• 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.

The Last Of Us Part 2 has sold over 10 million units earlier this year according to Neil Druckmann | Factions 2 is now a standalone multiplayer game

Reply Banned
It seems your brain and the ones around you seems far too easy to break if you can't follow basic concepts.
 

mortal

Gold Member
Ah, now its just a slang lol.

Talk about moving goalposts.

Anyways, you not really questioned anything I said, and wether you agree with what I said or not tgat's up to you, not me. I like what I like, and I dislike what I dislike.

If you hate people just expressing their opinions on an open forum and go all defensive about it, that's your problem, not mine lol.
 

John Wick

Member
Probably. I think the whole reason they decided to detach Factions from TLOU 2 is to recoup the costs they had with the main game, as that probably wasn't as profitable as Sony wanted.
Really? And you know this how?
Maybe factions became so big that it deserves it's own game? Maybe it's that ambitious that ND had no choice to make it a separate game?
Or maybe they know they will make a killing off this BR type game?
 

Nautilus

Member
Reply Banned
Really? And you know this how?
Maybe factions became so big that it deserves it's own game? Maybe it's that ambitious that ND had no choice to make it a separate game?
Or maybe they know they will make a killing off this BR type game?
Honestly, I think the third reason is a real possibility. Sony took a look at it and though "Maybe we can make more money turning this into a BR free to play instead of just adding as an extra mode to TLOU 2". Seems plausible in my head at least.

But just like you don't know the reason why they decided to make its own game, its equaly possible that they did it to cut costs with TLOU 2, since it didn't sell as well as they expected, and to start anew with a type of game (multiplayer/BR) that Sony themselves said thought the future of gaming was at, using assets from TLOU 2 to make up for the lack of profits in that game.
 

Dick Jones

Gold Member
In 40+ years I've honestly never seen such double standards, hypocrisy, cope, mental gynmastics and goalpost moving surrounding one game.
What about the Pong debacle? You know the smelly fuckers that play competitive Smash Bros.
 

Hezekiah

Banned
You are right, i missed the point a little bit. Thought you think prices don't drop fast, but all big Sony AAAs drop to 30 bucks within very few month in Germany.

But Besides that i think you underestimate the commonness of those search engines and especially bargain sites like MyDealz. They are much bigger than you might think. MyDealz alone has many millions of visitors each month.

Just checked Amazon.de. Horizon is even 70 Euro from Amazon itself, but it starts in the 30s from Marketplace vendors. Even if people are not clever enough to use google or the mentioned sites for better prices, they at least have eyes and can see them on Amazon.

Also digital sales are not the majority, physical games are becoming stronger: https://gameranx.com/updates/id/281208/article/ps5-owners-prefer-physical-games-over-digital/
They don't on the Playstation Store, that's the point, they're all still full price now even after over a year since release in the case of Returnal and Ratchet. Every now and then there is a sale.

In terms of physical sales Amazon still sells way more copies than these little retailers. It's not about cleverness, it's about reach.

Physical sales are on the decline and Covid has just sped that up. Even in the year or so since since that article was released I bet a higher proportion of games have been sold digitally, because physical releases and sales are becoming more niche (Sony's 2020 fiscal year results showed a majority of PlayStation full game sales were coming as digital downloads).
 
Last edited:

John Wick

Member
Honestly, I think the third reason is a real possibility. Sony took a look at it and though "Maybe we can make more money turning this into a BR free to play instead of just adding as an extra mode to TLOU 2". Seems plausible in my head at least.

But just like you don't know the reason why they decided to make its own game, its equaly possible that they did it to cut costs with TLOU 2, since it didn't sell as well as they expected, and to start anew with a type of game (multiplayer/BR) that Sony themselves said thought the future of gaming was at, using assets from TLOU 2 to make up for the lack of profits in that game.
So you think with 10+ million sales it didn't make or sell as well as Sony expected? Clearly you must be crazy.
With PS5 version and PC coming game will make bank
 

Nautilus

Member
Reply Banned
So you think with 10+ million sales it didn't make or sell as well as Sony expected? Clearly you must be crazy.
With PS5 version and PC coming game will make bank
It might seem common reason that something selling 10 million must be an instant success, but companies work in a different way.

If Sony invest 300 million on a game, expecting the overall revenue to be 900 million, they don't want that to take 5 years to be accomplished. They need cash flow, and usually these high risk projecta have a sales target and a timeline to reach that. And much like Jim said in the past, games are getting increasingly expensive and riskier to make. Is it that crazy to think that Sony might not be that happy with these sales to begin with, and expected for better numbers to the followup to tgeir best review game of all time?

