• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

I replayed TLOU2 and I still don't know what to think about it...

sainraja

Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,901
1,405
1,480
If they really wanted to do a revenge tale, they should have dropped some clear hints; or we should have met Abby in the first game. I think that would have made a stronger impact (they didn't need to introduce her in any meaningful way in the first game, just let us know she was there....it would have had more meaning by the time we played the second.)
 
Last edited:
  • Strength
Reactions: Alter_Fridge
Aug 24, 2021
46
118
130
Hmm, is that a thing? I don't think I've ever seen a jump to 60fps that ever did anything other than hugely improve a game's visuals.

How would that even work?

Also, I noticed the same thing with Uncharted 4 and that's still at 30fps.
It’s because the blur of the 30fps hides the flaws. I noticed the same thing with Ghost of Tsushima Directors Cut until they updated to 2.006. Imo it made a huge graphical leap on PS4 and PS5, especially PS5.

The truth is that the textures were never that great in TLOU2. It’s just that Naughty Dog are absolute wizards at presenting their graphics in the best light.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
7,201
5,728
750
I just booted TLOU2 on my PS4 on a smaller screen and imo it looks better in 30fps. I think Naughty Dog was careful to cut corners on the textures/visuals to make it look super beautiful in 30 frames.

Those flaws are exposed at 60fps. I will say that the lack of haptics is noticeable on the PS5 and the PS4. They definitely need to patch that in at some point.
I think a DF video said something similar about the 60 fps mode and that likely adjusting the shutter speed for the motion blur at 60 fps would fix it.
 

Hunnybun

Member
Jun 3, 2020
1,349
1,604
360
It’s because the blur of the 30fps hides the flaws. I noticed the same thing with Ghost of Tsushima Directors Cut until they updated to 2.006. Imo it made a huge graphical leap on PS4 and PS5, especially PS5.

The truth is that the textures were never that great in TLOU2. It’s just that Naughty Dog are absolute wizards at presenting their graphics in the best light.

Well I guess they have to make the trade offs somewhere. Certainly on Youtube videos etc you could be fooled for thinking it's a next gen game.

But 6ft away from my 65" OLED.... yeah, not so much.

I tell you what game really shines with the 60fps patch on a big 4k set: Days Gone. It looks glorious, and imo much, much better than TLOU 2.
 

SafeOrAlone

Member
May 22, 2018
1,941
1,991
445
Gameplay is great. Don't think about it too hard and just enjoy. Play it on "mute", if you must. Some of the enemy encounters are the most fun I've had since Metal Gear Solid playthroughs.
 

Hugare

Member
Sep 8, 2019
1,390
3,122
475
In the world of The Last of Us, everyone is guilty of something which is why I think they shouldn't have focused too much on the revenge aspect. Although I get it now. Joel wasn't an angel. But no one in that world really was.....outside of Ellie I guess but she became a monster by the end, anyway.

All of them walk the path of destruction where their actions will equally affect someone else in similar ways....the line has to be drawn somewhere. I would have preferred a mix where they focused on character stories along with the story of the world they were living in, with the infection also taking some of the focus.
The game is really about guilt first and foresmost. Revenge is just window dressing.

In the end you realise that Ellie didnt really want revenge on Abby, she was just filled with guilt for not forgiving Joel sooner. She hated herself for it.

She didnt want to face her guilt and kept on her revenge for Abby because she didnt understand her emotions throughout the game, until the very end. Then she realised that by drowning Abby, her feeling off guilt would still be present.

Just like what happened to Abby after killing Joel.

That didnt stop her nightmares. She was still suffering.
Saving Yara and Lev is what stoped her nightmares and brought her peace.

I agree with your last criticism, about "more worls stories", but just like in The Walking Dead, the story is focused on characters, not the world.

But theres enough worldbuilding with thr Scars, Wolfs and all that
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sainraja
Aug 24, 2021
46
118
130
Well I guess they have to make the trade offs somewhere. Certainly on Youtube videos etc you could be fooled for thinking it's a next gen game.

But 6ft away from my 65" OLED.... yeah, not so much.

I tell you what game really shines with the 60fps patch on a big 4k set: Days Gone. It looks glorious, and imo much, much better than TLOU 2.
Agreed 100%!! Days Gone looks spectacular.
 

Hunnybun

Member
Jun 3, 2020
1,349
1,604
360
Agreed 100%!! Days Gone looks spectacular.

Right?! Such an underrated graphical showcase.

IMO ranking the last gen games that have had next gen updates for how they hold up visually:

1. God of War - might as well be next gen in some scenes, absolutely wonderful.
2. Doom Eternal - maybe a bit unfair given it's a pretty significant patch rather than just a frame rate unlock, but looks fantastic now
3. Days Gone
4. Horizon ZD - such a dynamic game anyway, so really shines at a better frame rate
5. Ratchet & Clank - still really beautiful, hard to fault really; just not as ridiculously spectacular as Rift Apart
6. Spider-Man - nothing wrong with it per se, I'm just not that into RT reflections so it's a bit lost on me
7. TLOU2 - fairly disappointing.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
Jun 5, 2013
682
565
655
San Francisco, CA
Even if that's not the point of the story according to you, why should players ignore that after the whole journey with Ellie and Joel?

Because the "whole journey" with Ellie and Joel very obviously isn't about 100% explanation/plausibility of every individual facet of their struggles. That's never what drama is about. So this is at minimum a demonstration your focus is on the wrong thing, or you're being really selective. You're not taking what the game gives you, and instead are choosing to nit-pick this specific story element for some reason... because you don't like thinking about Joel is a certain way, or something? Whatever the reasoning, it's weak.

You can apply this kind of nit-pickery to pretty much any story that's ever been told -- it's a pointless (and probably endless) rabbit hole to go down, and you're welcome to it.
 

Woggleman

Member
Jan 1, 2020
2,175
3,363
445
Completely turning off motion blur does wonders for the games visuals in 60FPS. ND always apply it too heavy though and I am glade they have the option to turn it off. To me it looks just as good on PS5. They should make a native PS5 update and if they want some goodwill make it completely free.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
7,201
5,728
750
Because the "whole journey" with Ellie and Joel very obviously isn't about 100% explanation/plausibility of every individual facet of their struggles. That's never what drama is about. So this is at minimum a demonstration your focus is on the wrong thing, or you're being really selective.
I was talking about the journey of getting to know Joel and Ellie and possibly care for (on some level) their fates. I'm sure I can find plenty of things to nitpick if I went over the entire game again. What happens at the hospital are major plot points and thus subject to more scrutiny.​
You're not taking what the game gives you, and instead are choosing to nit-pick this specific story element for some reason... because you don't like thinking about Joel is a certain way, or something? Whatever the reasoning, it's weak.
Why should I just accept what the game gives me when it doesn't jive with what's been established thus far?

According to you, what is the game giving what I'm not taking? Certain themes, concepts or ideas? Those still rely on execution to be conveyed well.
You can apply this kind of nit-pickery to pretty much any story that's ever been told -- it's a pointless (and probably endless) rabbit hole to go down, and you're welcome to it.
I welcome you to explain whether Ellie's sacrifice will be in vain or not is just a nitpick in this story.
 
Last edited:
Nov 20, 2020
104
211
250
You're not taking what the game gives you
The game gives you Fireflies:
A terrorist organization that were so horrid, Tommy, Joel's brother left them.
An organization who's only hope to legitimacy at that point in the story is finding a cure to the fungus.
A cause they put every immune person to come their way to the knife for, without ever producing anything positive in return.
An organization so much on a backfoot they can't spare people to escort their golden goose to the operating table.
To the extent where they have to trick a third party to do it and fuck them over on payment later, after they went above and beyond for their cause.

Yeah, these people were really on track to save humanity, huh.

If these details were unimportant, why are they there to begin with?

We literally could've been on a journey to a good genius doctor Jerry riding a zebra over a rainbow, like the floating hospital isolated from worldly turmoil in Children Of Men, but we very explicitly weren't.
And you're out here, straight face, telling people they are supposed to ignore all of that, else they "don't get it" and "nit-picking".
 

Blond

Banned
Dec 10, 2019
2,907
4,896
600
Sactown
You misunderstood my point. Abby herself doesn't vilify Ellie, playing as her does. The narrative does its absolute best to make you detest Ellie/Joel in every way possible. How? Playing as Abby - "Oh look! Cute dog! Let's give it pets and play fetch." Playing as Ellie - "Die doggy die!!!" Abby pets dogs, Ellie kills them.

As I alluded to in my previous response, ND had to do this in order to justify Abby's existence. Without vilifying Joel/Ellie at every possible turn, not a single person on Earth would want to play Abby, nor would they side with her after killing Joel. The only possible way to do this was to retcon the first.
I guess I'm just not one to talk because I'm admittedly the person who Druckmann admitted to making the game for, IE people who liked the first game which I did not. I liked Ellie and appreciated her revenge quest and hated Joel since the original because he doomed the world for his own selfishness.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
7,201
5,728
750
I liked Ellie and appreciated her revenge quest and hated Joel since the original because he doomed the world for his own selfishness.
I'm always curious about these takes. A vaccine only helps if you survived a bite from an infected or if you inhaled enough spores, seems like limited use cases to me.

Part 2 gives the strong impression that humans are more of a threat to each other than the infected. We see several human strongholds being able to keep infected at bay.

How would a vaccine have made the world in part 2 a more peaceful one in your view? You see the WLF and Scars uniting to get people vaccinated?
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: Hunnybun and Blond

Blond

Banned
Dec 10, 2019
2,907
4,896
600
Sactown
I'm always curious about these takes. A vaccine only helps if you survived a bite from an infected or if you inhaled enough spores, seems like limited use cases to me.

Part 2 gives the strong impression that humans are more of a threat to each other than the infected. We see several human strongholds being able to keep infected at bay.

How would a vaccine have made the world in part 2 a more peaceful one in your view? You see the WLF and Scars uniting to get people vaccinated?
Again, I'm not one to really talk too because while I appreciated the ambiguous ending and what it implied (Ellie knowing something happened while she was under anesthesia but having no clue as to what exactly it was but is willing to believe Joel because the bond they share is more important.)

But from my understanding Ellies mutation was special, it was different from the other ones they've found before and mutated into something that was harmless and that's what they wanted. Though again, that's a very surface level understanding.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
Jun 5, 2013
682
565
655
San Francisco, CA
If these details were unimportant, why are they there to begin with?

We literally could've been on a journey to a good genius doctor Jerry riding a zebra over a rainbow, like the floating hospital isolated from worldly turmoil in Children Of Men, but we very explicitly weren't.
And you're out here, straight face, telling people they are supposed to ignore all of that, else they "don't get it" and "nit-picking".

You're not representing the argument, no one said "ignore" elements of the game and this strawman isn't relevant to anything I've said in here. "The Fireflies can't be expected to roll-out a large-scale vaccine effectively" is the specific talking point which is irrelevant to what is offered by the game.

The reality as presented in the game isn't about the audience's ability to assess how the Fireflies are going to realistically maximize the impact of Ellie's sacrifice, and turn her immunity in a far-reaching cure, or how the audience should feel they have a likely chance of figuring out these specifics. That's not the point at all, the point is about the characters and their decision-making and their own biases, what they think is "the right thing to do".

It is not surprising at all that people so attached to black/white arguments would find "fault" in a game series that is so concerned with the grey area -- different points of view, different perspectives, and showing how one or two decisions can have a huge impact on both sides of a conflict.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
7,201
5,728
750
That's not the point at all, the point is about the characters and their decision-making and their own biases, what they think is "the right thing to do".
But why shouldn't the viewer evaluate the actions/decision-making of the game characters? Isn't that part of the fun when dealing with grey areas or ambiguous situations?

The game tries hard to present the hospital situation as both sides do what they believe to be right, a moral grey area, but it falls apart under scrutiny with all the information available in the game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Danjin44

EruditeHobo

Member
Jun 5, 2013
682
565
655
San Francisco, CA
But why shouldn't the viewer evaluate the actions/decision-making of the game characters? Isn't that part of the fun when dealing with grey areas or ambiguous situations?

The game tries hard to present the hospital situation as both sides do what they believe to be right, a moral grey area, but it falls apart under scrutiny with all the information available in the game.

This argument, along with the others I listed, is going out of your way to be cynical about what's presented. It's pretty damn clear what is presented.
And I'll restate it, the reason why is because anyone could apply this same never-ending "logic" to the vast majority of stories that have ever been told.
That's not engaging in good faith with what the story is presenting. It's a waste of time.

For the specific example, this is an exercise in rejecting what the game is telling you. These same people don't seem have a problem with a mind-control fungus-virus turning people into rotting zombies, but need to be convinced by the game about the logistics about a possible nationwide vaccine rollout before buying the character motivations and plausibility of their cause? That is idiotic on its face, and selective in the extreme.

But it doesn't matter, this is all just opinions. I can agree to civilly disagree with anyone that feels otherwise... as long as they are consistent in applying this standard, of course. Which... they aren't, pretty obviously.
 
Last edited:

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
7,201
5,728
750
This argument, along with the others I listed, is going out of your way to be cynical about what's presented. It's pretty damn clear what is presented.
And I'll restate it, the reason why is because anyone could apply this same never-ending "logic" to the vast majority of stories that have ever been told.
There's no cynicism, it's weighing what's being said to what's been shown and if there's enough of an imbalance it starts pulling me out.

I apply the same standard for other games/movies, depending on the genre of course.
That's not engaging in good faith with what the story is presenting. It's a waste of time.
I'm not out looking for flaws, it's just that I've identified an area where the story is less convincing to me because of what's been show of the story world. I don't go hate watching movies/shows/games.
For the specific example, this is an exercise in rejecting what the game is telling you. These same people don't seem have a problem with a mind-control fungus-virus turning people into rotting zombies, but need to be convinced by the game about the logistics about a possible nationwide vaccine rollout before buying the character motivations and plausibility of their cause? That is idiotic on its face, and selective in the extreme.
I accept the cordyceps virus because the game starts off with the outbreak of it, we see the aftermath decades after the event. We see the effects of it throughout the journey to the hospital. It is well established in the game/story. That's why it's easy to buy into it.

The means of the Fireflies curing the world with a vaccine is not established at all. There's even information that they may be on the brink of disbanding. That's why it's hard to buy into it.

I don't think I'm being selective here in expecting big claims made to be based on things established beforehand for them to be convincing enough.
But it doesn't matter, this is all just opinions. I can agree to civilly disagree with anyone that feels otherwise... as long as they are consistent in applying this standard, of course. Which... they aren't, pretty obviously.
It depends how serious stories present them selves, TLOU(2) present itself as very grounded so there for I'm more critical of it than say Bayonetta(2).
 
Last edited:

Delco Airsoft

Member
Jan 17, 2020
349
353
265
What I find odd is that fans of Game of Thrones (of which I am) loved it when popular characters were being brutally killed, however, when it happened in a game, gamers went nuts. All that says to me is that some gamers need to grow the fuck up.
I never watched the show but do characters get killed off early in the episode? I didn't mind Joel dying but I just wish that was the climax of the game. I think the Joel and Ellie flashbacks should have led up to his murder.
 

