• 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
He says those things as he sees them the first time. He is expecting the game to explain it later on "You better answer these questions game".

And the reasoning for letting Ellie live ultimately isn't very satisfying considering she swore vengeance on them loud and clear.

Abby who went cross states for vengeance should know what it could mean for her or her group.

Something happens in every single movie and game when they let a superhero live.

I assume he means a choice to do the morally right thing.

Killing Ellie without informed consent is not a moral thing to do. Ellie had given Joel signs she wants a future with him so Joel has every reason to go against Marlene's choice till Ellie could clarify what she ultimately wants.

No, he didn't.

Been a while since I watched Kill Bill and I don't really regard it as a movie with exemplary logical story telling and more as violent light hearted entertainment with Taratino dialog sauce.

I kinda agree that if Bill was serious about killing the bridge the first time he should let Elle Driver do her thing. She was getting beat up by a group while heavily pregnant so this giving her a "fair" chance again kinda comes out of nowhere.
Budd is dumb not to finish her off when he had the chance. But even if he had, fate would have him killed by Elle Driver shortly after so he got what was coming to him regardless.
Vernita Green's big mistake she ends up paying for I agree.

Most of those things end up getting a pass for the light heartedness of the story telling. I find it harder to do with a very tonally serious and story driven game like TLOU(2).

Most of those things end up getting a pass

I just wanted to see if you would give it a pass because the story is not "serious". This is an excuse you always use because the game, movie, or TV show is not The Last of Us.

If the things you point out are bad writing, then it has to be bad writing in other movies, too.

I bet if I asked you what are your top 3 video game stories of all time and pointed out similar things, you would give it a pass too.
 

Azelover

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Time flies. Felt like yesterday when this came out..

It's disturbing..
 

Ulysses 31

Member
The video is made for entertainment first and foremost and is popular in the same way Cinema Sins is popular, to nitpick things about entertainment. It's not to say one can't find things to nitpick about anything. You presented this video as serious flaws and nothing in the video presents as such.
Eh, Mauler doesn't really go out of his way to point out nitpicks like Cinema Wins/Sins IMO and they do it for comedic effect. If it's things he thinks makes the characters appear dumb or the story make less sense then he likes to talk about it. I did not present the video as evidence, merely as someone's take who likes to dive into the narrative structures.
Again, where is the rule you are judging the character coming from that kindness, mercy and sloppiness which are inherent human traits does not exist in a post-apocalyptic world? Didn't Tommy and his wife form a community where people are kind to one another? Wasn't there a military zone where life was somewhat normal? Even though there were other groups who were ruthless, there are many who were kind also. People are inherently good and terrible things happening en masse does not erode our capacity to be good and kind to one another.
One can make reasonable inferences what it takes to survive in a world without law and order and swarms of infected people and thugs out to kill you. Part 1 gave a good glimpse of it.

This changes when inside a community like Jackson of course but once outside again is a strong reminder what Jackson could turn into without adequate protection and precautions.

According to the outpost logs IIRC the Jackson patrols also helped people but it's a safe bet that's after it's certain there's no credibly threat.
Smuggling a girl across state is an incredibly risky and dumb thing to do. You do it because you want something in return, but it is incredibly dumb. "Its just cargo Joel" is the reason Tess gives for why they should do it. Need I go further? I can list a bunch of dumb things in the first game.
Joel basically got black mailed into doing that dumb thing so yeah, there's that in his favor. If he did it entirely out of his own volition then you'd have a stronger point.
Just because the story as any story has something to nitpick does not make it negative. Again, I find most argument is born from they killed Joel so now I find things to hate about the game.
Nitpicks don't have to be so negative as you seem to perceive them. But things that steer the plot aren't nitpicks.
Yes, she does, her dad was a Dr and a scientist for all she knows who helps birth animals (retcon I know). Walks into a surgical room to find her father dead and her instant thought is not he was murdered in cold blood? Vengeance is a great motivator for people do lots of things, she had her vengeance and lost her motivation. Why do murderers leave witnesses in real life? Why do serial killers go back to the scene of their crimes? Joel murdered literally everyone she knew, and she was supposed to change her perception because he saved her that one time?
Abby and Jerry share the same warped moral compass(fine to kill without informed consent) so that could explain her lack of gratitude and curiosity after Joel helped her.

