Support NeoGAF

[Ktotheroc]

This video is trash with Dunkey not debating much of anything and cherry-picking comments, some with one like or none at all. I get that you posted it, because he's well-adored for his joke stuff, but he's no better than the game reviewers he was critiquing in previous videos. I saw a video with Girlfriend Reviews doing similar, and instead of arguing plot points, it's about other shit. Seems like most can't even defend the writing

Welcome to 2020, where those same people on YT who shit on IGN and the like for being garbage are no better.

 

[sainraja]

You're grossly simplifying the reasons why the end of the game plays out like it does. Killing Mel is pretty much Ellie's breaking point; accidental or not killing a pregnant woman is unconscionable. Doubly so because of Ellie's personal situation (escorting Dina) and the presupposition that her quest for revenge has a moral justification as its basis.

Moving beyond that point and continuing to hunt Abby requires complete submission to rage over reason.

As things pan out, she doesn't get the chance to back out cleanly because Abby and Lev show up; at which point the similarities between them come into sharp focus. She knows why Abby came for Joel. She is somewhat "humanized" by her hurt at the loss of her friends, and the fact that she is swayed by Lev into sparing Dina and her unknown child as well as herself. Abby offers Ellie a glimpse of what awaits her down the road should she survive.

The reason for the about-face and deciding to pursue Abby and Lev to California is not a matter of choice for Ellie. She is suffering from PTSD and is functionally broken by the forgoing. She needs to confront her fear, her failure in order to move on. Abby is the focus but its not about her at all, its really about Ellie herself, her unresolved guilt over her estrangement for Joel, her inability to protect her friends and loved ones, and above all else her failure to confront her own fear.

Deep down, Abby is no longer the "other". She's not a mystery or some kind of quasi mythical "Moby Dick"; she is an externalized manifestation of Ellie's (and Joel's) inner darkness and turmoil.

This is why confronting and subduing her is enough to finish it, and why killing her is effectively an act of suicide.

I'm actually not just talking about Ellie killing Mel/Owen or Abby killing Jesse and threatening to kill Dina. They both kill so many 'other' characters along the way to each other; people that we aren't really introduced to but they get killed. The body count is huge for a world that is devastated by an infection. If naugthydog wanted to do a revenge story, they should made a different game or pulled back a little bit from Last of Us 2 to ground it a bit.

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, especially as I found the pacing issues to be most damaging in the first third of the game. It is kinda lumpy, but to a large extent that's a product of how the needs of the narrative bump hard against the needs of it being a game. Its the deep issue that anyone trying to craft a cinematic-style action game inevitably has to face up to; interactivity demands tutorialization and exposition for its systems and mechanics, which requires a different flow and cadence to that which communicates the narrative and characterization to its best effect.

Its quite a head-scratcher, and I know this from experience.

Similarly, considering this underlying issue, I find that organizing the story structure differently would lead to potentially worse problems for both gameplay and narrative. Its an old complaint of mine, lay people tend not to consider the consequences of their "obvious" fixes. They see a problem, mentally decide what they'd do differently, but don't think through how that change impacts everything thereafter.

In the long-run, that's been a major reason for why I've spent so much time arguing/defending the game, because as someone with familiarity with the process I can see a clear pattern of thought in their decision making process. Which isn't to say that I agree with every creative choice, just that I can imagine being in the room and hearing the arguments made for and against particular approaches.

See, I don't really agree with that since I provided a solution to that by suggesting the majority of enemies that Ellie should have faced on her way to Abby should have been the infected. They did not need to be random human NPC enemies who she is simply going to dispose of and we aren't suppose to care about that. We ran into a few rogue groups here and there in the first game but part 2 was full of people! Basically you had two big groups of people set to go to war and you had Ellie & Abby's revenge story in the middle and who cares how many random people get killed along the way. How many fathers/mothers did Ellie/Abby kill along the way? I am sure now their kids need to have their revenge.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I haven't played it but the death of on character bugs me and I'm waiting for it to drop to a silly low price before jumping on it because of it.

 

[Clear]

I'm actually not just talking about Ellie killing Mel/Owen or Abby killing Jesse and threatening to kill Dina. They both kill so many 'other' characters along the way to each other; people that we aren't really introduced to but they get killed. The body count is huge for a world that is devastated by an infection. If naugthydog wanted to do a revenge story, they should made a different game or pulled back a little bit from Last of Us 2 to ground it a bit.

Its a game. That matters not just because of genre requirements, but because its a functional necessity to introduce the mechanics of fighting human adversaries early on. Narratively they work around this adequately by creating a scenario in which Seattle is effectively a war zone, with every faction enacting a shoot-on-sight policy by default. Hence every act of violence is either directly or proactively done in self-defence.

See, I don't really agree with that since I provided a solution to that by suggesting the majority of enemies that Ellie should have faced on her way to Abby should have been the infected. They did not need to be random human NPC enemies who she is simply going to dispose of and we aren't suppose to care about that. We ran into a few rogue groups here and there in the first game but part 2 was full of people! Basically you had two big groups of people set to go to war and you had Ellie & Abby's revenge story in the middle and who cares how many random people get killed along the way.

A key element of the narrative is that Seattle is a territory contested by two organized but ideologically disparate factions. The WLF and the Seraphites are given their own philosophical outlook and even a sketched out history of their conflict; there's a lot of obvious allegory in this regarding societal reconstruction at this point in the post apocalyptic world (militarism versus theocracy) and we get to see first hand how both are intolerant of dissent.
Given the disparity in time-lining (the Jacksonite incursion is a blip in a long-running but escalating conflict) it disguises the greater significance and threat posed by Ellie and co, allowing for a degree of plausibility as to how such a small guerilla unit could cause so much damage without pulling the full weight of the WLF forces down upon them.

Its all quite logical and well thought-through imho.

 

[aries_71]

A key element of the narrative is that Seattle is a territory contested by two organized but ideologically disparate factions. The WLF and the Seraphites are given their own philosophical outlook and even a sketched out history of their conflict;

That’s one think that bothered me while playing the game and killed the suspense of disbelief. I found very unrealistic that in the span of 20-25 years a society would devolve that much as to create a new religion from scratch and one that ridiculous as the one portrayed. I mean, 200-300 years, maybe, but not 20. People like Joel and Tommy and their generation are still around...

 

[engstra]

Hate seems too strong a word for a video game.

I'll preface by saying I'll never play TLOU, though. This could be why I'm indifferent to the games. I'm not interested in LGBTQ stories. I'm just not. I'm glad the DLC came out before I jumped into the game.

And I think that's related to why many people are turned off by TLOU2. People who were able to relate with Joel in TLOU probably feel like they were done a huge disservice by his being killed off and subsequently no relatable male character, unless you count Abby, was brought in to fill this void. Sometimes I think that modern writers forget that audiences need someone they can relate with. No amount of diversity trainings and re-educations are going to break that paradigm. Male audiences generally relate with male characters. Men simply do not relate much with lesbian or trans characters, and this shouldn't be shocking or frowned at. So [you] wrote a story that had much less appeal for your male audience--admit you flubbed and try and do better on your next project!

This should be reason enough for you to understand why TLOU2 left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. It's that flavor and smell that you get when you realize "a girl" with no vagina is taking it from behind. Congratulations.

Yawn.
Just because there's a gay couple in the game does not make it an LGBTQ story, that's the same bs argument as saying the game is woke propaganda just because one of the main characters is gay.
So you're saying that relatable characters are based on what gender they are, rather than the strength of writing, character development and relatable issues and struggles they go through?

 

[Jtibh]

Anybody that played the game (and it has the best completion rate of any game in PlayStation 4) can see:

• The revenge cycle theme is fantastic.
• The story is deep and keep you engaged to know what it will happen next.
• Characters are great with it own complications with amazing development (I can't find one to be bad).
• The gameplay is again flawless... it is perfection.
• The enemy variety is now way better.
• The weapons and craft items are way better than original.
• The world and environment are fantastic.
• Side activities are great.
• It humanizes all sides... it is impactful and emotionally driven.

The game is everything a sequel should be.
It is a must to play even if you get down due violence.

So I really can't understand the hate some GAFers has with one of the best games ever created.

PS. I really can't even understand the political controversy... I really can't see politics in the game... maybe because I'm not American? I don't know.

Edit - Making this thread just me miss even more Factions MP... I blamed ND for that and I will continue doing that because that decision was utter shit.

I hate to admit....

I enjoy it.

Is it the best..no. But its up there.

And i am happy sony takes these risks and why i think xbox just cant ever produce these type of games though they heavily invested into it.

If xbox eat monsters for breakfast as they say,ps5 will eat xbox like cannibals eat people for calcium supplement.

 

[finowns]

I hate to admit....

I enjoy it.

Is it the best..no. But its up there.

And i am happy sony takes these risks and why i think xbox just cant ever produce these type of games though they heavily invested into it.

If xbox eat monsters for breakfast as they say,ps5 will eat xbox like cannibals eat people for calcium supplement.

I like the intensity of that simile.

 

[MagnesD3]

Story has major issues in a mainly story based game. The content also is definitely not a direction many fans wanted it to go in. It’s also a bit of a slog with how long it is.

While it isn’t bad by any means its an experimentally told story with an overdone premise with following up on of the best stories in gaming with a story people really didn’t wanna see be told that way with previews deceiving it’s audience. There’s definitely great reasons it’s mixed response wise.

 

[engstra]

It's mad when you think about it.
People are completely baffled that someone could strongly dislike this grim, plodding, ultra violent, piece of "entertainment".

As if there is only one way for video games to be and if you hate this wannabe HBO, try hard, over the top, crap then you must just be a troll and not someone who just isn't into that kind of thing.

Weird how violence is just the default and anything else is "kiddy games" and its inconceivable that someone could look at TLOU2 and think "nah not my kind of thing".

