The Last of Us Part II

[Kolvarg]

Every time i hear 'you didn't get it so your criticism is invalid' i have to hold back from laughing out loud. When you need an extra video after all is done to explain the story then the writer/storyteller failed at his job. Simple as that.

But you don't "need" an extra video. Everything an extra video can tell you IS in the game, and not that deeply hidden. The thing is the story isn't just one linear simple action story, we're presented 4 different timelines displayed alternatively, and there is meaning in the order you go through them, as well as a LOT of symbolism throughout the game. If you don't pay attention, or if you rush too much through it (playing it in one sitting like some people apparently did), or if you just don't care for whatever reason (like being angry at the writers because of what happens in the game, or because you're busy over-analyzing everything before you have fully experienced it), then yea, you're going to miss a lot of stuff and you're not going to understand certain things the characters do.

Plus the way they decided to tell the story actively makes you have to retroactively think about what happened before in the game, because new information changes how you view what you already experienced. For instance, the very last cutscene in its entirety with Joel and Ellie on the porch gives a complete new nuance to the entirety of Ellie's arc and all of her decisions.

You say the writer/storyteller failed at his job. I say the gamer/viewer failed at theirs. It's like going through a long poem and saying "This doesn't make any sense, you shouldn't need to analyze it to understand the meaning. It would have been better if it was prose". You might prefer one style or the other, but you should judge the work for what it does in the style it does, not just say it fails because it doesn't follow your preference.

And this is not to say that people only don't like the game because they don't get it. It's just to say that IF you don't make the least effort to understand the characters and story, saying the story is bad is pretty meaningless. For instance, in Joe's review he states that Ellie's story doesn't make sense because it ends with "failed revenge", that Abby never shows remorse in any way, and that the game is about "revenge bad". All of this is blatantly incorrect, and it genuinely seems that he was unable to look at the game's story at anything deeper than the most superficial level, and that he gave no thought as to all of those things after having the entirety of the context by the end of the game.

[Elim Garak]

But you don't "need" an extra video. Everything an extra video can tell you IS in the game, and not that deeply hidden. The thing is the story isn't just one linear simple action story, we're presented 4 different timelines displayed alternatively, and there is meaning in the order you go through them, as well as a LOT of symbolism throughout the game. If you don't pay attention, or if you rush too much through it (playing it in one sitting like some people apparently did), or if you just don't care for whatever reason (like being angry at the writers because of what happens in the game, or because you're busy over-analyzing everything before you have fully experienced it), then yea, you're going to miss a lot of stuff and you're not going to understand certain things the characters do.

Plus the way they decided to tell the story actively makes you have to retroactively think about what happened before in the game, because new information changes how you view what you already experienced. For instance, the very last cutscene in its entirety with Joel and Ellie on the porch gives a complete new nuance to the entirety of Ellie's arc and all of her decisions.

You say the writer/storyteller failed at his job. I say the gamer/viewer failed at theirs. It's like going through a long poem and saying "This doesn't make any sense, you shouldn't need to analyze it to understand the meaning. It would have been better if it was prose". You might prefer one style or the other, but you should judge the work for what it does in the style it does, not just say it fails because it doesn't follow your preference.

Are you saying that in order to like this story one needs to understand it and everyone who dislikes the story didn't?
Also, the reader/gamer is never at fault when it comes to understanding the story. It's always the writer's fault.

And whenever someone criticizes the criticizing by saying "you didn't get it" - I think it's actually the other way around - you like it - means your standards are that low and you don't get it.

We can forgive a brand new IP game - by brushing off the dislikes as - "not the target audience" - that would've been perfectly fine. But this is a sequel and there are certain laws of expectations that must be followed that cannot be subverted.

A sequel must pander to the audience of the original, not spit in its face. And that's besides the pacing issues, jumbled story pieces order and flashbacks within flashbacks. Flashbacks are really bad storytelling and must be used sparingly. but this one has half the game as a flashback and there are flashbacks within that flashback.

It's not that people don't get the deepness of flashbackness and don't see the symbolism - it's just they don't like this kind of storytelling and thus don't pay attention to all the "important" details. And you can't blame them.

[Kumorii]

I can't watch that guy's vids, the way he talks makes me nauseous for some reason. I got nothing against the guy so it's not an attack against him, it's just my personal issue.

