-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
All The Last of Us 2 leaks/spoilers in here and nowhere else.
- Thread starter DonJorginho
- Start date
- News Spoilers
Strategize
Member
What are they gonna do though? If you're making a very violent game with mo-cap, you can't exactly just imagine it out of thin air can you?
THEAP99
Banned
It is a strange thing to argue but i would at least hope the developers get fair treated and only do it if they feel comfortable.
In way some of those people would even take that as a compliment about the work they have done
Last edited:
Dabaus
Banned
For what it’s worth I’ve seen a lot of accounts I follow, ones I would never associate with gaming, bringing up the ridiculousness of Tlou 2 in a mocking manner. It’s definitely reverberating in circles outside of gaming. I have no idea if it will effect sales or not. I kind of doubt it. There are unfortunately a lot of self loathing bug men out there that will consume product and get excited for next product.
With that said... I think long term naughty dog may be in trouble. If the culture there is so and people are leaking games then something is amiss. I don’t think Sony will cause scene firing who ever needs to be fired and may just disband the whole studio. I’m talking like 5-7 years time. Sooner maybe if in fact this leak does in fact effect sales.
With that said... I think long term naughty dog may be in trouble. If the culture there is so and people are leaking games then something is amiss. I don’t think Sony will cause scene firing who ever needs to be fired and may just disband the whole studio. I’m talking like 5-7 years time. Sooner maybe if in fact this leak does in fact effect sales.
Last edited:
Whitesnake
Banned
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Hmmm.... I wonder how many game studios study real life death footage to copy into their own games.
Whitesnake
Banned
tfw you have to watch tons of real life death footage and ND still won’t give you reasonable hours or a fair wage 
Last edited:
wordslaughter
Banned
Game will still review well among woke "gaming journalists" but will get crushed by user score.
We see exactly the same thing on Rotten Tomatoes critic vs user scores. Woke Twitterati types will praise something simply for pushing a certain narrative. It's THE most important aspect for these types. But for regular people, it's poison.
Can't wait for sales to be far lower than expected and to read articles why it's the fault of "a toxic fanbase" who "refuse to embrace representation." Don't they know DiVeRsItY Is oUr sTrEnGtH!
We see exactly the same thing on Rotten Tomatoes critic vs user scores. Woke Twitterati types will praise something simply for pushing a certain narrative. It's THE most important aspect for these types. But for regular people, it's poison.
Can't wait for sales to be far lower than expected and to read articles why it's the fault of "a toxic fanbase" who "refuse to embrace representation." Don't they know DiVeRsItY Is oUr sTrEnGtH!
Explosive Zombie
Banned
This is the best argument against the type of knee jerk hysteria we're seeing here and elsewhere.
Cato
Banned
If some of my suspicions turn out to be correct then I think any reviewer that gives it less than 10/10 is essentially asking for a mob to come to his house and kill him.
EDIT: hyperbole for sure but there will be IMMENSE pressure to rate it at 10/10
Last edited:
Explosive Zombie
Banned
That's my main issue with this knee jerk hysteria, the critical scores will tell me absolutely nothing because most critics are going to be forced to defend this from the "alt-right trolls". If the game is genuinely amazing or if it's just pushing the right agenda and we can't let the "alt-right trolls" win will be something no one can remotely figure out.
TheGreatYosh
Banned
I think this will boost Ghost of Tsushima sales a bit at least.
LaughingStock
Member
With the right politics the game will review well no matter what.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
It's not a tranny though, like wtf, if it was a male to female trans then why does it look like it's on MALE HORMONES if anything? this is why the leaks are sort of retarded
YukiOnna
Member
With the plot beats as they are right now, they definitely went in a direction that doesn't fit with what they established in TLOU. But that's just me.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Really? TLOU had positive views on things like revenge? TLOU would never kill and change your protag (you play as joel's daughter in the beginning who then dies, you play as ellie when Joel is critically wounded and possibly going to die)? Also when people do the "muh cycle of revenge" when the central idea in TLOU comes down to the old "would you sacrifice one to save a million" which is just as cliche (i honestly don't get the problem with the themes being cliche if the execution is spot on).
YukiOnna
Member
Of course it didn't have a positive view nor do I have a problem with something being cliche or trope-y since the execution matters more to me and yes they did certain plot points that happen here, as well. But ever since the introduction of the game at PSX and the panel they had with Neil explaining how this game is based moreso than before on themes of 'Hate and Violence' I felt a sense of difference from what the tone and level they went to portray such things in the first game.
From my several playthroughs of the first game, it was never so extreme no matter the outcomes they went through- the only time it reached such a level was the Winter chapter, but there was a point made there. And from the beginning it's always been said to be a story about Joel and Ellie and that's what it was from beginning to end and what they said was the core of why they attempted to do a sequel, it's my main beef because I feel the plot beats don't resonate with that claim. It may change when going through it properly, but I said it in the thread earlier, the direction they went in is the one I wanted the least.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
The leaks still paint it as about Joel and Ellie, Abby's story and motives are entirely shaped by Joel and Ellie's actions.
Werewolf Jones
Member
So am I the only person who thinks the leaks are good or nah? Shit posting and slurs aside.
I'm just curious. Considering I think the first games story is really incredibly average at best. No, I am not a fan of extremely progressive shit and yes The Last Jedi is shit. I'm not in it to see the fans suffer I'm more surprised it isn't another safe, standard outing of "protagarino gets pushed to the edge and kills an entire small civilization throughout the game."
It's nasty and rather than Neil Druckmann putting it in a babies first time using brain term as "You'll question everything." It actually DOES challenge you as a piece of media. Especially with being FORCED to play as Abby after she iced Joel. She might end up a shit character but we'll see.
My anticipation for this game was a 2/10 then the initial leaks got me at a 10/10 and finally the truth got me at a 7.5
Playing through the eyes of someone you hate in video games is pretty rare but it's not the first time you play as the antagonist... Or is there one? (Damn Neil2deep4u)
I'm just curious. Considering I think the first games story is really incredibly average at best. No, I am not a fan of extremely progressive shit and yes The Last Jedi is shit. I'm not in it to see the fans suffer I'm more surprised it isn't another safe, standard outing of "protagarino gets pushed to the edge and kills an entire small civilization throughout the game."
It's nasty and rather than Neil Druckmann putting it in a babies first time using brain term as "You'll question everything." It actually DOES challenge you as a piece of media. Especially with being FORCED to play as Abby after she iced Joel. She might end up a shit character but we'll see.
My anticipation for this game was a 2/10 then the initial leaks got me at a 10/10 and finally the truth got me at a 7.5
Playing through the eyes of someone you hate in video games is pretty rare but it's not the first time you play as the antagonist... Or is there one? (Damn Neil2deep4u)
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I think they sound exciting but I loved TLOU and loved TLJ... I just like bold new directions for my cherished franchises, if I wanted safe I'd be an MCU fan.
YukiOnna
Member
Yeah, that's partly my issue since I wanted things to be more simple and stay closer to the first game or even Left Behind. It's why I just have to see for myself how it sits when going through it since the plot beats alone is the opposite of that in my eyes.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I guess part of why I can be less put off by the leaks is I didn't have expectations for a second game. Like to me TLOU ended perfectly, part of what made the ending work is not knowing how things occurred going forward. When a sequel was released I was honestly hoping it'd not have Joel and Ellie at all but be another story set in that universe with similar themes and ideas. To me Joel and Ellie's story was done, but the idea of showing us the consequences of their actions, in particular Joel's is interesting to me and could be done so well I'd be totally happy we got a return to Joel and Ellie.
Strategize
Member
No, you aren't the only one. I think it's a potentially very interesting and ballsy move that follows the consequences of the first game.
It's not as if Neil is surprised at the revelation that many will hate it (although, it was obviously meant to be kept a secret, and revealed in game of course). He said as much two years ago that some may not like the game.
Many people are just boiling it down to SJW shit, but from what we've seen it's not that at all. The scene where Abby mauls Ellie and Dina (2 LGBT characters) is absolutely fucking brutal, and the exact opposite of "SJW shit". Of course there's progressive aspects to the story, but a scene like that proves he's willing to piss off any "side" off for the overall story.
Piku_Ringo
Banned
For what it's worth this game, but just be worth the $60 for all the comedy gold it's bringing
Better then get ready to run from dogs a lot.
YukiOnna
Member
I'm of the same sentiment personally. The first game is so standalone and I find it really hard to sell another story about them because it just felt done. Maybe some epilogue DLC in the vein of Left Behind of them some years after would have been nice and I personally like to believe they were able to live a peaceful life in their small enclave minus certain expeditions since that's sort of how the game ends on. Their struggle felt finished. Probably why I have such an apprehension to the outcome, lol.
Halo is Back
Member
So damn true. I noticed he used Cortana as an example of reducing the person to a "sexual object". Mother fucker, HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED HALO? Cortana is defined by her intelligence, witty remakes of sarcasm, and her genuine bond with the Master Chief. I always loved the missions where you and Cortana are one and working together to overcome adversity. Just hearing her funny banter made me love her character. Fuck this guy and Anita for reducing of the greatest female characters in gaming as an example for objectification .
Jbomb19
Member
Yeah still more offended I’ll have to kill dogs who are just trying to do their jobs like the bestest boys they are. Yeah i know i can stealth around them but cmon. I suck at stealth. They’re gonna find me every damn time.
I’m also really intrigued by the idea that Abby is the inverse of Joel in the first game. A father who lost a daughter and now a daughter who lost a father. I imagine we will see Abbys POV of the events of the first game where her dad works his whole life to find a cure and minutes from possibly saving humanity, he gets stabbed in the neck. Obviously gonna wait for the final product to make final judgment but some of the ideas and themes surrounding the leaks might be interesting. It’ll all be in the execution.
BluRayHiDef
Banned
Did the tweeter lose a family member who died the same way that a particular someone in the game dies?
RokkanStoned
Member
/woosh
At this point people are mostly just joking around. There was a point where that seemingly was the subject, but at this point it's just mostly memes about how manly Abby looks. Partially because ND seemingly toned down all breasts, leading to Abby's breasts to look more like pecs, especially in the screenshot you see floating around, which in angle looks very bad.
It's a bit annoying, I agree, at least when it's not a funny line or a meme. Focus on trans feels a bit annoying, though I do understand people's gripes with the Abby character's design, albeit I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic, just bland and another white brown haired girl in games. Then again, I've laughed my ass off at some of the memes.
You clearly have no idea about the game.
TLoU never focused on revenge. The game was largely about Joel, from his initial loss, to his character growth during the journey with Ellie. Him killing the people at the hospital and Marlene, was a sign of his love for Ellie and growing enough to care for her as a daughter. It was a journey that brought someone closer as they depended on each other.
TLoU was never ever discussing the "would you sacrifice one to save a million" in any serious manner. Joel didn't want to let Ellie die. That's it. The discussion was done by the fans afterwards, whether what Joel did was right, more so when he later lied to Ellie about it as well.
Also, Ellie only took over because Joel was out of commision, and was never antagonistic towards each other. Imagine if instead of switching to Ellie, you switched to David. Would people feel great about that? Nah, or if it switched to Marlene? Heck, what if after Joel's daughter was killed, imagine if the soldier wasn't killed by Tommy and instead you switched to him? What would that do to the story? Would definitely change it, though it would've had a completely different focus. And TLoU1 didn't have to follow a predecessor. Once you make a sequel that follows the story of its predecessor, then there's even more expectations in terms of what happens within a story. It's even worse when you give too big a part to two characters with their narrative focuses. Suddenly you're not sure if you're telling a new story or continuing the old one. A revenge story generally focuses on the avenger and their internal trauma and anger. Sometimes a child/woman that travels with the avenger (for whatever reason) make them move past the trauma and often end up forsaking the brutal revenge, either by prioritizing someone else over the revenge or by other means. Revenge stories are generally stories about destroying your relationships, about destructive behavior, which is why it's a very jarring choice compared to TLoU1. Just look at Kratos and his revenge story in GoW. That story told us how power blinds you and how revenge doesn't soothe your guilt or your hatred. GoW 1-3 is a good example of this idea and it explores most of the tropes.
Also, there's really no big revenge for a revenge cycle to work. Since Joel never killed in vengeance, that basically makes Ellie not driving a cycle.
DS_Joost
Member
All these leaks confirm my fears I've had since that ''clip her wings'' trailer came out. And my fears weren't or aren't about lesbians, trans people, Chinese cuckboys or whatever. None of that matters to me. What does confirm my fear here is that Druckmann and his team were busy asking themselves whether they could, that they forgot to ask themselves whether they should.
My biggest fear (which is kind of confirmed now to be true) is that TLOU has become a universe in which the writers take themselves so seriously and see their ideas as so deep that it loses any impact it could have had. The game is so busy trying to show you just how degenerate people get when the apocalypse happens that it races past it's intended purpose. It's so busy trying to show you ''look here, see how violent this is'' that it edges over the line of torture porn and becomes a parody of exactly what they were trying to achieve in the first game. This game isn't about the humans anymore, it's a race of who can be the most savage of them all, forgetting that the first game was constantly trying to ask the player the question of what it means to be human.
Add to that all those twists, and what you get is a game that has no idea anymore what it is trying to say or tell. Love-triangles, revenge plots, expectation defying turns, questions about sexuality, questions about existence, human nature... the game wants to do it all that it seems to do nothing. It's devolved into meaningless, (and seemingly pretty poor) melodrama. Neill Druckmann might think he's so so clever with his writing, but it's not. None of it is new. None of it is genre defying.
The Road (it's absolute inspiration) was a hell of a good film because it did one thing, and one thing really fucking well. The Last of Us was a good game because it did one thing, and one thing really fucking well (though certainly not anywhere as close to perfect as The Road).
This looks like it has devolved into a drama show. The Walking Dead, but taking itself even more seriously. The Walking Dead really wasn't a good show guys. It's semi-intellectual drivel. This seems to go exactly that same way except trying even harder to seem ''deep'' and ''thought-provoking''. This is a great example of what an 18-year old thinks is superdeep. It's not even shocking, no matter how hard it tries to be. Neill, no one asked you to push the boundaries of what could be shown on the screen. Simply because if the writing and the framing was actually good, there was absolutely no need for it. The need to show the kind of violence they do, the melodrama, the twists and turns and so-called deep journey into the human mind and it's concepts of love and hate and whatnot...
The biggest letdown of it all has nothing to do with who's gay and who's not... does it occur to many of you that it's just... not that good, intellectual as Druckmann wants you to believe in the first place? And maybe, perhaps (gasp...) it never was. It never was that clever, or deep, or thought provoking as people made it out to be.
I said it once, and I'll say it again:
They were so busy asking themselves whether they could, that they forgot to ask whether they should.
My biggest fear (which is kind of confirmed now to be true) is that TLOU has become a universe in which the writers take themselves so seriously and see their ideas as so deep that it loses any impact it could have had. The game is so busy trying to show you just how degenerate people get when the apocalypse happens that it races past it's intended purpose. It's so busy trying to show you ''look here, see how violent this is'' that it edges over the line of torture porn and becomes a parody of exactly what they were trying to achieve in the first game. This game isn't about the humans anymore, it's a race of who can be the most savage of them all, forgetting that the first game was constantly trying to ask the player the question of what it means to be human.
Add to that all those twists, and what you get is a game that has no idea anymore what it is trying to say or tell. Love-triangles, revenge plots, expectation defying turns, questions about sexuality, questions about existence, human nature... the game wants to do it all that it seems to do nothing. It's devolved into meaningless, (and seemingly pretty poor) melodrama. Neill Druckmann might think he's so so clever with his writing, but it's not. None of it is new. None of it is genre defying.
The Road (it's absolute inspiration) was a hell of a good film because it did one thing, and one thing really fucking well. The Last of Us was a good game because it did one thing, and one thing really fucking well (though certainly not anywhere as close to perfect as The Road).
This looks like it has devolved into a drama show. The Walking Dead, but taking itself even more seriously. The Walking Dead really wasn't a good show guys. It's semi-intellectual drivel. This seems to go exactly that same way except trying even harder to seem ''deep'' and ''thought-provoking''. This is a great example of what an 18-year old thinks is superdeep. It's not even shocking, no matter how hard it tries to be. Neill, no one asked you to push the boundaries of what could be shown on the screen. Simply because if the writing and the framing was actually good, there was absolutely no need for it. The need to show the kind of violence they do, the melodrama, the twists and turns and so-called deep journey into the human mind and it's concepts of love and hate and whatnot...
The biggest letdown of it all has nothing to do with who's gay and who's not... does it occur to many of you that it's just... not that good, intellectual as Druckmann wants you to believe in the first place? And maybe, perhaps (gasp...) it never was. It never was that clever, or deep, or thought provoking as people made it out to be.
I said it once, and I'll say it again:
They were so busy asking themselves whether they could, that they forgot to ask whether they should.
Last edited:
Strategize
Member
Joel definitely didn't have to kill the surgeon. That wasn't kill or be killed. Yes, the surgeon threatened him, but he wasn't a serious threat.
RokkanStoned
Member
Dude literally threatens him, holding a scalpel in front of him and saying outright "I mean it". Yeah sure, definitely not a serious threat. Right....
More so you were never given the choice and Joel literally didn't know him, so it was a forced moment where Joel killed someone trying to save Ellie. He never tried to avenge something done to Ellie or whatnot.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Yes, I'm not saying it will. Just making a list of what might change people's mind.
Azurro
Banned
Come on, trolls or no trolls, even if the game hadn't leaked, the game stars lesbians and transexuals, it will get a 10/10 no matter what.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Joel got revenge on the doctors for attempting to kill Ellie, it was a symbolic revenge for him for what occurred to his real daughter. Joel's love for Ellie is selfish, it's what he wants, not her. Ellie wanted to help save the world, this is why Joel is forced to lie and say they weren't capable of getting a cure from her, Ellie is the type who would let herself die to save others but Joel removed that decision from her. This next part about whether or not the game is discussing that issue is kinda retarded like... uh... the Fireflies were willing to sacrifice Ellie to save the world, Ellie was willing to sacrifice herself, Joel wasn't able to cope with losing another daughter, surrogate or otherwise and goes on a rampage as a result.
It doesn't matter why Ellie took over, the switch in controllable protag happens more than once in TLOU, doing it in a sequel is hardly surprising. Honestly I think more games SHOULD switch to the POVs of the antagonists, it's a good way to flesh them out, make them three dimensional, anyone who's read the Game of Thrones books knows the value in this practice. Your expectations are being conflated with your entitlement, but either way the bar they wanted to hit was to make something as deep and surprising as the first, not to just give players what they expected.
All this stuff about revenge you typed is incredibly narrow minded and kinda silly. Like the end of TLOU makes it clear Joel's actions disturb Ellie and she doesn't fully trust what he's saying, it's why it's not a happy ending. Also why is revenge off limits as a main theme for a TLOU sequel? Would be an okay theme for it to explore in your view? How are you going to bring up God of War as an example, God of War 2018 was a RADICAL departure from prior games and was hugely embraced for it.
Uh... what the fuck is this last segment about? Joel didn't just kill to protect Ellie, he enjoyed it, play the damn section again, he certainly didn't need to kill the unarmed surgeons like wtf ar you on about and why does it matter if he DIDN'T kill out of vengeance? Why would that prevent someone for wanting revenge over Joel's actions? Also not sure what Ellie riding a bicycle has to do with anything.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Judging based on the comment section, people are still holding firm to their belief that it's pushing politics.
However, there's about 3k likes vs 1.k dislikes. I can see this being captain marvel all over again, "The movie only did good because it's part of the MCU." That may be true, but millions of people still wanted to see the movie.
themidnightsun156
Member
As long as Abby yells FORE!!! before delivering the final blow with that nine iron I have no quarrels with this one. We all knew it was going to be SJW garbage for the get-go. No need to be up in arms about a work of fiction.
Last edited:
Strategize
Member
Agree to disagree, he wasn't like the rest of the soldiers or bandits, With how easily Joel disarms him and shoves the scalpel in his neck, he could just shoved him away or knocked him out. It's maybe the one moment in where he felt needlessly cruel. The fact that he didn't know him, isn't much of an excuse.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
This is all also ignoring the fact that Joel did all this to prevent the world from being cured simply because of his selfish desire to continue to have a new surrogate daughter.
Strategize
Member
Agreed. Nobody's saying Joel isn't a fantastic character, he's very well written. But I also can't say he doesn't deserve a golf club to the head.
The main problem with the backlash (beyond the SJW trolling, which isn't even accurate) is that Neil isn't idealizing Joel and Ellie in the same way many fans do. The fans treat them like icons, Neil treats them as messed up, flawed people with both good and bad in them, they don't get special treatment because of who they are.
Monkeygourmet
Banned
RokkanStoned
Member
Disagree all you want, but there's a threat, the guy is using a scalpel, further rationalizing his threat and Joel takes the weapon and turns it back on him and kills him. Doing so is far more secure than to attempt to knock the guy out or risky going into a bout with him and have the others murder him instead. There's really no unreasonable cruelty. The surgeon was no different from soldiers or bandits. Guy operated on people knowing they'd die. So while you might disagree, what's there is there and not your hypotheticals. Trying to go "what if..." and "hypothetical hindsight" doesn't really say anything. What if he tried to wrestle it out and he died himself and thus Ellie also died?
Also lol? That's the moment you feel Joel was needlessly cruel?
The fact that Joel didn't know him makes his death merely a function of the story. Joel killed him in response to his threat of physical harm to him and to Ellie.
That wording outs you pretty much. More so your response doesn't jive with Strategize's argument. His argument wasn't that the surgeon was justified in his action "for the greater good" or that Joel was wrong in trying to save Ellie. Strategize said that Joel killed him when he didn't need to, which is just wishful thinking that treats the characters like a physics simulation.
Monkeygourmet
Banned
What’s always fun in these type of threads is people are very happy whinging about stories / plots in games that they feel agenda has been driven into but very rarely can name games that they think hold up, ‘story wise’.
Before the big ‘so called push’ for agenda politics in games, which ones do you actually feel stand up against the all time classic movies / books?
The answer is none - they are all largely forgettable drivel with some basic gameplay thrown in.
Before the big ‘so called push’ for agenda politics in games, which ones do you actually feel stand up against the all time classic movies / books?
The answer is none - they are all largely forgettable drivel with some basic gameplay thrown in.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Why does my argument need to be the same as someone else's, exactly?
Strategize
Member
If that's the case then why do they give you the option to not kill the others? If Joel is being pragmatic in that situation, then it would make more sense to just force you to kill them all, since they could try to attack him while he's taking Ellie. It's clear this kill or kills are presented in a little more though provoking way than your average bandit.
Last edited:
RokkanStoned
Member
"doesn't jive" = "not" +“in accord with”
You start with "This is all also...". It doesn't match his, as you're replying to his argument. You're trying to stack two different things.
If you have an argument, then present it. Or did you just have a conclusion and try to add another argument on top of another argument? One is deontological, the other one is consequentialist.
If you ask an open question, do you expect me to know why they chose it? Unless there's only one answer, then it's not really a good argument. There's lots of reasons why they did it, perhaps they wanted to give you a bit of agency, while also having events need to happen. There might be numerous reasons and you'll have to ask Neil. The other doctors don't threaten you and move away from you, while said doctor stands his ground.
Last edited:
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I did present my argument, you didn't argue with it. You ignored it because it isn't the same argument as another posters. In fact what I added in the post you replied to (while ignoring my larger post) was that I said his argument was IGNORING the point I brought up, so it was specifically made to not be accord with his.
Last edited:
RokkanStoned
Member
Your argument wasn't addressed to me, which is just why I pointed out that it doesn't jive with what the point of the poster you quoted. If you're only stacking for agreement on a conclusion, then you're not being honest with your argument.
If you meant that the poster was wrong and that he should instead work on it from a utilitarian view or a "greater good", then you could've been more clear, though I'll apologize of my misunderstanding and what grief I might've wrought you by interpretation and response. Though I'll say that Strategize's response seems more like someone taking your response differently. Does that mean he agrees he was wrong? Or is he trying to try two different moral considerations.
You'll have to excuse me, though understand that "This is all also..." can be "This [post/argument] is also ignoring..." or "This [post/argument you're referring to] is also ignoring". Which is why clear communication often is the best to avoid misunderstandings.
Last edited: