Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 87
  1. #31
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,282

    Default



    This video is a good even-handed criticism. He praises and criticizes the game, but not for the same reasons people here praise and criticize it.

  2. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Nope. Because again in real life, people relate to "I will save a child from becoming a human sacrifice" than "Man, if only we killed that child for a cure". The latter is a cold rational thought experiment which is not an universal experience.

    Especially because we now live in a global pandemic where a certian knowledge of epidemiology has become common. The premise of the first game rests on ignorance since a pandemic was a remote experience, a thing of the past, in the first game (not that I am blaming ND for not knowing about the future, but on the other hand, Contagion was made in 2011, so it had a better more realistic reference at hand). In real life many people have developed natural immunity to Covid-19, but nobody goes around arguing that these people be cut up and dissected for an insta-vaccine. And again consider the public backlash to some politicians arguing that we must "kill grandma for the economy".

    Likewise, people now know that vaccines depend not only on laboratory production which is a long process and can only be shortened by global collective effort on the part of multiple science teams rather than what seems like a veterinarian with spare time. And they know that producing the formula isn't enough, manufacturing, containment, and distribution is even more important. So the fireflies look less believable than before and the sequel, owing entirely to its timing, feels completely dated.
    The zombie plague in The Last of Us's setting is very different from the Covid-19 outbreak in terms of severity and impact.



    It was more rooted in character interactions than plot. You were entirely in Joel and Ellie's shoes, so you didn't know what they didn't know. You were never given any global picture of the "world building" i.e. what happened in X country and so on. Joel and Ellie were regular people making their way in a world they didn't understand and know. The first game was trying to give you a sense of regular people in a broken world. So that made it feel realistic and grounded. The final level of The Last of Us-1 conveyed that well where Joel after an entire game of improvised weapons, jury-rigged shotguns and pistols, finally confronts soldiers with military grade assault rifles. So you were a regular smuggler, lowest of the low, going against a powerful self-annointed elite.

    That changes when you move past that perspective, and choose another point of view. Naughty Dog made the decision to choose for its point of view an ex-Firefly soldier, and daughter of a Firefly doctor, so that means you no longer have the point of view of a regular person. You now have a somewhat elite perspective. The Fireflies are a faction fighting a civil war, they also governed and controlled sections of the land. So now, ND is automatically putting you in perspective of the wider world-building. And its strength and weakness rests on their lore. Since the lore was established from the view of entirely ordinary people in the first game, it basically needs to be redrawn to be done properly. The Last of Us Part-II is a plot driven game and not a character driven game, I don't think that can be denied.
    Plot-driven and character-driven do not mean what you think it means. The entire story of Last of Us 2 is driven entirely by Abby and Ellie's actions and how they interact with people around them. I honesty can't see how Abby's job even makes her less of a regular person than Joel or Ellie. Frankly, this type of distinction always struck me as arbitrary. Not too different from the "Batman is more relatable than any other superheroes because he doesn't have powers" claim.


    We can't tell that for sure. The successful launch of The Last of Us Part II depends on the goodwill and equity built up about previous Naughty Dog games. In the same way that Spider-Man 3's success owed itself greatly to the reputation and status of the preceding two movies. Likewise, The Last Jedi's success owed itself to the buildup and excitement of The Force Awakens (which ultimately made far more money than TLJ, and TROS' weaker opening haul can be credited in part to the backlash to TLJ). The success a title enjoys at launch, at a time when most gamers hadn't played it, is largely driven by marketing, anticipation, and the good will of the previous titles in the series or by the developer, rather than the intrinsic worth of the product in question.
    As TLJ has proven, having a vocal online hate mob doesn't actually prove your product is hated.

  3. #33
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    The zombie plague in The Last of Us's setting is very different from the Covid-19 outbreak in terms of severity and impact.
    Epidemiology and vaccination as procedures and methods are common even if the specific kind of diseases change. The concept of killing someone for a vaccine is in the realm of myth and philosophical thought experiments rather than medical science. TLoU-1 was in the realm of thought experiments and it was fine so long as they didn't make a sequel. Now that they have, their premise falls apart because it doesn't sustain the most basic demands of realism, which it needs to, for a serious dramatic story.

    And again, people keep dodging this question, if The Last of Us ended with them saying Ellie should die for the vaccine and came out as pro-Human sacrifice, then ask yourself if you would have accepted it, if in fact anyone would have accepted that ending. The second game pivots on the idea that Joel was wrong to spare Ellie, which is ludicrous because again the audience would not have accepted any other ending after spending an entire game with Joel and Ellie. If you want to build tragedy of that, then again Abby's Dad can't be the guy who is okay with cutting up with Ellie.

    Plot-driven and character-driven do not mean what you think it means.
    It means how the story is related and presented to us.
    -- In The Last of Us, we start the story from Joel's perspective, and then we meet Ellie, and we stay with them throughout the game. The story becomes entirely about Joel and Ellie's relationship as seen in cutscenes and gameplay. We learn about the characters, their development, and backstories by seeing their interactions in front of us. That's what happens in character-driven stories, where the story happens on the surface in front of us.
    -- In The Last of Us 2, the game tells the story largely by means of flashbacks through which we learn all about the characters, their motivations, and explanations for their actions. The story doesn't happen on the surface, it happens instead behind the curtains.

    Don't like using this word but objectively you cannot say that The Last of Us Part II is character driven. The use of complex flashbacks is essentially and fundamentally plot driven. If you insist otherwise, then answer this question -- if there were no flashbacks in this game at all, would we have any understanding of these characters based on their present day gameplay and cutscenes? The answer is no.

    The entire story of Last of Us 2 is driven entirely by Abby and Ellie's actions and how they interact with people around them.
    A story is the way it's told to us, i.e. presented to the audience, experienced by us. We the audience are shielded from properly knowing and understanding these characters by means of narrative sleight-of-hand, i.e. characters know more than we know until a particular point. In the first game, we only ever knew what Joel and Ellie knew.

    I honesty can't see how Abby's job even makes her less of a regular person than Joel or Ellie.
    The experience of doing anything you can to survive in a broken world, as Joel and Ellie do, is a lot more universal than, "daughter of self-proclaimed quack in service to a terrorist militia turned mercenary soldier for another terrorist milita". Again look at the end of The Last of Us, Joel is the one with makeshift weapons crafted and jury-rigged with what he can find while the Fireflies have military grade weapons and equipment. It's also there in the gameplay of The Last of Us Part II, Ellie is more stealthy and nimble whereas Abby's gameplay is more action oriented. Ellie is the underdog who makes it through with guile and stealth. She's the relatable figure whereas Abby is a more traditional game protagonist in being a super-soldier type.

    As TLJ has proven, having a vocal online hate mob doesn't actually prove your product is hated.
    Nor does it mean that the particular entertainment product is validated because it got hated by the "right people" (in this case gamergaters or sons of gamergaters). In time, the passion will cool on all sides and you will have the product for what it is, and my feeling is that it will not rise in estimation. I am sure that some people do like it and will continue to like it, but you can find admirers for all sorts of games.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 06-30-2020 at 09:43 PM.

  4. #34
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,282

    Default

    https:// www (dot) medium (dot) com/@BootlegGirl/lies-spore-zombies-and-queer-trauma-dont-believe-the-negative-hype-about-the-last-of-us-part-ii-39ae9f4ae9d2"]
    This is a positive review of the game that's quite interesting. (Medium isn't linking properly so you are going have to type the first part of the link manulally and just copy from the slash onwards.)

    And one I agree with, especially for this:

    The game concludes with what I’ve generally felt to be Joel’s real sin — because, while this is somehow controversial among the game’s fans, I believe you can’t justify experimenting lethally on children regardless of how many lives are at stake — which is that he lies and tells Ellie that she isn’t unique, many people are immune, and that the Fireflies (who he definitely doesn’t say he killed) have no use for her as a research subject, and no hope of creating a vaccine
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 06-30-2020 at 10:32 PM.

  5. #35
    King of Wakanda Midvillian1322's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    8,647

    Default

    Finally finished it. I get why people hate Abby but i also get what naughty dog was going for. I think they just made the mistake of under estimating how much people loved Joel.

    Question though why did Abby have a man's body? I get she was a solider in insane shape but it wasn't just the muscle it was the shape of her shoulders and hands. I'm guessing between that and Lev there was a Gender spectrum message. But even my GF walked in and saw abby and asked why they have a womens head on a man's body.

  6. #36
    Mighty Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    1,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    Question though why did Abby have a man's body? I get she was a solider in insane shape but it wasn't just the muscle it was the shape of her shoulders and hands.
    People's bodies come in different shapes and sizes. And hormone levels are not consistent with everyone. My wife's coworker is female yet has the body of a guy in terms of muscle. Her deltoid muscles would make most bodybuilders envious and she only works out sporadically. Her biceps are nearly as huge. And she only sporadically works out. For a while when she and my wife were dedicated about going to the gym every day she got looking very jacked. She has had tests done and she produces an abnormal amount of testosterone for a female.

    With Abby its all explained. In flashback she is seen as a normal sized girl. Then her dad is killed and she is consumed with rage and desire for revenge. In a later flashback with Owen you see she is has buffed up some and even mentions to Owen that she just pushed 185. Then as she and Owen are about to do it she pushes him away as all she can focus on is revenge. Abby obviously used working out and getting stronger as an outlet for her rage. Add to that her access to top notch workout equipment that she uses - if you zoom in while looking around her room you can see her workout log. Her diet is actually going to be excellent. As she walks around WLF stadium a livedstock farm can be seen (high protein and animal fat) as well as gardens (veggies). No junk food in the apocalypse either. So motivation to work out, excellent equipment to work out with, and a nutritional diet means a very buff body. Later in the game in Santa Barbara you see she isn't as buff anymore as she has lost access to the workout equipment and is now having to scavenge for food.

  7. #37
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Watching the Tommy sniping section again makes me wonder if the WLF would still have attacked Ellie and Jesse even if they weren't at war with the scars? It was clear in every instance with Tommy that the dude was a hurricane coming in. He likely would have killed everyone in his path even if they were initially friendly to get at Joel's killers. So the WLF might have still ended up with a shoot first policy. It makes me wish they didn't make the WLF so grimy. I understand why they did it. So Tommy and Ellie's rampage was justifiable outside those directly involved in Joel's death. But I do feel the game gave too much leeway with them. Because even if the WLF was as friendly as Jackson but refused to hand over Abby's group based on the info Abby and the former fireflies gave I can't see things going any different. Tommy and Ellie wouldn't forgive even an otherwise benign community if they protected Joel's killers. And unlike Owen no one traveling with Ellie and Tommy was going to stand between them and collateral damage certainly not Dina and Jesse. Any time they gave pushback they backed down the first instance of Ellie getting mad.

  8. #38
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Farealmer View Post
    Watching the Tommy sniping section again makes me wonder if the WLF would still have attacked Ellie and Jesse even if they weren't at war with the scars?
    Not sure what you are getting at. The WLF attack anyone in Seattle who isn't them, that includes Seraphites and outsiders.

    It was clear in every instance with Tommy that the dude was a hurricane coming in. He likely would have killed everyone in his path even if they were initially friendly to get at Joel's killers.
    Well he had to because Seattle is a warzone where the WLF attack anyone who isn't them.

    So the WLF might have still ended up with a shoot first policy. It makes me wish they didn't make the WLF so grimy. I understand why they did it. So Tommy and Ellie's rampage was justifiable outside those directly involved in Joel's death.
    The ex-Fireflies make it explicit that after disbanding they were looking for some tinpot militia to sell their sword to. So the WLF were jerks by design.

    But I do feel the game gave too much leeway with them. Because even if the WLF was as friendly as Jackson but refused to hand over Abby's group based on the info Abby and the former fireflies gave I can't see things going any different. Tommy and Ellie wouldn't forgive even an otherwise benign community if they protected Joel's killers.
    [citation needed]

    There's nothing to suggest this.

    And unlike Owen no one traveling with Ellie and Tommy was going to stand between them and collateral damage certainly not Dina and Jesse. Any time they gave pushback they backed down the first instance of Ellie getting mad.
    This sentence is hard for me to process. I can't get what you are trying to say here.

  9. #39
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    ...
    I thought you would of got this last time but I guess not. I have no interest in discussing this game with you. We had our debate in the other thread and it's clear we are not getting anywhere talking to each other. Respond to this or don't but this will be the last time I reply to you.

  10. #40
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Farealmer View Post
    ...
    You posted your comments here publicly and I responded to what you posted and in some cases clarified what you said. All I have done is responded to and argued against your points, which by the way is the purpose of this board.

  11. #41
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    Finally finished it. I get why people hate Abby but i also get what naughty dog was going for. I think they just made the mistake of under estimating how much people loved Joel.
    In addition to what I posted earlier it does make me curious if the people who came for him were those that he hurt during him and Tommy raider days if people would still be this on his side? Or if Maria would have turned him over to justice or said no?

  12. #42
    Mighty Member Frobisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Just finished the game and is it too much to ask to have even one thread in this place that isn’t one person trying to shout everyone else down over their extreme opinions?

  13. #43
    Incredible Member the nomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    675

    Default

    After sitting with this game for a bit, I'm still mixed on it.

    Gameplay was okay, no real big complaints there.

    Graphics: Great. awesome. It's a beautiful game

    Story: UGH. This is the make or break of a game for me. 7yrs been waiting for this game and I'm still mixed on it. I could see what they were trying to do, but honestly what was the point. It's a revenge tale but at the end there is no revenge. So was the last 20+ hours a waste?? I don't know. but it's whatever. They told the story they wanted and there is literally nothing anyone can do about it so I mean all the arguing I've seen online is just pointless. It is what is. LOL!

  14. #44
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,282

    Default

    Jason Schreier's landmark expose on ND's Crunch Culture reads a little differently after the game came out [Emphasis added by me]:

    As Naughty Dog’s developers worked on a demo for E3 2018 and began showing builds of the game to playtesters for feedback, the directors and leads found that some of their decisions weren’t working. Parts of the narrative weren’t resonating with players, who said they weren’t fond of characters that the writers hoped would be likable. In response, Druckmann and the other leads started scrapping and revising. “That’s where changes were happening,” said one developer. “We need to add some stuff here so that it tells more of this story or gives you more narrative beats.”

    This kind of iteration isn’t uncommon on any video game, and it’s often what leads to the most memorable moments in Naughty Dog’s games, such as the first Last of Us, in which the iconic giraffe scene was not originally part of the script. One of the most challenging parts of any video game’s development is that even features that sound incredible on paper might turn out to feel awful to play, which can lead to months and months of extra work. And it’s always difficult to resist the urge to add good ideas as they come up throughout production.
    https://kotaku.com/as-naughty-dog-cr...per-1842289962

    So it seems that the big difficulty of the production of the game was making Abby work, which led to crunch, scope creep, and the problematic second half of the game.

  15. #45
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Nope. Because again in real life, people relate to "I will save a child from becoming a human sacrifice" than "Man, if only we killed that child for a cure". The latter is a cold rational thought experiment which is not an universal experience.

    Especially because we now live in a global pandemic where a certian knowledge of epidemiology has become common. The premise of the first game rests on ignorance since a pandemic was a remote experience, a thing of the past, in the first game (not that I am blaming ND for not knowing about the future, but on the other hand, Contagion was made in 2011, so it had a better more realistic reference at hand). In real life many people have developed natural immunity to Covid-19, but nobody goes around arguing that these people be cut up and dissected for an insta-vaccine. And again consider the public backlash to some politicians arguing that we must "kill grandma for the economy".

    Likewise, people now know that vaccines depend not only on laboratory production which is a long process and can only be shortened by global collective effort on the part of multiple science teams rather than what seems like a veterinarian with spare time. And they know that producing the formula isn't enough, manufacturing, containment, and distribution is even more important. So the fireflies look less believable than before and the sequel, owing entirely to its timing, feels completely dated.
    Again, the zombie outbreak in TLOU is very different from the real world covid-19 outbreak. Your argument here seems like an awful lot of projection to prove that no one would have accepted an ending where Joel let Ellie die. I don't know how that ending would have been received because I'm not a precog but it isn't like the actual ending we got didn't also have troubling implications either.

    It was more rooted in character interactions than plot. You were entirely in Joel and Ellie's shoes, so you didn't know what they didn't know. You were never given any global picture of the "world building" i.e. what happened in X country and so on. Joel and Ellie were regular people making their way in a world they didn't understand and know. The first game was trying to give you a sense of regular people in a broken world. So that made it feel realistic and grounded. The final level of The Last of Us-1 conveyed that well where Joel after an entire game of improvised weapons, jury-rigged shotguns and pistols, finally confronts soldiers with military grade assault rifles. So you were a regular smuggler, lowest of the low, going against a powerful self-annointed elite.

    That changes when you move past that perspective, and choose another point of view. Naughty Dog made the decision to choose for its point of view an ex-Firefly soldier, and daughter of a Firefly doctor, so that means you no longer have the point of view of a regular person. You now have a somewhat elite perspective. The Fireflies are a faction fighting a civil war, they also governed and controlled sections of the land. So now, ND is automatically putting you in perspective of the wider world-building. And its strength and weakness rests on their lore. Since the lore was established from the view of entirely ordinary people in the first game, it basically needs to be redrawn to be done properly. The Last of Us Part-II is a plot driven game and not a character driven game, I don't think that can be denied.
    I think you and I have a very different idea for what qualifies as a regular person.


    We can't tell that for sure. The successful launch of The Last of Us Part II depends on the goodwill and equity built up about previous Naughty Dog games. In the same way that Spider-Man 3's success owed itself greatly to the reputation and status of the preceding two movies. Likewise, The Last Jedi's success owed itself to the buildup and excitement of The Force Awakens (which ultimately made far more money than TLJ, and TROS' weaker opening haul can be credited in part to the backlash to TLJ). The success a title enjoys at launch, at a time when most gamers hadn't played it, is largely driven by marketing, anticipation, and the good will of the previous titles in the series or by the developer, rather than the intrinsic worth of the product in question.
    Sorry but I've seen this argument used too often to take it seriously. Every time something someone hates becomes a hit, they either try to dismiss it as a failure by some arbitrary metric or they come up with reasons why it succeeded other than the fact most people liked it.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 07-27-2020 at 01:23 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •