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 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.
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 ? "
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/07/02 00:31:03
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.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
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.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 02:43:59
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.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
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.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
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 prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
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....
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/07 22:04:03
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/09 14:41:11
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/11 19:26:29
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
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
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.
Eldar- 4436 pts
