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.

Isn't really a controversial one H.B.M.C.

Quite a lot have suggested along that line.

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.

To be honest, I consider it great at storytelling. Emotional, cool characters, unpredictable twists.

I love the Witcher3 or Mass Effect, but if I started to pick on all the little loopholes and inconsistences, oh boy!

 Melissia wrote:

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.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

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 )

Cyel wrote:

 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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

Cyel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

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 ?

Plotholes, plotholes everywhere and suposedly worthy of Schindlers list, nuff said. That the rest of the game is good is solely on the backs of animators and programmers beeing worked half to death, in some cases quite literally.
https://kotaku.com/as-naughty-dog-crunches-on-the-last-of-us-ii-developer-1842289962

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! )

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

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 Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

The *are* plot holes in ME2, but that isn't one.

Kayback wrote:

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!

Lol yeah. It may be Deus Ex Machina but like I said it is consistent with the in universe lore.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The text stands alone, independent of the actions of the author beyond the text.

Unfortunately, "death of the author" is an unrealistic position to take when the author is politically active.

Cyel wrote:

 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:

Cyel wrote:

 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.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 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.

 Grimskul wrote:

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The text stands alone, independent of the actions of the author beyond the text.

Unfortunately, "death of the author" is an unrealistic position to take when the author is politically active.

Why? Doesn't the text speak for itself? If it's 'political text' then it should be obvious. If not, then not.

Backfire wrote:
Doesn't the text speak for itself?

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.