Support NeoGAF

[imsosleepy]

Before the imevitable discrediting of Joe starts from the salty fanboys, Joe lives and breaths videogames, and most people think his scores are too high for games on average. He's really not hard to please, and he really didnt like the game, none of them did. There are tons of Youtube and Streamer reviewers that didnt like the game either, in fact 6/10 is the score i have seen most by these reviewers, many who adored the first game.
Regardless of whether you like the game or not, hopefully this whole shitbang will make the corporate gaming media think twice before laveshing 10/10 across the board for a game for possible ulterior motives.

yea great example is pewdiepie. Pewdiepie loved the first game but could not take this one serious

 

[Clear]

"Writing is part of it"

So "bad writing" is a valid criticism then?
Glad we could... ahem... Clear that up.

No its not. Because you are placing blame on a specific element (the written part) which is not the totality of the experience. If story sequences are separated by passages of gameplay you don't enjoy its going to impact your appreciation of the narrative.

Why would criticism need to incorporate EVERY aspect of the game just because it's a game?

Because its a game you fuckwit, not a book! A multi-media presentation where aesthetics are in play aurally, visually, narratively and in a ludic sense. Each of which informs appreciation of the other.

I think Shadow of the Colossus could be a great experience. It's a great concept with amazing world building and character design with a thoughtful and impactful narrative. However the controls and the gameplay in my opinion are horrific and this is why I do not like the game.

One very bad aspect ruined the entire package for me.

WTF? You just proved my point and disproved your own /facepalm

So just because some of the narrative is driven by visuals or because the gameplay affects pacing and tone doesn't mean that I have to forgive bad writing.

OK, it's not the whole game but it can still be bad enough to ruin the whole game.

If writing is part of it, which you openly admit, then bad writing can ruin part of it and if part of it is ruined then there you go. 5 or 6 out of 10 is understandable.

I can kind of understand it from your perspective.
"The game validated my sense of superiority, ten out of ten".

So it must offend your sensibilities to see the plebs with their "unhelpful" and poorly expressed opinions give the game a lowly 6 out of 10.

As our conversation thus far has proven you lack basic reading comprehension. You have repeatedly claimed things contrary to what I've written and every time I've pointed this out, you've doubled down on it rather than admitting you were talking shit..

This shows me (1) you aren't too bright. and (2) you aren't interested in a good faith discussion. This being the case, why should I or anyone else give a damn about what you consider to be "bad writing"?

A definition by the way that you've never really explained or expounded upon to me, no doubt because you know its going to be easily dismissed.

The only thing offending my sensibilities is your stupidity. Why are you trying to say that I have a problem with Joe's 6/10 score? I don't have an issue with it all and I've certainly not written anything expressing that opinion. Similarly I don't believe this is a 10/10 game, and have written so explicitly elsewhere!

All this, and you have the gall to tell me you know what and how I think?

You're a moron, and here's the thing: Unlike you, I've actually bothered to put the effort in to explain precisely how and why I arrived at that opinion.

 

[Strategize]

Lmao, I don't get it.

I mean, its an Angry Joe review and he's voicing his opinion on the things he doesn't agree with. Y'all seem to know about Joe and his schtick, so none of this should be a surprise to you. But he even mentions in his review that he gave the previous game a 10/10 which he doesn't throw around frequently at all. People are saying he's acting "bratty" or "childish", but I don't see that at all. Are you just saying that because his opinion is different than yours? Cause that's what it feels like, lol.

To me I see someone that's actually incredibly disappointed considering how much he loved the previous game. He was clearly passionate about it. Which is really the echoing sentiment and opinions with those that weren't the happiest with the game had.

It's really just a person's opinion, and that's it. There's no real reason to attempt to see it for more than what it is. I really don't understand the rage that comes with these reviews from people that are clearly huge fans of the game.

My understanding from what I've seen is that, if you really loved the game then there is absolutely no "negative" or "mediocre" scored review that you'll agree with. That's it, and that's fine.

I don't care that he doesn't like the game, like I said there's been plenty of better reviews explaining their dislike. But spreading misinformation or purposely just acting dumb about character motives is a no from me.

We're talking about a dude who gave the first game a 10/10, yet didn't recognize the firefly logo in TLOU2 reveal trailer despite being the only symbol in the series at that point. And, even worse not understanding why Ellie is upset with Joel for his choice, like at that point you're just admitting you didn't understand TLOU1, the "10/10", nevermind TLOU2.

 

[Saruhashi]

No its not. Because you are placing blame on a specific element (the written part) which is not the totality of the experience. If story sequences are separated by passages of gameplay you don't enjoy its going to impact your appreciation of the narrative.

Because its a game you fuckwit, not a book! A multi-media presentation where aesthetics are in play aurally, visually, narratively and in a ludic sense. Each of which informs appreciation of the other.

If a specific part of the game is bad then the game can still be deemed bad as a consequence.

Oh but muh graphics and muh ludo yada yada.

It's no different from giving developers a pass regarding horrific bugs etc.

If it ruins the game it ruins the game. End of.

LOL. You absolute dunce.

 

[JTCx]

Joe, son i am disappoint. good to know that not liking story = bad writing

 

[iJudged]

Lol

i am sorry, maybe it's just me but when he showed he was crying, i shut it off...

 

[Mod of War]

I really dislike the constant moderating in these specific threads. Thanks Druckmann, you did provide discomfort not just in game, but the meta that surrounds it.

In all seriousness, those of you incapable of attacking the argument instead of each other with juvenile insults, please raise your hand and I will help remove you from the thread.

If it continues however, there will be warnings to go along with the thread or possible site bans.

Thank you, now carry on— preferably with a wee bit more tact.

 

[silent head]

I think it's worse that he wasn't even angry. He was disappointed

 

[Business]

I think the score itself is a tad harsh if we have to judge it compared to the trash that's out there, but the actual points he makes in the review are quite spot on.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Anger is an energy

 

[Neil Young]

I haven't played the game as I didn't enjoy the first one. Watched this review (as watching the hysteria over this game is entertaining to me) and can I just say that Angry Joe stinks? What do people see in this guy? For fellow non fans of Angry Joe, you may enjoy The Rageaholic takedown of him.

 

[Faithless83]

Angry Joe is spot on and explains in detail why the game has bad writing.
But yeah, this thread proves how far people will go to protect the game, the sales are already down by a lot.
As a fan of the first game, I hope this will make devs care more about the writing, maybe it will end up as a good example of "what not to do".

 

[Krappadizzle]

Games story was garbage. Some of you need to accept it. Doesn't mean it was a bad game, I enjoyed it enough. But it was a trash ass story with very lazy writing. I've written in extensive detail on how and why it's lazy writing and some of you like to say, "you just don't understand, it's too deep for you to get" fuck off with that bullshit pretentiousness.

Some of you would do well to understand that it's okay to disagree. I don't care that people like the writing, it's fine that they do, but just because you're feelings are hurt that someone doesn't like the story doesn't make you right.

 

[Alebrije]

If ND decides to bring TLOU3 in the future people will be more cautelous about preorders than with TLOU2 ...that is the effect of its story contrary to TLOU1

Some people liked it but there is a lot of others that did not. No matter how many 10/10 media gave it...the damage is done and confidence on a big sector of fans has been broken.

It does not means TLOU2 is a failure on its own , but compared to 1 yes.

 

[Roufianos]

Entertaining though with a 50 minute review, think he could have touched more on the game's other major problem, the awful pacing.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Games story was garbage. Some of you need to accept it. Doesn't mean it was a bad game, I enjoyed it enough. But it was a trash ass story with very lazy writing. I've written in extensive detail on how and why it's lazy writing and some of you like to say, "you just don't understand, it's too deep for you to get" fuck off with that bullshit pretentiousness.

Some of you would do well to understand that it's okay to disagree. I don't care that people like the writing, it's fine that they do, but just because you're feelings are hurt that someone doesn't like the story doesn't make you right.

You seem upset people who liked the story act as though they have the "correct" viewpoint yet also tell us we "need to accept" the idea the story is garbage. These are conflicting viewpoints.

 

[Strategize]

Angry Joe is spot on and explains in detail why the game has bad writing.
But yeah, this thread proves how far people will go to protect the game, the sales are already down by a lot.
As a fan of the first game, I hope this will make devs care more about the writing, maybe it will end up as a good example of "what not to do".

He did? Cause he sure did an awful job of it considering the amount of shit he just had to straight make up or willingly misinterpret to make it look bad.

 

[Shantae]

I personally respect Angry Joe's content, because I think he comes across as real. When he does his "rant" stuff, you know he does it because it's his shtick, and it's part of the persona of the channel, but when he does do these reviews, or discussions, he just says what he legit feels about the game. That's more valuable to me than any editorial piece, or complex written review. All media is subjective, and when he says he doesn't like something, or is disappointed, it's coming from a place of personal belief, and that alone has value to a viewer like me. Take it or leave it, if you don't agree with his opinion, that's your right. You're not supposed to agree with him all the time, and he even admits that some people might like certain aspects of games he doesn't like. His reviews come across as just being from the heart to me though, as corny as that sounds. He gives scores to games at the end of a review, but it doesn't feel like he's basing every thing on some kind of metric to reach that score. He says what he thinks about something, and based on that observation gives it a number that he think fits. That's how I would review something in the same position.

I don't even like watching a lot of his content, because I find some of it boring, but I will sometimes listen to him give a critique on something because I like hearing honest opinions. I find it so much more informative when someone just goes over positives and negatives in their head of what they thought about a game, rather than hearing someone say something like "this is what you might like", I'd rather hear about what YOU like, don't try to please me. His reviews have some comedy bits in them that I sometimes find funny, and again comedy is subjective, you might not like it, but some people do.

This post was mostly for the people who go on about why they don't understand why people still listen to Angry Joe or anyone in general.

 

[Airbus Jr]

Angry Joe The Last of Us II review

Likes 137k

Dislikes 8.8k

Hey resetera ...thats the best you got?

 

[Steve.1981]

That was, ironically, a poorly planned & badly executed review from Joe. I learned next to nothing about why he didn't like the game, outside of "Joel wouldn't do that" & "Abby bad"

I like Joe. I've watched loads of his stuff over the years. He's entertaining (hilarious at times) & usually explains himself clearly enough, within the structure of his "Angry" persona. This time he simply went with his gut reaction & never actually gave the story a fair chance to win him over. He hated the leaks, went into the game ready to hate it, played it while ranting "I hate this" & then summed it up with a final "Fuck this gay story I hate it"

It was kind of pointless in the end. He spent maybe 5 minutes talking about the nice graphics & gameplay. The rest was just ranting "Fuck Abby" "Fuck Neil Druckman" "Joel wouldn't do that"

I get that as an initial gut reaction. I do. That was kind of my initial gut reaction. But come on man, let it sit for a minute. Think it over for a spell. I'm becoming more convinced by the day, a whole lot of people are reacting to this game's story with their gut & just never even considering that it could be possible to move past that.

 

[Clear]

Check this review video out that someone posted in the spoiler thread.

I think it offers an excellent counterpoint.

 

[GymWolf]

Yeah the guy was already on war with drunkman and the game, his opinion is far from non-biased and it shows.

 

[Shodan09]

His score is absolutely fair given it does nothing new gameplay wise.

 

[DForce]

Angry Joe is spot on and explains in detail why the game has bad writing.
But yeah, this thread proves how far people will go to protect the game, the sales are already down by a lot.
As a fan of the first game, I hope this will make devs care more about the writing, maybe it will end up as a good example of "what not to do".

Spot on.

He points out "flaws" that are typical movies clichés.

He gave Uncharted 4 a 9 out of 10 and didn't have a problem with drake being saved or escaping death so many times by so called "plot armor" but he has a major problem with it in TLOU Part II.

 

[thelastword]

I mean I respect Joe's opinion, but his reviews are mostly drawn to make people laugh and to be entertaining, or to go on a rage tangent. So in many instances I think he's aiming at a reaction than giving a solid review. He was already at odds with Druckmann anyway. Condemning a fineplaying, highly polished game to a 6/10 because you did not like the story or what happened with a character is assinine. Games are interactive mainly, does it play superbly? Is the production level, animations, graphics and controller fluidity high? Is the gameplay addictive? Yes, and so this forms the majority of the game. No reviewer has any right to tell a director what story they can tell in their game.... Judge the production values and how the game plays.......

Movies I can understand that you are more liable to go there, yet it's still the director or studio's call what they do in movies.....Whilst some people are upset what happened in the avengers, millions of people watched and enjoyed the movie. Liking a story or not is subjective, the people talking about story in LOU2 or Abby's muscles are the end of the world are being too pitchforky about it to be taken seriously. It's a 94% Meta game, which sold 4 million in 2 days, who knows how many now.....No one is saying not to have counter opinions to the average score, but 6/10 because you did not like what happened in the story is absolute rubbish reasoning for a reviewer.....And to be fair it's really not about the score, I's the reason behind the score that makes no sense....Yet, I understand Joe, because he is just an entertainer on youtube, for the bigger games, he shoots where he will get the most traction for his videos, so I understand the hustle, yet it's still a review that was not argued well or done with all the facts/truth. He twisted quite a few things in that review...

 

[xrnzaaas]

I mean I respect Joe's opinion, but his reviews are mostly drawn to make people laugh and to be entertaining, or to go on a rage tangent. So in many instances I think he's aiming at a reaction than giving a solid review. He was already at odds with Druckmann anyway. Condemning a fineplaying, highly polished game to a 6/10 because you did not like the story or what happened with a character is assinine. Games are interactive mainly, does it play superbly? Is the production level, animations, graphics and controller fluidity high? Is the gameplay addictive? Yes, and so this forms the majority of the game. No reviewer has any right to tell a director what story they can tell in their game.... Judge the production values and how the game plays.......

Movies I can understand that you are more liable to go there, yet it's still the director or studio's call what they do in movies.....Whilst some people are upset what happened in the avengers, millions of people watched and enjoyed the movie. Liking a story or not is subjective, the people talking about story in LOU2 or Abby's muscles are the end of the world are being too pitchforky about it to be taken seriously. It's a 94% Meta game, which sold 4 million in 2 days, who knows how many now.....No one is saying not to have counter opinions to the average score, but 6/10 because you did not like what happened in the story is absolute rubbish reasoning for a reviewer.....And to be fair it's really not about the score, I's the reason behind the score that makes no sense....Yet, I understand Joe, because he is just an entertainer on youtube, for the bigger games, he shoots where he will get the most traction for his videos, so I understand the hustle, yet it's still a review that was not argued well or done with all the facts/truth. He twisted quite a few things in that review...

If someone finds the story horrible and the characters unlikeable (including a playable one you're stuck with for 10+ hours) then it can definitely ruin the whole experience even when the gameplay mechanics work great and the graphics are insanely good. Of course it's subjective, for one player it will matter a lot, for someone else it will be a minor or non-issue.

 

[MacReady13]

Loved the review. Not sure what I'd give the games as I'm 11 hours in and I just can't go any further. Game is quite boring. I can't understand why ND went so wrong in this game. Just a poor direction to take the game. Don't like ANY of the characters in this game. I love bleak worlds and bleaker stories but this game is just dull. I love the flashbacks with Ellie and Joel. The rest is boring trash in my opinion.

 

[thelastword]

If someone finds the story horrible and the characters unlikeable (including a playable one you're stuck with for 10+ hours) then it can definitely ruin the whole experience even when the gameplay mechanics work great and the graphics are insanely good. Of course it's subjective, for one player it will matter a lot, for someone else it will be a minor or non-issue.

Yes, but you as a reviewer have no right to say who lives or dies in a game, so if you make your review all about that fact, then that review is not balanced......If the game plays badly, camera sucks, framerate is abysmal, it controls like Superman 64, then go broke, because that would make the game unplayable, but your chief argument is that you don't like that someone died in a dog eat dog world zombie apocalypse is naive at best. People we know meet their ends everyday, they do some questionable things that sometimes we were not even aware of. Sometimes we hear, this guy was arrested for this and we gasp and say "really"? I understand that people who have grown to certain characters and have learned to love them is what the main complaint is, but you can't decide what happens in a story, it's not your call, just like many things happen in this world that you are unaware of or unfortunate things or bad endings for many people that we know everyday. It's even worse in the setting of TLOU 2.

One could argue that Joel could have gone in stealthily and saved ABBY from the Doctor that way, but things never always happen in the world how we want it, farless for this type of world in LOU. You don't retract 4 points because of the way a story is told, it's not out of reality especially with all the killings that Joel did in the first game, he did it mainly for Ellie and what he did at the hospital he did for her as well, but even she was disappointed in the way he handled it. The bigger thing is he took someone from somebody else and she loved that person, so people wanting revenge and trying to protect their own is a two way street. We never know who will get the upper hand in the end.....I just think people are being too emotional about this, what happened here was not unrealistic under the circumstances....And I think it opens things up a tonne for part 3.....

 

[Birdo]

Condemning a fineplaying, highly polished game to a 6/10 because you did not like the story or what happened with a character is assinine

It's a story-driven game with a heavy emphasis on it's narrative.

I would agree with you if he was complaining about the story in Jaust Cause 4. But not a game like TLOU2.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

I agree with pretty much 100% of what he said, such a shame this is the path they took.

How awfull writting ruined one of the best gaming stories of all time.

 

[A2una1]

What I don't get here: Is it a bad thing that not everybody is liking the game? The whole conversation seems to be aiming to persuade the opposite side their arguments are better and the oher should shut up....

What alarms me the most when looking at these kind of discussion is what it implies for developers:

Don't dare to take any risk with characters you established yourself. We want changes, but if we don't like them in the slightest we will burn you to cinder!!

 

[Warnen]

This vid and Jim impressions made me want to try the game. I know I'm going to dislike the story, I read the spoilers and really don't like the revenge is bad kind of thing. Seems like the game play is fun so that's good enough for me. Sadly I sold my PS4 pro to get my laptop, so I'll have to wait for a ps5 or a big price drop to get back in.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Yes, but you as a reviewer have no right to say who lives or dies in a game, so if you make your review all about that fact, then that review is not balanced......If the game plays badly, camera sucks, framerate is abysmal, it controls like Superman 64, then go broke, because that would make the game unplayable, but your chief argument is that you don't like that someone died in a dog eat dog world zombie apocalypse is naive at best. People we know meet their ends everyday, they do some questionable things that sometimes we were not even aware of. Sometimes we hear, this guy was arrested for this and we gasp and say "really"? I understand that people who have grown to certain characters and have learned to love them is what the main complaint is, but you can't decide what happens in a story, it's not your call, just like many things happen in this world that you are unaware of or unfortunate things or bad endings for many people that we know everyday. It's even worse in the setting of TLOU 2.

One could argue that Joel could have gone in stealthily and saved ABBY from the Doctor that way, but things never always happen in the world how we want it, farless for this type of world in LOU. You don't retract 4 points because of the way a story is told, it's not out of reality especially with all the killings that Joel did in the first game, he did it mainly for Ellie and what he did at the hospital he did for her as well, but even she was disappointed in the way he handled it. The bigger thing is he took someone from somebody else and she loved that person, so people wanting revenge and trying to protect their own is a two way street. We never know who will get the upper hand in the end.....I just think people are being too emotional about this, what happened here was not unrealistic under the circumstances....And I think it opens things up a tonne for part 3.....

But it's not simply about whether someone died or survived, it's about the fact that the game wasn't fun to play for some people because of Joel's death happening so early and because of the game desperately trying to force the player to like and understand the new group or characters. You can have everything working like clockwork from a technical standpoint, but you simply might not enjoy these moments because of past events in the game.

And yeah, some people will get emotional when the game not only doesn't focus on the character they loved, but also (literally) spits on a beloved character and throws him away. Joe doesn't work for a serious gaming outlet so I think he's free to be more emotional than a typical reviewer. I agree that sometimes he tries too much to be entertaining and controversial, but I wouldn't say he went too far with this review.

Fyi personally I'm not saying that Joel should survive in TLoU2 no matter what, but the story should've been told differently even if his death scene would stay exactly the same.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

"Story should be told differently" is absolutely the lowest level of critique right above "it was boring". You have to accept what you were presented and critique it based on that, coming up with your own version of events that you believe to be superior isn't very interesting critique especially when YOUR version of events requires the same benefit of the doubt the original does... seeing them in context and without you exhaustively explaining that what are we to make of it? It reminds me of Chris Stuckmann writing his own BvS script, with truly memorable lines like "Tell that to Zod's snapped neck". There was a movie that made everyone think they were a writer, it was great seeing such a public face so totally humiliated on that front.

 

[Faithless83]

Spot on.

He points out "flaws" that are typical movies clichés.

He gave Uncharted 4 a 9 out of 10 and didn't have a problem with drake being saved or escaping death so many times by so called "plot armor" but he has a major problem with it in TLOU Part II.

Nathan dodges death time and time again through the whole series, this is a different setting altogether. It's a bleak world where the writer kills people left and right (so does the protagonists).
Don't you think you're grasping "a little bit"?

 

[Faithless83]

He did? Cause he sure did an awful job of it considering the amount of shit he just had to straight make up or willingly misinterpret to make it look bad.

What did he made up? The bottle of piss?
You do know that was a joke, right?

 

[MR ARCADE FOREVER]

Now resetera sjws are acusing Angry Joe of being mysoginist and are canceling him from world existence. I never liked this guy but resetera thinks they can police people's lives and judge every single action of them, bunch of disgusting hypocrites

 

[DForce]

Nathan dodges death time and time again through the whole series, this is a different setting altogether. It's a bleak world where the writer kills people left and right (so does the protagonists).
Don't you think you're grasping "a little bit"?

So does Joel and Ellie in the first game.

Joel dodged death when his daughter died. Not a single gunshot wound.
Bill saves Joel from a clicker
Joel impaled in one of the least critical parts of his body (Ellie is literally right next to him and does nothing).
David stops himself from killing Ellie after she tells him that she's infected.
David chokes out Ellie and locks her in a cage
David aims the gun at Ellie and decides not to shoot her but is distracted by a fire next to him.
Joel survived two car crashes in this game.


He doesn't consider this flaws in the first game, but they are in the second game. I'm not saying he should like it, but he's inconstant in his criticism.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Yeah the guy was already on war with drunkman and the game, his opinion is far from non-biased and it shows.

So what? No opinion is non biased. Every person alive to play a game has some kind of bias.

It's kind of a bullshit criticism to say "they are bias" like no duh. It's impossible to come at a piece of media with no knowledge of any politics or previous media.

Nobody lives in a vacuum and certainly not people that reviews games for a living. Saying he is biased is an empty statement. There is no such thing as a bias free objective review.

That said he loved the first game to death gave it a 10/10 may include that in your estimation of "bias". Like millions of other gamers he loved the first entry.

 

[Faithless83]

So does Joel and Ellie in the first game.

Joel dodged death when his daughter died. Not a single gunshot wound.
Bill saves Joel from a clicker
Joel impaled in one of the least critical parts of his body (Ellie is literally right next to him and does nothing).
David stops himself from killing Ellie after she tells him that she's infected.
David chokes out Ellie and locks her in a cage
David aims the gun at Ellie and decides not to shoot her but is distracted by a fire next to him.
Joel survived two car crashes in this game.


He doesn't consider this flaws in the first game, but they are in the second game. I'm not saying he should like it, but he's inconstant in his criticism.

Do you really want to compare the events to the first game to people straight up sparing characters time and time again for no reason at all?
So blatantly so that even the characters in the game question their decisions?
Now you are inconsistent.

 

[Ozrimandias]

hopefully this whole shitbang will make the corporate gaming media think twice before laveshing 10/10 across the board for a game for possible ulterior motives.

that's the problem, a noisy group of fans try to see underwater and put their extremism and ideology first, attacking a piece of entertainment, which has no explicit agenda and that above all, delivers a good story, a smooth gameplay, a different proposal and it is very likely (before Bloodborne) the game of the generation.

 

[Lanrutcon]

that's the problem, a noisy group of fans try to see underwater and put their extremism and ideology first, attacking a piece of entertainment, which has no explicit agenda and that above all, delivers a good story, a smooth gameplay, a different proposal and it is very likely (before Bloodborne) the game of the generation.

I actually choked on my coffee. Congratulations. There is no way. None. Not even close. In a universe of endless possibilities, this forum has a better chance of developing sentience, forming a physical body and winning Nascar than TLOU 2 has of being the game of the generation.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

No its not. Because you are placing blame on a specific element (the written part) which is not the totality of the experience. If story sequences are separated by passages of gameplay you don't enjoy its going to impact your appreciation of the narrative.

Sometimes the story can be so horrendous that it makes you dread the gameplay parts, especially if the acting is cringy.

I love how the game plays, I also like how the story goes so far (not so sure about those flashbacks tho) and obviously the actors/motion capture is pretty amazing.

 

[DForce]

Do you really want to compare the events to the first game to people straight up sparing characters time and time again for no reason at all?
So blatantly so that even the characters in the game question their decisions?
Now you are inconsistent.

This is my problem. You guys didn't pay attention to the story.

When Dina asks Ellie that question, the game is trying to make you ask yourself, "Yeah, WHY did they let Tommy and Ellie go?"

It's because of Owen.

When you first see Joel being killed, you're looking at it from Ellie's perspective. Her ears are ringing and you don't hear Owen's voice at all.

So when you finally play as Abby, the scene plays again, but from Abby's perspective, and that's when you hear Owen stopping the others from killing Ellie and Tommy.

The game wants you to first think Owen is the bad guy, when he's not.


The reason why Owen and Abby's relationship didn't work is because Abby couldn't get her mind off of Joel. Whenever Owen tried to get close to her, Abby would back off and just bring up Joel. Owen wanted Abby to move on, but she couldn't.

There are some small hints to Owen's good side, but you don't fully understand it until you play as Abby.

In the beginning of the game, Abby tells Owen that she wants to capture people from Jackson and force them to talk.

Owen responds, "Do you hear yourself?"

This doesn't sound like someone who wants innocent people involved. He only wants Abby to get revenge on Joel and Joel only.

 

[BootsLoader]

if you guys want a somewhat decent review, watch this... if you do not like the story ... its not going to make you like the story but... I really like this review...

To be honest it's the only review I liked for this game.

 

[Faithless83]

This is my problem. You guys didn't pay attention to the story.

When Dina asks Ellie that question, the game is trying to make you ask yourself, "Yeah, WHY did they let Tommy and Ellie go?"

It's because of Owen.

When you first see Joel being killed, you're looking at it from Ellie's perspective. Her ears are ringing and you don't hear Owen's voice at all.

So when you finally play as Abby, the scene plays again, but from Abby's perspective, and that's when you hear Owen stopping the others from killing Ellie and Tommy.

The game wants you to first think Owen is the bad guy, when he's not.


The reason why Owen and Abby's relationship didn't work is because Abby couldn't get her mind off of Joel. Whenever Owen tried to get close to her, Abby would back off and just bring up Joel. Owen wanted Abby to move on, but she couldn't.

There are some small hints to Owen's good side, but you don't fully understand it until you play as Abby.

In the beginning of the game, Abby tells Owen that she wants to capture people from Jackson and force them to talk.

Owen responds, "Do you hear yourself?"

This doesn't sound like someone who wants innocent people involved. He only wants Abby to get revenge on Joel and Joel only.

Again, when Ellie and Dina got their horse blown up? They tie her instead of "shoot on sight" and that's only one of the gaps, Joe shows in detail others as well.
The characters act off and make unreasonable decisions the whole game. It's a lot of plot decisions that didn't make sense.
Watch the entire review (looks like you didn't), if after that you still think this is a properly written story I don't have anything else to tell you.
The points are crystal clear in the video.

 

[DForce]

Again, when Ellie and Dina got their horse blown up? They tie her instead of "shoot on sight" and that's only one of the gaps, Joe shows in detail others as well.
The characters act off and make unreasonable decisions the whole game. It's a lot of plot decisions that didn't make sense.
Watch the entire review (looks like you didn't), if after that you still think this is a properly written story I don't have anything to tell you anymore.
The points are crystal clear in the video.

You're moving goalpost. I explained why they were let go and you moved on to the next point because you really had no rebuttal for it.

I also explained how things happen in the TLOU 2 where they kept Ellie alive, took her out of the cage and she was saved because she was infected.

That is not a flaw, but it is in TLOU part II?

It's an old movie cliche. It happens all the time. You may not like it, but if you're going to say how this is bad writing, then you can do the same thing to most action movies out there.


Kill Bill - Vernita Green, a trained assassin misses an easy show that would've killed Batrix Kiddo.

Spoiler

The Dark Knight Rises - Miranda doesn't kill Batman and doesn't detonate the bomb right away just to talk to him.

Spoiler

The list goes on. I don't nitpick movies and call this bad writing. The purpose of this is to create suspense, even thought it might make the characters "look stupid."

 

[Clear]

Sometimes the story can be so horrendous that it makes you dread the gameplay parts, especially if the acting is cringy.

I love how the game plays, I also like how the story goes so far (not so sure about those flashbacks tho) and obviously the actors/motion capture is pretty amazing.

I'm just making a call for fairness and accuracy is all. Liking and appreciating are two very different things.

If a person, for want of a better word, is "triggered" by an element in the fiction but I'm not, it makes the complaint specifically useful to them, but not so to me. So say, a person has a phobia about spiders; their reaction to playing a game where you fight, or even worse maybe, play as a spider is going to be different to someone who doesn't react that way.

The point is though, the phobic person can't fairly turn around and say it was a fault of the game's part that it included spiders so prominently.

The same type of issue is in play here, with things like Joel's death and playing for a prolonged period as Abby. Neither of these things are per-se "bad", but I can understand why some people would hate them!

The thing I've been banging on about is that hatred is all about the viewer, their mindset and expectations and not so much about the game and its writing. You can't call it bad writing just because its a choice or direction you disagree with, you want to tar it with that brush -to me at least- you need to make an argument with substance, not just emotion.

With reviews and stuff it gets extra messy because following the initial emotional "trigger" people tend to try and rationalize that feeling by seeking out, and in some cases inventing faults to bolster their case.

You see this all the time, and with games its especially bad because although the inciting upset can come from a singular aspect, the knock-on effect is that everything in the whole package gets tainted.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Again, when Ellie and Dina got their horse blown up? They tie her instead of "shoot on sight" and that's only one of the gaps, Joe shows in detail others as well.
The characters act off and make unreasonable decisions the whole game. It's a lot of plot decisions that didn't make sense.
Watch the entire review (looks like you didn't), if after that you still think this is a properly written story I don't have anything else to tell you.
The points are crystal clear in the video.

You guys are the sort of people who wonder why the James Bond villain uses a slow-moving laser to kill him instead of just shooting him. In this case you're applying absolute logic to decisions made by characters as if their moral compasses don't exist at all and they should just do whatever results in the best outcome with the least risk to them.

I like the idea that Angry Joe is going to explain to anyone why this isn't a properly written story, what an arbiter of what a properly written story is like he TRULY is, right?

 

[Faithless83]

You're moving goalpost. I explained why they were let go and you moved on to the next point because you really had no rebuttal for it.

I also explained how things happen in the TLOU 2 where they kept Ellie alive, took her out of the cage and she was saved because she was infected.

That is not a flaw, but it is in TLOU part II?

It's an old movie cliche. It happens all the time. You may not like it, but if you're going to say how this is bad writing, then you can do the same thing to most action movies out there.


Kill Bill - Vernita Green, a trained assassin misses an easy show that would've killed Batrix Kiddo.

Spoiler

The Dark Knight Rises - Miranda doesn't kill Batman and doesn't detonate the bomb right away just to talk to him.

Spoiler

The list goes on. I don't nitpick movies and call this bad writing. The purpose of this is to create suspense, even thought it might make the characters "look stupid."

You guys are the sort of people who wonder why the James Bond villain uses a slow-moving laser to kill him instead of just shooting him. In this case you're applying absolute logic to decisions made by characters as if their moral compasses don't exist at all and they should just do whatever results in the best outcome with the least risk to them.

I like the idea that Angry Joe is going to explain to anyone why this isn't a properly written story, what an arbiter of what a properly written story is like he TRULY is, right?

I'm not moving goalpost. My point still stands, both of you cherry picked one point and somehow this "justifies" the whole story now?
DForce Again, watch the review. It's all in there, I agree 100% with Joel on this one. The gameplay is nice but the story is so badly written that makes you want to give up.

Predictable as hell, unlikeable characters, shitting on old ones for the sake of it. It's all in there.

E Explosive Zombie Good luck turning the whole story around on the concept of "why the James Bond villain uses a slow-moving laser to kill him".
I think even the "not so bright" in the world understand the concept of "to move the plot further and build suspense" and plot armor.