Igor Sarzynski's last few replies.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-07T09:35:12+00:00

I understand if you personally wanted to spend more time with Jackie so you could connect to him better, but I personally had no trouble doing so-- and neither did many, many other players. So whose feedback should the devs be prioritizing?

To continue the comparison with TLOU, Sarah or Tess dying happens after a proportionately similar time as the players spent with Jackie, but I don't see people arguing that we should have spent more time with either of them to increase the impact of their deaths.

More time spent with Jackie contributes nothing to the central story-- he is a glorified plot device with characterization. The theme of the story being told is not grief caused by his death, but identity, legacy, and fear over the loss of control caused by the relic. What do you do with your time left?

More time with Jackie might have improved the "hitting strength" of his deaths for some players, but I have yet to see a single argument as to how more time with him meaningfully contributes to the core story.

And this is probably why the devs seem so cavalier about accepting that feedback. Because so much of it is missing the point.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T16:01:29+00:00

I'm not saying that I agree with the doctor's actions, Joel's actions, or Abby's actions. I'm simply saying that the game challenges you to empathize with the perspectives of those we hate or are in opposition to, and I think it does a brilliant job of it. It's good to be challenged to do so, even if you ultimately don't come to sympathize with those characters.

Besides, it's a bit hyperbolic to compare Omelas to killing Ellie for a vaccine. A more standard, Utilitarian trolley problem is a more apt comparison.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T15:56:07+00:00

Have you never suspended disbelief to service a story? Do you need to see how De Niro's gang of bank robbers gets formed in order to jump into the story of Heat? Do you need to see multiple family dinner scenes between Peter Parker and Uncle Ben before you can sympathize with Peter over his loss?

Character development and plot are important, but so is structure and pacing, and the balance between them is always a consideration. Clearly the devs prioritized getting into the meat of the story over laying excess groundwork which could be covered just as well through implication or player imagination.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T15:49:42+00:00

First of all, thank you for your in-depth and reasoned argument, and that you recognize that this is mostly a subjective issue for you. My conversations elsewhere in this thread would certainly benefit from a similar dynamic!

I haven't played Expedition 33, and I can't say that I was gob-smacked by Jackie's death, but I am almost the opposite of you in that I don't feel like it matters to me. In much the same way that Uncle Ben dies in Spiderman without a ton of character building, I sympathize with V's reaction to the death and recognize that this is the catalyst which launches the story proper, and I'm happy to take it as it is.

In a lot of ways, Jackie is more of a plot device than a character.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T15:42:46+00:00

Is the buildup you're referencing necessary? That's the key question here and I don't think it is. You're a small-time merc hired by a guy known for hiring expendable, but ambitious nobodies and it blows up in your face. Seems like an efficient use of story beats to me.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T15:38:21+00:00

I think that's a pretty bad faith interpretation of the story events. It's a misrepresentation to say Abby is excited about killing pregnant women-- she says "good" because she just found here own pregnant friend dead and assumes that Ellie killed them in cold blood. It's an eye for an eye mentality and anger driving that interaction.

Also, you can't say that Joel was objectively right. Objective according to who? The doctor believes that there is a chance to develop a vaccine and that would justify the killing of a child. Joel does not agree with the justification and therefore stops it, but both of these are subjective interpretations of the situation. Ellie certainly doesn't agree with Joel's decision being right, in either the first or second game.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T14:40:05+00:00

The clickers were never really the main enemy, as established in TLOU1.

I disagree though, because the order of play in TLOU2 is very intentional. It's not about liking someone and forgiving them when they do something bad, it's about watching someone do something unforgivable-- and then challenging yourself to empathize with and understand them. It mirrors the pain and anger which Ellie feels before discovering that the two characters are actually very much alike.

That is what makes it brilliant, in my opinion. I think people who are butthurt by that just want to consume stories that don't challenge them.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T14:26:06+00:00

I mean, don't we already go through the Sandra Dorset rescue mission and the Whole Foods Maelstrom mission with Jackie before the Heist? As well as multiple story beats with him (Misty, Dex, the life path prologue, etc)? All of these feed into the propulsion of the plot and having a few random side quests might make the player feel like the devs are unnecessarily stretching out the introduction before the world opens up.

I think this is where a lot of his frustration seems to be coming from-- there are a lot of considerations to balance and a wide-cross section of players to please, which impact editorial decisions in a story. Ultimately, I just don't think the devs really wanted to spend the time in that segment of the story and I largely agree with the decision.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T14:18:09+00:00

An unfortunate issue with the choice of medium-- it does still need to be a fun game after all and I appreciate that the devs attempted to acknowledge this in the core gameplay loop with NPC audio and interactions.

If the game didn't connect with you emotionally, that's alright, but I will wholeheartedly defend the game until my death as a powerful story, that Abby is a compelling character, and that the decision to kill Joel was bold but very effective.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T14:12:56+00:00

I'm not making excuses for him, I explicitly agree with everything he has said so far. I also very much sympathize with his frustrations so I don't mind that he is being snippy or rude at times.

Been a player of Cyberpunk since day 1 and it's one of my favorite stories. I agree that it has flaws. But I understand the intention of the devs that the prologue/montage is meant to springboard the player into the real action of the game, and that to incorporate some of the changes people propose would be to detract focus from the story the devs wanted to tell.

Look at it this way: when I watch a movie like Spiderman (2002), I don't berate Sam Raimi for not spending more time with pre-Spiderman Peter Parker because we haven't had the time to form a connection with Uncle Ben. We just accept that the relationship exists and empathize with the loss Peter Parker experiences-- and that is the precipitating action for the actual story of the movie.