DForce

Member
Nov 23, 2017
5,286
10,361
575
Again, thats just the definition of lying itself, not a reason. Do you know why Joel kept the truth? Thats up for speculation.

Wrong according to whom?
The Last of Us Part I

Ellie Swear to me. Swear to me that everything you said about the fireflies is true.

Joel: I Swear.

Ellie: Okay.

The Last of Us Part II

Ellie: Tell me...what happened here.

Ellie: If you lie to me one more time, I'm gone. You will never see me again. But if you tell me the truth, I'll go back to Jackson. No matter what it is

Ellie: Just say it.

Ellie: Joel

Joel: Making a vaccine...would've killed you. So I stopped them.

Ellie: [Cries]


Both of these scenes are very similar.

Ellie asked the question to see if Joel would tell the truth.


It's funny how this is nothing but speculation, but people have no problem saying that Joel saved Ellie because he knew there would be no chance for a cure. If this is how most people interpreted the ending of The Last of Us and it was confirmed by the writers themselves, then that should be enough to put a nail in this coffin, but people want to deny it and go with their own theories.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
Jun 5, 2013
682
565
655
San Francisco, CA
The means of the Fireflies curing the world with a vaccine is not established at all.

Yes, and the Fireflies "curing the world with the vaccine" is not what is presented to the audience as a clear, obvious result of Ellie's death... whether or not they can effectively, efficiently, or even definitely "cure the world" remains irrelevant to the point of the narrative. In the way the situation is presented, the Fireflies believe it is absolutely worth the risk to their surviving numbers and perhaps humanity as a whole, Joel does not. There is obviously support for both points of view, as represented in the game itself. Ellie is demonstrated to be special/rare enough that there is a lot to be learned by her death.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
Jun 5, 2013
682
565
655
San Francisco, CA
I accept the cordyceps virus because the game starts off with the outbreak of it, we see the aftermath decades after the event. We see the effects of it throughout the journey to the hospital. It is well established in the game/story. That's why it's easy to buy into it.

Could do an easy mad lib-style word replacement here, focusing this same exact sentiments on the Firefly mission instead of the cordyceps:

I accept the plausibility of the Firefly's mission because the game starts off with highlighting the importance and rareness of Ellie, we see the value of her to the Fireflies and her struggle to hide her difference and navigate the world. We see the effects of her condition and the way people react to her, the resources the Fireflies throw at her throughout the journey to the hospital, and their reaction to her when she arrives. The value of Ellie's condition & the Firefly compound/medical team's capability is well established in the game/story.

On top of that, we could also do an easy evasion, like what you just did in that paragraph. We could skip right past what you're talking about, the way the world feels to you, how things are "supported/established" in the story... because none of that has any of the specifics below. There can always be a more specific/more granular/more nit-picking road to go down with these kinds of stories:

yeah, the world feels real, but how does the virus specifically work?
why does it make people able to survive for long periods without food?
why are they zombie-like, specifically?
why do they grow into the different types of monsters?
why do sometimes the tougher ones emerge at specific times, it's such an obviously contrived boss battle!
what amount do they have to inhale to get the virus?
how do we know those masks keep them safe?
where did they get those masks?
why don't we see them cleaning or changing the filters on them?
surely that's important if they are keeping Joel safe from inhalation?


Your paragraph about the "cordyceps virus" just pays lip service to it being "established in the world" and having to live with it for the journey to the hospital. That is meaningless and avoidant, when it comes to the specifics I'm talking about above. And that's because it's just as I said, you could take this hyper-skeptical/cynical rabbit hole route with anything -- any plot point, any bit of world-building, etc. It's not a good argument in and of itself, for anything.
 
Last edited:

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
7,201
5,728
750
Yes, and the Fireflies "curing the world with the vaccine" is not what is presented to the audience as a clear, obvious result of Ellie's death... whether or not they can effectively, efficiently, or even definitely "cure the world" remains irrelevant to the point of the narrative. In the way the situation is presented, the Fireflies believe it is absolutely worth the risk to their surviving numbers and perhaps humanity as a whole, Joel does not. There is obviously support for both points of view, as represented in the game itself. Ellie is demonstrated to be special/rare enough that there is a lot to be learned by her death.
Sure, I don't disagree the game presents both sides as having cause for their actions. But why is that some story goalpost one shouldn't try to look beyond? Why shouldn't the player look at the situation with the available information and draw own conclusions?

Seems like you're arguing the story at that point is about both sides having their reasons and it doesn't matter who's more believable. To me, in heavy story driven games/movies, believability matters also.
Could do an easy mad lib-style word replacement here, focusing this same exact sentiments on the Firefly mission instead of the cordyceps:

I accept the plausibility of the Firefly's mission because the game starts off with highlighting the importance and rareness of Ellie, we see the value of her to the Fireflies and her struggle to hide her difference and navigate the world. We see the effects of her condition and the way people react to her, the resources the Fireflies throw at her throughout the journey to the hospital, and their reaction to her when she arrives. The value of Ellie's condition & the Firefly compound/medical team's capability is well established in the game/story.
You seem to be shifting the point of view to the Fireflies in the story which still doesn't tell how they eventually could succeed in saving millions with the vaccine. That information simply isn't in the game which hurts the believability of the Fireflies. Your version establishes they care about their mission and Ellie since without her it wouldn't be possible to achieve it. I don't see how it counters any story criticisms I brought up.
On top of that, we could also do an easy evasion, like what you just did in that paragraph. We could skip right past what you're talking about, the way the world feels to you, how things are "supported/established" in the story... because none of that has any of the specifics below. There can always be a more specific/more granular/more nit-picking road to go down with these kinds of stories:

yeah, the world feels real, but how does the virus specifically work??
why does it make people able to survive for long periods without food?
why are they zombie-like, specifically? why do they grow into the different types of monsters?
why do sometimes the tougher ones emerge at specific times, it's such an obviously contrived boss battle!
what amount do they have to inhale to get the virus? how do we know those masks keep them safe? where did they get those masks?
How do those specifics matter in story? Would be cool if the game had answers to those but I think it works well enough without. That's why I focus on the bigger things like "creating a vaccine to save millions" and how realistic that sounds in the story world.

What happens in gameplay sections I see as separate from the story cut scenes since they're not affected by them in relevant ways, if at all.
Your paragraph about the "cordyceps virus" just pays lip service to it being "established in the world" and having to live with it for the journey to the hospital. That is meaningless and avoidant, when it comes to the specifics I'm talking about above.
For the story to work you have to accept that the cordyceps virus exists and causes the mutations seen in the game otherwise it's a non starter. More information about the virus and where it came from would be cool for the lore of the world but for this story it works without it since no one knows or brings it up.
And that's beecause it's just as I said, you could take this hyper-skeptical/cynical rabbit hole route with anything -- any plot point, any bit of world-building, etc. It's not a good argument in and of itself, for anything.
You seem to be making this strange leap that because I criticize something big in the story(believability of the Fireflies, not to mention their methods) I should also be criticizing lots of small things which don't really affect the plot. What the Fireflies say and do at the hospital is an important part of the story and thus subject to more scrutiny from me.
 
Nov 20, 2020
104
211
250
yeah, the world feels real, but how does the virus specifically work? Like the real cordyceps does, except it infects humans
why does it make people able to survive for long periods without food? Because that's how real cordyceps works
why are they zombie-like, specifically? Because that's how real cordyceps works
why do they grow into the different types of monsters? For gamey stuff
why do sometimes the tougher ones emerge at specific times, it's such an obviously contrived boss battle! For gamey stuff
what amount do they have to inhale to get the virus? Depends on a person, like any real virus
how do we know those masks keep them safe? Because that's how gas masks work. They filter out particles that are smaller than actual fungal spores.
where did they get those masks? Fire stations, police stations, military bases, home depots. Really, dude.
why don't we see them cleaning or changing the filters on them? Because in real life they last quite a while.
surely that's important if they are keeping Joel safe from inhalation? He didn't get infected, so I guess his mask did its job.
I guess for all the claims about us not engaging with the story in good faith, you sure can't spare any on our arguments.
You could've brought up how real cordyceps cannot be cured, but oh wait, that defeats your point, doesn't it. On the other hand, notice how none of us brought this up, because we made a concession that it's possible for the story's sake?
What we don't make concessions for, is not the technicalities, but the deliberate depiction of Fireflies, the dudes to supposedly deliver a vaccine. Who are shown in the story to be unhinged, fanatical, destructive, untrustworthy.
So we, the audience, don't trust them to do any good with or without the vaccine.
Deal with it.
Oh yeah, and the sequel comes around and depicts infected as a mild nuisance after the "dooming the humanity" event took place.
The sequel does fuck-all to substantiate the implications of Joel's decision from the first game.
 
Last edited:

EruditeHobo

Member
Jun 5, 2013
682
565
655
San Francisco, CA
I guess for all the claims about us not engaging with the story in good faith, you sure can't spare any on our arguments.

Can, and have been, doing the exact same thing for the "they can't cure the whole world!!" bullshit too. That's the point, the problem is with the objection. Additionally, you painting the Fireflies with a broad brush as if they're a bunch of lunatics is the opposite of what the game did. They are a varied group for a reason, and the representation of the hospital is what matters.

How do those specifics matter in story? Would be cool if the game had answers to those...

Actually, it would be a waste of time. Like going into the specifics of a potential vaccine rollout.

For the story to work you have to accept that the cordyceps virus exists and causes the mutations seen in the game otherwise it's a non starter...

Yes, and for the ending to work you have to recognize that the efficacy of rolling out the vaccine isn't what gives the potential sacrifice of Ellie dramatic weight or logical grounding within the narrative. The lack of immediate, obvious, apparently achievable "world cure" doesn't call into question the validity of either side, because of the exact similar reasons that you're defending this ridiculous fungus-zombie virus -- it is well-established in multiple ways in the narrative, through the specialness of Ellie and the way the Fireflies/the hospital is portrayed.

So again, agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

Synless

Member
May 13, 2007
11,706
1,145
1,525
Michigan
I didn't play it for about 1.5 years until it hit around $20 and the 60 fps patch came out on PS5 because I despise woke shit in my games, music, or media in general. I decided to give the game a shot and guess what? It was damn good. It wasn't overly in your face woke, Abby was a better character than Ellie (yeah I said it, Ellie was a vindictive dumbshit who deserved what she got) and it was visually amazing. It got completely blown out of proportion on here.
 
Last edited:

Alter_Fridge

Member
Aug 8, 2016
3,728
1,689
590
SPOILERS AHEAD (1st and 2nd game)

Let's get the most brilliant part of the game first: The graphics, OMG this game looks awesome! It even scares me how PS5 games will look like at the end of this gen.

Secondly, the gameplay is great. I normally suck at games, but I know many people have praised this game for its combat mechanics.

Then comes the story, which is what I like the most of playing single payer games. This game is still confusing me about liking it or not.

I believe many people hate the story, not because it's good or bad, but because it didn't go they way they thought it would. I can say I definitely did not imagine things would go this in a sequel when I finished the first one.

Then there's the story itself. IMO, before considering if it's good or bad, I think the thing that it affects it the most (at least for me), is that they focused 99% on the characters and they forgot the world they built in the first game. The first game we were introduced to a world that was being consumed by a virus, and we saw the beginning of it in the introduction, as well as the world after the outbreak in the course of the story. In fact, the story focused on the cure which Ellie was the hope of it.

In the second game, the world passed to be practically irrelevant. We don't really see the outcome of Ellie being immune (except with Joel's lie), but as a world in general, is like nobody cared if there could be someone else like Ellie. Also, even without someone like Ellie, it's like everyone just stopped looking for something of a cure. I thought that in the second game, we would se more of the world affected by the virus. Like other countries, etc, but didn't happen, obviously.

So. said that the second game focused way too much in the characters, and while it's not a bad thing. If you take the story as is, and place it in another world, it would make sense. Make it so that they are in war, instead of an apocalyptic world, they could still do the same story. Like, why would a group of people be more dangerous than freaking zombies?! It's like if you are playing Resident Evil 2 and you would fear more the mob destroying the city, than the actual people getting turned into zombies, or something like that.

Going into the story, I think it was good in general, but not for this franchise. It would have made much more sense to make a new IP to do something like this revenge cycle, because I think the characters would have to focus more on the dangers of the world than. the drama of revenge. The moment the focused the story in revenge, the zombies and the different groups were just an obstacle, instead of real dangers our characters should look for.

I liked the Sepharite group because I believe that in such a world, in real life, many of these groups would be created in order to survive each in their own way. Some will go back to 0, others will have luxuries, etc. That's good, but they were just merely plot devices to get to the revenge main plot.

So the story was serviceable, it does make you feel many emotions, and it goes to places that not many writers dare to go and I think that's why it caused so much controversy, and to me that's great. Whether it was good or bad, I wish many writers in games and movies dare to do things as different and exciting as they did with this game. They need to take risks.

Joel's Death:
One of the main criticism about the game was the death of Joel. In the contained story that they were telling, it made a lot of sense, and it was executed well, but like I said, this particular story should've been made into other game. I believe that Joel should have died defending Ellie from some huge danger, not from being the target of revenge.

I honestly had no problem with the Joel death in the way it was handled. It was justified in the context of the story
 
  • Like
Reactions: rofif

Alter_Fridge

Member
Aug 8, 2016
3,728
1,689
590
If they really wanted to do a revenge tale, they should have dropped some clear hints; or we should have met Abby in the first game. I think that would have made a stronger impact (they didn't need to introduce her in any meaningful way in the first game, just let us know she was there....it would have had more meaning by the time we played the second.)

Naughty Dog love retconning

See Sam randomly showing up in U4
 
Last edited:

assurdum

Banned
Aug 14, 2020
3,799
6,546
530
I didn't play it for about 1.5 years until it hit around $20 and the 60 fps patch came out on PS5 because I despise woke shit in my games, music, or media in general. I decided to give the game a shot and guess what? It was damn good. It wasn't overly in your face woke, Abby was a better character than Ellie (yeah I said it, Ellie was a vindictive dumbshit who deserved what she got) and it was visually amazing. It got completely blown out of proportion on here.
Tastes 🤷‍♀️ personally I find Abby insufferable and with the other one (I don't even remember the name lol) a surrogate of the Joel-Ellie couple but far worsen executed with an awful side story.
 
Last edited:

Synless

Member
May 13, 2007
11,706
1,145
1,525
Michigan
Tastes 🤷‍♀️ personally I find Abby insufferable and with the other one (I don't even remember the name lol) a surrogate of Joel-Ellie couple but worsen designed with a terrible stupid story.
I am bitter they offed Joel though. That guy was the GOAT and what they did to him was bullshit.

The thought process I've read is that Joel had it coming. Well, how would everyone feel if the cast of Uncharted got merced. Nathan Drake executed in cold blood by one of the family members of the many people he has murdered? I don't think people would like it.
 
Last edited:

Alter_Fridge

Member
Aug 8, 2016
3,728
1,689
590
Why do I need to go to the shooting range with Abby? I already know how to aim and shoot a gun, taught by Tommy

Bloaters indeed
 
Last edited:

assurdum

Banned
Aug 14, 2020
3,799
6,546
530
I am bitter they offed Joel though. That guy was the GOAT and what they did to him was bullshit.

The thought process I've read is that Joel had it coming. Well, how would everyone feel if the cast of Uncharted got merced. Nathan Drake executed in cold blood by one of the family members of the many people he has murdered? I don't think people would like it.
I think the Joel end is the only remarkable part of the story. But the rest ... I don't know how define it, don't know if you ended it but it's full of contradictions and some things had no sense at all for me. I think they were too focused to the drama contents than make an interesting and passionate story, because if I have to look at the simple subject of the story it's really a roller coaster of nothing and it left me with a punch of sand in my hand.
 
Last edited:

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
7,201
5,728
750
Actually, it would be a waste of time. Like going into the specifics of a potential vaccine rollout.
It affects the believability of the Fireflies who play a major role in the story which in turn undermines the point of the story of the "both sides" if their side is clearly(IMO) making unsubstantiated claims.

They game doesn't have to go into great specifics for me, a few lines or documents that the Fireflies have the resources to (mass)produce vaccines would've probably made me drop that particular criticism of them. I'll gladly assume they haven't thought about distribution yet. It still leaves their methods that makes me side against them.
Yes, and for the ending to work you have to recognize that the efficacy of rolling out the vaccine isn't what gives the potential sacrifice of Ellie dramatic weight. It doesn't call into question the validity of either side, because of the exact similar reasons that you're defending this ridiculous fungus-zombie virus -- it is well-established in multiple ways in the narrative, through the specialness of Ellie and the way the Fireflies/the hospital is portrayed.
You're misrepresenting my position a little, it's not just if the vaccine can be distributed across the country/continent/world, it's if they can mass produce it in the first place. The game doesn't show the Fireflies can do either. Therefore their sides looks like the lesser one to me.

Actually, I think the ending still mostly works despite the my criticisms of the the hospital section. It's just that in the end, to me Joel was more in the right than the Fireflies.
 
Last edited:

Randall365

Member
Aug 11, 2014
289
146
545
What made the original great was Joel and Ellie's relationship. The best part of TLOU2 is those few glimpses we saw of that relationship while everything else fell flat.

this - and they didn't fix the gameplay issues and the pacing was off.

Still - it did look great.
 

Woggleman

Member
Jan 1, 2020
2,175
3,363
445
Say what you want about the story but the gameplay was a huge improvement over the first. I know people who disliked the first and loved the second for the same reason. I never though the first had bad gameplay though.
 

Alter_Fridge

Member
Aug 8, 2016
3,728
1,689
590
Say what you want about the story but the gameplay was a huge improvement over the first. I know people who disliked the first and loved the second for the same reason. I never though the first had bad gameplay though.
Define what you mean by 'gameplay'

I never felt safe during the first game.
I've rarely felt scared in this one, apart from jump scare type things
 
Last edited:

EruditeHobo

Member
Jun 5, 2013
682
565
655
San Francisco, CA
They game doesn't have to go into great specifics for me, a few lines or documents that the Fireflies have the resources to (mass)produce vaccines would've probably made me drop that particular criticism of them. I'll gladly assume they haven't thought about distribution yet. It still leaves their methods that makes me side against them.

You admitting your own criticism can be addressed with such a small addition should tell you everything you need to know about your own criticism, IMO. But we obviously see this quite differently, so that's no surprise.

You're misrepresenting my position a little, it's not just if the vaccine can be distributed across the country/continent/world...

I can only respond to the words that are being used here -- my initial post, which you responded to, was actually a response to someone talking about the Fireflies "saving the world". And you have also said similar things, so you must have a funny definition of misrepresenting your argument:

the story which [...] doesn't tell how they eventually could succeed in saving millions with the vaccine.

The action/steps required to "save millions" is, once again, not the point. Ellie is the first step, and their credibility is well-established. They don't need a full distribution model or vaccine production outline within the game for this. It would be a waste of time considering the stakes that are already thoroughly covered by the content of the game's narrative, in the exact same way as a full biological breakdown of the virus would be a waste. Because these are all genre tropes that already very, very familiar.
 
Last edited:

Balducci30

Member
Mar 11, 2020
1,740
1,972
425
This argument, along with the others I listed, is going out of your way to be cynical about what's presented. It's pretty damn clear what is presented.
And I'll restate it, the reason why is because anyone could apply this same never-ending "logic" to the vast majority of stories that have ever been told.
That's not engaging in good faith with what the story is presenting. It's a waste of time.

For the specific example, this is an exercise in rejecting what the game is telling you. These same people don't seem have a problem with a mind-control fungus-virus turning people into rotting zombies, but need to be convinced by the game about the logistics about a possible nationwide vaccine rollout before buying the character motivations and plausibility of their cause? That is idiotic on its face, and selective in the extreme.

But it doesn't matter, this is all just opinions. I can agree to civilly disagree with anyone that feels otherwise... as long as they are consistent in applying this standard, of course. Which... they aren't, pretty obviously.
I mean there are problems with the story - I don’t have a huge issue with them changing that doctor sequence retroactively - I figure that’s just each characters subjective interpretation or something. But the way they so clearly we’re trying very hard to prove to the player that Abby was a good person was just so heavy handed and you could easily see what they were trying to do. The moral question about Joel and was he right or wrong was definitively decided upon in a black and white way in the sequel where in the first there was room for ambiguity. And then the pacing itself is not great - Ellie’s first section takes far too long and has much less specificity and clarity in it than abbys. The firsts quality is mainly it’s story - the second didn’t live up to the first in terms of the simple but effective storytelling. It was ambitious but largely convoluted and executed poorly for the most part on ideas they were trying to get across (futility of revenge, guilt, grief, choosing hate, etc) - the gameplay however was way better than the first.

EDIT: also the whole vaccine distribution, effectiveness, not looking for another person with this thing, it is a problem. And that’s not really nitpicking. Like when you see a scientist in a movie about aliens go up to the alien right away with no protocols - that’s not nitpicking. Yes there is a suspension of disbelief for the premise for the game but normally the hallmark of a good genre story (if made to be realistic and human) is being presented with a pretty out there scenario and then putting real people into it to see what they do. That is why at the end of the first game many had arguments about whether Joel’s actions were morally justified or not - they were allowed to have those arguments. Because the depth that was implied (apparently merely just by omitting it) allowed you to consider how sacrificing Ellie was not actually a sure bet in the first place. The second one does away with this argument by landing firmly on one side of the fence - and perhaps that’s what they intended all along but sometimes the subjective interpretation due to lack of that knowledge by the audience makes it actually a more complex piece than it the creators were intending.
 
Last edited:

EruditeHobo

Member
Jun 5, 2013
682
565
655
San Francisco, CA
I mean there are problems with the story - I don’t have a huge issue with them changing that doctor sequence retroactively - I figure that’s just each characters subjective interpretation or something. But the way they so clearly we’re trying very hard to prove to the player that Abby was a good person was just so heavy handed and you could easily see what they were trying to do.

I definitely agree some of it may be a bit heavy-handed, but in a sort of operatic, post-modern morality play like this... a bit of heavy-handedness is de rigueur. And none of it is without a reason, that stuff is like a direct contrast to the time we've spent with the more innocent, charming Ellie in the previous game. To look at this transformation this person has gone through, look at what this one decision has done to her/what the impact was on her.

I've never been saying the game is perfect. I just find many of these arguments to be weak.
Some of them I outright agree with -- the pacing criticisms are 100% legit IMO.
 
Last edited:

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
7,201
5,728
750
You admitting your own criticism can be addressed with such a small addition should tell you everything you need to know about your own criticism, IMO. But we obviously see this quite differently, so that's no surprise.
I do believe in providing some solutions instead of only criticizing. It also means these aren't game breaking criticisms to me and more like indications of some sloppiness in the writing(IMO).
I can only respond to the words that are being used here -- my initial post, which you responded to, was actually a response to someone talking about the Fireflies "saving the world". And you have also said similar things, so you must have a funny definition of misrepresenting your argument:
Yes, was I bit hyperbolic then but I revised it to saving millions later on since that's what Jerry actually says. If I held on the to saving the world standard, it would look worse for the Fireflies.
The action/steps required to "save millions" is, once again, not the point. Ellie is the first step, and their credibility is well-established. They don't need a full distribution model or vaccine production outline within the game for this. It would be a waste of time considering the stakes that are already thoroughly covered by the content of the game's narrative, in the exact same way as a full biological breakdown of the virus would be a waste. Because these are all genre tropes that already very, very familiar.
Indeed they don't since the story never goes there, but there still needs to be more than nothing for it to be the least bit believable that they could've reached their goal of saving many people with the vaccine. Because now it looks like Ellie's sacrifice could very well be in vain(ignoring the robbing her autonomy) when we don't know if Fireflies can even mass produce. The game only establishes that the Fireflies would be able to perform the operation but not much more than that. For me this undermines the "both sides think they're doing the right thing" the game pushes and I'm quick to root against the Fireflies rather than being conflicted who's in the right as the hospital section plays out.
 

Bernardougf

Neo Member
Mar 7, 2021
24
25
100
I do believe in providing some solutions instead of only criticizing. It also means these aren't game breaking criticisms to me and more like indications of some sloppiness in the writing(IMO).

Yes, was I bit hyperbolic then but I revised it to saving millions later on since that's what Jerry actually says. If I held on the to saving the world standard, it would look worse for the Fireflies.

Indeed they don't since the story never goes there, but there still needs to be more than nothing for it to be the least bit believable that they could've reached their goal of saving many people with the vaccine. Because now it looks like Ellie's sacrifice could very well be in vain(ignoring the robbing her autonomy) when we don't know if Fireflies can even mass produce. The game only establishes that the Fireflies would be able to perform the operation but not much more than that. For me this undermines the "both sides think they're doing the right thing" the game pushes and I'm quick to root against the Fireflies rather than being conflicted who's in the right as the hospital section plays out.
The funny thing is that I dont remember years ago the ending on the hospital beeing this controversial or doubious thing, most if not all my friends felt that Joels actions where right for that story, It took the retcon on the second gane to some of them think this ways... its strange but the story manipulation in the prologue done by ND worked for some people like a charm
 
  • Strength
Reactions: Alter_Fridge