There's a persistent community of Gamers out there that literally log on every day to seethe about Last of Us 2 because they didn't like the story. People who will refuse to see any positive news from Naughty Dog as anything but lies or corrupt pandering.
As general secretary, I'm putting these people in the faraday cage reeducation center with the streamers.
Joel being a murderously toxic father figure that lies to his daughter figure and potentially dooms the human race under pretense of "protecting" her with some extra murder :so-true:
Joel being a piece of shit eventually catches up with him and karma whacks him with a golf club :wojak-nooo:
This is beside the point, but I stand by that even if it’s possible they would’ve had to kill Ellie to make a cure, they had no way of knowing that yet and really all they were going to do was kill a child and destroy any hope of ever making a cure. That was the kind of research that would’ve needed a large team and years of study, you don’t just go straight to “well let’s get that brain out shall we!”
Mention of SA in the context of edgy gamer bullshit
It's especially ridiculous because I remember a reddit post years ago where the toxic side of TLOU community were all soyfacing about how in a world so brutal it would be totally unrealistic for the Fireflies to have a woman as a leader because women would all be breeding stock, and that in an apocalyptic setting anyone should be able to die horribly, and then their vidya game stoic father figure gets got and they're all super upset about it and talking about how unfair it is.
When I had my issues about the no-choice asshole ending in TLOU1, I was told "when you're a father you will understand" which is some bullshit.
"Because zombies, let's be edgy sociopathic assholes" was a horrid pop cultural phenomenon for too many years.
I'm glad they weren't crunched for it, but I do still think the idea of a $70 full-on remake of The Last of Us (When we already had Remastered on the PS4, and the original ain't even that old to begin with) is still kinda dumb.
The concept of a remaster is, to begin with, just a lazy way of squeezing money out of the same thing. I play games released in the 90s, sometimes straight off the disk on my modern windows 10 machine and sometimes with some minimal patches to make it more compatible. A good, finished game does not need more work to be done to it, and the ones which could benefit from more work are not fixed by a remaster.
It would be one thing if the graphics were horribly outdated, but that was one of the best looking games of its time when it came out.
its so there is something new on shelves for people whose introduction to TLOU is the TV show.
This person refuses to buy anything not made in a sweatshop.
why pirate it if noone suffered to make it, cruelty is the point.
They've got the labor to spare to remake the game, and they're clearly expecting to do well on it. Even if it's a cash grab they're retaining their staff in a non-crunch environment instead of wringing them out and firing them after.
And in the games industry its common for teams to fire a ton of people between projects. If people can make remasters without crunch while the next projects are in pre-production, thats better
Flashbacks of dipshits complaining to me about the price of the latte I'm making for them. Baristas should be granted concealed carry licenses and the right to open fire at their own discretion.
i don't see what the issue is, capitalism sets prices based on supply and demand, not on how hard you worked on something; setting prices based on intrinsic qualities like that is pinko shari'a 1984 communism and should not be taken seriously
As with many aspects of Gaming as an industry this g*mer has sort of vaguely identified a problem but completely missed the mark on the causes and solutions. Games are art, not a commodity so their prices actually shouldn't be standardized and should represent the quality of the work and how much effort went into it. However for a combination of historical and market reasons this does not happen.
The first is the treatment of many forms of art as commodities such as books, records, dvds etc generally having consistent prices regardless of individual quality (typically the exception is clearance pricing but a masterpiece never really attracts a notably higher price). I have read others describe this as a relic from an era when paper and printing were very expensive but there was no copyright protecting the work itself so prices reflected the commodity price of the paper and this flowed onto modern books and then other forms of consumer media. I don't know if this is absolutely true but it does sound plausible.
The other reason is that consoles are an oligopoly of walled gardens. The console manufacturer controls what games can be released and demands licensing fees which result in consistent and high prices for console games. The exception to this is the PC gaming market which is an open platform where we see a much higher variety of pricing due to a lack of centralized control and high level of accessibility to a wider range of amateur and independent developers.
So the solution to wanting lower prices for games that took less effort is actually to not use platforms that extract rent from developers and do not have the barriers to entry for small bean developers who want to produce cheaper games. That is until capitalism is abolished altogether ofc
