Support NeoGAF

[Explosive Zombie]

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.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/all-...d-nowhere-else.1538175/page-39#post-257951736 <--- this is directed at you and you have yet to respond to it.

I don't think he's wrong in a broad sense and the broad sense is that Joel went too far.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

They just can't catch a break huh



No matter what happens, this game is definitely making the news

To be fair it's not like anyone is going to recognize the death animation of a loved one in a game, that's highly over dramatic. That being said these studios making people watch real people being hurt or killed for "research" is morbid, if the employee doesn't want to do it they should have the right to say so without fear of retaliation. NetherRealm Studios did the same thing with their employees who worked on Mortal Kombat games.

 

[jadefire66]

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.

Sounds like The Walking Dead season 3. (that's where I stopped)

(And right before pressing "post reply" I read the rest of your post and you DO mention TWD haha)

 

[RokkanStoned]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/all-...d-nowhere-else.1538175/page-39#post-257951736 <--- this is directed at you and you have yet to respond to it.

I don't think he's wrong in a broad sense and the broad sense is that Joel went too far.

Weird, I never got a notification on that. I'll respond, of course.

"I don't think he's wrong in a broad sense"? That wasn't what I asked? It was a rhetorical question, as you can't possibly answer what he thinks. More so, when responding a specific argumental line, I don't see why you'd care if he's not wrong in the general conclusion of "Joel went too far", as you had beef with his moral justification.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Weird, I never got a notification on that. I'll respond, of course.

"I don't think he's wrong in a broad sense"? That wasn't what I asked? It was a rhetorical question, as you can't possibly answer what he thinks. More so, when responding a specific argumental line, I don't see why you'd care if he's not wrong in the general conclusion of "Joel went too far", as you had beef with his moral justification.

He's arguing with you that Joel didn't need to kill the nurse, my argument is it goes beyond just what he did or did not need to do but the fact that he was needlessly killing people speaks to my point about the morally reprehensible actions Joel is taking.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

There's two rumours going on about the leaker.

1. Pay issue

2. Didn't like the divisive nature of the game (politics)

Can't wait to hear what the reason is. It might not be either one. Or maybe a combo of both. There's reports ND has a threatening exit process where if you don't sign an NDA leaving the company you don't get paid. lol. I don't think that's even legal, unless it was agreed upon at time of hiring. But that rumour is out there.

The only NDAs I've ever seen in office life are at time of hire. You don't get hired freely and suddenly HR jams a last minute NDA at leaving.

I think most people think the leaker is some young Q&A tester guy who doesnt give a shit and wants internet fame. Probably male. Probably an overworked person at a bottom rung role.

You never know. Maybe it'll end up being a high level employee who's leaving (like tons of other ND workers over the years), didn't like the politics and the pay issue just put him (or her) over the top. And even funnier if it's a female with heavy left leaning political views.

Too bad Mr. Big Shot Jason Schreier doesn't want to touch this issue. With all the dirt digging he's done and being a big supporter of fanning the flames of spoiling Fallout 4, you'd think he'd be working 24/7 as Sherlock Holmes. Amazing how he cherry picks topics to cover.

I don't now about not getting paid but I've been asked to sign a document that says I won't sue in order to get my severance, since that money isn't owed to you like the money is for hours worked they can hold that up but I don't see how that would apply in a case like this, not sure if the person was laid off and offered a severance package or not.

 

[LiquidRex]

What's people's thoughts on Jason Schreier criticism of the Naughty Dog employee's actions?
Apparently he's been accused of being a hypocrite for allegedly leaking plot points of games in the past, amongst other things.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

What's people's thoughts on Jason Schreier criticism of the Naughty Dog employee's actions?
Apparently he's been accused of being a hypocrite for allegedly leaking plot points of games in the past, amongst other things.

He's been shown to have leaked where new video games would be set, haven't seen proof he ever leaked plot points and certainly not pivotal scenes.

 

[LiquidRex]

He's been shown to have leaked where new video games would be set, haven't seen proof he ever leaked plot points and certainly not pivotal scenes.

Right so nothing major per sa

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Right so nothing major per sa

Not to my knowledge and the leaks he usually does get people hyped for a game, these were leaked to destroy the game.

 

[rofif]

They should've released it digitally.... Now it's ruined

 

[Explosive Zombie]

They should've released it digitally.... Now it's ruined

Sony would face retaliation from brick and mortar stores if they did that and considering PS5 is on the horizon they can't endure that. Just look at what's going on with Universal right now whose movies will no longer be shown in AMC theaters due to them putting that Trolls movie direct to streaming.

 

[rofif]

Sony would face retaliation from brick and mortar stores if they did that and considering PS5 is on the horizon they can't endure that. Just look at what's going on with Universal right now whose movies will no longer be shown in AMC theaters due to them putting that Trolls movie direct to streaming.

what about universal and cinemas? I am out of the loop

 

[Explosive Zombie]

what about universal and cinemas? I am out of the loop

Basically this is what Sony could have to deal with if they went digital...

AMC Theaters will no longer play Universal movies after Trolls World Tour’s on-demand success

Trolls World Tour set off a giant fight between AMC Theaters and Universal

www.theverge.com

 

[LiquidRex]

Right so nothing major per sa

I would also think it could be argued he isn't a developer, thus not tied to NDAs

Not to my knowledge and the leaks he usually does get people hyped for a game, these were leaked to destroy the game.

