Zachary Amaranth said:
Unfortunately, most of the games people make a fuss about don't fit your excuses, so I think that falls a little flat.
Regardless, simply because he doesn't like something doesn't mean he's dishonest about it. It's quite possible that he does not believe these elements everyone thinks work so well do so. I know, that would be a complete and utter shocker, wouldn't it?
Also, I actually think you're kind of proving my point a little. EVERYONE and their brother accuses Yahtzee of not playing (game I like), because he missed the point of (game I like) or didn't accurately describe (section of (game I like)), or because he didn't do something in (game I like) the right way. In the end, he comes off as remarkably consistent, because he always misrepresents games. Even games he likes.
By these standards, Yahtzee probably hasn't played any games. Even the ones he praises.
Or, possibly he could just hate Naughty Dog that much, but there's no actual basis to assume this game got worse treatment. Especially since your accusations ALWAYS come up with (game I like).
Edit: incidentally, Sleeping Dogs was one of my favourite games of 2012. Now, this is partially because I came across so fe games in 2012 I really liked, but it's got some pretty solid elements. I am very much pro-Sleeping Dogs. When I went back and looked at the review, I noted quite a few inaccuracies within what Yahtzee said. It's possible he didn't play the game, or maybe he's just "teh bias" against games without jet packs or something.
Or maybe he just didn't like a game I liked.
Further, he raised some legit criticism. And he seems to here, as well. TLOU may not try and make the main characters out to be heroes, but you'd get that impression from a lot of the promotional material. You could easily carry that into the game, because it's really not all that unreasonable.
I definitely agree, it is probably close to what happened, but I've NEVER before, seen an episode of the show where he criticizes a game deliberately falsely, as in using some fully incorrect / incomplete information. Someties I get that he exaggerates for the sake of teh funz, but I had personally never seen this. Again, I have myself done some profound criticism of the game, and many of the systems that i feel make it less astounding than it could have been but NOT ONE of them is even tangentially touched in his overview, instead focusing on cheapshots, unimportant details and plain false information.
I'd point out 3 major complaints he made that are incorrect/incomplete/false.
1- Your AI partners (there is many more than Ellie) are useless and serve no purpose in gameplay : FALSE, you begin the game with Tess, who in fact is a lot more effective at shooting than I was, she serves as a tutorial helper as you get your footing into the systems. Aditionally, a lot of the time you run around with 3 or more characters, all who have different levels of AI aggressiveness. ANY of them can be attacked when you break out of stealth, and if any of them die it is Game Over. Naughty dog have even noted that the more you die and suck at the game, the more effective are your AI allies to balance the frustration, (I noticed that in a section PLAYING Ellie where I died a few times, my companion at the time, David, managed to take out 3 of the enemies all by himself, which he had never done before). Aside from that they do fulfill all the AI sidekick tropes, like helping you jump to higher spots or drop ladders, but if all of that is not important for gameplay, I don't know what is.
Ellie herself sees a gameplay shifting evolution through the game. Initially she just advises you of dangers that you might have missed in the environment (as someone creeping up on you), but she gains Joel's trust, the more she is willing to help out. Attacking enemies, assisting you out of choke holds, giving you health packs, and providing cover fire. This is FAR from inactive, and it does give a lot of support to the character building.
2.- About heroism. I personally don't feel that heroism is in any way shape or form important to a game, unless you are trying to cater to some sort of spunkgargleweewee audience. However, as many of us have noted, a lot of the game is DESIGNED, to show both how self sacrificing and heroic people can be, and also how cowardly, selfish brutal and petty they also are when they have no escape. Even more, while most adults presented in the game are shown to be stuck on their fears and traumas, I'd argue that Ellie is pictured as a hero throughout the game, she is a "sacrificial virgin" for the sins of a society she never belonged to, and she is quietly but vehemently determined to see her sacrifice through. All her actions are in the service of saving others, she might have a smart mouth, and be quick to aggression, but she is also naive and idealistic in ways no-one else in the game can be. *spoiler* Her whole SOLO chapter is an heroic adventure to save Joel, she is weaker, but she is determined to overcome anything to save him, her resolve never falters in the slightest.
3.- About the devaluation of human life. Again this is kind of stupid, but as he points out there is a clear paranoia, its not that they don't, in fact people value human life A LOT, so much that they tend to be scared of anything outside their structured organisation (explaining Joel's unwillingness to take the job when first offered to him). Moreover, I'd like to note that although the military does kill Joel's daughter 15 mins into the game, beyond that the military does not seem to be a psychotic murderous regime, but instead, a force trying to keep control of a situation that is clearly beyond their grasp. The conflict is that there are many shards of different ideologies.. and the main characters are transgressing the social order, creating chaos. INSTEAD his observation is at most a superficial assessment, everyone is killing everyone, really? this isn't an informed view on the presentation of the game, not even close.
etc.- there are many other inaccuracies:
-the fact that the "super zombie's" attack which I assume is the clicker instant kill, is only really unavoidable at the very start of the game, since the upgrades allow you to counter it later.
-the concept that the clicker is the "super zombie" when the Bloater appears 1/4 into the game, and -that- is the only one that is considerable as a super zombie.
-There are rarely any highly scripted set pieces, sure, the game is linear, but most of the action is organic and give direct control over the character. ( for the record, I have seen this game receive a description of survival horror more than action adventure).
-Smoke bombs are useless: Yeah they are useless against the infected because -they are blind- they are quite useful in specific situations against human enemies particularly in higher difficulties. The point being that you use them WHEN you DON'T have many other methods to take out enemies quickly, NOT as an alternative to shooting them in the head. (Just to note, This visible / audible factor is impressively well managed and works as an excellent game design mechanic throughout the game).
-I don't even know what he means about the AI... most enemies / allies are kill-able by any attack provided the timing is right. You CAN interrupt their attacks as well.. and they are NEVER invulnerable... I seriously don't understand what game he played there.
-The gameplay criticism is really strange, the game makes a lot of specific decisions (why cant you take more than 3 health packs at a time? why do weapons break? etc etc..) that are quite clearly gameplay balancing choices, and immersion / narrative enhancing choices. All games make these abstraction decisions, and in that sense the choices in TLOU DO complement the theme, feel and general style of the game quite well. Sure some weapons go un-used, but (for example) I rarely ever use shotguns in ANY game, at least this one was smart enough to make me cycle through most of my inventory...
SO... That.. yeah it might seem that I'm being nitpicky, but he clearly did not provide the usual insight that we have come to expect ( reminds me of some of the lazier episodes )
In fact a lot of it seems as if he played the demo, and then read the spoilerific walkthough to the ending, which I suppose is in line with the previous thought...
(C'mon, he doesn't even take a piss at how funny it is that almost all the supporting cast seems to have been created by commission of the UN for respecting all racial and ideological differences, and they still end up either killed or abandoned)
... to be honest, I have been growing detached of his critique lately (not just about this game)... I used to think that he had some interesting insight on game design and overall narrative, but now I'm starting to think he really is just throwing in cynicism for the sake of it. Taking sides and criticizing for reasons that aren't even remotely connected to the core of a game.
I know, I know, if he doesn't like it, too bad... No-one is entitled to someone else liking the same things one does... It's just that I remember when I came to ZP because I was bored of how nonobjective general reviewers were... how they failed to observe the things that were truly important about a game... but now it seems the tables have turned.
