Gaming The Last of Us Part II (PS4)

Redlambs said:

I'm still chugging away, taking my time and soaking it all up. I do think if I didn't play on survival from the off though, and barely upgraded any weapons or Ellie I'd be way more bored. I think people are missing out there.

It's getting more stealth based now, which is a shame because that's easily the weakest part of the game. The A.I and sound engine are absolutely terrible (stealth dogs are hilarious!), and the level design is rudimentary at best, it's like playing a PS2 game at times for those things it's all really archaic.

Still, it's a very well built game in terms of atmosphere and it's keeping me interested even if the story beats aren't as good as the first. I love the birthday flashback too, it was very feels

Oh and no signs of these nasty "agendas" either!

Click to expand...

Decided to have my first run through on hard and honestly it's not in anyway challenging yet, beyond Dina being a idiot and shooting a clicker or runner as I'm about the stealth kill them.

All but one of the deaths I've had have been caused by the companion AI making some questionable decisions.

I'm extremely glad I waited for my TV to arrive to play it though. It's worth the price of admission alone.

I've died 4 times on hard and 2 of those were me thinking "Will I die if I jump down there? ....Yep."

Shane88 said:

I've died 4 times on hard and 2 of those were me thinking "Will I die if I jump down there? ....Yep."

Click to expand...

You play better when you don’t think.

b82REZ said:

Decided to have my first run through on hard and honestly it's not in anyway challenging yet, beyond Dina being a idiot and shooting a clicker or runner as I'm about the stealth kill them.

All but one of the deaths I've had have been caused by the companion AI making some questionable decisions.

I'm extremely glad I waited for my TV to arrive to play it though. It's worth the price of admission alone.

Click to expand...

Shane88 said:

I've died 4 times on hard and 2 of those were me thinking "Will I die if I jump down there? ....Yep."

Click to expand...

Yeah on surviver almost every single one of my deaths have been down to science.

I think I've died maybe 2 times purely down to Dina. Since being solo, I've enjoyed it more and only died when I've experimented with what you can do with the dogs (giggity).

It's not a tough game at all. But then it doesn't really need to be, the atmosphere makes it scary enough.

Love the little detail upgrading the weapons. Putting on extra attachments you can actually see. Halfway through the game again for the 2nd time. Just rushing through it so I can get the Collectibles and get the platinum. Then I’ll play it one last time after that.

AaronRedDevil said:

Love the little detail upgrading the weapons. Putting on extra attachments you can actually see. Halfway through the game again for the 2nd time. Just rushing through it so I can get the Collectibles and get the platinum. Then I’ll play it one last time after that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the upgrades themselves are a bit shit and mostly pointless, but the little touches in visuals are very well done.

Redlambs said:

Yeah, the upgrades themselves are a bit shit and mostly pointless, but the little touches in visuals are very well done.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say useless. The scope is good. And less recoil. The gun waving bugs the hell out of me.

AaronRedDevil said:

I wouldn't say useless. The scope is good. And less recoil. The gun waving bugs the hell out of me.

Click to expand...

I didn't say useless though

But take the scope, it is a bit pointless. At least so far for me. I haven't got it yet as there's no need, even the longest encounters are at mid-range (end of map to end of map) at most and it's easy enough to headshot without it. Maybe there's a section or 2 up ahead made for sniping, but I can't see anything more than that. In a game built for stealth and close encounters, a 6x scope is pointless. But maybe not entirely useless.

I think I've upgraded capacity on the pistol and damage on the 6 shooter (which again seems pointless) and that's it. I can't see myself bothering further than that for now.

Redlambs said:

I didn't say useless though

But take the scope, it is a bit pointless. At least so far for me. I haven't got it yet as there's no need, even the longest encounters are at mid-range (end of map to end of map) at most and it's easy enough to headshot without it. Maybe there's a section or 2 up ahead made for sniping, but I can't see anything more than that. In a game built for stealth and close encounters, a 6x scope is pointless. But maybe not entirely useless.

I think I've upgraded capacity on the pistol and damage on the 6 shooter (which again seems pointless) and that's it. I can't see myself bothering further than that for now.

Click to expand...

I'd definitely get a scope for the rifle. You might need it at one section.