I mean, we all saw time and time again how some companies have unreasonable expectation with their games, like Square with Tomb Raider, CD Project with Cyberpunk, etc. Its really hard to think that Sony had similar aspirations with TLOU 2?
 

TheTurboFD

Member
Honestly, I think the third reason is a real possibility. Sony took a look at it and though "Maybe we can make more money turning this into a BR free to play instead of just adding as an extra mode to TLOU 2". Seems plausible in my head at least.

But just like you don't know the reason why they decided to make its own game, its equaly possible that they did it to cut costs with TLOU 2, since it didn't sell as well as they expected, and to start anew with a type of game (multiplayer/BR) that Sony themselves said thought the future of gaming was at, using assets from TLOU 2 to make up for the lack of profits in that game.

The issue I have with all this is in bold. How would you know if it didn't sell as expected unless you were in the board talks? You keep talking as if this is facts when it's pure speculation tied to your dislike of the game. No game company is looking at 10 million sold and saying "that sucks" and yet the people who have no ties to the company are trying to decide that for them.
 
Last edited:
i cant fathom how someone can let a videogame get under their skin so much. like how? imagine posting like 100 times in a thread about a game you dont even like!! spending the time to type out all that text. either your a kid or you have a terribly empty life.
 

Clear

Member
If we leave in place all the contrivances that lead Joel, Tommy and Abby to the house, there are things that could've been changed from there on that would make the brothers look like veterans and competent patrol guards.

I'm not sure what else was needed. Contrivances aside its a near perfect trap, who's going to expect the armed person who's just helped you fight off and escape from a horde of infected in a blizzard to turn on you in a blink of an eye, based on the revelation of your first names alone? Not to mention them being an organized and highly motivated paramilitary unit with such a singular purpose.

More than that though, if you are going to give a pass to the contrivances in the set-up, what's the basis of your criticism? The specifics of how the ambush scene was staged, or that Joel could ever allow himself to be ambushed? Because if the former is true, its a mild complaint more about direction than writing, and if the latter I don't think that's a reasonable criticism in the context of the fiction.



I would expect living in Jackson would affect their character but not in ways that could bring more danger to them or that community. Each time they go on patrol should be a reminder what can happen to Jackson without adequate protection.

If his Ellie spats did affect his duties that much or he had become more sloppy over the years then I think we'd need to have had some hints of that where he did little mistakes and Tommy having to correct him. Now it just seems to come out of the blue.

As I mentioned in a previous post, its kinda the flaw with having it as part of the cold open. There's pacing considerations due to the need to get to the point and kick off the meat of the story asap which preclude foreshadowing everything down to the tiniest detail.
I take your point and I do agree it would be desirable to more firmly shade in changes in Joel's mindset and preoccupations, but I don't find it that critical. The contrivance of the whole scenario is such that it kinda absolves the character(s) of their errors.

As written, the whole confrontation comes out-of-the-blue for all concerned (WLF group included) which is why the whole thing ends up being so sloppy and chaotic.

Clearly what they are going for is a tragic and ironic series of coincidences which pushes everyone involved out of their comfort-zones and ends up driving the whole futile, cycle-of-violence scenario.

Like I wrote before, if it was me. I'd have situated it around the mid-point of the narrative in order to really ram these points home. And I believe this may have been the original plan, but they changed it due to other considerations.

Lastly I have to say that writing for games offers up some unique problems insofar as you (the writer) need to factor in character growth and progression in a pure gameplay/user-experience sense at the same time as you craft the narrative and its key story beats. So even if you decide to tell your story in a non-linear fashion, the player's growth and understanding of their capabilities as the character they control have to fit within a strictly linear order of progression. Because they need to be taught what they are able to do in the game.

Its a pain that's specific to interactive works.
 
Last edited:

tmlDan

Member
It might seem common reason that something selling 10 million must be an instant success, but companies work in a different way.

If Sony invest 300 million on a game, expecting the overall revenue to be 900 million, they don't want that to take 5 years to be accomplished. They need cash flow, and usually these high risk projecta have a sales target and a timeline to reach that. And much like Jim said in the past, games are getting increasingly expensive and riskier to make. Is it that crazy to think that Sony might not be that happy with these sales to begin with, and expected for better numbers to the followup to tgeir best review game of all time?

I mean, we all saw time and time again how some companies have unreasonable expectation with their games, like Square with Tomb Raider, CD Project with Cyberpunk, etc. Its really hard to think that Sony had similar aspirations with TLOU 2?
you're basing all of this off assumptions, just stop.

1. You don't know how much LoU2 cost to make
2. You don't know sales expectations
3. Sales and revenue expectations are not cookie cutter, there are many factors we can't make assumptions on so it's not worth discussing. All we can say is 10 million is pretty good for a game that violent.
 

Rykan

Member
It might seem common reason that something selling 10 million must be an instant success, but companies work in a different way.

If Sony invest 300 million on a game, expecting the overall revenue to be 900 million, they don't want that to take 5 years to be accomplished. They need cash flow, and usually these high risk projecta have a sales target and a timeline to reach that. And much like Jim said in the past, games are getting increasingly expensive and riskier to make. Is it that crazy to think that Sony might not be that happy with these sales to begin with, and expected for better numbers to the followup to tgeir best review game of all time?

I mean, we all saw time and time again how some companies have unreasonable expectation with their games, like Square with Tomb Raider, CD Project with Cyberpunk, etc. Its really hard to think that Sony had similar aspirations with TLOU 2?
Yes, because you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. The games sales are in line with other big hits that Sony themselves have published.

You're talking about things you have no knowledge of. You have no idea what TloU's sales expectations were nor do you have any clue how much revenue it made. You don't even know how many copies TloU2 really sold because all that was revealed is that it is over 10 million. You're desperately trying to paint the sales as a negative because you're trying to create a narrative that most people agree with your opinion on the game.
 
Last edited:
Characters doing things you don't like aren't plot holes my guy
You REALLY need to go and read about plot holes. I didn't say they did "things I don't like". They did things that don't make sense based on the characters. Two totally different things, but it's not my fault that you are unable to spot the differences. As I suspected, you just have no clue what a plot hole is, because they are far more abundant in the writing than you realize.

Btw just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh" is not a rebuttal.
 
But that's kind of the discussion that you can have about the ending of the first game, right? Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks what Joel did was morally wrong. It's been a while since I've played TloU but IIRC, the ending was that Ellie had to be sacrificed so that a cure can be developed and the rest of humanity can be saved. I think that is what is called "For the greater good" and I think saving humanity over it was worth it, no matter how harsh it is.

Buddy, I hate to break it to you but none of what you mentioned is a plot hole. An inconsistency, Especially extremely subjective inconsistencies like some of the things you've mentioned, in itself isn't a plot hole.
Saying a thing isn't a plot hole doesn't make you correct, sorry. Seems like an awful lot of you need to take a creative writing class before pontificating. Lol whatever, the TLOU2 task force never admits when they're wrong, so this thread is going the exact same way as the other 109,786 threads about this game.
Defenders of the game act like it is perfectly written, and the sane people sigh and walk away.
 
You REALLY need to go and read about plot holes. I didn't say they did "things I don't like". They did things that don't make sense based on the characters. Two totally different things, but it's not my fault that you are unable to spot the differences. As I suspected, you just have no clue what a plot hole is, because they are far more abundant in the writing than you realize.

Btw just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh" is not a rebuttal.

I think you need to stop obsessing over "plot holes"
 

Rykan

Member
Saying a thing isn't a plot hole doesn't make you correct, sorry. Seems like an awful lot of you need to take a creative writing class before pontificating. Lol whatever, the TLOU2 task force never admits when they're wrong, so this thread is going the exact same way as the other 109,786 threads about this game.
Defenders of the game act like it is perfectly written, and the sane people sigh and walk away.
It's hilarious to watch you lecture other people how they need to take a "creative writing class" when you don't even have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

Having a a character make a nonsensical decision (which is subjective, btw) is NOT a plot hole because human beings make nonsensical decisions all the time. There's a word for it: Its called a mistake.

A nonsensical decision is not a plot hole.
Things that don't make sense are not plot holes.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Yes, inconsistent character development and actions IS a plot hole.
This just proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. What you personally consider inconsistent is entirely subjective and if your argument is "Well they should have known better, so that's why its a plot hole" then you're pretty much done.
 
Yes you can survive a bullet scraping the side of the your face
Watched that scene 15 times, and it always is amazing that people still try and defend it. Yes, people survive gunshot wounds with immediate medical attention, trained medical staff, and proper supplies, probably need blood too. Again, anyone defending that scene is only proving that you refuse to talk sensibly about the game, and just want to defend it at all costs. It is a nonsense sequence of events, and nothing you say changes that.
 
Watched that scene 15 times, and it always is amazing that people still try and defend it. Yes, people survive gunshot wounds with immediate medical attention, trained medical staff, and proper supplies, probably need blood too. Again, anyone defending that scene is only proving that you refuse to talk sensibly about the game, and just want to defend it at all costs. It is a nonsense sequence of events, and nothing you say changes that.

What part of it wasn't a direct headshot are you failing to grasp?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
In a world where mushroom monsters exist, and a buff chick hopped up on protein burritos fisticuffing dudes and bloaters... and we are discussing whether you can survive a gunshot wound to the head (which many IRL have, even without immediate attention. Not every headshot is a death sentence or killshot insta), but I digress.
 

Topher

Gold Member
In a world where mushroom monsters exist, and a buff chick hopped up on protein burritos fisticuffing dudes and bloaters... and we are discussing whether you can survive a gunshot wound to the head (which many IRL have, even without immediate attention. Not every headshot is a death sentence or killshot insta), but I digress.

I'm sick of this unrealistic bullshit in video games. Now excuse me while I get back to Assassin's Creed....


assassins creed assassin GIF
assassins creed parkour GIF
 
This just proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. What you personally consider inconsistent is entirely subjective and if your argument is "Well they should have known better, so that's why its a plot hole" then you're pretty much done.
Do yourself a favor, and Google "types of plot holes. You'll thank me, because you won't need to keep making silly comments in TLOU2 threads.

I also pointed out more than just subjective holes, but hey, you guys will never admit that the game is imperfect, so I'm not going to waste another couple hours by responding. I said my piece, and you all can disagree. You're wrong, but that's normal when people put a piece of entertainment up on some pedestal.
 
And there are films and games that relies heavily on its story as its main focus that having big plot holes or inconsistencies get on the way of its enjoyment. Plot holes aren't a feauture, and its almost surely a mistake the story teller made.

"Plot holes" or narrative inconsistencies can DEFINITELY be a feature.

Personally speaking, TLOU 2 have a few, like Joel being so trusting with aby even when it was reinforced that he remained skeptical after all those years...

You don't have to like that moment -- it's an idiotic hill to die on when attacking the quality of a narrative, but it's ok to not like something for whatever reason -- but regardless of that, it is not a plot hole in any way, shape, or form.
 

Rykan

Member
Let's actually go over some of the complete nonsense that you've tried to argue.

Ok, so literally the ENTIRE sequence between when Abby and Owen arrive in Jackson and when Abby kills Joel, that is one gigantic string of deus ex machina events, as in it a series of wildly convenient story points that taken on the whole, are not believable.
Coincidences are not plot holes. You can call it far fetched, sure. But in order for it to be a plot hole, it needs to be a question that remains unanswered OR something that directly contradicts a fact previously established with no explanation or reason why this has changed.

No matter what the defense brigade says, Joel and Tommy instantly giving away their names and location is a character plot hole, based on what we know of the characters in the first game. And NO, there's ZERO evidence that Joel has become more relaxed and complacent in Jackson, quite the opposite in fact. Several times, it is mentioned that Joel considers the patrols to be dangerous still. He has no illusion of safety. I have seen that ridiculous excuse used many times.

Inconsistency in human beings is not a plot hole. It can be a misread of the situation, a misread of character. A slip up after a stressful situations which they had just been here. There's also nothing to support this argument that Joel and Tommy would NEVER EVER give their names to anyone. Even if you were to consider all of this "unlikely", which is entirely subjective, then that STILL won't make it a plot hole because that would only be the case if it was impossible, which it is not.

Tommy surving a gunshot to the back of the head, with no medical care around for over 1000 miles? Please don't defend THAT crap! Let alone Ellie and Dina being concussed/ has an arrow through the shoulder. Asinine decision to not explain any of that.
Again, Unlikely/low odds of happening are not plot holes. At best you could argue that its an unrealistic representation, which differs from a plot hole.

Abby leaving Ellie and Tommy alive is a plot hole, because it is a rather unbelievable event.
Out of all your points, I'm sorry but this is by far the dumbest one. "I don't think that this character would have done that, so therefore it is a plot hole". Do you really take yourself seriously after typing that out? She was after Joel because of what he had done to her father. She wasn't after anyone else. I just can't get over the fact that you actually thought this was a plothole, its so bizarre.

Abby leaving them all alive the second time, even more unbelievable.
Same as above. "I don't think she would have made that decision, so its a plothole". Ridiculous.



The rest of your post is just more "I think this is unlikely, therefore it is a plothole" which shows that have a severe lack of understanding of what a plothole really is.

Do yourself a favor, and Google "types of plot holes. You'll thank me, because you won't need to keep making silly comments in TLOU2 threads.

I also pointed out more than just subjective holes, but hey, you guys will never admit that the game is imperfect, so I'm not going to waste another couple hours by responding. I said my piece, and you all can disagree. You're wrong, but that's normal when people put a piece of entertainment up on some pedestal.
I suggest you take your own advice. The fact that you think "coincidence = plothole" shows that you have an infantile understanding of literature.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom