JerryinSoCal
Member
I hated how OP they made her just so she could be a "strong woman" That was LAZY!! Making Nadine a badass is fine, making her do it by having her go virtually untouched by Drake in several fights was stupid.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
All The Last of Us 2 leaks/spoilers in here and nowhere else.
- Thread starter DonJorginho
- Start date
- News Spoilers
I hated how OP they made her just so she could be a "strong woman" That was LAZY!! Making Nadine a badass is fine, making her do it by having her go virtually untouched by Drake in several fights was stupid.
JerryinSoCal
Member
Youtubers are the last people anyone should listen to regarding games good or bad. These people making "outrage videos" are just trying to capitalize on what's going on online right now for views, they aren't offering any new insight and they are all saying the same thing, people just watch them to have their own views justified.
Reviewers are a little less shady but it depends on who it is and in reality reviews are subjective no matter who's doing them. I may love a game that you hate, does that make it bad? nope it just means that you didn't enjoy your experience with it the way I did. I'm starting to find reviews to be a poor indicator on what the quality of a game is, I mean if it's universal sub 5's sure but Days Gone is a game I'd give an 8 to and most reviewers scored it much lower. A ton of them scored MGSV 9 or 10 and that games is a 3 in my book, I don't care if it's 1080p and 60fps the open world is empty and we keep going back to the same locations on the map over and over to do the same things, if it wasn't a Kojima game they'd all have bashed it.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
You asked me what difference does a review makes and I told you.
It's fine if it doesn't change their mind. If this game is a critical hit and it becomes one fo the best selling PlayStation titles ever, then that will be enough for me.
And no, all reviewers are not paid off. If that were the case, Sony and MS big triple A exclusives would all have positive reviews.
martino
Member
it still remain that too much sites are living on ads revenue , hype click and need publisher to send them early copy.
they are not the most trustworthy place to get opinion on games with massive marketing budget.
And this a more global press problem, it's difficult to bite the hand feeding/owning you and they are a lot of mindset coming with this system.
but this is probably a debate to have elsewhere.
ZehDon
Member
Firstly, the antagonistic tone of your post isn’t really warranted. I was looking forward to discussing the narrative as it might unfold, not being pounced upon for expressing my interpretation of things thus far. The fact that you just attempt to shutdown a pretty friendly discussion voicing a completely valid opinion of the series and these leaks doesn’t invite anything other than hostilities. Might want to re-read your posts before hitting reply if this isn’t your intention.
Anyway, Game of Thrones - we’ll continue with The Red Wedding example for consistency - doesn’t blind side you with major plot points from characters who didn’t exist prior to those points. Walder Frey’s character and temperament is well known prior to the Red Wedding. It’s discussed several times - including the religious traditions of inviting guests into your house and how to treat them. He’s not randomly inserted into the story. That event comes about because Rob went back on his oath, and Walder Frey decided it was the right time to make a move on the Starks who clearly didn’t respect him. We knew all about Walder when Rob made the decision to break his oath, which is why the scene where the Starks return to make amends is so tense, and why the Red Wedding feels organic, but no less shocking as it unfolds. For me at least, this is why the early seasons were electric - and when the show abandoned that level of organic writing in favour of empty spectacle and hollow shock-value kills, it became a laughing stock. I’m getting those vibes from the narrative beats as we understand them. You might not, cool, but I’m clearly not the only one on my side of the fence. It’s not an outlandish position to have.
Contrast that with someone we don’t know killing Joel for killing someone else we don’t know. They’re very clearly not the same thing. If the game is trying to make a point about random killing, it’s going to lose a lot of mileage because you’re asking me to care about someone that Naughty Dog didn’t bother to care about setting up either. It would be like John Wick being killed by a random goon in the fourth movie, and then it’s revealed the random goon is the son of another random goon from the first movie. This was actually the plot of the second “Taken” movie... and it was hot garbage. Sure, you can absolutely go there - but its not going to carry the same weight as someone seeking vengeance for killing a major character the story tellers setup.
Based on the descriptions from the leaks, it appears that you play as Ellie for the first half of the game, where Joel is eventually killed. You don’t play as Abby until the second half of the game, which culminates in a showdown with Ellie. I believe the intention is to re-contextualise Abby after the fact - harkening back to the comments Troy Baker made about getting players to “question everything”. Unless we play the entire first half of the game as Abby, leading to Joel’s death, the necessary context will be absent no matter what. And at the end of the day, caring about someone being upset about the death of someone we never knew isnt going to carry the same weight as if the doctor has been setup in the first game.
Ellie hating Joel for lying to her, murdering innocent people, and potentially dooming mankind to live out a daddy/daughter fantasy is ludicrous? Not for a sane person - it’s a completely valid response. You don’t Trek across the country to murder people you don’t know for someone you hate.
The dissonance for Uncharted reached peak levels in 4, where the writers wanted us to question Nate’s actions for all previous games and ask serious questions about the characters obsessions... while also still having us gun down hundreds of faceless minions. 4 was written by Druckmann. Up until that point, the killing spree was a bit of a running gag - Penny Arcade did a piece on it - but no more disconnected than Indiana Jones, which the series drew inspiration from. You get a lot of extra mileage when things are light hearted - see Marve films for the best common examples. It wasn’t until they tried to get rather serious with the whole affair with 4 that the wheels started to come off. As for my view on Uncharted 4, look around this very forum - it’s the most divisive entry in the series by a wide margin. A lot of it comes from the tone of the game shifting away from the tone of the previous games. It’s not an uncommon opinion by any stretch, so kindly keep the gas-lighting to yourself.
Ultimately, Naughty Dog are going to have to setup a character who didn’t exist before this game to justify their actions in this game. Based on everything we’ve seen from Naughty Dog since TLOU, I don’t think they’re up to the task. I suspect we’ll get a Blizzard style “tortured hero” cliche. So, sure, we might spend hours with Abby, but I don’t think she’s going to suddenly become a character people connect with, because the story demands division due to her actions. Joel resonated with people in a way few gaming characters have. His murderer isn’t going to get a standing ovation from the people Joel resonated with because of a flash back.
Last edited:
Paracelsus
Member
For one, bias is not just money, it's ideas. Remember Days Gone?
Mass Effect 3 and The Last Jedi are both critical hits and both sold (the second way less than projected and ended up crippling SW but still). Final Fantasy XV sold very well. You wouldn't leave a good impression if you claimed that means people like them.
Some guy named KHfansomething in here tried to do it for Kingdom Hearts, and that doesn't change the fact people use "Kingdom Hearts" to describe stupid writing for children.
No? She was in full gear at her best against a wounded, tired, starving Hound and still barely won thanks to armor and plot armor.
Normally, she would've died, which is my point. It's also a fanfiction battle not in the books.
They did the same in the Jaime battle, in the book he was much in worse shape and still nearly killed her and she got over by accident.
This reminds me of
Joe Rogan Says Ronda Rousey Would Beat Floyd Mayweather in an MMA Fight
Joe Rogan believes Ronda Rousey would defeat Floyd Mayweather inside the UFC Octagon if the two fought tomorrow. A longtime UFC commentator and combat sports fanatic, Rogan recently appeared on ESPN's SportsNation (h/t TerezOwens...
bleacherreport.com
Jon Neu
Banned
Yeah, that's why they play The Rains Of Castamere. The Freys were only the pawns of the Lannisters.
And yes, the Freys were established before the Red Wedding. Even Catelyn warns her son of the weasel nature of Lord Frey and the Freys.
You’re kidding right?
Abby is literally a bodybuilder level of physique, Brienne is just tall. And the TV version is laughably unathletic, clumsy and slow and nowhere the physical stength of a man.
In a real fight between the actors, the actress would get utterly destroyed. When Arya and Brienne did that “exhibition” at the yard, the level of cringyness was through the roof, because you are supposed to believe those two are some of the best warriors on the world with their smug ugly faces and their pathetically executed choreographies.
But it’s a TV series, so you just get along with the totally stupid and unbelievable trope of the super strong woman because it’s a “neccessary” trope for the feminist part of the audience to feel good. Some good dose of political correctness to make people happy.
Last edited:
ZywyPL
Banned
Reviews are not a valid argument, at all, especially in the hands of trolls/fanboys. If TLoU2 gets high scores you'll be jumping all over the threads screaming TOLD YOU! I TOLD YOU! I KNEW ALL ALONG, YOU WERE ALL DEAD WRONG FROM THE BEGINNING! But if the reviews bomb you'll say the reviewers did that for purpose to get attention/clicks/views. And/or when let's say Halo Infinite gets more scores from the same reviewers you will keep convincing people 24/7 the reviewers are biased, MS shills, were paid etc. But obviously it can't go other way around right? All the woke media who force SJW agenda in the first place obviously cannot be biased, or paid when they give high scores to something you admire, right? And then again, we have the actual users reviews, where again, whenever they are high it's absolutely objectively true, but whenever you don't see the result you desire all those users are trolls and fanboys who bomb the reviews on purpose...
Listen, I think everyone in this, or any other threads, knows where you come from, the only question whether D in you nick stands for Defense or Delusion... People have all the rights in the world to not to like what Naught Wokes, I mean Dogs, are trying to push them, if you don't like it or cannot except and feel you have to fight till death for it then you have some serious mental issues and need some help. Seriously, turn off the screen, go get some help if you feel you have to lead a fight over some random plastic box or a random company who doesn't even knows you exist, you don't owe them anything, really.
llien
Member
Oh, what about trolling less, cheapshot?
