Support NeoGAF

[Dr. Claus]

LOL, it's not hate, it's criticism. The only hate in those threads is you not being able to cope with the fact that some people didn't like it, didn't enjoy it and didn't think it worked. Collectively you've demonstrated time and time again that you possess zero ability to accept that, and instead have refused to even countenance their opinions to the detriment of reason to the point where no one takes you or your fanatical friends remotely seriously. You blew you forum credibility for Neil Druckmann.

You're probably going to win the Jury award tomorrow at a guess in the absence of a strong field, so be happy with that.

He is D(ruckmann)Force after all.

 

[Stooky]

TLOU2 fans are incapable of reading.



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

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

Whatever, in theTLOU2 gaf thread you couldn't go 3 post without seeing a anti swj, tlou2 is trash, abby is a man comment. Both sides are trash.

 

[sainraja]

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

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

All of that falls flat on its face when according to the game you are only supposed to feel that way for the characters they want you to feel that way about and really, what I am asking for is, balance. I feel the human NPC encounters were a lot more than the infected encounters. Let me put it another way, I would have appreciated the game more if on our journey [we faced the infected more.]

What are you talking about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its just No Mas.

Just because it takes place in Seattle does not mean it needs to be a warzone between two different "branded" groups. They could have told the same story without changing what it is (a game, the fact you love repeating). The warring factions added NOTHING and when Ellie and or Abby killed people in their encounters, they showed no emotion, those killings did not affect them at all. Naughtydog has done that very thing in their previous games, shown emotion during gameplay so there really isn't any excuse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its just pedantry.

Using Nathan Drake's example really isn't going to work as a lot of the situations he faces can be easily explained or ignored due to the circumstances he finds himself in. He's going after treasure and the people he ends up killing are actually trying to KILL him, they are not just in his way; most of the time they are looking for him, since they've shown Drake to be one or two steps ahead of his adversaries. I've argued this point before and I don't feel like doing so here. The thing is, naughtydog could have told this same story in a much better way and they DID not do it.

 

[DForce]

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

If you guys hate it, then you don't need to let people know and then explain why every single time someone talks about the game.

Naughty Dog can't post a tweet without someone whining. Haters are getting too emotional and they just need to let go.

 

[oagboghi2]

Whatever, in theTLOU2 gaf thread you couldn't go 3 post without seeing a anti swj, tlou2 is trash, abby is a man comment. Both sides are trash.

Abby isn't a man?

Spoiler

this is called a joke.

If you guys hate it, then you don't need to let people know and then explain why every single time someone talks about the game.



Naughty Dog can't post a tweet without someone whining. Haters are getting too emotional and they just need to let go.

You people made this thread literally asking about our opinion on this game. Specifically people who don't like the game.



I mean, come on

I must admit, I do enjoy watching you people just struggle to deal with the fact that a lot of people dislike this game. You guys take every joke and snipe at it so personally.

 

[DForce]

You peoplemade a this thread literally asking about our opinion on this game. Specifically people who don't like the game.



I mean, come on

I must admit, I do enjoy watching you people just struggle to deal with the fact that a lot of people dislike this game. You guys take every joke and snipe at it so personally.

This is the thread where we're discussing the hatred for TLOU Part II, so I'm clearing talking about threads that were created NOT created to talk about the hatred for TLOU part II.

 

[THEAP99]

I am so glad this game won goty. Love or hate the story, I am glad they did it.

It's not the story many wanted but it's the story we needed. No game ever made me feel the way tlou2 did. For reference, astro bot made me fill like I was at an amusement park. Meanwhile, tlou2 felt like I attended a funeral.

Since TLOU2 took risks and was an insane sequel, I hope this influences other developers to get creative and think outside of the box set by their past games. It'll be better for all gamers.

 

[drganon]

I just dont like naughty dog games. The way it feels to control the character on screen, the combat, platforming, etc, never felt good to me. That's besides their vastly overrated storytelling.

 

[EruditeHobo]

All of that falls flat on its face when according to the game you are only supposed to feel that way for the characters they want you to feel that way about and really, what I am asking for is, balance. I feel the human NPC encounters were a lot more than the infected encounters. Let me put it another way, I would have appreciated the game more if on our journey

I have no idea what this means... you aren't only supposed to feel that way about certain characters. The whole idea is people are all affected differently by living this way, all the characters present in the story run the gamut in terms of their reaction to violence and the toll this has taken on them.

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I'm just saying this seems really clearly to be on purpose on the part of the dev and game director. You wanted a more "balanced" game in some ways, I'm not sure how or why or what purpose that serves, but they made the game they made. Whether it's "for" you or not is a whole other thing apart from how "good" it is.

It looks like your last clarifying thought got cut off here -- you'd appreciate if on the journey, what?

The warring factions added NOTHING and when Ellie and or Abby killed people in their encounters, they showed no emotion, those killings did not affect them at all.

Could not disagree more... this is the kind of statement I think of as objectively, 100% wrong, but it's a waste of time to engage with it. Because me going through and cataloguing the ways in which the characters are impacted by the violence is a huge task that isn't worth my time because the fact is this isn't about something factual, this isn't about a "number" of instances in which the game shows what the characters are going through. This is a statement about how you feel about what's in the game, not about what's actually in the game, and in that way it's something that cannot be argued against.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I have no idea what this means... you aren't only supposed to feel that way about certain characters. The whole idea is people are all affected differently by living this way, all the characters present in the story run the gamut in terms of their reaction to violence and the toll this has taken on them.

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I'm just saying this seems really clearly to be on purpose on the part of the dev and game director. You wanted a more "balanced" game in some ways, I'm not sure how or why or what purpose that serves, but they made the game they made. Whether it's "for" you or not is a whole other thing apart from how "good" it is.

It looks like your last clarifying thought got cut off here -- you'd appreciate if on the journey, what?




Could not disagree more... this is the kind of statement I think of as objectively, 100% wrong, but it's a waste of time to engage with it. Because me going through and cataloguing the ways in which the characters are impacted by the violence is a huge task that isn't worth my time because the fact is this isn't about something factual, this isn't about a "number" of instances in which the game shows what the characters are going through. This is a statement about how you feel about what's in the game, not about what's actually in the game, and in that way it's something that cannot be argued against.

Translation; “You are wrong and in so many ways but I won’t state how or why because you are wrong.”

If you guys hate it, then you don't need to let people know and then explain why every single time someone talks about the game.

Naughty Dog can't post a tweet without someone whining. Haters are getting too emotional and they just need to let go.

You go into literally any thread that has a tangential connection to tlou2 or even no connection to bitch about the haters and cry about how nobody understands what a masterpiece this game is. Take your own advice.

 

[prinz_valium]

Because it's that kind of game, that is overused and overdone to death.
I can't stand that Sony AAA third person action adventure playbook anymore, unless it's at least somewhat unique like GoT

 

[DForce]

You go into literally any thread that has a tangential connection to tlou2 or even no connection to bitch about the haters and cry about how nobody understands what a masterpiece this game is. Take your own advice.

You mean most threads are either designed to post hate about TLOU 2 or threads that are about TLOU 2 and haters just talk in?

 

[Ktotheroc]

If you guys hate it, then you don't need to let people know and then explain why every single time someone talks about the game.

Naughty Dog can't post a tweet without someone whining. Haters are getting too emotional and they just need to let go.

Go cry to those people on Twitter then. I don't even know who those people are. It sounds more like the shitty mechanics of that broken down website. What does that have to do with us in this thread?

I don't even hate the game, just thought the story was trash. Been thumbs upping anybody who either said they enjoyed it or don't care how others feel the entire thread. Personal enjoyment is cool and I respect it. Shared my piece on plot points that are dumb, and spoke reasonably with facts from the game that are given. From the OP onward, you and other fanboys brigade this thread, because you're insecure that people don't see it as a masterpiece. It's similar to that Dunkey video someone posted, but instead of "What about retarded comment with one like?", you're doing, "What about retards from Twitter?"

The thread is about why people don't like it, minus OP's garbage OP generalizing statements, and it's easy to see who the fanboys are, because they brigade the thread to say "oh, it's this reason they don't like it". Speak for yourself. If you love the game so much and you're not answering questions or clarifying stuff, why are you still itt?

 

[DForce]

Go cry to those people on Twitter then. I don't even know who those people are. It sounds more like the shitty mechanics of that broken down website. What does that have to do with us in this thread?

I don't even hate the game, just thought the story was trash. Been thumbs upping anybody who either said they enjoyed it or don't care how others feel the entire thread. Personal enjoyment is cool and I respect it. Shared my piece on plot points that are dumb, and spoke reasonably with facts from the game that are given. From the OP onward, you and other fanboys brigade this thread, because you're insecure that people don't see it as a masterpiece. It's similar to that Dunkey video someone posted, but instead of "What about retarded comment with one like?", you're doing, "What about retards from Twitter?"

The thread is about why people don't like it, minus OP's garbage OP generalizing statements, and it's easy to see who the fanboys are, because they brigade the thread to say "oh, it's this reason they don't like it". Speak for yourself. If you love the game so much and you're not answering questions or clarifying stuff, why are you still itt?

Try reading.

He said

if TLOU2 fans stopped acting as if they are being persecuted when some people dislike their favorite game.

Your reply

I don't even know who those people are. It sounds more like the shitty mechanics of that broken down website. What does that have to do with us in this thread?

Here's some help.

He made the claim that TLOU fans are acting like they're being persecuted when I pointed out the fact that ND cannot tweet anything without haters expressing their frustration towards ND or love the game.



Look.

Don't pretend to be innocent. Haters are far more vocal than the TLOU fans. You're in multiple TLOU 2 threads for a reason, and that's because you hate the game. Oh yes, I'm well aware that you told me you don't "hate" the game.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

I never played TLoU2, but I always hated it because I saw it as a means of promoting SJW ideals. This is because I see the characters as plain (Ellie), unattractive (Abby) and weird (the bald chick who thinks she's a boy).
Games that have these types of characters, are less likely to have the ones I like.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Translation; “You are wrong and in so many ways but I won’t state how or why because you are wrong.”

We did this in the thread when the game came out, and stating "how or why" never convinced anyone. The "how and why" didn't matter, because we're really mostly talking about how people react to the how and why. This is why "agree to disagree" exists.

 

[Clear]

Just because it takes place in Seattle does not mean it needs to be a warzone between two different "branded" groups. They could have told the same story without changing what it is (a game, the fact you love repeating). The warring factions added NOTHING and when Ellie and or Abby killed people in their encounters, they showed no emotion, those killings did not affect them at all. Naughtydog has done that very thing in their previous games, shown emotion during gameplay so there really isn't any excuse.

Of course it doesn't have to be anything, its a work of fiction after all.

Are we debating what exists, or an alternative that only exists in your imagination? Because if the latter is true, please lay it out in detail so I can critique it in order to compare its merits versus what we actually got. Be warned though, based on your argument I'd expect it to, as you demand, actually add something to our understanding of the world, its characters, and humanity in general, as well as offering a fresh gameplay experience - not a rehash of TLOU1.

Using Nathan Drake's example really isn't going to work as a lot of the situations he faces can be easily explained or ignored due to the circumstances he finds himself in. He's going after treasure and the people he ends up killing are actually trying to KILL him

The way ND setup the story/world in the sequel this is exactly, EXACTLY, what they do! The only difference here is that the "treasure" in this case is Abby (for Ellie), and Lev (for Abby).

 

[lock2k]

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

The good ol' shield from criticism. lmao

 

[sainraja]

Of course it doesn't have to be anything, its a work of fiction after all.

Are we debating what exists, or an alternative that only exists in your imagination? Because if the latter is true, please lay it out in detail so I can critique it in order to compare its merits versus what we actually got. Be warned though, based on your argument I'd expect it to, as you demand, actually add something to our understanding of the world, its characters, and humanity in general, as well as offering a fresh gameplay experience - not a rehash of TLOU1.

I actually already suggested a possible alternative to how they could have done it without changing anything substantially which is what I have been getting at - TLOU: P2 is missing balance. Funny thing is, you even responded to it and you pretty much used your "it's a game" response. lol

The way ND setup the story/world in the sequel this is exactly, EXACTLY, what they do! The only difference here is that the "treasure" in this case is Abby (for Ellie), and Lev (for Abby).

I don't think they achieved the same thing with TLOU: P2. All they had to do was get rid of the warring factions and made majority of the encounters with the infected with a couple rogue groups thrown into the mix. Then, everything would be balanced. We didn't need to be killing an army of people without that affecting the characters but all of a sudden Ellie kills Mel/Owen and we are suppose to care or believe that Ellie is actually distraught by that?

 

[Kadayi]

Imagine in the year of George Floyd championing a game wherein one of the pivotal scenes is you beating a POC to death with a pipe. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Clear]

I actually already suggested a possible alternative to how they could have done it without changing anything substantially which is what I have been getting at - TLOU: P2 is missing balance. Funny thing is, you even responded to it and you pretty much used your "it's a game" response. lol

You misinterpreted my point, which was simply that there needs to be action in an action game and most of the systems and mechanics in the design are keyed towards fighting/evading human enemies. Not to mention that humans and infected frequently are mixed in combat scenarios allowing the player to gain an advantage by forcing them into attacking each other. All these things need to be taught to the player, because just assuming that everyone is going to grasp every facet instantly is just bad game design.

I discarded your alternative because its just a rehash of the first game's stealth-heavy sections. It was a redundant suggestion that adds nothing.

I don't think they achieved the same thing with TLOU: P2. All they had to do was get rid of the warring factions and made majority of the encounters with the infected with a couple rogue groups thrown into the mix. Then, everything would be balanced. We didn't need to be killing an army of people without that affecting the characters but all of a sudden Ellie kills Mel/Owen and we are suppose to care or believe that Ellie is actually distraught by that?