Oh wow another dark, zombie, apocalypse story... wooooooah... a revenge plot too? Oh my god this is cutting edge story telling. You'll be telling me there's plot twists and shocking deaths next.

How could anyone possibly not think it's the greatest story ever told?

I can totally respect that

 

[GermanZepp]

The story is awful and depressing, the characters decisions are wtf time after time, the gathering for resources after killing everyone it's a drag, the coincidental aka forced story beats are lame, Hollywood lame, (I just dropped the map with my exact location where I stay after killing your friends). Once the game was done I have 0 interest to go back, it isn't that fun to play.

Technically is incredible. Animations and sound are amazing. The director took risky choices , and I think there were necessary for live up to the first game. But, I think those choices didn't pay off.

 

[Keihart]

This video is trash with Dunkey not debating much of anything and cherry-picking comments, some with one like or none at all. I get that you posted it, because he's well-adored for his joke stuff, but he's no better than the game reviewers he was critiquing in previous videos. I saw a video with Girlfriend Reviews doing similar, and instead of arguing plot points, it's about other shit. Seems like most can't even defend the writing

Welcome to 2020, where those same people on YT who shit on IGN and the like for being garbage are no better.

nah, Girlfrield reviews got it right on their first video.
Also most of the so called "plot holes" that you want addressed are only smoke and have been debunked on this same forum countless times. The game has faults, but not really in what people like to argue.

 

[Ktotheroc]

Its a game. That matters not just because of genre requirements, but because its a functional necessity to introduce the mechanics of fighting human adversaries early on. Narratively they work around this adequately by creating a scenario in which Seattle is effectively a war zone, with every faction enacting a shoot-on-sight policy by default. Hence every act of violence is either directly or proactively done in self-defence.



A key element of the narrative is that Seattle is a territory contested by two organized but ideologically disparate factions. The WLF and the Seraphites are given their own philosophical outlook and even a sketched out history of their conflict; there's a lot of obvious allegory in this regarding societal reconstruction at this point in the post apocalyptic world (militarism versus theocracy) and we get to see first hand how both are intolerant of dissent.
Given the disparity in time-lining (the Jacksonite incursion is a blip in a long-running but escalating conflict) it disguises the greater significance and threat posed by Ellie and co, allowing for a degree of plausibility as to how such a small guerilla unit could cause so much damage without pulling the full weight of the WLF forces down upon them.

Its all quite logical and well thought-through imho.

"It's a game" isn't a good excuse lol

Yawn.
Just because there's a gay couple in the game does not make it an LGBTQ story, that's the same bs argument as saying the game is woke propaganda just because one of the main characters is gay.
So you're saying that relatable characters are based on what gender they are, rather than the strength of writing, character development and relatable issues and struggles they go through?

Nearly all the main characters in this game are gay or trans, so saying it seems to put LGBTQ shit at the forefront isn't really off. Lev is trans, Ellie and Dina are gay, Abby is either trans or is on that shit Brock Lesnar was on prior to fighting Mark Hunt. <-- These are your prominent characters, and almost everyone else gets killed/shares a gruesome fate, outside of like Tommy (who gets fucked in his own right). Sexuality is pushed to the forefront in two different scenes, one of which is grotesque (awkward as well) and goes on for entirely too long. "Bigot sandwiches" is also one of the dumbest things I've ever fucking heard in a game's dialogue, and is a good example of what someone can use when people say it isn't agenda-based.

nah, Girlfrield reviews got it right on their first video.
Also most of the so called "plot holes" that you want addressed are only smoke and have been debunked on this same forum countless times. The game has faults, but not really in what people like to argue.

If they did, then why'd they make another video like Dunkey, aiming to combat those who called them out? They, just like Dunkey, spend almost no time not addressing criticism about the story, and instead, literally partake in whataboutism for a good portion of said rebuttal. Dunkey spends most of his time in the second video focusing on lowest common denominator shit and being smug to entertain his audience, but provides nothing of substance. Most of these YT reviewers are what they hated

 

[Keihart]

If they did, then why'd they make another video like Dunkey, aiming to combat those who called them out? They, just like Dunkey, spend almost no time not addressing criticism about the story, and instead, literally partake in whataboutism for a good portion of said rebuttal. Dunkey spends most of his time in the second video focusing on lowest common denominator shit and being smug to entertain his audience, but provides nothing of substance. Most of these YT reviewers are what they hated

Because it's so over the top that ignoring the comedy in the complains it's impossible for someone with a little self awareness.

 

[GermanZepp]

Because honestly gamers are pretty fucking stupid.

Especially half the people posting in this thread.

Are you included in that half?

 

[Ikutachi]

Abby is too jacked.

 

[lock2k]

Anybody that played the game (and it has the best completion rate of any game in PlayStation 4) can see:

• The revenge cycle theme is fantastic.
• The story is deep and keep you engaged to know what it will happen next.
• Characters are great with it own complications with amazing development (I can't find one to be bad).
• The gameplay is again flawless... it is perfection.
• The enemy variety is now way better.
• The weapons and craft items are way better than original.
• The world and environment are fantastic.
• Side activities are great.
• It humanizes all sides... it is impactful and emotionally driven.

