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

They'd ultimately prefer to be spoiled than to spend 60 bones to find out their old favorites get sacrificed to the LPGA.

 

It's all over the news, so if someone wants to get spoiled, they can go and read up about it. But clicking on General Gaming and seeing a major spoiler immediately is not the way to go.

 

And now we know why you've been suspiciously absent from this thread.

 

I don't acutally own a console now, so I'm not gonna play this game anytime soon, but maybe someday I will. So yes, I don't want the story be spoiled, that is the reason I don't visit this thread.

 

Hungary please send us a new J_C. This one is broken.

Köszönöm szépen.

 

I don't know if you mean this in a positive or negative way.

 

Imagine actually caring that the "plot" of this console trash gets spoiled.

In any event it's far more important that SJW horseshit is exposed and undermined wherever possible, and that sales of such pandering games suffer significantly as a consequence.

 

the game already has perfect score on Sony's store


a jew and his dog (sorry Infinitron) ... so much love ...

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

he gets the chop-chop treatment in the game

 

Is The Last of Us Part 2 the first game to feature dogs as enemies?

 

You could dropkick dogs in Fighting Force.

It may have been Gekido.

 

Huh? Nowhere near close. Heck the original Call of Duty: Modern Warfare dogs were annoying as shit in the campaign.

 

Dogs were a common enemy type already in Wolfenstein 3D and probably earlier.

 

Why is everyone only butthurt now?

 

Because apparently the game makes you defensively kill dogs, then tries to make you feel bad about killing dogs.

 

Having the dog NOT die for once in a post apocalypse zombie story would be a pretty good subversion of expectations

 

So? Spec Ops The Line did the same and nobody seemed to mind.

 

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.

 

I remember playing Spec Ops: The Line and using the white phosphorus against everyone but the truck or whatever in the back. I was in no danger anymore but eventually just took damage and died anyway.

 

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 think the resentment towards specblops itself is a little bit unwarranted. I think where a lot of the resentment really comes from is how it's treated retrospectively by some critics and commentators as a turning point in videogame meta-narrative/examinations of player agency/ludonarrative dissonance etc etc , when really that's buying into the developer's own marketing pitch: it betrays that none of them played that many games before or after then.

 

Yeah, it got retroactively turned into something it's not. It's a story about Walker going mad, and it let's player decide if he lives and escapes, can't handle guilt and suicides, or goes completely nuts. It was just a critique to ongoing glorification of military in most shooter games at the time.

Game being a guilt trip that berates player for playing and other mythical stuff came from people, who thought themselves smart for not burning those civilians and quitting the game (if their intention was to throw shade at players behavior, they would not allow them to see that those are civilians in the first place). Also weird theories getting traction, like Walker being dead after crash and whole game being his dream didn't help game's reputation.