Side note; Well if it's true about the miss treatment of employee's is the reason for the individuals actions (which I don't 100% condone) I hope studios can learn from this... I know there was reports of Crunching at CD Project Red earlier this year too... is Cyberpunk 2077 the next victim of a disgruntled employee.

Time will tell. Thanks for you responses.

Much appreciated.

 

[DForce]

Starting at the 12:00 mark, Benji gives his opinion on how The Last of Us 2 is going to perform after the leaks.

 

[Monkeygourmet]

This ‘leak’ has done nothing but add publicity / traffic to the game in general.

If it was a disgruntled employee it would have been far more damaging if they had posted about the game being a mess / badly optimised / shit gameplay / bad management / crunch / lack of direction / forced agenda push / leaked the project after TLOU2 etc etc

They have said nothing of this - just leaked some plot footage.

If anything it’s made people discuss the game more and likely to have bumped the sales because of this so I don’t really understand the play here.

 

[DS_Joost]

Having watched the leaked footage one more time, I'm am now doubly sure this is going to disappoint so many people, and not because of what most here think.

The writing, the dialogue, it's just... bad... Like, just really really bad. Too much exposition, to much trying to be meaningful, thoughtful, deep. It's just drivel. It's serious characters looking serious spewing serious expository dialogue while at the same time leaving nothing for the player to dissect or to think about. The game does the thinking for you. Neill ''2 Deep 4 U'' Druckmann's editors should've done a way better job, that is, if they could actually do their job by, you know, leaving shit out that doesn't work. It feels like the writers (or, writer which is what I suspect) does not trust the player. It TELLS you how you SHOULD feel, with almost every single line. I felt like a moron watching it.

Dina looks to be a character that I just really can't give a fuck about, at all. That and the melodrama surrounding her and Jesse just makes my eyes roll at best. It's high school drama in a setting that is supposed to be serious. It should be about survival. Humanity. Instead it's about stupid feelings that don't even come across at all. It feels so completely out of place it's incredible. From what I've seen they try so fucking hard to make you care about this love triangle, but it just has no place in the universe they created in the first place. It feels forced for the feels, but it just fails miserably because it is shoved in your face how much you should feel bad for these characters that it feels the player gets no time to make up a mind of their own. That and it's just out of place. So completely out of place.

It's completely tone deaf to it's own universe.

The minimalism that made the first game so good is just... gone. It's all, ''he did this to her and then she did that to that other her but then he comes in and does this to her but she is secretly another person who was brought into it by him and then he turns out to be pregnant by her but he still has feelings for that person but that person has to leave and yet she wants love but that other person can't give her love because of him and yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda''.

It's absolutely fucking terrible. The first one tried to be minimalistic, thoughtful, slow moving, and while not as good as some journalists made it out to be, it at least partially succeeded by not treating the player like a moron and also by making people make up their own minds and ideas about things.

By comparison, these feels like a whole load of meaningless, hot air. Like no one dared stand up to Druckmann to tell him to maybe slim it down a little. Kill your darlings, as they say in the writing world.

Also, what I've seen wasn't just bad, it was insanely boring. That's right. Boring.

In the end, it's about a juvenile love triangle. And babies. And Chinese simps.

Love triangle. Babies. Simps.

Let that sink in after what the first one did, and then you'll realize how bad this is.

Less is more, Neill.

 

[Monkeygourmet]

Having watched the leaked footage one more time, I'm am now doubly sure this is going to disappoint so many people, and not because of what most here think.

The writing, the dialogue, it's just... bad... Like, just really really bad. Too much exposition, to much trying to be meaningful, thoughtful, deep. It's just drivel. It's serious characters looking serious spewing serious expository dialogue while at the same time leaving nothing for the player to dissect or to think about. The game does the thinking for you. Neill ''2 Deep 4 U'' Druckmann's editors should've done a way better job, that is, if they could actually do their job by, you know, leaving shit out that doesn't work. It feels like the writers (or, writer which is what I suspect) does not trust the player. It TELLS you how you SHOULD feel, with almost every single line. I felt like a moron watching it.

Dina looks to be a character that I just really can't give a fuck about, at all. That and the melodrama surrounding her and Jesse just makes my eyes roll at best. It's high school drama in a setting that is supposed to be serious. It should be about survival. Humanity. Instead it's about stupid feelings that don't even come across at all. It feels so completely out of place it's incredible. From what I've seen they try so fucking hard to make you care about this love triangle, but it just has no place in the universe they created in the first place. It feels forced for the feels, but it just fails miserably because it is shoved in your face how much you should feel bad for these characters that it feels the player gets no time to make up a mind of their own.

The minimalism that made the first game so good is just... gone. It's all, ''he did this to her and then she did that to that other her but then he comes in and does this to her but she is secretly another person who was brought into it by him and then he turns out to be pregnant by her but he still has feelings for that person but that person has to leave and yet she wants love but that other person can't give her love because of him and yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda''.

It's absolutely fucking terrible. The first one tried to be minimalistic, thoughtful, slow moving, and while not as good as some journalists made it out to be, it at least partially succeeded by not treating the player like a moron and also by making people make up their own minds and ideas about things.

By comparison, these feels like a whole load of meaningless, hot air. Like no one dared stand up to Druckmann to tell him to maybe slim it down a little. Kill your darlings, as they say in the writing world.

Also, what I've seen wasn't just bad, it was insanely boring. That's right. Boring.

Less is more, Neill.

You have no idea how minimalistic this one is.

There will be plenty of padding out characters in the build up to the major plot scenes which have been leaked.

It’s impossible to judge anything based on the scenes that have been leaked which are out of context.

We have no connection to any of these characters - that tends to happen with slow build up over the course of the game.

If the full title doesn’t deliver that, then of course critique it but at this stage you simply cannot jump to these kinds of conclusions.

 

[Strategize]

Dina looks to be a character that I just really can't give a fuck about, at all. That and the melodrama surrounding her and Jesse just makes my eyes roll at best. It's high school drama in a setting that is supposed to be serious. It should be about survival. Humanity. Instead it's about stupid feelings that don't even come across at all. It feels so completely out of place it's incredible. From what I've seen they try so fucking hard to make you care about this love triangle, but it just has no place in the universe they created in the first place. It feels forced for the feels, but it just fails miserably because it is shoved in your face how much you should feel bad for these characters that it feels the player gets no time to make up a mind of their own.

Aren't they literally in a place of security at the beginning? At that point it isn't just about survival, it's as close to normal as Ellie as gotten, so I don't think it's that out of place. Maybe the whole love triangle aspect could prove grating, I'll see for myself, but Dina being there at least brings out another side to Ellie that's not "kill kill kill" "revenge revenge revenge".

I watched a scene with Joel and Ellie, and it was more minimalist like the first game. It's just different characters bringing out different parts.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

I welcome people critiquing the game after they have played it.

They haven’t.

Feel free to buy me a copy.

Until then, I'll free to talk shit about whatever I want. Doesn't matter if you welcome it or not. You probably shouldn't be hanging out in a public forum if you can't handle that.

 

[DS_Joost]

You have no idea how minimalistic this one is.

There will be plenty of padding out characters in the build up to the major plot scenes which have been leaked.

It’s impossible to judge anything based on the scenes that have been leaked which are out of context.

We have no connection to any of these characters - that tends to happen with slow build up over the course of the game.

If the full title doesn’t deliver that, then of course critique it but at this stage you simply cannot jump to these kinds of conclusions.

Fortunately I've seen enough movies (and worked on enough movies as well) to know beforehand whether something has a place in a universe or not. It's also not like the writing is magically better in those padding scenes. In fact, I don't want this padded out at all. I've already had enough.

These are major scenes. And they are very poorly written. That should tell you all you should know.

 

[DS_Joost]

Aren't they literally in a place of security at the beginning? At that point it isn't just about survival, it's as close to normal as Ellie as gotten, so I don't think it's that out of place. Maybe the whole love triangle aspect could prove grating, I'll see for myself, but Dina being there at least brings out another side to Ellie that's not "kill kill kill" "revenge revenge revenge".

I believe that Dina arc would've benefited greatly by removing the simp aspect of it and making it the central theme of the thing. It's feels complicated for the sake of being complicated. Conflict simply because of conflict's sake.

 

[Monkeygourmet]

Feel free to buy me a copy.

Until then, I'll free to talk shit about whatever I want. Doesn't matter if you welcome it or not. You probably shouldn't be hanging out in a public forum if you can't handle that.

“Talk shit”

Well, at least you are self aware

 

[scalman]

We all are selfish, ant i can relate to what joel did in first game. I would do that also , yes for myself.
Now im not sure i follow stuff that will happen in new game would fit me right, yes i wanna play it still mostly because i wanna know, and because this will be only new excl game on ps4. But i dont know i could relate myself to this new story, new type gameplay, kinda faster pace all over. As someone said maybe devs shouldnt do all that just because they could.

 

[Monkeygourmet]

Fortunately I've seen enough movies (and worked on enough movies as well) to know beforehand whether something has a place in a universe or not. It's also not like the writing is magically better in those padding scenes. In fact, I don't want this padded out at all. I've already had enough.

These are major scenes. And they are very poorly written. That should tell you all you should know.

Fair enough.

What games do you think have better scene writing / characterisation / production values than this that also contain gameplay out of interest?

 

[RokkanStoned]

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.

Eh, no he didn't. Please explain your argument on how it's possibly a "symbolic revenge". Only symbol I can possibly see is a symbol of saving his daughter in saving Ellie. I'm very curious about this. Especially since he only kills the doctor that threatens him with a scalpel.

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.

Is Joel's love for her selfish? If someone you love wants something at their own detriment, are you going to let them do it? That's a pretty interesting dilemma. Does a child have the cognitive capability to make an informed choice regarding their life under pressure? Heck, Ellie never consented to having her brain removed.
Not that it matters, because most of this part isn't about what I actually wrote. I didn't try to argue regarding whether Joel's motivations were selfish or not and you're pretty much agreeing with me by acknowledging Joel's love.
"This next part about whether or not the game is discussing that issue is kinda retarded like... " You literally have it towards the end, it's not a "issue" the game's discussing and it's far more the discussion of fans and analysts of the game. You yourself called it the "CENTRAL IDEA". When that is just blatantly wrong. The game does pull the dilemma for Ellie and the player towards the end, but it's never something that's under much consideration. It's not until the last 20 minutes of the game that you learn that Ellie will die from the surgery.

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.

You don't make antagonists three dimensional by switching PoVs.

Of course "why" matters. It matters in the overall context of the narrative. As I mentioned in an example, changing narrative point of views are completely different depending on when, how and what the connection is. It definitely matters and changes the whole character of a story and its balance. Switching PoVs to give "dimensionality" is just ridiculous. Are we getting their inner thoughts? No, which makes the GoT comparison completely different. Giving narrative PoV is a way to either make people empathize with the person or to give a specific color to the person, or in case of 3rd person narrator, it allows you to follow a character and their events, while not given access to their thoughts.
I'm also curious on what you mean by "3 dimensional". Are you thinking of physiology, psychology and sociology dimensions? Or are you thinking more one dimensional contra multi dimensional? As in single trait vs many traits. Neither depends on PoV changes. Changing PoV allows you to experience a story from multiple perspectives, but that doesn't make the character more dimensional.

Also, "entitlement"? Lol.

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.

Now you're just rambling on. Dismissing my points about how revenge narratives work as silly. Then talking about the end of TLoU, which has nothing to do with revenge. Has nothing to do with a happy ending or not at all.
Why it's "off-limits"? Because it wastes Ellie.
God of War 1-3 is a great example of the classical revenge stories and the forms it can take. GoW never really focuses on much except Kratos' revenge and his regrets and torments over killing his family. That's because revenge stories is about the avenger and the foe. GoW3 does bring even in the "revenge overcome" story, with Pandora and tries to build some more development to Kratos. But since the revenge is the focus, it can never be something like a journey where people have to bond over hardships or ponder their existence or interpersonal relations. Because a revenge story is again one where people don't get closer, but someone on a destructive path. When they get closer it's in an attempt to avoid completing the revenge and prioritize something over the revenge and letting go. Since you're supposed to get closer, this usually happens with someone the character is distant to. Otherwise it'll bring them further apart, if they are already close. That's because revenge is very goal-oriented as well and any additional person not interested in revenge will cause friction with established bonds. Put two revenge stories and the story gets fucked over even more having to present two of these kind of developments at worst.
That 2018 was embraced for its radical departure is in no little thanks to it abandoning the revenge story of earlier games. Or was it the gameplay?

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.

Eh, he did. He only kills one surgeon, the one with the scalpel threatening him. You can choose to not kill the others, so that's on you if you killed the unarmed surgeons.
That he didn't kill in revenge is relevant to a cycle of revenge of course. It makes Abby the first avenger, even worse so in a case where her father threatened Joel, making Ellie's choice of avenging Joel far more understandable than Abby's. It makes a cycle of revenge story generally fall flat, since you need a sense of a cycle. And all of this is important because the theme of TLoU was never about revenge, so a sequel doing a comment on it would naturally gravitate towards the first avenger, Abby (insert Hulk memes), making the focus of the game and the structure utterly misplaced.
A cycle (of revenge), not a bicycle.

He's arguing with you that Joel didn't need to kill the nurse, my argument is it goes beyond just what he did or did not need to do but the fact that he was needlessly killing people speaks to my point about the morally reprehensible actions Joel is taking.

So it's not the action itself, whether just or not from deontological point of view, but rather that lives were lost for a reason that did not lead to more lives being saved? After all, he wasn't needlessly killing people, as he was doing it to save Ellie, and once again, said person was threatening him with a scalpel if he came close. So you're proposing that it's needless, because the solution was for him to go with what was perceived as for "the greater good", leading to more lives saved? Was the morally reprehensible the action itself or the effect of the action? I'm assuming it's the second, since that seems to be where you are going. That's completely different from him though, as he argued from a deontological perspective, which regarded the act itself. Your case would focus on the effect.

 

[Strategize]

I believe that Dina arc would've benefited greatly by removing the simp aspect of it and making it the central theme of the thing. It's feels complicated for the sake of being complicated. Conflict simply because of conflict's sake.

I mean at least you're offering some kind of personal critique that's not just "muh SJWs" or "Abby kill my daddy Joel, me no likey play as her". I'll see for myself when it's out, not watching anymore scenes.

 

[DS_Joost]

Fair enough.

What games do you think have better scene writing / characterisation / production values than this that also contain gameplay out of interest?

This is gonna sound weird and kinda ironical, but Uncharted. Not comparable in terms of subject matter, but just a lot better because the writers were aware of what they were writing. It's efficient, to the point, and above all else, consistent with it's universe. It even acknowledges Drake's mass murdering at times.

It knows what it wants to be, and keeps within those boundaries. It does exactly what it needs to do. It does not pretend to be better than it is.

Although, 4 came close to that. And guess who was at the helm of that one?

That's right,

Neill ''2 Deep 4 U'' fucking Druckmann.

 

[Strategize]

This is gonna sound weird and kinda ironical, but Uncharted. Not comparable in terms of subject matter, but just a lot better because the writers were aware of what they were writing. It's efficient, to the point, and above all else, consistent with it's universe. It even acknowledges Drake's mass murdering at times.

It knows what it wants to be, and keeps within those boundaries. It does exactly what it needs to do.

I wouldn't say that's a good thing at all for Uncharted, it was bizarre in both UC2 and 4 because there's never consequences for him. You can't try to critique his murdering and keep it a lighthearted swashbuckling adventure movie with no real consequences.

 

[DS_Joost]

I wouldn't say that's a good thing at all for Uncharted, it was bizarre in both UC2 and 4 because there's never consequences for him. You can't try to critique his murdering and keep it a lighthearted swashbuckling adventure movie with no real consequences.

They made it a joke, that's why it works. Part 2 did this exactly right by playing very cleverly into the ''we are not so different you and I'' trope. It worked because it was an acknowledgement, not a critique. It very cleverly kept it lighthearted, jokingly so. People saw Drake murdering entire armies. They could've answered to that, could've explained it, try to justify it. But they knew that every single answer would make people feel like they weren't taken seriously. So they played the ''we know'' card, and that was the right choice. It feels respectful of the audience more than trying to come up with a moronic or vague moral reasoning.

4 did come close to breaking it because it became serious at times. Luckily, it also reminded you of what Uncharted was at enough times and didn't delve into it too deeply. But they came close. Very close. Luckily, it avoided that trap. But just barely.

 

[Strategize]

They made it a joke, that's why it works. Part 2 did this exactly right by playing very cleverly into the ''we are not so different you and I'' trope. It worked because it was an acknowledgement, not a critique. It very cleverly kept it lighthearted, jokingly so.

4 did come close to breaking it because it became serious at times. Luckily, it also reminded you of what Uncharted was at enough times and didn't delve into it too deeply. But they came close. Very close. Luckily, it avoided that trap. But just barely.

I totally must of missed the "It was meant to be a joke" stuff, because that didn't comes across to me at all to be honest.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Eh, no he didn't. Please explain your argument on how it's possibly a "symbolic revenge". Only symbol I can possibly see is a symbol of saving his daughter in saving Ellie. I'm very curious about this. Especially since he only kills the doctor that threatens him with a scalpel.



Is Joel's love for her selfish? If someone you love wants something at their own detriment, are you going to let them do it? That's a pretty interesting dilemma. Does a child have the cognitive capability to make an informed choice regarding their life under pressure? Heck, Ellie never consented to having her brain removed.
Not that it matters, because most of this part isn't about what I actually wrote. I didn't try to argue regarding whether Joel's motivations were selfish or not and you're pretty much agreeing with me by acknowledging Joel's love.
"This next part about whether or not the game is discussing that issue is kinda retarded like... " You literally have it towards the end, it's not a "issue" the game's discussing and it's far more the discussion of fans and analysts of the game. You yourself called it the "CENTRAL IDEA". When that is just blatantly wrong. The game does pull the dilemma for Ellie and the player towards the end, but it's never something that's under much consideration. It's not until the last 20 minutes of the game that you learn that Ellie will die from the surgery.



You don't make antagonists three dimensional by switching PoVs.

Of course "why" matters. It matters in the overall context of the narrative. As I mentioned in an example, changing narrative point of views are completely different depending on when, how and what the connection is. It definitely matters and changes the whole character of a story and its balance. Switching PoVs to give "dimensionality" is just ridiculous. Are we getting their inner thoughts? No, which makes the GoT comparison completely different. Giving narrative PoV is a way to either make people empathize with the person or to give a specific color to the person, or in case of 3rd person narrator, it allows you to follow a character and their events, while not given access to their thoughts.
I'm also curious on what you mean by "3 dimensional". Are you thinking of physiology, psychology and sociology dimensions? Or are you thinking more one dimensional contra multi dimensional? As in single trait vs many traits. Neither depends on PoV changes. Changing PoV allows you to experience a story from multiple perspectives, but that doesn't make the character more dimensional.

Also, "entitlement"? Lol.




Now you're just rambling on. Dismissing my points about how revenge narratives work as silly. Then talking about the end of TLoU, which has nothing to do with revenge. Has nothing to do with a happy ending or not at all.
Why it's "off-limits"? Because it wastes Ellie.
God of War 1-3 is a great example of the classical revenge stories and the forms it can take. GoW never really focuses on much except Kratos' revenge and his regrets and torments over killing his family. That's because revenge stories is about the avenger and the foe. GoW3 does bring even in the "revenge overcome" story, with Pandora and tries to build some more development to Kratos. But since the revenge is the focus, it can never be something like a journey where people have to bond over hardships or ponder their existence or interpersonal relations. Because a revenge story is again one where people don't get closer, but someone on a destructive path. When they get closer it's in an attempt to avoid completing the revenge and prioritize something over the revenge and letting go. Since you're supposed to get closer, this usually happens with someone the character is distant to. Otherwise it'll bring them further apart, if they are already close. That's because revenge is very goal-oriented as well and any additional person not interested in revenge will cause friction with established bonds. Put two revenge stories and the story gets fucked over even more having to present two of these kind of developments at worst.
That 2018 was embraced for its radical departure is in no little thanks to it abandoning the revenge story of earlier games. Or was it the gameplay?



Eh, he did. He only kills one surgeon, the one with the scalpel threatening him. You can choose to not kill the others, so that's on you if you killed the unarmed surgeons.
That he didn't kill in revenge is relevant to a cycle of revenge of course. It makes Abby the first avenger, even worse so in a case where her father threatened Joel, making Ellie's choice of avenging Joel far more understandable than Abby's. It makes a cycle of revenge story generally fall flat, since you need a sense of a cycle. And all of this is important because the theme of TLoU was never about revenge, so a sequel doing a comment on it would naturally gravitate towards the first avenger, Abby (insert Hulk memes), making the focus of the game and the structure utterly misplaced.
A cycle (of revenge), not a bicycle.



So it's not the action itself, whether just or not from deontological point of view, but rather that lives were lost for a reason that did not lead to more lives being saved? After all, he wasn't needlessly killing people, as he was doing it to save Ellie, and once again, said person was threatening him with a scalpel if he came close. So you're proposing that it's needless, because the solution was for him to go with what was perceived as for "the greater good", leading to more lives saved? Was the morally reprehensible the action itself or the effect of the action? I'm assuming it's the second, since that seems to be where you are going. That's completely different from him though, as he argued from a deontological perspective, which regarded the act itself. Your case would focus on the effect.

He goes on a murderous rampage, you have the option to not kill two of the surgeons, that's it.

Yeah, I'm not sure your narrative literacy is great here. The entire game is built up to this moment, it's making you connect with the one person who can save the human race so when it's decided they will be sacrificed for the good of the human race you don't just look at it from a raw numbers point of view which is 1 life vs many the 1 life loses you instead have such an emotional connection to the character you're able to feel what Joel feels in that moment. The entire point of the game is to get you to see the importance of one life when it's weighed against many and then question that choice you made when that one life you saved is that of someone who would have willingly given up their life for others. That's the selfish aspect of Joel, he isn't considering Ellie's wishes or the world at large's ability to continue to thrive.

You absolutely can help make an antagonist more three dimensional by viewing things from their point of view, this isn't even up for debate.

You don't need their inner thoughts, you empathize with people when you're made to play as them, that's how games have always worked. I didn't say multi-dimensional characters require you to use their point of view, I said it's a good way to do that, not the only way.

If you choose to kill the other doctors Joel takes clear pleasure in it. Your argument seems to be it's morally okay to kill people who are performing a surgery that has a high chance of killing the patient, even if you know that surgery could lead to millions of lives saved, it's not a strong argument. Especially when you know Ellie would have volunteered her life to save others.

I'm dismissing your arguments because you're placing limitations on how a narrative can be told and unfold and you're wrong to do so. What do you mean has nothing to do with a happy ending or not at all?

How does it waste Ellie?

God of War 2018 was embraced for a lot of reasons, also you need to stop with God of War, it's like it's the only media involving revenge you've ever consumed in your life and you base everything around it like it set up the rules for how that works. It's kind of sad.

Okay this last section is beyond dumb, Abby doesn't need to know Joel's motives or understand them to want vengeance for him murdering her father. The cycle still exists because Abby's revenge on Joel leads to Ellie wanting revenge on Abby. Also I'm not sure you're all that well versed on what The Last of Us was about based on your comments. It doesn't matter, though, even with revenge not existing as a plot point in TLOU it can be what the second game is about... because the second game isn't bound by the themes of the first. However it does fit the themes of the first, stuff like how we're haunted by past violence, which is exactly what Abby is, Joel's violent past coming back to haunt him.

If you choose to kill the other doctors Joel takes clear pleasure in it. Your argument seems to be it's morally okay to kill people who are performing a surgery that has a high chance of killing the patient, even if you know that surgery could lead to millions of lives saved, it's not a strong argument. Especially when you know Ellie would have volunteered her life to save others.Even from your deontological point of view why does Joel need to kill the surgeon after so easily disarming him?

One more edit: If it's okay to kill when your life is threatened or to save another life then you have to agree with what the doctors are doing, without a cure many lives are threatened, many people continue to die.

 

[DS_Joost]

I totally must of missed the "It was meant to be a joke" stuff, because that didn't comes across to me at all to be honest.

Perhaps I used the wrong wording there.

It was more like a light hearted ''we know'' type of thing. No explanation (because it wasn't necessary and wouldn't serve any point whatsoever and even worse, would propably insult the audience), no deep meaning. No dive into the human mind. Just a mindful reminder that they were aware. And completely in theme with the series intention, because in the end, it isn't that big of a deal. And I liked that they chose not to make it that big of a deal.

 

[Jill Valentine]

I was just thinking the similarities between what happened here and what happened to Avatar are uncanny.

I'm not crazy about the series but having watched both once casually and the reception feels like there are parrellels. Begin with a straightforward formula that appeals to everybody, but then you insisting on subverting expectations and torpedo your own creation at the end with your politics before exiting the company.

 

[Strategize]

Perhaps I used the wrong wording there.

It was more like a light hearted ''we know'' type of thing. No explanation (because it wasn't necessary and wouldn't serve any point whatsoever and even worse, would propably insult the audience), no deep meaning. No dive into the human mind. Just a mindful reminder that they were aware. And completely in theme with the series intention.

But they didn't have to do that at all. Embracing the game's tone, at no point am I questioning why Drake is murdering a bunch of russians. He's good and they're bad, there's zero morality depth there and that's fine for that series.

The second you call attention to it, you risk messing that up, even if it was supposed to be an ironic wink wink, which it didn't even comes across like that to me anyway.

 

[DS_Joost]

But they didn't have to do that at all. Embracing the game's tone, at no point am I questioning why Drake is murdering a bunch of russians. He's good and they're bad, there's zero morality depth there and that's fine for that series.

The second you call attention to it, you risk messing that up, even if it was supposed to be an ironic wink wink, which it didn't even comes across like that to me anyway.

Then I guess we took different things out of it. I remember people making enough fuss about it back in the day that I found it tasteful to at least let people know they didn't treat them as dumb, and that they took their fans seriously. I was pleasantly surprised during that last fight.

 

[cormack12]

Most of the complaints I'm seeing are from people who are upset that a woman is killing a white man. They think Naughty Dog is making this decision because they want to empower women and show that white men are bad.

Get that shit out of here. Your arguments have been fine so far but this immediately switches everyone off. One of the most poignant parts of TLOU I involved these two:

The most impactful life Joel took was Marlene

Henry was out there killing hunters and guard trying to keep Sam safe. If Henry was on that floor having his head caved in the response would be the same and that's because the players of the first have attachments. These people aren't perfect but their drives and

Having watched the leaked footage one more time, I'm am now doubly sure this is going to disappoint so many people, and not because of what most here think.

The writing, the dialogue, it's just... bad... Like, just really really bad. Too much exposition, to much trying to be meaningful, thoughtful, deep. It's just drivel. It's serious characters looking serious spewing serious expository dialogue while at the same time leaving nothing for the player to dissect or to think about. The game does the thinking for you. Neill ''2 Deep 4 U'' Druckmann's editors should've done a way better job, that is, if they could actually do their job by, you know, leaving shit out that doesn't work. It feels like the writers (or, writer which is what I suspect) does not trust the player. It TELLS you how you SHOULD feel, with almost every single line. I felt like a moron watching it.

This is most evident in that scene with Joel/Ellie when she is querying why he saved her. The barely audible wounded animal with survivor's guilt. There will probably be 13 tapes as collectibles. The writing also has highs but it does have lows (in the first game as well), and the scenes uphold this. Ultimately it's a decent video game story well shot. Let's not pretend like it's a high point of the medium or a life changing movie. It's solid and in the top end of video game storytelling, but it's such a shallow pool it doesn't mean a lot.



Regarding the surgeon that Joel killed (without player agency), that's a metaphor for the ideology. Joel is killing the idea personified by the surgeon which is in direct contradiction to any sort of medical ethics. How many kids or adults has that Doctor already needlessly carved up. How many more would he do if the Ellie experiment failed?

The ideology is basically putting the many above the few at whatever cost. If you disagree with Joel's choice, then you implicity agree with the soldier that shot Sarah, and was going to kill Joel (and basically advocate for Marlene just shooting Joel like a dog in the same circumstances). You can't view the actions in isolation.

 

[Jon Neu]

The notion that you can find a cure and then develop it by doing an autopsy on a child in some destroyed hospital by a bunch of doctors it's utterly stupid.

 

[DS_Joost]

Also, having seen enough movies, watch the love triangle play out like this:

Jesse loves Dina. Gets Dina pregnant but doesn't know. But Dina secretly loves Ellie. Ellie and Dina fall in love and Jesse is upset. Then finds out Dina is pregnant, but Dina still really wants to be with Ellie. Some more drama, but ultimately Jesse chooses to have peace with that. Feels like he is destined to protect them and his child. Gets murdered.

Cue the reaction videos:

''Oh my god!'' fake crying, ''They did NOT just do that!''

''Oh no he was so fucking brave!''

''Dude have you seen that I did definitely absolutely NOT expect that.''

Etc.

Watch it. It's gonna be that. I'll eat my shoe if it doesn't go that way.

Wow. So super deep and touching. And so courageous.

They will, however, be totally original and not make it super obvious when Jesse is gonna die. And then just let him die just like that, without a big speech, because THAT WILL SHOCK PEOPLE EVEN MORE. Because no one has done that before...

oh wait...

Game of Thrones did that.

 

[DForce]

Here's my opinion on the game after the leaks

The Last of Us had the perfect ending, but we were still left with a lot of unanswered questions about Joel and Ellie relationship. Joel wanted Ellie to live, but was it the decision Ellie wanted in the end? Joel lying to Ellie after all these years makes me believe that Ellie wanted to sacrifice herself to save the world, and she was willing to do it because she was always waiting for her turn to die (as she explained at the end of The Last of Us Part II).

The chapter list suggest that the first 6 hours is going to be about Ellie building her relationship with Dina and repairing her strained relationship with Joel. The early trailers and leaked videos suggest that the two have grown apart, but will eventually come to together again right before his death. In my opinion, this doesn't seem like they're just throwing the character away with absolutely no dignity.


I said before that Abby reminds me of Negan, a character that I use to hate. I've come to realize that you can like a character, even after they have killed one of your favorite characters in the series.

Abby may look like a man to some people, but I think that's the perfect design choice for this character. Having Ellie getting nearly beaten to death shows how intimidating this character truly is, and I don't think that would be represented by a character who is the same size as her. This is the old "David vs Goliath" trope.

Broadly speaking, this trope is any climactic combat or competition where the hero is the underdog. More specifically, it refers to conflicts where the hero is of much smaller physical stature than the villain. The hero will usually win if he's Weak, but Skilled in contrast to the Unskilled, but Strong foe, or otherwise very good at Deadly Dodging. If the villain is much larger, the hero may attempt a Colossus Climb.

Replace a woman like Tess with Abby, then I wouldn't believe that this character is a serious threat to Ellie.


There are still a lot of details I don't really understand about the story, so I can't give my entire opinion of this game until I actually play the game.

 

[DForce]

Get that shit out of here. Your arguments have been fine so far but this immediately switches everyone off. One of the most poignant parts of TLOU I involved these two:

The most impactful life Joel took was Marlene

Henry was out there killing hunters and guard trying to keep Sam safe. If Henry was on that floor having his head caved in the response would be the same and that's because the players of the first have attachments. These people aren't perfect but their drives and

What are you even talking about?

I'm telling you what people are saying in the comment section about the story and the characters. You have people in the comment section saying that ND decision to get rid of Joel was to empower women and get rid of the white men from the story.

 

[Clear]

Having watched the leaked footage one more time, I'm am now doubly sure this is going to disappoint so many people, and not because of what most here think.

The writing, the dialogue, it's just... bad... Like, just really really bad. Too much exposition, to much trying to be meaningful, thoughtful, deep. It's just drivel. It's serious characters looking serious spewing serious expository dialogue while at the same time leaving nothing for the player to dissect or to think about. The game does the thinking for you. Neill ''2 Deep 4 U'' Druckmann's editors should've done a way better job, that is, if they could actually do their job by, you know, leaving shit out that doesn't work. It feels like the writers (or, writer which is what I suspect) does not trust the player. It TELLS you how you SHOULD feel, with almost every single line. I felt like a moron watching it.

Dina looks to be a character that I just really can't give a fuck about, at all. That and the melodrama surrounding her and Jesse just makes my eyes roll at best. It's high school drama in a setting that is supposed to be serious. It should be about survival. Humanity. Instead it's about stupid feelings that don't even come across at all. It feels so completely out of place it's incredible. From what I've seen they try so fucking hard to make you care about this love triangle, but it just has no place in the universe they created in the first place. It feels forced for the feels, but it just fails miserably because it is shoved in your face how much you should feel bad for these characters that it feels the player gets no time to make up a mind of their own. That and it's just out of place. So completely out of place.

It's completely tone deaf to it's own universe.

The minimalism that made the first game so good is just... gone. It's all, ''he did this to her and then she did that to that other her but then he comes in and does this to her but she is secretly another person who was brought into it by him and then he turns out to be pregnant by her but he still has feelings for that person but that person has to leave and yet she wants love but that other person can't give her love because of him and yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda''.

It's absolutely fucking terrible. The first one tried to be minimalistic, thoughtful, slow moving, and while not as good as some journalists made it out to be, it at least partially succeeded by not treating the player like a moron and also by making people make up their own minds and ideas about things.

By comparison, these feels like a whole load of meaningless, hot air. Like no one dared stand up to Druckmann to tell him to maybe slim it down a little. Kill your darlings, as they say in the writing world.

Also, what I've seen wasn't just bad, it was insanely boring. That's right. Boring.

In the end, it's about a juvenile love triangle. And babies. And Chinese simps.

Love triangle. Babies. Simps.

Let that sink in after what the first one did, and then you'll realize how bad this is.

Less is more, Neill.

I think you're forgetting how well "left behind" did, and how the reception to that will have impacted the creative direction taken with the sequel.

 

[Jon Neu]

In my opinion, this doesn't seem like they're just throwing the character away with absolutely no dignity.

He's literally going to come back so he can be brutally humilliated (he literally begs for his life) and killed to set in motion the story of Abby and Ellie.

It literally sounds like a character being throwed away with absolutely no dignity.

 

[Jon Neu]

You have people in the comment section saying that ND decision to get rid of Joel was to empower women and get rid of the white men from the story.

And you think it's not possible?

Remember, this videogame is made by someone who claims that Anita Sarkeesian is a big influence on his works. Are you familiar with Anita Sarkeesian ideology?

It's far more crazy to believe they aren't doing it in part for that reason. In their feminist/LGTB story fantasy, a powerful white male being the hero/protagonist doesn't fly anymore. I'm sure they were literally craving to killing him.

Also him being killed by a girl plays one of the old SJW fantasies of women being as strong or stronger than men.

ND loves it's super incredibly unrealisticlly strong women beating up white men.

 

[DForce]

He's literally going to come back so he can be brutally humilliated (he literally begs for his life) and killed to set in motion the story of Abby and Ellie.

It literally sounds like a character being throwed away with absolutely no dignity.

If they were true, then they wouldn't spend so much time developing their story before he died.

Dignity is defined as being worth of respect or honor, this is something Ellie does throughout her journey.

 

[DForce]

And you think it's not possible?

Remember, this videogame is made by someone who claims that Anita Sarkeesian is a big influence on his works. Are you familiar with Anita Sarkeesian ideology?

It's far more crazy to believe they aren't doing it in part for that reason. In their feminist/LGTB story fantasy, a powerful white male being the hero/protagonist doesn't fly anymore. I'm sure they were literally craving to killing him.

Also him being killed by a girl plays one of the old SJW fantasies of women being as strong or stronger than men.

ND loves it's super incredibly unrealisticlly strong women beating up white men.

I write a lot of female characters.

I also think *some things* Anita says are true.

Do you think she's a big influence or i'm driven by the SJW movement?

 

[Eiknarf]

Pardon my ignorance, but why is a butch lesbian beating up two lesbians?

I thought I heard that it was the Christians who hated the gays in this story?

 

[Clear]

ND loves it's super incredibly unrealisticlly strong women beating up white men.

Do you understand how emotionally fragile and triggered you sound?

 

[Strategize]

Pardon my ignorance, but why is a butch lesbian beating up two lesbians?

I thought I heard that it was the Christians who hated the gays in this story?

That christians shit was proven wrong weeks ago to anyone actually paying attention. The new leaks just covered it's grave with dirt.