The game is everything a sequel should be.
It is a must to play even if you get down due violence.

So I really can't understand the hate some GAFers has with one of the best games ever created.

PS. I really can't even understand the political controversy... I really can't see politics in the game... maybe because I'm not American? I don't know.

Edit - Making this thread just me miss even more Factions MP... I blamed ND for that and I will continue doing that because that decision was utter shit.

Why don't people like what i like? Me am cry.

 

[yurinka]

-They torture and kill a beloved character that is key for this game and the previous one
-They try to replace it with a poorly written, uncharismatic, psycopathic character that according to the devs was designed -like all the new female characters of the game- to don't be attractive for biggest userbase of the game series (males), and is introduced in a sequence where the creators said they wanted the players to hate that character
-They force you to play with a character you hate during a big portion of the game
-The portion of this character is in the middle of a high level cliffhanger, so you expect it to be short but it's like as long as the previous game, so that portion ends being annoying
-You also were expecting the game to end because when the the cliffhanger happened the game was already longer than the previous game, so that portion ends being more annoying
-That portion is full of poorly written and designed characters who add nothing to the game or its story, and are there to fill SJW tokenism diversity quotas. Example: latino character who looks like Druckmann who basically is in the game to constantly say 'pendejo' (just in case you didn't noticed it's a latino character and to spit a beloved character during a torture scene
-They try to humanize and sell you as good/cool people that faction of poorly written woke-focused characters when you don't care about them -and particularly hate the new main character- and while you want the cliffhanger to end. It would have been a better idea to reduce that portion of the game and to place it before the torture scene, so you wouldn't hate her, would understand better what she does when she does it, and would feel bad about Ellie's actions (as they want you to feel) when she does them
-The portion of the trip of the end of the game would have made more sense as a separate DLC. The game was at that point too long and the ending in the 1st time of the farm would have worked better as game ending than the final ending, which I think works better as a DLC + teaser of TLOU3 than a game ending (Ellie doesn't finish her job)
-Joel was someone trying to survive in a very hostile environment where if he doesn't kill people they kill them. ND seems to see 'problematic' to have a straight, cis, white male who kills due to 'toxic masculinity' and should be replaced as main character by females or non-binary folks, as they did in Lost Legacy (where males and specially white ones only have the role of bad guys or dumb guys)

I think it's a shame they bought all this SJW bullshit, because other than the stuff I listed I think the game is great and deserves the GOTY, but I understand that many of people won't choose it (and generated all these negative opinions in user reviews/social media/gaf/etc) because some of these reasons. I also think it's dumb to consider all this criticism only related to bigotry/sexism/etc as blind woke people claim.

P.S.: I loved Game of Thrones, but there it did work there because you already loved many other very charismatic characters and you aren't attached only to a couple of them, so it's ok for you to switch the focus from a character to another. Here what Druckmann tried to do is to 'subvert expectations' trying to mimic MGS2, which is his favorite game but I think it's by far the worse in the series because Raiden in MGS2 doesn't have the charisma of Snake at all (Raiden in MGS4 instead he's super badass).

 

[Ktotheroc]

Because it's so over the top that ignoring the comedy in the complains it's impossible for someone with a little self awareness.

They can keep it to themselves then, instead of offering a garbage rebuttal. Imagine saying "it's so over the top", yet not realizing every YT video that gains traction has "over the top" posts sitting in the comment section. It doesn't need addressing when they skip over it for a majority of their other videos. They just wanted their opposition to be portrayed as stupid, even when valid arguments exist

 

[Karppuuna]

Fanboys is this system cancer, they are helding gaming as a media back in big time.

 

[Soodanim]

The one trans person I’ve heard comment on TLOU2 said the trans character was pointlessly ticking a box. A trans character whose only character trait is being trans is worthless, not only to the story but to the idea of representation in games as a whole.

I’m pretty sure that’s where everyone falls on the issue - if it’s a neutral trait like anything else that doesn’t define them or is part of the story in an interesting way they great. If not, then what’s the point in bringing it up? There are people who feel that TLOU2 didn’t particularly justify what it included.

 

[Humdinger]

I don't hate it. I'm just not interested. Several reasons:

- I don't have any interest in protagonists who are driven by desire for revenge. It's not an interesting idea to me. It's just a pretext for the violence that follows.
- The game forces you to play through the revenge-driven story, then attempts to make you feel guilty for it. That is just manipulation.
- The "lessons" it teaches are things any third-grader should know. "Wait, you mean hatred and revenge are bad things, Neil? I had no idea." Wow, what a powerful message. It seems almost condescending to me (not to mention hypocritical, since the success of the game depends on the violence and gore).
- It seems to have a diversity agenda; I'd rather not deal with that
- From what I can tell, the story is poorly told and not convincing

 

[lock2k]

Seriously now. Why this need for validation in stuff you like? Different strokes for different folks.

I love Black Metal and I know probably more than 99% of the world hates it. Do I care? No.

Let people like what they like and hate what they hate.

 

[EruditeHobo]

See, I don't really agree with that since I provided a solution to that by suggesting the majority of enemies that Ellie should have faced on her way to Abby should have been the infected. They did not need to be random human NPC enemies who she is simply going to dispose of and we aren't suppose to care about that. We ran into a few rogue groups here and there in the first game but part 2 was full of people! Basically you had two big groups of people set to go to war and you had Ellie & Abby's revenge story in the middle and who cares how many random people get killed along the way. How many fathers/mothers did Ellie/Abby kill along the way? I am sure now their kids need to have their revenge.

Ellie's main gameplay section in TLoU1 is her killing actual people, hunting her way through that winter cabin area leading to that creepy boss at the end. It's a game chiefly about how people survive in desperate situations. So if everything/most of what you kill were some horrible monster, there isn't anywhere near the same level of emotional impact.

Now, maybe it's a lot in TLoU2... they definitely double down on this. But it's certainly purposeful. It's a much, much bigger game to start with, and surely it seems to be by design. The whole game is about asking the question of how necessary is all this violence? Even in an extreme world where violence is in some ways necessary and survival is difficult, this is too much. The too much-ness is intended. It's a story obsessed with the main characters making poor, selfish choices which results in many many deaths. They both come around in different ways and at different points, but the journey it takes to get there is exhausting. And if you're just killing a bunch of monsters instead of people, it's an entirely different kind of exhausting. There's almost no inner conflict there.

The one trans person I’ve heard comment on TLOU2 said the trans character was pointlessly ticking a box. A trans character whose only character trait is being trans is worthless, not only to the story but to the idea of representation in games as a whole.

I’m pretty sure that’s where everyone falls on the issue - if it’s a neutral trait like anything else that doesn’t define them or is part of the story in an interesting way they great. If not, then what’s the point in bringing it up? There are people who feel that TLOU2 didn’t particularly justify what it included.

Well when it ticks a number of boxes -- character motivation, plot motivation, and thematics -- I think it's hard to call it a "neutral trait". How is that neutral? It's not story-neutral. Maybe I don't understand how you're using that phrase.

The point of bringing it up is because of the impact it has on the characters. Lev is part of a somewhat mysterious cult, which Abby's military force is kind of scared of, in a way. So they do what soldiers have done forever, they dehumanize them, which is a reaction to their very real fear and anger and concern... and in dehumanizing the enemy, they build a stronger bond within their group. And then that's turned on it's head when Abby realizes how dehumanized Lev is within her own group, for something that he can't control.

This is a huge part of Abby's arc, a gigantic part of her changing as a character, which impacts Ellie as well... because of Abby's anger, what would/could have happened to Ellie/Dina if she hadn't gone through that change? That's not even getting to the ways in which the game is playing with identity and masculinity... when something is this meaningful to a story, it seems really lazy to dismiss it as "pointless" in any way.

 

[sainraja]

Its a game. That matters not just because of genre requirements, but because its a functional necessity to introduce the mechanics of fighting human adversaries early on. Narratively they work around this adequately by creating a scenario in which Seattle is effectively a war zone, with every faction enacting a shoot-on-sight policy by default. Hence every act of violence is either directly or proactively done in self-defence.

In my opinion, a lot of that didn't really belong or really fit in which is why I think shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones influenced some decision making on during the design/story phase. It all just feels forced to me.

A key element of the narrative is that Seattle is a territory contested by two organized but ideologically disparate factions. The WLF and the Seraphites are given their own philosophical outlook and even a sketched out history of their conflict; there's a lot of obvious allegory in this regarding societal reconstruction at this point in the post apocalyptic world (militarism versus theocracy) and we get to see first hand how both are intolerant of dissent.
Given the disparity in time-lining (the Jacksonite incursion is a blip in a long-running but escalating conflict) it disguises the greater significance and threat posed by Ellie and co, allowing for a degree of plausibility as to how such a small guerilla unit could cause so much damage without pulling the full weight of the WLF forces down upon them.

Its all quite logical and well thought-through imho.

I am not sure. I think they could have done a better job of grounding the game to reality a bit and I don't say this because of the gameplay mechanics.

 

[assurdum]

Love the gameplay no doubt but if I can say, me and many people find unbearable the rethoric behind the story and quite boring in the contents. Revenge is bad but come on after the first half everything is extremely focused to point out how toxic is the Ellie attitude and how Abby is simple a normal person victim of the events, who did bad things just because it's a cruel world.
The whole principle is not bad, but if it means bad execution and unbearable story, well, it's tough to appreciate. It's like the whole narrative is just write to send a rethoric message but who cares if it's contradictory, bad paced and not thrilling at all. The important seems just to send this kind of... moralistic message? I guess.... and the rest is pure secondary as the events per se, which are chaotic, confusing and not logical at all.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Because people like me prefer more gameplay and less walking around. I do think Part 2 has better gameplay and more in depth systems/features like what they did to the weapon system and more open ended levels.

 

[ksdixon]

The one trans person I’ve heard comment on TLOU2 said the trans character was pointlessly ticking a box. A trans character whose only character trait is being trans is worthless, not only to the story but to the idea of representation in games as a whole.

I’m pretty sure that’s where everyone falls on the issue - if it’s a neutral trait like anything else that doesn’t define them or is part of the story in an interesting way they great. If not, then what’s the point in bringing it up? There are people who feel that TLOU2 didn’t particularly justify what it included.

Bill in TLOU and Ellie in Left Behind were great, because we'd gotten to know them as people first, whom then just happened to be gay. Being gay wasn't their only defining character trait.

 

[Clear]

"It's a game" isn't a good excuse lol

Its a statement of fact that every commercial art form has its conventions and expectations. Often these are things that come with theme or genre.

You don't criticize a musical for having too much singing and dancing because its a redundant complaint given what it is as a presentation.

Same deal applies to bemoaning that Drake shoots too many people in Uncharted for his cheerful persona, its an implicit contract that an action game has plenty of action and that supersedes all other considerations. TLOU is a different flavor of TPS, but its still a game that's fundamentally about visceral hard-edged combat.

Beyond that you simply cannot drop the player into a scenario where they are expected to know every mechanical and technical detail of the game's systems without prior explanation and opportunity to learn. Which means that complexity, intensity and duration need to be managed carefully so as to provide as smooth an experience as possible.

This is not a consideration with passive entertainments like movies or books, forms where the author can maintain precise control over pacing and flow for best dramatic effect.

Because of these competing needs and imperatives, allowances need to made in terms of suspension of disbelief. In much the same way we allow the constant presence of non-diegetic elements like health bars not to pull us out of dramatic involvement with whats going on in-game.

Its just pedantry.

 

[Neff]

Joel deserved it

Great game

 

[Azelover]

I don't hate it, I just dislike it.

It's not the story or characters, it's the gameplay. Not my cup of tea, but I fully respect those who love it.

 

[Soodanim]

Well when it ticks a number of boxes -- character motivation, plot motivation, and thematics -- I think it's hard to call it a "neutral trait". How is that neutral? It's not story-neutral. Maybe I don't understand how you're using that phrase.

The point of bringing it up is because of the impact it has on the characters. Lev is part of a somewhat mysterious cult, which Abby's military force is kind of scared of, in a way. So they do what soldiers have done forever, they dehumanize them, which is a reaction to their very real fear and anger and concern... and in dehumanizing the enemy, they build a stronger bond within their group. And then that's turned on it's head when Abby realizes how dehumanized Lev is within her own group, for something that he can't control.

This is a huge part of Abby's arc, a gigantic part of her changing as a character, which impacts Ellie as well... because of Abby's anger, what would/could have happened to Ellie/Dina if she hadn't gone through that change? That's not even getting to the ways in which the game is playing with identity and masculinity... when something is this meaningful to a story, it seems really lazy to dismiss it as "pointless" in any way.

Neutral as in little more than a physical descriptor and not a character trait. Blonde, tall, skinny, trans. As opposed to “Here’s X. X is fiery, intelligent, etc. Here’s Y. Y is trans.”

I haven’t played the game myself, so I have little to add to the conversation past what I was told. I thought it was interesting that after all what the game went through with allegations of transphobic fans etc the opinion from a trans lesbian was that it was not very good. I also think it’s interesting how much of a range there is in opinions of the game and every element in it. Seems larger than most.

 

[kyliethicc]

This video is trash with Dunkey not debating much of anything and cherry-picking comments, some with one like or none at all. I get that you posted it, because he's well-adored for his joke stuff, but he's no better than the game reviewers he was critiquing in previous videos. I saw a video with Girlfriend Reviews doing similar, and instead of arguing plot points, it's about other shit. Seems like most can't even defend the writing

Welcome to 2020, where those same people on YT who shit on IGN and the like for being garbage are no better.

You are nitpicking and biased I win bye bye

 

[Ktotheroc]

Its a statement of fact that every commercial art form has its conventions and expectations. Often these are things that come with theme or genre.

You don't criticize a musical for having too much singing and dancing because its a redundant complaint given what it is as a presentation.

Same deal applies to bemoaning that Drake shoots too many people in Uncharted for his cheerful persona, its an implicit contract that an action game has plenty of action and that supersedes all other considerations. TLOU is a different flavor of TPS, but its still a game that's fundamentally about visceral hard-edged combat.

Beyond that you simply cannot drop the player into a scenario where they are expected to know every mechanical and technical detail of the game's systems without prior explanation and opportunity to learn. Which means that complexity, intensity and duration need to be managed carefully so as to provide as smooth an experience as possible.

This is not a consideration with passive entertainments like movies or books, forms where the author can maintain precise control over pacing and flow for best dramatic effect.

Because of these competing needs and imperatives, allowances need to made in terms of suspension of disbelief. In much the same way we allow the constant presence of non-diegetic elements like health bars not to pull us out of dramatic involvement with whats going on in-game.

Its just pedantry.

You just showed your ass between this post and the last one you've made. You're telling me all these allowances need to be made, when they were done better in the previous game. I don't remember too many, if any at all, wasted human deaths in TLOU1 where it wasn't like "OH SHIT, that's kind of fucked, but we have to for survival", unless it was a pure evil character. They had the infected to fill the role of kills that needed to be made. In TLOU2, half the human characters are free kills once they show up, almost Borderlands-esque because MJ shrug, and it's designed to be that. They make up more of the enemies, yet it doesn't affect the story in the slightest? There's nothing at stake emotionally when you kill a bunch of humans (and dogs) in this game, but suddenly, Ellie feels it's too much when certain people die lol

 

[ksdixon]

I'm stoned, but...

I kinda think you would have benefitted from an modern take on RE2 zapping system type of thing where you have Ellie's story and Abbey's story as separate campaigns.

 

[Physiognomonics]

I haven't played it but the death of on character bugs me and I'm waiting for it to drop to a silly low price before jumping on it because of it.

If it bugs you then don't play the game and just consider it never existed. Because the whole story (the events / stories surrounding this character death) is worse than you can imagine.

 

[engstra]

Nearly all the main characters in this game are gay or trans, so saying it seems to put LGBTQ shit at the forefront isn't really off. Lev is trans, Ellie and Dina are gay, Abby is either trans or is on that shit Brock Lesnar was on prior to fighting Mark Hunt. <-- These are your prominent characters, and almost everyone else gets killed/shares a gruesome fate, outside of like Tommy (who gets fucked in his own right). Sexuality is pushed to the forefront in two different scenes, one of which is grotesque (awkward as well) and goes on for entirely too long. "Bigot sandwiches" is also one of the dumbest things I've ever fucking heard in a game's dialogue, and is a good example of what someone can use when people say it isn't agenda-based.

Sure it's at the forefront, in terms that Ellie and Dina are in a relationship and are the main characters for half the game, but the story isn't about that. It's a revenge story where one of the main characters happens to be gay.
The whole Lev thing felt a bit unnecessary and how it's presented is just pure exposition, granted, but at least for me it wasn't a central theme and something that was somewhat glossed over.
Can't be bothered to even argue about Abby, she's just a genetically muscular woman. That's it. Revenge affecting Ellie and Abby in opposite ways, eating away at Ellie from the inside whereas Abby project it outwards. Spending all her time preparing for the moment she can get payback.

 

[Clear]

You just showed your ass between this post and the last one you've made. You're telling me all these allowances need to be made, when they were done better in the previous game. I don't remember too many, if any at all, wasted human deaths in TLOU1 where it wasn't like "OH SHIT, that's kind of fucked, but we have to for survival", unless it was a pure evil character. They had the infected to fill the role of kills that needed to be made. In TLOU2, half the human characters are free kills once they show up, almost Borderlands-esque because MJ shrug, and it's designed to be that. They make up more of the enemies, yet it doesn't affect the story in the slightest? There's nothing at stake emotionally when you kill a bunch of humans (and dogs) in this game, but suddenly, Ellie feels it's too much when certain people die lol

What are you talking about?

The games are structured very differently; TLOU1 is strictly linear. After the initial flashback completes the story plays out chronologically following a singular set of characters. TLOU2 is split into 3 major chunks, 2 of which occupy overlapping time-frames with liberal usage of flashbacks interspersing the entire story. Moreover there are two sets of playable characters with their own distinct perspectives on the meaning of common events in both the game and its prequel.

This structure is designed to provide narrative counterpoint, but it also makes it more difficult to smoothly control the gameplay flow. Hence significant points are omitted to accommodate better pacing, the most obvious of which is that the details of the (likely arduous and infected laden) journeys between Jackson and Seattle are completely omitted. Basically the stretches most analogous to the first game simply don't exist.

The reason why there are more human enemies than infected is because 80% of the game takes place in Seattle, a warzone contested by two factions who have a kill-on-sight policy. Its all there in the world-building, and as I've pointed out previously allows for a useful contrivance explaining how Ellie and Dina avoid pulling a literal army down on top of them. Latterly it also allows for the Abby sections to have a good mix of human and infected enemies to contend with despite being on ostensibly her own turf.

Basically what ND attempts in TLOU2 is way more ambitious than what they did in the first title, which while very successful and well achieved was comparatively simple. The level of detail and granularity in the design is way up, and that's a good thing in my book because they clearly weren't content to rest on the their laurels and just excrete a carbon copy of the original.

As to the rest of your post, its just stuff I've disproven previously. At no point during regular combat do you kill heavily pregnant women, slowly torture them (just like "heroic" Joel taught you by example) for information, talk with them, bargain with them to save a friend's life, etc.

Hell, Owen even spells this out in his big "I'm done" speech to Abby. He's been fighting and killing Scars for years, but the look he sees in this one guy's eyes is enough to coalesce all his doubts and misgivings about the person he's become into a desire to just walk away in that single moment.

Its just No Mas.

 

[shenmue mugen]

I just hate this disgrace of a game.....

 

[Vaelka]

I don't hate it and don't really care about TLOU2.
But it annoys me in the same way that Sony exclusives in general annoy me, the fanbases are extremely annoying and spam gifs everywhere and can't stfu about it.
Same with every Sony exclusive really, GoW and TLOU especially people act as if they're the most important pieces of media ever created.

 

[Justin9mm]

I am starting to hate TLOU2 fans much more than I hate the game.

Are people not allowed to dislike things anymore? I didn't like the new characters, I though the revenge theme was dumb, the decisions they made to previous characters was suspect, the gameplay didn't feel like a step forward, and ultimately I didn't care.

Are people allowed to like games you dislike?

It's fine if you didn't like it but the hate it received in general was downright ridiculous. This is the issue. It got bombed from a bunch of keyboard warriors all because of the leaks, some of them taken out of context.. Looking at the game as a videogame it has completely set a new standard in a technical sense, the polish and transitioning between story and gameplay is off the charts. We've rarely ever seen that quality and it has set a new bar for game development quality.

You have a right to dislike the game and not find it as good as the original in the experience you had but the amount of shitposting about it was retarded.

I didn't like how the story went but the game itself imo was still a good game. I have the ability to see past one negative element.

 

[Kerotan]

It was basically the mgs2 of this generation.

Lots of people wanted a Joel and Ellie simulator full of fan service.

I loved it though.

 

[Valentino]

I don't hate it and don't really care about TLOU2.
But it annoys me in the same way that Sony exclusives in general annoy me, the fanbases are extremely annoying and spam gifs everywhere and can't stfu about it.
Same with every Sony exclusive really, GoW and TLOU especially people act as if they're the most important pieces of media ever created.

Gosh, game is good so no one shuts up about it? Why I never. But PLEASE, people who hate the game don't stop harping on about the game! There's been nothing but (flop) trash talk and FUD on the game since the leaks.

 

[Tripolygon]

Not everybody likes every game. Thats ok.

 

[Vaelka]

Gosh, game is good so no one shuts up about it? Why I never. But PLEASE, people who hate the game don't stop harping on about the game! There's been nothing but (flop) trash talk and FUD on the game since the leaks.

There's a difference between being a fan and revolving your entire identity as a human being around being a fan of something.
I am not an '' anti-fan '' I find those people annoying too and they're also a part of what annoys me about these games.
Just the overall climate around these games is annoying to me, sometimes it feels as if no other games exist because people consantly screech about them.

It's the same with the MCU, I don't hate the movies but the fanbase annoys the shit out of me and people put the MCU up on a pedestal and act like it's the second coming of Christ.
I just don't like this extreme fanboy:ism and excessive consumerism, people flipping out and crying because of a trailer and screaming at the top of their lungs etc.
It's just really embarrassing imo.

I am a big fan of tons of stuff, but I don't revolve my entire identity around it and spam about it everywhere even when it's totally irrelevant.
Ppl who are fanboys of their chosen platform comes to mind too, Sony fanboys are just way louder imo so they annoy me a lot more but even as a PC gamer I still find PC elitists annoying.

Edit: Kpop stans come to mind too, Sony fanboys are basically the Kpop stans of the gaming industry and it's annoying as fuck.

 

[Madflavor]

Well it just won GotY, so everyone who liked the game can feel validated now.

I hope to god this closes the book on TLoU2 shitstorm, so we can all move on.

 

[RoadHazard]

It's mostly insecure people angry that the game "pushes its LGBTQ narrative down our throats" or something. Which it doesn't even do. It has characters representing that, but it's not ABOUT that.

 

[oagboghi2]

It's mostly insecure people angry that the game "pushes its LGBTQ narrative down our throats" or something. Which it doesn't even do. It has characters representing that, but it's not ABOUT that.

TLOU2 fans are incapable of reading.

Are people allowed to like games you dislike?

It's fine if you didn't like it but the hate it received in general was downright ridiculous. This is the issue. It got bombed from a bunch of keyboard warriors all because of the leaks, some of them taken out of context.. Looking at the game as a videogame it has completely set a new standard in a technical sense, the polish and transitioning between story and gameplay is off the charts. We've rarely ever seen that quality and it has set a new bar for game development quality.

You have a right to dislike the game and not find it as good as the original in the experience you had but the amount of shitposting about it was retarded.

I didn't like how the story went but the game itself imo was still a good game. I have the ability to see past one negative element.

Of course, but it would be nice if TLOU2 fans stopped acting as if they are being persecuted when some people dislike their favorite game. Not everyone agrees it set a new standard. That is okay.

I wouldn't make a thread "calling out" people who dislike games I like. That is TLOU2 fans this year

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I don’t hate it, far from it. I simply didn’t enjoy it as much as I did the first game, which I thought had better pacing, atmosphere and character interaction.

 

[cripterion]

I love the game but still no PS5 support?