TLOU2 Review Thread

[Casual Shinji]

The opinions are given in his over the top similes.

I know, right?

I can never get a read on what he's actually saying since he's too busy making humorous(?) comparisons, instead of giving a clear description.

 

[Dreiko]

Exactly why I stopped giving a shit. Especially when the number and what is written or spoken in a video does not line up.



I get where Simmons is coming from and I'm used to his mind set, as this is not the first times he,or Max for that matter, had done scores like this before. It's one type of a score system that can work if you're trying to gain multiple or double perspective. For example, I like Killer Is Dead, but can see it's flaws in plain level design, QTEitis, and some boring mini games with the gigolo missions. For me personally, the game would be an 8, while critically, the game would most likely be a 6 or 7 for most people. Though most "professional" critics hate it (It was 2013. The year where reviewers were going overboard or overcompensating trying act more mature in front of their peers. Or in a ham-fisted, desperate attempt to show that not all gamers were sexists. See Adam Sessler's review on God of War Ascension for the biggest example of this). Most fans liked it fine, and on the Steam page, most gamers liked it and converted them or got them interested in to Grasshoppers others works. To the extent that Suda's older titles are now on Steam too: Silver Case and Killer 7.

This example sorta destroys Simmons arguements, but can be used with a light touch I guess.

I disagree with that approach because it supposes the existence of an average or generic opinion that you're really aiming the second score at. There's no such thing, everyone will have their own weirdness coming into this and some people will hate the game while for others it'll be the best game ever made literally. You only really should give the first score and let the viewer take from that what they will.

Basically, all giving two scores does is cover your ass from criticism from people who disagree with you, to me it kinda screams lack of confidence and the lack of willingness to defend a game you enjoy against criticism you yourself didn't have about the game. All this achieves is the defense of some dumb ideal of what, objectivity or expertise? You don't need to go through that lol. A confident opinion is more useful.


In my opinion the "score" should be more akin "play this game asap/wait for it to go on sale/gamefly it or borrow from a friend/skip entirely" scale. I have a ton of games I all love equally and infinitely and trying to say which is better is an exercise in futility because they're all different and you can't measure how much you liked 2B vs Futaba and decide on a winner if you're human (or humanoid android I guess haha) so a simple "play this fucking thing as if your life depends on it" score is good enough to convey my feelings on both nier and p5. No need for dumbed down numerics.

 

[stroopwafel]

Something to ponder when thinking about the violence surrounding the game and how it paints humanity in such a bad light. Its theme is basically the pointlessness of revenge, so it makes sense for the violence and brutality to be heavy-handed to the point where it’s uncomfortable and even difficult to watch in some cases. If it wasn’t, or if the bright side of human nature was allowed to work its way in there, people would be inclined to say, “*Phew* See? It’s/we’re not so bad!” and the theme would lose its impact and relevancy. It pretty much has to be relentless, and the player has to of course accept this through to the end, and trust that there will be some type of thematic payoff through staying true to it.

This doesn’t mean that everything needs to be “realistic” in a true-to-life sort of way; we are still talking about a game with mushroom head zombies walking around as a looming threat after all. It’s more that the writers wanted to make sure they “honour that violence” in respect to the theme.

In any case though, another point to ponder would be how there are still small windows into the nastier side of human nature as we live and breath today. Every once in a while we see these types of stories and think wtf is wrong with people. Or read about the effects that a mere month(s)-long quarantine in a still functional society has had on many people. This is nowhere near a full blown post apocalyptic event where things have digressed into decades of literal hopelessness or despair either. Under the right conditions in an all out fight or flight environment, it’s not hard to imagine some of our worst traits reaching a zenith, not that far removed from what a game like this represents.

The most important point of that second link though would be the last paragraph,

Don’t get too down – these findings say nothing of the success that some of us have had in overcoming our baser instincts. In fact, it is arguably by acknowledging and understanding our shortcomings that we can more successfully overcome them, and so cultivate the better angels of our nature.

Yeah, that is also what the director said. The people left alive in this world have stood the test of it's harsh conditions, everyone else did not stand a chance to survive. That does not only include physical but character traits as well. Weakness in any form is punished harshly. What people seem to forget is that for people to be empathetic you need a functioning society that facilitates and enables this kind of behavior. And that includes protection of the weak. It can't exist in a vacuum where it's every person or small group for themselves and where every day is a constant struggle for survival. It's raw and unmitigated survival of the fittest. When society collapses and it's organizing principles dissipate it's every person for themselves using any means necessary. It's kind of that last moment of animalistic survival before the lights go out for good. So yeah, in that regard the worldview of TLoU2 makes total sense.

 

[BrawlMan]

@Kwak I am so use to his over-the-top similes that I can usually tell what mood he is in or what type of rating he is going to give the game. Some of it is a miss for me, but most are a hit or I find amusing.

A confident opinion is more useful.

In my opinion the "score" should be more akin "play this game asap/wait for it to go on sale/gamefly it or borrow from a friend/skip entirely" scale

Agreed, which is why I prefer the ACG/DT method of rating. It's usually clear cut and easier to understand.

 

[Gyrobot]

I can tell you right now that I am VERY familiar with HeelsvsBabyface. This guy was once a World of Warcraft youtuber, but then WOW started to become bad for him because WOW's started to get bad expansions like Warlords of Draenor and BFA. And then he completely stopped covering Blizzard at all since the Diablo Immortal Controversy.

Now his channel pretty much transitioned to that of an sensationalist outrage guy. The best I can compare is that he's pretty much like the political oppposite of Jim Sterling because he's against things that are "Woke" and such. You'll see him criticizing The Last Jedi and such, along with Game Developers/Publishers doing shitty things.

These channels are everywhere on youtube like rotting pustules. You type in 'The Last of Us 2 reviews', and you'll see them popping up decrying the overall glowing reviews, calling them paid off, shills, and liars. And why, cuz gays and trans people, I guess. It's fucking pathetic. And I say this as someone who will most likely not like TLoU2 at all.

Personally I think the YouTube reviewers couldn't get a review copy exactly due the alt right fanbase that follows these guys. To convince them that they weren't wrong to believe the industry has forsaken them and quite frankly I find them to be full of noise.

Something to ponder when thinking about the violence surrounding the game and how it paints humanity in such a bad light. Its theme is basically the pointlessness of revenge, so it makes sense for the violence and brutality to be heavy-handed to the point where it’s uncomfortable and even difficult to watch in some cases. If it wasn’t, or if the bright side of human nature was allowed to work its way in there, people would be inclined to say, “*Phew* See? It’s/we’re not so bad!” and the theme would lose its impact and relevancy. It pretty much has to be relentless, and the player has to of course accept this through to the end, and trust that there will be some type of thematic payoff through staying true to it.

This doesn’t mean that everything needs to be “realistic” in a true-to-life sort of way; we are still talking about a game with mushroom head zombies walking around as a looming threat after all. It’s more that the writers wanted to make sure they “honour that violence” in respect to the theme.

In any case though, another point to ponder would be how there are still small windows into the nastier side of human nature as we live and breath today. Every once in a while we see these types of stories and think wtf is wrong with people. Or read about the effects that a mere month(s)-long quarantine in a still functional society has had on many people. This is nowhere near a full blown post apocalyptic event where things have digressed into decades of literal hopelessness or despair either. Under the right conditions in an all out fight or flight environment, it’s not hard to imagine some of our worst traits reaching a zenith, not that far removed from what a game like this represents.

The most important point of that second link though would be the last paragraph,

Don’t get too down – these findings say nothing of the success that some of us have had in overcoming our baser instincts. In fact, it is arguably by acknowledging and understanding our shortcomings that we can more successfully overcome them, and so cultivate the better angels of our nature.

This is why I want to play TLOU2. I don't want to be uplifted in a depressing time as it only makes my anxiety worse.

 

[SilentPony]

You'd maybe have a point if Sony only gave review codes to the large review sites, the ones prone to give Sony exlussives a lot more leniency. But there are dozens of smaller channels with subscriptions "only" in the triple digits that got review codes as well. Sony would have no idea what their track record is, if they were even aware of their existence at all before sending a review code.

And again, this didn't stop Skillup, Polygon, and Vice. Three relatively well know sites.

But I thought Sony was a notorious Boy's Club where you don't even get an interview without someone on the inside. A triple digit channel getting a copy isn't out of the question if they have a friend who got them one.
I just think its too suspicious everyone gave TLoU2 glowing response down-the-line, not one wavering thought or note, with a selected few reviewers and an embargo before launch. That sounds like a marketing ploy if ever there was one

 

[Casual Shinji]

But I thought Sony was a notorious Boy's Club where you don't even get an interview without someone on the inside. A triple digit channel getting a copy isn't out of the question if they have a friend who got them one.
I just think its too suspicious everyone gave TLoU2 glowing response down-the-line, not one wavering thought or note, with a selected few reviewers and an embargo before launch. That sounds like a marketing ploy if ever there was one

Dude, look up the Skillup, Vice, and Polygon reviews, they hated this game, tore it the fuck to pieces. IGN Japan also "only" gave it a 7 out of 10. If this was supposed to be a marketing ploy they dropped a few stitches. This already debunks any theories of Sony paying off reviewers.

Also, professional review scores do very little to deter or invite sales, whether it be movies or games. Days Gone got a very middling response from review outlets, but it sold great.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Dude, look up the Skillup, Vice, and Polygon reviews, they hated this game, tore it the fuck to pieces. IGN Japan also "only" gave it a 7 out of 10. If this was supposed to be a marketing ploy they dropped a few stitches. This already debunks any theories of Sony paying off reviewers.

Also, professional review scores do very little to deter or invite sales, whether it be movies or games. Days Gone got a very middling response from review outlets, but it sold great.

I've watched the Skillup review and he seemed pretty fair from what I saw. Until the embargo ends we won't be able to get the full story on things. I also thought the argument wasn't that Sony paid anyone off but that they sent review copies to people they thought would give them a positive review.

Yeah, that is also what the director said. The people left alive in this world have stood the test of it's harsh conditions, everyone else did not stand a chance to survive. That does not only include physical but character traits as well. Weakness in any form is punished harshly. What people seem to forget is that for people to be empathetic you need a functioning society that facilitates and enables this kind of behavior. And that includes protection of the weak. It can't exist in a vacuum where it's every person or small group for themselves and where every day is a constant struggle for survival. It's raw and unmitigated survival of the fittest. When society collapses and it's organizing principles dissipate it's every person for themselves using any means necessary. It's kind of that last moment of animalistic survival before the lights go out for good. So yeah, in that regard the worldview of TLoU2 makes total sense.

There's a difference between Dark and Grimdark. I personally don't mind Dark stories and enjoy them often but I can't stand Grimdark. I've never played The Last of Us but from what I understand of it, it would be considered Dark while this sequel is, based on what people are saying, Grimdark.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I've watched the Skillup review and he seemed pretty fair from what I saw. Until the embargo ends we won't be able to get the full story on things. I also thought the argument wasn't that Sony paid anyone off but that they sent review copies to people they thought would give them a positive review.

He said the gameplay was terrible and that the story was terrible with unlikeable characters. Whether that's fair is up for everyone to decide for themselves, but he didn't take it easy on it, he gave it a thrashing.

And considering Sony likely sent, like, a hundred review codes to people, how would they know all of them would be positive (which they aren't btw) unless they put them through some screening process? Even then, they have no control over how positive or negative these people are actually going to be once they're left to play and judge the game for themselves -- It's not like Sony had a goon for every reviewer looking over their shoulder as they wrote their review.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

He said the gameplay was terrible and that the story was terrible with unlikeable characters. Whether that's fair is up for everyone to decide for themselves, but he didn't take it easy on it, he gave it a thrashing.

And considering Sony likely sent, like, a hundred review codes to people, how would they know all of them would be positive (which they aren't btw) unless they put them through some screening process? Even then, they have no control over how positive or negative these people are actually going to be once they're left to play and judge the game for themselves -- It's not like Sony had a goon for every reviewer looking over their shoulder as they wrote their review.

It goes to show that people are searching for boogeymen, or whatever that saying is. Like there’s a conspiracy where Sony needed to convince everyone to “like” a game that was supposedly doomed to be ruined by leaks. I’m half wondering if the leaks were an elaborate trolling attempt meant to shine a light back as an example of not prematurely judging something. Or at the very least, the leaker didn’t get the results - ie sabotage - they were looking for.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

He said the gameplay was terrible and that the story was terrible with unlikeable characters. Whether that's fair is up for everyone to decide for themselves, but he didn't take it easy on it, he gave it a thrashing.

