Sifu (Zero Punctuation) 

You should have a look at "chronus: before the ashes. It's a prequel to remnantfrom the ashes. However rather than a shooter, it's a sort of soulslike, but has the every time you die, you age a year. You gradually change from a young warrior, into an elderly wizard. Thought it might interest you

In this case though, you only end up killing mooks if you use specific items and environmental finishers

Pfffffffft.

Same

Whereas if you've gone for a pacifist run, choosing to kill the big bad feels like an important step up

​@@JavaSchoolBlues 🙄

I know, right? Meanwhile the dudes just trying to pay rent floating off to oblivion's embrace: =_=

WELL WHEN YOU PUT IT LIKE _THAT_

The true motto of America.

The moment when you try to have an important thematic message with your game but you're not creative enough to think of gameplay mechanics that work with it so you only include it in certain key moments while ignoring how it clashes with the rest of the game. Edit: point being, I don't think it should be seen as a rich vs poor thing, just as, y'know... it's hard to think of a game design that criticizes revenge but still also focuses on combat being fun.

@@viljamtheninja It's almost like they should have just forgotten about the whole preachy message part.

Just get good and beat it at 27 I can't get the under 25 trophy

Did it at 21. Can’t even fucking do hard mode

@@m0ng00se4 I can get to the final level at age 23. After a couple weeks, I can dominate large portions of the game. But Kuroki/Yang will still kill me two or three times on any attempt even if I do everything else perfectly. That Under 25 Trophy is not in my future

Technically he doesn’t kill anybody though…just knocks their asses out (unless you use the sword). It’s the bosses that he can directly choose to kill or spare.

is, is that a fucking wuxia?

Really can tell this was made by a non-asian company. Because in the kung fu movies I watch, the main guy do get their revenge and beat the hell out of the main villain.

@@atomic747 You beat the hell out of the villains in sifu too. Even in the good endings you fade them, you just don't kill them. You also don't kill the underlings (unless you use a knife) so there's actually very little death in the game.

Kind of hard to spare a protagonist by the evil bad guy in a plot. I know we're enemies but we want the same thing, truce? You killed over a dozen of my men in ten minutes and it's been 5 hours! Point taken.

​​​​@@degiguessactually there's quite a few moves that would be considered lethal even with your bare hands. getting punched in the throat for example will literally make you stop breathing and could damage your vital structures which could be lethal. not to mention 90 percent of the blunt weapon finishers would most likely break a few bones or cause a serious concussion also the one finisher where you strike the back of the opponents neck, hard enough to send them to the floor. which I'm pretty sure would atleast cause a serious neck/spine injury if it doesn't kill them

Annoys? It's batshit insane. You're *even more* evil for letting them specifically live, because that means you valued their life above the other people. You valued the *monster of a human being* higher than the people just doing their jobs.

The one I like is from Avatar the last Airbender, where it is easier to kill the Fire Lord than to spare him, yet Aang chooses to spare him. It is... undecided if he has killed all the goons before, but he has thrown him off ledges and into the freezing waters of the Artic... As well as wrecked hundreds of boats. Does this count?

@@setcheck67 yeah, I find it kinda confusing why seemingly all fiction has settled on the same answer to the trolley problem.

@@icarue993 He was kinda possessed by an ocean spirit when he was throwing people into the water so I don't think that counts.

Yeah, the Ocean was using Aang's body to kill people, he wasn't really making the choice to drown all those people.

It sure feels like they wrote it as post-regret state after doing said revenge. So they did tried it.

@@Deliveredmean42 Clearly they didn't revenge correctly then. /s

@@Deliveredmean42 nah, revenge feels good. aggressions against your person should be punished. Now, or perhaps when the person who aggressed against you doesn't even remember what happened

@@smutz131 I'll make them remember

@@floricel_112 I’ll make sure they’re gone before they can remember.

Yup. How many subgenres has Yahtz created over the years? Let's see... . Big Headed Child in Scary World . Like God of War But... . SpunkGargleWeeWee (best one imo) . JimminyCockThroat (last year) And then there were obscure ones like : . Spectacle Fighter (Devil May Cry 4, I think) . Particle Effects the Game (Smash Bros. Brawl, I think) I'm sure I'm missing a bunch. Oh, and if anyone has a name for a genre they made up, share away. How about one for games like Super Meat Boy where you die over and over and spawn instantaneously, to keep dying over and over? ScreamControllerFlingFlings?

@@elberethgilthoniel1397 Ghost Train Ride and Choices-Matter-Except-Not-Really

You mean a Brawler. Just like how Spunk Gargle Weewee was just a funny thing to call a military shooter

Recursives and sprawlers too

The "Revenge is bad" trope only works when the story truly comments to it; which rarely happens because they force a happy ending. Seriously, more writers need to have the balls to have the revenge-seeking protagonist either becomes the implied villain for someone else or they are left with nothing to be happy about.

Maybe if there was a mechanic that only caused mildly debilitating injuries to the underlings, slowing them down slightly so you can leave them behind. You might see specific ones later on in the levels, but that was just part of the challenge of not murdering everyone.

The thing is, Yathzee skims over the plot, but it's a bit more nuanced than just your average revenge story. Simply put, the villains had a very, very good reason for doing what they did, and three out of the five of them turned a new leaf, with one in particular becoming CEO of a company specifically to use her profits for charity, while another created a clinic that uses the same magical power that keeps reviving the MC to save the lives of terminally ill patients. In short, it's less "revenge bad, spare the villain", but "revenge is extremely counter-intuitive, and killing the villain affects thousands of innocent lives, so maybe don't do it".

It only works when they have the MGS sort of approach where you can play the entire game without killing anyone.

The point of most "revenge is bad" stories isn't that killing an evil person and stopping them from doing more evil things is morally reprehensible, it's that seeking revenge is a universally self-destructive activity that leaves you worse off than you started. Most of the time, the villain of the story is more of a personal nemesis for the protagonist and isn't some kind of supervillain mass murderer. The only time you see that coupled with the "killing is bad, folks" angle is in childrens media and really shitty films designed by focus groups.

Yeah on easy also you only age by one year each time you die, it doesn't go up which was why yatzee said he didn't feel the impact of the mechanic I reckon

@@pneumaticTurtle Yeah 40-50 lives lol. Also the more you die in a row the more you will age, so it is important. I also feel like he missed the main point of getting better and more flawless, which is also supported by the story. And he also missed that the villains aren't actually villains, and you need to get so good that you forgive them. You don't have to parry them always either, you can beat them up until the meter is high... Very sloppy review.

Exactly, he played easy and missed the entire point of the game lol. If he just fessed up it, it wouldn't bug me so much, but he is just pooping on a game he didn't even bother to give a proper try.

this is why easy mode was a mistake. the game was perfectly fine on release, but the complainers had to ride in on their horses and deem the game “”inaccessible””

I mean, the easy mode is part of the game. Unless the game clearly communicates that "this is not the intended way to play," you can't blame people for assuming that it is. If this isn't a genre you're comfortable with, it makes sense to play the game on easy, and if that's a bad experience, that's the game's fault. One thing I've seen some games do to solve this problem that I like is to have only one difficulty, but then incorporate ways to change the difficulty yourself, like assist or challenge modes. That way, the game can clearly communicate its intended play style while still letting people adjust the difficult if they want.

This is why easy mode sucks. He sells the combat system short because he was never forced to really learn it. Nevermind throw loops or back attack differences, apparently he never even figured out the difference between high low dodges and still got to an ending. Sifu has so much to offer and it'd be generous to say Yahtzee got 30% of it by playing easy.

Give the guy a break, he has to pump out a review a week.

Yeah, it's a frequent issue with Yahtzee's MO. He has to play these games in a week, so if he's not forced to deal with the difficulty via lack of alternatives as in FromSoft games, he dials it down to easy and that naturally kills off a large part of the appeal in combat-focused games. DMC5 and Stranger of Paradise got a similar treatment. Which is a shame, because it's like skipping cutscenes in a story-focused game then complaining that the story was unengaging.

@@amrabdelazeem9689 he's got enough of an audience he can put more effort into fewer videos. While his cynical banter is fun it is quite clear he's frustrated a bit with the grind of getting a relevant video out to chase the algorithm. I'm not wholly upset at him, its just wholly misrepresentative of the standard game that most others played as easy mode was added last month. It's funny and it brings the review aspect down a bit. I dont want to see him lose his charm with burn out.