SleepDoctor
Banned
Jon Neu
Banned
The irony is that there are far more people triggered because we laugh at the silly trope of the “le strong independent woman beating a man” than the other way around.
Somehow, we have to BELIEVE it to be true or else we are “sad alt righters”
Explosive Zombie
Banned
You're arguing the Freys aren't out of nowhere because of context the story supplies, what evidence is there you'll get no context supplied by TLOU II prior to Abby's revenge? Oh, right, absolutely none. The Freys weren't in the first book but killed main chars from the first book in the third, what makes that so different from a character introduced in a second game killing a character introduced in the first? Why would Joel's killer need to be someone who existed in the first game? Also not playing as Abby in the first half isn't the same as having no context for who she is prior to her killing Joel. Hating Joel for what he did is one thing but being okay with his murder is another. The 4th game was made to end the franchise, one of the ways to do so is put his actions under a microscope, after all if his actions have been fine why would he stop? I don't really care for using this forum as a guide to what normal people think, either. This forum is as political as Resetera, just the other side of the aisle, no one would use Resetera consensus to prove a point about how people feel about a game. I'm not sure you know what gas-lighting is. On metacritic the user score for Uncharted 4 is 8.4 and they're notorious for review bombing shit. Wait why are they not up to that task? Did they do a poor job of characterizing and setting up Nate's brother or despite the retcon feel did he actually earn being a main character? I think for most people he was a success. Joel was already a tortured hero in TLOU, why wasn't that cliche to you? How can you know we won't connect with her? The story demands we look at her in more than a simplistic manner due to her actions, the same demand TLOU made of us about Joel due to his actions in the finale. He apparently resonated so much people are ignoring he's not a strictly morally good character, he has flaws, weaknesses and is not an invincible superhero. People hero-worshipping Joel makes me glad he gets killed by a big strong women, you guys deserve it.
Kumomeme
Member
nobody want another father daughter bonding..it just comparison of how much plot different from first game to second...i mean in second game, look how sjw stuff in it compared to firstWhy would there be more father/daughter bonding when that little bubble has been burst and Ellie has grown up and she's still dubious about Joel's actions. Did you want a Woody Allen scenario or something? lol.
I guess the average consumer wanted The Last of Us 1.5 and didn't want anything actually moving forward.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
We all expected a different plot because TLOU felt finished. I'm also not seeing how there's more SJW stuff than the first had, you may need to clarify what you mean.
Kumomeme
Member
just look at the leak...if its all true
The irony is that there are far more people triggered because we laugh at the silly trope of the “le strong independent woman beating a man” than the other way around.
Somehow, we have to BELIEVE it to be true or else we are “sad alt righters”
That's an answer people give that are offended lol
What's trolling about that? I'm laughing because y'all seem offended by the fact that a woman beats Joel. In a fuckin Game where there are undeads the one thing that get's you riled up because it's illogical is a woman beating Joel in a one on one without even having some kind of context.
Yeah, that's hilarious to me.
Also Abby is no Bodybuilder, check the 2017 Trailer. She's a bit muscular but that's all lol Go to a fuckin FItness Studio and you'll see plenty womans looking like that
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
You keep bringing A Song Of Ice & Fire and you are not doing yourself any favours in your silly attempt to justify TLOU2 plot with that comparison.
The Freys are all over in the first and second book; they are mentioned, described. presented with a variety of characters and Walder Frey is roasting it’s bastards and House Stark from left to right. Seems that you simply don't remember them or didn't pay attention.
Abby is just the daughter of a nobody, it’s a silly comparison.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Wait..
So if the game gets good reviews, you're going to say they were paid off.
But if the game gets bad reviews, you're going to say, "I TOLD YOU SO!"
You're basically going to do to do the same thing, but in reverse.
I posted in here and stated specifically that if the game get bad reviews, they screwed up. Period. You already have an excuse made up just in case the game DOES review critically well. Face it, the overwhelming majority of reviewers aren't paid off and every Sony exclusive isn't 85 or above on Metacritic. Everyone knows you're an Xbox fan who has an excuse for everything.
You're literally sitting in PlayStation related threads for weeks asking people to explain to you how the SSD will make a difference even though the people you're asking posted Digital Foundry videos about 30 times explaining how it will make a difference. You even denied clear evidence when its presented to you right in your face.
Unlike you, I base my arguments on facts. I think things over rationally other than go off based on what you heard over the internet by fanboys, such as reviewers being paid off and how they don't matter.
Review.
scores.
matter.
period.
They will play a factor whether you like it or not. You're delusional if you think otherwise.
Good reviews generate positive press.
Bad reviews generate negative press.
If you're going to respond to me, then leave those fanboy theories out of it.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
You're generalizing. I know there are sites that are bias. There are sites from Xbox and PlayStation that would score a gamer higher because it's an exclusive.
A few examples of bias review doesn't mean the everyone is doing it.
Final Fantasy XV sold well and it has a decent review score.
Do you know what the main complaint? Chapter 13 and how the game has problems later in the game.
GT Sport received mixed reviews for its lack of context. This was the same case for Street Fighter V.
Uncharted 4 had pacing issues, which was echoed throughout many video game reviews. Do you realize that's what a lot of people have a problem with in this game?
You guys only use review scores if its in your favor. If The Last of Us Part II receives poor reviews and fans hate it after playing the game, you guys are going to be all over those threads.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Sorry, but that's an idiotic counterargument. Yes, you can hold any opinion you like, but if its uninformed and has no real basis its still a garbage opinion whether its positive or negative.
Thinking the world is flat is an opinion a person could arrive at after watching a few youtube videos, are we supposed to validate that and tell them "your opinion is as valid as anyone elses" when its fuckin moronic!?
Just asserting something doesn't count for shit. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.
ZehDon
Member
Actually, as I covered in my post, it appears based on the leaks that we play as Ellie for the first half of the game - including Joel's death. As I also covered, it appears we won't play as Abby until the second half of the game - after Joel's death. This greatly limits the amount of context that can be provided. That's my evidence - Joel will be killed by someone we don't know at the time they kill him.
The Frey's, like all houses, where described and mentioned in the first book - I thought we were talking about the show, Games of Thrones, but whatever. Walder Frey's personal character was described by numerous characters; we knew all about Walder Frey due to his history with the Starks, all before we met him. Again - this is the setup: we're supposed to care, and understand.
Joel's killer doesn't need to be introduced in the first game - the reason for us to care about Joel's killer, as is clearly Naughty Dog's intention, is needed to be setup. Without it... we arrive at my position: it feels in-organic and manufactured.
If we're playing as Ellie, and Naughty Dog want us to go on her journey, how much of Ellie's half of the game will be dedicated to Abby? Are we playing for Ellie for 1/3 of the game, all so Abby murdering Joel makes sense? If so, that just proves my point: Naughty Dog are contorting their story to manufacture an inorganic narrative.
Why does a fun action adventure series need to re-paint the action of the hero as so egregiously horrible that they need to stop? An alternative, lighter spin - and it's a cliche, but it works - is the whole "the real treasure were the friends we made along the way" angle. Why was this insufficent - why did Uncharted 1-3 need to be re-contextualised as anything other than the fun adventures that they were?
Nothing you've said here makes any sense. And you know I know what gas-lighting means: attempting to insinuate otherwise... is literally gas-lighting.
I disagree - and that's my point. For me, Uncharted 4 fell a bit flat, and Nate's brother was the key reason. Instead of spending the game with the characters we know, we spent the majority of the game with Nate's brother. The game's entire opening third is a horrible mess of bad pacing that contorts the game's narrative in order to retcon in Nate's brother's backstory. The game then - literally - starts all over again from where it should have started with. Of course Nate's brother never earned his position - how could he? That ridiculous fake-out twist? Contrast Nate's brother against, say, Indiana Jones' father in The Last Crusade. Both characters never existed prior to their respective entries. Yet, there's a wonderful moment at the end of The Last Crusade, when Indie's reaching for the Grail, and his Dad just talks straight to his son: no bullshit, it's a real father and son moment, that solidifies their relationship and the journey they've gone on. Nate's brother never achieves that moment with Nate, and it taints a lot of the game because of it. Given my reaction to Uncharted 4's failure to retcon in a character and make the story revolve around them, why would I possibly think they're able to do it with something as complex as what they're attempting in TLOU2?
Joel is a cliche, of course he is. Gruff old man who's seen some shit? Oldest cliche in the book. Yet, it was his decision at the end that made him resonate. He wasn't the tortured hero who ultimately made the hero's play - he was a real person, who made a decision from his heart. It was the wrong decision, but it was his, and we understood it, even if we disagree with it.
... because I expressly explained that I don't believe Naughty Dog are up to task of making us care about her. The story demands the opposite - we need a complex view of Joel due to his actions. We'll need a complex view of Abby, only with the added difficulty of her being shoe-horned into the story to kill a character we already have a complex view of.
You're projecting here, friend. When did I even mention Abby being a woman at all, or heck, even a strong one? I didn't - at all. And Joel resonated not because he's a hero, but because he made an emotional decision that makes sense from his perspective - a perspective that Naughty Dog built an entire game around, to make sure we understood it. We're supposed to understand Joel's actions, even if we don't condone them. His resonance is a massive part of why TLOU connected with as many people as it did - it was an emotional story, and those emotions hit home for a big audience. Awesome - job well done! And now, you expect everyone to be like "hehe, Joel's head go crunch crunch!" and are antagonistic when they're not?
We're going to watch Joel - a character we understand - be brutally murdered by a character who doesn't exist prior to killing Joel, that we don't know, and who is angry about someone we also don't know being killed... and then play as that same character for half the entire time? This just reads like empty shock value, a hollow "expectations subverted!" moment, to a lot of people, and they're getting Game of Thrones-penultimate-episode-style whiplash.
Jill Valentine
Member
Stupid behaviour is inevitable. But it's repeatedly a silencing tactic employed by these individuals. Anita Sarkeesian, the whole GG fallout, and we've even seen Druckmann mention it before with his (ranging from bullshit to exaggerated) anecdote of Uncharted 4 playtester not being keen on the possibility of the series continuing with Nate's daughter because of the usual agenda.
The TLDR is Druckmann and co are dishonest fucks.
Actually we can make it worse. Can you imagine the situation right now if Druckmann had a vagina?
Last edited:
ricardo_sousa11
Member
That moment people are fully judging a games story based on 4 or 5 30 second clips...on a 30h+ game.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
What about the sand snakes, most of the greyjoys, etc? There's only a few mentions of Waler in the first few books of Game of Thrones, and you don't actually meet him, you meet a guard who works for him who mentions he's remarrying his daughter. How about Quentyn Martell? And even then the first book of Game of Thrones introduces hundreds of characters, the first TLOU game doesn't. Even in a series that introduces characters in the hundreds at the outset will have pivotal characters who were nobodies in the first or weren't even part of the story. A big character, Khal Drogo is killed by a nobody we meet for the first time.
You're making far too many assumptions about the game, again you don't need to play as a character to introduce them prior and even if her first introduction to the game is her killing Joel we all know the second half of the game is playing as her, this means the context will be there regardless of when it's inserted. This is also similar to Game of Thrones, prior to Jaime Lannister being a POV character in the third book he was viewed 2 dimensionally as a villainous character, telling someone reading book 2 that by book 4 they'd like Jaime Lannister they wouldn't believe you. Especially since he's responsible for crippling Bran.
Actually the series was never quite so breezy as you claim, Uncharted 4 was not a radical shift in tone, simply a shift and he didn't only settle down because what he was doing was bad, he settled down to have a family.
Okay, I know how well you understand terms but you can pretend to not understand anything I said? Jesus.
I don't really care that you didn't think Nate's brother was done well. Your Indiana Jones example just proves you don't actually inherently mind new characters being introduced and being important, the context matters to you... you don't have that for TLOU II.
Yeah, I agree with all of that about Joel, but who in their right mind thought Joel wouldn't have to answer for his actions in a sequel in some way? Even when a sequel didn't exist we all assumed there would be consequences for his actions and his lies.
You don't trust Naughty Dog to get you to emphasize with a character... but you love The Last of Us and empathize with the characters from it so much you don't even want them to die... okay then.
Yeah, uh, I don't expect people to laugh at Joel dying, neither do the developers, they want it to be an emotional moment for the player and they want you to be upset about it. Kinda like how you're meant to hate a villain, the problem is when you're like "I'm not buying this game because I hate the villain so much" or something. It gets ridiculous.
The problem with you continuing with this "we don't know Abby" crap is your entire foundation for critiquing the game's choice is based on the idea it doesn't earn what it does, which is something you can't possibly know. Without these leaks you would have bought and played through the game and if your reaction was negative to Joel's death you'd have a valid reason to complain, but right now you're simply grasping at straws and constructing a narrative based on leaks that account for less than 1% of the game's play time.
cormack12
Gold Member
Why is there always a moron who shows their arse. Other people are disagreeing but not resorting to shitposts like this? They all think they're so clever but actually don't have the intelligence to deconstruct the actual nuance of the argument and have to lean on the most reductive extremes.
First, it's not even a one-on-one and she's wielding a fucking golf club. And she is massive. All that weight behind a golf club head is gonna smash anyone up.
Second, Abby is a fictitious fucking character, unless you're saying her canon is that in wastelands and infected dystopia she's a Hollywood PT still able to get work and clients.
Of course women can look like that. Women who legit train for years and get proper nutrition. The questions are around the gritty reality of TLoU II and getting the time to do all that whilst scavenging for food, and just basically surviving. The same would be said if Joel looked like the Rock. We have established women in the world who killed men like Tess and Marlene. They didn't need to make her look ridiculous like that, Tess and Marlene both would have killed David, Joel and hunters with a golf club. Fucking hell, Ellie was killing men in TLoU I.
They've made this game about the adversarial conflict between two women. And basically built one of them like a man to be considered a 'real threat' to Ellie. It's the most reductive and uninteresting take they could possibly have had. But hey, woman main antagonist - we'll get our brownie points. I'm telling you know Tess would fucking destroy Ellie in an instant and she wouldn't need 8 years of quad busting squats and a bench press of 90kg+ to do it.
It looks stupid. This was a concept from the original ending. A subdued Joel being killed by a woman - who the fuck cares. Again notice Tess's physique that is toned and muscly but not fucking ridiculous. Low body fat, lots of manual work. Not bulked after scoffing 4000 calories per day.
w/e/ anyway, at this point we'll probably see bloaters now built like General Ra'am and find out they are Hermaphroditic.
ZehDon
Member
The sand snakes were terrible - especially in the show. Was that your point? And you're making very vague comments, missing all of the elements I've spent a long time typing out. Kharl Drogo, for example, is killed by a character after we meet them, after his people raped her, after her town was put to the sword, after we spend an entire book getting to know the Dothraki and their culture... and she's still an extremely disliked character whose brutal and violent death is presented as justice in the book. The book doesn't then make us spend another half a book with that character. Why would it?
I absolutely am, correct. We're in a thread discussing leaks for a game that hasn't been released yet. We're all making assumptions. What's your point? Why discuss this at all if this is your opinion?
Jamie Lannister wasn't introduced in book 3. He was introduced in the first book as the King Slayer - the man who killed the King to save a city of millions. He directly speaks with Ned about this. We dislike the character, but we spent nearly three entire books with him around before the story begins to peel back the layers. This doesn't prove your point - it proves mine. Imagine if Jamie's introduction had been killing Ned at the half way point of book 1, and then all of book 1's second half was Jamie. Would you have been thrilled by this?
Friend, what are you doing here? I explain my position in great detail - I explain why I think what I think - and your one sentence response is "I don't really care"... and then you attempt to just steam roll over your own straw man as if I never said anything at all. What's the goal here?
To explain once again: I don't trust Naughty Dog to shoe horn in a character and make the story revolve around them because they utterly failed to do it before. That's one half of my entire position. The other half is also just as simple: Naughty Dog went to good lengths to make sure we didn't know who Abby was, or that we played as her. They wanted the shock value of "Who's this new perso-- oh God! No!". That reads to me as little more than hollow shock value for shock value's sake. Then playing as that character just reads like "subverting expectations!" garbage that's found its way into mainstream storytelling.
This isn't a nuanced take on the complete game - we're in a thread discussing the leaks. This is me, having read the leaks, expressing dissatisfaction with the core premise of the experience. It's like watching the trailer for "Taken 3" and thinking to myself: yeah, this looks like utter shit, I won't be watching it. Except here, Naughty Dog wanted to hide the premise for as long as possible. Now that it's out of the bag, people - like myself - aren't happy because the core premise isn't very sound. I've explained why this is in good detail at this point. To get real simple on it: imagine how this is going to go down in little over a month when players, eager to get into the next chapter of TLOU's story of Joel and Ellie, realise what the actual premise of the game really is?
MGS2 coped a lot of flak for it, Halo 2 coped a lot of flak for it - and those were great games with pretty good stories that players came to love after the shock wore off. Now, imagine if you actually got Game of Thrones season 8 mixed with The Walking Dead's worst excesses. That's why people aren't happy.
Last edited:
CaptainClaw
Member
I mean they matter to who?, they should matter to devs/pubs if they "greatly" affect sales or said game is buggy/unplayable. But review scores shouldn't matter to customers.
Murdered Soul Suspect having a Metacritic score of 59 shouldn't matter to a consumer
Crackdown 3 while not everyones cup of tea but it having a Metacritic score of 60 should only matter to the dev/pub. For gamers it shouldn't matter
If the TLoU 2 scores 70-75 on Metacritic the score should only matter for the devs/pub why should fans/gamers care about some made up score?
Animal Crossing NH has a metacritic score of 91 that's good for the devs/pubs, that score shouldn't matter to consumers because if someone likes their sports games and shooters it doesn't really matter.
Minecraft has a metacritic score of 93 which again is great for the dev/pub but how does it matter for someone who doesn't even care for Minecraft?
Sims 4 has a metacritic score of 70 (66 on console) but that hasn't stopped it from being played more than games with higher metacritic scores
The only reason You and others think Review scores matter is for console war Ammo, whether TLoU 2 gets 70 or 90 the score doesn't matter (only matters to Dev/pub) you think TLoU 2 getting a 70 on meta is going to stop sony from making TLoU 3?....you think if Forza M8 scores 70 on meta it's going to stop MS from making another Forza? LMAO
Last edited:
Moriah20
Member
In UC4, Nate's brother pops up out of literally nowhere and the story pretty much starts revolving around him, and the game even has flashbacks to further emphasize his importance to both the game and Nate as a character.
This is, in the 4th (5th if you count the Vita game) game in the series where you play as Nathan. This is literally his send off game.
His brother was never mentioned before. And his childhood was even explored in UC3 for gods sake.
Like, if that isn't some grade-A hack writing then I don't know what is.
The tlou 2 spoilers are lacking a lot of context but I think not even all the context in the world will make me symphatize with Abby, not even if her flasback involves Joel murdering her entire family and then raping their corpses. If the game has balls, then it WILL NOT make you even attempt to empathize with her - just make her to be an outright psycho, fucked up person. But I have no faith in anything ballsy like that.
This is, in the 4th (5th if you count the Vita game) game in the series where you play as Nathan. This is literally his send off game.
His brother was never mentioned before. And his childhood was even explored in UC3 for gods sake.
Like, if that isn't some grade-A hack writing then I don't know what is.
The tlou 2 spoilers are lacking a lot of context but I think not even all the context in the world will make me symphatize with Abby, not even if her flasback involves Joel murdering her entire family and then raping their corpses. If the game has balls, then it WILL NOT make you even attempt to empathize with her - just make her to be an outright psycho, fucked up person. But I have no faith in anything ballsy like that.
jackets with pockets
Banned
.
Last edited:
Explosive Zombie
Banned
They're fine in the book, but sure they were poorly handled in the show. So again, you're on this idea that we literally first meet Abby when she kills Joel? Do the leaks even support such a theory?
And let me put a real question to you for to answer. If the first time we ever meet Abby in TLOU II (ignoring her introduction via marketing materials) is when she kills Joel how is that an inherently negative way to tell a story? This is a serious question, you guys keep setting limits on what a story can and can't do or what it should or shouldn't do.
Not sure her death is presented as justice in the book, you might have seen it that way but it's not so clear cut as it's written. Sure you don't spend time with her after... she's dead... but there are plenty of characters you do spend time with despite initially hating.
A discussion is a lot different from reaching unfounded conclusions based on these leaks.
Your point about Jaime Lannister is ridiculous, it's fine they made him a POV in book 3 because there were two books prior with him occasionally showing up as a villain? What is your argument that TLOU II should have just set up the new status quo by introducing Abby but not actually doing anything with her until a third game? How can you know there isn't enough time in the game to give her as much set up as Jaime got prior to his POV turn?
What lengths did Naughty Dog go to? You're making ASSUMPTIONS AND STATING THEM AS FACTS, you do NOT KNOW for a FACT Abby is only introduced when she kills Joel. You CANNOT claim it's just for shock value without having played the game and seen if they justify it beyond shock value. Subverting expectations is what narratives have done since they were written by Shakespeare, the plot twist has existed since literature did.
The leaks do not give us the core premise. They're not a trailer, they're not what the devs wanted you to see, they're out of context snippets someone angry wanted you to see, they're calculated to make you angry and you're allowing them to do so. What's happening here is more like you saw a trailer for Taken 3 and said "clearly he doesn't get revenge for his wife because I don't see him win in the trailer, clearly there's no setup for his wife dying because I don't see it in the trailer" <-- that's what you're doing, you keep filling in blanks with your own ideas. I like that you just randomly throw out two games that got flak for having you play as other characters that came to be loved, in other words these decisions are normally only INITIALLY divisive before people come to terms with them. If your argument is people in general, not just you, then you've really failed at this argument, especially considering people in general loved Uncharted 4.
Last edited:
ScarletSpider
Banned
.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
I'm just shaking my head at this post.
I never said reviews always determine how well a game is going to sell. Death Stranding scored higher than Days Gone, but Days Gone was the better selling game. People actually read and look at video game reviews. If this game scores extremely well, then it could overshadow a lot of the negative press they received within the past 4 or 5 days.
But you're right, no one cares about reviews and no one watches them.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I'm just shaking my head at this post.
I never said reviews always determine how well a game is going to sell. Death Stranding scored higher than Days Gone, but Days Gone was the better selling game. People actually read and look at video game reviews. If this game scores extremely well, then it could overshadow a lot of the negative press they received within the past 4 or 5 days.
But you're right, no one cares about reviews and no one watches them.
He lists failed games like Crackdown 3 and Murdered Soul Suspect as well, like games that not only reviewed poorly but were financial flops, it's really weird as an argument.
B-universe
Banned
One hour and a half of TLoU2 footage.
Polish site.
m.cda.pl
Polish site.
THE LAST OF US 2 ALL EXTREME EXTRUSION MATERIALS + INTRO 1080p
THE LAST OF US 2 ALL EXTREME EXTRUSION MATERIALS + INTRO
m.cda.pl
Last edited:
Nitty_Grimes
Made a crappy phPBB forum once ... once.
Let's face it, it's going to get 11 out of 10's all across the gaming press now because of the 'mature themes' the game will supposedly be identifying and dealing with.
Oddvintagechap
Member
No, thats cute tho.
The Last of Us, Neil Druckmann and Less Being More
With development on The Last of Us complete, we speak to creative director Neil Druckmann about his work
www.ibtimes.co.uk
Druckmann on the other hand has been heavily involved with every title since Jak 3.
rofif
Banned
Agree.
I look at tone of Uc1,2,3 just as the Gears of War 1,2,3. The games make absolute sense in their own worlds. But then in Gears 4 You fight Your own people. The government is sending a robot army to kill Marcus Fenix and his friends... the man who saved the world and is sitting in his old house. There is a point when You can draw a line of thing being believable and gow/uc123 do not cross that. Even with monsters in Unchrated games.
Even UC3 which is more character driven and has no monsters, is still highly enjoyable and believable. But in Uc4 Nathan gets his ass kicked in weird ways and then his whole life is "obsession" which makes him look like a irresponsible killer for treasure which totally sets the tone wrong.
Jill Valentine
Member
One hour and a half of TLoU2 footage.
Polish site.
THE LAST OF US 2 ALL EXTREME EXTRUSION MATERIALS + INTRO 1080p
THE LAST OF US 2 ALL EXTREME EXTRUSION MATERIALS + INTRO
My god they're real.
Thanks for sharing this.
Gamernyc78
Banned
Leaked: Female antagonist from TLOU 3
But someone up top said we are not in tune with the diversity of the female physique when criticizing the obvious woke bs/limiting sexuality in female characters Naughty dog is pandering too
. He must be taking/watching those females on the power lifting channel tht are on roids and are artificially raising testosterone levels and decreasing estrogen Yeah we got it 
Javthusiast
Banned
As someone mentioned, yes it would be way better if ND didn't even try to make us sympathize with Abby.
Make us have to hate play this crazy killer in the second half so that we want to murder her in the most gruesome way possible in the inevitable 3rd game when it's back to playing as Ellie, hunting Abby down.
But of course she will be redeemed.
Make us have to hate play this crazy killer in the second half so that we want to murder her in the most gruesome way possible in the inevitable 3rd game when it's back to playing as Ellie, hunting Abby down.
But of course she will be redeemed.
Oddvintagechap
Member
Oh shit. I love with im seeing. Its a animation feast. Im ready.One hour and a half of TLoU2 footage.
Polish site.
THE LAST OF US 2 ALL EXTREME EXTRUSION MATERIALS + INTRO 1080p
THE LAST OF US 2 ALL EXTREME EXTRUSION MATERIALS + INTRO
Whitesnake
Banned
I don’t know you’re on about, but you seem quite upset that I said people are allowed to form opinions based on the information given to them.
If it is acceptable for someone to think “This game is gonna be good!” after seeing trailers, then it must also be acceptable for someone to see these leaks and think “This game gonna be bad.”.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Wouldn't it be better if you were conflicted about her? If they made a character who's sympathetic but you're angry with all the same? Why does it have to be so binary with you guys? Are you sure the type of complex narratives TLOU games provide are the right alley for you to be going down? There's plenty of banal and simple media where bad guys are bad guys and good guys are good guys.
Javthusiast
Banned
No. Because making her sympathetic would be the generic route.
I can't remember a single game that makes you play a character you despise. So that would actually be a fresh idea.
B-universe
Banned
Excellent point.
I keep reading that sort of response whenever someone happens to dislike a trailer or gameplay demo. "It's too soon", "How can you be sure after just 5 minutes", all of these only seem to be relevant and apply if you don't like what's being shown. Otherwise, it seems to be perfectly valid to draw tentative or even definitive conclusions based off on trailers and snippets.
Why would studios release them if they didn't think them to be representative? If they're not representative, what does it say about a studio that releases them anyway?
Last edited:
SleepDoctor
Banned
No, thats cute tho.
Amy has nothing to do with TLoU.The Last of Us, Neil Druckmann and Less Being More
With development on The Last of Us complete, we speak to creative director Neil Druckmann about his work
Druckmann on the other hand has been heavily involved with every title since Jak 3.
She left making uncharted 4. But nice try lol
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
One hour and a half of TLoU2 footage.
Polish site.
THE LAST OF US 2 ALL EXTREME EXTRUSION MATERIALS + INTRO 1080p
THE LAST OF US 2 ALL EXTREME EXTRUSION MATERIALS + INTRO
Alright, this is enough for me. I need to save myself for the final game.
These are some of the things that caught my eye and it seems like an old build.
Abby
- She's at the gym in a workout facility. I guess this explains why she's masculine.
- Movement seems kinda awkward. Again, probably just an early build
- Segment with some guy? Not sure who he is.
- Movement seems kinda awkward. Again, probably just an early build
- Segment with some guy? Not sure who he is.
Joel
- You play as Joel during flashbacks?
- There's backstory that goes way back to the hospital at the end of the last of us 1
- There's backstory that goes way back to the hospital at the end of the last of us 1
Ellie
- Gameplay is going at like 2fps. can't really tell much.
- She can swim.
- She can swim.
Clickers
- You can shoot off their limbs Resident Evil 2 style? One gets shot in the leg and begins crawling.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Generic is characters who are 2 dimensional, in terms of character writing.