Zero Punctuation: The Last of Us

[Astro]

Not sure why people are taking issue with this review. It's not a bad game, but it's safe and predictable. Yahtzee seemed pretty fair.

HOWEVER, it does bear mentioning that Yahtzee should give similar criticism to Valve games.

Why does Yahtzee say "Fuck you Got mine" like it's a bad thing?

Cause he doesn't like it?

I think there are plenty of reasons to not like it, but I'm a little confused by how he applies it to the Last of Us. Considering that Naughty Dog explicitly changed a key part of the ending to make it less happy-end.

Because the good things about the game are not safe and predictable. It's fair to say that it has a safe and predictable plot, but when you can play for thirteen hours with almost nothing happening except meeting new characters and character drama, it's time to reanalyze its intentions. It's about the characters, not the plot.

 

[IronMit]

The 'What' is predictable but the 'how' & 'why' is executed well

The part about not liking Joel....That was the point. What all the survivors do to survive is supposed to be in question, whereas in Uncharted it was not a theme. For example (spoiler) the cannibal/rapist/pedo guy mirrored Joel. Ellie calls him an animal just as she goes down on all fours and scoffs up the grub. All this stuff was intentional. Tess and Joel argue about weather they are good people or not.
Everyone being selfish murdering a-hole was addressed.

random analogy:
It's like complaining about the Dark Knight because Batman doesn't just kill Joker when that's what half the movie is about. It's a weak criticism unless you are criticising the execution or believability of it , unlike let's say the 'Man of Steel', when 100,000 people die and it's not really addressed.

There are a few reasons to dislike this game but the main criticism here is way off mark. Especially coming from someone that liked spec ops the line.

Spec ops the line and Last of us are so far the most powerful character driven stories I have experienced.
(Before you mention it, stuff like portal, Bioshock etc are stories with a silent protagonist, walking dead is more role play)

 

[FinalDream]

I think when the world comes to a terrible cataclysm like in the Last of Us, Cadburys Creme eggs will be a vital trade item, worshiped for the ages as the tastiest thing to have ever existed!

 

[A1]

Especially since it's kinda similar to Spec Ops: The Line (except way better), which he really liked. That too was a game that had way more going on then just its familiar setting.

The whole thing read (or... listened?) like an anti-Naughty Dog spiel. The frequent comparisons to the Uncharted series were completely unwarranted and unfair, especially when the style of gameplay, tone, narrative and characterisation barely ever syncs up between the two. It all just smacked of a refusal to be drawn in and take the narrative seriously due to preconceived notions of what a Naughty Dog game is, relying on the assumption that it must be shallow because of the developer. The image of Joel with the sign of 'This is the protagonist you like him' just screams how little effort has gone into investing in the game and its ideas.

There's also some flat out intellectual dishonesty. Saying Ellie has no use in gameplay just isn't true, given she throws items at enemies and eventually helps Joel in firefights. Elizabeth in BioShock Infinite had the exact same problem of floating through combat with nary a scratch, but he never found that to be an issue in that game.

I honestly expected better from Yahtzee.

True. This review does seem to reek of anti-Naughty Dog bias doesn't it?

 

[A1]

Not sure why people are taking issue with this review. It's not a bad game, but it's safe and predictable. Yahtzee seemed pretty fair.

HOWEVER, it does bear mentioning that Yahtzee should give similar criticism to Valve games.

Why does Yahtzee say "Fuck you Got mine" like it's a bad thing?

Cause he doesn't like it?

I think there are plenty of reasons to not like it, but I'm a little confused by how he applies it to the Last of Us. Considering that Naughty Dog explicitly changed a key part of the ending to make it less happy-end.

Because the good things about the game are not safe and predictable. It's fair to say that it has a safe and predictable plot, but when you can play for thirteen hours with almost nothing happening except meeting new characters and character drama, it's time to reanalyze its intentions. It's about the characters, not the plot.

Yes and if I'm not mistaken someone at Naughty Dog did at some point outright state that the primary focus of the games was the relationship between the two leads.

 

[Foolery]

Eh. I'll be honest. I've never really considered Yahtzee much of a reviewer. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his videos. But to me, they fall into the category of entertainment. He's an entertainer. Fun to watch, but not all that practical for getting an idea of what a game is like. Can't take him that seriously. The video was ok this week. Not terribly amusing.

 

[IronMit]

True. This review does seem to reek of anti-Naughty Dog bias doesn't it?

I don't like to attack the messenger and would rather discuss the argument (as I have done above) but Yahtzee has been discussing how exclusives are not 'good' for consumers. So there is a source of bias right there.

To admit an exclusive console game is good may be against his agenda. wow i feel dirty for going there but it had to be said

 

[josh4president]

Thank you yahtzee for finally putting this game in its place, greatest game ever made ..../eyeroll.

Oh god am I so tired of zombies...why can't they fall down the same hole WW2 games fell into.

But what about - follow me on this - a WW2 game... WITH ZOMBIES!

 

[A1]

I think Pop Culture keeps dodging around the term "zombie" because most people, myself included, are getting sick of zombies being everywhere.

Except if that was really true do you think games like The Last of Us and Telltales The Walking Dead would be selling so well (which they are)? And do you think The Walking Dead television series would be one of the most popular shows on television (which it is)? For better or worse I think that the general public's love affair with the zombie genre is far from over.

 

[wyldefire]

Especially since it's kinda similar to Spec Ops: The Line (except way better), which he really liked. That too was a game that had way more going on then just its familiar setting.

The whole thing read (or... listened?) like an anti-Naughty Dog spiel. The frequent comparisons to the Uncharted series were completely unwarranted and unfair, especially when the style of gameplay, tone, narrative and characterisation barely ever syncs up between the two. It all just smacked of a refusal to be drawn in and take the narrative seriously due to preconceived notions of what a Naughty Dog game is, relying on the assumption that it must be shallow because of the developer. The image of Joel with the sign of 'This is the protagonist you like him' just screams how little effort has gone into investing in the game and its ideas.

There's also some flat out intellectual dishonesty. Saying Ellie has no use in gameplay just isn't true, given she throws items at enemies and eventually helps Joel in firefights. Elizabeth in BioShock Infinite had the exact same problem of floating through combat with nary a scratch, but he never found that to be an issue in that game.

I honestly expected better from Yahtzee.

Not to mention there's the Winter segment and the end level (which involve Ellie heavily and importantly). It's almost like Yahtzee didn't play the game proper, and just pieced together what happened from pre release video.

 

[wyldefire]

Typical Yahtzee review of a Naughty Dog game. Lot's of superficial critiques and asides, little discussion about the core game, bile for bile's sake since he finds giving positive reviews of well reviewed games boring.

And then in several months he'll off handedly mention something about the game that was "revelatory" like he did with Uncharted 2. Because it is a fantastic game.

It is strange that he didn't grasp the meaning of the ending the ending though. Seems like just about everyone but him understood why Joel made the choice he did at the end, and thematically he's not all that different than the protagonist of Spec Ops: The Line, which was Yahtzee's GOTY last year.



But whatever, cue the fanboys, who had already made up their mind to hate this game because it's a Sony exclusive or because it's just cool to hate on AAA games, storming comment sections using this as "proof" that The Last of Us is bad or overrated.

It was kind of annoying to see him treat the Uncharted series so flippantly, even though I don't like it equally as much as him, but superficial critiques are more valid for a superficial game. The Last of Us wasn't anywhere near as superficial as Uncharted was though, so it's a shame to see him treating them as though they're basically the same game.

When did Yahtzee mention Uncharted 2 was special out of curiosity?

In an Extra Punctuation he mentioned that the way Uncharted 2 treated setpieces (keeping them playable and allowing you to have gameplay layered on top of moving objects) was revelatory compared to the setpiece moments in other games in which you are locked into certain actions or have no control over what's going on.

 

[AmerikanRejekt]

Maybe I've been playing a fair too many games as of late, but when I'm being shot at, shooting back seems a hell of a lot less like murder than simply surviving. Hell, they even bring it up in the game; it's either this entire group of bandits or me, and knowing there are still full cities thriving, even under military rule, I have nothing against getting rid of a few murderous cocks. Killing a raider that murders, rapes, and steals everything in sight is no more of a murder than me killing those zombies, and yet we have nothing against mowing them down.

Games should not be casual about introducing anthropomorphic monsters. That alienates a huge part of the human population that shares a capacity for empathy. Take like the first map of Demon's Souls. I felt sick to my stomach playing that. If you have such monsters they have to be A) undead (already dead) B) wraiths (never alive to begin with) or C) somehow mind controlled. In other words, not acting on their own volition (and they need to act sluggishly. The less human like the better.)

If you are ambushed or invaded, you are struggling to survive. But if you are the aggressor you are a murderer. Either way, killing from a distance, even arm+sword length is a lot less creepy than knifing. Slitting throats and these kinds of things will make a lot of people vomit. I can't watch that in a movie. I have to cover my eyes.

What the hell are you doing playing violent video games at all? IMHO, if you don't like the core principles of an entire genre/theme/whatever, you have no right to commentate on it. It's obviously not for you, and no one's designing for you, so why whine about it like it's a personal affront against you?

Boletaria Castle in Demon's Souls? You mean the map that's entirely filled with UNDEAD soldiers who've lost their minds and any semblance of humanity? Jesus Christ, if you can't handle that, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Don't like it? Don't play it, don't complain about it, and don't try to slander others for enjoying it.

 

[Thyunda]

I am worried about all this murder business when I will probably inevitably handover 19.99USD+tax for this game. I haven't played the Uncharted series, and I have a feeling if I did I would not want to give this game a shot. But it looks like it might be a nowadays rarefied half decent game with its quasi fresh take on zombie game play and potential for attractive everything's gone flowers environs.

Anyway. Yahtzee's review summoned up on old memory of when this game was first being carted out for the public. The publishers promised that murder would not be a necessary element of the game. Did this promise pan out? Or is this game another one of those creepy serial killer simulators or what?

EDITED: Oh well. Taking Yahtzee's full review at face value this one looks like a pass. I think only sociopaths are allowed in the video game industry anymore. You'd probably have to be one to rise up in its ranks I suppose anyway.

Murder isn't particularly necessary for most of the game - although you will have to kill a few zombies and a few men. In fact the killing feels so dirty that I regularly tried to kill no one just because I felt bad doing it. Which is weird for a game because usually I'd happily bazooka people in the face. When you do kill though it feels necessary in a grim way.

I've been watching the Two Best Friends playthrough, and from what I've watched so far, the combat even LOOKS desperate. Like Joel is just hitting them again and again to silence them before they draw attention to him or before they get a shot off. No glorification of violence there, just desperation, which I think is supposed to be the point of the game, isn't it?

 

[wyldefire]

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.

Do you remember how much human on human killing took place on that show? The idea that humanity would continue on in some form was a broad hope in that series. But people in the show had no problem killing other humans when it needed to be done. And sometimes not even then.

And BSG didn't even have the underlying theme of The Last of Us, which is that the world will go on without humans and be fine. The fact that humans are shown as being petty, selfish murderers unworthy of redemption is the whole subtext of The Last of Us.

Frankly, that's why I'm surprised Yahtzee didn't like it more, that sort of theme seems right up his alley. For whatever reason though, he never picked up on this or any of the other nuances that elevate this game above just about everything else this gen.

 

[klaynexas3]

Maybe I've been playing a fair too many games as of late, but when I'm being shot at, shooting back seems a hell of a lot less like murder than simply surviving. Hell, they even bring it up in the game; it's either this entire group of bandits or me, and knowing there are still full cities thriving, even under military rule, I have nothing against getting rid of a few murderous cocks. Killing a raider that murders, rapes, and steals everything in sight is no more of a murder than me killing those zombies, and yet we have nothing against mowing them down.

Games should not be casual about introducing anthropomorphic monsters. That alienates a huge part of the human population that shares a capacity for empathy. Take like the first map of Demon's Souls. I felt sick to my stomach playing that. If you have such monsters they have to be A) undead (already dead) B) wraiths (never alive to begin with) or C) somehow mind controlled. In other words, not acting on their own volition (and they need to act sluggishly. The less human like the better.)

If you are ambushed or invaded, you are struggling to survive. But if you are the aggressor you are a murderer. Either way, killing from a distance, even arm+sword length is a lot less creepy than knifing. Slitting throats and these kinds of things will make a lot of people vomit. I can't watch that in a movie. I have to cover my eyes.

In most cases in The Last of Us, the people Joel kills are the aggressor in some form. Whether they have deliberately been just shooting at him or trying to beat him to death with a melee weapon, most would kill Joel if he gave them the chance. He only turns aggressor at one point, and even then he's not doing it because he enjoys to kill, he does it to save Ellie. At no given point is he an invader or anything. Most times he's either ambushed, or someone is taken hostage. Someone has to die in that situation because of these other people, because they give only those choices, and Joel chooses that the people that die will not be either him or Ellie. That's the difference between murdering and surviving.

 

[LAGG]

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.

New to Zero Punctuation? That tends to be Yahtzee's thing... taking the piss out of games even if they are generally good.

Normally he seems to try and be humorous about it while being comically over the top, with this it just seems to be a mild rant. Usually even if I disagree with him I can find the humour in it, in this case it felt like somebody just complaining, like in a "Why does everybody love The Last of Us?" thread.

Yahtzee is just frustrated because he is cursed with the ability to imagine better games. Or that he has to keep reviewing awful games as a career. He literally has the worst job I can possibly imagine for myself. I would rather do anything than have to play these games for a living, much less say anything about them in public. I'd rather be in prison.

If you disagree with him, you just have low standards. He is right on the mark.

He's not the only one in the world that don't see faster horses as cars thou. It's a more common syndrome than most people imagine. Among game designers it's a higher than 70% incidence, that's why so many leave their jobs to start indie studios of their own.

 

[AmerikanRejekt]

There's also some flat out intellectual dishonesty. Saying Ellie has no use in gameplay just isn't true, given she throws items at enemies and eventually helps Joel in firefights. Elizabeth in BioShock Infinite had the exact same problem of floating through combat with nary a scratch, but he never found that to be an issue in that game.

This is one I actually agree with. Ellie does suffer from the "untouchable" disease that seems to run rampid among every friendly NPC this generation. But as you said, complaining about it now, hot off the heels of Infinite, feels a bit personal.

Ellie died in my playthrough on a couple occasions. All of your NPC companions are capable of being grabbed and killed in combat.

She's far from untouchable; where are you people getting this idea in your heads that she is? It's truly painful watching her have her jugular ripped out by the infected.

 

[knight steel]

I love the motorboat joke-but that mainly because I like Humor that shocks and crosses the line or maybe I'm desensitized to due to all the Anime I've watched,anyway I really enjoyed the video-don't listen the the haters/complainer's ^_^.

 

[major_chaos]

Gotta love all the fanboy tears in this thread. Good to know I'm not the only person unimpressed with this game. After Uncharted repulsed me on every level I don't trust naughty dog to make decent games, and I outgrew the whole nihilistic "the world sucks and everyone is an asshole happy ending are gay" phase when I was fourteen.

 

[A1]

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.

Well the setting of BGS and the zombie apocalypse setting do seem to have some fundamental differences. In BGS the human survivors are united under one banner (more or less) and are able to maintain some form of civilization under said banner (more or less). But in a zombie apocalypse setting the survivors are often scattered and divided into different groups with no all encompassing sense of unity or civilization and generally with limited resources divided among them. It also doesn't help that human beings seem to have a tendency to prioritize their own survival over the survival of others (survival instinct perhaps). In that kind of environment it doesn't seem unreasonable that one's own survival and/or the survival of the people closest to a person may take priority over the general survival of the human species. It doesn't help that the human race's capacity for altruism seems to generally be in question.

I guess you could say that the BGS setting is idealized in it's own way. Which is not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.