You seem to agree with me that leaving witnesses behind was a dumb thing to do. :messenger_fistbump:
I didn't say there was an issue, I'm pointing out how you think they should be moral and ask Ellie what she would want.
I say that to people who defend the Fireflies but since you weren't then it seems we're in agreement about the Joel vs Firefly issue. :messenger_fistbump:
Ok so now it is questionable even though Ellie herself said Joel robbed her of her life meaning something and she hated Joel for it but it now questionable? It is not a stain on her character, it is the same thing as people going to war because they "feel" like it gives their life purpose. Human history is rife with people sacrificing their life for the good of the other.
She doesn't know the full context so yes it's questionable if she'd have the same answer if she did and we don't know how the years of bitterness affected her judgement either. Joel lying about it didn't help either. Her being OK with dying then and there without saying good bye to Joel after she was so clingy to him the whole game, making him see as a daughter is a stain on her character. Especially when she knows of Sarah who's death deeply affected Joel.
Yes, it's a plot device to drive the story forward. Something being a rare occurrence does not mean it does not happen. Joel and Tommy were trying to find shelter away from the blizzard and horde in an enclosed place is when they come upon Abby. They were not far from their community but would be stupid to brave the blizzard back. Makes sense.
Like I said, I can let all that slide for the sake of jump starting the story.
Introducing yourself to people you just met is a way to disarm people. It portrays "honesty" and "friendliness". David introduces himself to Ellie even though Ellie had an arrow pointed at him. It is not a hard sell to believe he wanted them to see him as nonthreatening.
Joel and Tommy were hunters in the past, they used people's kindness/compassion to rob/kill them. They should've been more cautious since the world certainly didn't get friendlier after they quit being hunters. They are guards protecting a nearby town, it's their duty to err on the side of caution till they know what that group really was there for.

I have no issues with Abby's group appearing friendly to Joel and Tommy, it's that Joel and Tommy puts themselves in a position where they are even more at a disadvantage.
 

clarky

Gold Member
As someone who adored part one but know next to nothing about this, is it a let down?

Or is it Empire Strikes Back??
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
As someone who adored part one but know next to nothing about this, is it a let down?

Or is it Empire Strikes Back??

Subjectively, the game is better in every other aspect other than the characters compared to the first one, IMO.

TLoU 2 is a fantastic game in itself though, no doubt about that.
 
Last edited:

Ulysses 31

Member
Something happens in every single movie and game when they let a superhero live.
It depends on the setup and reasoning, superhero movies have have dumb things too.
No, he didn't.
How about reasonable choices then?

Either way, after all Joel and Ellie went through, it would've been out of character of Joel not to try and come to Ellie's defence.
I just wanted to see if you would give it a pass because the story is not "serious". This is an excuse you always use because the game, movie, or TV show is not The Last of Us.

If the things you point out are bad writing, then it has to be bad writing in other movies, too.

I bet if I asked you what are your top 3 video game stories of all time and pointed out similar things, you would give it a pass too.
TLOU is a special case for me since it was the first game which such a strong narrative focus that I'd ever played. I still think it is to this day.

I'm not gonna nitpick the things Bayonetta pulls off in her games since the story there mostly serves as window dressing for the absurd combat situations.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
It depends on the setup and reasoning, superhero movies have have dumb things too.

The point is, you and many other people don't call it bad writing.
How about reasonable choices then?

Either way, after all Joel and Ellie went through, it would've been out of character of Joel not to try and come to Ellie's defence.

Right now you're just trying to find an excuse for his bad interpretation of the story. The thing you often do is that someone criticizes the game and it's clear they weren't paying attention to the story, you try to justify their reasoning or make excuses for it.

TLOU is a special case for me since it was the first game which such a strong narrative focus that I'd ever played. I still think it is to this day.

I'm not gonna nitpick the things Bayonetta pulls off in her games since the story there mostly serves as window dressing for the absurd combat situations.
No, you don't even hold the same standards for the first game. I pointed that out before and you had an excuse.

Bad writing is bad writing and it doesn't matter how seriously the game takes itself. You can't give things a pass in one game, movie, etc., and consider it bad in TLOU 2.
 

drotahorror

Member
As someone who adored part one but know next to nothing about this, is it a let down?

Or is it Empire Strikes Back??

The gameplay, graphics, set pieces, environments are all better than part 1. Story...not so much. Still a good ride that sort of overstays it's welcome. Great game imo.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
The point is, you and many other people don't call it bad writing.
I'd need an example before I'd call it bad writing. It depends on the context if it is or not.
Right now you're just trying to find an excuse for his bad interpretation of the story. The thing you often do is that someone criticizes the game and it's clear they weren't paying attention to the story, you try to justify their reasoning or make excuses for it.
I made a good faith assumption on his part but feel free to make a bad faith one.

Merely "not having a choice" can main multiple things and until he clarifies it's up to the viewer to interpret it.
No, you don't even hold the same standards for the first game. I pointed that out before and you had an excuse.
I have multiple standards for TLOU1? You've gonna have to help me remember here.
Bad writing is bad writing and it doesn't matter how seriously the game takes itself. You can't give things a pass in one game, movie, etc., and consider it bad in TLOU 2.
Bad writing doesn't become good writing because the genre changed I agree, but the genre helps sets expectations. I'm not gonna hold a slapstick movie like Airplane or Naked Gun to the same standard as TLOU.
 
Last edited:

clarky

Gold Member
Ok?
Subjectively, the game is better in every other aspect other than the characters compared to the first one, IMO.

TLoU 2 is a fantastic game in itself though, no doubt about that.
Thats the thing 2 of my all timers are Uncharted 2 and TLOU but played U3 and dropped it quick. Played U4 and thought it was a right let down. Guess ive avoided this for that reason. Im aware that some were not happy with the direction they took with this but thats it.

Uncharted 2 for action and TLOU for the characters/story. Best in their class and unmatched to this day, much like Halo CE.
The gameplay, graphics, set pieces, environments are all better than part 1. Story...not so much. Still a good ride that sort of overstays it's welcome. Great game imo.
Its on the list for sure, im just very slow at getting round to stuff.
 

drotahorror

Member
Thats the thing 2 of my all timers are Uncharted 2 and TLOU but played U3 and dropped it quick. Played U4 and thought it was a right let down. Guess ive avoided this for that reason. Im aware that some were not happy with the direction they took with this but thats it.

Should definitely give U3 another shot if you get around to it. The cruiseship or w/e set piece is so good.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
The Last of Us Part 2 big mistake is it's storytelling.

All the conversations/debates/contentions around the story itself are rooted in the way Neil and his narrative decided to tell the story.


Neil wanted to be all fancy and sophisticated and fail miserably.
 

clarky

Gold Member
Should definitely give U3 another shot if you get around to it. The cruiseship or w/e set piece is so good.
I believe the collection is coming to PC? Ill give it another shot then if so. I just remember 2 and has a special place in my heart. Not sure why 3 didnt grab me.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
I'd need an example before I'd call it bad writing. It depends on the context if it is or not.

I made a good faith assumption on his part but feel free to make a bad faith one.

Merely "not having a choice" can main multiple things until he clarifies it's up to the viewer to interpret it.
It can't mean multiple things if he was talking about the ending specifically. Right now you're trying to justify his argument even though it's wrong.

You're using a video from someone who didn't understand the story, so you will try to make their arguments valid.
I have multiple standards for TLOU1? You've gonna have to help me remember here.

You "Joel will never trust strangers."
Me "Joel trusted Henry and Sam and was planning on going to an unknown location with his friends."
You "Sam said they don't bring kids with them so it's understandable."


Doesn't change that he put faith in Herny and Sam in the first game. You also pointed out "contrivances" as if it's bad.

Ellie happens to find medicine for Joel after running into David?
Ellie and Joel happen to find a tape recorder stating where the Fireflies were located?
Sam and Henry go back for Joel and Ellie to save them from drowning.

Critics are trying to find reasons to call it bad writing, even if their logic is not consistent with other games and movies.
Bad writing doesn't become good writing because of the genre changed I agree, but the genre helps sets expectations. I'm not gonna hold a slapstick movie like Airplane or Naked Gun to the same standard as TLOU.
Most movies aren't comedic, so this excuse won't work.


If you're going to judge a story on this then you have to be consistent.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
The Last of Us Part 2 big mistake is it's storytelling.

All the conversations/debates/contentions around the story itself are rooted in the way Neil and his narrative decided to tell the story.


Neil wanted to be all fancy and sophisticated and fail miserably.
He didn't fail if it was his intent to make a divisive story.

I also don't believe when people say the game has bad writing. It's just the way to cope with the fact that they didn't like what happened. Not liking the game is fine, but I think it's rather funny when people use the same arguments about the story that is factually incorrect.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
It can't mean multiple things if he was talking about the ending specifically. Right now you're trying to justify his argument even though it's wrong.

You're using a video from someone who didn't understand the story, so you will try to make their arguments valid.
Sure it can:

  1. The most basic one being cohered to do something under threat of death.
  2. Having an option where the cost/price is so high it wouldn't be reasonable to pick it.
It's a variating of #2 where the cost is losing Ellie which Joel is not willing to accept.(Ignoring all the other stuff the Fireflies pull on Joel)
You "Joel will never trust strangers."
Me "Joel trusted Henry and Sam and was planning on going to an unknown location with his friends."
You "Sam said they don't bring kids with them so it's understandable."
Joel doesn't trust strangers initially. He beats up Henry till he's forced to stop.

Never said Joel's trust can't ever be gained.
Doesn't change that he put faith in Herny and Sam in the first game. You also pointed out "contrivances" as if it's bad.

Ellie happens to find medicine for Joel after running into David?
Ellie and Joel happen to find a tape recorder stating where the Fireflies were located?
Sam and Henry go back for Joel and Ellie to save them from drowning.
I listed several contrivances and it's the combination of all those at once that made it not favorable for the story telling IMO.

What you listed is a contrivance every so often which is easier to swallow.
Critics are trying to find reasons to call it bad writing, even if their logic is not consistent with other games and movies.

Most movies aren't comedic, so this excuse won't work.
Most games(that I played) aren't TLOU level of seriousness so it has a special place.
If you're going to judge a story on this then you have to be consistent.
If I play any serious games without supernatural/superhero/magic stuff then it will get the same scrutiny from me as TLOU.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Banned
Eh, Mauler doesn't really go out of his way to point out nitpicks like Cinema Wins/Sins IMO and they do it for comedic effect. If it's things he thinks makes the characters appear dumb or the story make less sense then he likes to talk about it. I did not present the video as evidence, merely as someone's take who likes to dive into the narrative structures.
Yes, he does, his whole demeanor while playing and talking about it is jovial and lackadaisical. And you most certainly provided the video as evidence of literary grievances such as plot holes which there weren't' as presented in the video. Something is not a plot hole just because you say it is.
One can make reasonable inferences what it takes to survive in a world without law and order and swarms of infected people and thugs out to kill you. Part 1 gave a good glimpse of it.
No, you can't because human history has showed that in times of terrible turmoil, we can show incredible kindness. There are people and thugs out to kill you right now, yet we still carry on, we had a whole pandemic and people still carried on and showed kindness to one another in various ways. You are making up rules that does not exist.
This changes when inside a community like Jackson of course but once outside again is a strong reminder what Jackson could turn into without adequate protection and precautions.
So, your argument does not hold. We form communities and come together as we are inherently social animals.
According to the outpost logs IIRC the Jackson patrols also helped people but it's a safe bet that's after it's certain there's no credibly threat.
So, you can infer that without the story explicitly writing it? I thought anything that isn't explicitly written and explained later on is a plot hole.
Joel basically got black mailed into doing that dumb thing so yeah, there's that in his favor. If he did it entirely out of his own volition then you'd have a stronger point.
He was not blackmailed. He was asked to do it, he tried to pawn it off on his brother and changed his mind because Ellie became a surrogate daughter to him.
Nitpicks don't have to be so negative as you seem to perceive them. But things that steer the plot aren't nitpicks.
But what you are pointing out as bad writing are not.
Abby and Jerry share the same warped moral compass(fine to kill without informed consent) so that could explain her lack of gratitude and curiosity after Joel helped her.
Yes, our moral compass changes, rules for thee not for me.
You seem to agree with me that leaving witnesses behind was a dumb thing to do. :messenger_fistbump:
I've always said humans make dumb choices, they are not bad writing, in that regard i disagree with you. The story is well written, dumb choices made by the characters and all is not bad writing.
I say that to people who defend the Fireflies but since you weren't then it seems we're in agreement about the Joel vs Firefly issue. :messenger_fistbump:
That we can agree.
She doesn't know the full context so yes it's questionable if she'd have the same answer if she did and we don't know how the years of bitterness affected her judgement either. Joel lying about it didn't help either. Her being OK with dying then and there without saying good bye to Joel after she was so clingy to him the whole game, making him see as a daughter is a stain on her character. Especially when she knows of Sarah who's death deeply affected Joel.
She learned the full context and that is what made her even more upset with Joel. She still loved Joel, but such is the duality of man. She did not make Joel see her as a daughter, Joel did that on his own after having spent a long time with her.
Like I said, I can let all that slide for the sake of jump starting the story.
The story is better than the first, the motivations were even more believable to me than the first game.
Joel and Tommy were hunters in the past, they used people's kindness/compassion to rob/kill them. They should've been more cautious since the world certainly didn't get friendlier after they quit being hunters. They are guards protecting a nearby town, it's their duty to err on the side of caution till they know what that group really was there for.
They weren't given a choice, whether they liked it or not they were surrounded by Abby's group and the outcome was out of their hands. I saw Joel attempt at playing nice as trying to disarm them to seem less threatening.
I have no issues with Abby's group appearing friendly to Joel and Tommy, it's that Joel and Tommy puts themselves in a position where they are even more at a disadvantage.
As soon as they were surrounded, they were disadvantaged. Nothing they would have done could change the outcome.
 
Last edited:

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Sure it can:

  1. The most basic one being cohered to do something under threat of death.
  2. Having an option where the cost/price is so high it wouldn't be reasonable to pick it.
It's a variating of #2 where the cost is losing Ellie which Joel is not willing to accept.(Ignoring all the other stuff the Fireflies pull on Joel)
He was talking about the final scene. No other thing hew as talking about, but keep dodging that point.
Joel doesn't trust strangers initially. He beats up Henry till he's forced to stop.

Never said Joel's trust can't ever be gained.
Joel didn't have much time to gain Henry's trust.
I listed several contrivances and it's the combination of all those at once that made it not favorable for the story telling IMO.

What you listed is a contrivance every so often which is easier to swallow.
These happen right after each other, so this won't work.
Most games(that I played) aren't TLOU level of seriousness so it has a special place.

If I play any serious games without supernatural/superhero/magic stuff then it will get the same scrutiny from me as TLOU.
It can be supernatural and serious. This point doesn't work.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
He was talking about the final scene. No other thing hew as talking about, but keep dodging that point.
Give me a timestamp then because there's several times in the video he mentions Joel not having a choice.

If it's Marlene giving Joel the choice to walk away then it falls under the no choice #2 I mentioned earlier because losing Ellie is too high a price for Joel.
Joel didn't have much time to gain Henry's trust.
Enough to cooperate. Sam not shooting them was a sign of trust that they returned would be my guess.
These happen right after each other, so this won't work.
Not really, there's quite a time gap between David and Henry & Sam part of the story.
It can be supernatural and serious. This point doesn't work.
Sure it can, if there's such a game which doesn't play fast and loose with the supernatural and has enough convincing world building I could take it more seriously too.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Give me a timestamp then because there's several times in the video he mentions Joel not having a choice.
46:00
If it's Marlene giving Joel the choice to walk away then it falls under the no choice #2 I mentioned earlier because losing Ellie is too high a price for Joel.
He said Joel wasn't given a choice. It's false.
Enough to cooperate. Sam not shooting them was a sign of trust that they returned would be my guess.
He was following them to an unknown location with others.
Not really, there's quite a time gap between David and Henry & Sam part of the story.

Sure it can, if there's such a game which doesn't play fast and loose with the supernatural and has enough convincing world building I could take it more seriously too.
Story

Joel finds the recorder stating that the Fireflies are in Salt Lake City
Joel gets impaled
Ellie finds David, who happens to have medicine.

This happened right after each other.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Yes, he does, his whole demeanor while playing and talking about it is jovial and lackadaisical. And you most certainly provided the video as evidence of literary grievances such as plot holes which there weren't' as presented in the video. Something is not a plot hole just because you say it is.
It's a highlight from over 30hours of gameplay, there were moments where he was joking around but when the big plot points happened he usually gave more serious commentary on it.
No, you can't because human history has showed that in times of terrible turmoil, we can show incredible kindness. There are people and thugs out to kill you right now, yet we still carry on, we had a whole pandemic and people still carried on and showed kindness to one another in various ways. You are making up rules that does not exist.
Sure you can, we have the first game giving us glimpses of what it's like to live in that world. Joel himself is sceptical of helping people because he was a hunter.
So, your argument does not hold. We form communities and come together as we are inherently social animals.
Not really, communities can form where there's some law and order but outside of those you rarely have the luxury of kindness unless you have the upper hand.
So, you can infer that without the story explicitly writing it? I thought anything that isn't explicitly written and explained later on is a plot hole.
Not sure where you're pulling that from, I may be misremembering the logs but it's a bit of a stretch to think Joel and Tommy have a shoot first, ask questions later policy now that they're part of Jackson.
He was not blackmailed. He was asked to do it, he tried to pawn it off on his brother and changed his mind because Ellie became a surrogate daughter to him.
IIRC the Fireflies took his weapons and he'd get them back if he delivered Ellie. There's is some coercion at play here.
But what you are pointing out as bad writing are not.
Nitpicks are about small things that don't affect the story so I'd never point to nitpicks as a sign of bad story telling.
Yes, our moral compass changes, rules for thee not for me.
Ok so you can see why people might not like Abby throughout the whole game then. :messenger_fistbump:
I've always said humans make dumb choices, they are not bad writing, in that regard i disagree with you. The story is well written, dumb choices made by the characters and all is not bad writing.
I prefer stories where dumb choices don't drive the plot forward. Part 1 wasn't like that.
She learned the full context and that is what made her even more upset with Joel. She still loved Joel, but such is the duality of man. She did not make Joel see her as a daughter, Joel did that on his own after having spent a long time with her.
How? She never learns that the Fireflies threatened Joel with death when he wanted to see her. Never learns that that he was being marched towards an uncertain future(Will he be shot? Will he be stranded without his gear in Salt Lake City? Will the Fireflies honor their weapons deal?)
The story is better than the first, the motivations were even more believable to me than the first game.
Still too many coincidences for my taste.
They weren't given a choice, whether they liked it or not they were surrounded by Abby's group and the outcome was out of their hands. I saw Joel attempt at playing nice as trying to disarm them to seem less threatening.

As soon as they were surrounded, they were disadvantaged. Nothing they would have done could change the outcome.
There were stuck with Abby's group till the storm settles but not letting yourself get surrounded would be a smart thing to do, keeping some distance and your weapons ready also.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
817.gif
 

Ulysses 31

Member
46:00

He said Joel wasn't given a choice. It's false.
Joel clearly has a future with Ellie as a priority at that point in the game they're talking about so the options Marlene gives him don't leave him no choice on his next course of action.
He was following them to an unknown location with others.
OK but what else was he supposed to do? Ellie seemed to trust them so maybe that rubbed off on him.
Story

Joel finds the recorder stating that the Fireflies are in Salt Lake City
Joel gets impaled
Ellie finds David, who happens to have medicine.

This happened right after each other.
It's convenient yes but not story breaking yet IMO.

The game built up a lot of good will up to that point that I guess leads people to overlook it.
 
Last edited:

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
He didn't fail if he intended to make a divisive story.
The story. NOT the storytelling here is where he failed big time.

I also don't believe when people say the game has bad writing.
Same as people confusing Story with Storytelling.

It's just the way to cope with the fact that they didn't like what happened.
Or how it happened
Or how it was told.

Not liking the game is fine, but I think it's rather funny when people use the same arguments about the factually incorrect story.
Both extremes are annoying. The Blinded defense force and the blinded hateful force.

As I said before. These two sides keep arguing BECAUSE of how bad the storytelling is.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
I'd say both have issues tbh, but i guess the story is where the most pressing problems lay indeed.
Is in the storytelling. The story is fine by itself. And the storytelling get in the way of the story and because of that it suffers.

The vast majority of people are not going to differentiate between the two. And this is why the divisiveness is never going to end.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Is in the storytelling. The story is fine by itself. And the storytelling get in the way of the story and because of that it suffers.

The vast majority of people are not going to differentiate between the two. And this is why the divisiveness is never going to end.
I'd say the story suffers in its philosophical and anthropological ideas, they are just too immature in general, which i guess wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if the game wasn't actively trying to be something deep and thoughtful.
At the very least this is the main factor that put me off from it. I could still look past its other issues normally, be in its 'gamey' aspects, pacing and what not, but not this.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
I'd say the story suffers in its philosophical and anthropological ideas, they are just too immature in general, which i guess wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if the game wasn't actively trying to be something deep and thoughtful.
At the very least this is the main factor that put me off from it. I could still look past its other issues normally, be in its 'gamey' aspects, pacing and what not, but not this.
Also some ludonarrative dissonance with all the ways you can kill enemies and how often with some cut scenes trying to impress upon how killing is bad.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
I'd say the story suffers in its philosophical and anthropological ideas, they are just too immature in general, which i guess wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if the game wasn't actively trying to be something deep and thoughtful.
At the very least this is the main factor that put me off from it. I could still look past its other issues normally, be in its 'gamey' aspects, pacing and what not, but not this.
To me was just the storytelling, it affected everything else. The game lost me at the Mid Point.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
These two sides keep arguing BECAUSE of how bad the storytelling is.

No, they don't.

Put up some good arguments, not about how you feel but about what leans more objectively "bad" about the "storytelling".
Ulysses has been trying for years, and has yet to bring up something that really, strongly lands...

It's a really impressive and impactful game. It's pointless to continue with the nitpickery, it's all been done here so, so much.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
To me was just the storytelling, it affected everything else. The game lost me at the Mid Point.
The mid point is precisely where the worst aspects of both the story and the narrative manifest. It shows the 'true' intent of the author was rather shallow all along, creating a rather disappointing plot twist, and its also where many issues with pacing, writing, characters start becoming evident, especially how heavy-handed the story is in trying to make us sympathize with Abby and her friends, not helped by the fact they unintentionally come off as very obnoxious people.

That zebra thing with her dad is such an obvious and ridiculous approach at making us sympathetic that it made me laugh out loud, yet not long after he seems quite ok with himself at killing a child while being all smiles and laughs with his own daughter. This contrast between what the story clearly wants me to feel while unintentionally showing me something that makes me feel the total opposite just causes me to dissociate.

I honestly didn't give a crap about Abby killing Joel, yet funnily enough when her story started being told is when i actually started to hate her, because she, her friends and her father are/were clearly horrible people. And because the story kept using cheap plot device after cheap plot device to try and make me like them instead of letting me have my own opinion, i just started hating the story itself.

Also some ludonarrative dissonance with all the ways you can kill enemies and how often with some cut scenes trying to impress upon how killing is bad.
Its a problem indeed, but honestly a very common one in games.
 

Neff

Member
As someone who adored part one but know next to nothing about this, is it a let down?

Or is it Empire Strikes Back??

Did you idolise Joel? Do you reject the idea of new characters being placed front and center? Do you prefer carbon copy cash-in sequels? If the answer is yes to any of these, TLoU2 might not be for you.

Otherwise, 2 is significantly better than part 1 in every way. It's a tremendous piece of work and the single greatest stealth game out there alongside MGSV imo.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Joel clearly has a future with Ellie as a priority at that point in the game they're talking about so the options Marlene gives him don't leave him no choice on his next course of action.
Joel could've

1. Left Ellie with Marlene
2. Waited for Ellie to wake up.
3. Walked away with Ellie

He had options. He was wrong.
OK but what else was he supposed to do? Ellie seemed to trust them so maybe that rubbed off on him.
He didn't have to follow Henry and Sam.
It's convenient yes but not story breaking yet IMO.

The game built up a lot of good will up to that point that I guess leads people to overlook it.
Just my point. You think it's a problem in TLOU 2, but acceptable in TLOU 2.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
The story. NOT the storytelling here is where he failed big time.


Same as people confusing Story with Storytelling.


Or how it happened
Or how it was told.


Both extremes are annoying. The Blinded defense force and the blinded hateful force.

As I said before. These two sides keep arguing BECAUSE of how bad the storytelling is.
Not this again.

Storytelling
relating to the telling or writing of stories.

Thus how he WROTE the story. How it is written and what they are saying and doing is what people have a problem with. That's why people are talking about what happened in the story. Whether the story is bad or good is subjective. What's not subjective is what makes logical\unlogical sense.

So you can't say, "BECAUSE of how bad the storytelling is" when bad storytelling is your opinion and not a fact. People just hate what happened. Period.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
has been trying for years, and has yet to bring up something that really, strongly lands...

It's a really impressive and impactful game. It's pointless to continue with the nitpickery, it's all been done here so, so much.
That's is what I am saying. People keep nitpicking the story When the real issue is the storytelling.

I have said this many times now.

If in The last of Us 1 the protagonists are Joel and Ellie. In Part 2 the protagonists are Neil and his narrative team.

This is the fundamental issue with part 2 storytelling: Is not organic, is convoluted, convenient and disjointed.

Why?

Because Neil tried to be all fancy and sophisticated and just ended up a mess.

The prime exhibit of this is the Mid Point. As simple as that.

Neil killed Joel to have a detonant (with out actually doing the job (Seeds and payoff)... the storytelling job.

So, you have all the first part of the second act building this moment of confrontation (Ellie vs Abby)....and what did genius Neil decide to do?.....exactly. "Let's go back in time and then you play as Abby' 'see I am a genius did you like that?"Whispers Neil into my ear.

Is so " on your face" you see the strings Neil is moving around, very conveniently and inorganic.

So, this is the thing. The themes Neil is trying to convey are there but his manipulation (storytelling) gets in the way of the actual story.

The last of us 1 is an emotional journey (the driving force of the storytelling)

Part 2 is more like an academic exercise. Trying to do all these 4D chess movements.

I can go on and on and on about it. But it would be frustrating.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Joel could've

1. Left Ellie with Marlene
2. Waited for Ellie to wake up.
3. Walked away with Ellie

He had options. He was wrong.
Ehm what?

1. Joel clearly was too attached to Ellie to let her die without a fight.
2. The Fireflies didn't allow for the surgery to be postponed and they forcefully separated Joel from Ellie.
3. See 2, Ellie was going to die without Joel's intervention.

So they left no peaceful options for Joel to take.
He didn't have to follow Henry and Sam.
Sure but he decides to do it anyway. If you're trying to point out it's a little out of character of him I wouldn't disagree.
Just my point. You think it's a problem in TLOU 2, but acceptable in TLOU 2.
Because TLOU2 unloads with contrivances at the beginning while TLOU1 sprinkles it more discretely throughout the game.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Ehm what?

1. Joel clearly was too attached to Ellie to let her die without a fight.
2. The Fireflies didn't allow for the surgery to be postponed and they forcefully separated Joel from Ellie.
3. See 2, Ellie was going to die without Joel's intervention.

So they left no peaceful options for Joel to take.

Sure but he decides to do it anyway. If you're trying to point out it's a little out of character of him I wouldn't disagree.
Peaceful or not. Joel had choices. So the guy was wrong.
Because TLOU2 unloads with contrivances at the beginning while TLOU1 sprinkles it more discretely throughout the game.
So does TLOU 1.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
An
mid point is precisely where the worst aspects of both the story and the narrative manifest. It shows the 'true' intent of the author was rather shallow all along, creating a rather disappointing plot twist, and its also where many issues with pacing, writing, characters start becoming evident, especially how heavy-handed the story is in trying to make us sympathize with Abby and her friends, not helped by the fact they unintentionally come off as very obnoxious people.
Exactly. Is just artificial and disingenuously.

That zebra thing with her dad is such an obvious and ridiculous approach at making us sympathetic that it made me laugh out loud, yet not long after he seems quite ok with himself at killing a child while being all smiles and laughs with his own daughter. This contrast between what the story clearly wants me to feel while unintentionally showing me something that makes me feel the total opposite just causes me to dissociate.
Exactly. Convenient.

I honestly didn't give a crap about Abby killing Joel, yet funnily enough when her story started being told is when i actually started to hate her, because she, her friends and her father are/were clearly horrible people. And because the story kept using cheap plot device after cheap plot device to try and make me like them instead of letting me have my own opinion, i just started hating the story itself.
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
 

EruditeHobo

Member
Because Neil tried to be all fancy and sophisticated and just ended up a mess.

The prime exhibit of this is the Mid Point. As simple as that.

Neil killed Joel to have a detonant (with out actually doing the job (Seeds and payoff)... the storytelling job.

So, you have all the first part of the second act building this moment of confrontation (Ellie vs Abby)....and what did genius Neil decide to do?.....exactly. "Let's go back in time and then you play as Abby' 'see I am a genius did you like that?"Whispers Neil into my ear.

It not working for you is no better argument that it doesn't work than me just randomly selecting someone for whom it did work as evidence that it... did work.

As I said, you need a better argument than this; no one cares how the story made you feel about the storytelling/storyteller, just like you don't care how it made the people feel that think it's one of the best games in decades.

So, this is the thing. The themes Neil is trying to convey are there but his manipulation (storytelling) gets in the way of the actual story.

The last of us 1 is an emotional journey (the driving force of the storytelling)

Part 2 is more like an academic exercise. Trying to do all these 4D chess movements.

I can go on and on and on about it. But it would be frustrating.

None of these are good arguments, and all storytelling is manipulation. So you need something specific beyond just what you "feel" or this very surface-level critique based on how you feel, because that's not good enough for anyone except you and people that think exactly like you.
 
Last edited:

Ulysses 31

Member
Peaceful or not. Joel had choices. So the guy was wrong.
One could always choose to submit but I doubt that would make for fulfilling storytelling in many cases.

Why wouldn't you consider the state of mind Joel is in at that point in the game? It would seem out of character of Joel to just submit then and there.

So considering that, he was left with no choice but to take serious action.
So does TLOU 1.
I'm gonna have to watch the beginning of TLOU1 again because nothing comes to mind like the events that lead Joel to the WLF stronghold.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
Not this again.

Storytelling
relating to the telling or writing of stories.
🤦


Thus how he WROTE the story. How it is written and what they are saying and doing is what people have a problem with.
That's why people are talking about what happened in the story. Whether the story is bad or good is subjective. What's not subjective is what makes logical\unlogical sense.

So you can't say, "BECAUSE of how bad the storytelling is" when bad storytelling is your opinion and not a fact. People just hate what happened. Period.
🙄

Just one question.

Have you ever written a screenplay?
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
One could always choose to submit but I doubt that would make for fulfilling storytelling in many cases.

Why wouldn't you consider the state of mind Joel is in at that point in the game? It would seem out of character of Joel to just submit then and there.

So considering that, he was left with no choice but to take serious action.

I'm gonna have to watch the beginning of TLOU1 again because nothing comes to mind like the events that lead Joel to the WLF stronghold.

- Tommy has to hold the door so they can create a scene where Sarah dies and Tommy comes in at the last second to save Joel
- Joel's guns get stolen.
- The same person who has them also has a girl (Ellie) that needs to be smuggled out.
- Marlene gets injured so she can't take Ellie to the fireflies herself.
- Tommy is an ex-Firefly. Tess told him to Tommy. Tommy knew where they were located, which set many events in motion.

There are many, but it's ok because of obvious reasons. I know you're going to spin it but I don't have the time.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
- Tommy has to hold the door so they can create a scene where Sarah dies and Tommy comes in at the last second to save Joel
- Joel's guns get stolen.
- The same person who has them also has a girl (Ellie) that needs to be smuggled out.
- Marlene gets injured so she can't take Ellie to the fireflies herself.
- Tommy is an ex-Firefly. Tess told him to Tommy. Tommy knew where they were located, which set many events in motion.

There are many, but it's ok because of obvious reasons. I know you're going to spin it but I don't have the time.
Again, conveniences in the flow of the story, not the shotgun blast that TLOU2 has to get Joel at the WLF stronghold or having pictures with names of every single enemy you want vengeance on.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
It not working for you is no better argument that it doesn't work than me just randomly selecting someone for whom it did work as evidence that it... did work.
Wait wat?

As I said, you need a better argument than this; no one cares how the story made you feel about the storytelling/storyteller, just like you don't care how it made the people feel that think it's one of the best games in decades.



None of these are good arguments, and all storytelling is manipulation. So you need something specific beyond just what you "feel" or this very surface-level critique based on how you feel, because that's not good enough for anyone except you and people that think exactly like you.
I just told you, is not about feeling is about structure.

Part 2 structure (the storytelling) is just bad

The way people feel about the story is subjective. You either like it or not.

The vast majority of people don't consume/analize storytelling.

again The Mid Point:

Batman the Dark Kight: Joker is captured

Mad Max Fury Road: the place of many mothers (the green place ) is gone.

Seven: brad pitt almost catches the bad guy.

The Last of Us 1: You arrived to the empty hospital.

What happens next in those examples?...yep the protagonist has the hardest most difficult obstacles to endure....what happens in Part 2?.....oh you play as Abby.

The emotional arc/tension is curb, instantly deflated. Not because made sense but because Neil's "sophistication at storytelling".

As simple as that. You can try to say. That's not valid, is not a good argument this and that or whatever. I don't care.

The fact is. The last of us Part 2 storytelling is inorganic, convoluted, disjointed and convenient.

You can like that. Fine, I don't have any isse. Is not my point.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Again, conveniences in the flow of the story, not the shotgun blast that TLOU2 has to get Joel at the WLF stronghold
There are many conveniences to getting Joel to smuggle Ellie.

or having pictures with names of every single enemy you want vengeance on.
The names didn't mean much. It only led to Ellie finding Nora at the hospital. In no way did it benefit the others because they were already dead. Also, Ellie didn't want to get revenge on her friends.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
There are many conveniences to getting Joel to smuggle Ellie.
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.
The names didn't mean much. It only led to Ellie finding Nora at the hospital. In no way did it benefit the others because they were already dead. Also, Ellie didn't want to get revenge on her friends.
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.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom