1. #2781
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    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.



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



    In your opinion.



    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.



    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.



    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.
    Because the game doesn't engender such rage against Ellie. Why aren't there montages of Ellie dieing for a "Good Ending" even though it's absolutely possible to do it? Because the game wants you to hate and kill Abby as much as you can. It's really deep story telling so it's not surprising you are missing it.

    Why would Abby dieing be such a positive experience in a game that everyone else can have such gruesome deaths in?

  2. #2782
    Quote Originally Posted by PaladinSum View Post
    Because the game doesn't engender such rage against Ellie. Why aren't there montages of Ellie dieing for a "Good Ending" even though it's absolutely possible to do it? Because the game wants you to hate and kill Abby as much as you can. It's really deep story telling so it's not surprising you are missing it.

    Why would Abby dieing be such a positive experience in a game that everyone else can have such gruesome deaths in?
    That's just the game commenting on how shallow and close minded the player is for going to such extents to express the anger they unreasonably feel for a fictional character. It allows you to enter a loop of self-gratificating revenge and gore, in the hopes of making you realize that you'll only be able to progress when you finally stop the cycle and force yourself to move on.

    How deep is that?
    Last edited by Kolvarg; 2020-07-03 at 04:07 PM.

  3. #2783
    Smoke my hairy bean bag

  4. #2784
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    That's just the game commenting on how shallow and close minded the player is for going to such extents to express the anger they unreasonably feel for a fictional character. It allows you to enter a loop of self-gratification revenge and gore, in the hopes of making you realize that you'll only be able to progress when you finally stop the cycle and force yourself to move on.

    How deep is that?
    Well, of course you can't just sit there on the first cliffs, throwing her to a chuckle worthy death. You have to move forward, where the game offers more and more opportunities for release.

    You can't have the ultimate good ending if you stay up there. You have to move forward with her suffering.

    You see. It's like pottery, it rhymes.

  5. #2785
    Quote Originally Posted by everydaygamer View Post
    While 6/10 is pretty fair I'd like to point out that this was the kind of crap going on during his Livestream. Warning Late Game Spoilers!!!:

    https://clips.twitch.tv/ThankfulSoft...nderRaccAttack
    Damn, Joe really has gone into the deep end with that rant there. Either because he got shit scared that his fans were leaving him when he refused to crap all over Captain Marvel and other perceived "SJW" things he didn't crap on so he's pandering, or because he finally drank the cool-aid. I'm not sure which, but that's certainly a falling down the rabbit hole since over the game, many women die and many men survive (looking at you Tommy)

  6. #2786
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Not really. The game is what it is, regardless of what people think or say it is.
    Without people playing the game and having opinions about it - the game itself is nothing

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    In your opinion.
    Nope. It's a consensus of a statistically significant sample size of people who played it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    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.
    Again, this is a sequel to a masterpiece, from the same developer. What you are talking about is nonsense in this context. There's this trust between a customer and a company due to past experiences dealing with said company. People pre-ordered it and avoided all spoilers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    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 that's true it's not normal and thus an outlier. The majority of people cannot enjoy something they hate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    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.
    Again with "you don't recept it" line of thinking... The game failed to deliver for half the players. That's a fact. They recepted it just fine - they just didn't like it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    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.
    So far you have used none. All you do is "you didn't get it", or wait, you also did "you weren't receptive".

    * The pacing is off
    * The flashbacks are to the maximum
    * The game makes players hate Abby - then tries to make players love her. But since it's all a flashback - there's no option left but to continue hating her. Because the past doesn't matter - only the present. Who cares how many dogs she did pet? She kills Joel at the end of that flashback!
    * The ending is completely anti-climatic

    Let's see your reasoning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    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.
    Sure, demonstrate how good it is. With reasons and not using - "you didn't get it"

    But it is objectively bad.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  7. #2787
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Nope. It's a consensus of a statistically significant sample size of people who played it.
    Not at all. A statistical average of ratings is not a consensus, and in this case it's entirely the opposite.

