The Last of Us Part II

[PaladinSum]

(I do it by copy pasting the entire QUOTE segment and then manually deleting the parts I don't want)

I do think it's fair to say it, because the game does seem very much designed to get you angry, sad, even disgusted at that death, but it's also designed to then try to have you overcome those feelings by giving you the full context and other perspectives. Now of course it's very much arguable whether the game does a good job in what it tries to do, but the fact that there are people that were not able to see past that death is not necessarily an indicator that it does not do a good job, just like the fact that there are people that were able to "get it" does not necessarily indicate it was well done.

So I do think that it's fair to say that some people are having a negative reception of the game because they just didn't "get it". This of course doesn't mean that there is no valid criticism to be made about the game. There's plenty, and even the fact that it failed to "click" with a significant amount of players IS valid criticism, I just don't think it makes it a bad story. And while that death is purposefully presented in a shocking way, both the death and the way it is presented serve a purpose in the story, it's not done just for shock value. And despite the death, the game still does provide the player meaningful closure to the character and resolves the first game's ambiguous ending (imo, of course).

I think part of it might have been, at least for some people, that that death made them angry not at Abby, but immediately at the game/writers. And that in part that was caused or at the very least amplified by the leaks, causing some people not to give a proper chance to the game. But that's just me talking out of my ass, and regardless of this, I can completely see that what the game tries to do isn't going to necessarily click with everyone.

Personally I had similar feelings throughout most of Abby's segment, though she did start growing on me slowly. But I was still... ambivalent about the story as a whole, even after finishing the game. It was only after discussing it and giving proper thought to the story as a whole that I started seeing why it is structured the way it is and organizing how I felt about it. And I do think overall it might have been (maybe) a better game if it was done differently, it would be an inferior experience.

Alright. It's perfectly fine to say people who don't like it just "don't get it". Because there must be some excuse to ignore criticisms and opinions you don't like.

Oh wait, no. There's things to criticize, like you fake say. You just think everyone is mad about the leaks. Even the people who never saw the leaks.

How about this? IMO, people that "get it" don't actually have anything to get and, IMO, are just trying to pretend their 5.5-6/10 action game is some deep look at the human condition so they can pretend to be enlightened when they look arrogant. IMO.

(Saying you're talking out of your ass is meaningless if you think the shit falling out of your ass is gold.)

[Kolvarg]

It's perfectly fine to say people who don't like it just "don't get it".

Amusingly enough, you just don't get my posts, either

[Gigantique]

Alright. It's perfectly fine to say people who don't like it just "don't get it". Because there must be some excuse to ignore criticisms and opinions you don't like.

Oh wait, no. There's things to criticize, like you fake say. You just think everyone is mad about the leaks. Even the people who never saw the leaks.

How about this? IMO, people that "get it" don't actually have anything to get and, IMO, are just trying to pretend their 5.5-6/10 action game is some deep look at the human condition so they can pretend to be enlightened when they look arrogant. IMO.

(Saying you're talking out of your ass is meaningless if you think the shit falling out of your ass is gold.)

My dude, there's no reason to be hostile. I don't necessarily agree with his opinion, but he is giving his opinion and reasoning without arguing in bad faith. He now thinks the story is good, so for him we must just not "get" whatever clicked for him, and while I don't agree, he's not being holier-than-thou or acting like he has the absolute truth and we are flat out wrong. So ease off on it, even though I get the story was a letdown for some of us.

[PaladinSum]

My dude, there's no reason to be hostile. I don't necessarily agree with his opinion, but he is giving his opinion and reasoning without arguing in bad faith. He now thinks the story is good, so for him we must just not "get" whatever clicked for him, and while I don't agree, he's not being holier-than-thou or acting like he has the absolute truth and we are flat out wrong. So ease off on it, even though I get the story was a letdown for some of us.

I really don't care about people liking the game. If I did, I'd be bothering people like Fencers who just enjoy a game. And his pretend fence sitting while flat out already deciding a negative opinion is tainted somehow. It's a garbage position.

But whatever.

[Gigantique]

[QUOTE=Kolvarg;52462379](I do it by copy pasting the entire

segment and then manually deleting the parts I don't want)

I do think it's fair to say it, because the game does seem very much designed to get you angry, sad, even disgusted at that death, but it's also designed to then try to have you overcome those feelings by giving you the full context and other perspectives. Now of course it's very much arguable whether the game does a good job in what it tries to do, but the fact that there are people that were not able to see past that death is not necessarily an indicator that it does not do a good job, just like the fact that there are people that were able to "get it" does not necessarily indicate it was well done.

So I do think that it's fair to say that some people are having a negative reception of the game because they just didn't "get it". This of course doesn't mean that there is no valid criticism to be made about the game. There's plenty, and even the fact that it failed to "click" with a significant amount of players IS valid criticism, I just don't think it makes it a bad story. And while that death is purposefully presented in a shocking way, both the death and the way it is presented serve a purpose in the story, it's not done just for shock value. And despite the death, the game still does provide the player meaningful closure to the character and resolves the first game's ambiguous ending (imo, of course).

I think part of it might have been, at least for some people, that that death made them angry not at Abby, but immediately at the game/writers. And that in part that was caused or at the very least amplified by the leaks, causing some people not to give a proper chance to the game. But that's just me talking out of my ass, and regardless of this, I can completely see that what the game tries to do isn't going to necessarily click with everyone.

Personally I had similar feelings throughout most of Abby's segment, though she did start growing on me slowly. But I was still... ambivalent about the story as a whole, even after finishing the game. It was only after discussing it and giving proper thought to the story as a whole that I started seeing why it is structured the way it is and organizing how I felt about it. And I do think overall it might have been (maybe) a better game if it was done differently, but it would be an inferior experience.

I agree that the game had the intention of making you feel a strong negative emotion towards Abby and then muddy it by humanising her for you (amplified by playing as her). But the fact is their idea clearly backfired for a non-insignificant portion of their fanbase, making the story (which had a decent enough premise if you take the characters from TLOU1 out of it imo) be poisoned straight up at the very beginning. That doesn't make their story objectively bad, stories arr inherently subjective. But it does make the premise they created their story on broken and "bad", especially since it is what was done to Joel that made so many become hostile to the game. If they did that knowingly it was a gamble that did not pay off, and if it wasn't something that crossed their minds they severely misunderstood (or wanted to force a different) the view the people against TLOU2 had on Joel and what he "deserved" from a narrative and creative standpoint.

I don't think the game as a product is bad, technically it's polished to an almost absurd degree. But it is a story and character-driven game, and their choice with story, intentional or not, torpedoed the experience, so i have to rate it much lower because of it.

My anecdotal evidence for why it's not just divided between Joel likers and dislikers is that even my gf felt the story was a mix of forced and dislocated, and she honestly didn't give too much of a shit that Joel died.

... The fact that she kept witnessing me murdering everything except every other dog and then see Ellie struggle with killing one more mook simply because it has a cutscene might have helped on the dislocated feel though, I'll admit as much. Found lots of places that screamed "This is where you could have snuck through the place without being on a killing spree btw", but I was too vengeful to leave anything standing!

Edit: One point I didn't discuss yet is Abby and her masculine appearance. She's a BIT too buff for me to find it believable (as in, tone her down to look less like a man with little bumps on the chest and more like a masculine woman that works out like a madwoman. It's not an attraction point for me, as subjectively I find super-worked-out women not too attractive either, so it's purely about making it a bit more believable in the setting. If she's roiding I suppose that's what that would look like, maybe?), but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the insane backlash and meme-ry she generated after the leak was sourced in what happens to Joel, and a lot less on herself. I was also knee-jerk being angry at the entire leak, but the other trailers made me at least think there would be time in the game to set up a context making it be time to let Joel go, but that didn't exactly happen either... :P

[PaladinSum]

I agree that the game had the intention of making you feel a strong negative emotion towards Abby and then muddy it by humanising her for you (amplified by playing as her). But the fact is their idea clearly backfired for a non-insignificant portion of their fanbase, making the story (which had a decent enough premise if you take the characters from TLOU1 out of it imo) be poisoned straight up at the very beginning. That doesn't make their story objectively bad, stories arr inherently subjective. But it does make the premise they created their story on broken and "bad", especially since it is what was done to Joel that made so many become hostile to the game. If they did that knowingly it was a gamble that did not pay off, and if it wasn't something that crossed their minds they severely misunderstood (or wanted to force a different) the view the people against TLOU2 had on Joel and what he "deserved" from a narrative and creative standpoint.

I don't think the game as a product is bad, technically it's polished to an almost absurd degree. But it is a story and character-driven game, and their choice with story, intentional or not, torpedoed the experience, so i have to rate it much lower because of it.

My anecdotal evidence for why it's not just divided between Joel likers and dislikers is that even my gf felt the story was a mix of forced and dislocated, and she honestly didn't give too much of a shit that Joel died.

... The fact that she kept witnessing me murdering everything except every other dog and then see Ellie struggle with killing one more mook simply because it has a cutscene might have helped on the dislocated feel though, I'll admit as much. Found lots of places that screamed "This is where you could have snuck through the place without being on a killing spree btw", but I was too vengeful to leave anything standing!

Edit: One point I didn't discuss yet is Abby and her masculine appearance. She's a BIT too buff for me to find it believable (as in, tone her down to look less like a man with little bumps on the chest and more like a masculine woman that works out like a madwoman. It's not an attraction point for me, as subjectively I find super-worked-out women not too attractive either, so it's purely about making it a bit more believable in the setting. If she's roiding I suppose that's what that would look like, maybe?), but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the insane backlash and meme-ry she generated after the leak was sourced in what happens to Joel, and a lot less on herself. I was also knee-jerk being angry at the entire leak, but the other trailers made me at least think there would be time in the game to set up a context making it be time to let Joel go, but that didn't exactly happen either... :P

Well, it also doesn't help that there isn't much of a real reason to ever stealth. Usually, direct combat would be bad, killing ruins your rating or causes people to view you differently, or supplies would be so inferior that guns blazing is a losing strategy. Between scavenging, effecient shooting and that Ellie and Abby can kill people hand to hand, you can absolutely take the "It's stealthy because no one is alive to detect me" method.

And I actually don't care Abby is huge. It makes all her quick time events and executions great and plausible. Really, I'm upset everyone around Abby isn't as swole as her since they have access to all the same stuff. Think how unstoppable a squad of Abbys would be.

[Verdugo]

This is the funniest naughty dog game I've played since crash bandicoot when I was a kid. It keeps getting better and better the further you go. The gameplay is incredibly thrilling mid to late game. Will definitely have a few run throughs of this over the years.

So lol at how misinformed people were pre launch about the story. Can't imagine missing out on this game because youtubers needed content during covid lockdown

Are you sure you are playing the game right? Its not supposed to be fun.

[everydaygamer]

People trying to claim this game failed just because there are people who didn't like it is absolutely hilarious. I mean yeah if we ignore all evidence of its success both critically and financially as well as pretend that all the players praising it are somehow just shills then yeah I guess in some delusional fantasy it could be considered a failure.

[RobertoCarlos]

Are you sure you are playing the game right? Its not supposed to be fun.

Try harder please

[Verdugo]

Try harder please

https://www.gamesradar.com/we-dont-u...eil-druckmann/

Its not me, its the director himself.

[RobertoCarlos]

https://www.gamesradar.com/we-dont-u...eil-druckmann/

Its not me, its the director himself.

Directors can say a lot of weird stuff promoting thier material. And they preferred using the word engagement over fun which makes sense because the game is so intense. That makes it fun for me. I actually wanna hear the in game sound over podcasts for the longest time

[Kolvarg]

I agree that the game had the intention of making you feel a strong negative emotion towards Abby and then muddy it by humanising her for you (amplified by playing as her). But the fact is their idea clearly backfired for a non-insignificant portion of their fanbase, making the story (which had a decent enough premise if you take the characters from TLOU1 out of it imo) be poisoned straight up at the very beginning. That doesn't make their story objectively bad, stories arr inherently subjective. But it does make the premise they created their story on broken and "bad", especially since it is what was done to Joel that made so many become hostile to the game. If they did that knowingly it was a gamble that did not pay off, and if it wasn't something that crossed their minds they severely misunderstood (or wanted to force a different) the view the people against TLOU2 had on Joel and what he "deserved" from a narrative and creative standpoint.

I don't think the game as a product is bad, technically it's polished to an almost absurd degree. But it is a story and character-driven game, and their choice with story, intentional or not, torpedoed the experience, so i have to rate it much lower because of it.

That's a fair take, and I definitely see where you're coming from.

I guess the crux of my thought process is: how much of that (players not liking what happens to Joel and being unable to get "into" the story as a consequence) is the story's fault, and not just the player's? Can't this be a case of this story/game just not being for everyone, and not that the premise behind is broken?

I don't think going against what the players want is a bad/broken premise by itself. And as much as I think about it, I haven't been able to come up with, or see anyone giving any valid objective reason for that death being in any way bad storytelling.

Could they have done the same story with new characters? Technically yes, but they would have never been able to achieve what they actually wanted to do, which is to challenge the player over their own feelings towards a character they love. And would it even be a "The Last of Us" game, if they did it with new characters?

I have no trouble at all with anyone disliking the game, or the story. Like you say ultimately no matter how objective one tries to be, there's always a big degree of subjectivity to any game or story. Especially when one is only talking about whether they liked something or not, and not any sense of "objective" quality that something might have. It's entirely possible to like something "objectively" bad, as is it possible to dislike something "objectively" good. The problem I have is that the negative buzz as a whole tends to conflate their subjective opinion with the game being bad, or even horrible/terrible.

I think to me at least it's kinda similar with what happened with Death Stranding, where a lot of people were crapping on a game that simply wasn't for them. And in the same way it's not like that game didn't have its problems, simply that apparently we live in a world where any media must be able to entertain everyone, and quality-wise is either a 0 or a 10 for many people.

My anecdotal evidence for why it's not just divided between Joel likers and dislikers is that even my gf felt the story was a mix of forced and dislocated, and she honestly didn't give too much of a shit that Joel died.

... The fact that she kept witnessing me murdering everything except every other dog and then see Ellie struggle with killing one more mook simply because it has a cutscene might have helped on the dislocated feel though, I'll admit as much. Found lots of places that screamed "This is where you could have snuck through the place without being on a killing spree btw", but I was too vengeful to leave anything standing!

To be fair, I think the game is heavily oriented (at a fault) towards people who have played the first, or at least are fairly familiar with the story. The emotional impact that death is supposed to have just can't be realistically expected from what little you know about the characters from this game alone. So the "meta" goals the writing has can't really work much. I believe this is why the game is very specifically titled "Part 2", it's supposed to be experienced as a direct continuation of the original's story.

The gameplay discrepancy with the story is definitely another big flaw with the game, I think, and a very valid complaint. I do think it was somewhat expected, since an issue present in any Naughty Dog game, but it's particularly bad in this game because of the theme.

"but I was too vengeful to leave anything standing". Overall what I'm saying is that this, in my humble opinion, is part of the problem that caused you to not like the story very much. In my eyes the story is not supposed to be about Ellie seeking revenge, but about Ellie dealing with Joel's death, and various stages of grief and the general feeling of purposelessness and her survivor's guilt. The ending of the game is not supposed to be about Ellie "forgiving" Abby, but about forgiving Joel, and coming to terms with the fact that he's gone and she'll never have the opportunity to mend their relationship anymore, no matter what happens to Abby

[PaladinSum]

People trying to claim this game failed just because there are people who didn't like it is absolutely hilarious. I mean yeah if we ignore all evidence of its success both critically and financially as well as pretend that all the players praising it are somehow just shills then yeah I guess in some delusional fantasy it could be considered a failure.

Who is that directed at? I'm not sure anyone here, not even me, called the game a failure. At worst, the story has been called bad.

[Gigantique]

That's a fair take, and I definitely see where you're coming from.

I guess the crux of my thought process is: how much of that (players not liking what happens to Joel and being unable to get "into" the story as a consequence) is the story's fault, and not just the player's? Can't this be a case of this story/game just not being for everyone, and not that the premise behind is broken?

I don't think going against what the players want is a bad/broken premise by itself. And as much as I think about it, I haven't been able to come up with, or see anyone giving any valid objective reason for that death being in any way bad storytelling.

Could they have done the same story with new characters? Technically yes, but they would have never been able to achieve what they actually wanted to do, which is to challenge the player over their own feelings towards a character they love. And would it even be a "The Last of Us" game, if they did it with new characters?

I have no trouble at all with anyone disliking the game, or the story. Like you say ultimately no matter how objective one tries to be, there's always a big degree of subjectivity to any game or story. Especially when one is only talking about whether they liked something or not, and not any sense of "objective" quality that something might have. It's entirely possible to like something "objectively" bad, as is it possible to dislike something "objectively" good. The problem I have is that the negative buzz as a whole tends to conflate their subjective opinion with the game being bad, or even horrible/terrible.

I think to me at least it's kinda similar with what happened with Death Stranding, where a lot of people were crapping on a game that simply wasn't for them. And in the same way it's not like that game didn't have its problems, simply that apparently we live in a world where any media must be able to entertain everyone, and quality-wise is either a 0 or a 10 for many people.



To be fair, I think the game is heavily oriented (at a fault) towards people who have played the first, or at least are fairly familiar with the story. The emotional impact that death is supposed to have just can't be realistically expected from what little you know about the characters from this game alone. So the "meta" goals the writing has can't really work much. I believe this is why the game is very specifically titled "Part 2", it's supposed to be experienced as a direct continuation of the original's story.

The gameplay discrepancy with the story is definitely another big flaw with the game, I think, and a very valid complaint. I do think it was somewhat expected, since an issue present in any Naughty Dog game, but it's particularly bad in this game because of the theme.

"but I was too vengeful to leave anything standing". Overall what I'm saying is that this, in my humble opinion, is part of the problem that caused you to not like the story very much. In my eyes the story is not supposed to be about Ellie seeking revenge, but about Ellie dealing with Joel's death, and various stages of grief and the general feeling of purposelessness and her survivor's guilt. The ending of the game is not supposed to be about Ellie "forgiving" Abby, but about forgiving Joel, and coming to terms with the fact that he's gone and she'll never have the opportunity to mend their relationship anymore, no matter what happens to Abby

Oh, my gf had played the first game with me and loved it, she just doesn't get invested in characters the same way I do, she was very invested in the Cordyceps plot compared to the characters. (imagine her disappointment about the Cordyceps role in this game :P)

And yeah, my reaction at Joel's death definitely poisoned the story, however I DID have the feeling the developer gave Ellie, so I was definitely engaged in an alley they wanted me to be in. I just never stopped wanting them all dead even after playing as Abby. But I didn't have an issue with Joel dying or even dying so brutally, like I've said his arc was pretty much done and it was Ellie's time to shine. My gripe was the timing. Abby going after Joel was completely justified and understandable, and having it happen later on might not have had such a poisonous effect, but I had been excited for more Ellie and Joel since the announcement, and even more so after the trailer replacing Jesse with Joel asking if Ellie thought he would let her do this alone launched. (Proper fucking catfish scenario that, shady shit Naughty!)

I knew going in that Abby would smack Joel in a ski lodge, but my stomach sank to the ground when both Abby and Ellie referred to a ski lodge in the introduction. Joel deserved what he got in-world, even tho everyone has probably killed someone's loved one at that point in the outbreak, but he didn't deserve it on a narrative/creative level. People that liked him from the first deserved more time with him before they offed him, and flashbacks wasn't enough to smooth over that "betrayal".

Another reason this story would probably avoid controversy if it had been new characters. Having a father-figure die early on as a catalyst isn't inherently bad, but when the character is a fan favourite they're excited to see and play more with it's a gut punch that quickly turns them spiteful at the developers instead, and that is a nigh impossible player to then get on your side again later on.

[Kolvarg]

Oh, my gf had played the first game with me and loved it, she just doesn't get invested in characters the same way I do, she was very invested in the Cordyceps plot compared to the characters. (imagine her disappointment about the Cordyceps role in this game :P)

And yeah, my reaction at Joel's death definitely poisoned the story, however I DID have the feeling the developer gave Ellie, so I was definitely engaged in an alley they wanted me to be in. I just never stopped wanting them all dead even after playing as Abby. But I didn't have an issue with Joel dying or even dying so brutally, like I've said his arc was pretty much done and it was Ellie's time to shine. My gripe was the timing. Abby going after Joel was completely justified and understandable, and having it happen later on might not have had such a poisonous effect, but I had been excited for more Ellie and Joel since the announcement, and even more so after the trailer replacing Jesse with Joel asking if Ellie thought he would let her do this alone launched. (Proper fucking catfish scenario that, shady shit Naughty!)

I knew going in that Abby would smack Joel in a ski lodge, but my stomach sank to the ground when both Abby and Ellie referred to a ski lodge in the introduction. Joel deserved what he got in-world, even tho everyone has probably killed someone's loved one at that point in the outbreak, but he didn't deserve it on a narrative/creative level. People that liked him from the first deserved more time with him before they offed him, and flashbacks wasn't enough to smooth over that "betrayal".

Another reason this story would probably avoid controversy if it had been new characters. Having a father-figure die early on as a catalyst isn't inherently bad, but when the character is a fan favourite they're excited to see and play more with it's a gut punch that quickly turns them spiteful at the developers instead, and that is a nigh impossible player to then get on your side again later on.

I see! I love both games in big part for the characters, but yea the setting is damn cool and it's sort of a shame (though understandable) that much of the world building is present only on the levels and notes. Post-apocalyptic settings, in general, tend to be very appealing to me, and the Last of Us infection is particularly cool for how plausible it is compared to most "Zombie" settings. The only thing that's kinda "meh" to me about it is how dark/bleak it is when it comes to humans and society, especially considering there still seems to be a considerable amount of people alive. Though part of that I think is to service the plot and gameplay more than anything.

I think I understand, thanks for clarifying your opinion! Ultimately whether you feel this way because you "allowed" that death to poison the story, or because the story simply didn't good enough of a good job at changing your mind, is kind of irrelevant to you. A game is generally intended to be experienced, not "analyzed", and ultimately your experience is your experience.

Going back to my previous comparison to Death Stranding, I think this game works for me in a very similar level. It's not a game I'd like every other game to be like, not even most or many other games. But it was still one hell of an experience that I don't regret having spent my money and time with, not one bit.

I think perhaps the most crucial mistake was not that they were not able to get everyone to sympathize with Abby, but that they were not able to make Ellie's character progression leading up to her decision at the end as clear as it should be. I think the over-reliance on flashbacks and non-linear storytelling kinda messed that up, and it was perhaps a bit too ambitious to attempt both that and the whole meta-narrative goal of having you as the player also experiencing a similar emotional progression.

Because ultimately, the purpose of Abby's arc is to get the player to know her and eventually sympathize with her (though personally I thought it was a cool story in itself, and I kinda wish the whole deal between the WLF and the Scars was more fleshed out), and to establish comparisons between her and Ellie, and their arcs. But it serves little purpose to Ellie. Ultimately Ellie doesn't really know much of what we as players know about Abby - and she is still able to move on without killing her, despite not being informed of all the things we as players are. I think for the story to truly be solid, we as players should also be able to much easier understand this despite not empathizing with Abby, and without having to piece back things together as much. I mean, one of the more crucial information to understanding Ellie's feelings throughout the game and her arc (her full conversation with Joel at the porch) is only given at the very end.

So yea, I can understand where some people are coming from. I think what the first game did better was that while it still also had nuance and complexity (though nowhere near as close imo, but still), it was still an enjoyable story even if you just looked at it like a "simple and standard action game story". Sure, you kinda end up not doing what your initial objective from the start of the game, just like in Part 2, but by the end of it Joel and Elli still went through a journey and overall got to a different, better place (moving from an authoritarian QZ to a safe and mostly peaceful small town, and building a relationship with each other). There's a much more visible and clear progression. With this one, if you don't give it much thought I can see how it looks bad, especially because of how disjointed it is that you have to piece things together. But I don't think it makes it worse, just different. And I don't think we should admonish games, especially AAA games which typically stick to the safest more boring paths, for daring to try and tread new territory.

Apologies for all the walls of text

[Gigantique]

I see! I love both games in big part for the characters, but yea the setting is damn cool and it's sort of a shame (though understandable) that much of the world building is present only on the levels and notes. Post-apocalyptic settings, in general, tend to be very appealing to me, and the Last of Us infection is particularly cool for how plausible it is compared to most "Zombie" settings. The only thing that's kinda "meh" to me about it is how dark/bleak it is when it comes to humans and society, especially considering there still seems to be a considerable amount of people alive. Though part of that I think is to service the plot and gameplay more than anything.

I think I understand, thanks for clarifying your opinion! Ultimately whether you feel this way because you "allowed" that death to poison the story, or because the story simply didn't good enough of a good job at changing your mind, is kind of irrelevant to you. A game is generally intended to be experienced, not "analyzed", and ultimately your experience is your experience.

Going back to my previous comparison to Death Stranding, I think this game works for me in a very similar level. It's not a game I'd like every other game to be like, not even most or many other games. But it was still one hell of an experience that I don't regret having spent my money and time with, not one bit.

I think perhaps the most crucial mistake was not that they were not able to get everyone to sympathize with Abby, but that they were not able to make Ellie's character progression leading up to her decision at the end as clear as it should be. I think the over-reliance on flashbacks and non-linear storytelling kinda messed that up, and it was perhaps a bit too ambitious to attempt both that and the whole meta-narrative goal of having you as the player also experiencing a similar emotional progression.

Because ultimately, the purpose of Abby's arc is to get the player to know her and eventually sympathize with her (though personally I thought it was a cool story in itself, and I kinda wish the whole deal between the WLF and the Scars was more fleshed out), and to establish comparisons between her and Ellie, and their arcs. But it serves little purpose to Ellie. Ultimately Ellie doesn't really know much of what we as players know about Abby - and she is still able to move on without killing her, despite not being informed of all the things we as players are. I think for the story to truly be solid, we as players should also be able to much easier understand this despite not empathizing with Abby, and without having to piece back things together as much. I mean, one of the more crucial information to understanding Ellie's feelings throughout the game and her arc (her full conversation with Joel at the porch) is only given at the very end.

So yea, I can understand where some people are coming from. I think what the first game did better was that while it still also had nuance and complexity (though nowhere near as close imo, but still), it was still an enjoyable story even if you just looked at it like a "simple and standard action game story". Sure, you kinda end up not doing what your initial objective from the start of the game, just like in Part 2, but by the end of it Joel and Elli still went through a journey and overall got to a different, better place (moving from an authoritarian QZ to a safe and mostly peaceful small town, and building a relationship with each other). There's a much more visible and clear progression. With this one, if you don't give it much thought I can see how it looks bad, especially because of how disjointed it is that you have to piece things together. But I don't think it makes it worse, just different. And I don't think we should admonish games, especially AAA games which typically stick to the safest more boring paths, for daring to try and tread new territory.

Apologies for all the walls of text

Nah man, walls are great, especially when they're not full of vitriol

At the end of the day, nobody seems to have a negative thing to say about the technical, objective parts of the game, those are all stellar. The story is as far as I can see the only thing that divides us, and that's subjective as hell. It happens, and while it did put Naughty Dog onto my "research before buying" list (where most should be imo), these things swing both ways. Last of Us part II was a huge miss for me and for me poisoned the franchise, but on the other hand God of War 2018 was HUGE win for me, while I have friends who hates it for what it is. The devs took a risk, and it paid off the way it did. LoUII was never gonna do badly financially, but time will tell if their choice hurt or helped the studio reputation-wise.

Regardless of how I experienced the game, that does not degrade yours in any way and I'm glad you enjoyed it. For now my spoiler-free ish way of recommending friends to buy/not to buy is to ask what they thought when they saw the Joel reveal in the Seattle trailer. If they got excited, i suggest they hold off or prepare to have an uphill battle liking the story.

[Elim Garak]

A better story would've been if we started as Abby (to understand her character) up to the point where she kills Joel (a shocking twist) and then we play as Ellie hunting Abby down and then letting her go because "revenge bad" - because we know who Abby is and understand her motivation.

That way it would've been better than twilight.

[Kolvarg]

A better story would've been if we started as Abby (to understand her character) up to the point where she kills Joel (a shocking twist) and then we play as Ellie hunting Abby down and then letting her go because "revenge bad" - because we know who Abby is and understand her motivation.

That way it would've been better than twilight.

How would the players be informed on the purpose behind Abby's goal without spoiling the shocking twist? Just "say" that she's going after the man that killed her father with no other context at all? The moment any relevant context is given (fireflies, hospital, the fact he was a doctor), the "twist" is pretty much made clear. And it would be weird as hell for the characters to never mention it or talk about it between them. Hell, just the fact you're specifically going after a murderer in a TLOU sequel, right after the original's ending, pretty much gives it away.

Personally I think many players would still be angry. Just the fact that you're playing from the start a significant part of the game that supposedly has nothing to do with any of the characters from the first, would be enough. It could actually be worse by making the player feel more responsible for that death (since they had already played and eventually "connected" to some extent with Abby).

And would knowing and understanding Abby better before she does what she does really make it easier for the player? I kinda feel the shock factor would actually potentially instantly undo any sympathy the player could have for her by then. And by the end, Ellie would be just as informed as Abby and her motives as before. The way they went with is not perfect, but at least gives you some time to cool down a bit and recover from that shock before trying to understand Abby.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of how I experienced the game, that does not degrade yours in any way and I'm glad you enjoyed it. For now my spoiler-free ish way of recommending friends to buy/not to buy is to ask what they thought when they saw the Joel reveal in the Seattle trailer. If they got excited, i suggest they hold off or prepare to have an uphill battle liking the story.

I definitely agree there. I think it's great, but not for everyone. Certainly not the game for anyone wanting to play as Joel (though I do think the game treats the character respectfully and actually in many ways is a treat with all the insight it gives into what happened with him in the last few years, and how it gives closure to his arc).

[Elim Garak]

How would the players be informed on the purpose behind Abby's goal without spoiling the shocking twist? Just "say" that she's going after the man that killed her father with no other context at all? The moment any relevant context is given (fireflies, hospital, the fact he was a doctor), the "twist" is pretty much made clear. And it would be weird as hell for the characters to never mention it or talk about it between them. Hell, just the fact you're specifically going after a murderer in a TLOU sequel, right after the original's ending, pretty much gives it away.

Did I say it should be exactly the same story? No.

But even not mentioning Joel - would've worked and would've been better than twilight. Some people will get a clue and the twist will just be a confirmation of their theory. It's perfectly fine. It's called foreshadowing. Some people catch up, some don't. Perfectly normal.

And there are ways to not make it obvious that it's Joel. Literary ways, but it requires some good writing. It's a zombie world, there are plenty of murderers in it. In fact the game shouldn't feature any TLOU part 1 characters in promotional materials at all. It's just a game in the same universe after the events of the first one.

And I'm not saying it would've been a perfect story ever told, just better than twilight.

[Gelannerai]

How would the players be informed on the purpose behind Abby's goal without spoiling the shocking twist? Just "say" that she's going after the man that killed her father with no other context at all? The moment any relevant context is given (fireflies, hospital, the fact he was a doctor), the "twist" is pretty much made clear. And it would be weird as hell for the characters to never mention it or talk about it between them. Hell, just the fact you're specifically going after a murderer in a TLOU sequel, right after the original's ending, pretty much gives it away.

But there really is no “twist.” Even without the brief recap of Joel killing the doctor and saving Ellie, it’s painfully obvious that Abby and her friends are Fireflies trash. A twist would only be accomplished if players were introduced to Abby first, and through the course of the game leading up to the ski lodge we’re given clues to piece together to ascertain Abby’s specific relation to the doctor.

Personally I think many players would still be angry. Just the fact that you're playing from the start a significant part of the game that supposedly has nothing to do with any of the characters from the first, would be enough. It could actually be worse by making the player feel more responsible for that death (since they had already played and eventually "connected" to some extent with Abby).

And would knowing and understanding Abby better before she does what she does really make it easier for the player? I kinda feel the shock factor would actually potentially instantly undo any sympathy the player could have for her by then. And by the end, Ellie would be just as informed as Abby and her motives as before. The way they went with is not perfect, but at least gives you some time to cool down a bit and recover from that shock before trying to understand Abby.

That’s a failing of the narrative premise. Players are given that time to “cool down” and still by and large hate her or are ambivalent to her motivations. If the point was to come to an understanding of Abby’s motivations and develop a more sympathetic/empathetic view of her character, then that part of the story has not worked well. Regardless of her attachments or growth, she’s still the person that tortured someone to death with a golf club, happily engaged in an “adulterous” sexual encounter with Owen while crying crocodile tears about Mel, etc. Add to it that, as you point out, Abby’s narrative doesn’t inform Ellie’s whatsoever, despite the fact that Ellie is supposed to be the main character in the story. That makes trudging through Abby’s story retroactively worse IMO.

I definitely agree there. I think it's great, but not for everyone. Certainly not the game for anyone wanting to play as Joel (though I do think the game treats the character respectfully and actually in many ways is a treat with all the insight it gives into what happened with him in the last few years, and how it gives closure to his arc).

I paid no attention to the leaks before the game’s release and happily plunked down the cash for my preorder. I fully expected Joel to die in this game, as his story was pretty well told and it was Ellie’s turn to drive the narrative. My feeling on the game in general is that the sound and visual elements are sublime, the gameplay is solid (though dated), and the story/narrative presentation is a disjointed mess that fails to make you care about anyone involved. I actually had a similar reaction several years ago between a comic series that I really enjoyed because of the character development there in (Avengers Academy) and the follow-up series (Avengers Arena). Whereas we got to watch these new characters mature in Academy, we got to see them and other well-liked characters subjected to glorified murder porn in Arena and portrayed as so out-of-established-character as to become unlikable. Unfortunately I’m now in Gigantique’s boat of heavy scrutiny for Naughty Dog games because of TLoU2.