His name is Critical Drinker. The persona and shtick is that he is acting drunk when doing these, hence the slurred and slow speech. Probably why it makes you nauseous

[Blayze]

Abby needed her own game, with the Big Event either as the end leading into a third game, or taking place during the third game.

That way, people would come to like her before the Event, instead of the narrative having to work double-time to drag Ellie down and say "now care about this person you hate."

[Kolvarg]

Are you saying that in order to like this story one needs to understand it and everyone who dislikes the story didn't?

Saying you need to understand the story to appreciate it is not the same as saying everyone who didn't appreciate it didn't understand it.

Also, the reader/gamer is never at fault when it comes to understanding the story. It's always the writer's fault.

Bullshit. Case in point, my post above, which is objectively about having to understand the story and being willing to do it in order to be able to properly criticize said story, and yet you misunderstand it as it being about "everyone who dislikes the story didn't understand it", because of how YOU choose to read it.

And whenever someone criticizes the criticizing by saying "you didn't get it" - I think it's actually the other way around - you like it - means your standards are that low and you don't get it.

The difference being that I am criticizing specific things that to me are evidence that they didn't get the story, whereas you are just justifying my opinion which you believe to be wrong merely because it goes against yours.

We can forgive a brand new IP game - by brushing off the dislikes as - "not the target audience" - that would've been perfectly fine. But this is a sequel and there are certain laws of expectations that must be followed that cannot be subverted.

A sequel must pander to the audience of the original, not spit in its face. And that's besides the pacing issues, jumbled story pieces order and flashbacks within flashbacks. Flashbacks are really bad storytelling and must be used sparingly. but this one has half the game as a flashback and there are flashbacks within that flashback.

It's not that people don't get the deepness of flashbackness and don't see the symbolism - it's just they don't like this kind of storytelling and thus don't pay attention to all the "important" details. And you can't blame them.

Based on what ruling? You can absolutely blame them. I can completely understand if someone doesn't like the game because it's not what they expected or what they wanted. But there's a difference between not liking it because it's not to your taste, and justifying the game as being bad because you didn't like it. It's extremely disingenuous to not pay attention to important details (regardless of how justified you might think it is), and then criticize the integrity of the story because you don't have all the information required to understand it.

It's like saying a WoW book is a bad book with bad writing simply because it continues the story of the game in book form when you prefer to have the story in-game.

There are absolutely no "rules" in what a sequel must or must not be, other than perhaps continuing the story of the previous game in some way. There are expectations sure, and in that sense, the game is very much still a narrative-focused action-adventure game with survival horror elements, set in a zombie-like apocalypse, that handles mature and dark themes. It even literally continues the story from the first and provides closure to its uncertain/ambiguous ending.

The fact that it attempts a different type of storytelling and explores different emotions than the first one is not only perfectly fine, but commendable, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, even assuming a "sequel must pander to the audience of the original". Who are you to say it didn't? And how exactly does it spit in the original audience's face, just for being a more complex story? Where have you gotten the information on how many percentage of the original's audience liked or didn't like the original? From what I see on r/thelastofus, for instance, the reception is actually very positive.

- - - Updated - - -

That way, people would come to like her before the Event, instead of the narrative having to work double-time to drag Ellie down and say "now care about this person you hate."

But that would miss entirely the meta point of the game, which is to challenge you, the player, to be confronted with experiencing the perspective of a character you hate.

[Skorpionss]

His name is Critical Drinker. The persona and shtick is that he is acting drunk when doing these, hence the slurred and slow speech. Probably why it makes you nauseous

Yeah, I forced myself to watch it and he does make really good points (or rather, points I agree with).

[Shiny212]

Saying you need to understand the story to appreciate it is not the same as saying everyone who didn't appreciate it didn't understand it.



Bullshit. Case in point, my post above, which is clearly about having to understand the story and being willing to do it in order to be able to properly criticize said story, and yet you misunderstand it as it being about "everyone who dislikes the story didn't understand it", because of how YOU choose to read it.



The difference being that I am criticizing specific things that to me are evidence that they didn't get the story, whereas you are just justifying my opinion which you believe to be wrong merely because it goes against yours.



Based on what ruling? You can absolutely blame them. I can completely understand if someone doesn't like the game because it's not what they expected or what they wanted. But there's a difference between not liking it because it's not to your taste, and justifying the game as being bad because you didn't like it. It's extremely disingenuous to not pay attention to important details (regardless of how justified you might think it is), and then criticize the integrity of the story because you don't have all the information required to understand it.