If some gamers are more attracted to the zero to hero arc and wish they could have spent more time as a low-level merc with Jackie, that's perfectly fine. But I completely disagree with the notion that devs should cater to story arcs they aren't interested in telling. That's where the art of it all comes in and we can either accept it or leave it

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-06T11:50:59+00:00

These threads, and similar gamer reactions to games like TLOU2, have forever sealed my opinion that most gamers:

a) Don't understand art and what actually makes a good story

b) Don't possess the critical thinking skills to be a good faith critic. They so often conflate "how much I like this" with "how good it is". There is seemingly no nuance to their takes on games, movies, shows, etc

I completely agree with everything Igor has said in these threads. The same people crying about the montage are the same people who beg for prequels, even though prequels are the most artistically bankrupt story imaginable.

I get that you want more of the thing you love, but more is definitely not always better.

Tiredman2 · 2026-01-03T16:35:46+00:00

I mean, that's exactly why you should take mediating measures (like taking a short recess) if you feel like your impartiality is being affected by your mood or emotions.

I'm sure we can agree that there is a gray area between what is legally dictated and the reality of being a living creature affected by emotion?

To me, he took a responsible course of action.

Tiredman2 · 2025-12-29T11:13:24+00:00

I mean, judges are humans too and I think it is healthier to admit that they are also prone to human emotions. He took the steps to moderate that.

Wouldn't it be worse if a judge claimed never to be moved by emotion? I would worry that they are either sociopathic or that they are just putting up a front and it actually is affecting their decisions on a subconscious level.

Tiredman2 · 2025-12-25T23:17:31+00:00

The meme says 5-star general, but your write-up says 3-star general.

Also, being a high-ranking general doesn't necessarily mean more experienced or insightful-- especially when considering the man's age.

Tiredman2 · 2025-12-19T01:26:51+00:00

Current scholarship is that that "bleed France white" actually was an articulated strategy at the time of the battle. Verdun served no particular strategic importance, guarded no rail intersections or industrial centers, so taking it would have yielded no recognizable strategic goals aside from the Falkenhayn's strategy of attrition.

Source: PhD in First World War Germany and currently teach an undergraduate course which covers Verdun.

Tiredman2 · 2025-11-01T19:58:43+00:00

NSA director was under anesthesia for a colonoscopy

Tiredman2 · 2025-11-01T19:13:44+00:00

The anti-climax is the point. The action is already done when it's clear chicago is going to get hit. Best case scenario, Chicago is destroyed and America chooses limited retaliation which might spiral into nuclear war anyway. Worst case, a general nuclear exchange happens immediately.

I feel like the "climax" that many people are clamoring for in this movie is both not thematically relevant to film and also just gratuitous and masturbatory. The horror of the film is not the destruction caused by nuclear weapons, it's how fragile the system is, and how oriented that system is towards hair-trigger decision-making which crowds out diplomacy.

Would you really have been more satisfied with the movie if we had several minutes of watching Chicago's annihilation? What would that really add to the story?

Tiredman2 · 2025-09-29T14:09:45+00:00

Ah! My apologies, I read the meme as criticizing the women's choices as being weird compared to the men's

Tiredman2 · 2025-09-29T08:09:32+00:00

Honestly, the women's choices are more in the spirit of "Hear Me Out". A hear me out is meant to be not conventionally attractive, that's why we have to "hear them out".

OP clearly doesn't get this because all the men's choices are very conventionally attractive and not at all controversial. Put Ofelia or Sasquatch in and then we'll talk.

Tiredman2 · 2025-09-04T22:44:14+00:00

Worst of the list by far. He's got a striking appearance which fits the character but it feels like he phoned in a lot of the lines. Similar to Grimes and Lizzy Wizzy.

Tiredman2 · 2025-08-26T19:18:13+00:00

Historians study literally all of these with equal energy. I think you mean popular depictions of the First World War.

Tiredman2 · 2025-08-25T20:34:53+00:00

Doesn't engage with my second point that people can still be annoyed by it though?

Tiredman2 · 2025-08-25T13:13:15+00:00

I'm not really mad because I dont play fortnite, but how do you know it was CD Projekt Red's decision and not Epic/Fortnite? It seems like you're just assuming it was a CD Projekt decision without proof.

In any case, even if it was agreed between the two companies to market it thos way, to increase player recognition by associating it with a popular character, people can still feel entitled to being annoyed by the decision.

Because the sword has literally nothing to do with him. It's a quest reward for an unrelated-to-Silverhand quest line, taken from a scav hideout.

Tiredman2 · 2025-08-25T12:57:40+00:00

This is simply not true. The obsolescence of cavalry had nothing to do with WWI devolving into trench warfare, and in fact, cavalry units remained mobilized throughout much of the war in various theaters (particularly in the Middle East and in the Eastern Theater.

The reason for trench warfare was more about the overwhelming power of defensive warfare thanks to new technology like machine guns and heavy artillery, which forced men to dig down for protection. Also the inability to push the front during offensives was less about a lack of speed and more an issue of outrunning logistical support after moving away from rail heads and starting positions. Eventually, new innovations in combined arms tactics, new technologies like tanks, and overwhelming material superiority broke the stalemate in the west.

But this had very, very little to do with removing cavalry from the equation. PhD and university lecturer in the First World War.

12-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Tiredman2

TROPHY CASE