But why do you think that when objectively it is the same?

You just seem hung up on the warring factions idea as bad idea for undisclosed, unjustified reasons. Duality is a consistent thread in the games fiction, its a far better match for the split narrative thread than anything you have offered.

Your understanding of psychology is, I must say, extremely lacking. Ellie's breakdown happens in clearly telegraphed stages as it becomes evident that there's more to her quest than just fighting. First we find the aftermath of Tommy's interrogation of the WLF members, people who are wholly innocent of any wrongdoing against the Jacksonites. Then Ellie employs the same techniques personally against Nora (who antagonizes her), and despite getting that info only actually succeeds in killing 2 people one of whom is heavily pregnant and the other being the one who interceded to save her life back at the beginning.

That's a far more persuasive "Are we the baddies?" moment than just mowing down waves of largely interchangable armed goons, because its built-up towards so the moment is earned.

Give them the credit they deserve, this is all very robustly thought-out and constructed.

 

[Monkeygourmet]

Still waiting on a PS5 patch

 

[StormCell]

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

It's not an either-or. Strength of writing and character development are necessary in making a character relatable, but who relates to the character will depend on the similarities an audience member can draw between themselves and the character. Surely you don't expect every movie to appeal to every viewer, do you?

Yeah, I would say that TLOU2 misread its audience. It has fans who love it, but there is an orphaned set of TLOU fans who weren't well served by the sequel. And I'd like to note that I thought I had read that Abby was transgender, and that is why I had said what I said earlier about it being LGBTQ. She has that unattractive sex scene that is just cringe no matter what she is. If she were trans and that had some inclusivity appeal, then I would chalk it up to being a LGBTQ story. I don't think the audience at large wants that scene, but for those who do there's the scene... stick it in some game or movie, it doesn't have to be targeted to me. I'm perfectly happy that movies and games are made for people other than myself.

 

[Kadayi]

This is the thread where we're discussing the hatred for TLOU Part II, so I'm clearing talking about threads that were created NOT created to talk about the hatred for TLOU part II.

LOL. The problem lies in that you're mentally incapable of comprehending that criticism doesn't necessarily qualify as hate. And no amount of you saying that repeatedly ad infinitum is going to change that simple truth.

 

[RoadHazard]

It's not an either-or. Strength of writing and character development are necessary in making a character relatable, but who relates to the character will depend on the similarities an audience member can draw between themselves and the character. Surely you don't expect every movie to appeal to every viewer, do you?

Yeah, I would say that TLOU2 misread its audience. It has fans who love it, but there is an orphaned set of TLOU fans who weren't well served by the sequel. And I'd like to note that I thought I had read that Abby was transgender, and that is why I had said what I said earlier about it being LGBTQ. She has that unattractive sex scene that is just cringe no matter what she is. If she were trans and that had some inclusivity appeal, then I would chalk it up to being a LGBTQ story. I don't think the audience at large wants that scene, but for those who do there's the scene... stick it in some game or movie, it doesn't have to be targeted to me. I'm perfectly happy that movies and games are made for people other than myself.

Abby is a regular straight cis woman. Just one with muscles, which is apparently very threatening to some guys.

There is a trans person in the story, but it's a very young person and there are no sexual or even romantic elements to that character at all.

 

[Dr. Claus]

We did this in the thread when the game came out, and stating "how or why" never convinced anyone. The "how and why" didn't matter, because we're really mostly talking about how people react to the how and why. This is why "agree to disagree" exists.

You literally are just coming up with excuses because you refuse to actually discuss. If you have all these reasons, go about explaining them. Don’t give some half assed reply of “well I could explain but I won’t so nyeh”.

You mean most threads are either designed to post hate about TLOU 2 or threads that are about TLOU 2 and haters just talk in?

This is all you ever do. When someone calls you out on our bullshit you deflect and project. You act in such a pathetic manner where anyone with criticism is a “hater” and should not speak in a tlou2 thread, despite the fact that they at least try to give discussions worth reading and not endless hand waving and ass kissing that you and your little fellows do.

Hell in the TGA threads you have numerous reply’s just repeating the same tired shit of “lol haters and their tears”. You are as bad as the worst of the critics of the game, if not more so.

 

[DForce]

This is all you ever do. When someone calls you out on our bullshit you deflect and project. You act in such a pathetic manner where anyone with criticism is a “hater” and should not speak in a tlou2 thread, despite the fact that they at least try to give discussions worth reading and not endless hand waving and ass kissing that you and your little fellows do.

You're doing what all haters do. When you fail to call me out, you just resort to whining like this.

Your replies offer nothing but excuses. Almost 6 months later, haters can't let go.

 

[Kadayi]

Your replies offer nothing but excuses. Almost 6 months later, haters can't let go.

The irony, given your 24/7 Stanning for a divisive game, despite a slew of constructive criticism here and elsewhere ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Dr. Claus]

You're doing what all haters do. When you fail to call me out, you just resort to whining like this.

Your replies offer nothing but excuses. Almost 6 months later, haters can't let go.

Thank you for further proving my point.

 

[Ktotheroc]

Abby is a regular straight cis woman. Just one with muscles, which is apparently very threatening to some guys.

There is a trans person in the story, but it's a very young person and there are no sexual or even romantic elements to that character at all.

Abby isn't regular in the slightest. She's not even realistic to the setting. Only Bass Armstrong, who uppercuts the shit out of Lev, and maybe one other person in the world are actually bigger than her in a post-apocalyptic setting. Her food intake, weight lifting/training, etc. makes zero sense for the setting it has to be in. Her body is also modeled after a female bodybuilder, and the whole scene is known for being on substances to reach that success. She wouldn't be all natty in this world if she wanted to be.

Also, Lev's entire premise around being trans involves a romantic relationship with an older gent they can't consent to, so that's a lie. The refusal is actually a crucial part of what causes the game to take place in a different area, if I remember correctly

It's not an either-or. Strength of writing and character development are necessary in making a character relatable, but who relates to the character will depend on the similarities an audience member can draw between themselves and the character. Surely you don't expect every movie to appeal to every viewer, do you?

Yeah, I would say that TLOU2 misread its audience. It has fans who love it, but there is an orphaned set of TLOU fans who weren't well served by the sequel. And I'd like to note that I thought I had read that Abby was transgender, and that is why I had said what I said earlier about it being LGBTQ. She has that unattractive sex scene that is just cringe no matter what she is. If she were trans and that had some inclusivity appeal, then I would chalk it up to being a LGBTQ story. I don't think the audience at large wants that scene, but for those who do there's the scene... stick it in some game or movie, it doesn't have to be targeted to me. I'm perfectly happy that movies and games are made for people other than myself.

It's definitely LGBTQ appealing, but done wrong. It even removes the supposed realism this game is based on by doing too much. How realistic is it that Owen can fuck Abby, who could be ANY gender or sex, without lubricant/foreplay/dry as hell, unlike any normal human? They should've just alluded to it and cut it off after a point, because it's awkward to see and think about.

 

[DForce]

Thank you for further proving my point.

You don't have a point.

But what you did was prove mine. Haters can't accept that people like this game, so they accuse the judges of rigging the competition. Haters are resorting to posting videos from months ago because they want to show everyone just how bad the game is, when its nothing more than someone else's opinion.

Haters just don't criticize the game. They criticize and tell everyone who disagrees with them that they're defending bad writing and being nothing more than a fanboy.

So yes, if you're no longer just criticizing the game, you're criticizing others for liking it.

 

[sainraja]

You misinterpreted my point, which was simply that there needs to be action in an action game and most of the systems and mechanics in the design are keyed towards fighting/evading human enemies. Not to mention that humans and infected frequently are mixed in combat scenarios allowing the player to gain an advantage by forcing them into attacking each other. All these things need to be taught to the player, because just assuming that everyone is going to grasp every facet instantly is just bad game design.

I discarded your alternative because its just a rehash of the first game's stealth-heavy sections. It was a redundant suggestion that adds nothing.



But why do you think that when objectively it is the same?

You just seem hung up on the warring factions idea as bad idea for undisclosed, unjustified reasons. Duality is a consistent thread in the games fiction, its a far better match for the split narrative thread than anything you have offered.

Your understanding of psychology is, I must say, extremely lacking. Ellie's breakdown happens in clearly telegraphed stages as it becomes evident that there's more to her quest than just fighting. First we find the aftermath of Tommy's interrogation of the WLF members, people who are wholly innocent of any wrongdoing against the Jacksonites. Then Ellie employs the same techniques personally against Nora (who antagonizes her), and despite getting that info only actually succeeds in killing 2 people one of whom is heavily pregnant and the other being the one who interceded to save her life back at the beginning.

That's a far more persuasive "Are we the baddies?" moment than just mowing down waves of largely interchangable armed goons, because its built-up towards so the moment is earned.

Give them the credit they deserve, this is all very robustly thought-out and constructed.

