Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/20 15:52:52
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.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/06/21 18:26:36
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/21 18:33:08
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?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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.
How is it poor dramatic structure?
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/22 02:01:04
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/22 03:20:10
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
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.
That's pretty fair, honestly.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/22 07:41:06
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.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
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!"
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/23 14:41:17
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 23:29:42
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.
And a collectors card.
Eldar- 4436 pts
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