There are absolutely no "rules" in what a sequel must or must not be. There are expectations sure, and in that sense, the game is very much still a narrative-focused action-adventure game with survival horror elements, set in a zombie-like apocalypse, that handles mature and dark themes. It even literally continues the story from the first.

The fact that it attempts a different type of storytelling and explores different emotions than the first one is not only perfectly fine, but commendable.

Also, even assuming a "sequel must pander to the audience of the original". Who are you to say it didn't? And how exactly does it spit in the original audience's face, just for being a more complex story? Where have you gotten the information on how many percentage of the original's audience liked or didn't like the original? From what I see on r/thelastofus, for instance, the reception is actually very positive.

- - - Updated - - -



But that would miss entirely the meta point of the game, which is to challenge you, the player, to be confronted with experiencing the perspective of a character you hate.

By every metric of accepted storytelling "rules" and general teaching TLOU2 is by the creators and actors own admission not being followed. It's purposefully breaking norms and accepted, tried and true methods of storytelling.

You're within your rights to say the rules of storytelling are arbitrary and wrong and argue that point, but you'd be in a small minority, as most in the field agree that there are very essential beats and curves that should be adhered to, in order to create a satisfying and/or meaningful narrative. TLOU2 is extremely experimental, people online have alot of opinions not necessarily particularly honed ones, critiquing everything from character designs, motivations and vague overarching themes, but truthfully it's all minutiae compared to the basic execution of their story.

TLOU2 doesn't have a traditional protagonist/antagonist, it doesn't have a beginning, middle and an end, (middle part being where it's confused at best) it doesn't stand on its own legs narratively, being intrinsically connected to part 1, so much so that you'd be hard pressed to understand/care about anything if you haven't first played it. And more. Understanding allegory, which is often individually interpreted and subjective even to the greatest art-critic, is not a metric by which you can judge someone's feelings about the game as "un-educated" or that they just didn't get it.

As an example, some people didn't enjoy playing as Abby for a number of reasons, it impacted the success of telling a meaningful and satisfying story to them, NOT because they "didn't get it", but because the execution of the narrative was to them, a failed experiment rather than a successful one. That's subjective, and you're just gonna have to deal with differing viewpoints.

What isn't subjective, is that TLOU2 IS experimental, it DOES break the "rules" of storytelling, (again by the creator's own admission), there are consequences to that, one of them being a divided reception, compared to say the first game, (a textbook narrative) which was considerably more well received. Saying "there are no rules" is simply wrong.

If the character creators can explain the characters better outside of the work of fiction - what does it tell us about the quality of said fiction?

Also, this is the most resounding feeling I'm left with after having watched a number of interviews and listened to podcasts of the cast and writer(s). If what they talk about was actually reflected well in the game, it would be a lot better.

[Kolvarg]

By every metric of accepted storytelling "rules" and general teaching TLOU2 is by the creators and actors own admission not being followed. It's purposefully breaking norms and accepted, tried and true methods of storytelling.

Sure. But they are rules in the sense of it being the generally accepted way of making a good story, not in the sense that any story that doesn't follow them is bad. TLOU2 is for sure experimental, and like I've said I completely understand if it doesn't resonate with everyone.

All I'm saying is it should be judged for what it is, not for what any specific person thinks it should have been.

TLOU2 doesn't have a traditional protagonist/antagonist, it doesn't have a beginning, middle and an end, (middle part being where it's confused at best) it doesn't stand on its own legs narratively, being intrinsically connected to part 1, so much so that you'd be hard pressed to understand/care about anything if you haven't first played it. And more. Understanding allegory, which is often individually interpreted and subjective even to the greatest art-critic, is not a metric by which you can judge someone's feelings about the game as "un-educated" or that they just didn't get it.

And I think that is indeed one of the game's negative points, even if not necessarily a fault. Although I also think it's why the game is so specifically titled "Part 2". It's intended to be played as a continuation of the first, and I don't think that's necessarily a problem, even if it does mean someone new to the franchise will have a very different experience if they willingly choose to start on part 2. Should a "Season 2" of a show be criticized for assuming viewers watched "Season 1"?

Of course any stylistic resource is going to be individually interpreted and subjective. But in a lot of what I'm talking about, specifically about understanding characters motivations and progression throughout the game, it isn't either that subjective nor that well hidden, in my opinion. You do have to pay attention to pick some stuff up, and you do have to rethink the whole game after you are done with it and finally have all the information.

I'm not judging anyone's feelings about the game, I'm judging people's opinions. As I've said, it's one thing and totally fine to not like the game/story. It's an entirely different think to let that drive you into justifying how the game/story is bad.

As an example, some people didn't enjoy playing as Abby for a number of reasons, it impacted the success of telling a meaningful and satisfying story to them, NOT because they "didn't get it", but because the execution of the narrative was to them, a failed experiment rather than a successful one. That's subjective, and you're just gonna have to deal with differing viewpoints.

It's fair to not like playing as Abby. I don't think it's fair to automatically declare from that that it was a failed experiment, though, even if it didn't work for you. I think when discussing any media, especially when you are actively trying to quantify any sense of objective quality related to it, there needs to be some separation between how you experienced said media, and what that media actually is.

I'm perfectly fine with the existence of viewpoints different than and even opposing to mine. What I'm not ok with is with people conflating their personal experience of the game with its objective qualities. And no, I don't have an issue only with the people who dislike it, I feel exactly the same about the people who claim the game is a 10/10 flawless masterpiece simply because of how much they personally liked it. Just like I have issues with people who criticize this game and point the same exact flaws that were present in the first one as well, that they for some reason consider 10/10.

[Shiny212]

Sure. But they are rules in the sense of it being the generally accepted way of making a good story, not in the sense that any story that doesn't follow them is bad. TLOU2 is for sure experimental, and like I've said I completely understand if it doesn't resonate with everyone.

All I'm saying is it should be judged for what it is, not for what any specific person thinks it should have been.



And I think that is indeed one of the game's negative points, even if not necessarily a fault. Although I also think it's why the game is so specifically titled "Part 2". It's intended to be played as a continuation of the first, and I don't think that's necessarily a problem, even if it does mean someone new to the franchise will have a very different experience if they willingly choose to start on part 2. Should a "Season 2" of a show be criticized for assuming viewers watched "Season 1"?

Of course any stylistic resource is going to be individually interpreted and subjective. But in a lot of what I'm talking about, specifically about understanding characters motivations and progression throughout the game, it isn't either that subjective nor that well hidden, in my opinion. You do have to pay attention to pick some stuff up, and you do have to rethink the whole game after you are done with it and finally have all the information.

I'm not judging anyone's feelings about the game, I'm judging people's opinions. As I've said, it's one thing and totally fine to not like the game/story. It's an entirely different think to let that drive you into justifying how the game/story is bad.



It's fair to not like playing as Abby. I don't think it's fair to automatically declare from that that it was a failed experiment, though. I think when discussing any media, especially when you are actively trying to quantify any sense of objective quality related to it, there needs to be some separation between how you experienced said media, and what that media actually is.

I'm perfectly fine with the existence of viewpoints different than and even opposing to mine. What I'm not ok with is with people conflating their personal experience of the game with its objective qualities. And no, I don't have an issue only with the people who dislike it, I feel exactly the same about the people who claim the game is a 10/10 flawless masterpiece simply because of how much they personally liked it.

It's generally accepted in videogames that you have to design your game with the caveat that there may be new players that have not played earlier installments. I'd argue that it's typically more important for a video game than a TV-show to do this. It should of course be highly rewarding to experience the entire universe and all installments, but TLOU2 really feels a bit like an experiment launch only made possible by the superior foundation of the first game. Ask yourself, putting aside the narrative reasons, could you do something as radical as TLOU2 without having all the good will, respect and love borne out of the first game? Perhaps the number one reason why there's so much vitriol and talk of "betrayal" or "not respecting the characters".

Maybe I should've replaced the word feelings with opinions, as they're functionally the same for what my point was. If someone says they didn't like this game, their opinion is never going to be "wrong". They may have a low standard, poor taste even, that becomes the argument you could have, but it's extremely unfruitful if your mindset is the spectacular bad faith of: "you just don't get it".

I don't think the source of criticism in TLOU2 is allegory, "hidden" motives or unjustified character behavior, like I said that's minutiae, I know it gets talked to death online, but to me it's focusing on things that could've been gobbled up like pure gold, if the story itself resonated. And I don't think there was that much subtlety in this story either, as far as symbolism or theme goes, rather the opposite. I don't think you can expect a "good" reception if you break the technique and structure that may as well be math in how stringent it is for good storytelling. Then again a "good" reception to Druckman might've been just this, ambivalence, rather than the usual goal, catharsis.

I didn't actually declare it was a failed experiment, just that that is the opinion some people hold. I'm not ok with people conflating opinion with objective quality either; at the end of the day that will devolve into "standard of taste" arguments which really is just veiled name calling. I think it's important to at least agree on the basics, TLOU2 was experimental in nature, bordering on an abstract art piece, inevitably causing the divisive reception. No one can "experience" TLOU2 as a textbook narrative, it's an experiment no matter what your opinion is, whether or not you liked it is your opinion. That's kind of the issue I have when people say "you just don't get it". Despite the highly inflated critical reception in my opinion, there are very many reasons to dislike this game, specifically the narrative. Much more reasons that the first game.

[Blayze]

But that would miss entirely the meta point of the game, which is to challenge you, the player, to be confronted with experiencing the perspective of a character you hate.

The problem there, is there's a lot of people who will say "I don't want Abby to succeed" and turn the game off for good.

The order of events as the player experiences them matters immensely.

[Elim Garak]

But that would miss entirely the meta point of the game, which is to challenge you, the player, to be confronted with experiencing the perspective of a character you hate.

No one wants to experience the perspective of a character they hate. If you want to experience Abby's perspective - then you don't hate her and thus the story has failed and if you hate her then you don't want to experience that - and if that was as intended to hate her and force you to experience it - then it's not a game but a statement that spits in the face of a paying customer.

[Kolvarg]

It's generally accepted in videogames that you have to design your game with the caveat that there may be new players that have not played earlier installments. I'd argue that it's typically more important for a video game than a TV-show to do this. It should of course be highly rewarding to experience the entire universe and all installments, but TLOU2 really feels a bit like an experiment launch only made possible by the superior foundation of the first game. Ask yourself, putting aside the narrative reasons, could you do something as radical as TLOU2 without having all the good will, respect and love borne out of the first game? Perhaps the number one reason why there's so much vitriol and talk of "betrayal" or "not respecting the characters".

While I agree it is indeed generally accepted, I'm not entirely convinced that it should be the case for every game. I don't think we should limit creativity for such an arbitrary reason, especially in this day and age where you can easily find either the entirety of a game's story online, or multiple detailed discussions and explanations of said story, or even summaries of said story that inform you well enough to be able to enjoy the sequel.

Sure, in this specific case it's a bit different, because it specifically wants to exploit an emotional connection to the characters that realistically isn't likely to exist to the expected level if you haven't experienced the first one "as intended". But you only need to understand the bare basics of what happened in the first one to understand this one's story, and I don't think it is necessarily unenjoyable even if you don't have a strong emotional connection to the characters. It will not be able to explore some of the things it wants to, since you'll likely have a much more neutral reaction to what Abby does, but I think the story still stands on its own.

I don't see how it's more important for a video game than a TV-show, in fact I would argue it's the other way around. With a game you can enjoy the visuals, audio, story sequences and gameplay even if you don't understand the story. Hell you can enjoy a game even if you skip all cutscenes, only through gameplay. With shows you are missing that aspect.

I do think TLOU2 could absolutely work without the good will/respect/love born out of the first game. The sequel pretty much only relies on the emotional connection between the player and the characters, and like I've said even that is only for part of what it does.

Maybe I should've replaced the word feelings with opinions, as they're functionally the same for what my point was. If someone says they didn't like this game, their opinion is never going to be "wrong". They may have a low standard, poor taste even, that becomes the argument you could have, but it's extremely unfruitful if your mindset is the spectacular bad faith of: "you just don't get it".

I don't think the source of criticism in TLOU2 is allegory, "hidden" motives or unjustified character behavior, like I said that's minutiae, I know it gets talked to death online, but to me it's focusing on things that could've been gobbled up like pure gold, if the story itself resonated. And I don't think there was that much subtlety in this story either, as far as symbolism or theme goes, rather the opposite. I don't think you can expect a "good" reception if you break the technique and structure that may as well be math in how stringent it is for good storytelling. Then again a "good" reception to Druckman might've been just this, ambivalence, rather than the usual goal, catharsis.

I didn't actually declare it was a failed experiment, just that that is the opinion some people hold. I'm not ok with people conflating opinion with objective quality either; at the end of the day that will devolve into "standard of taste" arguments which really is just veiled name calling. I think it's important to at least agree on the basics, TLOU2 was experimental in nature, bordering on an abstract art piece, inevitably causing the divisive reception. No one can "experience" TLOU2 as a textbook narrative, it's an experiment no matter what your opinion is, whether or not you liked it is your opinion. That's kind of the issue I have when people say "you just don't get it". Despite the highly inflated critical reception in my opinion, there are very many reasons to dislike this game, specifically the narrative. Much more reasons that the first game.

I'm sorry if I haven't made this clear, so I'll state it as clear as I can.

I'm not saying "you just don't get it" as a "catch-all" response to any criticism.
I'm not saying that everyone who dislikes the story doesn't understand it.

What I am saying is that I don't see specific criticisms of the story and characters as valid when someone demonstrably shows not to have understood either the themes of the story nor the characters. In particular, I was saying this in the context of Angry Joe's review which had been posted recently in the thread.

I do very much agree that TLOU2 is experimental in nature, that it does border on an abstract art piece, and that it's understandable to receive divisive reception.

What I don't agree with is people saying it's bad because it's not the standard run-of-the-mill action-adventure story they expected/wanted, of just more of the same from the first game. And again I'm not saying this is all criticism of the game going around, it's adressing some of the most common criticism I've seen here and in other places. I know there's a lot of valid criticism to be made. I have pointed a lot of flaws myself, and agreed with many. In fact I think they've experimented too much, and tried so many different things at the same time that a lot of them can be seen as "gimmicky". But regardless I think that it does achieve the things it tries at least decently, and it should be complimented for daring to be different and to thread new territory, even if it did not fulfill it for everyone's experience.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem there, is there's a lot of people who will say "I don't want Abby to succeed" and turn the game off for good.

The order of events as the player experiences them matters immensely.

That's fair. What I'm trying to say is exactly because the order of events is so important, and it's especially important in this game, switching it around would be an entirely different game with different goals. They didn't do it in this order because they weren't able to find a better / more satisfying way to tell a similar story, but because the story they wanted to tell required the order to be this way, and for the order not to be easy.

- - - Updated - - -

No one wants to experience the perspective of a character they hate. If you want to experience Abby's perspective - then you don't hate her and thus the story has failed and if you hate her then you don't want to experience that - and if that was as intended to hate her and force you to experience it - then it's not a game but a statement that spits in the face of a paying customer.

Then I'd say the consumer is extremely shallow not to give the benefit of the doubt just because the game doesn't do exactly what he wants. There's plenty of evidence in the positive feedback of people that did hate Abby and that did, by the end of the game, enjoyed being "forced" to experience something they didn't want/like at first.

[Elim Garak]

Then I'd say the consumer is extremely shallow not to give the benefit of the doubt just because the game doesn't do exactly what he wants. There's plenty of evidence in the positive feedback of people that did hate Abby and that did, by the end of the game, enjoyed being "forced" to experience something they didn't want/like at first.

The consumer is always right because they paid for it.
There's no evidence of someone hating Abby and enjoying her story. They might have enjoyed her gameplay parts - because it's really where all the good gameplay features are, like all the cool weapons and combat in general. But no one who hated her - enjoyed her story.

[YUPPIE]

this is one of the worst games ever made, factually. I notice people say the gameplay is pretty great, but this game is fundamentally so tied to its narrative. A narrative that is shit in every way. Probably one of the worst written stories ever in a video game, actually.

So with that in mind, then where does the serviceable gameplay go? It just doesn't work for a game built like this. When you don't sympathize or resonate with it at all and get a huge laugh out of killing the protagonist every new way there is before advancing to the next point of the game, it's a lost cause.

Go play Spec Ops the Line for an example of serviceable gameplay and top-class writing...or the first LOU.

[Kolvarg]

The consumer is always right because they paid for it.
There's no evidence of someone hating Abby and enjoying her story. They might have enjoyed her gameplay parts - because it's really where all the good gameplay features are, like all the cool weapons and combat in general. But no one who hated her - enjoyed her story.

Well I've paid for the game and I say it's great, therefore I'm right and the game is great!

Senseless bullshit. The consumer is right to feel whatever he feels and think whatever he wants to think. But that doesn't necessarily say anything about the product or whether it should be different or not. If you are picky and/or if you don't want to risk buying something you don't like, then inform yourself and make a decision on whether to buy it or not. It's especially bullshit in this case where with the spoilers it was public knowledge that you would play as Abby after what she did.

Well, you're just plain wrong there, and you haven't been looking at many positive or even neutral reviews. Like I've said, all it takes is a glance at /r/thelastofus, or at some of the independent reviewers that liked the game.

I suggest these, at least to start with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBt6DsvN8AY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh5gzGs-63Y
https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastofus...ing_the_point/
https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastofus..._to_empathize/
https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastofus...ing_the_point/

You may live in a world where every single person is unable to change their opinion about something or someone after being confronted with more context and information. I'm glad I don't.

[PaladinSum]

Sure. But they are rules in the sense of it being the generally accepted way of making a good story, not in the sense that any story that doesn't follow them is bad. TLOU2 is for sure experimental, and like I've said I completely understand if it doesn't resonate with everyone.

All I'm saying is it should be judged for what it is, not for what any specific person thinks it should have been.



And I think that is indeed one of the game's negative points, even if not necessarily a fault. Although I also think it's why the game is so specifically titled "Part 2". It's intended to be played as a continuation of the first, and I don't think that's necessarily a problem, even if it does mean someone new to the franchise will have a very different experience if they willingly choose to start on part 2. Should a "Season 2" of a show be criticized for assuming viewers watched "Season 1"?

Of course any stylistic resource is going to be individually interpreted and subjective. But in a lot of what I'm talking about, specifically about understanding characters motivations and progression throughout the game, it isn't either that subjective nor that well hidden, in my opinion. You do have to pay attention to pick some stuff up, and you do have to rethink the whole game after you are done with it and finally have all the information.

I'm not judging anyone's feelings about the game, I'm judging people's opinions. As I've said, it's one thing and totally fine to not like the game/story. It's an entirely different think to let that drive you into justifying how the game/story is bad.



It's fair to not like playing as Abby. I don't think it's fair to automatically declare from that that it was a failed experiment, though, even if it didn't work for you. I think when discussing any media, especially when you are actively trying to quantify any sense of objective quality related to it, there needs to be some separation between how you experienced said media, and what that media actually is.

I'm perfectly fine with the existence of viewpoints different than and even opposing to mine. What I'm not ok with is with people conflating their personal experience of the game with its objective qualities. And no, I don't have an issue only with the people who dislike it, I feel exactly the same about the people who claim the game is a 10/10 flawless masterpiece simply because of how much they personally liked it. Just like I have issues with people who criticize this game and point the same exact flaws that were present in the first one as well, that they for some reason consider 10/10.

Well, no. If you did, you wouldn't have to keep bringing up leaks, saying they were compromised and angry at the writers or "just don't get it". You would have moved past this.

There's no issue in liking this thing. But if you can't really understand why being forced to play as someone framed as and shown to be a disgusting person before their rushed improvement arc, maybe "You don't get it". It's fair to say that, right?

You absolutely don't have to follow typical writing rules. But being subversive isn't a positive quality on it's own. Execution matters.

[Kolvarg]

Well, no. If you did, you wouldn't have to keep bringing up leaks, saying they were compromised and angry at the writers or "just don't get it". You would have moved past this.

There's no issue in liking this thing. But if you can't really understand why being forced to play as someone framed as and shown to be a disgusting person before their rushed improvement arc, maybe "You don't get it". It's fair to say that, right?

You absolutely don't have to follow typical writing rules. But being subversive isn't a positive quality on it's own. Execution matters.

I keep bringing it up because I keep seeing unreasonable and even outright false assessments of why the story is bad.

Oh, I perfectly get why some people don't want to play as Abby. In fact I believe it is intentional for the player not to want to play as Abby in the beggining of her arc.

What I don't get is that people put it entirely to the game's fault, when it so subjectively up to them to be able to see past their initial emotions or not. Or to at the very least understand the story and what the game is trying to do, even if you still don't like Abby after playing with her.

[PaladinSum]

I keep bringing it up because I keep seeing unreasonable and even outright false assessments of why the story is bad.

Oh, I perfectly get why some people don't want to play as Abby. In fact I believe it is intentional for the player not to want to play as Abby in the beggining of her arc.

What I don't get is that people put it entirely to the game's fault, when it so subjectively up to them to be able to see past their initial emotions or not. Or to at the very least understand the story and what the game is trying to do, even if you still don't like Abby after playing with her.

Because she was written like. In the actual world of the story she's in, she's the most thoroughly unlikeable human being in existence, minus a few WLF and Scars that exist to try and make her look better.

Meta narrative nonsense reeks of making connections writer's didn't make. Because then I can make up garbage on how the game wants you to punish Abby for being a disgusting human being by offering tons of opportunities to kill her in hilarious fashion. The amount of people who get to the Fight with Ellie and kill her and the fact each state of the fight offers a different kill means I'm correct. If you don't agree, you just don't get it.

[Elim Garak]

Well I've paid for the game and I say it's great, therefore I'm right and the game is great!

And others paid for it as well and say it's garbage - they are also right. Can you get this meta point?

All in all the game is average.

It's especially bullshit in this case where with the spoilers it was public knowledge that you would play as Abby after what she did.

Not everyone reads spoilers. Not even majority.

Well, you're just plain wrong there, and you haven't been looking at many positive or even neutral reviews. Like I've said, all it takes is a glance at /r/thelastofus, or at some of the independent reviewers that liked the game.

I'm not talking about the game, I'm talking about Abby's story. If you hate her - you cannot enjoy her story. If you enjoy her story - then you don't hate her. Either way, the story fails.

You may live in a world where every single person is unable to change their opinion about something or someone after being confronted with more context and information. I'm glad I don't.

If the game doesn't make you want to get confronted with more context and information - it's the game's fault, not the player's inability to change their opinion.
And no amount of "you don't get it" has ever changed anyone's opinion.

[Kolvarg]

Because she was written like. In the actual world of the story she's in, she's the most thoroughly unlikeable human being in existence, minus a few WLF and Scars that exist to try and make her look better.

Meta narrative nonsense reeks of making connections writer's didn't make. Because then I can make up garbage on how the game wants you to punish Abby for being a disgusting human being by offering tons of opportunities to kill her in hilarious fashion. The amount of people who get to the Fight with Ellie and kill her and the fact each state of the fight offers a different kill means I'm correct. If you don't agree, you just don't get it.

That's entirely subjective though. And after all this time you still willingly misinterpret the "you just don't get it". You could have a point, if the same was not possible to do with every playable character, not only in this game but in nearly every game. But if the game allowing you to let Abby die has any meaning, so is there meaning in the game allowing you to fail a cutscene with Ellie, or allow you to walk right into a clicker, or stand still while the enemy shoots at you. And same for Joel in the first game.

The difference is that not only are multiple nearly objective indications towards the "meta-narrative nonsense", but the writers have also talked about it in interviews, very much confirming it is there, and not just connections the fans dreamed of.

And others paid for it as well and say it's garbage - they are also right. Can you get this meta point?

Not really. The game is what it is, regardless of what people think or say it is.

All in all the game is average.

In your opinion.

Not everyone reads spoilers. Not even majority.

Irrelevant. The point is if you don't want to risk spending money on something you don't like you wait for information to be available. And the information was widely available. You don't spend your money blindly and then cry online because it isn't what you wanted.

I'm not talking about the game, I'm talking about Abby's story. If you hate her - you cannot enjoy her story. If you enjoy her story - then you don't hate her. Either way, the story fails.

Well, look at the sources I linked then. They do mention Abby's story specifically, and how people have enjoyed Abby's story even after initially hating her, and even after continue disliking her even after experiencing her story.

If the game doesn't make you want to get confronted with more context and information - it's the game's fault, not the player's inability to change their opinion.
And no amount of "you don't get it" has ever changed anyone's opinion.

The game can't force anyone to want to do anything or to feel anything. The game presents you this narrative from the point of view of two different characters at two different timelines in each of their lives. It's up to the player to be receptive to what the game offers or not.

And the point is not to change anyone's opinion, but to contest some of the reasonings that people are using in support of that opinion.

I haven't and I'm not going to say anyone is wrong for disliking the game. But if they make statements on how the story is objectively bad that rely on affirmations that completely go against what is actually displayed in the game, I think it's fair to contest them and their opinion that the story is bad.