And considering Sony likely sent, like, a hundred review codes to people, how would they know all of them would be positive (which they aren't btw) unless they put them through some screening process? Even then, they have no control over how positive or negative these people are actually going to be once they're left to play and judge the game for themselves -- It's not like Sony had a goon for every reviewer looking over their shoulder as they wrote their review.

He said the gameplay was FINE, which isn't some contrarian view of games made by Naughty Dog. How loved would TLOU1 have been if it was just straight gameplay with a super generic clothesline story that just links all the sections together? How many people would rate the gameplay of TLOU1 greater than say 7/10? Naughty Dog's gameplay has to be propped up by set-pieces and top-notch level design (which Skillup mentions btw) and properly spaced out between good story beats to stop people from "looking behind the curtain" and getting basically the 1st Uncharted game. Someone, whether Skillup or not, having strong opinion on the story and characters is no different than you hating/loving some movie and your friend's opinion being the opposite. It's not like the writing from this game is coming from some extremely talented writer or studio known for great writing. Uncharted games are the equivalent of blockbuster action flicks and Uncharted 3 is one of the poorest written "action flicks" I've ever seen, The Transporter is Best Picture material compared to that. Just the sheer odds of TLOU2 being really well written (based off past Naughty Dog games) is more likely to be false than true.

Just from Neil Druckmann's own words and interviews about TLOU2, I was already calling this game was going to be overlong and way bigger than it needed to be. Even if you had literally the most talented people working for Naughty Dog, it's going to be hard as shit to keep a game's pacing tight over the length of 25 hours vs 10-15 hours.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

reviewers... That sounds like a marketing ploy if ever there was one

It goes to show that people are searching for boogeymen, or whatever that saying is. Like there’s a conspiracy where Sony needed to convince everyone to “like” a game that was supposedly doomed to be ruined by leaks.

Professional game reviews are already just marketing telling you if a game is 7/10, 8/10, or 9/10 awesome.

 

[Gyrobot]

It goes to show that people are searching for boogeymen, or whatever that saying is. Like there’s a conspiracy where Sony needed to convince everyone to “like” a game that was supposedly doomed to be ruined by leaks. I’m half wondering if the leaks were an elaborate trolling attempt meant to shine a light back as an example of not prematurely judging something. Or at the very least, the leaker didn’t get the results - ie sabotage - they were looking for.

The weebs and their alt right allies have proven to be unable to accept anything short of escapism especially in trying times like this.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

He said the gameplay was FINE, which isn't some contrarian view of games made by Naughty Dog. How loved would TLOU1 have been if it was just straight gameplay with a super generic clothesline story that just links all the sections together? How many people would rate the gameplay of TLOU1 greater than say 7/10? Naughty Dog's gameplay has to be propped up by set-pieces and top-notch level design (which Skillup mentions btw) and properly spaced out between good story beats to stop people from "looking behind the curtain" and getting basically the 1st Uncharted game. Someone, whether Skillup or not, having strong opinion on the story and characters is no different than you hating/loving some movie and your friend's opinion being the opposite. It's not like the writing from this game is coming from some extremely talented writer or studio known for great writing. Uncharted games are the equivalent of blockbuster action flicks and Uncharted 3 is one of the poorest written "action flicks" I've ever seen, The Transporter is Best Picture material compared to that. Just the sheer odds of TLOU2 being really well written (based off past Naughty Dog games) is more likely to be false than true.

Just from Neil Druckmann's own words and interviews about TLOU2, I was already calling this game was going to be overlong and way bigger than it needed to be. Even if you had literally the most talented people working for Naughty Dog, it's going to be hard as shit to keep a game's pacing tight over the length of 25 hours vs 10-15 hours.

Well, when I first played the original’s demo I remember it felt like nothing else out there. Definitely not like any Uncharted in terms of movement or melee. Maybe the Arkham games were the closest in terms of melee and that was still pretty slapstick next to how TLoU was presented.

For one there was a clear sense of urgency and aggression with how you could sprint up to an enemy to finish them off after throwing a bottle at them, or running away when you’re outgunned. The deliberate weightiness and inertia given to the act of punching where it feels like exertion is a factor and the hits actually sound like flesh and bone colliding, or smashing a 2x4 over someone’s frame is translated from the screen to the controller better than anything else maybe even to this day. Unless Part 2 improves upon it which it likely could.

Part 2 was co-written by the lead writer for season one of Westworld, which is arguably still the best in that series. She spent 13 months on that show but 3.5 years on this game. She said writing for TV is like playing Call of Duty and working on videogames is like going to war. I’m not sure how much of her work will translate into the final game, but from interviews it sounds like there was a pretty symbiotic relationship with Neil Druckmann.

As an aside I never understood why everyone praises Amy Hennig’s writing as being some kind of industry standard-bearer when to me it’s always just seemed like fluffy popcorn flick stuff, like it was meant for a Disney movie. Actually some Disney movies are more impressive thematically. The first two stories were enjoyable and well done of course, but ultimately had nothing interesting to say beyond “well that was fun”. When UC3 tried giving Nate dramatic depth it just felt awkward and forced; maybe because the first two games never established him to be more than a pulpy, affable adventurer.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

He said the gameplay was terrible and that the story was terrible with unlikeable characters. Whether that's fair is up for everyone to decide for themselves, but he didn't take it easy on it, he gave it a thrashing.

It seemed to me that he didn't think the gameplay itself was terrible but that very little is advanced from the gameplay of the original. As far as character go though, like I said, we won't know whether he's being accurate or not till the embargo lifts.

And considering Sony likely sent, like, a hundred review codes to people, how would they know all of them would be positive (which they aren't btw) unless they put them through some screening process? Even then, they have no control over how positive or negative these people are actually going to be once they're left to play and judge the game for themselves -- It's not like Sony had a goon for every reviewer looking over their shoulder as they wrote their review.

I didn't say that it makes sense, I was just clarifying what I saw the actual argument as.

The weebs and their alt right allies have proven to be unable to accept anything short of escapism especially in trying times like this.

What an utterly bizarre connection to make.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It goes to show that people are searching for boogeymen, or whatever that saying is. Like there’s a conspiracy where Sony needed to convince everyone to “like” a game that was supposedly doomed to be ruined by leaks. I’m half wondering if the leaks were an elaborate trolling attempt meant to shine a light back as an example of not prematurely judging something. Or at the very least, the leaker didn’t get the results - ie sabotage - they were looking for.

The closest example I can think of is flat-earthers; everyone is lying, only we know the truth. And the more any of these reviewers clearly state that this is just their opinion and nobody is getting paid off, the more these weirdos feel attacked and the more accusatory they become. The trend that I've seen in some of the comments is that because the reviews don't divulge any real details about the story it means they're trying to hide that the game is actually bad. Eventhough no standard review for any story-driven game goes into plot details, certainly not when the story has twists. Like how no pre-release review of God of War mentioned who the Stranger was and what his connection is to another character in the story.

It's insane and kind of disturbing how paranoid a lot of these people are.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The closest example I can think of is flat-earthers; everyone is lying, only we know the truth. And the more any of these reviewers clearly state that this is just their opinion and nobody is getting paid off, the more these weirdos feel attacked and the more accusatory they become. The trend that I've seen in some of the comments is that because the reviews don't divulge any real details about the story it means they're trying to hide that the game is actually bad. Eventhough no standard review for any story-driven game goes into plot details, certainly not when the story has twists. Like how no pre-release review of God of War mentioned who the Stranger was and what his connection is to another character in the story.

It's insane and kind of disturbing how paranoid a lot of these people are.

I mean that's why if you are going to base your purchase on reviews, you should never read just one. Find several reviewers you like and then go with what they say. Usually people tend to gravitate towards reviewers with similar game tastes as you right? If a review always shits on games you've historically loved, then obviously they aren't a good review for you to make any judgements on, unless you plan to do the exact opposite of what they say.

However I do think there is some merit to eyeballing scrutiny towards the really big outlets, because we all know that publishers are very very quick to blacklist websites if they don't give a good enough score. Jim sterling has reported on the blackllisting threats by companies, Kotaku has had articles on it, we know it's a thing. Which is why I say it is important to have a lot of different reviewers in your stable before you make choices.

For example I, myself, trust Skill UP, Jim Sterling (for impressions rather than reviews), Yahtzee, and I like Angry Joe though his reviews are too slow to really rely on. And Giant Bomb is the big one for me. Jeff Gersman came from Gamespot and he bailed on the bullshit because he knows how much of a BS game they have to play with developers and publishers to keep on the good side in order to make sure early copies can be had and reviews can pop on embargo day. Since starting Giant Bomb I've seen him really dig into terrible games with a vengeance and you can tell when watching Giant Bomb that you are getting real reactions to a game. If they love it, you can trust that, if they hate it, you can trust that too.

The sites a do not trust are Gamespot, IGN, and Kinda Funny. Greg Miller has been so deep in the politics of the games industry from his days of IGN, I feel like him and his crew are especially soft ball with any critique of a game, and they are such good friends with directors and voice actors that they totally seem to ignore even major flaws of games. As a result I feel like I can't trust Kinda Funny and crew, I've seen them praise Fallout 76 only passively mentioning the bugs. I've seen them praise Death's Stranding even though that game is pretentious And all those sites behave the same way so I don't trust them.

 

[Gyrobot]

What an utterly bizarre connection to make.

Getting downvoted for my opinion on how this game is art and told I am sucking Druckmann's dick by hardcore weebs tends to validate my argument.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I mean that's why if you are going to base your purchase on reviews, you should never read just one. Find several reviewers you like and then go with what they say. Usually people tend to gravitate towards reviewers with similar game tastes as you right? If a review always shits on games you've historically loved, then obviously they aren't a good review for you to make any judgements on, unless you plan to do the exact opposite of what they say.

However I do think there is some merit to eyeballing scrutiny towards the really big outlets, because we all know that publishers are very very quick to blacklist websites if they don't give a good enough score. Jim sterling has reported on the blackllisting threats by companies, Kotaku has had articles on it, we know it's a thing. Which is why I say it is important to have a lot of different reviewers in your stable before you make choices.

For example I, myself, trust Skill UP, Jim Sterling (for impressions rather than reviews), Yahtzee, and I like Angry Joe though his reviews are too slow to really rely on. And Giant Bomb is the big one for me. Jeff Gersman came from Gamespot and he bailed on the bullshit because he knows how much of a BS game they have to play with developers and publishers to keep on the good side in order to make sure early copies can be had and reviews can pop on embargo day. Since starting Giant Bomb I've seen him really dig into terrible games with a vengeance and you can tell when watching Giant Bomb that you are getting real reactions to a game. If they love it, you can trust that, if they hate it, you can trust that too.

The sites a do not trust are Gamespot, IGN, and Kinda Funny. Greg Miller has been so deep in the politics of the games industry from his days of IGN, I feel like him and his crew are especially soft ball with any critique of a game, and they are such good friends with directors and voice actors that they totally seem to ignore even major flaws of games. As a result I feel like I can't trust Kinda Funny and crew, I've seen them praise Fallout 76 only passively mentioning the bugs. I've seen them praise Death's Stranding even though that game is pretentious And all those sites behave the same way so I don't trust them.

We'll know how prone Sony is to blacklisting when Ghost of Tsushima comes out then, and whether Skillup gets a review code. But something tells me that won't be an issue. Afterall, IGN got a review code for TLoU2 eventhough they didn't exactly heap praise on Death Stranding; the (at the time) new and highly anticipated Kojima game. The new IP from the father of Metal Gear Solid and the one true auteur of gaming. And they gave it a 6.8. You'd think they'd be too scared to get blacklisted, not praising a game of such pedigry. Eventhough Sony supposedly payed them off. Oh, and IGN also gave a mediocre score to Days Gone, another high profile Sony exclussive. They're not exactly living up to their image as shills in those cases, I guess. Funny...

If someone gets blacklisted, like Jim Sterling, it's due to the continued criticism they have toward the company, not because they didn't praise a game. There have been so many AAA games that got mediocre or outright bad reviews, like Mass Effect: Andromeda and Fallout 76. Yet EA and Bethesda still sent out review codes for their next games to those same review sites and invited them over for special events and reveals.

I don't buy this argument at all. Hype inflation, sure. Blacklisting for a negative review, no.

 

[BrawlMan]

Getting downvoted for my opinion on how this game is art and told I am sucking Druckmann's dick by hardcore weebs tends to validate my argument.

You were on reddit when that happened?