UNCHARTED vs THE LAST OF US

[Porcupine_I]

DivinePaladin said:

Porcupine_I said:

I don't get some things you are saying.  You want to kill innocent people so you can feel bad for them? You wanted to kill the Women and children fleeing to the church from your rampage in winter? Is that what you are saying? You killed the people who already started to doubt David's leaderhip, but of course they were still your enemies. You wanted to have the option to kill the people at the hydroelectric plant? Is that what you are saying? I really don't get it. How do you even know what every single man you killed was like? did you talk to them before you killed them? Why didn't you sneak past them? There were plenty of options where you didn't have to fight them.

This game goes into a lot of detail explaining why things are how they are. And if you expected "Sex" because someone told you there will be sex, maybe you just waited for them to come to you and you missed out because you didn't want to go and look for it. I'm not really sure about that whole sex reference though.

I won't comment on the plot of Zelda games, because i didn't play any of the 3D Zeldas, but i'm pretty certain they don't hold up in the number of different animations for certain actions or AI for that matter.

 

I never stated Zelda did so. Not sure why you're missing my point entirely here, it's pretty simple. In a game claimed to be so deep and realistic by everybody, developer or otherwise, the lack of variety in a simple character animation is pretty lazy. That's about as nitpicky as I get though, but it legitimately does get annoying that such little effort is put into the presentation of a key element. 

 

And, again, no. I don't WANT to kill anybody in this sort of game. The developers make me kill hundreds to thousands of humans, yes, and that's unavoidable. However, if the developer claims you're going to feel remorse for killing people who are only trying to survive, just like you are. But then everybody we fight is flat, and they always kill with no remorse themselves, and often enjoy the hunt. The no remorse part would be fine on its own because that can be seen as commentary, but then the latter part sort of spoils that argument. 

 

I'm saying, and have been saying, that I'd like to see a character develop through killing somebody who's truly just killing the other to get by. The scene in the hotel comes close, but it's not Joel who gets the development, as usual. When we're meant to feel remorse for our kills, we should at some point have to fight people who are truly just trying to survive, instead of only raiders who are shown to have very little in the way of morals throughout all of the game. It doesn't make me contemplate my actions when I'm forced to be a one man army against a group where I see only assholes, and since ND claimed several times that you'd feel bad because these people all have lives and are just trying to survive, that's a glaring issue to me. Again, if you want to be blind to it, more power to you, but I'm not going to. 

Yes, you do, you do want to kill someone in that sort just to make yourself feel something, that's your only argument here. You are not happy about what type of people you kill. There are plenty of people just getting by in this game, but guess what? You don't kill them, because it is not neccesary. That's actually pretty sensible and realistic.  And stop telling me that naughty dog told you what you would have to feel. That's just silly. If you don't like it, then you don't like it and nobody can make you. But don't try to discredit the majority of opinios about the game because of that. 

You are not happy with the game, because of what? First you say because you could tell everything that was going to happen and then you say because things didn't happen like you wanted them to. Are you sure you don't keep arguing because of arguments sake?