Support NeoGAF

[Kuranghi]

Dude i'm already at 20 hours with the game, after the first one there was no chance of me missing the day one with the sequel.

And yes the dead animations are delightful

When I get it I'm going to absolutely terrorise the NPCs trying to see all the gore haha.

You prob already did it by accident but you can crawl around through the ragdolls to shoogle them, its amazing looking.

 

[GymWolf]

When I get it I'm going to absolutely terrorise the NPCs trying to see all the gore haha.

You prob already did it by accident but you can crawl around through the ragdolls to shoogle them, its amazing looking.

Yeah i already did that by accident

Yesterday i shooted to an enemy leg and the chick was praying me to not kill her, i was mercyful and i only used a molotov to take her out, the fire killed her, not me

 

[Kuranghi]

Yeah i already did that by accident

Yesterday i shoot to an enemy leg and the chick was praying me to not kill her, i was mercyful and i only used a molotov to take her out, the fire killed her, not me.

Its like a "factory where Alex Murphy gets fucked up scene" simulator lol, crying and screaming on the ground while cradling a ruined hand/arm.

 

[GymWolf]

Its like a "factory where Alex Murphy gets fucked up scene" simulator lol, crying and screaming on the ground while cradling a ruined hand/arm.

Yeah especially the stalkers, sometimes they scream and move on the ground for 20-30 seconds before dead comes.

Rdr2 has some nice gore and screaming but this shit is next level.

 

[EverydayBeast]

LOU2 shows ND is CONSISTENT.

 

[pawel86ck]

wasn't you the guy who created a safespace tlou2 thread for 'fans only' and 'no haters' according to your rules which got locked afterwards and you now are talking about 'cant accept when other people like something you don't?

I wasnt offending people for their opinions and my rules were only excluding trolls because I wanted honest discussion instead of wars with trolls. People who played the game and were disappointed for real have shared their impressions in my thread. What's interesting even these people have admitted game is still 6-8/10 in the end (that's a far cry from 0/10 trolls give) because there are many strong points besides the story.

 

[Mahadev]

He liked UC4 that much? Uncharted 4 was dogshit compared to the other Uncharted games, TLOU 1 was leagues better than that boring fucking game.

 

[DJTaurus]

Now this is a review that sums up how I feel about the game. Guess he ain't getting a review copy from Sony anymore.

I loved how neutral this guy was on his criticism. Hoped many other would follow his way of commenting.

 

[Barnabot]

He liked UC4 that much? Uncharted 4 was dogshit compared to the other Uncharted games, TLOU 1 was leagues better than that boring fucking game.

i mean ... a reminder that this is still his opinion



and opinions are subjective /capitainobvious

 

[bohrdom]

He liked UC4 that much? Uncharted 4 was dogshit compared to the other Uncharted games, TLOU 1 was leagues better than that boring fucking game.

UC4 was far more refined than the other Uncharteds in terms of gameplay. The other Uncharteds had the narrative of a summer blockbuster but UC4 had more drama. It's far more appealing to mature audiences.

 

[AnkitDanger]

I agree with him

 

[GymWolf]

UC4 was far more refined than the other Uncharteds in terms of gameplay. The other Uncharteds had the narrative of a summer blockbuster but UC4 had more drama. It's far more appealing to mature audiences.

nah, it is boring for mature audience too, the pacing was utter shit.

 

[bohrdom]

nah, it is boring for mature audience too, the pacing was utter shit.

Hmm I only have a few data points. I played UC4 and UC1/2/3 with a few people who don't really play videogames. Across all my friends they liked UC4 since the pacing was much better and it dived into character motivations in an engaging way. The other games bored them except for UC2.

 

[GymWolf]

Hmm I only have a few data points. I played UC4 and UC1/2/3 with a few people who don't really play videogames. Across all my friends they liked UC4 since the pacing was much better and it dived into character motivations in an engaging way. The other games bored them except for UC2.

different taste i guess, for me unchy 2 was the pinnacle as a total package, unchy4 has the better gunplay (and by a long margin).

 

[Handy Fake]

Love the Dunk.

For all his more comedic videos, when he does upload a serious video he's alarmingly insightful and erudite.
Did a very good video about the film "The Shining" which was a tremendous little piece.

 

[Mahadev]

UC4 was far more refined than the other Uncharteds in terms of gameplay. The other Uncharteds had the narrative of a summer blockbuster but UC4 had more drama. It's far more appealing to mature audiences.

What gameplay? Most of the game was cinematics and boring walking missions with too much exposition. Just like with other games of the franchise the story was simple but this time it was told in the most filler and often convoluted way possible. Yes, when you managed to play, especially during the last quarter of the game, it was fun but by then I was already bored. Not a bad game but I definitely expected more.

 

[Tomeru]

I'm not surprised that lot of people think this kind of poor writing is acceptable as were living in a time when there's so much mindless garbage on TV and cinema. People nowadays have been conditioned to switch their brains off and not pay too much attention to the complexity of the stories being told, so it's not surprising to see people have no awareness to poor writing.

Please tell me how can I become un-conditioned and enjoy true writing.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Please tell me how can I become un-conditioned and enjoy true writing.

It's an especially weird comment considering our media has gotten more complex with time (proof this doesn't mean better). If you look at what's mainstream today from a complexity and switch your mind off standpoint even big dumb blockbusters have complicated plots now, part of what made blockbusters of yore so good was their simplicity, movies like Terminator, First Blood and Jaws were not all that complex.

 

[Tomeru]

It's an especially weird comment considering our media has gotten more complex with time (proof this doesn't mean better). If you look at what's mainstream today from a complexity and switch your mind off standpoint even big dumb blockbusters have complicated plots now, part of what made blockbusters of yore so good was their simplicity, movies like Terminator, First Blood and Jaws were not all that complex.

I spit some of the beer I'm drinking. Thanks for that.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

MiyazakiHatesKojima

Indeed.

 

[psorcerer]

I've seen plenty of bad arguments online, yes, you were making it sound like yours were so good they were factual, so I wanted to see yours.

I suppose you're genuine so let's do it.
There's a thing called "arbitrarity and tyranny" of the writer.
It means that the writer is a sole God in his books, he can do anything arbitrary to the characters and can rationalize it in any way.
He can put the characters in situations where their only choice is what author wants them to do.
Arbitrarity is considered a not comme il faut, i.e. it's a bad writing. Although it's true - the author is a God.
If author plays God too much the audience feels as if he is condescending, speaking from a high horse.
So, good writers play a game: they make sure that audience can never suspect that author is playing God and not telling a genuine, true story.
It's like dating, you don't say on the first date: undress we gonna have sex.
You play a game, where the ultimate goal of both parties is to make a relationship that lasts. Although in reality the writer is just fucks you in the mind in the end.

In case of TLOU2 it's an immediate tyranny. As if author says to the audience: I'm almighty in my books and can inject a new character in my book and you will like it, because you're my bitch!
But how do I know that it's a God's play?
Simple: too much coincidence.
Abbie meets Joel and Tommy in a way that they cannot refuse to be taken.
Ellie kills each and every of "Abbie's friends" while not really wanting that.
Ellie conveniently leaves the map in the Aquarium.
Abbie father is the only real surgeon alive, the only one that can make a vaccine.
Etc. etc.
In short the odds are always, like really always on Abbie's side.
Even in the end Ellie finds her in a pretty destroyed state where killing her will not make it better.

So, it's like author is deliberately toying with the audience: you see I can write it in such a way that you cannot win, now listen to the condescending monologue on "revenge is bad" from me!
The best course of action for a smart audience is go for the "last argument", which is pretty simple: "Author, you're shit and your book is shit". That's it. Liking something is subjective.
Audience is in their right to call any book or author "pure shit". An nobody can blame them.

TL;DR when author is going for the direct "I'm going to gang-bang your mind", the audience can say: "your dick is too small for that, get lost".

 

[Barnabot]

I suppose you're genuine so let's do it.
There's a thing called "arbitrarity and tyranny" of the writer.
It means that the writer is a sole God in his books, he can do anything arbitrary to the characters and can rationalize it in any way.
He can put the characters in situations where their only choice is what author wants them to do.
Arbitrarity is considered a not comme il faut, i.e. it's a bad writing. Although it's true - the author is a God.
If author plays God too much the audience feels as if he is condescending, speaking from a high horse.
So, good writers play a game: they make sure that audience can never suspect that author is playing God and not telling a genuine, true story.
It's like dating, you don't say on the first date: undress we gonna have sex.
You play a game, where the ultimate goal of both parties is to make a relationship that lasts. Although in reality the writer is just fucks you in the mind in the end.

In case of TLOU2 it's an immediate tyranny. As if author says to the audience: I'm almighty in my books and can inject a new character in my book and you will like it, because you're my bitch!
But how do I know that it's a God's play?
Simple: too much coincidence.
Abbie meets Joel and Tommy in a way that they cannot refuse to be taken.
Ellie kills each and every of "Abbie's friends" while not really wanting that.
Ellie conveniently leaves the map in the Aquarium.
Abbie father is the only real surgeon alive, the only one that can make a vaccine.
Etc. etc.
In short the odds are always, like really always on Abbie's side.
Even in the end Ellie finds here in a pretty destroyed state where killing her will not make it better.

So, it's like author is deliberately toying with the audience: you see I can write it in such a way that you cannot win, now listen to the condescending monologue on "revenge is bad" from me!
The best course of action for a smart audience is go for the "last argument", which is pretty simple: "Author, you're shit and your book is shit". That's it. Liking something is subjective.
Audience is in their right to call any book or author "pure shit". An nobody can blame them.

TL;DR when author is going for the direct "I'm going to gang-bang your mind", the audience can say: "your dick is too small for that, get lost".

 

[Mypmarlo]

UC4 was far more refined than the other Uncharteds in terms of gameplay. The other Uncharteds had the narrative of a summer blockbuster but UC4 had more drama. It's far more appealing to mature audiences.

Just NO

 

[Explosive Zombie]

I suppose you're genuine so let's do it.
There's a thing called "arbitrarity and tyranny" of the writer.
It means that the writer is a sole God in his books, he can do anything arbitrary to the characters and can rationalize it in any way.
He can put the characters in situations where their only choice is what author wants them to do.
Arbitrarity is considered a not comme il faut, i.e. it's a bad writing. Although it's true - the author is a God.
If author plays God too much the audience feels as if he is condescending, speaking from a high horse.
So, good writers play a game: they make sure that audience can never suspect that author is playing God and not telling a genuine, true story.
It's like dating, you don't say on the first date: undress we gonna have sex.
You play a game, where the ultimate goal of both parties is to make a relationship that lasts. Although in reality the writer is just fucks you in the mind in the end.

In case of TLOU2 it's an immediate tyranny. As if author says to the audience: I'm almighty in my books and can inject a new character in my book and you will like it, because you're my bitch!
But how do I know that it's a God's play?
Simple: too much coincidence.
Abbie meets Joel and Tommy in a way that they cannot refuse to be taken.
Ellie kills each and every of "Abbie's friends" while not really wanting that.
Ellie conveniently leaves the map in the Aquarium.
Abbie father is the only real surgeon alive, the only one that can make a vaccine.
Etc. etc.
In short the odds are always, like really always on Abbie's side.
Even in the end Ellie finds her in a pretty destroyed state where killing her will not make it better.

So, it's like author is deliberately toying with the audience: you see I can write it in such a way that you cannot win, now listen to the condescending monologue on "revenge is bad" from me!
The best course of action for a smart audience is go for the "last argument", which is pretty simple: "Author, you're shit and your book is shit". That's it. Liking something is subjective.
Audience is in their right to call any book or author "pure shit". An nobody can blame them.

TL;DR when author is going for the direct "I'm going to gang-bang your mind", the audience can say: "your dick is too small for that, get lost".

So, here's where I disagree with you... when you say too much coincidence. There's a few things I'll say to this...

1. If the coincidence you're complaining about is the foundation of the story then you aren't complaining about the right thing. Setting up the players, the situation and so forth for a story can be coincidental, what's important is whether or not the conclusion of that story is founded in coincidence, or if the road to such a conclusion is contrived, but pretty often stories rely on coincidence to get going, that's why they're a story, because something unique occurred at the start. Changing how Abby meets Joel and kills him can change the entire story, it's the foundation of the game's story. It's like saying it's too coincidental the T-800 and Kyle Reese both catch up to Sarah Connor at Tech-Noir, it's not even the same story if this doesn't occur.

2. I'm not sure a person on a quest for revenge killing people is what I'd deem coincidence. Not to mention it's a standard trope of revenge stories that the person out for revenge causes collateral damage whether to others or their own side.

3. But that was already the basis for the first game? Why did they need to get Ellie to one specific far away research facility to do this? Because stumbling across surgeons who can perform something like this is sort of 1 in a million in the world of TLOU. This is a weird thing to complain about since it's set up already.

4. What do you mean by the odds always being on Abby's side?

5. Wait, 'finds her in a destroyed state' doesn't really jive with the idea that she's always got the odds on her side.

6. What would winning entail?

7. You should look into Aristotle's ideas on how a tragic tale should be told:

Aristotle on Tragedy

In the Poetics, Aristotle's famous study of Greek dramatic art, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) compares tragedy to such other metrical forms as comedy and epic.

www.cliffsnotes.com

 

[greenteaforme]

I disagree with some of the stuff he said, but I really respect him for his opinion.

 

[Allnamestakenlol]

Honestly the people rationalizing it as "MUH JOEL WOULD NEVER DO THIS" sound worse than the people simply emotional over it.

So basically... both sides are idiots. WE. ARE. ALL. IDIOTS.

 

[EviLore]

I suppose you're genuine so let's do it.
There's a thing called "arbitrarity and tyranny" of the writer.
It means that the writer is a sole God in his books, he can do anything arbitrary to the characters and can rationalize it in any way.
He can put the characters in situations where their only choice is what author wants them to do.
Arbitrarity is considered a not comme il faut, i.e. it's a bad writing. Although it's true - the author is a God.
If author plays God too much the audience feels as if he is condescending, speaking from a high horse.
So, good writers play a game: they make sure that audience can never suspect that author is playing God and not telling a genuine, true story.
It's like dating, you don't say on the first date: undress we gonna have sex.
You play a game, where the ultimate goal of both parties is to make a relationship that lasts. Although in reality the writer is just fucks you in the mind in the end.

In case of TLOU2 it's an immediate tyranny. As if author says to the audience: I'm almighty in my books and can inject a new character in my book and you will like it, because you're my bitch!
But how do I know that it's a God's play?
Simple: too much coincidence.
Abbie meets Joel and Tommy in a way that they cannot refuse to be taken.
Ellie kills each and every of "Abbie's friends" while not really wanting that.
Ellie conveniently leaves the map in the Aquarium.
Abbie father is the only real surgeon alive, the only one that can make a vaccine.
Etc. etc.
In short the odds are always, like really always on Abbie's side.
Even in the end Ellie finds her in a pretty destroyed state where killing her will not make it better.

So, it's like author is deliberately toying with the audience: you see I can write it in such a way that you cannot win, now listen to the condescending monologue on "revenge is bad" from me!
The best course of action for a smart audience is go for the "last argument", which is pretty simple: "Author, you're shit and your book is shit". That's it. Liking something is subjective.
Audience is in their right to call any book or author "pure shit". An nobody can blame them.

TL;DR when author is going for the direct "I'm going to gang-bang your mind", the audience can say: "your dick is too small for that, get lost".

Well said.

 

[Tsukumo]

4 out of 5



Fuck yeah.

I disagree with just about everything he says, and I was ready to dislike the video on principle, but the review was an honest one.

 

[Jbomb19]

This game has made people lose their goddamn minds

 

[supernova8]

190K likes, 51K dislikes. Probably a load of drive-by thumbs down by people who don't subscribe anyway.

 

[Woggleman]

I don't get why this game has people going so crazy. Plenty of other games have been divisive but for some reason there is a visceral and angry reaction to this game to the point where I honestly fear for Neil Druckmann's safety to an extent.

 

[Madflavor]

This game has made people lose their goddamn minds

I said once before it's the type of story that brings out the worst in people, on both sides. It really is like reliving The Last Jedi for me.

 

[Woggleman]

The Last Jedi thing I can sort of understand because Star Wars was always a huge part of the cultural landscape for decades and it was presented as a good vs evil kind of tale where we have a happy ending. TLOU on the other hand was always a story about a brutal world filled with complex and complicated shades of grey. It never was a feel good hollywood blockbuster kind of story. It actually was an arthouse game that blew up and become much bigger than it's creator actually expected and PT2 follows in that tradition. Joel and Luke Skywalker are night and day different characters.

 

[Chromata]

I don't get why this game has people going so crazy. Plenty of other games have been divisive but for some reason there is a visceral and angry reaction to this game to the point where I honestly fear for Neil Druckmann's safety to an extent.

The irony is that enraged fans who go to extremes to attack Neil Druckmann's writing prove that he absolutely nailed the first game lol. No way a bad writer can make people care this much about fictional characters.

 

[Woggleman]

The irony is that enraged fans who go to extremes to attack Neil Druckmann's writing prove that he absolutely nailed the first game lol. No way a bad writer can make people care this much about fictional characters.

True. If he were a no talent this would have came and went and been forgotten by now.

 

[Justin9mm]

I suppose you're genuine so let's do it.
There's a thing called "arbitrarity and tyranny" of the writer.
It means that the writer is a sole God in his books, he can do anything arbitrary to the characters and can rationalize it in any way.
He can put the characters in situations where their only choice is what author wants them to do.
Arbitrarity is considered a not comme il faut, i.e. it's a bad writing. Although it's true - the author is a God.
If author plays God too much the audience feels as if he is condescending, speaking from a high horse.
So, good writers play a game: they make sure that audience can never suspect that author is playing God and not telling a genuine, true story.
It's like dating, you don't say on the first date: undress we gonna have sex.
You play a game, where the ultimate goal of both parties is to make a relationship that lasts. Although in reality the writer is just fucks you in the mind in the end.

In case of TLOU2 it's an immediate tyranny. As if author says to the audience: I'm almighty in my books and can inject a new character in my book and you will like it, because you're my bitch!
But how do I know that it's a God's play?
Simple: too much coincidence.
Abbie meets Joel and Tommy in a way that they cannot refuse to be taken.
Ellie kills each and every of "Abbie's friends" while not really wanting that.
Ellie conveniently leaves the map in the Aquarium.
Abbie father is the only real surgeon alive, the only one that can make a vaccine.
Etc. etc.
In short the odds are always, like really always on Abbie's side.
Even in the end Ellie finds her in a pretty destroyed state where killing her will not make it better.

So, it's like author is deliberately toying with the audience: you see I can write it in such a way that you cannot win, now listen to the condescending monologue on "revenge is bad" from me!
The best course of action for a smart audience is go for the "last argument", which is pretty simple: "Author, you're shit and your book is shit". That's it. Liking something is subjective.
Audience is in their right to call any book or author "pure shit". An nobody can blame them.

TL;DR when author is going for the direct "I'm going to gang-bang your mind", the audience can say: "your dick is too small for that, get lost".

As a person who generally likes the game, this was very interesting and funny and of course makes sense.

I personally don't think the story is great but as a game overall, I still don't think the hate the game has received considering there are many other elements to the game is justifiable. Everyone has a right to their own opinion but this isn't a developer delivering a broken unplayable game or inserting corporate greed micro transactions etc. Genuine love has gone into creating something which is of great detail and quality and I think there has been a complete lack of respect and total disrespect to the people involved in developing it.

 

[BadBurger]

His opinion is where I fall I think. Only I think the gameplay was only a slight iteration upon what they did before. Nothing revolutionary.

 

[rofif]

He liked UC4 that much? Uncharted 4 was dogshit compared to the other Uncharted games, TLOU 1 was leagues better than that boring fucking game.

UC4 is fantastic, polished game. Only uc2 is better. Tlou1 is great but tlou2 is completely different thing. I agree that the pacing is not the best but the emotional rollecoaster with this is crazy

 

[psorcerer]

So, here's where I disagree with you... when you say too much coincidence. There's a few things I'll say to this...

1. If the coincidence you're complaining about is the foundation of the story then you aren't complaining about the right thing. Setting up the players, the situation and so forth for a story can be coincidental, what's important is whether or not the conclusion of that story is founded in coincidence, or if the road to such a conclusion is contrived, but pretty often stories rely on coincidence to get going, that's why they're a story, because something unique occurred at the start. Changing how Abby meets Joel and kills him can change the entire story, it's the foundation of the game's story. It's like saying it's too coincidental the T-800 and Kyle Reese both catch up to Sarah Connor at Tech-Noir, it's not even the same story if this doesn't occur.

2. I'm not sure a person on a quest for revenge killing people is what I'd deem coincidence. Not to mention it's a standard trope of revenge stories that the person out for revenge causes collateral damage whether to others or their own side.

3. But that was already the basis for the first game? Why did they need to get Ellie to one specific far away research facility to do this? Because stumbling across surgeons who can perform something like this is sort of 1 in a million in the world of TLOU. This is a weird thing to complain about since it's set up already.

4. What do you mean by the odds always being on Abby's side?

5. Wait, 'finds her in a destroyed state' doesn't really jive with the idea that she's always got the odds on her side.

6. What would winning entail?

7. You should look into Aristotle's ideas on how a tragic tale should be told:

Aristotle on Tragedy

In the Poetics, Aristotle's famous study of Greek dramatic art, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) compares tragedy to such other metrical forms as comedy and epic.

www.cliffsnotes.com

1. Obviously author can and will create coincidences to launch conflicts. But not that much. I.e. everything that Abbie does is somehow a coincidence that improves her chances.

2. The thing is, I don't see that Ellie was going for revenge. She wants to right the iniquity, the injustice. It's like a Law Abiding Citizen premise: "You should not feel helpless"

3. That's not what was said in the first game. It's again an author tyranny in the second one, where a convenient explanation and coincidences are laid out. In TLOU it was just "to reach Fireflies".

4. It means no matter what she does there's no remorse and no problems. Everything she decides to do she succeeds at, even if at the first glance it looks like it's bad.

5. It is. If she wasn't coincidentally caught by Rattlers (author tyranny again, a whole new faction invented just to make Abbie "suffer", which we don't even see) Ellie would have killed her.

6. You play a half of the game as Ellie. "Winning" means that Ellie wins. If you would play only as Abbie, and do some Ellie flashbacks and possibly just the "murders" here and there. It would be no problem. But author could not grandstand then: I made you abandon Ellie!

7. I would like to hear your interpretation of Aristotle.

8. But the 1-7 discussion actually kinda misses the point. I argue that author is grandstanding, and you attack only the specifics and not the premise. Again, if the game was called "TLOU2: Abbie's revenge" and 80% of time was played as Abbie I would have no problem at all.
But probably they wouldn't sell as much...

 

[Explosive Zombie]

1. Obviously author can and will create coincidences to launch conflicts. But not that much. I.e. everything that Abbie does is somehow a coincidence that improves her chances.

2. The thing is, I don't see that Ellie was going for revenge. She wants to right the iniquity, the injustice. It's like a Law Abiding Citizen premise: "You should not feel helpless"

3. That's not what was said in the first game. It's again an author tyranny in the second one, where a convenient explanation and coincidences are laid out. In TLOU it was just "to reach Fireflies".

4. It means no matter what she does there's no remorse and no problems. Everything she decides to do she succeeds at, even if at the first glance it looks like it's bad.

5. It is. If she wasn't coincidentally caught by Rattlers (author tyranny again, a whole new faction invented just to make Abbie "suffer", which we don't even see) Ellie would have killed her.

6. You play a half of the game as Ellie. "Winning" means that Ellie wins. If you would play only as Abbie, and do some Ellie flashbacks and possibly just the "murders" here and there. It would be no problem. But author could not grandstand then: I made you abandon Ellie!

7. I would like to hear your interpretation of Aristotle.

8. But the 1-7 discussion actually kinda misses the point. I argue that author is grandstanding, and you attack only the specifics and not the premise. Again, if the game was called "TLOU2: Abbie's revenge" and 80% of time was played as Abbie I would have no problem at all.
But probably they wouldn't sell as much...

1. What do you mean that everything Abby does is a "coincidence" that "improves her chances"???

2. What? No, she's seeking revenge.

3. Look, you're really evading the idea of brain surgeons not being commonplace in that setting.

4. So, you're disconnected from the reality of the game based on this point.

5. You know... you keep using this word coincidence... I'm not sure you know what it means...

6. I'm assuming by "winning" you mean Ellie kills Abby or something. They're the two main characters of the game, both survive with lessons learned from their experiences, it's better this way and doesn't feel like grandstanding.

7. He talks about how in a tragic story things like character are secondary and everything must support the theme. "pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves." To get so pedantically into the logical underpinnings of a tragedy is to disagree with the very people who pioneered/created the tragic story. And even then I'm really not sold on the idea that this story is contrived.

8. It's half and half so you see both sides of two revenge stories, it's something a video game can do better than a movie or book, you are literally put in the shoes of both characters who want/wanted revenge on someone for killing their father figure and are forced to identify with both of them despite them being at odds with each other. I'm not seeing how the purpose is to grandstand, to me the purpose is multi, from wanting to sell the thematics, deepen the characters/lore and give you two different ways to experience the gameplay with two characters who play differently.

 

[psorcerer]

1. What do you mean that everything Abby does is a "coincidence" that "improves her chances"???

2. What? No, she's seeking revenge.

3. Look, you're really evading the idea of brain surgeons not being commonplace in that setting.

4. So, you're disconnected from the reality of the game based on this point.

5. You know... you keep using this word coincidence... I'm not sure you know what it means...

6. I'm assuming by "winning" you mean Ellie kills Abby or something. They're the two main characters of the game, both survive with lessons learned from their experiences, it's better this way and doesn't feel like grandstanding.

7. He talks about how in a tragic story things like character are secondary and everything must support the theme. "pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves." To get so pedantically into the logical underpinnings of a tragedy is to disagree with the very people who pioneered/created the tragic story. And even then I'm really not sold on the idea that this story is contrived.

8. It's half and half so you see both sides of two revenge stories, it's something a video game can do better than a movie or book, you are literally put in the shoes of both characters who want/wanted revenge on someone for killing their father figure and are forced to identify with both of them despite them being at odds with each other. I'm not seeing how the purpose is to grandstand, to me the purpose is multi, from wanting to sell the thematics, deepen the characters/lore and give you two different ways to experience the gameplay with two characters who play differently.

1. Examples were already given.

2. I don't see it. Joel was unjustly killed she wants to right that.

3. That was not told in the first game. Even that he was a brain surgeon.

4. I don't see any examples why.

5. You start the ad hominem, beware.

6. I'm starting to feel that this was in vain. I've already explained why it feels as a grandstanding for me.

7. There's no misfortune for Abbie, apart from Rattlers, and then she's conveniently saved by Ellie. She would die on that pillar.

8. I don't see the Abbie's revenge story, sorry. Did you forget that her search for justice ends with killing Joel? There's no more justice to be had after that.
The whole point of the Abbie's story is to make her win everywhere Ellie loses. I don't see the problem if she was the main protagonist and the story was about her.
But here it's like "tragedy for Ellie" and "justice and fulfillment for Abbie". Where the actions and thoughts of Ellie are pretty well explained and her tragedy is justified, where Abbie is just a Villain Sue, that doesn't have anything to lose, and the end "loss" actually improves her chances.
For Abbie it's fulfillment and win on her former self and the world. She's a much better character in the end, where she herself did nothing for that. Apart from maybe retracting a half mile to check on young Seraphes. And even her AWOL stuff gets justified without her agency by painting Isaac as a bad person. And all Seraphes are just victims of WLF in the end.
I.e. the whole new faction is created and destroyed for the sole purpose of making Abbie look better than she is.

 

[siriguillo]

My favorite review on LOU2

Thanks, this seems pretty spot on.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

1. Examples were already given.

2. I don't see it. Joel was unjustly killed she wants to right that.

3. That was not told in the first game. Even that he was a brain surgeon.

4. I don't see any examples why.

5. You start the ad hominem, beware.

6. I'm starting to feel that this was in vain. I've already explained why it feels as a grandstanding for me.

7. There's no misfortune for Abbie, apart from Rattlers, and then she's conveniently saved by Ellie. She would die on that pillar.

8. I don't see the Abbie's revenge story, sorry. Did you forget that her search for justice ends with killing Joel? There's no more justice to be had after that.
The whole point of the Abbie's story is to make her win everywhere Ellie loses. I don't see the problem if she was the main protagonist and the story was about her.
But here it's like "tragedy for Ellie" and "justice and fulfillment for Abbie". Where the actions and thoughts of Ellie are pretty well explained and her tragedy is justified, where Abbie is just a Villain Sue, that doesn't have anything to lose, and the end "loss" actually improves her chances.
For Abbie it's fulfillment and win on her former self and the world. She's a much better character in the end, where she herself did nothing for that. Apart from maybe retracting a half mile to check on young Seraphes. And even her AWOL stuff gets justified without her agency by painting Isaac as a bad person. And all Seraphes are just victims of WLF in the end.
I.e. the whole new faction is created and destroyed for the sole purpose of making Abbie look better than she is.

1. Not really, not anything that explains what you mean by coincidence or in what way her "chances" are improved, whatever that even means.

2. "righting" it would mean killing his killer, if that's just then what Abby did was also just. That said the emotional reasonings for it are made clear in the game, this isn't about inequality of justice for Ellie, this is revenge.

3. A surgeon who was going to operate on Ellie's brain... a brain surgeon...

4. No remorse is proven bs by the game not to mention the "always succeeds" idea.

5. Is it ad hominem to try and figure out if you know what a coincidence is?

6. Right, because grandstanding means... what to you?

7. Okay, so it's not misfortune for her to lose everyone she cares about?

8. How does she have nothing to lose? She loses everyone but Lev, someone she only just got to know. She loses more people she cares about than Ellie does. Improves her chances AT WHAT. The way you view the world is apparently ridiculously narrow and not really the sort of view of events I need to keep engaging with. You don't explain your weird ideas at all involving things like winning or "improving chances" like there's no breaching your thought process because you make no attempt to explain it and pretending it's a normal thought process is a bridge too far for me, if you're willing to actually expand on what your ideas even mean I might consider engaging with that.

 

[oagboghi2]

HappyConsoleGamer also really enjoyed the game.

Well now I am totally convinced

 

[joe_zazen]

True. If he were a no talent this would have came and went and been forgotten by now.

anyone remember that ‘artist‘ who was starving a dog to death?

Merely manipulating emotions and alienating people does not a great artist make.

 

[joe_zazen]

1. Obviously author can and will create coincidences to launch conflicts. But not that much. I.e. everything that Abbie does is somehow a coincidence that improves her chances.

2. The thing is, I don't see that Ellie was going for revenge. She wants to right the iniquity, the injustice. It's like a Law Abiding Citizen premise: "You should not feel helpless"

3. That's not what was said in the first game. It's again an author tyranny in the second one, where a convenient explanation and coincidences are laid out. In TLOU it was just "to reach Fireflies".

4. It means no matter what she does there's no remorse and no problems. Everything she decides to do she succeeds at, even if at the first glance it looks like it's bad.

5. It is. If she wasn't coincidentally caught by Rattlers (author tyranny again, a whole new faction invented just to make Abbie "suffer", which we don't even see) Ellie would have killed her.

6. You play a half of the game as Ellie. "Winning" means that Ellie wins. If you would play only as Abbie, and do some Ellie flashbacks and possibly just the "murders" here and there. It would be no problem. But author could not grandstand then: I made you abandon Ellie!

7. I would like to hear your interpretation of Aristotle.

8. But the 1-7 discussion actually kinda misses the point. I argue that author is grandstanding, and you attack only the specifics and not the premise. Again, if the game was called "TLOU2: Abbie's revenge" and 80% of time was played as Abbie I would have no problem at all.
But probably they wouldn't sell as much...

In Neil’s defence, this was not his just his story. The authors include the critic consultants and play testers. Much had to be re-written so that critics would fawn and play testers not rebel.

I’d be interested in seeing the original story boards. Maybe the original vision was good.

 

[small_law]

You either take all of him or none of him.
He said the FFVIIr plot is a chimp brain story.
Which is it, neogaf?

None thanks. He was 6 years old when the original FFVII came out, which means he didn't experience firsthand what narrative in video games looked like before FFVII. In its proper historical context, FFVII was fucking War and Peace. And since the Remake is a remake, it's going to have the same story.

He's judging the past by the standards of the present. Doing that isn't just condescending, it's lazy.

 

[Sub_Level]

And since the Remake is a remake, it's going to have the same story.

Did you not get around to playing through the Remake yet? Because oh boy....

 

[small_law]

Did you not get around to playing through the Remake yet? Because oh boy....

Funny thing, I'm right at the end and got sucked back into Destiny. I'm not going to get upset if they add a few things. From what I've seen, all the fundamental elements are still there. If it gets a little anime, even more than it already is, c'est la vie.

 

[Sub_Level]

Funny thing, I'm right at the end and got sucked back into Destiny. I'm not going to get upset if they add a few things. From what I've seen, all the fundamental elements are still there. If it gets a little anime, even more than it already is, c'est la vie.

Well unfortunately its not so much adding a few things as it is completely changing the context of the whole story, with characters saying as much outright in what could only be described as meta commentary. I would not say its representative of the 1997 game's story. But for sure finish it so you can see for yourself. I really liked the game, but yea its a totally different beast.