Zero Punctuation: The Last of Us

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

Why should I pay attention to your concerns if you can't give me the basic courtesy of being truthful?
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.

That's what we call a strawman.

I hope you can at least laugh about the irony of it all:
Many of the people critical of this episode (including me) are in many ways accusing Yahtzee of making a strawman argument about TLoU, attributing characteristics and problems to the game that don?t reflect our game experience or the game?s structure at all.

You are accusing me of accusing Yahtzee using ?fake grounds?, criticizing something he never expressed, and later criticizing your behavior with accusations that are untrue, creating a strawman argument of both you and yahtzee. I have tried not to fall into those conflicts, but I can?t be sure if I?ve misunderstood some of his or your points.
As it?s clear, I?ve apologized repeatedly for any aggressiveness and for jumping to conclusions when it came to your forum conduct, to no avail. I?ve added disclaimers to the points where I edited comments and apologized for that as well. But the truth is that I still find you have not really addressed the underlying criticism to the episode (other than dismissing it as lack of objectiveness), and that you appear to have no real working knowledge of the topic we are actually discussing, namely TLoU.
In fact you appear to be taking the information from yahtzee as truth even when you claim that he is usually inaccurate for the show?s sake (I didn?t mean this as an attack when I brought it up before, just an observation).

The funny part is that you are yourself accepting that you are dismissing my on-topic argument (which mind you, is not only mine), assuming some sort of lack of objectiveness or foul play from my part. But by doing so you are recurring to both a strawman argumentative fallacy and an ad hominem fallacy.
Even If you were right and I was wilfully deceiving you, it bears no importance within the argument: if the biggest, most dishonest liar, brought you a certain line of reasoning, attacking this liar?s nature has no consequence over the truth or validity over his claim. Even more so in this situation where you can easily just determine if the information is true or not (and there is so much data available for you to contrast).

So, that is all. Again I did not wish for it to become such an off topic conversation, resulting in personal attacks that are severely inaccurate, and I assume responsibility for my part in the miscommunication. I repeat that I have no reason to be dishonest in any way, and that I am really optimistic that we can overcome this misunderstanding. And I also sincerely hope that you can rise above the idea that I was being intentionally dishonest, even if it has no real importance in relation to the main topic.
In any case, I?d advise you to play TLoU and find out yourself if the critique adequately portrays key aspects of its structure, since neither my description nor Yahtzee?s really have any validity to your own honest experience of the game.

 

[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.

Correct. Yes, I understand that (despite the outright stupidity of it) humankind has not exactly responded sanely to near-apocalyptic events in the past. For me to deny that would be even dumber.

It's just that I have no interest in that setting anymore. I can't make myself nihilistic enough to enjoy it. All I keep seeing in my head is the diminishing population count, which makes the entire game an exercise in futility. My own opinion and take, true, but it's why I'm not going in for that kind of thing anymore.

 

[Merklyn236]

Another great review Yahtzee, thank you.

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. What was the line that President Roslin had in the BSG movie/series start? "The only way for us to survive is to start having babies." Nah, 6+ Billion people have all been wiped out, humankind is in serious jeapordy of being extinct, and the first thing we need to do is still killing each other because "reasons."

No more zombie games for me thanks.

Really? Thats the "biggest problem" with a zombie setting? That people aren't screwing enough? You're welcome to your opinion but don't you think that people living on the knife edge with limited rations and little to no certainty of safety would have other things on their minds than repopulating the earth? I mean take The Walking Dead, one of the most popular modern works of zombie fiction; when a major character gets pregnant, they're extremely worried, how are they going to take care of it? Babies need lots of specialized care (baby food, medicine for infants, diapers, etc.) that would be incredibly difficult to get post-apocalypse. Thats not even taking into account the low survivability rate of the caretakers.

