• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I replayed TLOU2 and I still don't know what to think about it...

bitbydeath

Member
What I find odd is that fans of Game of Thrones (of which I am) loved it when popular characters were being brutally killed, however, when it happened in a game, gamers went nuts. All that says to me is that some gamers need to grow the fuck up.
Joel dying isn’t the issue. The story trying to say that he deserved to die is the problem.

I stopped playing when

you’re playing as Abbey and have to then try kill Ellie

That moment was just too fucked up for me.
Turn off, delete.
 

Relique

Member
Fair enough. Whatever I listened to, I think the sarcasm was lost on me. I guess that Joel being killed was so controversial because he was so well written as a character to begin with. Otherwise, nobody would have given a shit.
My problems with the game weren't really with the death of Joel. But since you bring this point up, I will say the death wasn't done particularly well. After playing through the game it felt rushed for pure shock value. It could have been more impactful if we played through some of the later Ellie/Joel bonding scenes first. Same should be said about Abby and her relationship with her father. If they had built up Abby a little before that scene the reception would have been much better.

I also didn't buy the motivations of that whole group anyway. Like yeah, I get Abby wanting revenge for her father. It made no sense to me why the rest of the group would follow Abby around across states while there are infected everywhere. To find a guy that is more likely dead than alive? It's especially hard to understand when it turned out most of them weren't particularly fond of Abby, or at least there was some friction/history there. Like what in the world is the pregnant chick doing this for someone she doesn't like, and who was an ex of her boyfriend? No one in the real world would EVER do this.

And like everyone else, I didn't love the fact that the immunity/cure/infected plot was basically completely sidelined to develop these mediocre at best characters. The first game had many touching themes about human connection. There was a lot of loss that felt impactful because all the risks and sacrifices made sense and it was all plausible. In TLOU2 these people are taking massive risks they didn't need due to really nonsensical motivations. There was nothing to tie it all together.

And don't get me started about the ending. I just don't buy the change of heart after the cold blooded killing of hundreds of people, many of whom were innocent.
 

bender

What time is it?
I actually didn't find that too be that much of a problem. Or rather, Ellie was just acting too much like a retarded, while surrounded by retarded friends cheering her on to do retarded things. Can't say I expected characters who seem to have less than 7 brain cells to question the morality what their actions.

Certainly a problem. In the beginning of the game Tommy goes from Colorado to Seattle for revenge. A day later Dina and Ellie make the same trip. Sometime later Jesse makes the same Journey. Somehow none of them are killed along the way. Somehow they all manage to find one another in Seattle. I just kept asking myself "how are the people alive if they are this fucking dumb in the zombie apocalypse?".
 

penguininthesun

Neo Member
Yeah, it took me too play throughs to really get what they were trying to do with this story. I like Abby’s storyline (I don’t care if that’s unpopular), but felt that its development came at the expense of Ellie’s story. Both times I felt that the game was way too long. I almost wish Part II was focused on Joel and Ellie (or the other Jackson residents) a bit more, and maybe Abby’s side was DLC or Part III. While I enjoyed the game, it was also exhausting at the same time.
 

EDMIX

Member
What I find odd is that fans of Game of Thrones (of which I am) loved it when popular characters were being brutally killed, however, when it happened in a game, gamers went nuts. All that says to me is that some gamers need to grow the fuck up.

This.

People die, that is life.

My sister played thru The Last Of Us 1 many times and watched me play thru The Last Of Us 2 and had no issue with either game, shit she was telling me she wants me to play more games like this as she didn't even know such games existed as we both read a lot and watch a shit load of dramas, so coming across a game like this is very fucking rare, had to break it to her that MOST games are not this. They just don't fucking have the balls to actually pull such a thing off, they'll keep trying to force this stupid ass shit like "oh he going to be da hero when he dies" lol Fucking stop this dumbass comic book shit.

I roll my eyes when I see that shit in film, tv or books, in games it so fucking normal, I rarely care about most stories in video games as they are just too kiddie, comic book like and fucking soft as hell, like they are scared to "upset" someone and you fucking watch a actual ADULT SHOW and folks get killed all the time and we move on. Someone dies in a video game and several threads later, several tear buckets later, several fake review bombs and death threats later...we end up with yet another "I wish he died doing hero stuff cause I'm soft" thread lol

I don't see this shit in film, television, literature etc when a character dies.

Like I stated many times before and this still stands, the gaming community couldn't handle American History X, Straw Dogs, Cape Fear or anything like that with this stupid shit. They are stuck in this kiddie, no hurt allowed, keep the training wheels on attitude that they don't even see anything odd with crying this fucking hard over the writing of a video game rated M, I could 100% understand if it was rated Teen or E and I'd even agree with people if that was really the case, but the game is rated M, let the damn rating support that you don't need a hero's exit, you don't need him saving 12 nuns, let him die as is. That is life, people die this way all the time and you don't hear folks out here making entire fucking news articles about this dumb shit, like ever.... The community is simply too young and gaming is still just too early for this. Not all films are like Rambo, I'm not sure why folks are trying to demand games to be like that too and act shocked when people look down on the medium.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Like I stated many times before and this still stands, the gaming community couldn't handle American History X, Straw Dogs, Cape Fear or anything like that with this stupid shit. They are stuck in this kiddie, no hurt allowed, keep the training wheels on attitude that they don't even see anything odd with crying this fucking hard over the writing of a video game rated M, I could 100% understand if it was rated Teen or E and I'd even agree with people if that was really the case, but the game is rated M, let the damn rating support that you don't need a hero's exit, you don't need him saving 12 nuns, let him die as is. That is life, people die this way all the time and you don't hear folks out here making entire fucking news articles about this dumb shit, like ever.... The community is simply too young and gaming is still just too early for this. Not all films are like Rambo, I'm not sure why folks are trying to demand games to be like that too and act shocked when people look down on the medium.
Well said Edmix. I actually wish there were more games like this. I wish more franchises had the balls to go this route.
So we're all going to pretend nihilistic, tragic and still extremely beloved stuff like Nier doesn't exist?
Or RDR2 with scenes like this
Or Souls games which are known for having pretty dark lore
Or Shadow of the Colossus where you're murdering innocent monsters for selfish goals
Or Mafia 2 where the climax is literally MC and his best friend commiting mass murder that turned out to be born from a misunderstanding. Then proceeding to kill even more people to save his own ass which resulted in his best friend being offed (at least until mafia 3 came out, supposedly).

Those are all well beloved games with little to no controversy to their stories despite their content.

Don't pretend its "gamers" fault for not being able to handle dark themes, its Druckmanns for being a poor writer.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
This.

People die, that is life.

My sister played thru The Last Of Us 1 many times and watched me play thru The Last Of Us 2 and had no issue with either game, shit she was telling me she wants me to play more games like this as she didn't even know such games existed as we both read a lot and watch a shit load of dramas, so coming across a game like this is very fucking rare, had to break it to her that MOST games are not this. They just don't fucking have the balls to actually pull such a thing off, they'll keep trying to force this stupid ass shit like "oh he going to be da hero when he dies" lol Fucking stop this dumbass comic book shit.

I roll my eyes when I see that shit in film, tv or books, in games it so fucking normal, I rarely care about most stories in video games as they are just too kiddie, comic book like and fucking soft as hell, like they are scared to "upset" someone and you fucking watch a actual ADULT SHOW and folks get killed all the time and we move on. Someone dies in a video game and several threads later, several tear buckets later, several fake review bombs and death threats later...we end up with yet another "I wish he died doing hero stuff cause I'm soft" thread lol

I don't see this shit in film, television, literature etc when a character dies.

Like I stated many times before and this still stands, the gaming community couldn't handle American History X, Straw Dogs, Cape Fear or anything like that with this stupid shit. They are stuck in this kiddie, no hurt allowed, keep the training wheels on attitude that they don't even see anything odd with crying this fucking hard over the writing of a video game rated M, I could 100% understand if it was rated Teen or E and I'd even agree with people if that was really the case, but the game is rated M, let the damn rating support that you don't need a hero's exit, you don't need him saving 12 nuns, let him die as is. That is life, people die this way all the time and you don't hear folks out here making entire fucking news articles about this dumb shit, like ever.... The community is simply too young and gaming is still just too early for this. Not all films are like Rambo, I'm not sure why folks are trying to demand games to be like that too and act shocked when people look down on the medium.

Yeah, I never got the hate for Joel dying. I thought it was the most telegraphed thing for the sequel, aside from pushing Ellie's sexuality further into the forefront. Just things that were GOING TO happen, and made sense. I don't agree with the placement of it, though. There are a lot of things I feel ruin the pacing of the game, and I don't even have a good suggestion for how to fix it. I'm not one of those "alternate between an Ellie chapter and an Abby chapter," types. But something about the flow of events just doesn't feel satisfying to me.
 

Raonak

Banned
Joel dying isn’t the issue. The story trying to say that he deserved to die is the problem.

I stopped playing when

you’re playing as Abbey and have to then try kill Ellie

That moment was just too fucked up for me.
Turn off, delete.
That fight was one of the best parts of the game for me. Seeing how fucking dangerous Ellie from the target's perspective was fucking awesome. (Same with Tommy in the sniper scene)

Plus I absolutely loved how it was a boss fight that I wanted to lose. Very cool subversion of player agency.

Makes me wish MGS2 had a Raiden vs Solid Snake fight.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
What I find odd is that fans of Game of Thrones (of which I am) loved it when popular characters were being brutally killed, however, when it happened in a game, gamers went nuts. All that says to me is that some gamers need to grow the fuck up.
I think it’s just that George RR Martin is maybe a better story teller than Neil Druckmann? It’s not like Ned just became a retard overnight and started trusting the Lannister’s for the crack and then got beat to death. People like the deaths in ASOIAF/Game of Thrones because they make sense for the characters, not because they are popular characters and they are dying.
 
Last edited:

Mozzarella

Member
So i take it you didn't watch the video. Here, i'll go to the trouble of transcribing it for you

*sarcasm on*
"Thats what audiences like now, lots of dead characters!
I wanna be like George R.R. Martin!
I'm sure his success is entirely based on how he kills his characters, rather than his stellar characterization"

*sarcasm off*

In case you still didn't get it:
Thinking that characters being brutally killed left and right, by itself, is something that elevates the value of a work. Thats an extremely dumb line of thought, a line of thought only amateurish authors follow.
If that was true, you would be implying any b-horror movie from the 80s would be a masterpiece on the same level of Hitchcock and Game of Thrones.
I agree with this, characters being killed is not the issue but how its done is usually the issue, shock factor and plot twists are most of the time lazy uninspired ways to progress the story or to keep the audience engaged for an otherwise mediocre plot, hence why the extreme reliance and usage of such cheap tricks, Code Geass R2 used to do that trick a lot because its poorly written, Game of Thrones in later seasons as well, early seasons they managed to keep it bearable.
Akame Ga Kill comes to my mind as well, a very bad written anime show, like really awful and it uses this exact trick.
TLOU2 has tons of writing flaws, as well as gameplay not really impressive (not saying its bad, its good but not GOTY material either) For me TLOU2 main strength is production values only, the animation and the graphics, the graphics being brutal and realistic with intense feel to the survival gameplay is what makes people praise the gameplay, otherwise gameplay mechanics and depth is actually pretty average imo, its the usual stuff with some upgrades from the prequel.
 
Consider me in the minority concerning the graphics. I LOVED the game in 4K/60 but didn’t feel the joy of playing after experiencing the beautiful textures of Demon’s Souls, Ratchet, etc.

I beat it but will plat it only upon receiving haptics and upgraded textures for PS5.

I cannot wait.
 
My problems with the game weren't really with the death of Joel. But since you bring this point up, I will say the death wasn't done particularly well. After playing through the game it felt rushed for pure shock value. It could have been more impactful if we played through some of the later Ellie/Joel bonding scenes first. Same should be said about Abby and her relationship with her father. If they had built up Abby a little before that scene the reception would have been much better.

I also didn't buy the motivations of that whole group anyway. Like yeah, I get Abby wanting revenge for her father. It made no sense to me why the rest of the group would follow Abby around across states while there are infected everywhere. To find a guy that is more likely dead than alive? It's especially hard to understand when it turned out most of them weren't particularly fond of Abby, or at least there was some friction/history there. Like what in the world is the pregnant chick doing this for someone she doesn't like, and who was an ex of her boyfriend? No one in the real world would EVER do this.

And like everyone else, I didn't love the fact that the immunity/cure/infected plot was basically completely sidelined to develop these mediocre at best characters. The first game had many touching themes about human connection. There was a lot of loss that felt impactful because all the risks and sacrifices made sense and it was all plausible. In TLOU2 these people are taking massive risks they didn't need due to really nonsensical motivations. There was nothing to tie it all together.

And don't get me started about the ending. I just don't buy the change of heart after the cold blooded killing of hundreds of people, many of whom were innocent.
The whole story of Lev and his sister flew all the way passed you, I see.
 
Last edited:
Anyone that isnt inlove with Joel will be blown away. That being said I hated the game. 9/10. It blows everything else out the water. Im here looking at Tsushima like a PS3 game. While TLoU2 looks like a PS5 game.

I cant give the game 10/10 because I cant wrap my head around why the whole first half wasnt just Abby and the second half Ellie. If this is fixed with a “editor’s cut”, bless this earth.
 

anothertech

Member
My expectations were just too high after the first game.

I really wish I could have cared for the characters in 2. It was such a beautifully crafted and animated world. A visual spectacle unmatched tbh.

Too bad they missed the mark with such poor story telling, and character design.
 
Last edited:

xBlueStonex

Member
TLOU2 reminds me of the tagline for IGN's Kingdom Hearts II review back in 2006. "Production values through the roof, gameplay story through the floor."
 
Honestly the story in two - don’t see how people think it’s good. And not because of Joel’s death or whatever, literally the pacing and the actual story itself is convoluted, doesn’t feel nearly as realistic and the pacing is way off. The simplicity of the first one with forward action was part of what made it great.

Ellie’s half takes far too long in this, I also don’t understand why they would just think Ellie is the single person who could’ve provided this cure that would’ve assuredly cured the infection. Like that premise makes no sense in the real world and it seemed far more ambiguous in the first game. Abbys half the story gets better, but it often felt like a retread of the first one.

Otherwise, graphics and gameplay were top notch.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
My problems with the game weren't really with the death of Joel. But since you bring this point up, I will say the death wasn't done particularly well. After playing through the game it felt rushed for pure shock value. It could have been more impactful if we played through some of the later Ellie/Joel bonding scenes first. Same should be said about Abby and her relationship with her father. If they had built up Abby a little before that scene the reception would have been much better.

I also didn't buy the motivations of that whole group anyway. Like yeah, I get Abby wanting revenge for her father. It made no sense to me why the rest of the group would follow Abby around across states while there are infected everywhere. To find a guy that is more likely dead than alive? It's especially hard to understand when it turned out most of them weren't particularly fond of Abby, or at least there was some friction/history there. Like what in the world is the pregnant chick doing this for someone she doesn't like, and who was an ex of her boyfriend? No one in the real world would EVER do this.

And like everyone else, I didn't love the fact that the immunity/cure/infected plot was basically completely sidelined to develop these mediocre at best characters. The first game had many touching themes about human connection. There was a lot of loss that felt impactful because all the risks and sacrifices made sense and it was all plausible. In TLOU2 these people are taking massive risks they didn't need due to really nonsensical motivations. There was nothing to tie it all together.

And don't get me started about the ending. I just don't buy the change of heart after the cold blooded killing of hundreds of people, many of whom were innocent.

Joel wasn't some random person. In their eyes, Joel ruined any chance of making a vaccine to cure humanity, and that reason alone would give them enough motivation to go with Abby to kill Joel. They're not just random soldiers, they're also ex-Fireflies and a few of them trained under Abby's father to become surgeons.

Nora: "Think about what he did. How many people are dead because of him."


The cure, immunity, infected plot was never sidelined. You play through Ellie's story thinking the hope for an actual cure was lost because Joel killed the only one who could make the vaccine. This is right after Nora tells Ellie that there are "no more Fireflies".

During Abby's story, you find out that Owen wants to follow a rumor to find the Fireflies. This is why he's repairing the boat, this is what will potentially turn out to be the link to curing mankind, and that's the find the Fireflies.

Abby is the only one that can link Ellie and the Fireflies together.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
The funniest thing that I realized is that most people who say this game has bad/poor writing don't know the story that well at all. No, I'm not talking just about The Last of Us Part II, I'm talking about the first game, too. People often regurgitate what others have said about this game, and it's very easy to see.

I've seen many people say that there's this recording in the first game that says the Fireflies experimented on immune people before. If you ask them to bring it up or quote it, they don't be able to do it. If people actually knew the story of the first game that well, they wouldn't have to repeat this lie.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
...I cant wrap my head around why the whole first half wasnt just Abby and the second half Ellie. If this is fixed with a “editor’s cut”, bless this earth.

Man. That would really fuck with people. Imagine making them press X to kill Joel. Now we are talking!

I actually think the game needed to have the structure it has. It's really about Ellie and her feelings, how the experience weighs on her, the impact of her fractured relationship with Joel and how it exacerbates her anger and anxiety when she is grieving over him being gone but also feeling obligated to avenge him. They needed her in the first half, to really dig into that idea and set up the drama of the rest of the narrative.

Abby section then comes in and expands on the premise in a big way.

As for my overall feelings on the game, I've still only played through it the once. Looking forward to the PS5 update and having the time to go through it again. It's by far one of the most interesting dramatic narrative-focused games I've played in... probably my life, IMO. I don't think many things come very close. TLOU1 is a great game, also narrative-focused, and probably manages to be "better" but is much much less risky and interesting.

TLOU2 is rarified air, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:

xBlueStonex

Member
The funniest thing that I realized is that most people who say this game has bad/poor writing don't know the story that well at all. No, I'm not talking just about The Last of Us Part II, I'm talking about the first game, too. People often regurgitate what others have said about this game, and it's very easy to see.

I've seen many people say that there's this recording in the first game that says the Fireflies experimented on immune people before. If you ask them to bring it up or quote it, they don't be able to do it. If people actually knew the story of the first game that well, they wouldn't have to repeat this lie.
Many people (including myself) have played through both and still disagree with you. TLOU2's writing wouldn't even pass as fan fiction.

Also, DForce, as king of TLOU2-Has-No-Retcons land, do yourself a favor and read this post.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Many people (including myself) have played through both and still disagree with you. TLOU2's writing wouldn't even pass as fan fiction.

Also, DForce, as king of TLOU2-Has-No-Retcons land, do yourself a favor and read this post.
People who often criticize the game always link YouTube and reddit posts from tlou2 reddit because they're unable to explain in their own words why it has bad writing. This is why you did nothing but repeat lies in our last conversation about this game.

Also, if you're going to link something, at least link someone's writing who actually knows what a retcon is. These people use retcon and plotholes without know what it actually means.

This guy's post tries to reach and try to say it's a retcon to make it appear like the Fireflies were incompetent in the first game and somehow "holy" in the second game. He believes they did this because they didn't want to make the Fireflies appear like monsters.

ANYONE who has read the notes in the first game knew the fireflies were never portrayed this way. This is another lie that guys such as yourself try to push because you cannot accept that Joel was not the hero as people want to believe.

You keep losing credibility when you keep resorting to stuff like this. lol
 

Moses85

Member
Better stopp playing great Games @OP

my sympathies




giphy.gif
 

xBlueStonex

Member
People who often criticize the game always link YouTube and reddit posts from tlou2 reddit because they're unable to explain in their own words why it has bad writing. This is why you did nothing but repeat lies in our last conversation about this game.

Also, if you're going to link something, at least link someone's writing who actually knows what a retcon is. These people use retcon and plotholes without know what it actually means.

This guy's post tries to reach and try to say it's a retcon to make it appear like the Fireflies were incompetent in the first game and somehow "holy" in the second game. He believes they did this because they didn't want to make the Fireflies appear like monsters.

ANYONE who has read the notes in the first game knew the fireflies were never portrayed this way. This is another lie that guys such as yourself try to push because you cannot accept that Joel was not the hero as people want to believe.

You keep losing credibility when you keep resorting to stuff like this. lol
Name a single lie of mine from our last conversation. Don't worry, I'll wait.

Also, it's fairly obvious you didn't read his post. Which is fine, I figured as much from somebody who very clearly doesn't read any arguments counter to his own. Discrediting it because of it's location on reddit would be akin to me stating that nothing you say has any weight because it's posted here, on a pro-Sony forum. You can't have it both ways.

Retcon: 'Revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.'

The entirety of the hospital scene was revised to frame Joel as a bloodthirsty monster, when this couldn't have been further from the truth. Before you misrepresent the argument - which seems to be a running theme with you - nobody is saying that he's a hero for what he did, but rather his efforts to save Ellie were understandable considering the journey you had just embarked on, and the shitty situation in which the Fireflies suddenly put you in. The second one desperately wants you to believe the exact opposite, and does so by revising the ending of the first. The post above goes into intricate detail about these revisions (not plot holes, as you like to label them), and concludes on this note:

"The prologue of Part II completely fails to do The Last of Us justice, since it's not an accurate representation of the original game at all, but rather a reimagining that feels completely disconnected from the original it's supposed to present."

Couldn't agree more.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Folks are divided every time the game is brought up. Personally I thought it was brilliant from start to finish. Game play was incredible. Writing and story were extreme intricate and well done. I don't understand why this game evokes such negativity but opinions are opinions.

Stephen Colbert Television GIF
 
Last edited:

EruditeHobo

Member
"The prologue of Part II completely fails to do The Last of Us justice, since it's not an accurate representation of the original game at all, but rather a reimagining that feels completely disconnected from the original it's supposed to present."


Gee... it's almost like the game is concerned with the impact of subjective experience and our memories over time, and the profound role that can play in our decision-making. Imagine that.
 
Last edited:

EruditeHobo

Member
TLOU2 tried to take the subjective ambiguity of TLOU and make it objective. Anybody that believed Joel was right for saving Ellie? WRONG! Joel = very bad man!!

It's laughable.

The argument that TLOU2 is about showing that "Joel = very bad man" is stunningly weak... in terms of the actual canon of the narrative, I think even TLOU1 does a better job at that.

This kind of argument is ignoring the vast majority of what is going on with Ellie & Joel in TLOU2; just a transcript of Joel's dialogue in TLOU2, and literally nothing else, would be enough to reasonably demonstrate that this statement is wrong.
 
Last edited:
2's pacing felt a bit off.. and the romance between Ellie and Dina didn't feel real to me

I wonder how things would've panned out if they marketed the game as an Abby game, made you play as Abby at the start and then switch to Ellie at some point in the story (maybe just after we kill Joel)

Might've made for a shorter game, but 2 felt unnecessarily loooong
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
I love it. Fantastic sorry and characters. Abby might be the best new character recently. If you don't feel sorry for her and still want to go at her with Ellie, then you don't get the game.
The fact that this game made me feel hate, overcome stubbornness (i don't want to play as this character) and 180 is crazy.

I've watched ending reactions on YouTube and you can clearly see 2 types of people. Those who do not forgive and stubbornly cling to their hate built by the false leaks or death of Joel... And those who forgive, went full rollercoaster and cry at the end.

You can kinda judge a character by reactions of people playing this game. My advice always is to be less stubborn of an ass like I was in the first half of the game. I was riding on the hate caused by the leaks but thankfully the game won me over. Those sunroom people are kinda monsters lol. The kind of people who never change their mind.

I can't use weird. Way girlfriend reviews video on this. Best summary
 
Last edited:
awful game. the usual naughty dog gameplay. felt like they didn't improve it at all. story was not good in the slightest. they ruined two great characters that i cared about (joel/ellie). TLOU should've been a one off game. i was one who really wanted a sequel as well... but it's a case of be careful for what you wish for cause you might just get it.

i quite enjoyed uncharted games (lost legacy kicked ass) and TLOU was one of my favourite games but TLOU2 put me right off anything they do going forward as long as that Druckmann guy is in charge.
 

xBlueStonex

Member
The argument that TLOU2 is about showing that "Joel = very bad man" is stunningly weak... in terms of the actual canon of the narrative, I think even TLOU1 does a better job at that.

This kind of argument is ignoring the vast majority of what is going on with Ellie & Joel in TLOU2; just a transcript of Joel's dialogue in TLOU2, and literally nothing else, would be enough to reasonably demonstrate that this statement is wrong.
I'd love to see the transcript that proves this wrong. As somebody who has played through the entirety of TLOU2 twice, it's clear-as-day where ND wants you to stand regarding Joel's character.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Name a single lie of mine from our last conversation. Don't worry, I'll wait.

Also, it's fairly obvious you didn't read his post. Which is fine, I figured as much from somebody who very clearly doesn't read any arguments counter to his own. Discrediting it because of it's location on reddit would be akin to me stating that nothing you say has any weight because it's posted here, on a pro-Sony forum. You can't have it both ways.

Retcon: 'Revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.'

The entirety of the hospital scene was revised to frame Joel as a bloodthirsty monster, when this couldn't have been further from the truth. Before you misrepresent the argument - which seems to be a running theme with you - nobody is saying that he's a hero for what he did, but rather his efforts to save Ellie were understandable considering the journey you had just embarked on, and the shitty situation in which the Fireflies suddenly put you in. The second one desperately wants you to believe the exact opposite, and does so by revising the ending of the first. The post above goes into intricate detail about these revisions (not plot holes, as you like to label them), and concludes on this note:

"The prologue of Part II completely fails to do The Last of Us justice, since it's not an accurate representation of the original game at all, but rather a reimagining that feels completely disconnected from the original it's supposed to present."

Couldn't agree more.

Thanks for pulling the definition. You still don't know what it means.

I'll point out just how stupid is with one example.


But in Part II everything, right down to the scrubs, is suddenly blue? Because "blue is heroic". In traditional art as well as in popular media (movies, comics, graphic novels, cartoons, etc.) blue is oftentimes associated with the "heroes" and there's a reason why it is the most popular colour for a majority of the people. Blue has a calming and uplifting effect, we associate it with water and the heavens, it is the colour of Mary and of Superman ... just a few examples to show how deeply ingrained the positive connotations of that particular colour are in our culture.

Fans of Part II may argue that this is just a purely cosmetic change, for aesthetic reasons alone, and if the intentions of Druckmann weren't so obvious throughout the rest of this prologue I might have even agreed with this take. But this begs the question: why even make such a drastic change at all?

Consistent art is very important in keeping the suspension of disbelief intact and considering that this is supposed to be a retelling of the original ending from Joel's perspective EVERYTHING, every little detail, should look exactly like it did in the original and every deviation should be very carefully considered. Is this change really necessary? Or do the negatives (a break in immersion) outweigh the positives (a new aesthetic that the director may find more appealing)?


Do you seriously expect any level headed person to take this seriously? There's a reason why many people on that reddit forum are still coping with his death more than a year later.

Fans of Part II may argue that this is just a purely cosmetic change, for aesthetic reasons alone, and if the intentions of Druckmann weren't so obvious throughout the rest of this prologue I might have even agreed with this take. But this begs the question: why even make such a drastic change at all?

It's nothing more than aesthetic reason and it's not even close to dramatic.


The prologue has a spotlight on Joel and Jerry to highly specific characters.

The picture he used to back up his claim.


p023z1owqni71.png



Fast-forward later in the game when Abby appears.
CuQyWlA.png


Yes, a very similar tone than the prologue. Why? Because the light is not focusing on the two characters.

He believes the first game proves they were incompetent, then it doesn't. It's nothing more than a desperate reach attempt when they're both similar. If TLOU 1 was made on the PS4, the lighting in the hospital wouldn't appear nearly as bright.

I can go on, but the post you linked by some guy who still can't get over his emotional truma isn't going to help. lol


Name a single lie of mine from our last conversation. Don't worry, I'll wait.

I said you repeat lies.


Who are you to say that someone didn't 'understand the story', simply because they didn't agree with your interpretation of it? Awful means of deflection from valid criticism, and totally validates what that Japanese reviewer had to say about TLOU2: "It's a story about right and wrong by people who always say they are right." You are those people.

The problem is you think the majority like it.

4gG4h5k.png

You actually used metacritic user scores as proof. You also accused me of not understanding the story because someone didn't agree with me.
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
I'd love to see the transcript that proves this wrong. As somebody who has played through the entirety of TLOU2 twice, it's clear-as-day where ND wants you to stand regarding Joel's character.
And why would they?
He killed all these people. Were they good or bad people it doesn't matter.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
I'd love to see the transcript that proves this wrong. As somebody who has played through the entirety of TLOU2 twice, it's clear-as-day where ND wants you to stand regarding Joel's character.

The game is very much about him. Anyone who thinks they tried to portray Joel as a bad character must have skipped all the cut scenes because they clearly weren't paying attention.

Ellie going through Joel's house, picking up his revolver and going after Abby
Joel's birthday gift to Ellie
Joel coming in to help Ellie after dancing with Dina.
Dina's daughter is named after Joel and Jesse (JJ)
Ellie wearing Joel's jacket to go after Abby
Joel telling Ellie he would it all over again if he was given a second chance.

Anyone who thinks TLOU 2 tried to demonize Joel wasn't paying attention.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
I'd love to see the transcript that proves this wrong. As somebody who has played through the entirety of TLOU2 twice, it's clear-as-day where ND wants you to stand regarding Joel's character.

The seeds were sewn in the Joel-Ellie relationship, the reason for them to drift apart, in the 1st game. So there is no "ret-con" necessary, as the worst of Joel's behavior is on clear display by that point in our understanding of the character. And him changing, softening to Ellie, becoming close to her, and eventually sort of embracing his father-figure role with her, that's what makes the end of TLOU1 and their falling out in TLOU2 dramatically effective.

The scenes with Joel and Ellie in TLOU2 are about that rift/suspicion from TLOU1 widening. It doesn't mean it's perfect drama... but there is far, far more nuance than "Joel = bad man" -- that is a ludicrous statement to make about TLOU2.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
I'd love to see the transcript that proves this wrong. As somebody who has played through the entirety of TLOU2 twice, it's clear-as-day where ND wants you to stand regarding Joel's character.

What? No. ND shows you how other characters in the story feel about Joel. It is a revenge tale. Getting revenge on Joel for his actions at the end of the first game spawns the entire story. Reading the story as commentary by its authors on what Joel did doesn't make a lot of sense. Everything about TLOU is morally ambiguous, particularly Joel and his actions at the end of the first game. Sorry, but looking at Joel as if he is portrayed as either good or bad isn't looking very deep into the events that transpired at all. Joel isn't some white knight, but that doesn't mean he is a "very bad man" either.
 
Last edited:
SPOILERS AHEAD (1st and 2nd game)

Let's get the most brilliant part of the game first: The graphics, OMG this game looks awesome! It even scares me how PS5 games will look like at the end of this gen.

Secondly, the gameplay is great. I normally suck at games, but I know many people have praised this game for its combat mechanics.

Then comes the story, which is what I like the most of playing single payer games. This game is still confusing me about liking it or not.

I believe many people hate the story, not because it's good or bad, but because it didn't go they way they thought it would. I can say I definitely did not imagine things would go this in a sequel when I finished the first one.

Then there's the story itself. IMO, before considering if it's good or bad, I think the thing that it affects it the most (at least for me), is that they focused 99% on the characters and they forgot the world they built in the first game. The first game we were introduced to a world that was being consumed by a virus, and we saw the beginning of it in the introduction, as well as the world after the outbreak in the course of the story. In fact, the story focused on the cure which Ellie was the hope of it.

In the second game, the world passed to be practically irrelevant. We don't really see the outcome of Ellie being immune (except with Joel's lie), but as a world in general, is like nobody cared if there could be someone else like Ellie. Also, even without someone like Ellie, it's like everyone just stopped looking for something of a cure. I thought that in the second game, we would se more of the world affected by the virus. Like other countries, etc, but didn't happen, obviously.

So. said that the second game focused way too much in the characters, and while it's not a bad thing. If you take the story as is, and place it in another world, it would make sense. Make it so that they are in war, instead of an apocalyptic world, they could still do the same story. Like, why would a group of people be more dangerous than freaking zombies?! It's like if you are playing Resident Evil 2 and you would fear more the mob destroying the city, than the actual people getting turned into zombies, or something like that.

Going into the story, I think it was good in general, but not for this franchise. It would have made much more sense to make a new IP to do something like this revenge cycle, because I think the characters would have to focus more on the dangers of the world than. the drama of revenge. The moment the focused the story in revenge, the zombies and the different groups were just an obstacle, instead of real dangers our characters should look for.

I liked the Sepharite group because I believe that in such a world, in real life, many of these groups would be created in order to survive each in their own way. Some will go back to 0, others will have luxuries, etc. That's good, but they were just merely plot devices to get to the revenge main plot.

So the story was serviceable, it does make you feel many emotions, and it goes to places that not many writers dare to go and I think that's why it caused so much controversy, and to me that's great. Whether it was good or bad, I wish many writers in games and movies dare to do things as different and exciting as they did with this game. They need to take risks.

Joel's Death:
One of the main criticism about the game was the death of Joel. In the contained story that they were telling, it made a lot of sense, and it was executed well, but like I said, this particular story should've been made into other game. I believe that Joel should have died defending Ellie from some huge danger, not from being the target of revenge.
Ive said it once, and I'll say it again:

TLOU2 should have been the story for TLOU3.

A lot more can be forgiven if they allowed the fans have a proper sequel journey with the original two.

For a third game, the idea of the person being gone would make more sense and would allow the audience to accept the loss as it would make sense in a trilogy timeline.

But oh well. It is what it is.

I still love the game, but i do understand the criticisms.
 

Fredrik

Member
What I find odd is that fans of Game of Thrones (of which I am) loved it when popular characters were being brutally killed, however, when it happened in a game, gamers went nuts. All that says to me is that some gamers need to grow the fuck up.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say they loved when popular characters died in GoT. 🤨

As for TLOUP2 I just find it interesting that ND has managed to pull all strings so masterfully that they have emotional people crying over fictional characters and desentizised people who just think it’s polygons playing and enjoying and talking about the same game.

ND hit some kind of sweet spot with this game.
You’d think that desentizised people would fall asleep watching those polygons talk about deep stuff as if anything they do actually matter.
And you’d think that sensitive people would just nope out of it all after like an hour because of the brutal violence.

Now I just hope they go back to dealing with the virus outbreak and post-apocalyptic story they had going in the first game. Never played the second game, just seemed like a pointless revenge story to me, but I enjoyed the first one a lot and hope they find a new angle to go forward from here on.
 

horkrux

Member
What I find odd is that fans of Game of Thrones (of which I am) loved it when popular characters were being brutally killed, however, when it happened in a game, gamers went nuts. All that says to me is that some gamers need to grow the fuck up.
"Loved it"? Lol
Also this is only the second game after almost a decade and they kill the man in like the first hour. Unacceptable for me
 

Roufianos

Member
I really, really like it. Worst thing was the awful pacing which makes you play 12 hours with boring characters just yo get back to where you were.

Clearly a ton of people enjoyed it though, I'd say I'm a minority.
 

xBlueStonex

Member
The game is very much about him. Anyone who thinks they tried to portray Joel as a bad character must have skipped all the cut scenes because they clearly weren't paying attention.

Ellie going through Joel's house, picking up his revolver and going after Abby
Joel's birthday gift to Ellie
Joel coming in to help Ellie after dancing with Dina.
Dina's daughter is named after Joel and Jesse (JJ)
Ellie wearing Joel's jacket to go after Abby
Joel telling Ellie he would it all over again if he was given a second chance.

Anyone who thinks TLOU 2 tried to demonize Joel wasn't paying attention.
So a few random plot points suddenly implies the game is about Joel? That is a tremendous stretch, and is undone absolutely by the manner of his death and the hours (and I mean hours) spent with Abby vilifying both him and Ellie. This would be like me saying TLOU is about Tess, and listing off her random plot points from the first. Sorry, but no. Joel clearly takes a backseat to Abby whom ND desperately wants the audience to like, but fails to write a cohesive narrative to do so. I can see what they were going for, but the execution was absolutely terrible.

And why would they?
He killed all these people. Were they good or bad people it doesn't matter.
This implies that there is no scenario in which Joel can be seen in a positive light, which derails the brilliance of the original's execution. Some could consider Joel's heroics at the end of TLOU1 as monstrous, but others could also side with him for saving his daughter-figure from the clutches of a terrorist organization and redeeming himself for losing Sara at the very start. The ambiguity there was sublime, and ND did an incredible job trusting the player to make those decisions for themselves. TLOU2 retcons the hospital scene to undo this entirely as a means to manipulate the player into understanding why Abby would kill him in the first place. This is where the Joel = badguy comes from. Without this manipulation, nobody would want to play as Abby.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom