• 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.

TLOU II 2nd year anniversary!

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Sure, if it's to jump start the story I can let it slide usually. (Though Joel being on patrol the moment Abby visits the town for the first time is still a huge one) Like I replied to someone else, it's also the out of character behaviour of Joel and Tommy we got on top of that that soured things for me in TLOU2.
Marlene happens to be in the town fighting with the military and gets injuried.
It lead to Nora who pointed out the Aquarium where Mel and Owen were, but it's still weird you'd write names on pictures of people you know as if you'd otherwise forget who they are.
Joel finds a recorder leading him to the hospital as if they forget where their base is.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
Yes, I have written one.

Your post makes no sense and that's the point.
Shocking but not shocking (screenwriting is not a science and people have many approaches to it)

It makes total sense when you are aware of the fact that a screenplay is not your end product is just a guideline for different departments. FXs/ Art direction/Sound design/ Photography just to name a few.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Marlene happens to be in the town fighting with the military and gets injuried.
Did Marlene cross states with vague notions to find someone who might have a brother or did she have business there fighting Fedra like the Fireflies more often do?
Joel finds a recorder leading him to the hospital as if they forget where their base is.
All these working recording having the right info are convenient. They're spaced out enough throughout the games IMO.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Shocking but not shocking (screenwriting is not a science and people have many approaches to it)

It makes total sense when you are aware of the fact that a screenplay is not your end product is just a guideline for different departments. FXs/ Art direction/Sound design/ Photography just to name a few.
"It's not the story, it's the storytelling" doesn't make sense. We're not talking about what happens in post-production after the script is shot, we're talking about how the story was told. What happens on screen is first written on paper, then you have storyboards, mood boards, shot lists etc. to best capture those moments.

What's written on paper is what people have an issue with because they simply didn't like what happened. You can't separate story and storytelling when talking about TLOU 2. If people have an issue with what happens in the story, then they're talking about how these things were written.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Did Marlene cross states with vague notions to find someone who might have a brother or did she have business there fighting Fedra like the Fireflies more often do?
Marlene got injured and she needed a girl smuggled to the Fireflies. She happens to have Joel's weapons and her brother is an ex-firefly. Convenient.

Convenient circumstances always happen in stories.
All these working recording having the right info are convenient. They're spaced out enough throughout the games IMO.
I'm not shocked you would excuse it. It's not spaced out when it happens so often in the first game. This is shortly before Joel gets impaled, which you also consider convenient. Let's not forget how many things were convenient with her interaction with David multiple times.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
An

Exactly. Is just artificial and disingenuously.


Exactly. Convenient.


Yep. You can see Neil moving the strings all along.

And for the record, I also didn't care if joel died. But I vividly remember thinking:

"Ok neil, you didn't, let's see how this develops"

In other other words.. It didn't feel earned, it was more like a shocking event, very artificially crafted.

"
you mad bro?" I hear Neil whispering into my ear. lol
hm, i don't think the problem is entirely on how he manipulates the story. This kind of heavy handed approach isn't really uncommon and the intention of the mid point is a very clear "you are not the hero" statement which by itself isn't bad, a moral obstacle of sorts. I think its just that the heavy handed approach he takes ends up revealing how little he understands the themes he's talking about, as well as a lack of skill.

Going again on the mid-point, trying to tell the player "you are not the hero" so far in the game ends up feeling very artificial and disingenuous because given the setting, what happened so far, and the previous game, thats something that should've been obvious. It shows a lack of maturity on Neil's part regarding how he understood the themes, the game, as well as his perception on the players.
Without mincing words, its feels like he either sees us as ignorant fools who are unable understand and quickly come to terms with such a basic moral obstacle like this, or he has his head so far up his own ass that he thinks said moral obstacle is something people don't normally think about in such circustances.

Regarding Abby's crew the main problem here is that they act like extremists. Violent people doing horrible things without thinking twice and without an ounce of regret even when it bites them back.
Now, trying to make us sympathetic to such people isn't a bad idea, but achieving that kind of sympathy for them is hard and takes skill. Neil lack of skill shows here when he tries to do that with the most ridiculous plot devices that even fanfic writers don't do these days, like the zebras and dogs and pregnant women, etc.
So the problem is less the plot devices and more the fact he used such cheap tricks in a situation that'd normally require much more thoughtful and careful writing. Worse, this might even indicate that he himself didn't realize the characters he was writing were terrible people, again showing immaturity on his part towards the themes.

TL;DR. The problem is less the storytelling itself and more how the storytelling approach highlights the thematic immaturity and lack of skill of the author.
 
Last edited:

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
"It's not the story, it's the storytelling" doesn't make sense.
It makes total sense.


We're not talking about what happens in post-production after the script is shot, we're talking about how the story was told.
How the story is told = is exactly what STORY-TELLING is. Is right there in the word.

And it doesn't have anything to do with post production at all.

What happens on screen is first written on paper, then you have storyboards, mood boards, shot lists etc. to best capture those moments.
As I already said many times. The screenplay IS NOT your end product is a guideline for many departments.

Videogames are a VISUAL MEDIUM. Keep this in mind.


What's written on paper is what people have an issue with
This is not how it works. Again, a screenplay is not your end product. And especially with dialog and acting (performance capture. In this case).

A lot of character moments/dialog end up being improvised or come up at the moment of shooting thanks to the Director and actor collaboration.

because they simply didn't like what happened.
Didn't like it because Neil didn't made a good storytelling

Story ≠ storytelling.

You can't separate story and storytelling when talking about TLOU 2. If people have an issue with what happens in the story, then they're talking about how these things were written.
You totally can. In fact, is common practice.

Story: things that happen through time (this is always chronologically) why?.....cuz...you know....Time...is linear.

Story telling: HOW shit happens. This is were you can use things likes "in medias res"/nonlinear storytelling/flashbacks/ parallel storytelling and whatnot.
 
ALL opinions are welcomed here…I feel there is an agenda to downplay TLOU II…the game simply put is a milestone in the history of gaming…EVEN IF YOU DIDNT LIKE THE STORY. It’s the best game overall I’ve EVER played.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
hm, i don't think the problem is entirely on how he manipulates the story. This kind of heavy handed approach isn't really uncommon and the intention of the mid point is a very clear "you are not the hero" statement which by itself isn't bad, a moral obstacle of sorts. I think its just that the heavy handed approach he takes ends up revealing how little he understands the themes he's talking about, as well as a lack of skill.
This is the thing. Neil is not dumb. Part 1 is a masterpiece in storytelling. clearly he knows how to handle themes, character development and all that shit.

But because Part 2 has a convoluted and contrived structure (storytelling). It seems he really really wanted to have that kind of "sophisticated" storytelling that he ended up messing this shit up.

Going again on the mid-point, trying to tell the player "you are not the hero" so far in the game ends up feeling very artificial and disingenuous
That's what I have been saying. And is not an issue just of the mid point....the entire game feels this way.
because given the setting, what happened so far, and the previous game, thats something that should've been obvious. It shows a lack of maturity on Neil's part regarding how he understood the themes, the game,


as well as his perception on the players.
This is very interesting, because..what what's Neil End point? Trying to give a lesson to the gore/violence thirsty dumb ass players?.....he fail miserably if he wanted to do some shit like that.

Without mincing words, its feels like he either sees us as ignorant fools who are unable understand and quickly come to terms with such a basic moral obstacle like this, or he has his head so far up his own ass that he thinks said moral obstacle is something people don't normally think about in such circustances.
Exactly. This is another level of analysis that can become a little tricky. Especially because as an interactive medium the lack of agency that is given to the player (in critical moments) is off putting and contradictory.

Regarding Abby's crew the main problem here is that they act like extremists. Violent people doing horrible things without thinking twice and without an ounce of regret even when it bites them back.
Now, trying to make us sympathetic to such people isn't a bad idea, but achieving that kind of sympathy for them is hard and takes skill. Neil lack of skill shows here when he tries to do that with the most ridiculous plot devices that even fanfic writers don't do these days, like the zebras and dogs and pregnant women, etc.
So the problem is less the plot devices and more the fact he used such cheap tricks in a situation that'd normally require much more thoughtful and careful writing. Worse, this might even indicate that he himself didn't realize the characters he was writing were terrible people, again showing immaturity on his part towards the themes.

TL;DR. The problem is less the storytelling itself and more how the storytelling approach highlights the thematic immaturity and lack of skill of the author.
Everything is rooted in storytelling.

Because of this nonlinear approach, obfuscating critical information creates an inorganic storytelling and the consequences are the issues you point out.because you don't have the full context or build-up to how and why shit happens.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
It makes total sense.
No.
How the story is told = is exactly what STORY-TELLING is. Is right there in the word.

And it doesn't have anything to do with post production at all.

People have an issue with what happens, how it happens, how the characters interact with each other etc. This happens based on how the story of the game was written.
As I already said many times. The screenplay IS NOT your end product is a guideline for many departments.

Videogames are a VISUAL MEDIUM. Keep this in mind.
I never said a screenplay is your end product. You mentioned things that happen in post-production and that are not relevant.
This is not how it works. Again, a screenplay is not your end product. And especially with dialog and acting (performance capture. In this case).
Point to me where I said that the screenplay is an end product.

A lot of character moments/dialog end up being improvised or come up at the moment of shooting thanks to the Director and actor collaboration.
The majority of the time they stick to the script. Improvised lines don't happen often.
Didn't like it because Neil didn't made a good storytelling

Story ≠ storytelling.

You're forcing the word storytelling.

When people criticize the story or plot, they always reference the writing. Always. What happens on screen happens on paper first.

You can't dodge the writing part. Period.

You totally can. In fact, is common practice.

Story: things that happen through time (this is always chronologically) why?.....cuz...you know....Time...is linear.

Story telling: HOW shit happens. This is were you can use things likes "in medias res"/nonlinear storytelling/flashbacks/ parallel storytelling and whatnot.
No.

If you're telling a story, then you're either telling a story that has been written OR one that you've heard or experienced yourself.

Storytelling means you're TELLING a story. There's no way to separate the two.

I can't sit here and argue when someone doesn't know what these words actually mean.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
You can try to say. That's not valid, is not a good argument...

It isn't.

"X should happen at the midpoint in a story, otherwise it is bad" -- which seems like a pretty good faith interpretation of what you're saying -- is a very poor argument. Especially when talking about a video game narrative? Because first of all not all stories adhere to some rigid "save the cat" / McKee's Story / hero's journey beat template, and that certainly isn't a requirement for narrative quality; and second of all... this is a video game?

An interactive experience can span dozens of hours of gameplay, many of which can be considered part of the "story" in their own way. It has entirely different temporal requirements/possibilities than a feature film does... and thus plays by different rules. Obviously. Because it's literally an entirely different medium.

So thanks for demonstrating my point.
 
Last edited:

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
Yes I already prove it many times.
People have an issue with what happens, how it happens, how the characters interact with each other etc. This happens based on how the story of the game was written.
I already exemplify why story and story telling is different

There is even an technique in screenwriting. In which you write THE STORY (events through time) in cards and then you disorder them.

This also proves that STORY ≠ STORYTELLING.

you in fact can separate both. Is useful for screenwrtting when you are trying to figure shit.

I never said a screenplay is your end product. You mentioned things that happen in post-production and that are not relevant.

Point to me where I said that the screenplay is an end product.
The screenplay is written.

You keep using the word written as the end product.

People are no reading written words they are watching a visual/interactive medium

The majority of the time they stick to the script. Improvised lines don't happen often.


You're forcing the word storytelling.
No.

Story is what happens in time jn chronological order. Understand that.plase.

When people criticize the story or plot, they always reference the writing. Always. What happens on screen happens on paper first.

You can't dodge the writing part. Period.
And again...are you watching/playing or reading a book?

No.

If you're telling a story, then you're either telling a story that has been written OR one that you've heard or experienced yourself.
Storytelling means you're TELLING a story. There's no way to separate the two.
You are using the word in a vacuum

I am using the word as a concept Inside the entertainment industry. (Movies/games)
Storytelling can also be use in music or for example.

Plots point for example is just an event in the story. But is has an important function in storytelling.

Is like the concept of Tonic Note in music. you can argue all day saying that the tonic note is just a note and is the same note you play here or there. But in reality this is NOT case.

As in:

The events in time exists in a linear fashion you cannot change this fact.

The "storyteller" can change the the order of how this events are presented. In order to achieve certain emotional response or prove a point or whatever.(it can be an stylistic decision as well.)


I can't sit here and argue when someone doesn't know what these words actually mean.
I just prove many times now, why story≠storytelling.

You are not able to show an example of the contrary.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
This is the thing. Neil is not dumb. Part 1 is a masterpiece in storytelling. clearly he knows how to handle themes, character development and all that shit.

But because Part 2 has a convoluted and contrived structure (storytelling). It seems he really really wanted to have that kind of "sophisticated" storytelling that he ended up messing this shit up.
I wouldn't call it a masterpiece in the story department, but any issue i may point out on it definitely isn't as deep-rooted or problematic as what we see in TLoU2.

I think its worth mentioning Bruce Straley's hand on the story of the first game. He stopped a lot of terrible ideas Neil was trying to put forth, many of which were included in part 2 like the cross-country revenge plot, so i can't say i have much faith on Neil as a writer. At least he may be the kind of writer who's only good when put on a leash.

This is very interesting, because..what what's Neil End point? Trying to give a lesson to the gore/violence thirsty dumb ass players?.....he fail miserably if he wanted to do some shit like that.
Yes, its the impression i get from the game, and the reason i think his visions on these themes aren't very mature. From an interview i remember reading he seemed to have this "revenge bad"/"enemies have feelings too" plot in his head for some good 20 years, his "dream story" so to speak.

If theres one thing i learned trying to write stories myself is that cooking an idea for too long in one's head tends to have bad results, because its very easy to get far more obsessive towards the idea than whats reasonable, you start thinking too highly of it. I could 100% see this being the case here.

Exactly. This is another level of analysis that can become a little tricky. Especially because as an interactive medium the lack of agency that is given to the player (in critical moments) is off putting and contradictory.
Based on that interview i saw, i think he just has a wrong idea about the relationship between players and game avatars. He thought people sympathized with Ellie on part 1 because of the segment where you play as her rather than her character as a whole, in other words he thinks players automatically sympathize with a game character just by playing as them.

He thought it would happen to Abby, or with Ellie during the "press x to torture" moments. He doesn't consider the possibility players might just dissociate from what they're doing, and by consequence from the character they're playing as.

Everything is rooted in storytelling.

Because of this nonlinear approach, obfuscating critical information creates an inorganic storytelling and the consequences are the issues you point out.because you don't have the full context or build-up to how and why shit happens.
hm, are you saying both Ellie's and Abby's story should've been told in parallel? I do agree that would've been better but i don't think this solves the issues with Abby's and co characters, or their development.
 
Last edited:

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
It isn't.

"X should happen at the midpoint in a story, otherwise it is bad" -- which seems like a pretty good faith interpretation of what you're saying -- is a very poor argument.
Is not bad because it happens, is bad because HOW it happens.


Especially when talking about a video game narrative? Because first of all not all stories adhere to some rigid "save the cat" / McKee's Story / hero's journey beat template, and that certainly isn't a requirement for narrative quality; and second of all... this is a video game?
The 'academic' structure is there as a guideline. You can do whatever you want to do. So, you can try to be all sophisticated and fancy with you storytelling right?.


Part 2 storytelling is inorganic, contraived, convoluted this is fact

You can like that, that is not my point.


An interactive experience can span dozens of hours of gameplay, many of which can be considered part of the "story" in their own way. It has entirely different temporal requirements/possibilities than a feature film does... and thus plays by different rules. Obviously. Because it's literally an entirely different medium.
How ironic.


So thanks for demonstrating my point.
Thanks to you to prove to me you don't know how to reply to my arguments.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
Is not bad because it happens, is bad because HOW it happens.

This is just your assertion/opinion at this point.

The 'academic' structure is there as a guideline. You can do whatever you want to do. So, you can try to be all sophisticated and fancy with you storytelling right?.

Doing something different isn't extraordinarily pretentious or contrived... it's storytelling on a grand scale with a huge budget, it's basically all pretentious or contrived. Either way this argument of yours begs the question.

What is the "midpoint" of Pulp Fiction?
What is the "midpoint" of Elden Ring, or Bloodbourne?
And in what way is "arriving at the empty hospital" the "midpoint" of TLOU1?

By "midpoint" you seem to be simply appealing to the 2nd act break in a 3 act structure... but, lots of really good stories don't map to that? TLOU2 isn't even remotely trying to map to a 3 act structure. This doesn't mean that by definition it's bad.

This is the only argument you've given so far, and it's not worth exploring much more than that honestly.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
I wouldn't call it a masterpiece in the story department, but any issue i may point out on it definitely isn't as deep-rooted or problematic as what we see in TLoU2.
I said storytelling. Two very different things.

I think its worth mentioning Bruce Straley's hand on the story of the first game. He stopped a lot of terrible ideas Neil was trying to put forth, many of which were included in part 2 like the cross-country revenge plot, so i can't say i have much faith on Neil as a writer. At least he may be the kind of writer who's only good when put on a leash.
Who knows. It's clear he is aware of part 2 divisiveness. And I remember he being kind of apologetic about it.

hm, are you saying both Ellie's and Abby's story should've been told in parallel? I do agree that would've been better but i don't think this solves the issues with Abby's and co characters, or their development.
They are not told in parallel (is a weird none linear structure -jumps in time -filled with flashbacks).

They should have been told in parallel (concurrently) and without flashback. In this way the emotional momentum and tension is build up at the same time for the characters and the player itself. Creating a strong connection with everything that has happened.
 
This is just your assertion/opinion at this point.



Doing something different isn't extraordinarily pretentious or contrived... it's storytelling on a grand scale with a huge budget, it's basically all pretentious or contrived. Either way this argument of yours begs the question.

What is the "midpoint" of Pulp Fiction?
What is the "midpoint" of Elden Ring, or Bloodbourne?
And in what way is "arriving at the empty hospital" the "midpoint" of TLOU1?

By "midpoint" you seem to be simply appealing to the 2nd act break in a 3 act structure... but, lots of really good stories don't map to that? TLOU2 isn't even remotely trying to map to a 3 act structure. This doesn't mean that by definition it's bad.

This is the only argument you've given so far, and it's not worth exploring much more than that honestly.
I agree.
 
I didn’t love the story nearly as much as the first - I felt like you could really “feel” the writing and each decision being made to make it go in certain direction. Didn’t feel totally organic. But watching the LOU 1 remake stuff - I gotta say they blew it out of the water gameplay wise - they really improved that aspect. I still prefer LOU 1’s story but the gameplay is just vastly better in 2. I bet this multiplayer thing they’re doing will be amazing
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Marlene got injured and she needed a girl smuggled to the Fireflies. She happens to have Joel's weapons and her brother is an ex-firefly. Convenient.
She practically stole or had them stolen to get Joel to deliver Ellie. I don't consider that a convenience.

Lore wise Tommy told Marlene that she could ask Joel for help and that explains why she came to Joel. Marlene's quest makes Joel's life harder so I don't consider it a convenience.

It's more in line with coincidences and like with conveniences the key with those is not to have too many big ones or too many in a short amount of time.
Convenient circumstances always happen in stories.

I'm not shocked you would excuse it. It's not spaced out when it happens so often in the first game. This is shortly before Joel gets impaled, which you also consider convenient. Let's not forget how many things were convenient with her interaction with David multiple times.
Indeed and as convenient the recording are, they're not levels of story breaking yet.

I consider something convenient when a solution practically presents itself, the bigger problem it solves, the bigger the convenience, Joel getting impaled is not a convenience. If there was a medkit with all surgical tools and medicine nearby to fix Joel up again then that would be (ultra) convenient.
 
Last edited:

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
She practically stole or had them stolen to get Joel to deliver Ellie. I don't consider that a convenience.

Lore wise Tommy told Marlene that she could ask Joel for help and that explains why she came to Joel. Marlene's quest makes Joel's life harder so I don't consider it a convenience.

It's more in line with coincidences and like with conveniences the key with those is not to have too many big ones or too many in a short amount of time.

Or had them stolen to get Joel to deliver Ellie?

Robert tried to get Tess and Joel killed, so that's completely false. Robert is a known dealer in the Slums. Marlene only went to Joel because she was injured.
I consider something convenient when a solution practically presents itself, the bigger problem it solves, the bigger the convenience, Joel getting impaled is not a convenience. If there was a medkit with all surgical tools and medicine nearby to fix Joel up again then that would be (ultra) convenient.
And what's convenient in TLOU 2 doesn't break the story. We already established that you think it's ok in other games, but not ok in TLOU 2.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Or had them stolen to get Joel to deliver Ellie?

Robert tried to get Tess and Joel killed, so that's completely false. Robert is a known dealer in the Slums. Marlene only went to Joel because she was injured.
Either way, she took weapons from Joel and wasn't gonna return them until he drops off Ellie. I assumed she had help because she's injured, like you said.
And what's convenient in TLOU 2 doesn't break the story.
Leaving the map for Abby is a borderline one for me.

TLOU2 suffers more form contrivances than conveniences IMO. And some out of character moments at important plot points.
We already established that you think it's ok in other games, but not ok in TLOU 2.
Because TLOU is so tonally serious, grounded and story driven, if you know other games with that level of seriousness in the story telling and world building department, I might check them out and see if I judge them on the same standard as TLOU or maybe relax them.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Either way, she took weapons from Joel and wasn't gonna return them until he drops off Ellie. I assumed she had help because she's injured, like you said.
There's no either way. You tried to say it wasn't contrived and you got the plot point wrong.

Leaving the map for Abby is a borderline one for me.

TLOU2 suffers more form contrivances than conveniences IMO. And some out of character moments at important plot points.

Because TLOU is so tonally serious, grounded and story driven, if you know other games with that level of seriousness in the story telling and world building department, I might check them out and see if I judge them on the same standard as TLOU or maybe relax them.

She happens to run into David and she gives her antibiotics for Joel.

David then lets her go just to go right back after her. He later captures her and she escapes because David put a machete right next to her arm. The same thing happens again when she kills him.

Your first excuse is that they're spaced out and now you're moving the goalpost again.

Like I said before, I'm done. You just don't know the story as well as you think and you're running into trouble trying to defend your point. lol
 

Ulysses 31

Member
There's no either way. You tried to say it wasn't contrived and you got the plot point wrong.
Because it's been a while since I played TLOU and it's a detail that doesn't matter as much as Marlene having the weapons and pushing Joel to travel with Ellie if he wants them back.
She happens to run into David and she gives her antibiotics for Joel.

David then lets her go just to go right back after her. He later captures her and she escapes because David put a machete right next to her arm. The same thing happens again when she kills him.

Your first excuse is that they're spaced out and now you're moving the goalpost again.
It's a new chapter in the story and a new antagonist is being set up.

I think there's enough time between those events to not make them feel forced. The machete thing is dumb of David I agree.
 
Last edited:

MidGenRefresh

*Refreshes biennially
God damn this game is long. I just encountered weird whistling motherfuckers and I think they supposed be scary or something but my Ellie is a proper psychopath specialized in melee and explosives so it's more like me hunting them and not the other way around. AI in this game is so dumb and predicable, I love it.
 
Top Bottom