The Last Of Us 2 - now with protagonist-murdering trannies

[FranticDistortion]

Apparently most dogs have owners so if you kill a dog and the master finds it he goes "Noooooo!" or something like that. Likewise, NPCs have names so they call each other out and if they find their dead pals they may cry "Oh, no, James! What happened to you?" or whatever. Then a clickbait site found that, alongside with Naughty Dog pretentious explanations concerning realism, visceral feelings, the cycles of violence, and whatnot, and wrote an article with this catchy headline, "The Last of Us 2 Gives NPC Enemies Names to Make you Feel Bad" IIRC, this and the thing about dead dogs then went viral on Twitter.

But really, you can't feel guilty when seeing the survivors' pain if you just kill everybody *tapshead.jpg*

Gonna be Spec Ops all over again. I have nothing against making the player feel bad for stuff they do, but it has to be a choice. The game will put you in areas filled with dogs and other enemies, how are you supposed to progress without killing now again? I guess the winning solution is not to play, for 2 reasons this time.

In Spec Ops point is not making you feel bad, but to show how fucked up Walker became, with him going into such denial that he came up with this imaginary idea of him being hero on a mission to stop a bad guy, with his squadmates still following him, even though they saw how crazy he is (commentary on chain of command). 'Just walk away' was directed at him not player, because his actual mission was to fucking walk away.
Spec Ops is quite well written and does not deserve to be put in the same category as TLOU 2 with it's "kill doggos, hero and human with name, cause make player sad and be deep"

I would accept that if it wasn't for choices to be made in the game. From what I remember there is even a flashback showing you all the bad stuff, except when I played it I didn't do any of the bad stuff. Then comes the unavoidable phosphor incident which made the whole thing feel cheap even if the story was overall good. I always assume when the game allows you to make choices, it's an extension of you and then be denied that in the end just felt lame.

You sure you've played it? You only get to choose things after Phosphorus, not before.

 

[CaffeineConquistador]

Apparently most dogs have owners so if you kill a dog and the master finds it he goes "Noooooo!" or something like that. Likewise, NPCs have names so they call each other out and if they find their dead pals they may cry "Oh, no, James! What happened to you?" or whatever. Then a clickbait site found that, alongside with Naughty Dog pretentious explanations concerning realism, visceral feelings, the cycles of violence, and whatnot, and wrote an article with this catchy headline, "The Last of Us 2 Gives NPC Enemies Names to Make you Feel Bad" IIRC, this and the thing about dead dogs then went viral on Twitter.

But really, you can't feel guilty when seeing the survivors' pain if you just kill everybody *tapshead.jpg*

Gonna be Spec Ops all over again. I have nothing against making the player feel bad for stuff they do, but it has to be a choice. The game will put you in areas filled with dogs and other enemies, how are you supposed to progress without killing now again? I guess the winning solution is not to play, for 2 reasons this time.

In Spec Ops point is not making you feel bad, but to show how fucked up Walker became, with him going into such denial that he came up with this imaginary idea of him being hero on a mission to stop a bad guy, with his squadmates still following him, even though they saw how crazy he is (commentary on chain of command).

Yeah, but you were controlling the character. One interpretation of the story (from the lead writer himself, Walt Williams) was Walker kicked off in the helicopter crash in the opening scene and the rest of the game was him going through purgatory. The Line all but screamed at you that you were a nasty little shit for even playing the game. I was pretty impressed at the time the studio got away with doing that.

 

[AW8]

I don't think it's bad thing in itself to try to add some sort of moral weight to killing, but it seems pretty ridiculous if the games doing it are cover shooters where by default you murder raiders and whatnot by the hundreds. If you're making a game, whatever moral weight there could possibly be is rendered meaningless if the player has no choice in the first place. If the only way to proceed in your corridor is to murder a character, all of it is one the developer and none on the player, since the only winning move is not to play. Your character can feel bad about something, of course, but don't expect much of a reaction from the player.

Agreed, Carrie. At the end of New Vegas, Ron Perlman could have said "due to your bloody slaughter of countless people, life in the Wasteland is never gonna be the same" and it would make sense since killing is mostly (technically entirely, but it's very hard) a choice.
Whereas Ron Perlman could have talked about a new paradise on earth if you didn't kill anyone (except Benny, whose corpse is rotting on a cross of course) and that would have felt very rewarding since you actively avoided killing during the game.

 

[sullynathan]

 

[FranticDistortion]

Newman: "People ask why make TLOU 2? Well... It's something we HAVE TO make. It's not an option!"

Snuck in a good one.

 

[KVVRR]

Newman: "People ask why make TLOU 2? Well... It's something we HAVE TO make. It's not an option!"

Snuck in a good one.

"I mean, just look at all that money we can make!"

 

[ColCol]

Apparently most dogs have owners so if you kill a dog and the master finds it he goes "Noooooo!" or something like that. Likewise, NPCs have names so they call each other out and if they find their dead pals they may cry "Oh, no, James! What happened to you?" or whatever. Then a clickbait site found that, alongside with Naughty Dog pretentious explanations concerning realism, visceral feelings, the cycles of violence, and whatnot, and wrote an article with this catchy headline, "The Last of Us 2 Gives NPC Enemies Names to Make you Feel Bad" IIRC, this and the thing about dead dogs then went viral on Twitter.

But really, you can't feel guilty when seeing the survivors' pain if you just kill everybody *tapshead.jpg*

You got it wrong. They don't scream no. They hunt you down and beat you to death with a golf club years later. Stay tuned for The Last of Us 3

 

[toro]

Jesus Christ! The hubris is palpable. It's alive. It breaths.

Ellie and Dina are a lesbian family, Joel is just another killer, massacring Christians is a journey ... they are so full of bullshit that they don't even realize that they've destroyed the franchise.

Never before did I want someone to burn so badly but I hope Neil and the Gross One get what they deserve. Sooner the better.

 

[Sranchammer]

Have to say, I'm pretty aroused by the plot.

 

[vortex]

Gross is hawt.

 

[toro]

Gross is hawt.

If you fancy decomposing corpses.

 

[Metronome]

Game being a guilt trip that berates player for playing and other mythical stuff came from people.

lmao at all this pseud revisionism. Spec Ops was the Disco Elysium of bald marine shooters.

I don't remember how much 4th wall breaking the game had, I played it years ago, but it probably comes down to that.

 

[Sentinel]

"There's always the fear that when you go back to something that was so great, you're gonna mess it up."
Well, you should've listened to that fear, because you fucked it up.

 

[Silverfish]

Gross is hawt.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't think it's bad thing in itself to try to add some sort of moral weight to killing, but it seems pretty ridiculous if the games doing it are cover shooters where by default you murder raiders and whatnot by the hundreds. If you're making a game, whatever moral weight there could possibly be is rendered meaningless if the player has no choice in the first place. If the only way to proceed in your corridor is to murder a character, all of it is one the developer and none on the player, since the only winning move is not to play. Your character can feel bad about something, of course, but don't expect much of a reaction from the player.

That's the problem with these wannabe movie writers that end up making games — they don't understand the medium they're working with. To them gameplay is simply something that happens between the story segments, rather than being something that drives the whole thing forward. That's also why the comparisons to something like PS:T are completely off the mark.

You aren't forced to kill anyone in The Last of Us. It's primarily a stealth game. And IIRC TLoU2 has items to mask your scent or some shit so you can avoid the dogs' nose.

 

[Carrion]

You aren't forced to kill anyone in The Last of Us.

You have to kill that one doctor, don't you? I'm pretty sure that's not the only instance.

 

[Valestein]

I don't think it's bad thing in itself to try to add some sort of moral weight to killing, but it seems pretty ridiculous if the games doing it are cover shooters where by default you murder raiders and whatnot by the hundreds. If you're making a game, whatever moral weight there could possibly be is rendered meaningless if the player has no choice in the first place. If the only way to proceed in your corridor is to murder a character, all of it is one the developer and none on the player, since the only winning move is not to play. Your character can feel bad about something, of course, but don't expect much of a reaction from the player.

That's the problem with these wannabe movie writers that end up making games — they don't understand the medium they're working with. To them gameplay is simply something that happens between the story segments, rather than being something that drives the whole thing forward. That's also why the comparisons to something like PS:T are completely off the mark.

You aren't forced to kill anyone in The Last of Us. It's primarily a stealth game. And IIRC TLoU2 has items to mask your scent or some shit so you can avoid the dogs' nose.

 

[vota DC]

You aren't forced to kill anyone in The Last of Us.

You have to kill that one doctor, don't you? I'm pretty sure that's not the only instance.

It Is tracked if you kill or not and included in cutscenes or dialogue when you avoid someone instead of kill? In deus ex HR you can stun everyone, alas bosses will die anyway even if you have a non lethal approach, for the first one is explained by a cutscene (he uses a bomb) but second and third are bleeding to death without reasons.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

 

[FranticDistortion]

 

[Sentinel]

You aren't forced to kill anyone in The Last of Us.

You have to kill that one doctor, don't you? I'm pretty sure that's not the only instance.

I don't think it's bad thing in itself to try to add some sort of moral weight to killing, but it seems pretty ridiculous if the games doing it are cover shooters where by default you murder raiders and whatnot by the hundreds. If you're making a game, whatever moral weight there could possibly be is rendered meaningless if the player has no choice in the first place. If the only way to proceed in your corridor is to murder a character, all of it is one the developer and none on the player, since the only winning move is not to play. Your character can feel bad about something, of course, but don't expect much of a reaction from the player.

That's the problem with these wannabe movie writers that end up making games — they don't understand the medium they're working with. To them gameplay is simply something that happens between the story segments, rather than being something that drives the whole thing forward. That's also why the comparisons to something like PS:T are completely off the mark.

You aren't forced to kill anyone in The Last of Us. It's primarily a stealth game. And IIRC TLoU2 has items to mask your scent or some shit so you can avoid the dogs' nose.

I'm talking outside of story events you shit for brains, ie. during regular gameplay. That's where the dogs will be. I don't think you're going to be murdering dogs in scripted story sequences. Are you genuinely incapable of interpreting things based on context? Jesus christ.
TLoU1 never attempts to make you feel bad about any of those scenes, so why the fuck would I even be talking about them?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

"There's always the fear that when you go back to something that was so great, you're gonna mess it up."
Well, you should've listened to that fear, because you fucked it up.

Not really, because it wasn't even a decent game to begin with.

 

[Sentinel]

"There's always the fear that when you go back to something that was so great, you're gonna mess it up."
Well, you should've listened to that fear, because you fucked it up.

Not really, because it wasn't even a decent game to begin with.

The fact that you're in a thread for a series you never even liked insisting that it was never good and no one is allowed to like it says more about how pathetic you are than it says about the game. Just keep that in mind.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

NOOOOO!!!!! YOU CAN'T JUST CRITICIZE AND LAUGH AT A SHIT GAME. YOU HAVE TO COOMSUME IT, DEFEND IT AND BE A AN OVERALL ANNOYING FANBOY FAGGOT LIKE ME!!!

kys redditor

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

Sarkeesian is hot