Why would human life be more precious in the post apocalypse? When there are limited supplies and lots of mouths to feed people would inevitably turn bandit to ensure their own safety. In such a world where life is short and brutal, why wouldn't people look out for themselves first and foremost? Are these survivors really supposed to concern themselves with the survival or humanity as whole above the survival of themselves and those few who they care about?

I just think it's rather petty to abandon an entire genre for a reason that doesn't even really hold up to scrutiny.

I thought the BSG quote appropriate, but apparently it did rankle some people. My point was that in many takes on the post-zombie apocalypse setting, like The Last of Us and The Walking Dead for example, human life is treated cheaper than ever - when it has become a resource that shouldn't be wasted. No, I don't want more screwing in these games (but I do understand that my quote might have brought that up). But how about seeing people being devoted to building or creating resources - not just looting and killing. And, yes I know that,having entire game sections devoted towards, say, trying to find ways to cultivate land, plant food, harvest, etc would likely be boring as hell. But at least it would be reflective of people trying to survive as a species. Not just being the last one alive so they could turn out the lights.

 

[gjkbgt]

@ gjkbgt

I realize that this is at least somewhat belated and possibly redundant but it's just to help make sure that the point I made with my edit to my last post gets across.

In the last post you made in response to one of mine you seemed to be needlessly making fun of at least one or two of the things I said. So you really don't seem to be in any position to be accusing anyone of bad etiquette.

My god. This is great!

I don't know what is better the fact you used @me rather then just quoting (when you already quoted me so know how it works) or the fact you try to act like you want me to read your post.

Yeah i wan't exactly trying to hide the fact your post amused me there was a lot of dumb stuff in it.
I could hate you for it, but why would i hate someone who brought me so much amusement.

And now here you are trying to get the last word, in the manner of a 12 saying "you better run" under his breath as there opponent leaves the.

Also: at least somewhat?

HA!

Don't ever change

 

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

...

Really? Thats the "biggest problem" with a zombie setting? That people aren't screwing enough? You're welcome to your opinion but don't you think that people living on the knife edge with limited rations and little to no certainty of safety would have other things on their minds than repopulating the earth? I mean take The Walking Dead, one of the most popular modern works of zombie fiction; when a major character gets pregnant, they're extremely worried, how are they going to take care of it? Babies need lots of specialized care (baby food, medicine for infants, diapers, etc.) that would be incredibly difficult to get post-apocalypse. Thats not even taking into account the low survivability rate of the caretakers.

Why would human life be more precious in the post apocalypse? When there are limited supplies and lots of mouths to feed people would inevitably turn bandit to ensure their own safety. In such a world where life is short and brutal, why wouldn't people look out for themselves first and foremost? Are these survivors really supposed to concern themselves with the survival or humanity as whole above the survival of themselves and those few who they care about?

I just think it's rather petty to abandon an entire genre for a reason that doesn't even really hold up to scrutiny.

I thought the BSG quote appropriate, but apparently it did rankle some people. My point was that in many takes on the post-zombie apocalypse setting, like The Last of Us and The Walking Dead for example, human life is treated cheaper than ever - when it has become a resource that shouldn't be wasted. No, I don't want more screwing in these games (but I do understand that my quote might have brought that up). But how about seeing people being devoted to building or creating resources - not just looting and killing. And, yes I know that,having entire game sections devoted towards, say, trying to find ways to cultivate land, plant food, harvest, etc would likely be boring as hell. But at least it would be reflective of people trying to survive as a species. Not just being the last one alive so they could turn out the lights.

Not to counter your argument, but there are sections in the game that show communities doing exactly that. In fact, as I've said, your characters are kind of outlaws, living int he periphery of what is the working society presented in the universe of the game.
Granted, a lot of the action does present itself through violence, but there is a very clear intention of hinting what other sections of society could be living in relative peace.

I do agree that it does have a nihilistic appeal, and if you have no interest in that this may not be for you. However, I still think that given how it is a very significant game of the current generation, so it wouldn't be a waste of time for you to to give it a try.

Very objectively, although far from perfect, there are things The last of us does undeniably well.

 

[A1]

@ gjkbgt

I realize that this is at least somewhat belated and possibly redundant but it's just to help make sure that the point I made with my edit to my last post gets across.

In the last post you made in response to one of mine you seemed to be needlessly making fun of at least one or two of the things I said. So you really don't seem to be in any position to be accusing anyone of bad etiquette.

My god. This is great!

I don't know what is better the fact you used @me rather then just quoting (when you already quoted me so know how it works) or the fact you try to act like you want me to read your post.

Yeah i wan't exactly trying to hide the fact your post amused me there was a lot of dumb stuff in it.
I could hate you for it, but why would i hate someone who brought me so much amusement.

And now here you are trying to get the last word, in the manner of a 12 saying "you better run" under his breath as there opponent leaves the.

Also: at least somewhat?

HA!

Don't ever change

Just in case you're wondering why my words may not have shown up in your quote notification (if it's turned on). This was because I accidentally hit "post" before I wrote anything. I've corrected this little error on the actual forum via editing.


Okay now. I guess first I'll explain why I didn't quote you again and why I said "at least somewhat".

I didn't quote you again because I already quoted that particular post of yours once and it would have been awkward for me to do it again but including just the edit that I added afterward for a response. This was because there was other stuff in that post that I wanted to respond to and I already did in that previous post of mine. And it would have been awkward for me to essentially create a copy of my entire post. It would have also been awkward for me to quote one of your unrelated posts. So decided to go about responding in a different way. Using "@" and then the persons screen name works fine and this way of responding is nothing new on the internet. It's been used before on other websites and this one too if memory serves.


And "At least somewhat" works just fine because the "at least" part acknowledges the possibility that it's more than "somewhat". So I wasn't making an understatement. That's why I said "at least somewhat".

And if I really wanted to get the last word in I wouldn't have bothered making that last post of mine above.


And like I said the reason I posted that last post is just to help make sure that my point came across. If it didn't it would have defeated the purpose of me making that edit to my other post.

And just because you may think that something that someone says or does is dumb and amusing that doesn't make it okay for you to mock them and it doesn't give you the right to mock them.


And it now seems that you continue to make my point. You needlessly made fun of at least one or two of the things I said before and you're needlessly mocking me now. You have no right to accuse anyone of bad etiquette.

You also now seem to be accusing me of acting immature. But after your behavior with your latest post and that other one of yours you are in no position to accuse anyone of that either.

 

[Amnesiac Pigeon]

Another great review Yahtzee, thank you.

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. What was the line that President Roslin had in the BSG movie/series start? "The only way for us to survive is to start having babies." Nah, 6+ Billion people have all been wiped out, humankind is in serious jeapordy of being extinct, and the first thing we need to do is still killing each other because "reasons."

No more zombie games for me thanks.

Really? Thats the "biggest problem" with a zombie setting? That people aren't screwing enough? You're welcome to your opinion but don't you think that people living on the knife edge with limited rations and little to no certainty of safety would have other things on their minds than repopulating the earth? I mean take The Walking Dead, one of the most popular modern works of zombie fiction; when a major character gets pregnant, they're extremely worried, how are they going to take care of it? Babies need lots of specialized care (baby food, medicine for infants, diapers, etc.) that would be incredibly difficult to get post-apocalypse. Thats not even taking into account the low survivability rate of the caretakers.

Why would human life be more precious in the post apocalypse? When there are limited supplies and lots of mouths to feed people would inevitably turn bandit to ensure their own safety. In such a world where life is short and brutal, why wouldn't people look out for themselves first and foremost? Are these survivors really supposed to concern themselves with the survival or humanity as whole above the survival of themselves and those few who they care about?

I just think it's rather petty to abandon an entire genre for a reason that doesn't even really hold up to scrutiny.

I thought the BSG quote appropriate, but apparently it did rankle some people. My point was that in many takes on the post-zombie apocalypse setting, like The Last of Us and The Walking Dead for example, human life is treated cheaper than ever - when it has become a resource that shouldn't be wasted. No, I don't want more screwing in these games (but I do understand that my quote might have brought that up). But how about seeing people being devoted to building or creating resources - not just looting and killing. And, yes I know that,having entire game sections devoted towards, say, trying to find ways to cultivate land, plant food, harvest, etc would likely be boring as hell. But at least it would be reflective of people trying to survive as a species. Not just being the last one alive so they could turn out the lights.

There are a group of people in the game creating a home.

They're growing crops, live stock, even breeding horses for travel.

I'm guessing that is what the beginning of Fall was trying to show with Tommy's Dam. Admittedly this is a tiny fraction of the populace present in the game.

The sewer section also features a story of someone trying to do the right thing to give others shelter. It didn't really work out well but it shows not everyone is trying to murder and loot everyone they see.

 

[gjkbgt]

t

You could have not made that last comment or quoted as snip.
And I most picked up on the tone shift as last word, your last comment was Apologetic: Sorry i thought that, I'm sorry if. I didn't mean too.
This last one was all you were making fun of me so fuck you.
But anyway

Such as; who do you think that you are? Saying "you have no right to mock me" what have you done that's so great that puts you above mocking
What you could say if is I've do nothing deserving of this level of mockery?
I'd say sorry if you found that offensive but i thought it was funny.
Anyone can mock anything the understand or that effects them. Universal right.

also you don't need the moral high ground to be right.
Your etiquette was poor or it wasn't.
we agreed it was hence i or anyone has the right.
No one has the moral high ground in life, we're all dirty brother.
Possible "he started" poor etiquette debate but i think you started it and you're wrong either way.
Also needless i'm enjoying this! there your need (or want at least)

 

[A1]

t

You could have not made that last comment or quoted as snip.
And I most picked up on the tone shift as last word, your last comment was Apologetic: Sorry i thought that, I'm sorry if. I didn't mean too.
This last one was all you were making fun of me so fuck you.
But anyway

Such as; who do you think that you are? Saying "you have no right to mock me" what have you done that's so great that puts you above mocking
What you could say if is I've do nothing deserving of this level of mockery?
I'd say sorry if you found that offensive but i thought it was funny.
Anyone can mock anything the understand or that effects them. Universal right.

also you don't need the moral high ground to be right.
Your etiquette was poor or it wasn't.
we agreed it was hence i or anyone has the right.
No one has the moral high ground in life, we're all dirty brother.
Possible "he started" poor etiquette debate but i think you started it and you're wrong either way.
Also needless i'm enjoying this! there your need (or want at least)

Okay. I'll rephrase a bit.


From a free speech/human rights standpoint mocking may fall under that kind of thing. But even if you have a general human or legal right to mock (because that falls under free speech) that doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it. It's still not a good thing to do because it's bad etiquette and having a legal/human right to do it doesn't make it any less of a bad thing to do. And even if no human being is perfect that doesn't mean that people shouldn't try to be the best they can be and practice good etiquette. People are still perfectly capable of good etiquette in spite of their imperfection so being imperfect is no excuse.

And I'm not the one who brought up the issue of etiquette. You did. You accused me of something (bad etiquette) that you yourself are guilty of. That's hypocrisy plain and simple. My goal was to point that out. And that's what I mean when I say that you have no right to accuse anyone of bad etiquette.

And I'm not talking about "in life" as in life in general. I'm just referring to the very specific context of an isolated exchange between you and me. And in that context I am not guilty of bad etiquette. But you are guilty of it. I did not mock or make fun of you (or anything along those lines). But you did those things to me. And this was after you accused me of bad etiquette which made things worse. My goal was to respond to this. And just for good measure I'll also add that calling out someone's poor behavior isn't the same thing as mocking or making fun of someone.

 

[D-Class 198482]

Also, are people really getting upset over the motorboat joke? Seriously? 'OH, ELLIE'S UNDERAGE AND IT'S A SEXUAL JOKE!'
Wah.

 

[A1]

e.

not sure where to simply demolish your points or tackle the root cause of this disagreement...
Meh i'll do both.

Oh the classic 9/11 mosque argument sounds reasonable

Wow you really do what this make this a who started it. missing the point that either way we've both said some stuff that might be conceded rood

When a man can't laugh at himself it is time for others to laugh at him, you clearly can't laugh at yourself so it's my duty to mock you.

As for the over all root, you want me to give you special care and attention, visas via not mocking you.
He is how i see the situation you said some dumb stuff. I mocked you for it, because i found it funny. You apologised (as you should) so i let it be. Then you came out all don't mock me.No you deserved everything i threw at you. If you can't take that then that's why i'm mocking you.
Also you're thick, sorry to be the one to tell you but you constantly make flawed augment with no idea how dumb you sound, first few times could be slip multiple times. no sorry.

Alright. That's enough. I actually can take anything you throw at me. But I choose not to because I don't have to. Because I have self-respect. And I can take what you threw at me but contrary to what you claim I didn't deserve it. And I'm not talking about any special care or attention. I'm talking about basic human decency and good etiquette. And don't you dare say "Don't ever change" to me. That's not your call to make.


Now if you're going to be like that and refuse to behave then we clearly have nothing more to talk about. I don't know what your problem is and I don't care. I'm done with you and your bad behavior. I'm going to be the mature one here and walk away. This is the last time that I respond to you. And I'm also not even going to read anything more that you write.

You are now permanently on my ignore list.

 

[blaize2010]

The only part I agree with is the problem with the enemies all ignoring Ellie. In stealth situations having her happily run around and Clickers not even noticing was a little jarring.

The smoke bomb part I agree that they are useless, but not because they are not necessary, it's just that they don't seem to work properly. The enemy never stopped firing at me when I threw them either when it was at their feet or at mine.

The rest of it I couldn't agree with less. It seemed like complaining for the sake of it and/or deliberately missing the point.

Personally, I had a lot of use for smoke bombs. In the last bit, there were two guards that I just couldn't seem to kill, they always got me first. So I tossed a smoke bomb, snuck around behind them, and stealth killed both while they were walking around trying to find me.

 

[josh4president]

Oh the sheer amount of clench-fisted rage this review has generated is *GLORIOUS*

I can hardly wait to see this go up on Youtube to reap a fresh harvest of condescending "You just don't get it"s and rude speculations as to Yahtzee's sexuality

 

[gjkbgt]

[t.

You do realise you just posted a reply in order to say that you wouldn't be posting any more replies?
And after you insisted so hard that this wasn't about you needing to have the last word.
I don't even come close to believing you about that by the way. so..

A dog behaves, a child behaves. Behaving means doing what the person telling you to do says.
So here lies the subtext of our argument it's not about rood or etiquette it's about me not doing what you want me too.

I can but take a Joke but am unwilling to...
What on earth do you imagine someone who can't take a joke to be?

 

[EXos]

-snip-

I don't think it's about agreeing or disagreeing with whether he likes a game or not. I mean, those things are matters of opinion: I have enjoyed games he hated, and found certain games he loves to be rather "meh". HOWEVER, I could always get behind his reasoning, and therefore, respected the opinion itself as a result of observation, reflexion, and critical thought. When he liked a game more or less than I did, I saw it as one person giving more or less importance to certain facets of a given title, which is totally legit, obviously.

That is not the case here. I have never found any of his reviews to be intellectually lazy, but this one definitely was. This is the first time that I looked at my fiancée, and both of us went, "is he even talking about the same game here?", since none of what he said seemed to apply to the game we had just played/watched.

I mean, he first goes on a rant about how he's tired of zombie games. Yeah, but I'm fairly certain that the people at ND did know that there were many zombie games out there. The whole point of TLoU was the juxtaposition of "scary zombies" to "fucked-up humans" - which, really, is subverting the trope, something that he liked about, say, Spec Ops: The Line. In fact, those two games share quite a few similiarities, including the subversion of played-out genres, so I, like many others, honestly cannot fathom how he would like one so much and be so utterly down on the other.
Then, the whole bit about the protagonist being unlikeable. Yeah, which isn't only the bloody POINT, but it also gets put in words explicitly in the game itself (Tess saying: "We are shitty people, Joel", and Joel himself admitting to have been on the other side of the whole sick hunter/victim dynamic) - not to mention that whole thing about how Cpt Walker from Spec Ops is not exactly (insert likeable game protagonist here - Ezio or something).
Oh yeah, and Ellie being useless? Um, has he played through the Pittsburgh level? If you do get caught breaking stealth, you are completely reliant on her saving your bacon. Oh, and wasn't it Yahtzee who said that he liked games in which breaking stealth could lead to new and interesting scenarios, and not just a game over screen? Yeah, show me five games which transition better from stealth to fighting and vice versa than TLoU does.

I don't think that the uproar about the review is about differing opinions. Nobody agrees with Yahtzee 100% of the time, and yet, no review yet has sparked such a debate - notice how I say "debate", and not "fanboy bitching", because the latter is childish, whereas many of those voicing their grievances on this issue have very valid points besides "Yahtzee doesn't love Smash Brothers Brawl waaaaaaa".

The thing is that I've never known Yahtzee's reviews to be petty. And this review just smacked of a beef with Naughty Dog, a general disinterest in the game, and an unwillingness to look beyond its flaws. Yeah, he pointed out flaws in Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock and Arkham Asylum - just to mention some titles with similarly general critical acclaim - but he also did point out that that was, in fact, mostly nitpicking, whereas here, he didn't mention any redeeming qualities with the title in question, which is frankly rather improbable. It's less about opinions being "correct" or not - which, in the field of art critique, is a dicey proposition at best - and more about opinions being informed. The reason people respect Yahtzee is that they know, agree or disagree, that he won't stoop to reviews in the ilk of "Transformers 2 is better than Apocalypse Now because it has moar explozhuns". There is such a thing as objectivity, even in a highly subjective field as game reviewing, and in a nutshell, people are getting the idea that Yahtzee was not being objective, that some personal misgivings clouded his opinions.

Read the Extra Punctuation posted today. He explains his grievances a bit more, and they are all still valid.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Remember when the protagonists accomplished shit that actually helped people? Like (oh here it comes) Gordon Freeman actually helping the citizens of City 17 fight the bad guys and make actual progress to creating freedom and hope and shit? And then Alyx pops in and makes some quip about how impressive your abs look in your Hazard Suit and the bleak despair of it all actually feels a little lightened for a while.

No, it's much more "dark and real" when grim, depressing assholes are grim, depressing assholes because assholes.

There's a trope name for this : True Art IS Depressing. I call bullshit because anything attempting to be art should touch on ALL the emotional tones to get the full experience.

Strange, I loved the ending, was very fitting with the rest of the tale. Can't believe Yahtzee didn't get it, I found the following on Reddit for those that finished it and did not understand it, doubt there are many though, I found it a pretty good comment on the game. Needless to say, MASSIVE SPOILERS incoming.

Spoiler

... you do realise that "Humans Are The Real Monsters (and the main character in particular)" is the oldest, most tired cliché in all zombie fiction?

Maybe you've been thankfully oblivious to that and could enjoy this "revelation" as something profound.

I did like the fact that Joel gets new superpowers from drugs. That's always worth a chuckle.

It's also the dumbest one. It's like there's nobody to root for in these kind of stories. Zombie fiction asks "Who are the real monsters?" and I say, "Uh, the human-looking things with discolored flesh shambling about trying to eat everybody. Der."

 

[4Aces]

Motor boating is NOT sexual by itself, nor by Yahtzee's use of it in the clip. Next you will be confusing it with water-boarding, and claiming he works for the CIA. He gave that up years ago, but he can still kill you with is Left thumb alone. His Right is only for taking out Great Whites - "Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!"

Making you crawl through mostly linear paths to slow down gameplay, all so you can go from cut-scene to cut-scene. Yep, sound pretty derivative. The good sneak games are non-linear, with multiple means of success (not just sneak past baddy #1, or kill baddy #1 and then sneak past). With half the game spent watching cinematics, is this even a game or just a movie with interactive bits? If you added up all the non-cut-scene, non-linear crawling, you would realize that this is a very short game for something so linear.

Heck, why are the Fanatic Fans (FanFans) not grabbing up the torches and pitchforks like they did with ME3? The ending is so linear it makes my man-bits jealous. Either you were a total twat at the end as you committed the whole human race into fungus land, or you shut the console off. My guess it you went with option #1 to get to the all important, last cut-scene. Did you get an achievement for that (100% cut-scenes viewed, one free trailer of the DLC we are already making to add in real zombies, just to prove the fungombies were not zombies). Perhaps these 'real' zombies will be wearing WWII Nazi uniforms for the height of Pop Culture!

I smell the makings of a new book there. Dueling apocalypses all carefully balanced until one prat decides that a girl he barely knows is worth more than the whole species. Then a race to make it to the ark ship to save the best of us, just to have the door slammed in their faces for screwing it all up. Then as the ship leaves, they realize there were actually hundreds of ark ships and they are the only ones left on the doomed planet. "I love the sound of facepalm in the morning!"

Do the fungombies taste better with a light oil & vinegar or french dressing? Solyent Green is fungombie!

 

[JetFury]

The only part I agree with is the problem with the enemies all ignoring Ellie. In stealth situations having her happily run around and Clickers not even noticing was a little jarring.

The smoke bomb part I agree that they are useless, but not because they are not necessary, it's just that they don't seem to work properly. The enemy never stopped firing at me when I threw them either when it was at their feet or at mine.

The rest of it I couldn't agree with less. It seemed like complaining for the sake of it and/or deliberately missing the point.

isn't that what yahtzee does though? I don't agree with it but yea

 

[Amnesiac Pigeon]

Making you crawl through mostly linear paths to slow down gameplay, all so you can go from cut-scene to cut-scene. Yep, sound pretty derivative. The good sneak games are non-linear, with multiple means of success (not just sneak past baddy #1, or kill baddy #1 and then sneak past). With half the game spent watching cinematics, is this even a game or just a movie with interactive bits? If you added up all the non-cut-scene, non-linear crawling, you would realize that this is a very short game for something so linear.

Heck, why are the Fanatic Fans (FanFans) not grabbing up the torches and pitchforks like they did with ME3? The ending is so linear it makes my man-bits jealous. Either you were a total twat at the end as you committed the whole human race into fungus land, or you shut the console off. My guess it you went with option #1 to get to the all important, last cut-scene. Did you get an achievement for that (100% cut-scenes viewed, one free trailer of the DLC we are already making to add in real zombies, just to prove the fungombies were not zombies). Perhaps these 'real' zombies will be wearing WWII Nazi uniforms for the height of Pop Culture!

The longest cutscene in the game is 7 minutes.

Most of the others sit at around 2-5 minutes. The gameplay sequences between those cutscenes are frequently over an hour. This is hardly Metal Gear Solid.

An arbitrary choice at the end of a game doesn't automatically make it better. I'd rather an ending that works with the story presented. If you can just tack a bunch of different endings on then none of them end up working because instead of just being wrapped up in the experience people instead try and get the best ending.

Look at how people reacted to Dishonored's two endings. Instead of thinking "Oh, it makes sense that the city has fallen into chaos because I murdered a bunch of the guards that were keeping the plague at bay." They moaned because they wanted the better ending while playing it as an action game.

There was an trophy for finishing the game. It was the second one I had had received by the end of the game =/