It has since been revealed that the lead developer has - or had - some sort of affiliation/sympathy with the Gamergate movement. Yes: just when you thought that they'd scurried away to support Trump... it transpires that Gamergate is still out there, still causing a stink, and its opponents are still kicking off whenever its name is mentioned.
Off the back of this revelation about The Last Night, Zoe Quinn - the independent developer and Gamergate flashpoint, whom I'm sure you don't need me to remind you about - has advocated boycotting it. And off the back of that, Notch - the hat-wearing idiot creator of Minecraft - decided to call her a "c*nt" on Twitter.
Now, the C-word is considered bad enough in the UK, but the American use of the word - in the way that it was seemingly applied in this instance (despite Notch not being American, and always wearing that stupid hat) - is several degrees more offensive.
In short: it's not a very nice thing to say to anyone, least of all a woman.
It saddens me that Gamergate is still rumbling along. I watched - well, skimmed - one video off the back of this latest brouhaha, which had some godawful white male nerd bringing up everything that kicked it off years ago. Once again, it was as if he had been personally slighted by the alleged behaviour of Zoe Quinn, and simply hadn't been able to move on.
Zoe Quinn can be annoying. I understand that. I think she's made as many problems for herself as those she's had to deal with unfairly. But for Notch... the zillionaire grotesque creator of potentially the biggest game of the last ten years to wade into this and call her names? Well, that's just tragic. You've got to feel for him. All the money in the world hasn't done anything to fix his awful personality issues.
But what this brings up for me is this: can, and should, we enjoy games that are made by people whose views we don't agree with?
Will I still be able to play and enjoy The Last Night?
Confession: I've seen Gary Glitter in concert.
In fact, he was the first pop star I was ever a fan of - but I couldn't listen to his records now any more than I could watch an episode of Jim'll Fix It. It doesn't make songs like Hello Hello I'm Back Again and I'm The Leader Of The Gang I Am any less good - but it's impossible, for me at least, to separate them from the man who made them.
That's an extreme example, of course; Glitter and Savile were convicted of disgusting crimes, rather than holding certain opinions that I don't agree with.
I don't want to consider what I'd do if one of my favourite musical acts was revealed to be a paedophile - although there are plenty of questions hanging over, say, Michael Jackson. Still, given that he was never convicted of anything means that I can still enjoy his music... but I can't listen to Don't Stop 'Till You Get Enough without wondering whether there was substance to those questions.
And that's a shame, because it was - maybe still is, I dunno - one of my favourite songs.
I voted Labour in last week's General Election, but lots of people I know voted Conservative. However, that isn't going to colour my view of them as people. Well, maybe it will slightly, but it wouldn't be a deal breaker. My oldest friend was once a Conversative councillor, and it never affected our friendship one bit. In fact, I admired his principles and reasons for moving into politics, and admired him even more when he chose to get out.
Political affiliations - at least, providing those affiliations aren't towards more extreme political movements - are at the other end to paedophilia on the what-might-be-unacceptable scale.
Gamergate - and its own satellite affiliations - for me, falls somewhere in the middle, leaning slightly towards the more extreme end. Unfortunately, there are such out-of-control passions from both sides that finding any nuance or moderate ground, and getting through the enflamed emotions and dog-whistling to the truth, is usually impossible.
The Gamergate reaction to Zoe Quinn highlighting the alleged Gamergate background of The Last Night's developer has been completely over-the-top.
They've accused her of "bullying" him - poor little snowflakes that they are - and from what I can gather she did nothing of the sort. I concede she might well have overreacted - it wouldn't be the first time - but bullying? Hardly.
Nonetheless, for the corpulent onanist Notch to then wade in, for Gamergate commentators to start abusing her on videos once again... it's just tiresome, and galling. If that isn't bullying, I don't know what is. As before, it's like they're poised on a knife-edge, just waiting for their "enemy" to screw up, so that they have an excuse to pile onto her. To say there isn't misogyny involved is pointless.
By the same token, Tim Soret - the developer Quinn and others have taken issue with - has certainly been piled upon rather too gleefully by some of those who stand opposed to Gamergate. I mean, at least one of his 2014 Twitter comments - an off-hand remark about the work of Anita Sarkeesian consisting of "saying video games are making you sexist" - is one I can, I admit, broadly agree with (and don't get me started on Brianna Wu bringing the Manchester suicide bombings back around to "sexism"...).
Three years ago, when Tim Soret's comments first came to light - before being dug up again this week - he sought to defend these comments on the IdleThumbs forum, decrying harassment of women, and beginning a long statement with: "I am for a better representation of women in video games. I want more female characters, written to be interesting & less cliché, and I also want more female developers in the industry."
From reading his original Tweets, I saw little in there that felt particularly extreme, though his wording was doubtlessly clumsy and naive, and the affiliation with Gamergate is, of course, loaded and raises all sorts of questions.
As the PR nightmare threatened to consume The Last Night, its publisher issued a statement: "We at Raw Fury believe in equality, believe in feminism, and believe everyone has a right and chance at the equal pursuit of happiness. We would not be working with Tim Soret/Odd Tales at all if we believed they were against these principles in any aspect.
"The comments Tim made in 2014 are certainly surprising and don’t fit the person we know, and we hope that everyone reading this who knows us at Raw Fury on a personal and professional level knows that we wouldn’t tolerate working with someone who portrays the caricature of Tim going around the internet right now."
It continued: "The wording of his statements toward feminism in 2014 was poor, and his buying into GamerGate as a movement on the notion that it represented gamers against journalists was naive, but in the same year he also cheered the rise of women in gaming.
"In a similar situation as the one happening now, folks on the IdleThumbs forums found questionable tweets and Tim took it upon himself to address them. What came from that was a dialogue where different viewpoints were considered and debated in a purposeful way."
Eventually, the statement concluded: "Debating Anita Sarkeesian’s efforts toward highlighting sexism in the games industry is touchy, and though Tim’s post back then was naive we felt that he wasn’t being malicious like so many others have been to Anita in the past, so we share all of this with the hope people can see that first hand. We understand that no matter what there will be people who will not look at Tim the same again and we respect that, too.
"A lot can change in three years, including viewpoints, and Tim has assured us that The Last Night does not spout a message steeped in regressive stances. We trust Tim and know that he is an advocate for progression both in and outside of our industry, and we hope that this will be apparent moving forward."
Ultimately... I'm not sure that the Raw Fury statement helps me much when it comes to The Last Night.
As with anything to do with Gamergate, people want blood and heads on sticks - whether it's Zoe Quinn's or Tim Soret's. It's the sort of statement which does absolutely nothing to help the situation, and is so wishy-washy as to end up like one of own my articles on the issue, which only ever gets me grief from both sides.
In short: it soft-pedals when it comes to not upsetting anyone, which neither side ever likes. When it comes to Gamergate, if you seek debate, or nuance, or try to hunt out the middle ground, you become an enemy of both camps. I've learned that to my own peril.
Yet here I am again, trying to tear down the Israel-Gaza wall...!
From the previous time I tried to understand Gamergate, I learned that - much as there are moderate Conversatives and more extreme, self-serving, ones - there were, within the overall umbrella of the godawful and otherwise risible Gamergate movement, moderates (for want of a better word) with honourable intentions. However blind and misguided they might've been to the rest of the movement's behaviour...
What I'm getting from this storm over The Last Night that it's mostly old news, and that Tim Soret might be more from the moderate end. And, mostly likely, being a bit unsophisticated in how he attempted to articulate his views.
My gut reaction upon reading that Tim Soret was a "supporter" of Gamergate was disappointment that I'd never play The Last Night. Upon digging a bit deeper into it, and trying to maintain something approaching balance, I think - providing nothing else surfaces about him - that I probably will.
Aside from the fact that Soret is not the only person working on The Last Night (punishing all of them for a handful of three-year old Tweets from one of their team members seems ludicrously unfair) I refuse to be drawn into somebody else's battle, or have them choose which games I'm supposed to enjoy.
That's all we can do in these instance; take each matter as it arises and try to learn what the story actually is, without letting our instinctual prejudices blind us.
Though if Notch ever gets off his wealthy rse and makes another game, I'll be at the front of the queue. You know: the queue to kick every single copy of his game to tiny little pieces.