AaronRedDevil said:

I'd definitely get a scope for the rifle. You might need it at one section.

Click to expand...

I have about 300 scrap

I want to know how Ellie hasn't developed a drug addiction with all the pills she pops to upgrade herself.

While the vast majority of reviews have lavished The Last of Us Part 2 with all sorts of praise, a handful of outlets — Polygon included — have been slightly more critical of the blockbuster game. According to Zacny, Vice’s review prompted a Sony representative to reach out on behalf of Naughty Dog.

“They felt some of the conclusions I reached in my review were unfair and dismissed some meaningful changes or improvements,” Zacny told Polygon over Twitter messages.

Zacny clarified that the exchange wasn’t “confrontational,” but that it was nonetheless “unusual,” as the site doesn’t typically have big publishers asking in an official capacity why a review reads the way it does. Such things can happen, of course, though often with smaller developers, or from publishers who have spotted a factual error in a piece that they want corrected.

“I was happy to unpack a bit of my reasoning, however, and received a perfectly cordial message in response,” Zacny said. Naughty Dog’s PR team declined to comment on Polygon’s inquiry about its exchange with Vice

Click to expand...

https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/30/2...hty-dog-vice-review-leak-sony-ps4-playstation

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Baker comes across as a twat there. Not the first time apparently too.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Bojan11 said:

https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/30/2...hty-dog-vice-review-leak-sony-ps4-playstation

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Baker comes across as a twat there. Not the first time apparently too.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Click to expand...

The conspiracy theory is they have to match or better the first game's metacritic score (95) for bonuses to kick in. I remember Bethesda wormed out of giving employees bonuses because one of their games missed the metacritic target by one percent.

Shane88 said:

The conspiracy theory is they have to match or better the first game's metacritic score (95) for bonuses to kick in. I remember Bethesda wormed out of giving employees bonuses because one of their games missed the metacritic target by one percent.

Click to expand...

Surely bonuses would be based on sales targets, no? Metascore would be a bizarre criterion.

Ainu said:

Surely bonuses would be based on sales targets, no? Metascore would be a bizarre criterion.

Click to expand...

I know, it's a strange way to determine it but apparently it's a thing...

Contracts use Metacritic thresholds to determine developer bonuses? If your threshold is 85 and you get an 84 - no bonus?!

I was surprised how many people didn't know this or didn't want to believe it. It's all too true and all too common. You can say until you're blue in the face that Metacritic is designed to assist players in finding games they want to play. It may have started out that way. The people who run it may think it's still that way. The fact is it's a tool - a weapon - wielded with a heavy hand by publishers. Developers sign away bonuses on Metacritic scores for games that don't even exist as a single page concept doc. If you believe in the validity of review aggregation that may not sound like such a bad deal - the people who pay for a game should base bonuses on some measurable standard. But if you (a) don't believe in Metacritic's validity or (b) know how freakin' hard a team has to work to make even a “bad” game, that one-point Metacritic score difference means a lot.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...ilbag-publishers-using-metacritic-as-a-weapon

Click to expand...

Bojan11 said:

https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/30/2...hty-dog-vice-review-leak-sony-ps4-playstation

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Baker comes across as a twat there. Not the first time apparently too.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Click to expand...

There is history with Jason and Neil. Jason leaked how ND are crunching which quite frankly everyone do in industry. If you think how companies get you shiny new phones in 6 months then you would know how crunching is the norm and not how Jason put it " Naughty Dog problem".

Vice review was the worst one out there. Sony only contacted them and there is not even a mention of what was discussed apart from disagreement. The journalist just took Sony and Naughty dog and got the attention which was originally intended. Polygon and Skillup also gave them bad review but they weren't contacted.

Also Sony is not the only company which follows with reviewers. There is nothing wrong in following up. If journalist was intimidated, then it's wrong. But all that journalist mentioned was they contacted, which could be absolutely anything. Naughty dog are easy target just like Rockstar to get attention

pratyush_utd said:

There is history with Jason and Neil. Jason leaked how ND are crunching which quite frankly everyone do in industry. If you think how companies get you shiny new phones in 6 months then you would know how crunching is the norm and not how Jason put it " Naughty Dog problem".

Vice review was the worst one out there. Sony only contacted them and there is not even a mention of what was discussed apart from disagreement. The journalist just took Sony and Naughty dog and got the attention which was originally intended. Polygon and Skillup also gave them bad review but they weren't contacted.

Also Sony is not the only company which follows with reviewers. There is nothing wrong in following up. If journalist was intimidated, then it's wrong. But all that journalist mentioned was they contacted, which could be absolutely anything. Naughty dog are easy target just like Rockstar to get attention

Click to expand...

Calm down, very defensive of Sony or anything naughty dog related aren’t you?

Rockstar have changed their attitude due the pressure by the gaming media. They have made changes.
https://kotaku.com/18-months-after-red-dead-redemption-2-rockstar-has-mad-1842880524


Naughty Dog staff were doing crunch and weren’t even getting paid overtime.

I know the history between Jason and Neil. Having a go at Jason because he’s calling out Naughty Dog or any other company is ridiculous from you. And no he hasn’t just called out Naughty Dog over it. He’s called out several companies. Yeah IPhones are made in shitty work conditions that doesn’t make it alright. Everyone can improve. Rockstar have improved from pressure, so can other companies. What’s your problem with that? Unless you a blind fanboy you’d want every gaming company to improve their working conditions.

Also can’t believe you are defending a company contacting a reviewer over reviews. It’s their opinion. Companies shouldn’t be contacting them unless they gave mis-information out. And why was the Vice review the worst out the lot? Because you didn’t agree with it? You are as bad as that Geko. Reviews are opinion pieces, try not to get worked up over them.

Also Jason just had to say video games are too long and then Baker comes out with the biggest overreaction ever. Opinions. People are allowed them.

Having worked in the industry and still with plenty of friends in it, I can outright say feck you if you think crunchtime is fair.

You wouldn't be happy in your own job having to do ridiculous hours for no extra pay just because a bunch of know-nothings decided this was the amount of time you had to do a project, then kept changing the scope, all whilst happily planning to feck you off if it went wrong. (Btw Sony are up there in the cnut stakes on suddenly shutting down teams for no good reason, ask the Wipeout boys).

People think it's such a dream job making games for a living, and yeah it used to be great. But just like any other job, it's hijacked by money men who don't give a feck about you and just expect crunch time as part of the job because, well, it's always been the way innit.

Bojan11 said:

Calm down, very defensive of Sony or anything naughty dog related aren’t you?

Rockstar have changed their attitude due the pressure by the gaming media. They have made changes.
https://kotaku.com/18-months-after-red-dead-redemption-2-rockstar-has-mad-1842880524


Naughty Dog staff were doing crunch and weren’t even getting paid overtime.

I know the history between Jason and Neil. Having a go at Jason because he’s calling out Naughty Dog or any other company is ridiculous from you. And no he hasn’t just called out Naughty Dog over it. He’s called out several companies. Yeah IPhones are made in shitty work conditions that doesn’t make it alright. Everyone can improve. Rockstar have improved from pressure, so can other companies. What’s your problem with that? Unless you a blind fanboy you’d want every gaming company to improve their working conditions.

Also can’t believe you are defending a company contacting a reviewer over reviews. It’s their opinion. Companies shouldn’t be contacting them unless they gave mis-information out. And why was the Vice review the worst out the lot? Because you didn’t agree with it? You are as bad as that Geko. Reviews are opinion pieces, try not to get worked up over them.

Also Jason just had to say video games are too long and then Baker comes out with the biggest overreaction ever. Opinions. People are allowed them.

Click to expand...

I am not defending anyone. You just posted a tweet next to no context. Jason has been bullying one reviewer for having an opinion of comparing the game with a movie. Using every opportunity to shit on Naught Dog so recently Neil and Cory ( Santa Monica Studio) finally responded. That context was missing.

Vice review was negative interms of criticism. Not that I am accusing them of bias. I don't know why you got so angry ( maybe I didn't explain it well). I didn't say I didn't like their review. Sony has always followed up with reviewers, and this isnt such a big deal. Microsoft,EA and other big companies have done the same. Microsoft even reneged on deal after the guy they hired for fair review didn't write the review they wanted.


Also I don't think Crunching is fair. But the way it has been mentioned as if it is exclusive problem to Naughty Dog is wrong. This is mostly the perception if you read gaming forums out there after Jason article. I work at one of the leading Mobile Processor company and fill out work time sheet as 8 hours for Monday to Friday but our work mostly take 12-13 Horus a day ( more during tape outs) and for months there are no weekends. So I will be last guy who actually defends any company for crunch time. It's just felt like a hit piece against Naughty Dog at that time.

Edit :

Reference for MS reneging the deal with a reviewer


Sorry for so many edits as I am typing on Phone.

pratyush_utd said:

I am not defending anyone. You just posted a tweet next to no context.

Vice review was negative interms of criticism. Not that I am accusing them of bias. I don't know why you got so angry ( maybe I didn't explain it well). I didn't say I didn't like their review. Sony has always followed up with reviewers, and this isnt such a big deal. Microsoft,EA and other big companies have done the same. Microsoft even reneged on deal after the guy they hired for fair review didn't write the review they wanted.


Also I don't think Crunching is fair. But the way it has been mentioned as if it is exclusive problem to Naughty Dog is wrong. This is mostly the perception if you read gaming forums out there after Jason article. I work at one of the leading Mobile Processor company and fill out work time sheet as 8 hours for Monday to Friday but our work mostly take 12-13 Horus a day ( more during tape outs) and for months there are no weekends. So I will be last guy who actually defends any company for crunch time. It's just felt like a hit piece against Naughty Dog at that time.

Click to expand...

It’s not a hit piece against naughty dog though. Jason has called out several companies over it. He’s one of the best gaming journalists regarding issues like this.

So what if he’s only calling out naughty dog over it? If they are doing it then feck them. Why defend them? If someone calls out EA sports only over micro transactions, I wouldn’t give a shit. Good on the gaming media for doing their job.

You don’t think crunching is fair. Then why try to justify it by saying how iPhones are made within 6 months. That’s a strange comment.

Companies shouldn’t be calling out reviewers non stop. Why are you defending this again by saying because someone else does it that’s it’s ok. It’s never ok if MS, Sony or Nintendo do it. In this case we are discussing last of us because we are in the last of us thread.

Your logic is someone does crunching it’s ok. Another company calls out reviewers then it’s ok. Make your mind up. Are you against these things or not? Don’t try justifying it by saying others do it. So it’s ok then.

It was not just Jason calling them out. It was their own animator who left that was calling them out on Twitter.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Reviews are opinions. If we all said the same thing on here the forum would be boring. If Geko got banned from here this thread would be boring.

Bojan11 said:

It’s not a hit piece against naughty dog though. Jason has called out several companies over it. He’s one of the best gaming journalists regarding issues like this.

So what if he’s only calling out naughty dog over it? If they are doing it then feck them. Why defend them? If someone calls out EA sports only over micro transactions, I wouldn’t give a shit. Good on the gaming media for doing their job.

You don’t think crunching is fair. Then why try to justify it by saying how iPhones are made within 6 months. That’s a strange comment.

Companies shouldn’t be calling out reviewers non stop. Why are you defending this again by saying because someone else does it that’s it’s ok. It’s never ok if MS, Sony or Nintendo do it. In this case we are discussing last of us because we are in the last of us thread.

Your logic is someone does crunching it’s ok. Another company calls out reviewers then it’s ok. Make your mind up. Are you against these things or not? Don’t try justifying it by saying others do it. So it’s ok then.

It was not just Jason calling them out. It was their own animator who left that was calling them out on Twitter.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Reviews are opinions. If we all said the same thing on here the forum would be boring. If Geko got banned from here this thread would be boring.

Click to expand...

I never said it was okay. It's just weird that they get called out for that while almost every company out there is doing this and nobody even mentions it. I gave iPhone or Android phone just as an example. I hardly see people bringing it up to shoot their work. In every negative review, Naughty Dog crunch culture was brought up. I don't see that happening with Apple or Qualcomm latest Processor. It was just an observation and not defense of crunch culture. Maybe it came out as bias towards Sony or Naughty Dog which isn't the case.

Anyway let's leave at that as it is derailing the thread.

Also I watched that MS vid. Already one minute in and he’s being homophobic and going on about how you can go on Xbox live to go call black people pee pee head? Really? Only a man child would watch that guy by the looks of that video.

I can see within the first minute why they cancelled the deal and I would have done the same.

pratyush_utd said:

I never said it was okay. It's just weird that they get called out for that while almost every company out there is doing this and nobody even mentions it. I gave iPhone or Android phone just as an example. I hardly see people bringing it up to shoot their work. In every negative review, Naughty Dog crunch culture was brought up. I don't see that happening with Apple or Qualcomm latest Processor. It was just an observation and not defense of crunch culture. Maybe it came out as bias towards Sony or Naughty Dog which isn't the case.

Anyway let's leave at that as it is derailing the thread.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, Dunkey's humor, while sometimes brilliant, is always crude. He frequently uses racist, sexist and ableist language. In one of his more high-profile and least auspicious moments, Dunkey was banned for hate-speech from the online multiplayer game League Of Legends, one of the games he covered the most extensively. He later defended his abusive language as part of the game, doubling down on a position that's increasingly indefensible. That stance says a lot about where he's coming from, as he stubbornly upholds the patriarchal assumption that it's okay for video games to reinforce white-male-dominated space. Though he doesn't seem to harbor hate for anyone in particular, he's certainly not playing by anyone's, much less Madison's, liberal standards of basic decency when he's calling other players faggots and pussies.

Click to expand...

That’s the guy you posted videos from. He sounds a lot worse than Geko.

The shocking thing for me is how a company like Microsoft didn’t do any research on this guy before letting him make videos for them.

Late game spoilers

el3mel said:

Late game spoilers

Spoiler: Late game spoilers

I'm at the beginning of Santa Barbara at the moment, just regained control of Ellie after yet another short segment with Abby. I just don't get why the feck the game is trying so much to force me to think Abby is the better character out of the 2, while Ellie is the real devil who just seeked revenge and killed a pregnant woman and stuff, while Abby is a real hero who saved 2 scars, their enemy and refused to kill Dina at the end, or even Ellie, and let them live. All Abby's journey so far has been as if they are trying to make me feel much more connection with her than Ellie. I like to have gray characters all around but Ellie has done nothing right since the beginning of the game so far, and Abby looks like the real hero of the game.

Let's see how this is going to end and better be a good ending.

Click to expand...

Yahtzee's review. Contains spoilers.

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/the-last-of-us-part-ii-zero-punctuation/

And AJ's

Completed the game for the second time. Took 14hours rushing it to get the collectables. Of course I'd miss just one in Downtown the biggest area.

Still really like the game and even better a second time, when you notice things more.

evil_geko said:

And AJ's

Click to expand...

Does he do a good job at explaining all the agendas none of us have encountered yet? Or is this, as I expect, you trying to justify your "criticism" by posting a negative review to try and imply that is what you meant all along?

Shamana said:

Yahtzee's review. Contains spoilers.

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/the-last-of-us-part-ii-zero-punctuation/

Click to expand...

Yeah, he calls the A.I "surprisingly dynamic" which is laughable, but what's sad is he makes reference to the Lesbian aspect twice.

I'm not interested in that kind of edgy gamer-bro bullshit, no one should be.

b82REZ said:

Does he do a good job at explaining all the agendas none of us have encountered yet? Or is this, as I expect, you trying to justify your "criticism" by posting a negative review to try and imply that is what you meant all along?

Click to expand...

Bingo

Redlambs said:

Yeah, he calls the A.I "surprisingly dynamic" which is laughable, but what's sad is he makes reference to the Lesbian aspect twice.

I'm not interested in that kind of edgy gamer-bro bullshit, no one should be.

Click to expand...

I'm actually quite surprised by some of his comments and I expect there to be some backlash on him. I like Yhatzee even though he plays up massively now on the slagging games off.

But yes the AI is fecking stupid, but like you've alluded to earlier, little touches like them screaming out names etc make it seem much more dynamic than it actually is.

So far the game is exactly as I expected, a slightly above average action adventure with passable stealth mechanics which is graphically a cut above anything else this gen. So basically the exact same as the first one.

Redlambs said:

Yeah, he calls the A.I "surprisingly dynamic" which is laughable, but what's sad is he makes reference to the Lesbian aspect twice.

I'm not interested in that kind of edgy gamer-bro bullshit, no one should be.

Click to expand...

Yahtzee for me is more there for comedy relief for than anything else. In a AAA game where 2 of the main characters are lesbian and another is trans of course he is going to mention it.

Shamana said:

Yahtzee for me is more there for comedy relief for than anything else. In a AAA game where 2 of the main characters are lesbian and another is trans of course he is going to mention it.

Click to expand...

Why? What difference does it make? And why in a negative way?

It's that kind of shit attitude that makes things worse. Plus he spends most of the time bitching about that and the story, but somehow forgets to talk about the game problems. Maybe because he clearly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, and just wants to imply they've taken their eye off the ball just to include "minorities".

It's a trash review.

evil_geko said:

And AJ's

Click to expand...

That was actually quite funny & I enjoyed it, as I usually do like his reviews and how he uses the full review point scale. I don't agree with some of his issues and he does make some good points that have made me think, but if anyone's watched him stream a game he always strikes me as someone who has the emotionnal maturity of a 10 year old while playing it but then in a review he will actually make very good & thoughtful points.

Yer fella Alex hasn't been a good addition to the team imo he doesn't realy seem to like anything. All of them don't seem to be very good at actually playing games either which I find hilarious for someone so successful. In his Uncharted 4 review for example it looked like he played the whole game with auto aim on

ArmandTamzarian said:

Yer fella Alex hasn't been a good addition to the team imo he doesn't realy seem to like anything. All of them don't seem to be very good at actually playing games either which I find hilarious for someone so successful. In his Uncharted 4 review for example it looked like he played the whole game with auto aim on

Click to expand...

Aye, Alex is a fecking grumpy McGrumpster who doesn't like anything, I am not some avid AJ watcher, but whenever I did, I haven't seen him like literally anything, all doom and gloom.

Redlambs said:

Why? What difference does it make? And why in a negative way?

It's that kind of shit attitude that makes things worse. Plus he spends most of the time bitching about that and the story, but somehow forgets to talk about the game problems. Maybe because he clearly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, and just wants to imply they've taken their eye off the ball just to include "minorities".

It's a trash review.

Click to expand...

I just think he's pointing out that in his opinion one of the hyped sequels to a game loved because of its story and character, the fact that 3 of the main characters were non-heterosexual failed to make the story or characters better written or more interesting. But yeah there is a reason why Yahtzee's reviews are mainly only 5 minutes long, but he is mainly there for comic relief, he sometimes makes some good points, but I don't take him too seriously.

Shamana said:

I just think he's pointing out that in his opinion one of the hyped sequels to a game loved because of its story and character, the fact that 3 of the main characters were non-heterosexual failed to make the story or characters better written or more interesting. But yeah there is a reason why Yahtzee's reviews are mainly only 5 minutes long, but he is mainly there for comic relief, he sometimes makes some good points, but I don't take him too seriously.

Click to expand...

I don't see the value of such an opinion. In fact that's the crux of the issue, the idea that "fitting in" non-straight characters should somehow have an added value to the story, because it "deviates" from the norm and therefore should be have some justification. Anyone perpetuating that idea actively harms inclusion and diversity and should never be dismissed as comic relief.

Shamana said:

I just think he's pointing out that in his opinion one of the hyped sequels to a game loved because of its story and character, the fact that 3 of the main characters were non-heterosexual failed to make the story or characters better written or more interesting. But yeah there is a reason why Yahtzee's reviews are mainly only 5 minutes long, but he is mainly there for comic relief, he sometimes makes some good points, but I don't take him too seriously.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't read like that, it reads as if he thinks they are focusing on it and it's hurting the game. Answer me this, would you have the same opinion if he said the same about black characters? Think about it.

In any case, not that I'm digging you out mate, it's just a perfect example of why gaming culture is seen as increasingly toxic. Thing is, it's such an easy thing to change and it wouldn't hurt anyone for that to be different, no? I mean take out those stupid little unneccesary comments and it's the exact same review. He's pandering to gamer-bros, the exact type who bitch and moan about agendas then want to claim "jokes!" when called out.

You can be funny, or faux angry about things without being a bigot.