it to me.
EDIT: and apparently, you know how wrong it is, since you've changed it since I clicked on the link.

Zachary Amaranth:

Delcast:

Meh, I thought I was having a thoughtful conversation .. not just a rhetorical exercise with someone just shielding on cynisism ... you clearly didn't pay much attention to what I said..

I don't get why you feel the need to be disingenuous out of the box, but it makes me less interested in what you have to say.

I'm sorry that you see me criticising you for making up points on which to attack Yahztee as a defense of cynicism, but I'm beholden to honesty, and that wasn't honest. I don't enjoy Yahtzee's cynicism outside the context of it entertains me.

And again, nobody seems to mind his cynicism when it's a game they don't like. but whatever.

Zachary Amaranth:

Delcast:
you often tend to be here just to tell people how dumb and wrong they are being for having a certain opinion...

See? See right there? that's kind of my point. I'm not sure if you're lying or just incorrectly inferring, but that's simply not true. You are attacking a made-up point. You did this to Yahtzee, and you're doing it to me.
EDIT: and apparently, you know how wrong it is, since you've changed it since I clicked on the link.

Well, for one, that is what you are not getting, I am not attacking Yahtzee trying to make up fake points, I am providing enough context from his previous statements to back up that THIS critique in particular makes little sense and appears shallow in comparison to other episodes.
And about minding or not minding, there is a question of fairness and coherence, there have been episodes before when I've seen it happen and I do mind. Again he might not be subtle or extremely profound but I have always found the criticism he does DOES provide some form of insight, even under layers of twat jokes... This one, I'm left scratching my head.

I really wonder if there could have been anything this game could have done better to be seen in a kinder light, As I've repeatedly said, it seems that it includes MANY of the specifics that yahtzee often praises as good game design, but he seems to have overlooked them (even to the point of criticizing inaccurate information about the game). I'm sorry, but it appears to me that it's only natural to question what caused this contrast.

As I've said before, I'm not up in arms about it though, I don't expect him to change his mind or acknowledge the brilliance of the points that I am bringing up, but I am simply sharing why I believe his gauge of the game is quite off. In the same way that it is dumb that some people say "HEY YAHTZEE LOVEZ THIS GAME SO I WILL BUY IT" it is silly to believe that because he says so the game is worse, particularly in this case, where the opinions are so divided.

Moreover, additional to the expected ND contempt, it has become clear that yahtzee has been developing some form of console exclusive hatred. And I can't help but wonder if this is permeating into his views, becoming even more cynical and more like the archetype he used to ridicule about the "pc master race".

About how you act in the forum's, I have read many posts by you that are very critical but bring up little constructive criticism. Maybe it is because there is no way to really know -how- you said something, (It is very possible that I am being oversensitive too) but a lot of what you responded to me felt like you were simply dismissing the opinion based on specific details that were unimportant to the actual message (like pointing out spunkgargleweewee, which is undeniably a stupid term that I only mentioned as an explanation), not focusing on the fact that I was speaking about my experiences in the game as a whole in contrast to Yahtzee's rant. NOT picking point by point, but instead displaying components of it as a system that I felt contrasted heavily, and even contradicted, some of his views that seemed so absolute..

Additionally I have listed many components that I feel do make the game worse, there is no denying that there are many problems with TLoU even when you do judge it more positively. I am not trying to sugarcoat this as the best game ever, I am trying to discuss a more fair observation of the nuances of the game that anyone even mildly interested in it should know before taking this face value, since as i said before, unlike other episodes the balance of tough but fair here seem's off.

I would have loved a ruthlessly critical episode about TLOU making use of the profound points where this game has real issues, but instead it seemed like an uninspired rant nitpicking and downplaying all of it's structure. I don't REALLY doubt that Yahtzee played the game, but it is extremely disappointing for me that he put so very little thought into it. Of course this is infinitely subjective, and I know in the great scheme of things neither his opinion nor mine really make much of a difference. People saying it was a great review and that thanks to it they will not buy the game were never going to buy it, and people arguing how great it was still think it was great.
But it really is annoying for people to inform me that "well if you didn't like the game, you wouldn't have a problem with this episode bashing it", because that is completely beside my point. It has no importance and it isn't even true, I enjoy arguing about games, when I think they are good or bad. I have commented here when I feel the episode unjustly describes a game ( even jokingly ), or even defending specific aspects of games that I didn't even like that much as a whole.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to insult you in any way. I don't know if I did, maybe I inferred incorrectly. I do feel people tend to be incredibly dismissive online (because no-one really cares) but I apologize if I was.

I think it's enough of the last of us for a while though... I'm only thankful that he never reviewed Journey, because I'm sort of fearful of how that would have ended.

PS I did not change the post, it's still there.

canadamus_prime:
So you have to watch out for that everything-proof shield?

I think those are the blokes who grew up and developed the code for God Mode. Which is how I think I would play this game. Were I to play it. Which I won't.

Delcast:

I am not attacking Yahtzee trying to make up fake points

Again, not what I said. I said you were making up fake grounds to attack Yahtzee. Which you did. You attributed to him arguments not made in his video. That's dishonest. I addressed those, and I was suddenly defending cynicism or whatever.

PS I did not change the post, it's still there.

What it says now is not what it said in my inbox or what it said when I first loaded the page.

Anyhow, I'm probably not gonna respond anymore, I've seen you around the forums and you often tend to be here just to tell people how dumb and wrong they are being for having a certain opinion... I don't really find that interesting.

Which was untrue in the first place, became:

Anyhow, I'm probably not gonna respond anymore, I've seen you around the forums and you often tend to be here just to tell people how silly their opinions are... I don't really find that interesting.

Which is still sort of untrue, but definitely a change. Saying you didn't change it is a flat-out lie. Do I need to screencap it for you? I still have the notification with the original version in my inbox; it's where I got the original version for this post.

Delcast:
.

christ did you read this before you posted it think yep that made all the points in a concise manner and wasn't a wasted of my time.
I'm guessing you hear this a lot but still, wow that's a long post

Zachary Amaranth:

Delcast:

I am not attacking Yahtzee trying to make up fake points

Again, not what I said. I said you were making up fake grounds to attack Yahtzee. Which you did. You attributed to him arguments not made in his video. That's dishonest. I addressed those, and I was suddenly defending cynicism or whatever.

PS I did not change the post, it's still there.

What it says now is not what it said in my inbox or what it said when I first loaded the page.

Anyhow, I'm probably not gonna respond anymore, I've seen you around the forums and you often tend to be here just to tell people how dumb and wrong they are being for having a certain opinion... I don't really find that interesting.

Which was untrue in the first place, became:

Anyhow, I'm probably not gonna respond anymore, I've seen you around the forums and you often tend to be here just to tell people how silly their opinions are... I don't really find that interesting.

Which is still sort of untrue, but definitely a change. Saying you didn't change it is a flat-out lie. Do I need to screencap it for you? I still have the notification with the original version in my inbox; it's where I got the original version for this post.

Well, You see there? You are Ignoring the answers which addressed your concerns and picking apart my post and trying to invalidate the reasoning by focusing on points that have no importance towards the message (or anything). Speak about dishonesty.

As I mentioned, all you need is to extrapolate as a smart person (that's why i am not particularly drawing out the exact points, because I expect most people here would understand the analysis), and realize that when I picked those particular points to contrast yahtzee I was presenting them in a systemic approach that would display how his criticism doesn't hold ground throughout the complete game view.

If you don't believe me, play the game, or watch the video someone posted a few pages back clearly showing how his assessment on Ellie's AI uselessness in EVERY aspect of the game is fully debunked, and that is just one of the examples.

And then you call me a liar. I honestly didn't even remember I had made such a small adjustment in my post (probably with the direct purpose of being less insulting) but you managed to insult me anyway. I didn't even notice the difference until you posted them side by side.
I ask you, what do I gain by editing it so subtly and lying about it? Why would you assume I lied about it if it is out in the open? I wrote a whole post trying to soothe the situation because it appeared to me that the conversation could turn aggressive, but you even managed to rip that apart and take away only what was offensive to you (and insult back). It seems to me that you are WAY to defensive about this whole thing, and that is exactly what I wanted to divert.
But hey, whatever, call me a dishonest liar if it helps you invalidate my points without engaging in any thoughtful discussion.

gjkbgt:

Delcast:
.

christ did you read this before you posted it think yep that made all the points in a concise manner and wasn't a wasted of my time.
I'm guessing you hear this a lot but still, wow that's a long post

I'm sorry, I do tend to write a lot, particularly when I feel an interesting discussion can be made, I suppose it's a habit of mine. I'm sorry if it wastes your time or if you find it uninteresting. You are always free to stop reading at any point.

WeedsportMoose:
i don't usually get bothered by when Yahtzee tears apart a game but hes definitely not giving this game a fair video. Last of Us is a marvel of story telling, visual design, and combat. Each encounter is a struggle to survive and the game looks gorgeous. The characters don't get dehumanized as much as they become monsters like everyone they've killed, especially Joel. His actions at the end of the game make everyone who has died along the way meaningless. I strongly recommend everyone play this game and not let this video tarnish the games image. As an Xbox fan i wish this game was on my console.

Ehm... excuse me? Everything you mentioned have been done better. The game has a huge fundamental flaw and most people ignore it because it is so common which comes to your first point: The game is trying to be a movie, except the part at the very beginning which introduced the main character, everything was just like a movie in fact i got more enjoyment when watching the game instead of playing it which is not games are all about, in fact i couldn't finish the game because i was feeling i could instead watch a movie. Visual design: What? I mean yes the environment etc is kind of impressive but it is simply a tool for the atmosphere, honestly i think vampire bloodlines had better visuals because they were there to serve the atmosphere not to be pretty sky boxes. Combat: Combat? What combat? The combat was taken out of other games such as MGS, typical cover based shooting which is fine because they wanted to focus on the story. I think it was average choice in mechanics for combat meaning it doesn't worth a praise. You know, the game gives you the illusion of "Survival" etc but i have a question: Do you ever get hungry in the game? Ever forced to kill someone just to eat them? That would be survival.As it stands it is survival in by hollywood standards which brings us to our final point, dehumanisation or the character development: I liked the development they get but compared to fallout this is victorian era nobility. Each time i see the characters behave "inhumanely" I get reminded of how i killed dozens of raider groups just to see their heads explode and their friends flee with crippled legs before being set on fire. So i think the game is just trying to be a movie which is why it does not deserve a reward. I think the movie is average but as a game i think it is working in the wrong department

Delcast:

Well, You see there? You are Ignoring the answers which addressed your concerns and picking apart my post and trying to invalidate the reasoning by focusing on points that have no importance towards the message (or anything). Speak about dishonesty.

You lied. Don't talk to me about dishonesty. I stopped paying attention to your concerns as I said I would, because you approached me in a dishonest fashion. You misrepresented me, my motives, Yahtzee, potentially his motives, and then you flat out lied there.

Why should I pay attention to your concerns if you can't give me the basic courtesy of being truthful? I did EXACTLY what I said I would. That's not dishonest. Sorry.

If you want me to pay attention to "the message," don't wrap it up in lies and mistruths and then insist it's irrelevant. Your entire argument was dishonest. The fact that you're dishonest about the larger picture is most certainly relevant to that.

You could have even just admitted you edited your post, but no. Not even that. Not even that one documentable, verifiable thing.

In fact, the number of times I've had to explain to you that I'm not saying/doing what you claim I am makes me think this is intentional.

Mert Matthews:

Ehm... excuse me? Everything you mentioned have been done better.

Harry Potter Syndrome. Sure, everything has been done before and done better, but this is the one we will latch on to because ponies.

(Not that Harry Potter is a bad series; I find it highly entertaining, but it's not the original masterpiece people make it out to be. It's basically big because it hit with a bunch of people who don't normally read this sort of thing)

Zachary Amaranth:

Delcast:

Well, You see there? You are Ignoring the answers which addressed your concerns and picking apart my post and trying to invalidate the reasoning by focusing on points that have no importance towards the message (or anything). Speak about dishonesty.

You lied. Don't talk to me about dishonesty. I stopped paying attention to your concerns as I said I would, because you approached me in a dishonest fashion. You misrepresented me, my motives, Yahtzee, potentially his motives, and then you flat out lied there.

Why should I pay attention to your concerns if you can't give me the basic courtesy of being truthful? I did EXACTLY what I said I would. That's not dishonest. Sorry.

If you want me to pay attention to "the message," don't wrap it up in lies and mistruths and then insist it's irrelevant. Your entire argument was dishonest. The fact that you're dishonest about the larger picture is most certainly relevant to that.

You could have even just admitted you edited your post, but no. Not even that. Not even that one documentable, verifiable thing.

In fact, the number of times I've had to explain to you that I'm not saying/doing what you claim I am makes me think this is intentional.

And yet again, although I DID actually let you know that I DID edit the post to make it less aggressive, you insist that I lied... I made a mistake, I forgot about editing the comment in that section, and I apologized, I can't do more than that. I often edit posts mainly for typoes and errors, and I sometimes change the phrasing of things because they simply sounds wrong. I do it everywhere without any intention of deceiving you or anyone, only make it more coherent given that the medium allows it ( and in this case, making the comment less potentially insulting to you).

However, you are completely justifying my assertion, you are making this personal, eliminating the interesting discussion that could be had under the willfully insulting pretense of me not being honest, with out ever really delving into the points that were made here initially. You obviously threw out any intention of communicating, so I suppose there is no point on me trying.

Delcast:
[.

Hay no prob man.
But being concise is an important part of communication.
I like that you have a lot to say but your writing literally pages of text.
An't nobody got time for dat
would like to read your comments ad discuss but literally don't have time.
if you want to make comments more accessible try add regal breaks.
make it so you can read any point independent of the others.
And remember there should only be at most three points anyone needs to take away from your comment
e.g. from mine: Not getting at you, comments should be more concise (& a little advice on who to do that)

Delcast:

And yet again, although I DID actually let you know that I DID edit the post to make it less aggressive

You changed your story after I demonstrated I could prove it. Given both versions of the line were disingenuous to begin with, given your claims against me and Yahztee were both disingenuous, why should I believe you now?

You can say what you want, but it's hard to have an interesting discussion with someone who makes strawman criticisms. You yourself already tried to pull out, saying you were disinterested and then accused me of sticking up for cynicism, which was a lie in itself. You already claimed this was uninteresting AND you tried to make up an argument as an excuse to back out. Where would the interesting points be from that? Please, enlighten me. And try and do it without lying yet again.

Zachary Amaranth:

Delcast:

And yet again, although I DID actually let you know that I DID edit the post to make it less aggressive

You changed your story after I demonstrated I could prove it. Given both versions of the line were disingenuous to begin with, given your claims against me and Yahztee were both disingenuous, why should I believe you now?

You can say what you want, but it's hard to have an interesting discussion with someone who makes strawman criticisms. You yourself already tried to pull out, saying you were disinterested and then accused me of sticking up for cynicism, which was a lie in itself. You already claimed this was uninteresting AND you tried to make up an argument as an excuse to back out. Where would the interesting points be from that? Please, enlighten me. And try and do it without lying yet again.

You know, It's enough. You are clearly trying to get me to insult you back but I simply won't. I directly accused you of nitpicking the post and discrediting it without really facing any of the actual criticism to yahtzee's analysis. And you did, and you are doing it again. It is exactly the reason why I was not keen on continuing the discussion with you, because you are yourself selecting incomplete ideas liberally to disprove my points ABOUT THE CRITICISM OF THIS GAME, NOT YOU, NOT YAHTZEE.

You are ridiculously clinging to the idea that I LIED! OH! the pain I've caused with that TERRRIBLE LIE! At most I changed the phrasing of an idea to your benefit without altering the content in the slightest. I'm not about to get pulled into a childish discussion of if you should believe me or not, I sincerely don't give a damn about your approval.

It seems painfully obvious that the people that have actually played the game are really finding that this episode's commentary is weak and incoherent with HIS previous work. And you are clearly not providing any sort of constructive observations either.

I will not humor your melodramatic trolling any further.

Delcast:

You know, It's enough. You are clearly trying to get me to insult you back but I simply won't.

You already did. Remember, I still have the message in my inbox. Were that my goal, I would have got my way already. And Nothing came of it. Huh. Looks like you're falsely ascribing motivations to me.

For the record, that's how we got into this mess. I addressed your criticisms of Yahtzee, many of which were flat-out false, as you accused me of being a Yahtzee apologist as a cop-out. You haven'tgiven me a single reason to take your argument on merit, because your argument is based on false premises. You attribute things to Yahtzee that he didn't say and likely didn't even imply. You attribute to me things I didn't say, mean and DEFINITELY didn't imply.

You can call this nitpicking all you want, but even that's a lie. I've explained to you exactly what the issue is, and you're pretending it's something else. If you don't want to reply, fine. This was going nowhere from the minute you decided to accuse me of motivations I didn't have.

And to further my point:

You are ridiculously clinging to the idea that I LIED! OH! the pain I've caused with that TERRRIBLE LIE!

That's what we call a strawman.

Merklyn236:
Thank you for also calling out the biggest problem with the "zombie apocalypse" setting - that human life you'd think would be treated as something more precious in such a scenario

Two words for you.

Thomas.
Hobbes.

If you read ANY account of near-apocalyptic events (the plague in Athens, the Black Death, the 30 Years War etc) it becomes abundantly clear that when faced with death on such a massive scale, the value of human life goes down, not up. It is stupidly idealistic to think that when people are dying around you and you cannot tell infected from healthy, friend from foe, you will think of anything but your own skin. In fact, those writers (Thucydides, Boccaccio and so on) do not write about the catastrophe as much as they decry the resulting crisis - ie people turning into animals.

You (and Yahtzee) assume that, in the face of extinction, humans would act rationally.

Hahaha.

OT: the only word I have for the review is "lazy". He obviously has a beef with Naughty Dog for some reason, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be petty enough to let that cloud his judgement to such a degree. Now, I have disagreed with him on quite a few of his reviews, but I have nonetheless always seen the merit in his praises or criticisms, and respected him for it. Childish shit like this should be beneath him.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here