Oh I never assumed that was directed at me. My best guess was someone who may say something that spicy would be someone like Runa, but I haven't seen the particular take so that's just a guess. 

Oh sorry, just from what some others were saying it seemed like people thought i was talking about you. Damn good guess that was exactly who I was referencing.

Another great video. And holy hell the stealth combat in that video looks just as bad as the original. Yuck. Not surprising to see him say the zombie combat situations are the best part of the game. Even with the bizarre gameplay element where the zombies can't see or hear your NPC allies, that was the best part of the original imho. Sucks to hear that the game focuses so much less on that and so much more on the human conflict.

I gotta agree with what he said regarding the illusion of choice and guilt as well. If a game gives you no choice in a matter, why in the world would I feel guilt about it? Like killing a dog that you have no choice but to kill. Or feeling bad about all the brutality going on when the game encourages it so mightily. Compare this to games like Spec Ops or even games like Bioshock or even Fallout, where you are given choices that can have actual impact on the game and make you feel guilt.

He made a good comparison to regarding LoU2 and RDR2. They are both huge AAA narrative titles that have their heads too far up their own asses and go on way too long. Of course, they also LOOK better than pretty much anything else out there but that's because of huge budgets and absurdly long development times. Of course if you compare it to a similar game that doesn't get that long in the oven, I'd hope it turns out that well technically, but was it worth it? Not even getting into the developer element of crunch and stress, if the game could have come out two or three years ago but not have as many highly detailed environments or facial animations etc etc, would that have been a better situation? I think so.

Seriously, you are forcing your shit down others throats here but as long as it is about what you care it is fine i guess.

And you can just ignore a comment when you take so much offense to it instead of going into a senseless condescending back and forth,that's your decision and i'm done with you now.

Pray thee well, sir. I take my leave at your behest. But take care, for if one says "anti white agenda" thrice I shall return, like an SJW phantom in the night. 

Indeed, Spec Ops it was used to their advantage, they made you play the game (which was a very generic shooter) doing things because the game told you to and played the character's role in it. Going from just a man gone in as peacekeeper to a horrible human being, hell bent on an idea just to justify his own deeds. Back in the day Yatzhee said in his video that it was like the game devs forcing him to do this thing but it still made him feel horrible but that was their point.

I think Spec Ops is fantastic because of the effect it had on me and my dislike of Walker because of how he changed over the game, from a generic hero (idealistic in some ways) you could put yourself into the role, into a f***ed up nutter that you disassociated yourself from. While in TLoU, Joel just seemed like a dick, bit selfish from the start and it sadly ended with that.

I haven't played the game so i cannot comment on it, but I absolutely agree with Jim as far the self-defeating nature of games trying to be like movies, and the silliness of comparing the games to cinema.

The more games try to be like movies, the more they squander the strengths of gaming as a medium.

That said, I think games can indeed tell a compelling narrative and address serious themes, but the ones that do so successfully are the ones that don't let doing so detract from or clash with the gameplay; basically, the ones that still focus on being a good game instead of trying to be an interactive movie.

Druckmann, quantic dream guy, Tameem, and some others do have their heads to far up their arse, or at least it comes across that way, and I agree, no video game can be compared to the best of films, but I do think the tweet was taken out of context which is what started the initial twitter exchange.

Are we saying we can no longer say shit like:

1) it was like a rollercoaster from beginning to end because no game is a roller coaster or even comes close to it.

2) the food tasted so good, it was better than sex. No you've never had sex, so how would you know.

I can go on giving examples and but I don't see why the original tweet was so bad for Shreier to go on the way he did. Its he going to do this every time?!

Essentially all Jeff said was unlike a pop corn game this was more emotional and the comparison of two films. Judging by threads across sites some people have felt that way others haven't so I can't see why the journalist couldn't.

Yes, there are no triple A games that compare to the best of films, but they're those games that can be compared emotionally to movies due to the action, combat, humour, horror, and innovation.

The citizen Kane reference is perfect. The movie being watched now is nothing special, but the reason is citizen Kane was the first to use angles and filming techniques - like how matrix invented bullet time or how star wars took special fx to a whole new level.

LBP and dreams taking games where you play create share to the next level, the first ever 3D game bringing something new, the first game to use motion capture etc

Essentially what's being said is, you can never ever use anything to compare anything else, not even a small part of it.

The rest of what Jim has said, I agree with.

Gotten a fair amount into the game my view of the game is that gameplay is great while everything else is a mixed bag so far someone earlier mentioned the best parts are when dealing with the infected which is true and no part sums that up more than Seattle where you have this exploration/scavenging section where infected are scattered about the location and buildings it's one of the best part so far as the dynamic between you as the player and the infected is one of two equally brutal entities who can insta-kill each other only operating in different ways, they have the numbers but you have the utility making set pieces with infected great. It does how ever feel that elements of the game conflict with each other as well as some situations being long winded or drawn out and this happens mostly with situations not dealing with the infected and trying to execute the narrative.

I feel it may have been better to just have a fully original cast for this one it may even have helped cool some of the reactions.

There is room for both. There are many (like me) who like the movie-like experience and aspect of TLOU and Uncharted games.

TLOU 2 plays better than the first if we talk about gameplay. Everything is tightened up, from combat to movement and interactivity with the environments. Not to mention newly added tools and weapons to your disposal. The same goes for Uncharted games.

Neil Druckman obviously put his heart and soul into the game so it would be disheartening to have people take the piss about the story. I would say that he kinda embarrassed himself by responding. Just because you think your story is amazing by video game standards doesn't mean you have something that is comparable to any cinema definining film. And that's fine.

Also variety is a good thing. We don't have many studios left creating these huge AAA games  and I would be disappointed if Naughtydog's next title was a spiritual successor to Crash Bandicoot or something.