Hi guys,
First thing first, I'm amazed there are no threads about TLOU or TLOU 2 seeing as TLOU was such a amazing game with deep characters and have so much emotion to so many players.
But back to the present !
Have you seen the leaks ? What do you think about this whole situation?
I have seen them and.. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. I was never too fond of a sequel, but since there is nothing I can do about it, I decided to go for it and looked forward playing and enjoying it !
So many years to wait.. So many possibilities after this final epic last scene of TLOU 1 !
And so, I decided amongst some friends to be The One, the leaks reader.
I did well.
I will not buy this game.
Today, truly, is a sad day. 6 years of expectations ruined.
WARNING: spoilers ahead !
By order of importance (to me):
Spoiler:
First point: Joel's death.
Aliens 3 all over again. When will they learn ?
DO NOT KILL THE ENJOYABLE CHARACTERS OF A MASTERCRAFT AT THE BEGINING OF A SEQUEL
Second point: Abby
Who the feth is she and why would I like to play this unknown character, especially to hunt down and kill my TLOU character,s after having send the whole TLOU 1 to play the duo of Ellie and Joel, after having spent days (years !) caring for them and saving them, after they grew on me ? The most important (the only ?) Element of TLOU was this couple of broken human beings and their redemption and how we come to love them (she is...the daughter of a doctor you kill at the end of TLOU1, who seeks revenge. That's it. Imagine if all the guys that died in TLOU1 were to seek revenge ! Or a game of DOOM where you play as a Baby Deamon looking for revenge against the DOMM GUY for having killed deamon number #2337...
WTF
Point 3: The Last Jedi Effect
Remember the redemption and family themes of TLOU 1 ?
Yeah, you guessed, gone.
The whole meaning and importance of TLOU1 (and apparently its characters as shown above) are of no importance. In fact, we could play TLOU 2 without TLOU 1 and having to discover what happened to Abby's father during the game, it could be interesting, more interesting than the current TLOU 2.
That's crazy.
Point 4: political agenda in video games.
Young me LOVED TLOU 1. I even posted a picture of the DLC on my FB, at that time...
The characters were deep, and ND had strong ideas about their identities and characters, with various identity and differences (the pedo, the strong woman, the broken father, the unsure child...) Without necessarily explaining them directly.
The DLC (that should have been part of the game !) gave us an interesting sight into ELLIE's mind ("Everyone who cared for me either died or left me !") and her sadness, hardship and a good answer to "why is she like this and who is she".
We had a glimpse of what could be romantism in a sweet moment during the apocalypse, to better break her a few minutes later.
This is for TLOU, its subtility and diversity.
Now, TLOU2...we get transitioning trans during the apocalypse (lol) killing Christians while looking for a lesbian couple raising the child they got thanks to the ex bf ... And that's in short.
Why didn't they make a game with some subtile messages instead of making a message with some gameplay ?
Is not Video Kojima whoever wants to be Video Kojima...
Look at Detroit: become human for example. I'm currently playing it again: Connor is a gay icone on the internet, there are lesbian androids, human - android sex, etc.
Totally open minded, totally free. But it's not the point of the game, just part of it.
Look at TLOU 1 ! One of the two main character is a lesbian or a least strongly possible a lesbian (confirmed by now ofc, but at realize time we didn't know).
But that's all, that's not the point of the game. This is the way to take to make good games and to make people think.
Not TLOU2.
I guess Naughty Dog is like Bioware now: They have the name, but none of the people that made it great.
Yeah I have to agree, I learnt that on the 20 lead designers that were present in 2014, 14 have left by now. Anna Henning left too, she was a good writer that wrote for TLOU, IIRC
It's so sad. So many things from when I was 15-20 are just not what they were anymore...
I'm still holding out for the faint hope that the majority of the leaks aren't true, but if it is all 100% genuine, it leaves a legit bad taste in my mouth. What a way to ruin a franchise, and it makes me incredibly wary of any other PS titles getting the same treatment. Don't let anybody touch Insomniac or Sucker Punch please.
Yes I guess there is still some hope that these leaks don’t tell the whole story but seems likely. It is amazing to me that these ideas made it so long into the development without someone at ND to ask “why?”
I do agree it is the Last Jedi all over again, making something different just so you can say you did something different.
I also blame GoT a little bit, but won’t go into detail for fear of spoilers.
Lol Jesus the leaked political aspect of this game sounds worse than batwomans commercials mixed with the Gillette commercial. You know back in the day even politics in games and tv came off a little more subtle. This is about as subtle as exterminatus.
Remember in the 1st walking dead video game when humanity was the bigger enemy than the zombies and people had mixtures of good or bad in them and some were awful. I would've thought current day political issues would seem trivial when you are just trying to stay alive in a post apocalyptic world.
Musselman wrote: Yes I guess there is still some hope that these leaks don’t tell the whole story but seems likely. It is amazing to me that these ideas made it so long into the development without someone at ND to ask “why?”
I do agree it is the Last Jedi all over again, making something different just so you can say you did something different.
I also blame GoT a little bit, but won’t go into detail for fear of spoilers.
Actually we do have a reason for people not asking why. According to reports its due to the toxicity during development that anyone who didn't agree was shamed into it by those higher up and that their jobs and careers were on the line for it.
I haven't looked into the 'agenda' or the 'politics' in the leaks. I don't even want to. I don't care enough to.
I'd already written off Naughty Dog a while back- I've heard nothing good about their practices when it comes to their work environment, so for 3 reasons I won't touch this- even if the story wasn't allegedly 'woke':
1- No developers should be forced into an absurd 'crunch' schedule. Sorry, that's not something that should be okay, and I won't incentivize that kind of workplace.
2- Crunch schedules usually end up creating rushed products with some considerable faults/flaws- so hearing that there was this kind of environment means I'm far less likely to spend money on Naughty Dog.
3- This ridiculously scummy Copyright Striking on Youtube... for videos that aren't even showing footage or anything. No, seriously- at first I was willing to be skeptical about how awful the content of the leaks were- but the Streisand Effect is a real thing and I'm pretty sure the stories are true, just not concerned enough to validate it.
Also, because the lead developer was stupid enough to fall for a certain lady's little swindle, I'm far less likely to give him my money. It's not about her message, it's the fact that only a fool wouldn't see what kinda racket it is- and he deserves financial punishment for being that stupid.
1- No developers should be forced into an absurd 'crunch' schedule. Sorry, that's not something that should be okay, and I won't incentivize that kind of workplace.
2- Crunch schedules usually end up creating rushed products with some considerable faults/flaws- so hearing that there was this kind of environment means I'm far less likely to spend money on Naughty Dog.
is that the approvement of unions i see?
but yeah the actual lack of workers organisation with an easily and readily replaceable workforce has lead to rather bad development cycles and products overall.
I mean some companies call their burnout workers : Stress casualities.
I am sorry but that terminology should only be applicable to a warzone and not Videogame development....
Lol. Though it happens more than you think. One or two of the big hollywood movie studios got a warning from youtube because the studio marketing channels would keep putting up clips with their legal department would then flag for takedown; which were then contested by the uploader. Over and over again until youtube said enough and told them to sort their departments out.
Violence has consequences. Killing perpetuates killing as each generation seeks revenge for the deaths of the previous.
Remember when Thanos murdered Loki at the beginning of Infinity War and we then followed him through a large portion of that film and learned his reasoning for his actions? Remember when he murdered Gamora and we still followed him through the film? Remember how people liked that film and the character of Thanos?
Just because someone kills someone you care about, doesn't mean that seeing the world through their eyes is a bad thing. Actions have consequences, beyond what may be immediately visible to the audience at the time and switching the perspective through which you interact with the story can be an invaluable tool in highlighting those previously unseen consequences.
I am with Doritos 100% on this, the Crunch, the scummy behaviour and being stupid enough to fall for a con artists nonsense long after said con artist has been shown to be a con artist.
Fool me once and all that, also no Amy Hennig involved in any way? no thanks, that is like letting Speilberg go.
Just because someone kills someone you care about, doesn't mean that seeing the world through their eyes is a bad thing. Actions have consequences, beyond what may be immediately visible to the audience at the time and switching the perspective through which you interact with the story can be an invaluable tool in highlighting those previously unseen consequences.
A lot of people were really upset they didn't get to make a choice at the end of the first game because they felt Joel made the wrong one. Any sequel was going to have to address the consequences of that ending. That's a big part of why its a great ending.
@malus: except it wasn't fully the story of thanos. It ended on a cliffhanger. Everything was undone with time travel which at times feels cheap. The sequel brought a lot of people back as well. Ironman and a couple others are gone but their stories were wrapped up.
According to the leaks this new game follows some unknown that kills the main male lead right out the gate. Yes I get your comparison to Loki but thanos was a known big bad and this new person just seems like a nobody. Also thanos is a bad guy and though he had a couple decent moments he was very much a bad guy. How can I empathize with this new lead that kills someone people cared about right out of the gate and possibly the other later?
Maybe people don't like characters they love being disrespected in favor of crappier newer characters.
Also the fact channels got copyright claims for merely talking about the leaks is bs and you know it.
flamingkillamajig wrote: How can I empathize with this new lead that kills someone people cared about right out of the gate and possibly the other later?
Maybe play the game and find out?
Maybe peopile don't like characters they love being disrespected in favor of crappier newer characters.
Ah yes, because the character is new they must be crap. Or wait, they could be great. You have no idea as you haven't played the game and actually experienced the story! And a great character doesn't mean you necessarily have to like them or for them to be the hero.
Killing a character is not disrespectful. That character died as a consequence of the choices they made and that you, as the player, were party to.
For a video game example of this exact scenario, if you played the GTA IV DLC The Lost and Damned then you would be familiar with the character Johnny Klebitz. He's the protagonist of that DLC. He also appears in GTA V where he is killed by having his head stomped in by Trevor in his introductory cutscene, after which you go and do some missions which involve massacring all of the other named characters from that particular DLC.
In other media, Vegeta is responsible for the deaths of Yamcha through his use of Saibamen. He is also partially responsible for the deaths of Piccolo, Chiaotzu and Tien via Nappa. The consequences of this also leads the heroes to Namek where Krillin is killed and the Namek race genocided by Freeza. He also genocides the bug planet he and Nappa land on on their way to Earth on a whim. And he still becomes a beloved character.
Literature is littered with these kinds of perspective shifts, Game of Thrones being an obvious example where villains of previous books become point of view characters of later ones. Jaime Lannister is a prime example of where seeing the world through his eyes and being privy to his internal thoughts is crucial to the reader understanding why he has done the villainous things he has done.
The point is it took time to like vegeta and early on he's very much a bad guy. It takes time to redeem. The opening moments of this game sounds like Joel getting his ****ing brains bashed in and dying. I'll wait for more reputable reviews that won't auto shill esp. For some dakka reviews from friends. I dunno that I'd play it though. A full priced buy is quite the leap of faith for these blaring red flags with sirens attached to them. The copyright strikes have also been a bit insane as I said even when no clips were shown.
What kind of fool would spend money on a product that already repulses him, just to find out why it specifically repulses him?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also the fact channels got copyright claims for merely talking about the leaks is bs and you know it.
Uh, you might want to look into that. I'm pretty sure that everything up to and including promotional images that were released to the public were getting copyright strikes.
FFS, the shady little company they hired to copyright strike by proxy even flagged Sony's official page with a video.
With regards to GTA protagonists killing off other GTA protagonists - the dead protagonists can typically be killed before the content that makes them playable is available. To use the GTA4: L&D example, players aren't going to particularly care about the death of that particular protagonist because most players will kill that protagonist long before they actually play the DLC that makes him playable. So far as most players are concerned, he's just another random antagonist.
I have no horse in this particular argument. I didn't play the first game, and I'm not likely to play the second. But I can tell you right now that if I had played the first game, I'd be very unlikely to play the second after learning that the protagonist of the second game murders the protagonist of the first game early on in the sequel. I've got a limited budget to spend on games, and limited time to play them. And I'd rather spend them on something that doesn't feel like the developer mocking me. The claim has been made that it shows the consequences of a bad choice. But there's more than one way to show consequences. And it strikes me that developing a sequel about the protagonist of the first game looking for fedemption after said choice from the first game comes back to bite him would have been a much more effective way of illustrating that particular lesson.
It's like telling someone who isn't attracted to men that they should probably go put some dude's penis in their mouth so they can find out why.
Not particularly helping. There are much better analogies to use, and that particular one strikes me as the sort of thing that invites thread locking.
What kind of fool would spend money on a product that already repulses him, just to find out why it specifically repulses him?
I''m sorry, I didn't realise that the idea of not judging a story until you have actually experienced said story was such an offensive concept to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eumerin wrote: With regards to GTA protagonists killing off other GTA protagonists - the dead protagonists can typically be killed before the content that makes them playable is available. To use the GTA4: L&D example, players aren't going to particularly care about the death of that particular protagonist because most players will kill that protagonist long before they actually play the DLC that makes him playable. So far as most players are concerned, he's just another random antagonist.
The character died in GTA V and wasn't present in the main GTA IV story so could not be killed there. So there is no chance to kill him prior to his appearance in the DLC unless you played GTA V beforehand.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I''m sorry, I didn't realise that the idea of not judging a story until you have actually experienced said story was such an offensive concept to you.
I realize it may be hard to wrap your noodle around this, but you do realize that people don't have to actually sit down and watch an entire story if there's things about it that put them off, right? I know, this is a tough one. But do try to comprehend normal human behavior.
Eumerin wrote: The claim has been made that it shows the consequences of a bad choice. But there's more than one way to show consequences. And it strikes me that developing a sequel about the protagonist of the first game looking for fedemption after said choice from the first game comes back to bite him would have been a much more effective way of illustrating that particular lesson.
I disagree. Sometimes you do not get that chance to redeem yourself. You don't always get to fix the mistakes you make.
Having the consequence of the previous actions be something that robs the player of that playable character, rather than say cause the death of an NPC from the previous game, will be much more affecting on the player. People's reactions to the leak show this. That kind of anger is the exact kind of reaction that the player is meant to have to this happening.
I stand corrected on the GTA character. In my defense, I'll note that this isn't the only time a protagonist dies on-screen, and I apparently misremembered some of the things that I'd heard about the DLC when it was released. I'll also note that "beloved" isn't generally a word associated with GTA characters. They tend to be fairly nasty individuals.
Eumerin wrote: The claim has been made that it shows the consequences of a bad choice. But there's more than one way to show consequences. And it strikes me that developing a sequel about the protagonist of the first game looking for fedemption after said choice from the first game comes back to bite him would have been a much more effective way of illustrating that particular lesson.
I disagree. Sometimes you do not get that chance to redeem yourself. You don't always get to fix the mistakes you make.
Having the consequence of the previous actions be something that robs the player of that playable character, rather than say cause the death of an NPC from the previous game, will be much more affecting on the player. People's reactions to the leak show this. That kind of anger is the exact kind of reaction that the player is meant to have to this happening.
Again, you completely miss the point that I and others are making. Most of us have limited budgets of time and money. Why are people going to spend those budgets on a game that pretty much opens by murdering a character that they like? That's my point, which you are ignoring in favor of your "actions have consequences" mantra.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I''m sorry, I didn't realise that the idea of not judging a story until you have actually experienced said story was such an offensive concept to you.
I realize it may be hard to wrap your noodle around this, but you do realize that people don't have to actually sit down and watch an entire story if there's things about it that put them off, right? I know, this is a tough one. But do try to comprehend normal human behavior.
If you are not going to engage with a story then what possible valid critique can you have on that story? Without engaging with the story you do not have any of the context around narrative events which adds meaning and depth to the story.
By all means don't engage with a story you don't think you will like.
But also perhaps don't talk about it as without engaging it there is nothing of worth you can add to the discussion beyond your personal reasons for not engaging with it, which are irrelevant to discussing the actual substance and worth of the story.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you are not going to engage with a story then what possible valid critique can you have on that story? Without engaging with the story you do not have any of the context around narrative events which adds meaning and depth to the story.
If I'm not a fan of over-the-top gore, I probably don't need to sit through a movie that features over-the-top gore, especially if the gore and violence are a major focal point of the movie.
But also perhaps don't talk about it as without engaging it there is nothing of worth you can add to the discussion beyond your personal reasons for not engaging with it, which are irrelevant to discussing the actual substance and worth of the story.
This sounds an awful lot about gatekeeping.
"If you're not going to buy it, then you don't get an opinion on it!"
I'd at least ask ND for a sticker or something if you're gonna do that kinda work for them.
Again, you completely miss the point that I and others are making. Most of us have limited budgets of time and money. Why are people going to spend those budgets on a game that pretty much opens by murdering a character that they like? That's my point, which you are ignoring in favor of your "actions have consequences" mantra.
Because not all stories have to be happy. We do not limit other artistic mediums by this idea, so why limit video games?
If people don't want to buy it that is fine. But don't argue that the story is bad because it has made choices which you do not like. The fact that people feel the way they do about that story choice does not mean that it was a bad choice. It is possible to intentionally evoke a negative reaction from the audience and it is equally as valid a goal as evoking a positive reaction.
Again, you completely miss the point that I and others are making. Most of us have limited budgets of time and money. Why are people going to spend those budgets on a game that pretty much opens by murdering a character that they like? That's my point, which you are ignoring in favor of your "actions have consequences" mantra.
Because not all stories have to be happy. We do not limit other artistic mediums by this idea, so why limit video games?
If people don't want to buy it that is fine. But don't argue that the story is bad because it has made choices which you do not like. The fact that people feel the way they do about that story choice does not mean that it was a bad choice. It is possible to intentionally evoke a negative reaction from the audience and it is equally as valid a goal as evoking a positive reaction.
Then the developers should change the name. They're attempting to draw in fans of the characters in the first game with the title, but one of the first things that the game apparently does is force the player to murder someone that the player grew to like in the first game. By all means, keep an indication that there's a link between the two game plots. But don't do it in a way that misleads players.
The player is not in control of the new character when the character from the first game is killed. They play as Ellie, one of the main characters from the original game, for the first half and Abby for the second half.
It is called The Last of Us Part 2 because it is a direct continuation of the story. Just because you're not controlling same character means nothing.
You changed who you controlled with each season of Telltale's The Walking Dead (Lee, Clem, Javier/Clem, Clem) and nobody claimed that was misleading.
MGS2 switched from Solid Snake to Raiden and then MGS3 had Naked Snake (Big Boss), FFX-2 had you controlling Yuna rather than Tidus, Chrono Cross had completely new controllable characters to Chrono Trigger, Red Dead Redemption (John Marston) to Red Dead Redemption 2 (Arthur Morgan) etc.
Game sequels not having the player control the same character as the previous game is not new. Neither is previously playable characters dying.
So why exactly should this game, which is a direct continuation of the narrative of the previous game, not be labelled as a direct sequel?
What kind of fool would spend money on a product that already repulses him, just to find out why it specifically repulses him?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also the fact channels got copyright claims for merely talking about the leaks is bs and you know it.
Uh, you might want to look into that. I'm pretty sure that everything up to and including promotional images that were released to the public were getting copyright strikes.
FFS, the shady little company they hired to copyright strike by proxy even flagged Sony's official page with a video.
I think the dude in question showed one image but not sure. This is NSFW if you listen without headphones. This is his story.
The guy from the channel is black. Not that it matters but just saying if anybody goes for the "you don't like diversity route". He uses quite a few swears since he is fed up. You have been warned.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The player is not in control of the new character when the character from the first game is killed. They play as Ellie, one of the main characters from the original game, for the first half and Abby for the second half.
It is called The Last of Us Part 2 because it is a direct continuation of the story. Just because you're not controlling same character means nothing.
It's a bait and switch.
You changed who you controlled with each season of Telltale's The Walking Dead (Lee, Clem, Javier/Clem, Clem) and nobody claimed that was misleading.
Did you at any point play the murderer of one of your previous characters?
MGS2 switched from Solid Snake to Raiden and then MGS3 had Naked Snake (Big Boss), FFX-2 had you controlling Yuna rather than Tidus, Chrono Cross had completely new controllable characters to Chrono Trigger, Red Dead Redemption (John Marston) to Red Dead Redemption 2 (Arthur Morgan) etc.
Game sequels not having the player control the same character as the previous game is not new. Neither is previously playable characters dying.
So why exactly should this game, which is a direct continuation of the narrative of the previous game, not be labelled as a direct sequel?
Tidus was "dead" at the end of X, making him difficult to use as a protagonist in X-2, and X-2 was almost universally panned. Further, the game was about *SAVING* Tidus, not murdering him. Chrono Cross was lambasted by fans for what it did to the characters from Chrono Trigger (specifically Luca, Robo, and Schala). And again, the game was about SAVING one of the characters from the first game - Schala. I'm not familiar enough with either MGS or RDR to make any statements about them. But the two games that I mentioned are in fact good examples of why you don't go arbitrarily changing things around. Plus, again, both X-2 and CC were about helping one of the characters from the original game who found themselves in a seemingly fatal predicament. That's not the case here.
I've listed multiple reasons why this is a bad idea. Your defense of it largely consists of repeating the mantra "there are consequences for bad actions" over and over again, and I've shown that there are other ways of doing so aside from arbitrarily murdering a former protagonist (and the method that I listed is by no means the only way of doing so that doesn't involve murdering the former protagonist). I think it's clear that you're not going to budge on this issue, and there's nothing that anyone can say that would change your mind.
Eumerin wrote: Chrono Cross was lambasted by fans for what it did to the characters from Chrono Trigger (specifically Luca, Robo, and Schala). And again, the game was about SAVING one of the characters from the first game - Schala....
...Plus, again, both X-2 and CC were about helping one of the characters from the original game who found themselves in a seemingly fatal predicament. That's not the case here.
Chrono Cross was also universally praised by critics and is regarded as one of the best playstation 1 games and one of the best games of all time, period. It was also very well received by the vast majority of players. Those complaining about the differences from the original and what happened with the characters were quite limited.
As to the second part. We don't know that as we haven't experienced the story. What we have is the equivalent of someone hopping on a message board and posting that Snape kills Dumbledore and then he is the hero in the next book. The cold facts of the plot points are true and make it seem trite but it ignores all of the context around how those events occur and it is that context which determines whether that story is good or bad.
I don't criticize Cross for killing off the the cast of the original game, but I do criticize it for doing it poorly. There's no build up or weight to it and it really adds no weight or purpose to the story. It's just kind of mean spirited and pointless. It's also so inconsequential that you can almost miss out on it entirely if you're not paying attention, which is why it doesn't really hold back Cross that much (though the game really hasn't aged well).
All that said, that has NO bearing on this. What we're talking about here is the death of a main character rooted in the story as a direct consequence of that character's actions. That can be and has been done very very well. It's also a series that's about violence and loss and how our own needs can make us worse than monsters. I'm not sure how anyone is really surprised to hear the story go in this direction. Honestly, its pretty much what I assumed from the first trailer.
Eumerin wrote: Chrono Cross was lambasted by fans for what it did to the characters from Chrono Trigger (specifically Luca, Robo, and Schala). And again, the game was about SAVING one of the characters from the first game - Schala....
...Plus, again, both X-2 and CC were about helping one of the characters from the original game who found themselves in a seemingly fatal predicament. That's not the case here.
Chrono Cross was also universally praised by critics and is regarded as one of the best playstation 1 games and one of the best games of all time, period. It was also very well received by the vast majority of players. Those complaining about the differences from the original and what happened with the characters were quite limited.
As to the second part. We don't know that as we haven't experienced the story. What we have is the equivalent of someone hopping on a message board and posting that Snape kills Dumbledore and then he is the hero in the next book. The cold facts of the plot points are true and make it seem trite but it ignores all of the context around how those events occur and it is that context which determines whether that story is good or bad.
Yeah, no. Cross is pretty much reviled by anyone who's played it for what it ended up doing to Trigger.
Eumerin wrote: Chrono Cross was lambasted by fans for what it did to the characters from Chrono Trigger (specifically Luca, Robo, and Schala). And again, the game was about SAVING one of the characters from the first game - Schala....
...Plus, again, both X-2 and CC were about helping one of the characters from the original game who found themselves in a seemingly fatal predicament. That's not the case here.
Chrono Cross was also universally praised by critics and is regarded as one of the best playstation 1 games and one of the best games of all time, period. It was also very well received by the vast majority of players. Those complaining about the differences from the original and what happened with the characters were quite limited.
As to the second part. We don't know that as we haven't experienced the story. What we have is the equivalent of someone hopping on a message board and posting that Snape kills Dumbledore and then he is the hero in the next book. The cold facts of the plot points are true and make it seem trite but it ignores all of the context around how those events occur and it is that context which determines whether that story is good or bad.
Yeah, no. Cross is pretty much reviled by anyone who's played it for what it ended up doing to Trigger.
Small potatoes. Diablo 3 sold almost three times that in its first 24 hours, when most users were still getting login errors, and the game as a whole was panned very, very badly.
But 'copies sold' isn't an opinion on the game.
Ok,
a) there's zero information on those ratings. No context, or justification. just that barely a couple thousand people pushed a ratings button somewhere. They could be Squeenix fans. Or bored. Or a (very brief) bot cycle.
b) they're rating just specifically the PSP/PS3 conversion, and offer nothing on the original game... twelve years later.
c) there's really very, very few of them, especially compared to the sales number you started with. And 9 years to press a ratings button (for the conversion republished in 2011, which is what's on that page). That's a level of disinterest that suggests that it isn't even interesting enough to hate.
You mentioned universal praise by critics? Can you produce some of those?
You have the link to the metacritic page. From there you can access all the reviews used to calculate that meta score. You can also go on wikipeida and use the links to the reviews.
Eumerin wrote: Chrono Cross was lambasted by fans for what it did to the characters from Chrono Trigger (specifically Luca, Robo, and Schala). And again, the game was about SAVING one of the characters from the first game - Schala....
...Plus, again, both X-2 and CC were about helping one of the characters from the original game who found themselves in a seemingly fatal predicament. That's not the case here.
Chrono Cross was also universally praised by critics and is regarded as one of the best playstation 1 games and one of the best games of all time, period. It was also very well received by the vast majority of players. Those complaining about the differences from the original and what happened with the characters were quite limited.
As to the second part. We don't know that as we haven't experienced the story. What we have is the equivalent of someone hopping on a message board and posting that Snape kills Dumbledore and then he is the hero in the next book. The cold facts of the plot points are true and make it seem trite but it ignores all of the context around how those events occur and it is that context which determines whether that story is good or bad.
Yeah, no. Cross is pretty much reviled by anyone who's played it for what it ended up doing to Trigger.
Do you have anything to back up that it is reviled?
That's not a lot of copies sold in all honesty. Actually a lot less than i thought. Those reviews are eh. I can go find reveiws praising Sticker Star and Other M. Side question, please don't tell me you think something like Other M is actually good? Because it's about the same level of this. And Metacritic is...not worth the web page it's printed on.
As for backup? Anybody who's actually played both games. I'd suggest you go find a few independent youtube reviews.
As for backup? Anybody who's actually played both games. I'd suggest you go find a few independent youtube reviews.
I've played both, Trigger first then Cross. They are both amazing in their own ways. So I guess your evidence is refuted as you don't seem to actually have any.
Wow the content of the leaks sure has folks stirred up. Didn't they say at some point this game was going to have more "choices" for the player and it isn't as on-rails as the first one? If that is the case, could the leaks just be reflective of scenes/story points where "bad choices" by the player were made and there are alternative paths with different outcomes?
Critics being bought and paid for is super old news. I'm more shocked people don't believe it. It was going on well before things became political. I think there was a website telling a critic to give a good review for the first Kane and lynch game because they were paid in advance and he wouldn't give a good review so got fired. Critic reviews may as well be written on toilet paper at this point.
@petrov27: I hope so. It's just frustrating to see so many half ***ed games now esp. Forcing diversity whether they believe in it, they're trying to please some customers or they want to get away with a crappy product saying if you don't buy into it you're a bigot. You know if they had someone gay without saying you're a bigot if it makes you feel a bit weird instead of slowly getting you to like the character or the character had more depth than just being gay then it wouldn't be an issue. In this case a trans person (supposedly trans?) Kills the 2 main heroes of the last game and in a lot of media they disrespect old characters with new ones to push the new characters which just pisses people off and if you call them bigots don't be surprised when they call you on your BS.
Critics being bought and paid for is super old news. I'm more shocked people don't believe it. It was going on well before things became political. I think there was a website telling a critic to give a good review for the first Kane and lynch game because they were paid in advance and he wouldn't give a good review so got fired. Critic reviews may as well be written on toilet paper at this point.
@petrov27: I hope so. It's just frustrating to see so many half ***ed games now esp. Forcing diversity whether they believe in it, they're trying to please some customers or they want to get away with a crappy product saying if you don't buy into it you're a bigot. You know if they had someone gay without saying you're a bigot if it makes you feel a bit weird instead of slowly getting you to like the character or the character had more depth than just being gay then it wouldn't be an issue. In this case a trans person (supposedly trans?) Kills the 2 main heroes of the last game and in a lot of media they disrespect old characters with new ones to push the new characters which just pisses people off and if you call them bigots don't be surprised when they call you on your BS.
It boggles my mind too in all fairness, people who defend the press corruption in the gaming industry are usually doing so on ideological grounds and not factual ones, thankfully the gaming journo industry like other ones is dying.
The reviews are in, and surprise surprise, the games "journalists" love it but the actual gamers hate it.
Also I find it odd that Sony goes out of their way to censor and blacklist anime tiddys but is ok with explicit, under-age sex scenes so long as it's got enough Oppression Olympics points.
The reviews are in, and surprise surprise, the games "journalists" love it but the actual gamers hate it.
Also I find it odd that Sony goes out of their way to censor and blacklist anime tiddys but is ok with explicit, under-age sex scenes so long as it's got enough Oppression Olympics points.
The actual gamers who have only had the game, which is around a 20-30 hour game, for around 8 hours by the time the userscore was bombed?
The reviews are in, and surprise surprise, the games "journalists" love it but the actual gamers hate it.
Also I find it odd that Sony goes out of their way to censor and blacklist anime tiddys but is ok with explicit, under-age sex scenes so long as it's got enough Oppression Olympics points.
I mean, this seems to be the case since Sony Playstation Headquarters moved to California, which is basically the starting point for any company becoming saturated in "woke" politics and kot-towing to their brand of censorship. It's the weird double standard that I really hate and it's just carries on that weird Western taboo that somehow mass murder is 2 kool 4 school but show a nipslip and you get thrown into the jailhouse.
Not Online!!! wrote: Might also be connected as a revenge campaign against Sony and naughtydog breaking free use in YouTube .
But tbf that is more a YouTube issue...
Yeah didn't they also take down a middle of the road youtuber's game review that said he didn't like the game. I think his name was Skill Up.
Sony is just breaking the rules and they're allowed to i guess due to being a big company.
I see maybe one person on twitch playing it right now. I saw a bit but nothing so far seems like 10 out of 10 level of awesomeness from every single professional gaming site.
Edit: Ok so as far as watching the game goes i'd say if i had to describe it so far it's....Boring. I just feel really bored watching it. Lots of talking, a little bit of fighting (very little) and lots of scrounging. It just feels like it drags on.
Not Online!!! wrote: Might also be connected as a revenge campaign against Sony and naughtydog breaking free use in YouTube .
But tbf that is more a YouTube issue...
Yeah didn't they also take down a middle of the road youtuber's game review that said he didn't like the game. I think his name was Skill Up.
Sony is just breaking the rules and they're allowed to i guess due to being a big company.
I see maybe one person on twitch playing it right now. I saw a bit but nothing so far seems like 10 out of 10 level of awesomeness from every single professional gaming site.
Edit: Ok so as far as watching the game goes i'd say if i had to describe it so far is....Boring. I just feel really bored watching it. Lots of talking, a little bit of fighting and lots of scrounging. It just feels like it drags on.
They didn't bother regardless of opinion they went in and did indiscriminately Nuke everything, Heck even just talking about the spoilers, which Made even amicable youtubers hostile to them.
They probably went in more brutally then the french surpressed the hugenots in the south of France.
Infact they got flak from everyone including jim sterling to the quartering to skillup to angry joe..
Heck one threathened to go to Court with Sony.
So i don't know how but the character that everybody says dies does die. The person playing it right now had Ellie and her romantic partner mention it.
There's been a couple small fights in the game since the last ones but it's very slow. In the entire time the main characters were trying to get some gas and search areas for supplies and collect cards. No real use for the cards except to collect i guess.
Yeah i know about Just Some Guy dealing with sony because they kept trying to take down his channel even though he only posted 2 pictures of the Trans lady (is she trans?). Sony nuked things pretty hard.
The guy i'm watching play it on twitch says the biggest thing ellie's girlfriend has contributed to the plot so far is "I love you Ellie."
I mean, this seems to be the case since Sony Playstation Headquarters moved to California, which is basically the starting point for any company becoming saturated in "woke" politics and kot-towing to their brand of censorship.
Sony's primary US presence and the overwhelming bulk of their US development, testing, and localization, and general North America business operations have been operating out of California for 25 years now, I was a QA tester there at SCEA over 10 years ago. There's nothing new about CA and Sony, this sort of political injection isn't going to do the thread any good, let's drop the RL politics and get the thread back on the topic of Last Of Us Part 2, thanks!.
Lots of games and media franchises have social/political commentary, but not every Bioshock conversation has to be a review and critique of Ayn Rand's political philosophies as expressed through Andrew Ryan, nor does every discussion about Star Trek need to get into the ostensibly deeply anti-capitalistic attitudes of the Federation or the activism/views of particular actors.
If all people want to do is play culture wars, please find somewhere else to do it. If you have problems with the story, that's fine, by all means discuss it, but what state SCE's HQ is located in isn't terribly relevant, nor are the ambiguous biases of nebulously defined journalists/the media. One can pick apart story problems without getting into stuff like that.
The reviews are in, and surprise surprise, the games "journalists" love it but the actual gamers hate it.
Also I find it odd that Sony goes out of their way to censor and blacklist anime tiddys but is ok with explicit, under-age sex scenes so long as it's got enough Oppression Olympics points.
The actual gamers who have only had the game, which is around a 20-30 hour game, for around 8 hours by the time the userscore was bombed?
The reviews are in, and surprise surprise, the games "journalists" love it but the actual gamers hate it.
Also I find it odd that Sony goes out of their way to censor and blacklist anime tiddys but is ok with explicit, under-age sex scenes so long as it's got enough Oppression Olympics points.
The actual gamers who have only had the game, which is around a 20-30 hour game, for around 8 hours by the time the userscore was bombed?
Oh, and it now has more user reviews than the first game garnered over its entire run.
20 hour game, of which 11 is cutscenes.
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don't consider that a "game".
See, I don't mind cutscenes if they help immerse you in the gameplay and move the plot and characters forward in a meaningful way. There's a lot of games where it has a higher ratio of cutscenes to gameplay and worked out fine, but the main problem is that not only is there huge plotholes, but it actively disincentivizes you from playing since they do the main cast dirty and actively undo a lot of the established character traits and development from the previous game for the sake of the "plot". So now not only is going through the cutscenes a slog, the gameplay itself loses it's narrative relevance and impact. I LOVED the winter scene for the first TLoU, because playing as Ellie then was a huge shift from murder hobo Joel, and the emphasis on stealth and playing a fragile character allows you to see how she's learned from him. Meanwhile, while you play as Abby, you pretty much hope for yourself to get ripped a new one from a Bloater.
Which sucks because the gameplay and the detail itself in the game is fine, but when your defining drawing point is the story, then you're basically shooting yourself in the foot when you create a crap narrative like this.
At this point, they really should have done a prequel with Tommy and Joel and how Joel had become so jaded by the time of TLoU and what caused Tommy to split with him. A lot more potential and you don't have the same issues with everyone wearing the idiot hat in TLoU2.
And then he goes after Schreier, think of the man what you want but he was right to call out the scenes beeing as powerfull as Schindlers Liste.
Yikes, that's a lot of EGO for a developper that has massive issues with workersrights and crunch...
I think the best part of that card was the 100 Brains stat he gave himself. If that isn't an indicator of having too much power, I don't know what is. It sucks because UC4 and Lost Legacy were great games from Naughty Dog, but I'm guessing it was the last breath of a now largely empty company now that the majority of their veteran staff left, particularly Amy Hennig. I hope Sony sees what a mess they made and Druckmann gets booted or demoted in some capacity because he clearly does not have the right kind of head to be leading Naughty Dog.
So I'll admit I haven't played either one and won't being doing so since it doesn't appeal to me. I've just heard about the praise for the first years back, read the plot synopsis and watched some of the cut scenes. I heard about the controversy surrounding the new one and did the same. I don't get it. I must be missing something here. I'm primarily interested in the criticism specifically pertaining to the writing.
Spoiler:
1. I see a lot of anger over Joel's death. From a purely storytelling perspective, a primary character dying/being murdered is a non issue. This is just something that aggravates fandoms, i.e. Dumbledore, Luke Skywalker (I'll give that how and why he died was questionable writing at least), Shepard in ME3 unless you met very specific requirements, etc. All were met with criticism. For a story that's overtly and intentionally dark I just don't understand that criticism outside of Joel was not behaving like himself in that he was not being hyper vigilant against potential threats. However, five years had passed and people typically don't remain static. Secondly, people can and do make lapses in judgement. This seems like a case of I don't like as opposed to it actually being bad writing.
2. You play a significant portion of the game as Joel's killer after he had been killed. Or murderer and murdered if you prefer. I obviously see how this can be divisive, but not inherently bad, especially as it ties into what appears to be overarching theme of the game.
3. Ellie lets Joel's killer go instead of killing her. The fans demand vengeance not justice. There is not going to be any justice in this world and no 'justice' will bring Joel back.
After reading over the plot and many criticisms it seems like the story theme is being intentionally ignored or just flat out missed. Granted, I understand that it's going to be controversial and divisive period, but I don't see how it's bad writing. To me, this is what appears to be the theme and the reason for the plot structure:
Ellie and Abby are obviously meant to mirror one another. Both are on a quest for vengeance after losing their father/father-figure. Abby succumbs to the desire for revenge and turns into a brutal monster that delights in causing others physical and mental anguish. Ellie almost goes that route, but turns back at the last minute before actually throwing away her humanity. A criticism I saw on Reddit was that Abby clearly takes delight in murder and torture, while Ellie suffers from it and tries to reset it. This criticism was directed at being forced to play as Abby, but to me it's missing the point. Abby is the result of giving into hatred and rage. She's what Ellie would have become if she had murdered Abby during their final confrontation. Maybe this makes it a bad game. It obviously ticked off the fandom, but I don't see how it's bad writing at least on a high level.
A lot of this was the actions of sony as well but we've been told to keep away from that so it's not the only mention.
The combat between dodging, stun-locking, aiming taking a lot of time and when shot having shooting stability needing to reset and so on wasn't super great as far as i saw.
Ellie became a super violent person. Yes we get it revenge is bad but you know they could've made the characters likeable and most people had issues finding any of them likeable. I heard when people had to play Abby after 'the event with joel' they often killed abby a lot or weren't invested because they just didn't like her and it never really made you like her that much.
People stated if it showed more of what abby was about before the 'event with joel' they might have liked her. I mean personally i didn't play either one either but i can see why someone would hate this after the first and developing a bond with the characters and having expectations built up for years only to have this happen and end up liking none of the characters.
As far as the final decision goes? Ellie killed far more people for far less. It doesn't take away all the other people Ellie killed.
trexmeyer wrote: So I'll admit I haven't played either one and won't being doing so since it doesn't appeal to me. I've just heard about the praise for the first years back, read the plot synopsis and watched some of the cut scenes. I heard about the controversy surrounding the new one and did the same. I don't get it. I must be missing something here. I'm primarily interested in the criticism specifically pertaining to the writing.
Spoiler:
1. I see a lot of anger over Joel's death. From a purely storytelling perspective, a primary character dying/being murdered is a non issue. This is just something that aggravates fandoms, i.e. Dumbledore, Luke Skywalker (I'll give that how and why he died was questionable writing at least), Shepard in ME3 unless you met very specific requirements, etc. All were met with criticism. For a story that's overtly and intentionally dark I just don't understand that criticism outside of Joel was not behaving like himself in that he was not being hyper vigilant against potential threats. However, five years had passed and people typically don't remain static. Secondly, people can and do make lapses in judgement. This seems like a case of I don't like as opposed to it actually being bad writing.
2. You play a significant portion of the game as Joel's killer after he had been killed. Or murderer and murdered if you prefer. I obviously see how this can be divisive, but not inherently bad, especially as it ties into what appears to be overarching theme of the game.
3. Ellie lets Joel's killer go instead of killing her. The fans demand vengeance not justice. There is not going to be any justice in this world and no 'justice' will bring Joel back.
After reading over the plot and many criticisms it seems like the story theme is being intentionally ignored or just flat out missed. Granted, I understand that it's going to be controversial and divisive period, but I don't see how it's bad writing. To me, this is what appears to be the theme and the reason for the plot structure:
Ellie and Abby are obviously meant to mirror one another. Both are on a quest for vengeance after losing their father/father-figure. Abby succumbs to the desire for revenge and turns into a brutal monster that delights in causing others physical and mental anguish. Ellie almost goes that route, but turns back at the last minute before actually throwing away her humanity. A criticism I saw on Reddit was that Abby clearly takes delight in murder and torture, while Ellie suffers from it and tries to reset it. This criticism was directed at being forced to play as Abby, but to me it's missing the point. Abby is the result of giving into hatred and rage. She's what Ellie would have become if she had murdered Abby during their final confrontation. Maybe this makes it a bad game. It obviously ticked off the fandom, but I don't see how it's bad writing at least on a high level.
Spoiler:
The problem with Joel's death is how it's so contrived as to make sure he dies in a very uncharacteristically non-Joel way. In the previous game, Joel is obviously hardened to the realities of dealing with other survivor groups, shown particularly with how how he sees the obvious trap in front of him and Ellie in the first game when a person pretending to be hurt tries to lure them into an ambush. Ellie shows she learned from Joel when she's questioned about her name in the same game by a mid-game antagonist, and she replies, "Why?". Now all of a sudden, in the second game, Joel apparently forgets his survival instincts and immediately blabs his name and his brother's to a bunch of armed randos in a basement, when he knows that he'd a target for a lot of enemy groups given his murder trail in the last game. Given that they still like in the post-apoc, and scavenge to survive, it doesn't make sense that his sense would be that dulled even if it was 5 years since the last game. Furthermore, Abby's reaction is just as bad since Joel as a name is fairly common and her attacking so soon without any sort of further justification makes it seem like she's just been killing everyone called Joel so far in the game. It just smacks of shock value and trying to subvert expectations by having him put down so easily. I'm 100% fine with protagonists dying WHEN it is done well, (i.e., Arthur Morgan or John Marston in Red Dead Redemption), and the worst part is how the attempt to make Abby a foil to Ellie fails because there's nowhere near the amount of investment the players had in Joel versus her no-name father. If we are to play as Abby, there has to be more there than "hurr durr, revenge bad" with her running around being a murder maniac.
Also, revenge plots have been done before, and I think the main problem is the delivery in which it's given. People don't like the ending because it feels like a cop-out. Ellie should have killed Abby, but rather than out of hate or revenge, out of pity because she sees Abby as a hollow shell of what she was, with no real purpose after Joel is dead. That would have rounded it off with Abby getting what she deserved and Ellie still reaching the epiphany of the futility of revenge, choosing to move on afterwards.
Also, I'm pretty sure your apathy to the mass dislike most fans have towards the game has to do with the fact that you haven't played the first game in its entirety, and lacking that kind of context and immersion definitely skews your perception regarding the overall story and impact regarding the narrative disaster of the second one.
trexmeyer wrote: From a purely storytelling perspective, a primary character dying/being murdered is a non issue.
It is an issue if it violates some very basic rules of proper dramatic structure.
If anyone ever wondered why people who should be making games are making movies instead, there's your answer. They wouldn't be able to write a script to save their own lives.
Grimskul wrote: Also, I'm pretty sure your apathy to the mass dislike most fans have towards the game has to do with the fact that you haven't played the first game in its entirety, and lacking that kind of context and immersion definitely skews your perception regarding the overall story and impact regarding the narrative disaster of the second one.
Do you see how what you said applies perfectly to the thousands of people leaving zero and 1 star reviews for a 25 hour playtime game within the first few hours of its release?
flamingkillamajig wrote:
The combat between dodging, stun-locking, aiming taking a lot of time and when shot having shooting stability needing to reset and so on wasn't super great as far as i saw.
Ellie became a super violent person. Yes we get it revenge is bad but you know they could've made the characters likeable and most people had issues finding any of them likeable. I heard when people had to play Abby after 'the event with joel' they often killed abby a lot or weren't invested because they just didn't like her and it never really made you like her that much.
People stated if it showed more of what abby was about before the 'event with joel' they might have liked her. I mean personally i didn't play either one either but i can see why someone would hate this after the first and developing a bond with the characters and having expectations built up for years only to have this happen and end up liking none of the characters.
As far as the final decision goes? Ellie killed far more people for far less. It doesn't take away all the other people Ellie killed.
I'm not remotely concerned with the game play, just the writing.
Is revenge bad in all circumstances? Why is it bad? What makes it bad? Is the story even arguing necessarily that revenge is bad or maybe just self destructive and all consuming? I don't think either of those are necessarily bad.
So Ellie has killed people for less? That doesn't mean she has to keep killing. No one has the continue down any path they've chosen even if they've been walking it for a long time.
His Master's Voice wrote:
trexmeyer wrote: From a purely storytelling perspective, a primary character dying/being murdered is a non issue.
It is an issue if it violates some very basic rules of proper dramatic structure.
If anyone ever wondered why people who should be making games are making movies instead, there's your answer. They wouldn't be able to write a script to save their own lives.
Grimskul wrote: Also, I'm pretty sure your apathy to the mass dislike most fans have towards the game has to do with the fact that you haven't played the first game in its entirety, and lacking that kind of context and immersion definitely skews your perception regarding the overall story and impact regarding the narrative disaster of the second one.
Do you see how what you said applies perfectly to the thousands of people leaving zero and 1 star reviews for a 25 hour playtime game within the first few hours of its release?
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not promoting review bombing for people who haven't played it, but the 9/10 reviews that deliberately remain vague about the ending and the plot are a poor reflection of the nosedive the storytelling takes. The majority of the reviewers that I trust pretty much unanimously agree that technically and design wise the game is great, but the narrative is atrocious, and given that it's part of an existing IP and the main draw is the story, if you feth up that part, you deserve a significantly lower score than a 10/10 or 9/10.
trexmeyer wrote: From a purely storytelling perspective, a primary character dying/being murdered is a non issue.
It is an issue if it violates some very basic rules of proper dramatic structure.
If anyone ever wondered why people who should be making games are making movies instead, there's your answer. They wouldn't be able to write a script to save their own lives.
How is it poor dramatic structure?
I'm kind of curious about this myself. The mentor dying and protege carrying on is, especially in a sequel, a very normal dramatic structure.
Movies or games (or books), its a pretty common setup.
I could see arguing that its an overused cliche, but poor seems... odd.
Grimskul wrote: Also, I'm pretty sure your apathy to the mass dislike most fans have towards the game has to do with the fact that you haven't played the first game in its entirety, and lacking that kind of context and immersion definitely skews your perception regarding the overall story and impact regarding the narrative disaster of the second one.
Do you see how what you said applies perfectly to the thousands of people leaving zero and 1 star reviews for a 25 hour playtime game within the first few hours of its release?
Perhaps they were pissed how sony handled things and how joel got murdered horribly within the opening moments in the game. Honestly i've seen at least a few reviewers just completely unhappy with the game for a while after that and making you play Abby after all that. Maybe if they made us sympathize with abby more beforehand but it was only about a couple hours in before the "Joel in One" clubbing scene.
I mean let's be fair with all of this. When a really high profile game or movie series gets a sequel there's a lot to live up to. Yeah they didn't play it safe and sometimes it's good not to but when you have a hardcore fan-base it's hard not to ruffle some feathers.
@trexmeyer: I get your point they don't have to keep walking the path of revenge. That said all the people she killed up to that point might still want revenge and according to all the previous deaths it'd be fair. I feel like other shows handled this better personally. Watch the anime "Gungrave". It gets deep into both the antagonist and the protagonist and they could go the revenge route but don't at the end and at the end you care about both. Yeah the antagonist is still a jerk but they were family and sadly the mafia-esque family they'd all been in up to that point with the focus on family often had people kill others they considered to be their family. It's kinda sad but a really good anime. It totally went the extra mile by making the baddie still a baddie but you saw the whole change from a dude with charisma and a bit of a mean streak to his enemies that wronged him and his friends to becoming a bloodthirsty mob boss that still cared about his friends and the orphans at the orphanage he grew up in. In this Abby just doesn't seem that good. The anime is a much better revenge story which didn't end fully with revenge.
trexmeyer wrote: From a purely storytelling perspective, a primary character dying/being murdered is a non issue.
It is an issue if it violates some very basic rules of proper dramatic structure.
If anyone ever wondered why people who should be making games are making movies instead, there's your answer. They wouldn't be able to write a script to save their own lives.
How is it poor dramatic structure?
I'm kind of curious about this myself. The mentor dying and protege carrying on is, especially in a sequel, a very normal dramatic structure.
Movies or games (or books), its a pretty common setup.
I could see arguing that its an overused cliche, but poor seems... odd.
It's really the execution in the way they do it, and they have a bunch of flashbacks that are really poorly timed near the middle and end of the game that really should have been in the beginning, including parts with Abby. Basically instead of killing Joel so quickly and with so little context with the newly introduced character, we should have actually played with Abby more in the beginning with more development and fleshing her out as a real character to make Joel's death more meaningful with regards to the theme of revenge (and even then they should have changed the way he was killed since it was a really bad demonstration of relying on shock value to carry the scene). I think that highlights the greatest problem because a bunch of other people die on top of him, including members of the main cast and they never really mention them again after they die or show any emotional impact when that happens. It basically really is GoT Season 8 level writing. People die because they're supposed to, rather than it happening more organically or more in tandem with the overarching theme.
I have no horse in this race as I haven't played the first game nor will I play the second game.
I just didint dig the generic crafting/survival mechanics, and couldn't really get into the story of the first game so the 2nd does not appeal either.
I find it weird people are unhappy about people leaving reviews of 1-0 (clearly cant be a 0/10..) after the game has been out for less than completion time but have no issues with game getting straight 10/10 before it was even officially released. Clearly the game cannot possibly be perfect.
The disparity between the two extremes suggest the game is probably average at best. The stink is coming from something else which I heard echoes off in the internet ether but have ignored.
Grimskul wrote: Also, I'm pretty sure your apathy to the mass dislike most fans have towards the game has to do with the fact that you haven't played the first game in its entirety, and lacking that kind of context and immersion definitely skews your perception regarding the overall story and impact regarding the narrative disaster of the second one.
Do you see how what you said applies perfectly to the thousands of people leaving zero and 1 star reviews for a 25 hour playtime game within the first few hours of its release?
Perhaps they were pissed how sony handled things and how joel got murdered horribly within the opening moments in the game.
The game fails to establish a meaningful relationship between Joel and Ellie and, more importantly, between Joel and the audience, before the hammer drops. It then proceeds to expose the player to a series of lengthy flashbacks, in and of itself a bad writing crutch, in a retroactive attempt at building that missing emotional connection for a narrative beat that's already done.
This poor choice of sequencing happens throughout the script, which I think could have worked rather well had it been put together with more adherence to crusty old storytelling rules over pseudo artistic non linear plot structure.
The game fails to establish a meaningful relationship between Joel and Ellie and, more importantly, between Joel and the audience, before the hammer drops. It then proceeds to expose the player to a series of lengthy flashbacks, in and of itself a bad writing crutch, in a retroactive attempt at building that missing emotional connection for a narrative beat that's already done.
This poor choice of sequencing happens throughout the script, which I think could have worked rather well had it been put together with more adherence to crusty old storytelling rules over pseudo artistic non linear plot structure.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm
Did you not play the first part? cause the relation there is established......
The game fails to establish a meaningful relationship between Joel and Ellie and, more importantly, between Joel and the audience, before the hammer drops. It then proceeds to expose the player to a series of lengthy flashbacks, in and of itself a bad writing crutch, in a retroactive attempt at building that missing emotional connection for a narrative beat that's already done.
This poor choice of sequencing happens throughout the script, which I think could have worked rather well had it been put together with more adherence to crusty old storytelling rules over pseudo artistic non linear plot structure.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm
Did you not play the first part? cause the relation there is established......
Why is Frodo in Return of the King friends with Gandalf, they don't even meet until the end of the book!
The game fails to establish a meaningful relationship between Joel and Ellie and, more importantly, between Joel and the audience, before the hammer drops. It then proceeds to expose the player to a series of lengthy flashbacks, in and of itself a bad writing crutch, in a retroactive attempt at building that missing emotional connection for a narrative beat that's already done.
This poor choice of sequencing happens throughout the script, which I think could have worked rather well had it been put together with more adherence to crusty old storytelling rules over pseudo artistic non linear plot structure.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm
Did you not play the first part? cause the relation there is established......
Why is Frodo in Return of the King friends with Gandalf, they don't even meet until the end of the book!
Yeah, I just started the second after playing thru the first one, and...it's pretty darn clear after the 20+ hours I played through their relationship in the first game, lol.
BaconCatBug wrote: Why is Frodo in Return of the King friends with Gandalf, they don't even meet until the end of the book!
TLoU2 isn't part two of TLoU, because TLoU's narrative and thematic arcs are closed by the end of the game. TLoU2 may be using the setting and characters, but the story and ideas it deals with are new.
I get that you think everyone picking up TLoU2 should go and play a seven year old title as a companion piece. I think I'll judge TLoU2 based on its own merits.
BaconCatBug wrote: Why is Frodo in Return of the King friends with Gandalf, they don't even meet until the end of the book!
TLoU2 isn't part two of TLoU, because TLoU's narrative and thematic arcs are closed by the end of the game. TLoU2 may be using the setting and characters, but the story and ideas it deals with are new.
I get that you think everyone picking up TLoU2 should go and play a seven year old title as a companion piece. I think I'll judge TLoU2 based on its own merits.
As a companion piece? seriously? You think it's weird that someone might go and play the original game before playing a game with the same title but "2" after the name?
a whole lot of games must be incredibly confusing to you tbh. "boy, Dishonored 2 sure is weird! Who are these people? Why does the girl care about the older assassin dude? Why do I want to rescue him? Who is that emo wizard offering me superpowers? This game makes no narrative sense!"
Lol the gay main characters were a non issue. That relationship seemed more boring than anything. If I recall someone said ellies partner mostly existed for "I love you Ellie." For a good chunk of the game. It wasnt his full review at the time but it's not exactly character depth.
I mean if you want us to feel sympathy for many characters in the game that constantly cheat on each other (in one case cheating on a pregnant woman) or the Joel in one scene or the constant murderering of people then I have to ask you why.
the_scotsman wrote: As a companion piece? seriously? You think it's weird that someone might go and play the original game before playing a game with the same title but "2" after the name?
a whole lot of games must be incredibly confusing to you tbh. "boy, Dishonored 2 sure is weird! Who are these people? Why does the girl care about the older assassin dude? Why do I want to rescue him? Who is that emo wizard offering me superpowers? This game makes no narrative sense!"
Yeah, because everyone was expected to play God of War 1 to 3 and that PSP entry as well before starting up the 2018 game. Same title across the board, right?
Witcher 3? You better played the previous games or else you'd be so lost.
Or take that obscure Indiana Jones series of films. Ever noticed how Spielberg introduced Indie once and once only, and then, in every subsequent film, spent absolutely no time reminding the audience of important character qualities of the protagonist and instead jumped straight into the main plot thread?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Let's also be honest, there are some people mad that it has a lesbian main character that is playable.
Gamers hate that.
This is demonstrably false, because you could play Ellie in the first game (she's the main focus in the DLC as well, that establishes her as a gay) and no one gave a rat's ass about it then. It's more to deal with the fact that her relationship with the new girl Dina, is about as boring as you could get given that we basically don't have Dina fleshed out very well or her relationship with Ellie, and she exists more to die with shock value (again) because she's also pregnant.
I don't really have any intention of playing part 1 or part 2. but I have been following these discussions closely because it's my wife's favorite game and I want to prepare myself for the shitstorm to come.
It honestly sounds to me like the issue with this game is that the gameplay isn't serving the story, and is in fact hindering it. This almost makes it more interesting because we have been complaining about the ludonarrative dissonance in games like Bioshock infinite or Tomb Raider where a character complains about killing 1 person only to turn around and murder hundreds. But this game seems to take it to a whole new level with fairly standard revenge is bad subplot that makes no sense because the gameplay only serves to instill the opposite desires and messages in the audience's head.
Dude I don't even know if I'd want any ladies I know playing that game. It's certainly not for the faint of heart with gore. It's not the worst but it's very much consistent and mindless violence. Seriously did anybody test this game with test audiences first? Wtf were they thinking?
Yeah if they made us care about Abby before the Joel death maybe it would have worked. If anything it makes her out to be a decent villain. Seriously even if someone murdered a bunch of people is it ok to beat them that badly? You know Joel saved her life supposedly before that scene right? Abby tortured Joel slowly. Not only that but they make out most characters to be unlikable the whole way through. Who am I supposed to root for? For me it's Ellie but even then not entirely.
Btw druckmans character also legit spits on Joel's recently deceased corpse in-game. I'd be shocked if that guy doesn't get death threats and I'm against that but I can't say he didn't kick a bee hive and whined he got stung with that one.
flamingkillamajig wrote: They're preventing returns because people have been coming in droves to return their game copies.
Yup, nothing says confidence in their own game's story and quality than stamping down on people remotely talking about the leaks before release and then stopping returns because they don't want to admit they bamboozled people with a misleading trailer.
The first 10 to 12 hours are absolutely sublime. The game was on a trajectory to crack my top 5. The suspense and the pacing were top notch. Following Tommy's killing spree into Seattle and catching Nora were incredibly satisfying. The story really felt like it was building toward something as you went deeper down the WLF rabbit hole.
The decision to force a 10+ hour flashback right in the middle of the damn climax absolutely torpedoed this game. A 15-20 minute sequence to flesh out Abby's character would have been awesome. I really dig when villains are treated as characters in their own right rather than obstacles for the protagonist to overcome. The problem is that Abby's character really isn't that compelling. Her campaign hangs itself on the WLF vs Scars conflict, but it feels completely unnecessary because you already learn quite a bit about that war from Ellie's perspective. As a result, Abby's campaign felt like needless filler to pad the game's length. It's aimless and boring.
It hoovers up all the momentum in the story and destroyed my enthusiasm for the climax. After playing so long as her, I was so damn bored and disinterested that I just couldn't care anymore. Once I got to day 2 for Abby, the knowledge I'd finished less than half her side of the story broke what little resolve I had left to get to the end.
I think the story would have been great if it were executed differently, but as it stands I just couldn't recommend it to anyone.
balmong7 wrote: I don't really have any intention of playing part 1 or part 2. but I have been following these discussions closely because it's my wife's favorite game and I want to prepare myself for the shitstorm to come.
It honestly sounds to me like the issue with this game is that the gameplay isn't serving the story, and is in fact hindering it. This almost makes it more interesting because we have been complaining about the ludonarrative dissonance in games like Bioshock infinite or Tomb Raider where a character complains about killing 1 person only to turn around and murder hundreds. But this game seems to take it to a whole new level with fairly standard revenge is bad subplot that makes no sense because the gameplay only serves to instill the opposite desires and messages in the audience's head.
I actually think there's a lot of nice touches with this. NPCs have a lot of passive banter and come across as pretty normal people. They often refer to one another by their first names and their dialog sounds more like what you hear out of allied NPCs than enemies. It does take long for it to feel like you're in the wrong, but that illusion kind of breaks if you try to do anything differently. Like I had an NPC beg for their life but there's no way to show them mercy. They won't flee and as soon as you move away from them they return to basic cover shooter target mode.
Overall, I'm finding the story effective, but it's definitely bloated, feeling like its overstayed its welcome before the perspective switch. Feels like its trying to pull a Nier, but with a sluggish stealth engine. I still have a lot to get through, but I feel like its shaping up to be a lot of what I felt about the original both good and bad.
flamingkillamajig wrote: They're preventing returns because people have been coming in droves to return their game copies.
Yup, nothing says confidence in their own game's story and quality than stamping down on people remotely talking about the leaks before release and then stopping returns because they don't want to admit they bamboozled people with a misleading trailer.
No horse in this race, but I cannot think of anywhere accepting returns of any opened products right now.
flamingkillamajig wrote: They're preventing returns because people have been coming in droves to return their game copies.
Yup, nothing says confidence in their own game's story and quality than stamping down on people remotely talking about the leaks before release and then stopping returns because they don't want to admit they bamboozled people with a misleading trailer.
No horse in this race, but I cannot think of anywhere accepting returns of any opened products right now.
They have lots of new used copies coming in. I imagine the Korean dude that cut up his discs wouldn't get anything for it. I wonder if this is gonna end up like that E.T. game in the landfills. It shouldn't be that bad.
Kanluwen wrote: Who has these copies? And you know that "new, used copies" aren't the same as returns if it's people attempting to do trade-ins/sellbacks right?
They don't buy used games? Perhaps eBay is flooded with em. We shall see. I'm about to check. For what it's worth I'm going on what I heard.
Ok looks like 525 results for last of us part 2 on eBay. It's tricky to say. Some are over 60 USD but I'm seeing a lot of used copies around 35 USD or so. Dunno if it's a flood of copies but it's still significant considering it's new.
Another update. I added thinned results to buy now only. The special edition seem to be going for ridiculous amounts. However the normal edition is some up and some down. I can't really say what the reality is.
A bunch of gamers are still pissed. I actually caught a reviewer saying both common perspectives are actually legit in their own ways. He gets a bit political (not too much but it's in there) and he isn't a fan of social justice but hearing his take is a bit interesting. I'm not sure if anybody wants to take a look.
His handle on YouTube is:
Critical Drinker
in case you like the persona of a drunken Scotsman with a decent sense of humor, wit and sarcasm. He's a writer too so he's a decent judge of writing.
I remember people getting mad when TBC came out and jettisoned the lore. They weren't necessarily wrong and the criticisms of the Last of Us Part 2 aren't necessarily wrong, but few were willing to discuss the issues then or now without resulting to vitriol or memes.
I remember people getting mad when TBC came out and jettisoned the lore. They weren't necessarily wrong and the criticisms of the Last of Us Part 2 aren't necessarily wrong, but few were willing to discuss the issues then or now without resulting to vitriol or memes.
That's really what's upsetting to me. There's just no discussion to be had. Yer either widdus or aggainus discussions only.
FWIW, I've always had some significant issues with TLOU and they're pretty much all still present here. Some worse honestly. There's also a lot of things I really liked about it. Probably what upsets me most about the discourse of the sequel is that I really feel its the most "part 2" game I've played in a while despite the delay. It's not something that radically alters anything from the first; its just more of it; both in terms of its strengths and its failings.
Honestly in a story driven game, the story just doesn't hold up and that is the issue, and it mainly doesn't hold up because of the attempt at massive manipulation of feelings.
Not Online!!! wrote: Honestly in a story driven game, the story just doesn't hold up and that is the issue, and it mainly doesn't hold up because of the attempt at massive manipulation of feelings.
Yup. This.
I really wanted to like the game. I was absolutely, totally enthralled and engrossed by those first 10-12 hours until the above issue came into play. I tried to power through it. Made it a few hours and then just realized I simply didn't care anymore.
I dunno man. I'll admit I never played the first but a beloved character being tortured to death and you expect me to sympathize and play as the person that did that? That's a 10 out of 10 game? Angry Joe gave it a 6 and supposedly that was him being generous due to graphics. Oddly the story probably was what held the game back and how it was presented. For me it was Joel tortured death, Sony and naughty dog clamping down hard on everything remotely negative or with the leaks and 10 out of 10 reviews. This game is flawed. 10 out of 10 from so many outlets is just disingenuous.
Honestly if the game didn't have the leaks, the journalists shut their mouths and didn't rate the game and druckman maybe learned to be more humble then the game might have had less negative reception. I understand hardcore fans can be obnoxious and maybe sometimes you can insult them but when you throw the isms and phobic insults out towards them don't be shocked when they tell you off that much harder.
No, the story would've been needed to be told either more coherently and less jumbled or split off abby arc as a seperate game before you'd make the initial and hunting down of abby a 3rd game.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I dunno man. I'll admit I never played the first but a beloved character being tortured to death and you expect me to sympathize and play as the person that did that?
Do you sympathize with Ellie? They’re pretty much running on identical motivations and it’s not like Ellie doesn’t hurt way more people in the process.
Joel’s actions in the original are desperate but ultimately self serving. Just because we follow a story that leads us to sympathize with him doesn’t make his choice at the end any less monstrous, which is also true of Abby and Ellie.
Have just finished the game. We've been playing TLOU2 together with my wife, who's a fan of the first one. I liked it a lot too, although such linear obstacle courses are not my favourite genre.
Overall we liked Part 2 and had a discussion about the ending, obviously! There's a lot of "ifs" and "whys", something to ponder about after finishing.
I enjoyed the mechanics of the game. Stalking and fighting is so smooth and satisfying! Just check this video to see what is possible - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIVtaZ_m1T8
Graphics are amazing. I am not an expert to rate technical aspects, but attention to detail and animations (especially of characters colliding with objects/interacting with each other real-time)are among the best if not the best I have seen.
Atmosphere is intense! Even without the jump scares there's a lot of tension.
The story is
Spoiler:
quite emotional. For us both characters were likable, Abby even more than Ellie. She was so badass! I actually quite early predicted that we'll learn that Abby had as good a reason to go after Joel as Ellie had to go after her. How the game decided to show us this relativism (who is the good guy or the bad guy changes with perspective) surprised us, but in a good way. Games don't often do that.
The things I think could have been better... I think first and foremost the pacing. The story is too often shown with "walking simulator" sections which aren't all bad per se but are way too long. I'd prefer shorter cinematics.
Gameplay can get repetitive too. Sections in which we do something different are short and do not happen that often.
But all in all we think it's a really good game. Took us ~35 hours to finish on Hard. Only one minor glitch - after falling from a narrow bridge, the autosave kept loading the game at the moment of death. Restarting the encounter helped, but I still recommend saving manually from time to time.
I don't know what the spoiler policy in this thread are so Imma put everything in spoilers to be safe.
Spoiler:
For such a fine example of technical mastery, flawless animations, perfect graphics and outstanding environment design, it's a real shame it had to be wasted on a story like that.
I mean, from the leaks I knew there would be problem, but the lengths - transparent lengths - this game goes towards manipulating you towards liking Abby after we've seen what she does right at the (near) start of the game. Worse, it tries to make you like a bunch of other characters, and get involved in their intertwined stories when we've already seen most of them die by Ellie's hand. Am I supposed to feel bad when Tommy murders Manny mid-sentence? The only shock death was Jesse, IMO.
This game could have been done in a different way. We could have grown to know Abby before she does the thing, and keep us in the dark about who she is and what her ultimate motivations are. Jeremy Jahns (and I think Angry Joe as well) both thought that perhaps having Abby and Ellie team up prior to the thing Abby does would be a good way to introduce a twist. Hell, breaking this into two games, with the cliffhanger being Abby telling Owen that she's found "him", and we go from there, that would have been compelling. But no. We know from the start Abby is a sadistic person who takes pleasure in killing, and this doesn't stop right through to the end.
The other big aspect with why this game fails is that you are not given any choice in the events. You have to kill Alice, Mel and Owen... or rather, you aren't really involved. The game does that for you in a cut-scene. You don't get to make the choice to get our revenge on Abby, rather you watch a cut-scene where Ellie gives up and they go their separate ways. Nothing you do seems to affect the outcome, as so often things are taken out of your hands.
Abby could have been an interesting character, had we been given time to establish her prior to the event. But this was all squandered for... what? Shock value? To show the ultimate futility of revenge narratives (if so why have us play as Abby ever)? To "subvert expectations".
And Jesus Christ that ending. Makes me not want to revisit this world ever again.
I think there's a ton of valid criticism about the game out there. It's really a shame that it got bathed in so much early misguided hate for the thing that happens that everyone should have realized was going to happen and the rest of the stuff that comes from the dirge of the internet. The length and pacing are just kind of mind blowing.
LunarSol wrote: I think there's a ton of valid criticism about the game out there. It's really a shame that it got bathed in so much early misguided hate for the thing that happens that everyone should have realized was going to happen and the rest of the stuff that comes from the dirge of the internet. The length and pacing are just kind of mind blowing.
It got the flak it deserved, considering they decided that fair use isn't something on which livelyhoods depend upon....
Kick the hornets nest and such.
Not really. The flak just comes across as petty reactionary nonsense to ignore rather than anything worth listening to. The real criticisms of the game get buried in the dogpile.
LunarSol wrote: Not really. The flak just comes across as petty reactionary nonsense to ignore rather than anything worth listening to. The real criticisms of the game get buried in the dogpile.
Pretty much, the youtubers I pay attention to have similar story criticism to that mentioned here, but still put the game at a solid 7/10.
Not some sort of hyperbolic betrayal of all gamers ever or whatever the reactionaries are claiming.
I don't think too many people screaming bloody murder about Abby day 1 were doing so because of story pacing reasons.
Nor the people sending death threats to the voice actress who played Abby.
Tbf that i don't understand.
Like i get why people are angry , the Story just doesn't hold up, Sony messed up Big times with faulty claims, especially with Part 1 in mind and an awfull Lot of plotholes, however the deaththreats are unaceptable and why the feth at the actress Off all people , is beyond me considering she is the least relevant player in regards to how the Story goes....
Keep in mind guys Jar Jar Binks and the person that played Anakin skywalker in episode 2 and 3 of star wars were also reviled. At this point getting death threats on the internet comes with the territory. Before things were political i heard video game critics mentioned they got death threats in hate mail. One even stated they hoped a game critic died just for having a poster of Highlander 2 on his wall (even though said critic hated that movie). Hardcore fans are a bit extreme in their opinions at times. This is not new.
I guess people forget when Link from Zelda: Twilight princess got brown hair and casino royal featured a James Bond without brown hair. Let's just say fans raged for a time just for that. Do they go over-board? Yes. Are they political just because they are hardcore fans that can't stand change? No.
Honestly considering hardcore fans and their stance on change i'm a little surprised i don't remember seeing Breath of the Wild get such a critical reaction given zelda had years of the same style of gameplay since probably Ocarina of Time. I think i heard some disliked that game but i don't think i saw any. I still want some of that old style of gameplay as well sometimes.
Am I actually seeing in this thread a suggestion that it's fine and acceptable that actors get death threats and hate for characters they played, who acted in ways the actors themselves didn't even decide, in a game the actors didn't even make, and that instead of doing anything to condemn it this should just be accepted?
Just because something isn't unheard of doesn't make it okay, and arguing that because it happened before we should be used to it is dishonest and immoral.
I don't know what the spoiler policy in this thread are so Imma put everything in spoilers to be safe.
Spoiler:
For such a fine example of technical mastery, flawless animations, perfect graphics and outstanding environment design, it's a real shame it had to be wasted on a story like that.
I mean, from the leaks I knew there would be problem, but the lengths - transparent lengths - this game goes towards manipulating you towards liking Abby after we've seen what she does right at the (near) start of the game. Worse, it tries to make you like a bunch of other characters, and get involved in their intertwined stories when we've already seen most of them die by Ellie's hand. Am I supposed to feel bad when Tommy murders Manny mid-sentence? The only shock death was Jesse, IMO.
This game could have been done in a different way. We could have grown to know Abby before she does the thing, and keep us in the dark about who she is and what her ultimate motivations are. Jeremy Jahns (and I think Angry Joe as well) both thought that perhaps having Abby and Ellie team up prior to the thing Abby does would be a good way to introduce a twist. Hell, breaking this into two games, with the cliffhanger being Abby telling Owen that she's found "him", and we go from there, that would have been compelling. But no. We know from the start Abby is a sadistic person who takes pleasure in killing, and this doesn't stop right through to the end.
The other big aspect with why this game fails is that you are not given any choice in the events. You have to kill Alice, Mel and Owen... or rather, you aren't really involved. The game does that for you in a cut-scene. You don't get to make the choice to get our revenge on Abby, rather you watch a cut-scene where Ellie gives up and they go their separate ways. Nothing you do seems to affect the outcome, as so often things are taken out of your hands.
Abby could have been an interesting character, had we been given time to establish her prior to the event. But this was all squandered for... what? Shock value? To show the ultimate futility of revenge narratives (if so why have us play as Abby ever)? To "subvert expectations".
And Jesus Christ that ending. Makes me not want to revisit this world ever again.
As I said. It was a long 20 hours.
As an outside observer watching all of this with a academic fascination, I would pose a question.
Does it seem to anyone else that this game would have been far more effective at it's apparent goal (manipulating the player into 'sympathizing' with the main characters on an emotional level) had it simply rearranged the campaign segments and bothered to implement a branching story line?
Principally, I can't help but wonder why Character A's section came in the middle of things rather than being the game's kick off. They could have set things up for A by making her basic goal 'revenge' clear and obscuring who she was trying to get revenge on and why and then loading that shock after you'd already gotten on board with her, then switch to the other part of the narrative.
This game strikes me as being the first big budget title to actually make an attempt at being both a AAA title and a true artistic work and did it in a way that only games are able to do it (by putting the player in someone's shoes and using that experience to evoke a reaction). But mixed into that are a number of what I'll call 'lazy' design decisions that feel like the developers had a strong core concept for what they wanted but weighed themselves down in how they executed it. In a medium that is often cynically violent in a society that is super cynical about violence, I feel like this game was a half-baked attempt at reaching for something great that completely faltered as it struggled to try and find the middle road between being a scathing critique of cynical violence and a fun game and it ended up failing at both.
I don't know what the spoiler policy in this thread are so Imma put everything in spoilers to be safe.
Spoiler:
For such a fine example of technical mastery, flawless animations, perfect graphics and outstanding environment design, it's a real shame it had to be wasted on a story like that.
I mean, from the leaks I knew there would be problem, but the lengths - transparent lengths - this game goes towards manipulating you towards liking Abby after we've seen what she does right at the (near) start of the game. Worse, it tries to make you like a bunch of other characters, and get involved in their intertwined stories when we've already seen most of them die by Ellie's hand. Am I supposed to feel bad when Tommy murders Manny mid-sentence? The only shock death was Jesse, IMO.
This game could have been done in a different way. We could have grown to know Abby before she does the thing, and keep us in the dark about who she is and what her ultimate motivations are. Jeremy Jahns (and I think Angry Joe as well) both thought that perhaps having Abby and Ellie team up prior to the thing Abby does would be a good way to introduce a twist. Hell, breaking this into two games, with the cliffhanger being Abby telling Owen that she's found "him", and we go from there, that would have been compelling. But no. We know from the start Abby is a sadistic person who takes pleasure in killing, and this doesn't stop right through to the end.
The other big aspect with why this game fails is that you are not given any choice in the events. You have to kill Alice, Mel and Owen... or rather, you aren't really involved. The game does that for you in a cut-scene. You don't get to make the choice to get our revenge on Abby, rather you watch a cut-scene where Ellie gives up and they go their separate ways. Nothing you do seems to affect the outcome, as so often things are taken out of your hands.
Abby could have been an interesting character, had we been given time to establish her prior to the event. But this was all squandered for... what? Shock value? To show the ultimate futility of revenge narratives (if so why have us play as Abby ever)? To "subvert expectations".
And Jesus Christ that ending. Makes me not want to revisit this world ever again.
As I said. It was a long 20 hours.
As an outside observer watching all of this with a academic fascination, I would pose a question.
Does it seem to anyone else that this game would have been far more effective at it's apparent goal (manipulating the player into 'sympathizing' with the main characters on an emotional level) had it simply rearranged the campaign segments and bothered to implement a branching story line?
Principally, I can't help but wonder why Character A's section came in the middle of things rather than being the game's kick off. They could have set things up for A by making her basic goal 'revenge' clear and obscuring who she was trying to get revenge on and why and then loading that shock after you'd already gotten on board with her, then switch to the other part of the narrative.
This game strikes me as being the first big budget title to actually make an attempt at being both a AAA title and a true artistic work and did it in a way that only games are able to do it (by putting the player in someone's shoes and using that experience to evoke a reaction). But mixed into that are a number of what I'll call 'lazy' design decisions that feel like the developers had a strong core concept for what they wanted but weighed themselves down in how they executed it. In a medium that is often cynically violent in a society that is super cynical about violence, I feel like this game was a half-baked attempt at reaching for something great that completely faltered as it struggled to try and find the middle road between being a scathing critique of cynical violence and a fun game and it ended up failing at both.
yes, twofold,
you could've solved alot of the issues with branching storylines with choices or with a change of the way people play the story, as in put char A infront of the other, and or cut the game into 2 , one for char A inbetween the final one with charachter E.
The issue is that neither happened making the story rather reliant upon cheap maniuplation.
Well that and the behaviour of the company in question
LordofHats wrote: As an outside observer watching all of this with a academic fascination, I would pose a question.
Does it seem to anyone else that this game would have been far more effective at it's apparent goal (manipulating the player into 'sympathizing' with the main characters on an emotional level) had it simply rearranged the campaign segments and bothered to implement a branching story line?
To a degree, yes, but I'd actually take that a step further with an unpopular opinion, and say that TLoU 2 would have been better as two games.
Still, those are video games we're talking about. People complaining about the story not being deep or cohesive enough seem to forget that it's not nobel-prize novels we compare TLOU2 to but rather a vast swathe of video games of which 99,9999% neither are deep nor make much sense story-wise whatsoever.
(also, for me and my wife it was pretty emotional and cohesive enough, thank you very much For a video game, that is )
Cyel wrote: Still, those are video games we're talking about. People complaining about the story not being deep or cohesive enough seem to forget that it's not nobel-prize novels we compare TLOU2 to
Actually, they DO compare it to prize-winning stories of other forms of media. For example, the marketing department for TLoU2 compared it (through one of the ass-kissing "reviews" they paid for) to Schindler's List, of all things.
Like, TLoU2 isn't even good at storytelling by video game standards, frankly, let alone comparing it to the classics of storytelling.
Cyel wrote: Still, those are video games we're talking about. People complaining about the story not being deep or cohesive enough seem to forget that it's not nobel-prize novels we compare TLOU2 to
Actually, they DO compare it to prize-winning stories of other forms of media. For example, the marketing department for TLoU2 compared it (through one of the ass-kissing "reviews" they paid for) to Schindler's List, of all things.
Like, TLoU2 isn't even good at storytelling by video game standards, frankly, let alone comparing it to the classics of storytelling.
Compared to stuff like Divinity 2: Original Sin, Fallout: New Vegas and even indie stuff like VA-11 Hall-A, TLOU2 is the lower tier of narrative prowess. Yeah, TLoU1, while not original by any means in terms of the story, was at least relatively well-paced and made sense internally while making you give a damn about the protagonists. TLoU2 doesn't even have that, and it comes off as a jumbled mess that actively undos the character development in the previous game.
Yeah, the comparison to Schindler's List was embarrassing.
Its like saying Plan 9 from Outer Space is the War and Peace of cinema. Its nowhere near the same level, and I liked Plan 9 for how hilariously inept it was.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, the comparison to Schindler's List was embarrassing.
Its like saying Plan 9 from Outer Space is the War and Peace of cinema. Its nowhere near the same level, and I liked Plan 9 for how hilariously inept it was.
this, also some ineptitude is bad, more ineptitude is atleast funny, but the ammount here is just sad.
Cyel wrote: Still, those are video games we're talking about. People complaining about the story not being deep or cohesive enough seem to forget that it's not nobel-prize novels we compare TLOU2 to
Actually, they DO compare it to prize-winning stories of other forms of media. For example, the marketing department for TLoU2 compared it (through one of the ass-kissing "reviews" they paid for) to Schindler's List, of all things.
Like, TLoU2 isn't even good at storytelling by video game standards, frankly, let alone comparing it to the classics of storytelling.
Compared to stuff like Divinity 2: Original Sin, Fallout: New Vegas and even indie stuff like VA-11 Hall-A, TLOU2 is the lower tier of narrative prowess. Yeah, TLoU1, while not original by any means in terms of the story, was at least relatively well-paced and made sense internally while making you give a damn about the protagonists. TLoU2 doesn't even have that, and it comes off as a jumbled mess that actively undos the character development in the previous game.
If we are considering story I really liked deus ex: human revolution. I only got halfway through mankind divided before putting it on indefinite hold. Deus ex: hr or at least as far as my memory reminds it was really good for it's time. Stealth, lethal force, hacking and other many ways to handle a problem. A bunch of people with different personalities and dialog opens you get from your social augmentation. Some events you can magically make it through such as saving Maliks downed helicopter or fail by a timed gas bomb in a Sarif factory somewhere because you were busy reading emails and leveling up skills why they were waiting to fly you to the factory. I should really tap into that game at some point for another try at it. It's probably not the gonna beat the nostalgia but it was loved in its own way. I still say enemy behavior for exploring a sound is super predictable. You'd think the ai would check within a few meters of closed area if they can't find you. Some people also whined about boss fights and how they're built out of concrete or tough avionics I guess.
Gameplay wise human revolution only had 2 or 3 mistakes but the game is just to good to care.
Grimskul wrote: was at least relatively well-paced and made sense internally while making you give a damn about the protagonists. TLoU2 doesn't even have that, and it comes off as a jumbled mess that actively undos the character development in the previous game.
Well, apart from pacing issues (I hate long "walking simulator" sections) I disagree with all points and I guess I am not the only one. Recent Girlfriend Review of the game sums up my wife's and mine opinion nicely in almost all aspects actually : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pA4mFLyvU Abby fighting with a hammer against stalkers in a fire-lit forest? Amazing !!! (and one of the hardest moments in the game for us too, which made it even more tense )
Grimskul wrote: was at least relatively well-paced and made sense internally while making you give a damn about the protagonists. TLoU2 doesn't even have that, and it comes off as a jumbled mess that actively undos the character development in the previous game.
Well, apart from pacing issues (I hate long "walking simulator" sections) I disagree with all points and I guess I am not the only one. Recent Girlfriend Review of the game sums up my wife's and mine opinion nicely in almost all aspects actually : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pA4mFLyvU Abby fighting with a hammer against stalkers in a fire-lit forest? Amazing !!! (and one of the hardest moments in the game for us too, which made it even more tense )
I like how the review talks about integrity and corruption only associating it with direct monetary transaction, which are not the issue, but the goodies such companies offer, like beeing flown out aka free vacation, preview copies, etc. Which are off massive relevancy for those that work on youtube.
I also like the plotholes brought up, there's a thing suspension of disbelive i think, f.e the yoda exemple is well within the believeable in it's respective universe.
And to further demonstrate how favourable this review is one only needs to look at the fact that nothing critical was brought up in regards to Naughty dog beeing literally a sweatshop at this point with an verifed attrition rate of 70%.
And yes the sweatshop workers did well, it's their success that the game looks great. But it ignores completely the ilegal behaviour Sony / Muso and Naughty dog engaged in with wrong copyright claims especially against smaller youtubers.
So sorry, this game will only be Remembered as a PR nightmare and a shamefull display of narcism and exploitation.
So sorry, this game will only be Remembered as a PR nightmare and a shamefull display of narcism and exploitation.
How come me and my wife had exactly the same thoughts after playing the game ? Where are OUR flights and perks from Naughty Dog? Sorry, I don't buy this conspiracy theory.
But anyway, we'll see if it is going to be remebered as you're picturing it or maybe the opposite.
Oh wait, if it is going to be opposite then all those people are going to be sell-outs with no own opinion. I get it. Such a fail-safe formula.
So sorry, this game will only be Remembered as a PR nightmare and a shamefull display of narcism and exploitation.
How come me and my wife had exactly the same thoughts after playing the game ? Where are OUR flights and perks from Naughty Dog? Sorry, I don't buy this conspiracy theory.
But anyway, we'll see if it is going to be remebered as you're picturing it or maybe the opposite.
Oh wait, if it is going to be opposite then all those people are going to be sell-outs with no own opinion. I get it. Such a fail-safe formula.
yeah, sure, let0s ignore what Schreier, one of the few decent gaming journalist doing investigations has told us about naughty dog.
Let's ignore the Attacks from druckman and consorts against him when he dared making fun of a "Gaming journalists" comparing the excuse of a story with Shinlders list.
Lets also ignore the Phonecalls of soney torwards those few outlets and independants that were more critical.
Or the Attacks against the lievelyhoods of people.
Oh, and on the flights part: do you know how the youtube game works for reviews and how important preview access is?
Hmm, wait, so are we discussing how weak the narrative/gameplay is or how ND is treating its employees/reviewers now? Moving the goalposts much ?
I don't know how ND treats employees, if they indeed grind them down without mercy it is obviously despicable. But it does not affect whether the game itself is good or not in any way. And it has no influence on the way I felt experiencing it and doesn't invalidate those feelings.
Cyel wrote: Hmm, wait, so are we discussing how weak the narrative/gameplay is or how ND is treating its employees/reviewers now? Moving the goalposts much ?
I don't know how ND treats employees, if they indeed grind them down without mercy it is obviously despicable. But it does not affect whether the game itself is good or not in any way. And it has no influence on the way I felt experiencing it and doesn't invalidate those feelings.
So, basically ignore all things sourunding a product, so long the product is good?
The game is bad, for a story driven game, out of a story perspective, there is suspension of disbelief and there is plotholes so big that you don't wake into reality but rather hit your head in reality at a tableedge.
Also, it isn't even that great, most mechanics are outdated, heck the infamous jumpbutton....
"The game is bad" ? Well, I just disagree. For me it was a good game, cool, dark story, compelling characters and emotional moments. Want to invalidate my feelings with your authoritative stance "the game is bad!" ? Sorry, you don't have such power.
Plotholes? Games have those, after all in games the story serves gameplay, it's nothing unusual. For me they didn't cheapen the experience. They rarely do as I know this medium needs simplification to work (I don't mull over the reasons daemons invaded Mars or why Geralt keeps hiding his torch in his back pocket or how elderly Sully can keep up with Nate on his expert climbing adventures or how Shepard can die and conveniently still be alive in the sequel etc ... etc... don't even get me started on Japanese games and their nonsensical story-building! )
Plotholes, plotholes everywhere and suposedly worthy of Schindlers list, nuff said.
Holding the game accountable for what some zealous idiot said on the internet is hardly fair.
Considering the writer / director in one person came in and literally went after Schreier, yes, i can hold the writing of the game acountable no?
Not really. Death of the Author.
The text stands alone, independent of the actions of the author beyond the text. If you are going to criticise the text you have to criticise the text itself.
Then i have to state that the writing an lackluster revenge plot. Which got rather inexplicable high ratings for a cheaply manipualtive story, that quite literally for half the charachters in it doesn't apply it's aimed moral at for reasons unknown.
Well and at that it would stand, if it weren't for the writer viciously attacking randomly people sharing a negative opinion.
Cyel wrote: how Shepard can die and conveniently still be alive in the sequel etc ... etc... don't even get me started on Japanese games and their nonsensical story-building! )
Did you play ME2? They clearly explained how Shepard is alive again and in a universe with the Geth pylons reanimating Husks, it's consistent in universe.
Cyel wrote: how Shepard can die and conveniently still be alive in the sequel etc ... etc... don't even get me started on Japanese games and their nonsensical story-building! )
Did you play ME2? They clearly explained how Shepard is alive again and in a universe with the Geth pylons reanimating Husks, it's consistent in universe.
The *are* plot holes in ME2, but that isn't one.
I did, it was actually the first of the three for me, as ME1 wasn't available on PS3 for a long time. Having the character die and be reincarnated felt Deus Ex Machina for me then, and most of all, quite unnecessary (the change of allegiance could have been explained in a less far-fetched way IMO)
Didn't bother me in the long run anyway and I loved ME trilogy I don't mull over such things in games. Deamons invading Mars? Let's kick their asses! Bad guys killed daddy? Let's kick their asses! Other bad guys killed another daddy...but we're these bad guys now? Whoa....[mind blown for a minute] ....let's kick our own asses!
Grimskul wrote: was at least relatively well-paced and made sense internally while making you give a damn about the protagonists. TLoU2 doesn't even have that, and it comes off as a jumbled mess that actively undos the character development in the previous game.
Well, apart from pacing issues (I hate long "walking simulator" sections) I disagree with all points and I guess I am not the only one. Recent Girlfriend Review of the game sums up my wife's and mine opinion nicely in almost all aspects actually : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pA4mFLyvU Abby fighting with a hammer against stalkers in a fire-lit forest? Amazing !!! (and one of the hardest moments in the game for us too, which made it even more tense )
Hey, you're entitled to whatever opinion you want regarding the game, but that just means your standards for game titles are lower than most given how hard you seem to be defending the game despite it being sub-par at best. It's like if someone enjoys McDonalds, it's fine to enjoy it as a guilty pleasure, but if you go into people's faces demanding to see it as the pinnacle of culinary experience and disregarding it's unhealthiness, don't be surprised if people disagree.
Grimskul wrote: was at least relatively well-paced and made sense internally while making you give a damn about the protagonists. TLoU2 doesn't even have that, and it comes off as a jumbled mess that actively undos the character development in the previous game.
Well, apart from pacing issues (I hate long "walking simulator" sections) I disagree with all points and I guess I am not the only one. Recent Girlfriend Review of the game sums up my wife's and mine opinion nicely in almost all aspects actually : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pA4mFLyvU Abby fighting with a hammer against stalkers in a fire-lit forest? Amazing !!! (and one of the hardest moments in the game for us too, which made it even more tense )
Hey, you're entitled to whatever opinion you want regarding the game, but that just means your standards for game titles are lower than most given how hard you seem to be defending the game despite it being sub-par at best. It's like if someone enjoys McDonalds, it's fine to enjoy it as a guilty pleasure, but if you go into people's faces demanding to see it as the pinnacle of culinary experience and disregarding it's unhealthiness, don't be surprised if people disagree.
If simple disagreement is "shoving it in people's faces" I'd suggest it's the folks who are being hypersensitive to other people's positive opinions that have the problem here.
Grimskul wrote: was at least relatively well-paced and made sense internally while making you give a damn about the protagonists. TLoU2 doesn't even have that, and it comes off as a jumbled mess that actively undos the character development in the previous game.
Well, apart from pacing issues (I hate long "walking simulator" sections) I disagree with all points and I guess I am not the only one. Recent Girlfriend Review of the game sums up my wife's and mine opinion nicely in almost all aspects actually : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pA4mFLyvU Abby fighting with a hammer against stalkers in a fire-lit forest? Amazing !!! (and one of the hardest moments in the game for us too, which made it even more tense )
Hey, you're entitled to whatever opinion you want regarding the game, but that just means your standards for game titles are lower than most given how hard you seem to be defending the game despite it being sub-par at best. It's like if someone enjoys McDonalds, it's fine to enjoy it as a guilty pleasure, but if you go into people's faces demanding to see it as the pinnacle of culinary experience and disregarding it's unhealthiness, don't be surprised if people disagree.
If simple disagreement is "shoving it in people's faces" I'd suggest it's the folks who are being hypersensitive to other people's positive opinions that have the problem here.
I'd say it's a little more than simple disagreement if the poster in question replies several times on this page alone defending it.
Hey, you're entitled to whatever opinion you want regarding the game, but that just means your standards for game titles are lower than most given how hard you seem to be defending the game despite it being sub-par at best. It's like if someone enjoys McDonalds, it's fine to enjoy it as a guilty pleasure, but if you go into people's faces demanding to see it as the pinnacle of culinary experience and disregarding it's unhealthiness, don't be surprised if people disagree.
Hey, I can do this too! You're entitled to whatever opinion but if you didn't like the game it just means you need to grow up and learn to accept art as it is instead of throwing a childish tantrum because the story and characters aren't exactly as you have been imagining them.
Convincing, isn't it ? Quality discussion.
I wonder which games are examples of top-notch standards for people who think TLOU2 is a weak game. Maybe I have played some of them and can see why TLOU2 pales in comparison.
Also on a side note - maybe some of the critics should try playing on a higher difficulty to make the game more engaging? On what difficulty did you beat the game? We played on Hard but later I read a lot of opinions that actually Survivor should be the one for the best experience - with improved AI awareness and tactics, no "listen mode", fewer items.
It's hard to evoke emotional response and tension if the game doesn't put characters in danger and challenges are too easy to overcome. I had such a problem with, for instance, Outlast, which was scary and gripping until the moment when I learned how to abuse the enemy AI. When it became easy, the game also became less emotionally engaging. I didn't even finish it as a result and don't rate it too highly. Maybe that was what made you indifferent in your TLOU2 playthrough.
In case of TLOU there's also and added advantage of scavenging (a weak part of the game) becoming less boring and tedious - when you find things on a higher difficulty you actually feel good, because you really need them to survive, instead of wasting time on finding useless things you have too much of already.
Well, your comparison isn't quite on point since you're relying on ad hominems rather than an established norm or expectation regarding what sub-standard vs quality is. If you want it in video game terms, you have cream of the crop stuff like Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild or Persona 5, and then you have terribad games like Aliens: Colonial Marines and borderline broken games like Ride to Hell: Retribution. There's plenty of stuff in between, and TLOU2 counts as one of them. Personally, I'd give it a 5-6/10, what I'm mainly fighting is people treating it as it being much better than it really is given how much farther it falls from its predecessor.
Furthermore, I feel like you're shifting the goal posts a bit, I don't know whose criticisms you've been focusing on so far, but pretty much everyone agrees the game itself looks gorgeous and plays fairly well (if not innovative). That's not the area of contention. Difficulty or not, the narrative pacing and the way its story is told (i.e. primarily with the cutscenes, the area where we as the player have no agency) is flawed from the get go and fighting harder to survive doesn't change the overall narrative plot holes or flaws. The problem is that the game tries so hard to manipulate the player into feeling certain emotions that even the gameplay feels cheapened with how blatant it is (forcing you to kill Abby's dog after making you play fetch with him). I probably would have felt some sympathy, if it wasn't for the fact that I had already killed like 20 dogs already before him, since you basically get conditioned by the gameplay to treat dogs as the first threats to get rid of since they sniff you out. So ironically, the gameplay you claim to make yourself more immersed into the story actually undermines the narrative elements in the game. Revenge and violence is bad! But you then proceed to murder several dozens people in cold blood, and as a game, you're rewarded for doing so in several ways which makes it seem really weird that you can kill a bunch of people tangentially tied to the person who made you go on the murder-revenge trip, but choose not to kill the main culprit and provide at least some emotional catharsis for the player/Ellie because random flashback.
I'm pretty sure most people who watched John Wick wouldn't be happy if he spared the Russian mobster's son at the end because he had a flashback of his wife eating waffles before choosing not to shoot him.
Lol, no. Name me a 100% objective human being capable of reading a book without inherent biases, and I'll call you a liar, because not only does no such person exist, no such person CAN exist.
Lol, no. Name me a 100% objective human being capable of reading a book without inherent biases, and I'll call you a liar, because not only does no such person exist, no such person CAN exist.
Lol, no. Name me a 100% objective human being capable of reading a book without inherent biases, and I'll call you a liar, because not only does no such person exist, no such person CAN exist.
That doesn't invalidate the text speaking for itself, independent of the views of the author. You just described how the reader's views and ideologies affect their interpretation of a work. That is a completely different thing.
As for naming a human who can read a book without inherent biases? That is not what is required when you talk about death of the author. What is required is an interpretation of the work which does not reference the views of the author which are not present in the book.
An example of such a reader would be anyone unaware of the political views of the author. Do you think most people who read Ender's Game are aware of the fact that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, for example?
Lol, no. Name me a 100% objective human being capable of reading a book without inherent biases, and I'll call you a liar, because not only does no such person exist, no such person CAN exist.
That doesn't invalidate the text speaking for itself, independent of the views of the author. You just described how the reader's views and ideologies affect their interpretation of a work. That is a completely different thing.
As for naming a human who can read a book without inherent biases? That is not what is required when you talk about death of the author. What is required is an interpretation of the work which does not reference the views of the author which are not present in the book.
An example of such a reader would be anyone unaware of the political views of the author. Do you think most people who read Ender's Game are aware of the fact that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, for example?
Hell, do people even realize that he is a Mormon? Surely that's colored the books a bit?
All this talk of Death of the Author reminds me of a story I once read.
There was a lecture being given about Fahrenheit 451 by a guest lecturer. The lecturer began to explain the theme of the book, that being the dangers of television.
A student shouted out of turn, screeching "No, it's about censorship!". The lecturer gently tried to, once again, explain that it wasn't, but the student wasn't having any of it.
The lecturers name? Ray Bradbury, the guy who wrote the damn book in the first place!
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk of Death of the Author reminds me of a story I once read.
There was a lecture being given about Fahrenheit 451 by a guest lecturer. The lecturer began to explain the theme of the book, that being the dangers of television.
A student shouted out of turn, screeching "No, it's about censorship!". The lecturer gently tried to, once again, explain that it wasn't, but the student wasn't having any of it.
The lecturers name? Ray Bradbury, the guy who wrote the damn book in the first place!
BaconCatBug wrote: All this talk of Death of the Author reminds me of a story I once read.
There was a lecture being given about Fahrenheit 451 by a guest lecturer. The lecturer began to explain the theme of the book, that being the dangers of television.
A student shouted out of turn, screeching "No, it's about censorship!". The lecturer gently tried to, once again, explain that it wasn't, but the student wasn't having any of it.
The lecturers name? Ray Bradbury, the guy who wrote the damn book in the first place!
but goes to exemplify that as soon as the author decides to comment , death off author goes out of the window.
Not really. If that student is able to point out themes and passages within the text to justify their interpretation then theirs is equally as valid as that of the authors.
Bradbury may have intended the book to be a critique of the dangers of television but that does not mean it didn't also end up being a critique of censorship.
Also I cannot help but notice that you changed "loudly exclaiming" to "screeching", where the latter has a definite negative connotation associated with it. Also, it wasn't just one student who had that interpretation and Bradbury stormed out of the lecture.
True, however , take lovecraft, understaning him as author also makes understaning some of the Thema alot more easy, it's the mindset that counts and for that we should not Discount what we know about an author.
I baffled by the desire to treat the concept of death of the author as an absolute here, in either direction.
The idea behind death of the author in modern literary criticism is that a creator's interpretation of a work is not the only valid one, not that their interpretation doesn't matter (and frankly, even Roland Barthes didn't go that far in his original conception of the idea).
An audience will define the meaning of a work for themselves and that meaning can, and often will, include elements the author did not intend and might even disagree with. Art is dialogue with extra steps. Neither the author, nor the audience, is the sole dictator of meaning.
Melissia wrote: Lol, no. Name me a 100% objective human being capable of reading a book without inherent biases, and I'll call you a liar, because not only does no such person exist, no such person CAN exist.
I can. =)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can I just say I am so glad that this game not only sold better than candy in a kindergarten, but that so many of the first game's fanbase seem to hate it so much.
Because the first game was mediocrity touted as the apex of video games, and now that the sequel is just as mediocre but in a way they don't like they're losing their minds, while most of the masses don't give a gak.
Wasn't that mostly due to marketing (there was that trailer that had Joel talking with Ellie. Didn't happen in the game, Joel's lines went to some other guy) and love for the first game?
Didn't sales quickly fall off and Sony had to stop returns because there were just so many refunds coming in? I don't think its that much of a success story.
I'm not really much into gaming anymore outside of a few titles that peak my interest but listening to all the nonsense and hyperbole was annoying as hell.
The first one Sold Double that in a smaller (at the time) Market within the first Month...
In three weeks TLOU sold over 3.4 million units.
In one weekend TLOU2 sold over four million units. =)
Really? I read TLOU2 sold 2.8 million in its first month, which apparently is still a record, mind you.
Well, at least until Ghost of Tsushima got released. The record then went to it.
The first one Sold Double that in a smaller (at the time) Market within the first Month...
In three weeks TLOU sold over 3.4 million units.
In one weekend TLOU2 sold over four million units. =)
Really? I read TLOU2 sold 2.8 million in its first month, which apparently is still a record, mind you.
Well, at least until Ghost of Tsushima got released. The record then went to it.
went by simple google search:
Sony stated that the last of us 2 sold until june 21 4 million.
screwed up a bit, TLOU sold within the first week 1.3 million copies.
The first one Sold Double that in a smaller (at the time) Market within the first Month...
In three weeks TLOU sold over 3.4 million units.
In one weekend TLOU2 sold over four million units. =)
Really? I read TLOU2 sold 2.8 million in its first month, which apparently is still a record, mind you. Well, at least until Ghost of Tsushima got released. The record then went to it.
went by simple google search:
Sony stated that the last of us 2 sold until june 21 4 million.
screwed up a bit, TLOU sold within the first week 1.3 million copies.
tsushima did in 3 days 2.4 million copies.
Yeah, I found the problem - they sold 2.8 million digital copies in June, but 4 million total, as in 1.2 physical copies. Ghost of Tsushima sold less, but for a new IP it did exceptionally well, that's what it broke the record for, it would seem.
I would hazard that as TLOU was a well received game, it would stand to reason that its sequel would have a good first month. It would seem that 2/3 of those digital sales were pre-orders, as in, before people actually played the game and gave feedback.
LunarSol wrote: [
That's really what's upsetting to me. There's just no discussion to be had. Yer either widdus or aggainus discussions only.
It's uncomfortable reading, all right. I really don't get why it matters how well the game did or didn't objectively sell (or what "most gamers" think, or whatever). Because it will prove someone right in their opinion (which, appeals to popularity or snobbery aside, is as subjective and unprovable as mine is) that it was good or bad? I don't see what I can really gain from this over telling someone their opinion is baseless. A statement which they'll either ignore or at "best", will persuade someone that they didn't actually have fun when they thought they were.
There just seems (and not just here or on this topic) to be not just disagreement, but utter incomprehension about how someone could have a different opinion on even such a relatively trivial subject.
That was my observation from this discussion as well. I presented my positive impressions and was attacked by others who apparently wanted to invalidate it (with "objective" statements like "this game is bad" or "you have low expectations from games"). But you can't really invalidate someone's impression or emotions felt during the game (or whatever else) Just like opinions "vanilla ice cream tastes better" and "chocolate ice cream tastes better" do not invalidate each other despite being contrary to each other.
My guess is, bo by doing that they in fact wanted to validate their opinions. It's a pretty common cognitive problem - our brains don't deal well with the feeling of being wrong or existance of people who think differently.
Also don't forget that many of those strong opinions come from people who didn't beat the game or even didn't play it at all.
And a collectors card.
For a video game, that is )
I don't mull over such things in games. Deamons invading Mars? Let's kick their asses! Bad guys killed daddy? Let's kick their asses! Other bad guys killed another daddy...but we're these bad guys now? Whoa....[mind blown for a minute] ....let's kick our own asses! 