If they had focused more on the infected, we could have gotten a better variety of infected to face during those encounters, so no, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a rehash of the first game's stealth-heavy sections. Balance is KEY here. If the challenges Ellie faced in her journey in overcoming the infected and later running into Mel/Owen and killing them and being affected by that would have meant more to me, than the way they actually chose to do it. They could have told the same story and kept the same structure overall but switch up the encounters. This is what you don't seem to be understanding. And yes, I don't like the warring factions idea and I have explained why. It doesn't really belong or make sense in a world that is supposedly devastated by an infection; the infection is pretty much an after-thought in the second game which I also didn't like.

And if I have to be a psychology major to understand and appreciate what they have done, then I would argue they've failed.

 

[Clear]

If they had focused more on the infected, we could have gotten a better variety of infected to face during those encounters, so no, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a rehash of the first game's stealth-heavy sections. Balance is KEY here. If the challenges Ellie faced in her journey in overcoming the infected and later running into Mel/Owen and killing them and being affected by that would have meant more to me, than the way they actually chose to do it. They could have told the same story and kept the same structure overall but switch up the encounters. This is what you don't seem to be understanding. And yes, I don't like the warring factions idea and I have explained why. It doesn't really belong or make sense in a world that is supposedly devastated by an infection; the infection is pretty much an after-thought in the second game which I also didn't like.

And if I have to be a psychology major to understand and appreciate what they have done, then I would argue they've failed.

Look, your argument would hold more water if inter-factional conflict wasn't a major plot point in the first game. At the outset we are introduced to the Fireflies fighting a guerilla war against the authorities in the QZ. We see how this can devolve into anarchy in Pittsburgh, and we see a variety of smaller societies in Bill's town, Ishmael's sewer group, and David's cannibal clan. Based on this it seems reasonable to postulate that the smaller groups will inevitably collapse due to predation by infected and rival hunters/bandits, and that only the larger better organized ones will survive and thrive in much the way Jackson grows with the restoration of electric power.

The key thing is that the infected don't reproduce, they simply convert a percentage of humans they come into contact with. Their numbers and invasiveness will inevitably decline over time as the opportunity for is infection reduces and the survivors adapt to the new ecology. The balance of power is not going to remain in stasis, especially when the behavior of the infected never rises beyond basic animalism.

Then there's the issue in your scenario of how new infected are supposed to evolve over the course of 5 years more drastically than over the 20 year interval between outbreak day and the start of Ellie and Joel's journey. Also, how exactly are they going to evolve if not towards being more human and intelligent? Are they going to self socialize? Learn to communicate? Prey selectively on humans? Start to use tools and weapons? How far are you going to go before they become different looking versions of the human enemies making your variety argument moot?

You aren't thinking this through.

 

[oagboghi2]

Try reading.

He said




Your reply



Here's some help.

He made the claim that TLOU fans are acting like they're being persecuted when I pointed out the fact that ND cannot tweet anything without haters expressing their frustration towards ND or love the game.



Look.

Don't pretend to be innocent. Haters are far more vocal than the TLOU fans. You're in multiple TLOU 2 threads for a reason, and that's because you hate the game. Oh yes, I'm well aware that you told me you don't "hate" the game.

Yes, TLOU2 fans, you in particular in this thread, are always crying about their supposed “haters”.

why should I care if naughty dog gets laughed at on twitter?
”Oh someone isn’t kissing ND ass, oh no”

This is all you ever do. When someone calls you out on our bullshit you deflect and project. You act in such a pathetic manner where anyone with criticism is a “hater” and should not speak in a tlou2 thread, despite the fact that they at least try to give discussions worth reading and not endless hand waving and ass kissing that you and your little fellows do.

Hell in the TGA threads you have numerous reply’s just repeating the same tired shit of “lol haters and their tears”. You are as bad as the worst of the critics of the game, if not more so.

Not surprised at all

TLOU2 fans are the worst

 

[sainraja]

Look, your argument would hold more water if inter-factional conflict wasn't a major plot point in the first game. At the outset we are introduced to the Fireflies fighting a guerilla war against the authorities in the QZ. We see how this can devolve into anarchy in Pittsburgh, and we see a variety of smaller societies in Bill's town, Ishmael's sewer group, and David's cannibal clan. Based on this it seems reasonable to postulate that the smaller groups will inevitably collapse due to predation by infected and rival hunters/bandits, and that only the larger better organized ones will survive and thrive in much the way Jackson grows with the restoration of electric power.

The key thing is that the infected don't reproduce, they simply convert a percentage of humans they come into contact with. Their numbers and invasiveness will inevitably decline over time as the opportunity for is infection reduces and the survivors adapt to the new ecology. The balance of power is not going to remain in stasis, especially when the behavior of the infected never rises beyond basic animalism.

Then there's the issue in your scenario of how new infected are supposed to evolve over the course of 5 years more drastically than over the 20 year interval between outbreak day and the start of Ellie and Joel's journey. Also, how exactly are they going to evolve if not towards being more human and intelligent? Are they going to self socialize? Learn to communicate? Prey selectively on humans? Start to use tools and weapons? How far are you going to go before they become different looking versions of the human enemies making your variety argument moot?

You aren't thinking this through.

I provided an example of how exactly they could have done it. I don't really need to go any deeper than that. Why do I need to design an entire game for you in order for you to see that? But I will play along for a little bit, when it comes to the infected, we had the following types to account for from the first game:

1. Runners
2. Stalkers
3. Clickers
4. Shamblers
5. Bloaters
6. Rat King

That's only 6 different types of the infected. They could have easily introduced 3-5 more infected types without giving any explanation; the only requirement would be, is to make them more challenging, not easily taken down, than the ones we've faced before, so the encounter is a little more memorable and something both Ellie/Abby have to overcome. Just because an infected type exists, doesn't necessarily mean you will have encountered it or had to have encountered all types in the first game.

I mean, and I am surprised they didn't actually do this, cordysceps, which inspired the infection in the game, infects insects. In the game, it can infect humans....what about animals? predatory animals? They could get infected too. But yes, this was a missed opportunity in the first game so to introduce them in the second one would have been a little odd.

 

[engstra]

It's not an either-or. Strength of writing and character development are necessary in making a character relatable, but who relates to the character will depend on the similarities an audience member can draw between themselves and the character. Surely you don't expect every movie to appeal to every viewer, do you?

Yeah, I would say that TLOU2 misread its audience. It has fans who love it, but there is an orphaned set of TLOU fans who weren't well served by the sequel. And I'd like to note that I thought I had read that Abby was transgender, and that is why I had said what I said earlier about it being LGBTQ. She has that unattractive sex scene that is just cringe no matter what she is. If she were trans and that had some inclusivity appeal, then I would chalk it up to being a LGBTQ story. I don't think the audience at large wants that scene, but for those who do there's the scene... stick it in some game or movie, it doesn't have to be targeted to me. I'm perfectly happy that movies and games are made for people other than myself.

No of course not every one will relate/connect with certain characters or stories. All I was doing in that reply was calling out the notion that males can't relate to female protagonists. That simply isn't true.
I can understand that maybe the sequel wasn't what some fans were hoping for. However I'd much rather creators taking risks and following their artistic directions, telling the stories they want to tell, rather than just playing it safe and making a carbon copy of the first game no matter how good it was.
Yeah no, Abby isn't transgender. I think the controversy for some there is that I think Druckmann said in an interview that they gave Abby a bit more of a "masculine" body type to make her more relatable to transgender people. Not sure if that's even actually true but if he hadn't said that I really don't think there would be anywhere near as much hate for the character.
I gotta say I still don't really see how if a character is made gay or transgender makes it an LGBTQ story (whatever that is), unless that's what the whole game is about. Exploring the specifics of those themes. You wouldn't call Uncharted a hetero story just because Drake's in a relationship with Elena.

 

[mikefrails]

You got people who scored C’s on the writing prompt trying to tell us what is and isn’t good narrative structure. Please shut the hell up.

 

[Ktotheroc]

You got people who scored C’s on the writing prompt trying to tell us what is and isn’t good narrative structure. Please shut the hell up.

Imagine being the dumbass who doesn't know what an apostrophe is used for, but came here to criticize others about writing. LOL Since you don't know how to show possession correctly, I'll help you out. This is yours.

Now, take your own advice. I even made the font bigger for you.

 

[MeatSafeMurderer]

Because it's shit.

 

[StormCell]

I gotta say I still don't really see how if a character is made gay or transgender makes it an LGBTQ story (whatever that is), unless that's what the whole game is about. Exploring the specifics of those themes. You wouldn't call Uncharted a hetero story just because Drake's in a relationship with Elena.

Maybe I would consider Uncharted a hetero story. I don't know if I understand the hang up here. When I browse Netflix, I can very clearly find gay or lesbian romance flicks by selecting those categories. Just because the couple are dudes or girls, what even is a gay romance?? Oh, wait, it's a romance with a gay couple as the main characters.

Does this help?

 

[engstra]

Maybe I would consider Uncharted a hetero story. I don't know if I understand the hang up here. When I browse Netflix, I can very clearly find gay or lesbian romance flicks by selecting those categories. Just because the couple are dudes or girls, what even is a gay romance?? Oh, wait, it's a romance with a gay couple as the main characters.

Does this help?

I think you've touched on the answer there. There are LGBTQ romance movies. Similarly you can have LGBTQ games where the romance and those themes are at the center of it, like a dating sim or similar. In the case of Last of Us, one of the main characters is gay, so LGBTQ themes are part of the story and characters but it isn't the story.

 

[mikefrails]

Imagine being the dumbass who doesn't know what an apostrophe is used for, but came here to criticize others about writing. LOL Since you don't know how to show possession correctly, I'll help you out. This is yours.

Now, take your own advice. I even made the font bigger for you.

When’s the last time you’ve written anything worth reading, forum posts included? But you’re here acting as if you’re an authority on good writing against a now award winning game. I’m gagging. Read the room.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Hate is a strong word.
Dislike the lack of MP.
Not touching the SP until the beyond obvious PS5 enhanced version happens.

 

[Clear]

Iprovided an example of how exactly they could have done it. I don't really need to go any deeper than that. Why do I need to design an entire game for you in order for you to see that? But I will play along for a little bit, when it comes to the infected, we had the following types to account for from the first game:

1. Runners
2. Stalkers
3. Clickers
4. Shamblers
5. Bloaters
6. Rat King

That's only 6 different types of the infected. They could have easily introduced 3-5 more infected types without giving any explanation; the only requirement would be, is to make them more challenging, not easily taken down, than the ones we've faced before, so the encounter is a little more memorable and something both Ellie/Abby have to overcome. Just becaus e an infected type exists, doesn't necessarily mean you will have encountered it or had to have encountered all types in the first game.

I mean, and I am surprised they didn't actually do this, cordysceps, which inspired the infection in the game, infects insects. In the game, it can infect humans....what about animals? predatory animals? They could get infected too. But yes, this was a missed opportunity in the first game so to introduce them in the second one would have been a little odd.

Wow, yeah, they could have added infected dogs, that like attack like dogs and hunt by smell cos that would be sooooo much better than what we actually got.
/s

 

[oagboghi2]

Wow, yeah, they could have added infected dogs, that like attack like dogs and hunt by smell cos that would be sooooo much better than what we actually got.
/s

Yeah, god forbid the game tried to something new and interesting.

When’s the last time you’ve written anything worth reading, forum posts included? But you’re here acting as if you’re an authority on good writing against a now award winning game. I’m gagging. Read the room.

 

[Ulysses 31]

I mean, and I am surprised they didn't actually do this, cordysceps, which inspired the infection in the game, infects insects. In the game, it can infect humans....what about animals? predatory animals? They could get infected too. But yes, this was a missed opportunity in the first game so to introduce them in the second one would have been a little odd.

They also could've gone into how the spore zones are formed and if/how they spread/expand. This could've created a looming sense of dread if mankind's habitat was shrinking over time and would've made Joel actions in part I also more regrettable.

Also interesting that Ellie is gay but doesn't even think of having offspring to see if they may be immune like her despite wanting so much for her life to matter to help curing the cordyceps.

 

[Clear]

Yeah, god forbid the game tried to something new and interesting.

But its not "new and interesting" its Avatar-level redundancy where every sci-fi thing behaves exactly like its real life counterpart wearing a CG skin.

/facepalm


So done with entertaining smoothbrains in this topic.

 

[MiguelItUp]

No matter how many TLOU2 threads there are, I'm impressed with how the hardcore haters and hardcore stans are practically bat-signaled, lmao.

There are people hating TLOU2 like it ruined their family and marriage, and there are people loving TLOU2 like it cured cancer and they're willing to lay on a mine for it.

Y'all are wild, lmao.

 

[spookyfish]

Personally? I didn't like how characters that were so important in the first game were treated in this one. Some people like that sort of storytelling, but it's not for me. I feel the same way about movie sequels that treat their characters like garbage. The narrative just wasn't for me. (I also think the "lesson" -- "After I killed everyone in my way, I finally realize violence isn't the answer when I want to kill the person who would probably be the one the studio wants to go forward for any sequel." -- is poorly executed, blatantly transparent, and ham-handed.)

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Personally? I didn't like how characters that were so important in the first game were treated in this one. Some people like that sort of storytelling, but it's not for me. I feel the same way about movie sequels that treat their characters like garbage. The narrative just wasn't for me. (I also think the "lesson" -- "After I killed everyone in my way, I finally realize violence isn't the answer when I want to kill the person who would probably be the one the studio wants to go forward for any sequel." -- is poorly executed, blatantly transparent, and ham-handed.)

I don't know what this means the characters are clearly still important because the entire narrative is because of them. Importance has nothing to do with screen time or how long you survived for. Darth Vader was important in the original Star wars even though he's in the film for 6 minutes. Ned Stark is an important game of thrones character and we all know what happens with him.