@@amrabdelazeem9689 Sifu has been out for like 4 months.

Smelly brat, you dare to approach me!?

So I initially read this correctly but quickly scrolled past and thought, "did he just call Yahtz a commonly untalented wordsmith?" And had to come back to check.

I thought you said hes clearly aging, and thats just rude.

Like a crackhead becoming a master glass blower after you take away his pipe

I mean... it's klinda gibberish and yet I hear "Flip-out spanky wanky" and it definitely sounds like the sort of just destroying everything.

I mean “articulously”? Enough said. Yahtzs unrivelablestedness level of wordsmithing is above all others.

*sick of our shit

None of the underlings die though. They just get knocked out.

"Now that my master, the man who intimidated my parents into handing me over to him so I could continue his bull[HONK] legacy or something, is dead, I can live my life however I want!" Then the rest of the game is an open world simulation where you can beat up dudes for justice, beat up dudes for money, beat up nobody and just tend a garden or something, become a martial arts movie star, become a gang boss, become a parkour food delivery person, settle down with various people and start a family, etc.

Makes me think of Tenshinhan and the Crane Master from the original Dragon Ball 🐉😆

That's this game, in a roundabout way. The MC's father/master was a bit of a dick, withholding a magical artifact that could save lives, and the "villains" banded together to take it so that they could save people, and the "main villain" does just that, opening a clinic where he uses the artifact to save the terminally ill. If you spare all the antagonists, you can completely read the story as "student witnesses his father being killed, trains his balls off, and then uses his superior kung-fu to passive-aggressively flex on the killers, because his father was a bit of a dick and killing them over the incident would be overdoing it".

Continuing my idea above, the open world game could have an optional mission/side chapter where the player character imagines what would have happened if they had dedicated themselves to avenging their master, where they get to be temporarily super-high-level (like the fake-out prologue to Dragon Age 2) and massacre lots of dudes, but it's grimdark and miserable and unfulfilling, with injuries rendered in graphic detail, ordinary people fleeing in horror from the protagonist, etc.

If the abusive mentor trope wasn't also done to death, I don't know what was.

This is the best comment on this entire video. I wanted you to know that

Yeah nah

@@roachybill In every scenario, you have one single person you have a beef with, and that's the boss at the end of the stage. Your goal is to get to that person and settle your score. You don't turn back when warned by a bouncer, because if you do, then what? Stop playing the game? That just wouldn't make a lick of sense as a player, and neither would it make any sense for the character you're controlling. Secondly, if they don't stand in your way, you have literally zero reason to do anything to them. In the context of the narrative, you are not directly threatening them, yet time and time again, you're attacked by waves of mooks wielding sticks, baseball bats, knives, and anything else they can get their hands on and try to literally kill you... for what? Trespassing? Even if we take the least charitable approach and say that the main character is an unlawful intruder, if they attack him with lethal force and intent to kill, I don't see the issue with him responding in kind, as at that point you could make a case for self-defense.

@@Horvath_Gabor When you're the killer breaking in somewhere, you can't claim you were just defending yourself when people put up a fight to stop you from your killing.

@@roachybill First off, stop strawmanning me. It's not exactly polite. Secondly, stop strawmanning the game, because it seriously doesn't help the conversation. Let's go from the top once again: our main character wants to take revenge on FIVE people. Canonically speaking, whether he kills or spares any of them is entirely up to the player, but so it whether he kills any of the mooks. Aside from a few special moves, mainly the ones with weapons, none of the attacks are explicitly lethal, and whether the MC uses any of them is entirely up to the player's choices during gameplay. You are framing the argument as a false dichtonomy of "you either kill everyone, or you kill everyone but the bosses", while ignoring the entirely reasonable option of the main character not killing a single person throughout the entire game. It all depends on implicit player choice. In other words, your point would be entirely valid if breaking necks, slicing, beheading and otherwise obviously killing mooks is the only way to reach the endings. However, you, the player can just as easily go through all the stages with zero casualties, and yet the enemies would still try to kill you with the exact same amount of lethal force. This is a story about a man seeking revenge on people who may or may not deserve it. It's a morally grey topic, further complicated by narrative and gameplay segregation, because without mooks to fight, you don't have a gameplay loop. However, you are painting it as if it was all black while pretending I'm saying it's all white, which is disingenuous. Here's a comparison to illustrate my point: Look at the Arkham games. Batman goes after the Penguin or whoever, breaks into his hideout, the mooks try to stop him because they are his loyal subordinates and criminals and whatnot, so he beats them up with his fists and gadgets that should be, by all intents and purposes, lethal implements, and yet when he reaches the boss, he always spares them. Do you have the same contention about those games as well, or are they okay because exploding, shocking, freezing, and curb-stomping mooks are glossed over as "just the gameplay loop" and you don't have the explicit choice to spare or kill the boss at the end? Last, but not least, let's make one last thing clear: the narrative of Sifu is quite undercooked. The main character never speaks, we don't know much about his motivations, and much of the story has to be inferred by snippets and gameplay. The one thing that's certain is that the game is promoting mastery of the combat system. That's why the "good" ending is tied to beating the bosses the hard way, both to demonstrate the player's skill and to show that the main character is much more powerful and skilled than them. The point is even explicitly referenced in the ending as a philosophy of dominating your enemies so that they know they cannot defeat you, instead of killing them. In a sense, the whole game builds up to achieving dominance without killing, so you characterizing the main character as a "psycho" the mooks are justified in killing just because he entered their territory to challenge their boss is odd enough to make me want to throw your accusation back into your face and ask if you actually finished the game and understood what it was about...

Consider giving Dishonored a try. The only people who have to die or suffer in that game are the dispicable people at the top of the system disenfranchising others and the bad outcome is actually just a natural consequence of "leaving bodies in the street during a pandemic" making things worse.

I still think "I saw the devil" is the absolute culmination of the "nature of revenge"-plot and there's nothing left to say on the matter, only exceedingly more outrageous reasons for- and executions of said revenge for style points. The killing blow at the end barely even matters, the true revenge was the psychotic rampage we made along the way. :')

@@GREENSP0RE I always find it funny how people complain about Dishonored giving you the bad ending if you run around slaughtering everybody with your "badass murder powers". Gee, it's not as if it ties in to the whole theme of the story or anything...

@@GREENSP0RE Dishonored has the issue that the non-lethal means are often fucking horrifying, sometimes more so than just sticking a metal through their throat. (which is the point the devs are going for I guess).

@@StyryderX There is one non lethal method in particular that seems a loose loose to me, but a large number of them are pretty rough. Might need to replay it now that I am an adult to get a fairer picture than highschool me. In general videogames are going to struggle with exploring non-binary conflict outcomes be they lethal or not. One space that actually has the opportunity to do a better job of this are tabletop RPGs but that's mostly dependant on the people at the table.

NGL I definitely got put off before finishing the first level. I thought my skillset from what I learned from Absolver would carry over, but...

Because the underlings are by products of mental and emotional abuse and have no real agency, while the boss is a snake oil salesman?

you don't really kill anyone unless you do the sword finisher (which I found really bizarre tonally to be honest, I think it might be a reused animation from absolver)

It wasn't always like that. Original stories always kill off the main evil. Modern writers(In the 1900's) started having protagonists spare the antagonists' life so they could keep having the same villain come back again and again and again. They came up with this "it's too evil to kill this one person" crap and people just bought it. It reached peak insanity in the comics where you have supervillains wholesale slaughtering innocent people and they just get locked up while their henchmen get exterminated. Some supervillains in the comics have been locked up and escaped like 10 times and have a body count in the millions.

Normally because the henchmen start off trying to kill you and never stop trying thus you have no real choice, but the bosses for some reason try to surrender instead and thus suddenly you actually have a choice in the matter

Because boss man actually have agency, and thus are moral agents, evil or not. While henchmen are always portrayed as interchangeable cogs of the machine, so no agency and no room for moral choices

It's more like, "This guy actually had a really really good reason for killing my father and uses the power that brings me back to life to heal terminally ill patients, is it still right to kill him?" than "killing bad hur hur"

I'm really excited to see Top Gun Maverick myself. I heard that they used 6 cameras in the jets to be able to switch shots for the absolute best viewing angle for the audience during the aerial maneuvers. Don't know how Tom Cruise keeps doing these incredibly demanding roles at his age. Maybe there's something to Scientology after all...

Morbius already came out, so cinema is basically over.

I'm still looking forward to Gotham Knights and GOW Ragnarok, but objectively neither of those are gonna be better than Elden Ring, I'm just a fan of the franchises they're part of.

Elden ring copy and paste bosses is what's keeping me away from it, i think i'll grab it on a sale.

@@gustavohuehue7460 Has a handful but those are mainly in dungeons and not on the main path and there are so many dungeons I can understand why they didn’t make a unique boss for every single one. Not to mention previous souls games doing it too

@@roachybill i agree in the sense that, like I said, there are absolutely takedown animations in Sifu that are "yeah, he ain't getting back up, he dead." I am never gonna die on that hill because just... look at the knife takedowns. But, there's also an element I forgot to talk about on my original post and that is that Sifu is a different type of game compared to a lot of other games people are trying to compare it to, most notably Last of Us 2. Basically, Last of Us is a very story focused game while Sifu is a gameplay focused game so some people, like me, can look past this kind of thing in a gameplay focused game. Meanwhile, I struggle to look past that when it comes to a story based game.

Wildermyth is a great one. Basically fantasy X-Com but it takes place over multiple generations and your soldiers will age, have children, lose limbs in battle etc.

I always like when games take their stories through years of characters lives and make an effort to show aging. Fable taking the tutorials through your childhood, grow up during training, then take like half a century for the adventure playing out. Real fun when you are a huge jacked man, but all wrinkled and white haired.

Some games I can think of with aging mechanics are Crusader Kings and a fun little mobioe game called Sword and Glory.

Pentiment is looking like it gonna have something like that.

Yahtzee's lack of time on this game kinda shows. It's understandable since he's on a timeline, but he missed several things, including the very important fact that it is, in fact, possible and not all that difficult to refrain from killing any of the mooks. You essentially just have to avoid using weapons, which is easier than it sounds since by the time you're actually pursuing the good ending, you've had time to get used to the combat and understand how to counter your opponents.

But think of that from a gameplay perspective, sparing all of those minions would be a hassle.

@@TheKennyboy92 I played the game exactly like that for the Wude ending, and it's really not. You have to a) not pick up any weapons and b) be careful near high ledges, which there are very few of in the game.

Funny how both of them are french games

All the villains in this have a good reason to do what they did, end most are decent people now. For example, the Executive, uses her company to primarily give money to charities. The main villain uses the power that brings you back to life to heal otherwise terminally ill people. Etc. Yhatzee very oversimplifies the story.

It wasn't always like that. Original stories always kill off the main evil. Modern writers(In the 1900's) started having protagonists spare the antagonists' life so they could keep having the same villain come back again and again and again. They came up with this "it's too evil to kill this one person" crap and people just bought it. It reached peak insanity in the comics where you have supervillains wholesale slaughtering innocent people and they just get locked up while their henchmen get exterminated. Some supervillains in the comics have been locked up and escaped like 10 times and have a body count in the millions.

Especially those stupid quotes about "if you kill the bad guy you're just as bad" just shut the hell up. Killing him won't make me no way near as bad if the guy I killed murdered hundreds or even thousands or is a slaver responsible for other kinds of suffering. Someone who causes and will cause more suffering. Putting a rabid dog down so it can't bite more people.

The issue is more about the stories somehow don't want to acknowledge the fact that the players/viewers are rooting for a completely monster; so they throw in that mercy moment at the end to safe face.

@@setcheck67 That's really on society to make those choices. You don't want a bunch of masked vigilantes playing judge, jury, and executioner and deciding who lives and who dies. Or that's what they always say. I think we all know they would move heaven and earth to rescue every last villain if society decided to execute them.

though to be fair sometimes you don't NEED to bring something new, just do something old well enough to be entertaining. hell, there are a lot of forgotten formulas out there that I would LOVE for some desperate indie studio to try to revive it.

@@danilooliveira6580 There's a saying which I love; "There are no original ideas." Honestly, everything's been done by this point, because all plots follow an archetypal structure which ultimately stand the test of time because people find all sorts of unique ways to approach them. Lost City was basically an attempt to revive the old Indiana Jonesy temple raiding plot which tbh has roots well before Indy. And it got praise for subverting the formula and making it about two people who *don't* have those survival skills It all depends on how you do it. I loved Sifu, despite the cliché storyline; it was still a massive amount of fun.

it didn't necessarily bring anything "new" to the table, but it did bring something back that had been missing for a long time

I think the age mechanic has some potential and is a cool way to deal with the “Mary Sue” problems a lot of video games tend to have. It’s hard to get intimidated by enemies when you are an overpowered badass with nothing to fear. And turning you from a tank to a glass cannon is a smooth way to tell the story of an aging badass while preserving the skill element of games like this.

@@NathanCassidy721 Actually, this is quite a profound take. I suppose it does make sense, and it's symmetry, in another way. The old master who dies at the beginning is exactly that - old. There's likely speculation that if he was the same age as Yang when they fought, he may have defeated him. But also, with age, comes experience and power.

Yahtzee has made clear many times he doesn’t watch movies very often haha

@@theescapist It's just weird with all the other obscure media he seems familiar with. I mean I unironically didn't know about scorsese yet he made a reference regarding him a while ago. I just assumed he'd be more familiar with these kinda things. Regardless, I was more shocked by the misattribution of the reference than anything else.

@@chukyuniqul I dunno what kindof media you're watching, but Scorsese isn't obscure. He's one of the classic film makers of hollywood

@@Eidlones He was obscure *to me*. It's all about perspective.

@@chukyuniqul Then how can you get at Yhatzee for not recognizing the Oldboy reference? When you yourself admit that "obscure" is a perspective?

For the good ending, yes, but it's narratively justified in a sense. The "bad guys" killed the MC's father and a couple other martial arts masters because they were "protecting" powerful magical talismans that had literal life-changing powers, and you beat them in order of decreasing levels of assholishness. The first guy makes drugs, but only because he's terminally ill and needs the money for treatment. The second guy is a battle maniac, but isn't directly villainous. The third one is an ex-assassin who wanted to get away from a life of bloodshed and became an artist. The fourth one used her talisman to become the CEO of a big company that focuses on charity and helping the poor, while the last guy and the "main villain" opened a clinic that can save otherwise terminally ill people. Some of them are bad, some of them are good, but they did what they did for an ostensibly noble purpose, and when counting all the pros and cons, the MC does more harm than good by killing them.

@@Horvath_Gabor if i'm going to kill all of their goons it wouldn't be fair to the goons if i don't kill their boss too.

@@cranapple3367 I somewhat agree. I know I'll put up with very cringeworthy/cliched/over-idealistic dialogue if I'm reading it as subtitles where I probably would roll my eyes and stop watching if it was in a live-action show in English or being delivered by the kind of aw-shucks oh-gorsh American voices they often use (or used to use) for anime dubs no matter how inappropriate they are for the show. I'm talking about stuff along the lines of "I fight for my friends! And so that everyone will stop fighting wars! Because...because...I know now why people shed tears for those they never knew! STAR HERO HEART FIRE WORD SALAD ATTACK POWER LEVEL HUGE NUMBER INSERTED HERE!"

The Chinese is just as bland and functional as the English but if the language barrier lets you ignore that then more power to you

Dishonored comes to mind

@@dastvan8002 High chaos runs result in the bad ending

@@asadmalek6007 Who said anything about _high chaos?_ In low chaos the only antagonistic character who winds up getting away scot free would be daud, wheras all the other conspirators are as follows; branded as a heretic, enslaved in their own mines, kidnapped by a secret admirer, had his crimes made public and later executed so from a certain point of view revenge was indeed the answer

The game doesn't even shun you for killing, it even encourages it with weapons. Sparing a boss is just for players that have mastered the game.

Only to find out after-the-fact that the final boss was a patsy figurehead and ignorant of the atrocities committed by those below him. You commit seppuku to repent for your error.

Oh and the game is bad at teaching you the importance of getting the hang of the directional dodge

there’s only so much he can write about in a 5 minute comedy format. but i concur that it was incredibly lazy that he sprinted through the game on easy difficulty and missed out on the majority of the appeal

To be fair, he did talk about the art style, the story, the voice acting, the dodgy camera, and ending choice mechanics; which are all things you can experience on easy mode. Those points are still very valid, as is the point that Sifu is so full of cliches that there wouldn't be a plot at all if you took them out. Honestly, the only thing that elevates this game out of "meh" is the aging mechanic. It's pretty novel. It probably won't be enough to let people remember the game for any extended period of time, but maybe other games will take inspiration and build upon it. Like how some games today have destructible environments, while not a lot of people recognize that the Red Faction franchise did a lot to prove and pioneer that concept.

He did the same thing on Dying Light 2 and complained it was too easy. Getting real lazy.

The mechanics are the important part and worth remembering.

To be fair, he does not watch movies

Eh I didn’t really care for the story either. Just like the aesthetic and gameplay.

@@theescapist Ah, maybe I was mixing your opinion with KC's?

Funny that you say that under a review where he actually completely misreads the game. He not only plays a game entirely focused on mastering the combat and learning all the systems on easy mode (which neuters a lot of game mechanics, making his complaints about dodging and the aging mechanic being meaningless completely misguided), he also writes off the game's story as "yet another revenge-is-bad plot", when in reality it's a subversion of one, where the "villains" are arguably the good guys, and your rampage of revenge is causing harm to countless innocents by proxy, which makes it more of an "am I actually the bad guy?" plot. That said, the comedy is still top-notch, but as far as accuracy is concerned, this is a definitive miss.

@@Horvath_Gabor i didnt play the game so that stuff isnt really an issue for me. I just like the comedy and stuff

@@posmen0e Fair enough, but many viewers seem to forget that ZP is more of a comedy show than a review one, and just take Yathzee's joke and occasional misinformation at face value. You can see it a lot in this comment section even, where people who never played the game take it for granted that it's just a clichéd revenge story about killing the mooks and sparing the bad guys with a combat system that doesn't have any stakes, just because he says so in the video.

@@Horvath_Gabor Yeah but people always seem to take reviewers, or critics at face value. How many amazing games do you play that critics or reviewers hated just to find out its one of the best youve ever played personally.

PSP girl DID attack Ellie. She drew a knife on her and tried to kill her after Ellie removed her own knife from against her neck. She tried to kill Ellie after Ellie showed she wasn't going to kill her since she told her what she wanted to know. And the pregnant one attacked her as well when that dumbass guy got shot trying to fight over Ellie's gun. The problem is the game tries to make you feel Ellie is bad for killing these characters but they literally force Ellie to kill them otherwise she dies.

The Last of Us 2 is probably the worst written game of all time. Pregnant people putting themselves in harms way all the time knowing they are more important than anyone else and completely separated from reality. The betrayals Abby did with her closest allies impulsively with barely any lead up. The ENDLESS times people survive because of a last minute save. The frankly INSANE lack of empathy exhibited by EVERYONE, in a world where they are on the verge of extinction. Conflicts literally just arise, because every single person is a piece of shit and for no other reason. The world is full of edgelords where no one can actually communicate without sarcasm or unnecessary angst. But really the big cherry to put on top of this shit sundae is HOW MANY conflicts are because of lesbianism. There is a whole arc of the game with a cult just because one of the girls is pretending to be a boy so that she doesn't have to have a child... In a world where humans are almost extinct. I never even played the first game and I felt like I played the worst soap opera story I've ever seen. TLOU2 was their opportunity to give me an impression and it was dogshit. It felt like the writer really wanted to write a story in a different world setting than what he got, but this is the world he had to work with so he just wrote the story not caring anyway.

@@RaxusXeronos And that's not even including the actually gameplay; where there are sections that lock you into a area until you, Ellie, have to kill everyone. There is no options to sneak away or just knock them out. Just murder them all, with Ellie sometimes making quips. And there aren't faceless grunts either. So, by the time Ellie comes across the PSP girl and/or the pregnant lady, there is no real emotional impact.

@@ligtningdog6399 It would've made a better impact if you were able to choose whether or not to kill Abby. But 9 times out of 10, they knew players whould kill Abby every time.

He a part time auction host