Support NeoGAF

[Werewolf Jones]

Why does GAF always bring up The Last Jedi or Game of Thrones when arguing about this game. Please watch more fiction.

 

[PaddyOCanager]

Finished the game about a week ago. I found the story and characters to be pretty weak overall. I still have the same issues with gameplay I did in the first - spending most of my time checking every nook and cranny for supplies isn't fun for me.

The game is beautifully made though and I enjoyed it mostly for its technical merits over anything else. Not sure I want to sit through a second playthrough though. Towards the end I felt myself rushing because I was ready for it to be over. I can see why people may love it or hate it - for me I just thought it was good but not great.

 

[Kadayi]

GRRM actually pointed they were making a big mistake early on and he didn't expect that they would just ignore book 4 and 5 and complete rush it. GRRM made a lot of money with the show so he wasn't going to throw them under the bus but he stopped writing his episodes for the show later on.

He never said they made a mistake, he simply acknowledged that as with anything adapted they changed a few things around. Having worked in TV he knew what he was getting into, it was never going to be a straight retelling. As regards Book 4 & 5 (the turgid mess that they are), it's easy to have a cast of thousands in a book, less easy when you have a budget and albeit a big budget, substantial overheads to cover. He bailed on writing duties when it came to the show not because he wasn't happy with the work but because he was becoming acutely aware that the show was catching up with him, though instead of going the work he wasted his time on other things.

GRRM is a cunt, but he writes well, D&D are hacks couldn't write well to save their own lives. I have no hopes for the last book, I just want the next one and I'm good, I need to remove this abomination of a show from my mind.

Why does GAF always bring up The Last Jedi or Game of Thrones when arguing about this game. Please watch more fiction.

Because they're common cultural touch stones. No good likening something to a some narrative catastrophe no ones heard of. I mean I guess there's Prometheus or Mass Effect 3 if you want example of bad narratives in full effect as well.

 

[RetroRibosome]

Finally beat it.

Other than being needed to be edited down a bit the overall expertise was pretty much head and shoulders above the first game.

 

[bishopcruz]

This is an odd digression and seems almost designed to be uncharitable to the adaptation of a bonkers, bloated, meandering book series that even with 2 books left feels like it could potentially have no end in sight.

There were undoubtedly issues with rushing the show at the end, but they also improved hugely on a lot of the problems with the series of novels. And even in the last couple seasons everyone detests, there are really excellent and meaningful moments/episodes/arcs.

Anyways. I like both the books and the show. Just saying.



It's not superfluous at all... this sniper rifle tutorial section is doing what many things in this very meta game are doing, playing with the game format in order to subvert expectations of the gamer in order to illicit certain responses. To suggest that these bookends of the gamer's experience of the sniper rifle in this game -- being taught to shoot by Tommy on a routine patrol and then later having it be used in the way it is used in the narrative -- to claim that is somehow lazy or thoughtless or cobbled-together in some unfinished way it to really, really miss the point being reached for I think. It's no wonder with thinking like this that this particular game would upset you.

I'm not a person to hold it up as "10/10!!! Masterpiece!!!" or whatever... there are gameplay issues and story issues, in terms of pacing and bloat, I could see some of the arguments about those things specifically. But I've been lurking around this thread reading it, and you seem to be almost willfully missing the ideas, both in terms of actual story and in terms of the meta-context of gaming mechanics & narrative.

One more quick spoiler-related thought to illustrate this...

Spoiler

You just today compared Ned Stark to Joel, and suggested one was a complex character/story decision, while the other was some kind of simple shock kill? As if that's all it is, as if that's what defined it? I mean, if those are the kinds of conclusions you are drawing from this game I don't know how to contextualize your thinking as anything other than that of someone that doesn't get it.

And I don't say that lightly, since you are clearly an eloquent and intelligent person unlike many others on both sides of this debate. But the reality is, people aren't perfect and they have blind spots and this is probably one of yours, because most of your arguments about how this game fails, at least that I've read here late in this thread, are stunningly poor.

Look, I don't know what else to say other than I think you read meta meaning into things that are just there. This happened a lot in the defense of the Game of Thrones TV series, in defending seasons and rather horrible plot points and choices made by the creative staff by making them seem far more meaningful than they were. And your examination of the Sniper rifle scene is very much that. No, I see no evidence in the least that using the Sniper rifle was meant to be anything other than a cool scene that even by the way the dialog is used is meant to teach a player how to use something that I am sure at some point in the design was to be used later in the game. It has nothing to do with how Tommy uses the sniper rifle later, and Tommy himself is almost a non-entity through the majority of the story in either case.

I also continue to find it hilarious the sheer pretension in the responses I see here. "You seem to almost be willfully missing the ideas... et al..."No I am not missing the ideas. The ideas are simplistic and poorly executed.

The death of Joel is clearly set up primarily for its shock value, everything from the camera angle used when Abby comes out to the sheer speed and coincidences needed for everything to come together for the event to take place in the first place as well. It has next to nothing to do with his choices, he is basically shuffled along a track of convenience to put Abby in the position to kill him. Then we have the uneven timing of the events, not even told in chronological order within the opening just to keep the tension going. Jumping from Ellie to Abby constantly without a decent timeframe linking them. general lack of concern for the blizzard that causes most of the problems. And I could go on and on. Even fans of the game tend to have issues with the pacing and structure of that opening.

And that is because of a particular choice to rush the game of golf in order to push things forward. It's the reason they couldn't even spare five minutes to have the actual introduction of the characters and pasted it on to the final hours of the game instead. We don't get a good introduction to the characters of Abby and crew, hell we barely get a decent intro to the state of things in Jackson, careful world-building which the first game was so good at is tossed to the side in order to speed things along. This was a conscious choice, one usually reserved for shitty sequels when they can't get the lead actor back.

And again, comparing it to Ned. That was based on character motivations, interactions between people we know acting how we would expect them to, misunderstandings of what people were capable of. Even the stupidest of decisions by characters never had anyone in the audience going "they would never do that." The narrative played fair. If that had happened here, you'd have a lot fewer people pointing out the problems in the Jackson section alone. Call them plot holes or nitpicks, or whatever you might want, but to a sizable part of the audience, the writing did not succeed in setting it up well. Now one might argue that is solely because "Joel fans can't get over their whininess because their fee fees were hurt" or similar things I keep seeing pop up on this thread, and others online, but I would argue that especially because of how beloved the character is you need to make damn sure you execute it perfectly.

And to be fair and as I have said before. From the second Ellie ACTUALLY enters the room, all the BS almost doesn't matter. The acting and animation in that scene are amazing. The man can direct a scene like no one's business. But the lead up to it is atrocious. And sorry I need a sound structure to go with my emotional manipulation thank you very much.

Why does GAF always bring up The Last Jedi or Game of Thrones when arguing about this game. Please watch more fiction.

Because they are both wildly popular cultural touchstones that are easily relatable. The first for being purposefully divisive and being surprised when that divisive story actually caused fans to up and leave the franchise, and the second for being something well written early on and horrifically written in later seasons. Not hard to understand.

But if you wanted a new example. The intro to TLoU2 basically apes GI Joe: Retaliation. There you go.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Look, I don't know what else to say other than I think you read meta meaning into things that are just there.

I can't speak to what happened in defense of GoT, you may be right somewhat in that case... I'm just saying it's not exactly super subtle what is happening in some of these things going on in this game. So when you say things like, and I don't think I'm at all mischaracterizing here, "the sniper rifle is just a fun tutorial scene" and "the Joel moment is just meant to shock and isn't grounded in character", I don't really know how well anyone could support that... to me, it's kind of just a statement that's based on nothing & anything anyone points out that conflicts with it will automatically be a better argument just by virtue of the fact that it's not also an argument consisting of "nuh uh!!!!" and nothing else.

I have had very similar conversations with other people when it comes to other populist narratives, certainly when it comes to their supposed depth and especially when it comes to their thoughtful self-awareness... the degree to which they are aware of themselves and take a meta angle in order to enrich and deepen the experience of following the story. I don't find it compelling, the criticism version of repeatedly saying "no you're not..." during sketch comedy class, ignoring the cardinal rule of improv.

No, I see no evidence in the least that using the Sniper rifle was meant to be anything other than a cool scene that even by the way the dialog is used is meant to teach a player how to use something that I am sure at some point in the design was to be used later in the game. It has nothing to do with how Tommy uses the sniper rifle later, and Tommy himself is almost a non-entity through the majority of the story in either case.

This is the kind of thing I mean, and you're actually just wrong here I'm sorry to say... first of all Tommy is a constant presence throughout the story, both halves, and the juxtaposition of both sides' reaction to that presence -- on one hand concern and desperate worry for their friend who is out on his own, on the other being enraged/terrified by the threat he represents to fellow soldiers and friends. If we are reading this with any degree of charity we recognize that the game might be trying to use that initial scene to make a point about the nature of these manufactured sides, which are pitted against each other through circumstance but ultimately have quite a bit in common. Especially when contrasted with the likes of the clickers, or the true-believer cultists.

Spoiler

To have that initial tutorial around the sniper rifle, what's the argument that it's NOT setting up that conflict within the player, who is seeing things from all angles in a way the characters themselves cannot? The casual, jokey, father-figure/fun uncle nature of it when controlling Ellie... that has clear threads throughout the whole of multiple characters here! It is overtly suggestive of Ellie's relationship with Joel, and how Tommy is now in a position which Joel once occupied, that's not even subtext it's text. But furthermore the echoes throughout the game of partnership, protection, trust, etc... to dismiss it out of hand and unconnected when there are clear motifs linking a lot of this stuff, it just utterly fails. And it's enough for me to just point them out, that's what thematic undercurrents are some times, they don't have to be spelled out, they can be suggested and left up to the audience for interpretation... but they are there. That is purpose enough for what we're talking about here.

Then that SAME weapon is used, with the same mechanics we can imagine, and in the same way, with the same drop of the bullet... it's used in order to inflict intense danger and indeed horror on Abby, who is in this moment "us"!!! The same principles Tommy was teaching us, he's now using to try and kill us! You're saying that perspective shift, the conflict which comes from that dichotomy, that is not meaningful or purposeful? In a game that, warts and all, seems very much about identity and perspective... is that your claim? These scenes aren't meant to compliment each other?

I mean... if that's what you're saying, you should know that it makes for a very weak argument in the face of someone citing to you the exact ways in which these things can impact a gamer.

And that is because of a particular choice to rush the game of golf in order to push things forward. It's the reason they couldn't even spare five minutes to have the actual introduction of the characters and pasted it on to the final hours of the game instead.

Well I think there is a narrative purpose being achieved here... it's not a game about Joel and Ellie making up, it's a game about Ellie's all-consuming and literally self-maiming inability to let it go, and the point at which this is received by the audience hits in much different ways. When it is done in flashback after all is said and done, that's quite purposeful.

I feel like you're not really engaging with what the game is trying to do here. This is beyond it just not working for you, an introduction and this moment occurring early in the game would not have the impact the flashback has. But I give you credit here in that while I disagree you aren't actually saying anything wrong.

"Tommy is almost a non-entity in the majority of the story"... it may be studded with a couple caveats to serve as get out of jail free cards... but for this to be a general takeaway, as a sentiment to try and appraise the character of Tommy in this game, that is honestly about as close as one gets to being objectively wrong.

Spoiler

Same with the comment categorizing the Joel incident as a scene which is pure "shock", as if it's a bit of stunt casting, as if this were Deep Blue Sea and the shark just ate Samuel L. Jackson.

We don't get a good introduction to the characters of Abby and crew, hell we barely get a decent intro to the state of things in Jackson, careful world-building which the first game was so good at is tossed to the side in order to speed things along. This was a conscious choice, one usually reserved for shitty sequels when they can't get the lead actor back.

Yeah, it's a different game. It's doing a different thing, no doubt. It's not doing careful world building... it's interested in much different things. Can't really argue this, but this only amounts to "I like the slow world building of the first game better". Which is fine.

Abby's introduction seems quite purposeful to me, in terms of building tension/intrigue, and the experience of hunting her down as Ellie, and obviously in the experience of playing as her. But Jackson serves its purpose within this story, regardless of what other purpose someone else might think it could serve in a story that is much different from this one.

And again, comparing it to Ned. That was based on character motivations, interactions between people we know acting how we would expect them to, misunderstandings of what people were capable of.

Nothing Joel does is implausible, and this decision is based on character motivations too... the motivation of Ellie's character, to propel her throughout the story they are telling. Even if that's ALL the scene did, that's enough. It's still based on character.

Either way, you seemed to categorize them differently, suggesting that one existed as a shock moment and the other did not. That's what I took issue with, because it doesn't really make sense. You may think one is much better than the other, I'd probably agree, but that's not really the issue as I see it.

... I would argue that especially because of how beloved the character is you need to make damn sure you execute it perfectly.

His beloved-ness is completely meaningless as far as I'm concerned. There's not such thing as perfect but if there was it wouldn't be the enemy of something good, or even something competent. Agree to disagree.

But the lead up to it is atrocious. And sorry I need a sound structure to go with my emotional manipulation thank you very much.

I actually wasn't aware this kind of nit-picking was going on regarding the inciting incident of this game... I should have figured, judging by the kind of reaction this game got from a lot of people.

Nothing crazy happens in the intro to this game leading to the inciting incident... it's an unfortunate series of circumstances which sets off 2 protagonists in this specific story. That's it. On top of that it has massive narrative and thematic repercussions for multiple people involved. That's enough justification for it to unfold the way it did. But you're not just saying it didn't work for you, you seem to be suggesting it broke the experience in some way? Seems like kind of a big overreaction to me, and here's why...

Claiming narrative implausibility in a story about a zombie fungus decimating humanity is not a take that stands up to much good-natured scrutiny, I don't think... how far do we extend this extremely critical perspective? Over which elements of this game -- or games in general, or stories in general, or art in general -- do you decide to pass this particular high-powered magnifying glass? Because it seems very selective at best, and no matter what the answer is I think it'll say more about you than the stories you're analyzing.

And I want to reiterate I don't think you're dumb or whatever... you just aren't seeing things in the narrative, I think I am seeing them, and we just disagree. Maybe we both have blind spots?

 

[Werewolf Jones]

EDIT: DON'T READ THIS POST IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.

If you seriously think this game is as bad as Game of Thrones you've got another thing coming. Considering Game of Thrones was drove into the ground because them two little cunts wanted off this ship and onto their next natural disaster project for whoever was gonna pay out. They stopped caring. (Btw the writing was on the wall as early as S5. If you're that slow on the up take it's your own fault I dropped that shit as soon as Jojen Reed died for NO reason other than shock value and Stannis out of character burning his daughter alive but yeah.)

Druckmann and that chick from WestWorld on the other hand had an incentive to move this world forward. Joel shook a lot of people's lives to the core he is a catalyst for the narrative in the second game and it's done rather well. If you're crying because it's "disrespectful" but then unironically banging about HBO's Skyrim with sex scenes is so lit because character death is a permanent thing you might wanna think about it. Joel killed a lot of people. I see so many people clown on "Guess?" And that's the point. When you've killed THAT many people how could you?

I think normies need to stop being outraged and soak in what they're getting rather than being mad about a dude who was in literally ONE game getting smoked.

 

[Neil Young]

A funny thing happened with me and Last of Us. I was NOT a fan of the first game...didn't get out of Boston before putting it down. Then LOU 2 came out, I enjoyed reading all the spoilers and laughed at the memes. I decided to give the first game a try again because everyone kept saying how it was a masterpiece etc. I did, beat it and consider it one of the best games I've played.

I said, fuck it, I'M going to decide if I like LOU 2 and bought it right after beating the first even knowing all the spoilers. I'm about 14 hours in, the game is excellent. Yes, Abby is yoked and it IS a bit distracting but I REALLY like how they show her side of the story. I'm pissed at myself for buying into the hysteria.

 

[buenoblue]

CONTAINS SPOILERS Just finished the game. No doubt about it's technical quality but I thought the story was pretty mediocre, especially the ending.

You shouldn't have an ending about how killing is bad and mercy is good if you've killed 10's of people who were more or less innocent already. Why spare the person who has done the most wrong to you, but kill everyone else. Without any thought or guilt? It makes no sense. Plus to drag it out like they do, to do the same ending multiple times is bizzare.

A better story, the one I thout was unfolding, is that the fireflies are tracking Ellie to use her as the cure. She escapes but her friends and loved ones are killed off one by one.

Then in the end Ellie gets captured by the fireflies but Joel saves her again, but Ellie kills Joel and hands herself in and sacrifices herself for the good of mankind. Would of bin a shocking and emotional ending with Ellie killing Joel but dying herself because she knew it was right.

This would have been such a better story.

I also didn't like that what felt like the final confrontation was interrupted by that mammoth 12 hour time playing Abbey. By the time I got back to that scene I lost all connection to Ellie.

 

[Kadayi]

I think normies need to stop being outraged and soak in what they're getting rather than being mad about a dude who was in literally ONE game getting smoked.

So it's not that it's badly written, poorly paced, full of plot holes, contrivances and incongruous aspects, it's that 'normies' can't appreciate it? That is some basement dweller sad-assed hand wave right there. It's popular entertainment, not Art House Cinema. If it's not landing with its overall audience, it's failed.

 

[J3nga]

CONTAINS SPOILERS Just finished the game. No doubt about it's technical quality but I thought the story was pretty mediocre, especially the ending.

You shouldn't have an ending about how killing is bad and mercy is good if you've killed 10's of people who were more or less innocent already. Why spare the person who has done the most wrong to you, but kill everyone else. Without any thought or guilt? It makes no sense. Plus to drag it out like they do, to do the same ending multiple times is bizzare.

A better story, the one I thout was unfolding, is that the fireflies are tracking Ellie to use her as the cure. She escapes but her friends and loved ones are killed off one by one.

Then in the end Ellie gets captured by the fireflies but Joel saves her again, but Ellie kills Joel and hands herself in and sacrifices herself for the good of mankind. Would of bin a shocking and emotional ending with Ellie killing Joel but dying herself because she knew it was right.

This would have been such a better story.

I also didn't like that what felt like the final confrontation was interrupted by that mammoth 12 hour time playing Abbey. By the time I got back to that scene I lost all connection to Ellie.

Have you read the nonsense you've wrote? Ellie escapes fireflies, but then kills Joel to sacrifice? This would've been worse than it actually is.

 

[Classicrockfan]

Have they mentioned yet if they will have an option to turn off the film grain in the next patch?

 

[rofif]

So it's not that it's badly written, poorly paced, full of plot holes, contrivances and incongruous aspects, it's that 'normies' can't appreciate it? That is some basement dweller sad-assed hand wave right there. It's popular entertainment, not Art House Cinema. If it's not landing with its overall audience, it's failed.

It is just sad asses who can't accept it. Once You do and finish the game, You will understand what it is about. That is the whole meaning of the damn game and it's genious.
I really do not understand complaints

 

[Werewolf Jones]

So it's not that it's badly written, poorly paced, full of plot holes, contrivances and incongruous aspects, it's that 'normies' can't appreciate it? That is some basement dweller sad-assed hand wave right there. It's popular entertainment, not Art House Cinema. If it's not landing with its overall audience, it's failed.

I think it's more basement dweller level to hate this game personally but you do you.

Game isn't perfect but a lot of the desperate attempts at tearing the game down can be defended or justified most of the time. The last two hours of the game in particular aren't very good but it doesnt damage the whole product to be a step above the original. Which I'm not saying it is even though it is btw.

 

[carlosrox]

Holy shit this game doesn't end and I couldn't be happier about it!

I was for sure the credits were gonna roll THIS time and it just keeps going!

And I knew about all the leaks!

 

[Kadayi]

It is just sad asses who can't accept it. Once You do and finish the game, You will understand what it is about. That is the whole meaning of the damn game and it's genious.
I really do not understand complaints

www.grammarly.com

I think it's more basement dweller level to hate this game personally but you do you.

Game isn't perfect but a lot of the desperate attempts at tearing the game down can be defended or justified most of the time. The last two hours of the game in particular aren't very good but it doesnt damage the whole product to be a step above the original. Which I'm not saying it is even though it is btw.

LOL. I don't hate it (I'm not Angry Joe), but it just doesn't work for me on a number of levels and as soon as I'm

I'm dragged out of the experience and that is not a good thing, in a medium whose core strengths are interactivity and immersion.

 

[rofif]

www.grammarly.com



LOL. I don't hate it (I'm not Angry Joe), but it just doesn't work for me on a number of levels and as soon as I'm

I'm dragged out of the experience and that is not a good thing, in a medium whose core strengths are interactivity and immersion.

I made a grammar error ?! A polish guy making english grammar error ON THE INTERNET ?!

 

[Shmunter]

Is the barn kissing scene in the game from the reveal? Yet to come across it.

 

[buenoblue]

Have you read the nonsense you've wrote? Ellie escapes fireflies, but then kills Joel to sacrifice? This would've been worse than it actually is.

? Ellie says herself that Joel robbed her of saving the world so it's perfectly reasonable she would sacrifice herself. What we got was a half assed revenge story with no revenge.

 

[Geki-D]

with no revenge.

You managed to beat all Ellie sections without killing any WLF? Even in cutscenes? Damn, I wanna see this playthrough.

 

[DForce]

There’s just nothing like tlou2 for me. Everything coming together in one package is just so great. The soundtrack too. I’ll hear a song of the soundtrack come on in my playlist and I’ll get in the mood. The last of us franchise just hits different for me. Just gives me a certain feeling that I think only red dead 2 might’ve given me a similar feeling. Sadly, red dead 2 isn’t linear. God of war might’ve given me a similar feeling but the game has so much backtracking in it it’s just like ugh... nothing like tlou imo both games.

I’ve been bouncing around in my head which story is better. Part 1 or part 2’s. I think part 1’s is simpler so it’s a lot easier to perfect in a tighter package. But part 2 is just so much more interesting to me and I think a lot more accomplished piece.

i forget where I read this, it was on twitter, maybe here or reeee, but someone mentioned how like tlou1 drew clear influencers and you can like name those so easier and it’s like a lot “generic or typical” Type of game I guess?

Tlou2 clearly uses some tactics used in other games (mg2s which i really want to play now lol but probably won’t ever), but like it’s just such it’s an own piece of wildness that it’s hard to just pin point something onto it. It’s like a game u can just talk about and go on about for hours. There’s so much to take in as a whole and it’s just an unforgettable experience. That being said I think the story does rely a bit much on coincidence (like idk it’s still weird to me how they all got

Spoiler

back to Jackson and the farm house after that brutal fight

and maybe could’ve been paced better? Idk. I felt the game did get bluebally at times with pacing but it really worked well up with the tension in the end. Pacing can’t be that bad if I constantly want to replay the game lol. It surely gets it feel and I really only think the day ones are the slower days because it’s really about how it just progresses into craziness or redemption’ness. But when all is said and done and credits are rolling it achieved a lot to me personally and just leaves me thinking about it with chills. And wanting me to start it up all over again.

what also adds to me wanting to replay it I just love the general loop of looting and scavenging and then slashes. The enemy ai are so lifelike and I like the dynamics of the stealth and everything. The slash marks especially just add a lot more to the experience. Little details like ellie actually band-aiding her arm and seeing the blood soak through it’s just great. I love it. And oh boy the combat music soundtrack is just amazing addsso much tension.

also why the fuck don’t they try Battle Royale? The crafting and looting systemis already there in the game made. Just openup the full map of Seattle into one big bad battle royal. People can use boats, have dynamic weather patterns making it raininy and rough water.. making more bloaters or rat kings show.. come on the skies the limit. Put that damn ps5 to use and let us continue the Seattle adventure but this time against losers online

I would like for them to add a battle royale type of mode. The gameplay mechanics are tailor made for it. I wonder if they decided to skip Fractions for PS4 because it would be too hard to get the game to run at 60fps. I know they did it with Uncharted 4, but I'm wondering if they're trying to create some features where the infected would be part of multiplayer.

What I would like to see in the new TLOU MP:

- 32 Battle Royale with infected scattered across the map.
- Some infected types are equipped with some of the best weapons and you can acquired them after defeated them (similar to how you get the Bow in TLOU 2)
- Horde mode.
- Fractions mode that includes classic areas.
- Custom character design instead of random ones you're forced to use in the original MP.

 

[DForce]

CONTAINS SPOILERS Just finished the game. No doubt about it's technical quality but I thought the story was pretty mediocre, especially the ending.

You shouldn't have an ending about how killing is bad and mercy is good if you've killed 10's of people who were more or less innocent already. Why spare the person who has done the most wrong to you, but kill everyone else. Without any thought or guilt? It makes no sense. Plus to drag it out like they do, to do the same ending multiple times is bizzare.

A better story, the one I thout was unfolding, is that the fireflies are tracking Ellie to use her as the cure. She escapes but her friends and loved ones are killed off one by one.

Then in the end Ellie gets captured by the fireflies but Joel saves her again, but Ellie kills Joel and hands herself in and sacrifices herself for the good of mankind. Would of bin a shocking and emotional ending with Ellie killing Joel but dying herself because she knew it was right.

This would have been such a better story.

I also didn't like that what felt like the final confrontation was interrupted by that mammoth 12 hour time playing Abbey. By the time I got back to that scene I lost all connection to Ellie.

This wouldn't work because Ellie wanted to give her life for the cure at the end of TLOU Part I. This means Ellie would go willingly.

 

[Nankatsu]

CONTAINS SPOILERS Just finished the game. No doubt about it's technical quality but I thought the story was pretty mediocre, especially the ending.

You shouldn't have an ending about how killing is bad and mercy is good if you've killed 10's of people who were more or less innocent already. Why spare the person who has done the most wrong to you, but kill everyone else. Without any thought or guilt? It makes no sense. Plus to drag it out like they do, to do the same ending multiple times is bizarre.

A better story, the one I thout was unfolding, is that the fireflies are tracking Ellie to use her as the cure. She escapes but her friends and loved ones are killed off one by one.

Then in the end Ellie gets captured by the fireflies but Joel saves her again, but Ellie kills Joel and hands herself in and sacrifices herself for the good of mankind. Would of bin a shocking and emotional ending with Ellie killing Joel but dying herself because she knew it was right.

This would have been such a better story.

I also didn't like that what felt like the final confrontation was interrupted by that mammoth 12 hour time playing Abbey. By the time I got back to that scene I lost all connection to Ellie.

Ellie killing Joel would be a bit overkill. Like I said, what makes the first game so special is the way Joel's bond with Ellie growths along the game, to a sense that you end the game caring for the characters and the journey they went throw.

In Part 2, that's completely ditched right at the beginning and the journey itself becomes meaningless by the end. I'm fine with Joel dying, that's not the point, but the feeling I get is they killed Joel sooner because they needed a trigger for some revenge story.

I understand that they want to maintain the grip with the story they're going with (if there is any at this point to be honest) but this is one of those game's that I would rather it have multiple ending choices for the player, and I would 100% go the way they didn't.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

So it's not that it's badly written, poorly paced, full of plot holes, contrivances and incongruous aspects, it's that 'normies' can't appreciate it? That is some basement dweller sad-assed hand wave right there. It's popular entertainment, not Art House Cinema. If it's not landing with its overall audience, it's failed.

Can you articulate what you found "badly written, poorly paced, full of plot holes, contrivances and incongruous aspects"?

Like for Game Of Thrones I can say the following:

An example of it being clearly poorly paced is because after 6 season of slow methodical build up to it's various plot lines, suddenly in season 7 and in particular 8 we're zipping all over the place from one 10 minute scene to the next. We start seeing climatic battles set up, engaged in and concluded in basically a single episode. Whereas before less battles would take multiple episodes to come to a conclusion.

An example of bad writing would be the entire Night King/White Walkers debacle. For seasons we had countless teases about wider interesting reveal about them and in the end they were quickly dispatch early in the season and never spoken about again. It was obvious they wanted to tie up that loose end as quickly as possible and focus on the whole who would be king plot line. Also the way Arya kills hilariously cheap.

An example of plot holes would be how Arya never kills anyone with greens eyes as it's prophecies. The cool burning hands symbol was pointless. . Why the unsullied go in battles and have men killed but somehow seem to keep multiplying in numbers. It's a long list, I could be here all day.

An example of contrivances and incongruous aspects would be how Jamie and Cerci die together from being crushed by rocks. It's literally serves no purpose and goes against everything the story has been setting up in terms of Cerci either winning or finally getting her just deserts. Why the unsullied and the dothraki after being loyal to the point of will to die for daenerys would suddenly allow her killer to leave freely? Arya killing the Night King just happens with zero build up.

There's a lot you can say about the issues with Game of Thrones towards the end. That's why I think most people's critiques of it are fully valid and sensible.

Now I'm not saying TLoU2 is perfect, that it's above critique etc..It has some issues. But the problem I have is that people seem to widely exaggerate just how bad these issues are and just how matter of fact they are. Something like Game of Thrones is as close to universally disliked as you can get, both by critics and viewers alike. TLoU2 is effectively universally loved by critics and while it has divided it's audience, that's all it's done. Divide it. It's not anywhere near universally hated. I'd actually say it's probably more liked by it's players than disliked but I have no problem conceding parity for arguments sake.

So for my money what that points to is subjectivity about why TLoU2's story was bad or good, it either clicking for you or not. Their are artistic choices that you either like or dislike. Game of Thrones OBJECTIVELY has bad story elements, you can take classes on what went wrong with it. It's not the case with TLoU2.

 

[THEAP99]

I would like for them to add a battle royale type of mode. The gameplay mechanics are tailor made for it. I wonder if they decided to skip Fractions for PS4 because it would be too hard to get the game to run at 60fps. I know they did it with Uncharted 4, but I'm wondering if they're trying to create some features where the infected would be part of multiplayer.

What I would like to see in the new TLOU MP:

- 32 Battle Royale with infected scattered across the map.
- Some infected types are equipped with some of the best weapons and you can acquired them after defeated them (similar to how you get the Bow in TLOU 2)
- Horde mode.
- Fractions mode that includes classic areas.
- Custom character design instead of random ones you're forced to use in the original MP.

Yeah the game mechanics are already there for the battle Royale. They should totally do that.

 

[Kadayi]

Can you articulate what you found "badly written, poorly paced, full of plot holes, contrivances and incongruous aspects"?

I already have in previous posts. I see no point repeating myself.

 

[Dorohedoro]

Is the barn kissing scene in the game from the reveal? Yet to come across it.

Yeah, it's near the end.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

I already have in previous posts. I see no point repeating myself.

Loooool.

Then link me to those posts.

 

[Kadayi]

Loooool.

Then link me to those posts.

Try using the search function Nub.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

Try using the search function Nub.

I did so before making that posts. That why I asked you to provide links of these so called articulated explanations of what you thought was "badly written, poorly paced, full of plot holes, contrivances and incongruous aspects". Because sifting through pages of your post history it's just you uncontrollably raging at your "right" to say the game was ""badly written, poorly paced, full of plot holes, contrivances and incongruous aspects" but never actually stating what they are in any detailed way.

Think the one remotely detailed "critique" of yours about the story was that you couldn't bring yourself to believe that a deeply religious cult would develop in the space of 25 years. Which is honestly an insanely laughable thing to say when you consider the countless religious cults we have springing up in this day and age in a perfectly civilised world.

 

[Kadayi]

I did so before making that posts.

Then quote them directly Nub. I'm not here to teach you to forum.

 

[Clear]

In Part 2, that's completely ditched right at the beginning and the journey itself becomes meaningless by the end.

This is so wrong. Everything that happens in the second game comes about as a consequence of the choices Joel made in the first.

The issue appears to be that for quite a few people Ellie was just a prop, a McGuffin for Joel to protect without any inner-life or agency of her own. Its the only thing that explains the fixation on Joel's story above literally everyone elses.

 

[bishopcruz]

EDIT: DON'T READ THIS POST IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.

If you seriously think this game is as bad as Game of Thrones you've got another thing coming. Considering Game of Thrones was drove into the ground because them two little cunts wanted off this ship and onto their next natural disaster project for whoever was gonna pay out. They stopped caring. (Btw the writing was on the wall as early as S5. If you're that slow on the up take it's your own fault I dropped that shit as soon as Jojen Reed died for NO reason other than shock value and Stannis out of character burning his daughter alive but yeah.)

Druckmann and that chick from WestWorld on the other hand had an incentive to move this world forward. Joel shook a lot of people's lives to the core he is a catalyst for the narrative in the second game and it's done rather well. If you're crying because it's "disrespectful" but then unironically banging about HBO's Skyrim with sex scenes is so lit because character death is a permanent thing you might wanna think about it. Joel killed a lot of people. I see so many people clown on "Guess?" And that's the point. When you've killed THAT many people how could you?

I think normies need to stop being outraged and soak in what they're getting rather than being mad about a dude who was in literally ONE game getting smoked.

Did you honestly just use normies as the ones who DON'T like this game? Please, this entire game was written as a modern TV show. I mean look at it, we have a the death of a main character as catalyst that will shock and hook the audience, a giant cast of shallow, super attractive diverse 20 something hipsters with tons of interpersonal drama to keep people hooked on the will they won't they, tons of surprised that come from just off-camera that only work in TV and movies and so much more. This game was a pitch for TLoU season 2.

I will agree with you on S5 being where it was clear that GoT was going downhill. Especially because TLoU2 is a lot like GoT Season 5. There are great bits of game thrown in between forced dramatic horseshit. And it is funny you mention Stannis because Abby actually has the same problems that late Stannis did. They replace actual character work with her looking at the screen and emoting. Kill Joel,?EMOTE, someone dies? EMOTE. Wake up from a dream EMOTE. What is she feeling? Doesn't matter, we have great facial tech!

.

So for my money what that points to is subjectivity about why TLoU2's story was bad or good, it either clicking for you or not. Their are artistic choices that you either like or dislike. Game of Thrones OBJECTIVELY has bad story elements, you can take classes on what went wrong with it. It's not the case with TLoU2.

Oh you can absolutely take classes on what went wrong with TLoU 2, This is far more than just story elements people didn't like. People didn't like The Red Wedding, but you didn't have giant dissections from a large portion of the fanbase about how it made no sense. I posit the opposite, just because you LIKED aspects of the story and the scenes as they were presented does not in and of itself mean they were either structurally sound or well written within the scope of the work itself. And here is the thing, a large number of people still really LIKED the last couple of seasons of Game of Thrones, if it is all subjective then how can you call them bad?

EruditeHobo haven't forgotten about you, be back later.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

Then quote them directly Nub. I'm not here to teach you to forum.

Have it your way then.

ME3 would like a word.

Honestly. The biggest disappointment for me, isn't the flawed narrative (and it most certainly is flawed) it's the abject failure once again of any of the professional critics out there to even really acknowledge that the execution of the story-line has problems to the extent of just blithely giving it absurdly high scores when it is ostensibly a story driven game when all is said and done. Whilst critics continue to give gold stars to mediocrity, mediocrity is all we will continue to get as games. No amount of lush environment design or stunning vistas makes up for the poor pacing and story line mismanagement that is TLOU2.

You say the narrative is flawed, that the story-line has problems, that it's poorly paced and mismanagement but never explained why or what instances these are.

It's fine up to the 8 minute mark, where it then descends into basically being a litany of 'if you hated the ending then you're probably either dumb or a bigot' with a few cherry picked 0 ratings from Metacritic user reviews highlighted (out of over 100k ) that well known bastion of sound games criticism as proof positive that, that surely has to be the case. I particularly liked that she validates her opinion by stating that her father died as if somehow the loss of a parent is something notable, versus an inevitability of life ( I don't get the sense he was brutally murdered in front of her with a Golf Club either, so it seemed a bizarre aside).

The game is contentious because its narrative did not work for a large tract of the games fan-base. Occams razor alone discounts the 'Bigots & thickies' narrative she pushes.

Never state why or what about the narrative didn't work

Agreed. The overarching premise of the story is a fair and reasonable one. Joel was no saint by his own admission, and it was hard to imagine that he could walk away from the events of Salt Lake City and not suffer the wrath of the surviving fireflies, but the game unfortunately leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to its actual execution both in terms of attempting to take Ellie down the proverbial Heart of Darkness route Ala Spec Ops: The Line or in its lamentable attempt to try and humanize the character of Abby after her initial introduction to the player base was of her as the Villain brutally killing the very character you played in the first game.

Said it elsewhere. I think as far as stories go, it could have worked, but not in the way it was executed and in truth probably over 2 titles, with TLOU2 being solely about the aftereffects of Joel's decision on the Firefly Enclave at Salt Lake city and their eventual collapse, transition and amalgamation into the WLF in Seattle (with much cost along the way) as well as the breakdown of the truce between the WLF and the Scars as a means to really build up player understanding and empathy with Abby and her friends, and then the TLOU3 being where matters come to a head with Abby having found word of Joel's whereabouts.

As is, TLOU2 tries to cram way in too much into the games run time and miserably fails to convince in its blatant attempts to build sympathy for the devil when it comes to both Abby and her friends within that time, and unfortunately I can't help but cynically feel that the inclusion of certain modern progressive story line elements smack of being there simply as a means to shield the game from populist criticism because at the end of the day they just feel incongruous and out of place within the broader context of a world largely gone to shit and humanity barely getting by 25 years on. Just as the past isn't culturally now but with worst hygiene, a Post Apoc-future isn't culturally now but with zombies and scavenging. Still, when the biggest threat to your existence is likely getting bitten by an infected, and yet you decide it's a good idea to have your protagonists running around bare armed half the time I guess it's asking a bit too much to put a bit more effort into your world building.

Here you say you didn't/couldn't sympathise with Abby but never state why beyond the fact she killed Joel. Yes that was the entire point. The developers have continually said that some people will not be able to sympathise with Abby because of the way she's introduced to them while others would. And you've demonstrated that here, so where is the narrative failure?

You also propose a laughable alternative story-line focusing on just Abby. You're also upset about the inclusion of a transsexual character and view Abby going around sleeveless as plot hole? Ooooook.

Still not seeing an explanation of what was paced poorly, badly written, full of plot holes and contrivances and incongruous aspects.

So what was the political agenda of the first game?



25 Years into a post-apocalyptic future when the remnants of humanity are on the very precipice of extinction and everyday is a fight for survival what's really important is undoubtedly what people identify as over anything else for sure. Do you think Cormac McCarthy's The Road needs a rewrite so we can have the Boy coming out as Gender Neutral just before his Dad dies? Get a grip. If there's a story to be told of a trans child escaping persecution from a religious cult, there's a place for that no doubt (probably in a future Life is Strange Game), but inserted into a AAA tale of humanities survival not only feels absurdly indulgent, but also tone deaf to the grim world building already established. I dare say it will have succeeded in garnering Druckmann a life time of 'stunning and brave' awards from the Twitterari, but it for anyone else grounded in actual reality it was a 'Really? We're doing this, here in the middle of a goddamn war zone?' it was just terribly eye-rolling (along with the bigot sandwiches) .

LOL. Let's try again shall we.

So what was the political agenda of the first game?

Regardless

So what was the political agenda of the first game?

Cmon Dick. Nut up .

Dick, you're the one who said



So the onus is on you to explain the political agenda of the first game?

Nothing you've written so far constitutes political. Do better with your next post.

So what was the political agenda of the first game?

LOL. I don't need to explain shit. There is no political agenda to the first game, it's a simple tale of disparate strangers thrown into a difficult situation coming together as they overcome hardships and travails on the long road to their destination, and change occurring. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as there's no political agenda in a whole raft of media of various types . The very notion that 'everything is political' never really holds up to any degree of actual scrutiny, which is largely why whenever some lack-wit throws it out there I quite enjoy watching them flail around trying to back up their nonsense when they're called on it. In that regard Dick, you've played your part admirably, with the doggedness and tenacity of the proverbial monkey caught in the trap simply because it won't let go of the nut it's clinging to.

Six posts about of raging that the 1st game didn't have a "political agenda" and this one seemingly does

Indeed, that whole aspect was pretty cringe. I think there's a real failure of grounded world-building running throughout TLOU2 that is just hard to ignore, not the least of which is that with Humanity barely scraping by after the infection these small splinter societies as a whole would place a lot more value on the welfare of pregnant women for starters. Still, when you're dealing with people who think that it's sensible for characters to be running around bare armed in a time when a single bite from an infected means certain death, you're not exactly dealing with the the brightest types.

You ruin your one reasonable critique so far about Mel being pregnant and in the field by bringing up what a major issue it is for you that characters are sleeveless.

Feel free to march to the beat of your own drum then. There's no requirement that a persons actions have to accord with some broader greater good to count as one, despite your repeated protestations to the contrary. Ultimately it's a story about those two characters and their relationship and how it changes Joel. The ending is the way it is deliberately. If Druckmann had any sense TLOU2 would been less about demonstrating his woke bona-fides to the Twitterati and instead have been a tale or revenge that then then mid-way flips into a tale of self-sacrifice as Ellie having finally outed herself as the child Joel rescued willingly leaves behind all that she has in the form of Dina and Jackson to head out with Abby and seek out the remaining fireflies and submit to the surgery.

Raging about politics again.

It you'd actually bothered to read what I said, versus sniffing your own farts you'd have picked up on the word 'incongruous' and the explanation given as to why. It's not about being preachy, it's that it feels extremely out of place within the context of the setting and unnecessarily convoluted when all is said and done, to the extent that it erodes immersion.

You say it's nothing burger, but there's a clear failure there to understand that with writing the world building is happening after the characters, not before. The Seraphites are little more than a hollow plot delivery device, which just don't hold up to a great deal of scrutiny when you consider the brief time frame of societal collapse.

Upset about the trans character again.

10K+ plus posts here and not one worth a damn it seems. Hilarious. I've witnessed some sad cunt moves in all my years here, but when the best defence someone can trot out in a discussion thread is some Hand wave variation on 'Well it didn't bother me' as if their low critical standards are some magical shield that invalidates all criticisms of others, kind of takes the soggy biscuit of intellectual debasement when all is said and done . Bravo I guess. You win at failing.

Considering the amount of time and effort that went into creating the environmental design, the animations, etc, etc, all of which are done in the service of generating player immersion, lacklustre world building is a surefire way to undermine it at the end of the day, and in that regard TLOU 2 is guilty on several counts, your ignorance not withstanding.

Say the world building is lacklustre but don't explain what instances or why.

None of which matters a lot to the criticisms I have raised with the game overall



You ranting about right wingers doesn't really do that though, because my issues aren't with SJW politics being in games. My issues are with incongruity of a lot of aspects of the narrative that actively undermine the games world building and break immersion.



It's not a convincing justification then how come you're apparently incapable of formulating any form of counterpoint?



11 Years of

Is hardly anything to brag about

More of you raging about politics.

Again, your low standards are not universal fare. That you're apparently easily pleased and are happy to accept any old doggerel in your media is your burden. Some of us with a keener eye on the future actually want to see much better writing in games and that is not going to happen if middling writing is continually given accolades just because everything else is seemingly shiny. You wouldn't expect a film reviewer to ignore the flaws in a films story just because the cinematography, editing & score were top notch. How much less so the gaming press?



LOL. Projection much? I've been more invested in 100%ing RoTTR these last couple of days versus this discussion.



An Ad-Hominem would imply you have an argument. I've yet to see one.



You don't have an argument, at best you have an attitude and at worst a closed mindset

Call the writing middling, never expand on why.

Would either of those things somehow magically make the plot, pacing or world-building in any way better?

Yet again never explain what the issue are with the plot, pacing world building.

Whom exactly are you hoping to convince? I didn't read any of the leaks, and I don't have much of an issue with Abby because its pretty much apparent that she's a gym rat based on her story-line. I don't think prettying her up would somehow magically make people dislike her character less for the way she brutally killed Joel. You say that there's 'alot (sic)' of people out there, but tbh you sound like a drive-by apologist. It's largely a poorly written game, that despite a few memorable flashback scenes, just doesn't hold up that all well when push comes to shove, in a number of ways from the plot, the narrative structure, the pacing and incongruous characterisation.

And again. Say it's poorly written and that the plot, narrative structure and pacing don't hold up but never explain what or why.

I find it hard to fathom that someone who was probably a teenager/early 20s in 2013 when the world went to shit would somehow turn into such a raging puritan 25 years later that. There's a certain anachronism that runs through all of the older characters that just doesn't smack of a generation from now, 25 years older, with all these antiquated values. Same deal with the 'Bigot Sandwiches' dude.

So it's simply unbelievable for you that an apocalypse of Biblical proportions could lead to some developing a religious reverence. Are you aware of how many stories came out about westerners who left their countries to join ISIS who prior to that were drinking alcohol, doing drugs, partying etc..And again this is in a pre-apocalypse. The flesh eating undead are not walking among us and yet people like this exist.

You're playing the goldfish memory card? Seriously. Have some dignity.

Here is what I said earlier: -



A lot of people legitimately don't feel the game is successful, and in large part this comes down to issues of the plot, pacing, characterisation and ill conceived world building, and have little if anything to do with SJW themes in the game (despite that being the popular denouncement being applied). Yet apparently none of these things were picked up on or acknowledged by the mainstream gaming press with their glowing reviews. This is not a good situation because it demonstrates a failure to assess according to the wants and needs of the audience. The popular perception of gamer's is that it's all easily pleased teenage boys, but the reality is the average age is around 35 . The same age demographic that not only popularised Game of Thrones but also tore the show-runner's/writers of that series a new one when they dropped the ball with their rushing of the last two seasons of that series, on the basis that they thought that shit was golden and that they could do no wrong.

People expect media regardless of format to operate to a standard within itself when it comes to storytelling, and if things don't add up, they're going to point it out because it's is unsatisfactory. The fundamental problem happening at the moment (and its been going on for a while tbf) is that the mainstream gaming press is largely out of sync with audience expectation when it comes to these things and this schism is not to anyone's benefit in the long term, least of all gaming as a storytelling medium reaching new heights. TLOU2 isn't a flawless masterpiece. It's a well produced game that isn't as tight or thought through as it the writers seems to think and it's left a bad taste in many peoples mouths as a result. A situation not helped by the rather belligerent attitude expressed by Druckmann either with his 'Fuck the Haters' approach, as if that alone is a shield against actual criticism of it as a piece. Burning bridges with your most passionate fans, never goes well. The diminishing returns on the recent Star Wars Trilogy alone can attest to that.

Starting to sound like a broken record at this stage. Once again talk of issue with the plot, pacing characterisation and ill conceived world building yet not explanation of what these instances are or why they are poor. A new one is that the game isn't "tight or thought through" but as we've come to see from you you don't expand on this.

-------

So to summarise the collective on your posts on here about TLoU2:

• You're not slow to let us know countless times that the game has a poor plot, pacing, world build and characterisation but in almost every instance never state what they are or why they are poor.
• The "plot holes" that the game is just "full" of seem to boil down to a pregnant women doing field duty and, and this one really bothered you, characters running around sleeveless on occasion.
• The "woke" politics in the game seem to be a massive issue for you despite trying argue otherwise when people have called you out on it
• You have a hard time believing that a religious cult would form in the space of 25 years in a post-apocalyptic world.......
• You didn't sympathise with Abby. Which was actually an expressed goal by the writers. But some how that means they failed
• You'd also have much liked your own fan fiction of playing as Abby the entire game. Because if there's one thing that people really wanted from TLoU2 is was to play as an entirely new character for the entire game..........

So you can carry on getting upset and calling me a "nub" or we can actually have a detailed discussion about what you thought these plot holes, poor plot, pacing, world build and characterisation were.

Another important question, did you actually play the game or just watch it on Youtube?

Just got wrapped up watching a Let Play (PC was out of commission for a few days which allowed me to watch both both TLOU, The DLC and TLOU2). Enjoyed the whole experience enough to plough through it all (no regrets)

Tbf given that you're someone that believes VIDEO GAME stories need to be judged to the same standard as film and TV I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if you thought watching 2.5 games on youtube was a valid way to experience them.

 

[Dorohedoro]

Regarding Joel, I couldn't help but think "He did something to piss them off" after the Jackson chapter because it was already established the guy was no saint in TLOU1 when he admitted to being a hunter and Tommy said those years gave him nightmares. And his line in Salt Lake City about how you can't escape your past no matter how hard you try rings especially true after settling into that cozy life in Jackson for a while... Doubt it'll ever happen anyway but I'd love a Lost Legacy length game where it delves into his hunter days and any atrocities he might've committed but I can already see the people that hate TLOU2 for how he was "treated" not taking it very well either because it sure as hell wouldn't make him look good. Speaking of which I was a little disappointed this game didn't have your garden variety hunter enemies. Yeah technically the WLF and Seraphites are "hunters" in the literal sense but I'm talking other survivors wearing street clothes (instead of what were basically uniforms for both factions) and patrolling certain parts of the city. More enemy types are always welcome.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

Oh you can absolutely take classes on what went wrong with TLoU 2, This is far more than just story elements people didn't like.

When you compare the critical discourse around the TLoU2 vs Game of Thrones S8 it's not even in the same league. Again, Game of Thrones S8 was as close to universally disliked by critics and fans as you can get. This clearly points to fundamental issues about it that go beyond just subjectivity. When TLoU2 is universally liked by critics and large parts of it's fanbase it no longer becomes a clear cut matter of objective flaws. It becomes a matter of subjectivity. That is my point. You don't have lessons/classes about subjective flaws, you have them about objective ones.

People didn't like The Red Wedding.

Eh? A minority of people didn't like The Red Wedding. The overwhelming majority of critics and fans did. It's literally THE episode that got so many people into the show and it the reason so many kept watching, they were waiting for other moments like that. So again, there wasn't anything objectively bad about it when the consensus is geared like that.

And here is the thing, a large number of people still really LIKED the last couple of seasons of Game of Thrones, if it is all subjective then how can you call them bad?

Again, Eh? The vast majority of fans absolute did not like the last season of Game of Thrones. Comparing the consensus of critics and fans of S8 of Game of Thrones to the TLoU2 is so disingenuous is beggars belief.

 

[Nankatsu]

This is so wrong. Everything that happens in the second game comes about as a consequence of the choices Joel made in the first.

The issue appears to be that for quite a few people Ellie was just a prop, a McGuffin for Joel to protect without any inner-life or agency of her own. Its the only thing that explains the fixation on Joel's story above literally everyone elses.

Did you skip the part where I said "at the beginning"? Like I said, my grip with the narrative is not with Joel being killed, it's the way they used his death right from the get-go to trigger a journey of revenge that ends exactly in the most stupid possible way:

"Oh wait, I just killed a bunch of dudes to get my revenge because you, Abby, killed my dearest person, but you know what, never mind, revenge is for the weak. Go live your life with Lev, it's totally ok. Stay safe out there. I'm gonna go home and try to learn how to play the guitar, because I'm missing some fingers now.

XoXo, Ellie".

 

[Kadayi]

You say the narrative is flawed, that the story-line has problems, that it's poorly paced and mismanagement but never explained why or what instances these are.

And then you post a whole bunch of quotes where I outline many of the reasons. Yet apparently you can't see any of them them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also seriously you think fighting highly infected zombies in a T-shirt is a good idea? I can't say I was a huge fan of the book (lots of stereotypes), but Max Brooks covered this sort of thing in his Novel World War Z

Did that go as well for you as you planned?

Never cross thread post either, it's a bad look. Tackle posts in their respective threads and within context.

 

[Eiknarf]

The average user grade over at Metacritic is going up. It’s up to 56 now. It’s gonna be difficult to pull the average up with all the zeros/0s that were posted the first day.

Does anybody know if Metacritic got rid OR will get rid of of all the first few hundred reviews that got posted five minutes after midnight on launch day!?!?! Technically they should because it’s really no different then Metacritic preventing people from posting a review about Ghost of Tsushima for the first two days if you think about it

 

[EruditeHobo]

"Oh wait, I just killed a bunch of dudes to get my revenge because you, Abby, killed my dearest person, but you know what, never mind, revenge is for the weak. Go live your life with Lev, it's totally ok. Stay safe out there. I'm gonna go home and try to learn how to play the guitar, because I'm missing some fingers now.

XoXo, Ellie".

This is a really poor (obviously) bad-faith representation of where Ellie is at the end of this game, and what the whole journey is about... but apart from that, what do you think her missing fingers mean? What do you think the guitar means?

 

[Nankatsu]

This is a really poor (obviously) bad-faith representation of where Ellie is at the end of this game, and what the whole journey is about... but apart from that, what do you think her missing fingers mean? What do you think the guitar means?

You're the Erudite one, but I will indulge you:

By the end of the game, both Abby and Ellie conclude that revenge is not worth anymore and it has to stop, since it cost them everything dear in their lifes (Abby realizes this sooner, when she spares Ellie at the Theater.) For that reason both characters are left pretty broken by the end of the game, because revenge blinded them.

However Abby still has Lev, with whom she built a connection similar to Ellie's and Joel's on Part 1.

The game tries do depict Ellie as a character that simply cannot leave revenge behind, only to do the exact opposite of that in the last seconds of the game. I mean she had a perfect life with Dina at the farm, but she still couldn't let revenge go.

She feels guilty not only for not saving humanity, but also because Joel's actions, in letting her live, in giving her a chance as a person and not as a mere tool, was what cause him to die in the first place. It's like a knot in the throat for her: she couldn't either be humanities cure, or Joel's savior. She failed at both.

About the guitar, during the game the guitar segments are depict as segments of Ellie still connecting with Joel, by playing the instrument. It calms her and makes her feel close to him. That means by the end of the game, she not only lost everything, but also lost that connection, since she can't play no more.

So, after this, do I still think the ending is pretty shitty? Yes, I do.

 

[cerealbuster]

Having watched/read several of the more negative reviews (out of curiosity, I quite liked it myself), YongYea being the latest, I'm kind of astounded how people are able to completely miss the point of the ending, and call it pointless. It's not like "you have to be a Rick and Morty fan to understand it", it's spelled out really clearly.

Spoiler

If Ellie would decide not to kill Abby just because he remembered Joel in general, yeah, it would be pointless and stupid. But it's not some random memory she has a flashback of, it's the very final cutscene with Joel. Where Ellie tells Joel that she's not sure if she can forgive him, but she's willing to try. She never got the chance to forgive him, but at least she can forgive Abby and get out of this downward spiral she has been in.

I suppose it would be easier to understand, if the cutscene had been shown in the middle of the battle, but that would have broken up the pacing of the scene completely. I'm fine with giving context to the battle later on, the game has many issues with pacing and structure of the story IMHO, but the ending is not among them.

Not that I don't understand it. And at first I thought this made sense, but after thinking a while, why? Why did she suddenly realize this mid-battle? Wouldn't it make much more sense to realize this before fighting or after killing her? This whole game annoyed me with the whole "you are bad because you kill people" (yes ellie is bad, but you play ellie and everyone sympathized with ellie at first), but with abby there is basically nothing. The whole premise of abby is also stupid, because even back then in the first part on my first playthrough I really found it stupid for killing the fucking doctor instead of knocking him down. It was all the time revenge is bad, except for abby. I mean thanks to her revenge she started her whole plotline and met the kids. Thanks to them she didn't raid the whole island and participate in the whole suicide mission.

Game should have had the option to not kill everyone random and offer two endings, like oddworld or dishonored:
1. Ending You kill more than x % of the enemies instead of sneaking around or knocking them up, ellie kills abby and dies through the hands of lev
2. True Ending You kill less than x%, you don't kill abby.

D O N E.

 

[EruditeHobo]

You're the Erudite one, but I will indulge you:

By the end of the game, both Abby and Ellie conclude that revenge is not worth anymore and it has to stop, since it cost them everything dear in their lifes (Abby realizes this sooner, when she spares Ellie at the Theater.) For that reason both characters are left pretty broken by the end of the game, because revenge blinded them.

However Abby still has Lev, with whom she built a connection similar to Ellie's and Joel's on Part 1.

The game tries do depict Ellie as a character that simply cannot leave revenge behind, only to do the exact opposite of that in the last seconds of the game. I mean she had a perfect life with Dina at the farm, but she still couldn't let revenge go.

She feels guilty not only for not saving humanity, but also because Joel's actions, in letting her live, in giving her a chance as a person and not as a mere tool, was what cause him to die in the first place. It's like a knot in the throat for her: she couldn't either be humanities cure, or Joel's savior. She failed at both.

About the guitar, during the game the guitar segments are depict as segments of Ellie still connecting with Joel, by playing the instrument. It calms her and makes her feel close to him. That means by the end of the game, she not only lost everything, but also lost that connection, since she can't play no more.

So, after this, do I still think the ending is pretty shitty? Yes, I do.

That's your right! But when you post the kind of reductive sarcastic take that I responded to, surely you wouldn't fault me (or anyone) from not being sure whether you even picked up on these fairly apparent narrative elements?

This is really just the surface level of it too IMO. I think it's pretty easy to make an argument that the game/characters/story is much deeper than just what you've posted... however, that's really neither here nor there, since if it just doesn't work for you it doesn't work for you. And I'd never begrudge anyone that.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Not that I don't understand it. And at first I thought this made sense, but after thinking a while, why? Why did she suddenly realize this mid-battle? Wouldn't it make much more sense to realize this before fighting or after killing her?

Why does Luke only learn to trust the force when all hope seems lost near the very end of the Death Star trench run?
Because of story, is the answer. Because that is truly the moment of no turning back, and Ellie's wrestling with conflict in almost all ways throughout the entire narrative comes to a breaking point on the precipice of that act.

And what does that mean about all the people she didn't hesitate to kill, during gameplay? Great question! I don't know. But either way, her realizing that she'd never get what she wants either and is harming herself with this inner drive she can't let go of... that's just not the story this game was trying to tell.

[/quote]Game should have had the option to not kill everyone random and offer two endings, like oddworld or dishonored:
1. Ending You kill more than x % of the enemies instead of sneaking around or knocking them up, ellie kills abby and dies through the hands of lev
2. True Ending You kill less than x%, you don't kill abby.

D O N E.
[/QUOTE]

That sounds awful... you might as well be suggesting this for TLoU 1, an optional ending in letting Joel have them kill Ellie and attempt to cure the plague.

It's just not in line with the kind of experience being offered by these games.

 

[Freeman]

CONTAINS SPOILERS Just finished the game. No doubt about it's technical quality but I thought the story was pretty mediocre, especially the ending.

You shouldn't have an ending about how killing is bad and mercy is good if you've killed 10's of people who were more or less innocent already.

If that is what you took away from the game...

I wont bother even comment on the rest, play it again and pay attention this time.

That sounds awful... you might as well be suggesting this for TLoU 1, an optional ending in letting Joel have them kill Ellie and attempt to cure the plague.

It's just not in line with the kind of experience being offered by these games.

You can tell that both games flew over the person head when they start talking about how we should be in control of every key decision Ellie make.

The game pretty much spells it out "it's not about the choices you were going to make, we are going to force you to do thing you might not want to do".

 

[Kadayi]

Not that I don't understand it. And at first I thought this made sense, but after thinking a while, why? Why did she suddenly realize this mid-battle? Wouldn't it make much more sense to realize this before fighting or after killing her? This whole game annoyed me with the whole "you are bad because you kill people" (yes ellie is bad, but you play ellie and everyone sympathized with ellie at first), but with abby there is basically nothing. The whole premise of abby is also stupid, because even back then in the first part on my first playthrough I really found it stupid for killing the fucking doctor instead of knocking him down. It was all the time revenge is bad, except for abby. I mean thanks to her revenge she started her whole plotline and met the kids. Thanks to them she didn't raid the whole island and participate in the whole suicide mission.

Game should have had the option to not kill everyone random and offer two endings, like oddworld or dishonored:
1. Ending You kill more than x % of the enemies instead of sneaking around or knocking them up, ellie kills abby and dies through the hands of lev
2. True Ending You kill less than x%, you don't kill abby.

D O N E.

This is one of the things I find kind of astounding about Druckmann. He goes on a lot about agency in games, but his games don't really offer any. If you want players to feel responsible for their actions in a meaningful way, you have to allow them to make meaningful choices. Life is Strange is a great example of a game that does that.

 

[Freeman]

This is one of the things I find kind of astounding about Druckmann. He goes on a lot about agency in games, but his games don't really offer any. If you want players to feel responsible for their actions in a meaningful way, you have to allow them to make meaningful choices. Life is Strange is a great example of a game that does that.

Yep, that's why I only read chose your own adventure books. What's even the point of reading books that don't let you chose?

Any game that doesn't let me chose what I want to do I don't care about. Like Drake going after some treasure instead of just staying at home and appreciating what he had, not what I would've done. As soon as Kratos start to teach nonsense to his kid, I quit the game, that's not what I would've done.

 

[Kadayi]

Yep, that's why I only read chose your own adventure books. What's even the point of reading books that don't let you chose?

You don't really get games as an evolving medium do you? Least of all it terms of what they can be, beyond an on rails experience. I mean I like a roller-coaster ride as much as the next guy (now and then) but if you want people to truly engage with an experience then you have to offer them some agency in matters simply beyond ways to get through a level. Otherwise you might as well just make a film, a TV series or write a book.

 

[Freeman]

You don't really get games as an evolving medium do you? Least of all it terms of what they can be, beyond an on rails experience. I mean I like a roller-coaster ride as much as the next guy (now and then) but if you want people to truly engage with a experience then you have to offer them some agency in matters simply beyond ways to get through a level. Otherwise you might as well just make a film, a TV series or write a book.

You don't really get that games can try different things right? Not every game needs to be about choice, plenty of great games aren't about that.

ND doesn't try to create the illusion of choice, they highlight that you have no choice and use it to create the experience they want. They want to make you uncomfortable by not giving you a choice, it's pretty clear.

 

[Kadayi]

You don't really get that games can try different things right? Not every game needs to be about choice, plenty of great games aren't about that.

Whats trying about it? If your game is ostensibly nothing more than progressing through a linear level to then deliver a linear cut-scene with zero player agency you might as well cut out the middle man and make a movie instead.