    If we go by metacritic (which by the way is not necessarily entirely a sample of people who played it), for instance, the vast majority of ratings are either very high or very low.
    So there isn't any consensus to start with, and what it shows is that the vast majority of people amongst that sample either think the game is great or awful.

    If we go by IMDB, which also a "statistically significant sample size of people" by your own standards that you have defined previously in the thread, then 47% of players in that sample rate the game a 10/10.

    The only true information we have is that the game is highly controversial and divisive, which is the opposite of being average. Imo the relevant information will be how the ratings end up being and what the general perception of the game is and how the game is remembered later on (years into the future).

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Again, this is a sequel to a masterpiece, from the same developer. What you are talking about is nonsense in this context. There's this trust between a customer and a company due to past experiences dealing with said company. People pre-ordered it and avoided all spoilers.
    No matter the reasoning one has to pre-order or to generally buy a game without informing oneself, it's always a risk. You can't just use "I walked into this blindly" as an excuse for spending money on something that's not for you. Game developers can and should innovate, and sequels would be extremely boring if they had to always limit themselves to being so similar to the original.

    You say they should have made something more like TLOU, I applaud them for doing something new and different instead of doing the easy thing and milk their cash cow with derivative sequels that do only small variations of the past versions like they did with Uncharted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    If that's true it's not normal and thus an outlier. The majority of people cannot enjoy something they hate.
    Based on what information? And what they are enjoying is not what they hate. Hating the character is not the same as hating her story. In fact people don't even necessarily hate the character, but that specific thing the character did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Again with "you don't recept it" line of thinking... The game failed to deliver for half the players. That's a fact. They recepted it just fine - they just didn't like it.

    So far you have used none. All you do is "you didn't get it", or wait, you also did "you weren't receptive".
    Again with completely taking my statements out of context and falsely applying them to all criticism of the game.

    You claimed the game "doesn't make you want to get confronted with more context and information". I'm stating that absolutely no game can force you to want to play it, or to look at it deeper, or to want to understand what the story is about and what it's trying to do, to even give it a proper chance.

    It's like signing up for a Gym membership, and then saying the Gym sucks because you don't feel motivated to go to the Gym and they aren't making you want to go to the Gym.

    The game is what it is, and it invites you to explore specific emotions and to explore the depth of a character that is originally seen as a Villain. Whether you want to do that or not is entirely up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    So far you have used none. All you do is "you didn't get it", or wait, you also did "you weren't receptive".

    * The pacing is off
    * The flashbacks are to the maximum
    * The game makes players hate Abby - then tries to make players love her. But since it's all a flashback - there's no option left but to continue hating her. Because the past doesn't matter - only the present. Who cares how many dogs she did pet? She kills Joel at the end of that flashback!
    * The ending is completely anti-climatic

    Let's see your reasoning.

    Sure, demonstrate how good it is. With reasons and not using - "you didn't get it"

    But it is objectively bad.
    Nah, you simply missed or straight out ignored every other point I make, replying only to the parts of my posts that can be remotely related to "not getting it". I've posted plenty examples of why I believe the story is at least decent, what I believe it does well, and what I believe it doesn't do so well or straight out fails to accomplish.

    I've even already linked a video that fully explains how it connects and why the story is structured the way it is and why it makes sense and works that way. It explains it far better than I could put into words, even if I don't fully agree with everything. Of course, you can disagree, but ultimately the story of any game is always going to be the most subjective part, especially with something as experimental as this. Just like you yourself claim the first game is a masterpiece (and sure, that is probably the general consensus), while there are still plenty people that think it was average and who were unable to connect with the characters either.

    * I agree the pacing is off at times. Although to be fair that is a common complaint about the first as well. I think the mid-game switch to Abby is extremely offputting at first, but I think the game justifies it as it goes on.

    * Well, I wouldn't really call most of them flashbacks to begin with. You aren't just randomly going to random parts of the past. You are just following different timelines alternatively (Present Ellie, divided in 3 days; Past Ellie divided in 2/3 segments; Present Abby, divided in 3 days; Past Abby divided in 2/3 segments). The only "true" flashbacks that are not related to these timelines are the ones relating to the night before the game starts iirc, and those are only 2 I think? Though I generally agree at least so far that they are sort of unnecessary, but I can see how it might have been to intentionally change how you progressively perceive the characters.
    Anyways, I think they are justified because of how intentional this structure is. It's not just to "hide information" for the player, nor just to dump additional info. It serves a porpose in establishing paralells to what's happening presently with the characters and their mental states.

    * I don't see the logical connection there. First of all, the game doesn't make players love her. The game just gives context behind her character and her story. It's entirely up to the player on whether they understand, empathize, or like Abby at all. Secondly, you realize not everything about Abby is a flashback, right? The "Past Abby" timeline happens before Joel, but the "Present Abby" storyline happens in the present concurrently to Ellie's present.
    Imo the story challenging your perception of a character you made a one-dimensional initial judgment is a good thing. I'm not saying there aren't other games and stories that do this, including ones that do it better, but it's certainly more unique than doing yet another one-dimensional villain with no redeeming qualities. Especially when they attempt to do it by having you experience that character's story, instead of just by dialog/narration.

    * Very subjective, and another big issue with the first game as well. I do think it is, at first. But when you get the full context with the final cutscenes and judge it with full knowledge after putting all the pieces together, it makes complete sense. The one thing I do think is that they should have made it a choice. It would have been a better game that way. But in retrospective, I don't think that choice would be faithful to the Ellie and the progression she went through in the game, so there's that.

    The story has flaws. It's not to everyone's taste. But it's not objectively bad, just like it isn't objectively good. The fact that it's so experimental makes it extremely tough to have any grasp of objective quality. Not to mention that it's such a long one, so much so that anyone is unlikely to even remember correctly every single part of the story, let alone catch all the details and symbolisms on the first run alone.
    Last edited by Kolvarg; 2020-07-03 at 06:40 PM.

  8. #2788
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post

    * I don't see the logical connection there. First of all, the game doesn't make players love her. The game just gives context behind her character and her story. It's entirely up to the player on whether they understand, empathize, or like Abby at all. Secondly, you realize not everything about Abby is a flashback, right? The "Past Abby" timeline happens before Joel, but the "Present Abby" storyline happens in the present concurrently to Ellie's present.
    Imo the story challenging your perception of a character you made a one-dimensional initial judgment is a good thing. I'm not saying there aren't other games and stories that do this, including ones that do it better, but it's certainly more unique than doing yet another one-dimensional villain with no redeeming qualities. Especially when they attempt to do it by having you experience that character's story, instead of just by dialog/narration.

    * Very subjective, and another big issue with the first game as well. I do think it is, at first. But when you get the full context with the final cutscenes and judge it with full knowledge after putting all the pieces together, it makes complete sense. The one thing I do think is that they should have made it a choice. It would have been a better game that way. But in retrospective, I don't think that choice would be faithful to the Ellie and the progression she went through in the game, so there's that.

    The story has flaws. It's not to everyone's taste. But it's not objectively bad, just like it isn't objectively good. The fact that it's so experimental makes it extremely tough to have any grasp of objective quality. Not to mention that it's such a long one, so much so that anyone is unlikely to even remember correctly every single part of the story, let alone catch all the details and symbolisms on the first run alone.
    The game objectively doesn't adhere to the most basic tenets of good storytelling. It purposefully breaks the mold, and 99% of the time, that means objectively worse. Considering the user score of the game across multiple platforms, you're willing to argue there's no correlation between the experimental nature of their narrative structure and lukewarm user reception?

    And I believe what people refer to when talking about NDs attempt to make us "love" Abby, is that they very obviously try to manipulate us into liking her or loving her, by spending the majority of the game screen time on "good" moments with her, petting dogs, playing with them, rescuing persecuted innocents and trapped animals with her super-dad. It's not a secret what they were trying to do. Not saying emotional manipulation isn't allowed btw, just that it really should happen without the player knowing, and consciously thinking about it.

    I completely disagree that things "experimental" in nature are difficult to judge as objectively bad, this has been the shield that abstract artists hide their lack of talent behind since the dawn of time. No one can say anyone's opinion is wrong about the game one way or another, but you can say it's highly likely the lukewarm reception of this game; the fall-off-a-cliff reception comparatively when put up against game one, is the result of their emboldened experimentation, and disregard for basic storytelling rules, such as protagonist-antagonist, beginning, middle, end, over use of flashback devices, lack of suspense brought on by disjointed pacing, list goes on.

    In my opinion it's objectively bad to omit antagonists or pretend there isn't one in a story, and especially bad to mess with the beginning-middle-end formula, in this case essentially beginning the game anew as you approach climax. I think any fledgling writer would stay the hell away from doing anything like that if they were actually worried about popularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    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.
    It has more to do with the fact that triple A video games are insanely expensive and time consuming to make, whereas TV-show seasons considerably less so. A game must stand on its own two legs. It's in everyone's interest to make that happen. This is also one of the few, if not the only video game, where I'd say if you don't enjoy the story, you won't enjoy playing it. At one point it goes twenty minutes without interaction. It's utterly consumed by the narrative, that part needs to be good, and it needs to be able to stand on its own legs without a 15hr "required viewing" first.

    I firmly disagree that this game would EVER happen the way it has without the warm bosom of game one's massive success. The entire thing would be different, the creators would have had something to prove still, as opposed to the freedom to experiment, which imo NEVER works in sequels. I honestly don't think the story pitch for this game would've made it past the first meeting were it not for all the good will game one generated.
    Last edited by Shiny212; 2020-07-03 at 07:14 PM.

  9. #2789
    Scarab Lord Skorpionss's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    4,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallisto View Post
    Damn, Joe really has gone into the deep end with that rant there. Either because he got shit scared that his fans were leaving him when he refused to crap all over Captain Marvel and other perceived "SJW" things he didn't crap on so he's pandering, or because he finally drank the cool-aid. I'm not sure which, but that's certainly a falling down the rabbit hole since over the game, many women die and many men survive (looking at you Tommy)
    ah yes so many men, tommy the cripple and umm uhh... lev? I guess? does it count if he's trans?"

    Also when he made that comment I'm pretty sure he didn't know Tommy survived, seeing as how that is revealed later.
    Last edited by Skorpionss; 2020-07-03 at 07:52 PM.

  10. #2790
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Not at all. A statistical average of ratings is not a consensus, and in this case it's entirely the opposite.

    If we go by metacritic (which by the way is not necessarily entirely a sample of people who played it), for instance, the vast majority of ratings are either very high or very low.
    So there isn't any consensus to start with, and what it shows is that the vast majority of people amongst that sample either think the game is great or awful.

    If we go by IMDB, which also a "statistically significant sample size of people" by your own standards that you have defined previously in the thread, then 47% of players in that sample rate the game a 10/10.

    The only true information we have is that the game is highly controversial and divisive, which is the opposite of being average. Imo the relevant information will be how the ratings end up being and what the general perception of the game is and how the game is remembered later on (years into the future).
    Metacritic negative reviews are a range of 0-4, and not all of them are 0, there are plenty of 3s and 4s. Positive reviews are 8-10. Mixed - 5-7.

    A divisive game is by definition an average game. Good/Bad games don't have divisiveness in ratings. They always have a leaning towards one of the ends. A divisive game is a game that failed to satisfy half of its target audience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    No matter the reasoning one has to pre-order or to generally buy a game without informing oneself, it's always a risk. You can't just use "I walked into this blindly" as an excuse for spending money on something that's not for you. Game developers can and should innovate, and sequels would be extremely boring if they had to always limit themselves to being so similar to the original.
    Everything is a risk. Your point is moot. People trusted ND, believed their marketing, and were screwed over. Their expectations were subverted. Expectations instilled by ND. So it's ND fault.

    Game developers should innovate- but they also should recognize when they fail while innovating, and players should not defend failed innovations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    You say they should have made something more like TLOU, I applaud them for doing something new and different instead of doing the easy thing and milk their cash cow with derivative sequels that do only small variations of the past versions like they did with Uncharted.
    They did the same thing. They just wrapped it up in a convoluted story. And the entire purpose of ND existence is milking the cash cow. They are a business, they have bills to pay. Making games is expensive. The irony of course is that the players wanted to be milked in this case.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Based on what information? And what they are enjoying is not what they hate. Hating the character is not the same as hating her story. In fact people don't even necessarily hate the character, but that specific thing the character did.
    You do love playing with words. Hating the thing a character does is the same as hating the character. You can't hate the thing alone. You always hate the character for the thing they did. It's just insane to suggest that you can love an unknown character but hate the thing they did while that thing is the only thing that defines that character. That's the entire purpose of the thing - to make players hate Abby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Again with completely taking my statements out of context and falsely applying them to all criticism of the game.

    You claimed the game "doesn't make you want to get confronted with more context and information". I'm stating that absolutely no game can force you to want to play it, or to look at it deeper, or to want to understand what the story is about and what it's trying to do, to even give it a proper chance.

    It's like signing up for a Gym membership, and then saying the Gym sucks because you don't feel motivated to go to the Gym and they aren't making you want to go to the Gym.

    The game is what it is, and it invites you to explore specific emotions and to explore the depth of a character that is originally seen as a Villain. Whether you want to do that or not is entirely up to you.
    Did you really need to state the obvious? You do know it sounds patronizing, right?

    Of course, the game cannot force you to do anything. The fact that the game failed to motivate you to do what it needs you to do to enjoy it - that's a sign of failure on the part of the game.

    The invitation was not received. Go on, blame the players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Nah, you simply missed or straight out ignored every other point I make, replying only to the parts of my posts that can be remotely related to "not getting it". I've posted plenty examples of why I believe the story is at least decent, what I believe it does well, and what I believe it doesn't do so well or straight out fails to accomplish.
    Go on, give us a synopsis of the plot.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    I've even already linked a video that fully explains how it connects and why the story is structured the way it is and why it makes sense and works that way. It explains it far better than I could put into words, even if I don't fully agree with everything. Of course, you can disagree, but ultimately the story of any game is always going to be the most subjective part, especially with something as experimental as this. Just like you yourself claim the first game is a masterpiece (and sure, that is probably the general consensus), while there are still plenty people that think it was average and who were unable to connect with the characters either.
    I know why it is structured the way it's structured. Duh. I'm saying it's dumb structuring. Bad storytelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    * I agree the pacing is off at times. Although to be fair that is a common complaint about the first as well. I think the mid-game switch to Abby is extremely offputting at first, but I think the game justifies it as it goes on.
    Abby should've been the first thing player plays for the story to click.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    * Well, I wouldn't really call most of them flashbacks to begin with. You aren't just randomly going to random parts of the past. You are just following different timelines alternatively (Present Ellie, divided in 3 days; Past Ellie divided in 2/3 segments; Present Abby, divided in 3 days; Past Abby divided in 2/3 segments). The only "true" flashbacks that are not related to these timelines are the ones relating to the night before the game starts iirc, and those are only 2 I think? Though I generally agree at least so far that they are sort of unnecessary, but I can see how it might have been to intentionally change how you progressively perceive the characters.
    Anyways, I think they are justified because of how intentional this structure is. It's not just to "hide information" for the player, nor just to dump additional info. It serves a porpose in establishing paralells to what's happening presently with the characters and their mental states.
    A parallel timeline must go in parallel and not in the past. Abby's timeline starts in the past - therefore it's a flashback. And we immediately know it's in the past because the game tells that and it's kinda obvious anyway. It's that cliche of "X years ago" - bad storytelling at it's finest. If you want to tell something that happened before the story - START THERE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    * I don't see the logical connection there. First of all, the game doesn't make players love her. The game just gives context behind her character and her story. It's entirely up to the player on whether they understand, empathize, or like Abby at all. Secondly, you realize not everything about Abby is a flashback, right? The "Past Abby" timeline happens before Joel, but the "Present Abby" storyline happens in the present concurrently to Ellie's present.
    Imo the story challenging your perception of a character you made a one-dimensional initial judgment is a good thing. I'm not saying there aren't other games and stories that do this, including ones that do it better, but it's certainly more unique than doing yet another one-dimensional villain with no redeeming qualities. Especially when they attempt to do it by having you experience that character's story, instead of just by dialog/narration.
    I didn't say it makes players love her - I said it tries to. And it does - if you disagree - then you didn't get it.
    The issue is not with how they present the story pieces but with the order of said pieces. There's nothing unique about it. It has been done before and is considered to be in bad taste. One example of this is the Witcher series, they had like 3 timelines, two of which started at different points in the past and converged only by episode 5. But all three were about the protagonists and they didn't tell viewers about the time differences. So some of the viewers had their AHA moments. But some didn't like that and were confused. There will be no timelines in season 2. Though I liked them, I understand how it can be confusing to some people. They did it better because the timelines start at the same "showtime" but in-universe the starting points differ in time. They show them in parallel even though they are not.

    TLOU2 is explicit about it and it's jarring.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    * Very subjective, and another big issue with the first game as well. I do think it is, at first. But when you get the full context with the final cutscenes and judge it with full knowledge after putting all the pieces together, it makes complete sense. The one thing I do think is that they should have made it a choice. It would have been a better game that way. But in retrospective, I don't think that choice would be faithful to the Ellie and the progression she went through in the game, so there's that.
    It's not subjective. Everything was literally objectively for NOTHING- no resolution, it's not even a sad ending (Abby killed Ellie and has to live with herself), it's a nothing ending. And if you even think about claiming that that was the point of the story = FUCK THAT STORY.

    They had an opportunity to pull off the God of War 3 ending and they blew it. That game has the most satisfying ending because player decides when the game ends, basically when the player is satisfied. And they could've made it even better by letting the player choose what happens to Abby. Unlike GoW3 that requires you to kill Zeus no matter what.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    The story has flaws. It's not to everyone's taste. But it's not objectively bad, just like it isn't objectively good. The fact that it's so experimental makes it extremely tough to have any grasp of objective quality. Not to mention that it's such a long one, so much so that anyone is unlikely to even remember correctly every single part of the story, let alone catch all the details and symbolisms on the first run alone.
    It's a failed experiment that didn't need to be run because it had been run before and deemed worthless. The story is objectively bad from the writing perspective, but technically the game is awesome. It's a good tech demo of what PS4 can do, what artists and animators can pull off on it.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  11. #2791
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiny212 View Post
    The game objectively doesn't adhere to the most basic tenets of good storytelling. It purposefully breaks the mold, and 99% of the time, that means objectively worse. Considering the user score of the game across multiple platforms, you're willing to argue there's no correlation between the experimental nature of their narrative structure and lukewarm user reception?
    The thing is I don't find it convincing that there is such a thing as immutable "objective tenets of good storytelling", and that those are the ones that were broken by this game. Yes it breaks the mold, yes it's not conventional. But that's exactly how storytelling evolves, and how those tenets and general guidelines and consensus on what is good storytelling originated in the first place, and evolved over time.

    And the subjective initial reception is just that. It might be indicative of an experimental narrative structure failing, or it might be completely unrelated to it, especially considering how controversial the game already was before anyone even had a chance to even judge its storytelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiny212 View Post
    And I believe what people refer to when talking about NDs attempt to make us "love" Abby, is that they very obviously try to manipulate us into liking her or loving her, by spending the majority of the game screen time on "good" moments with her, petting dogs, playing with them, rescuing persecuted innocents and trapped animals with her super-dad. It's not a secret what they were trying to do. Not saying emotional manipulation isn't allowed btw, just that it really should happen without the player knowing, and consciously thinking about it.
    I agree to some extent. It should happen unknowingly when it does.

    But I'm not even sure I would consider it "emotional manipulation". It's only so if you look at it in the most uninspired and skeptical light.
    Because those things happen in a context: The fact that Abby pets dogs while Ellie kills them makes complete sense, as Abby knows the dogs and is "on their side", while Ellie is the enemy they have been trained to attack and she acts in self-defense. Abby would have done the same to a dog attacking her, just like Ellie would have done the same to a friendly dog (and she does in the beggining of the game). There is no moral comparison because there is no morality in being friendly to a friendly dog, just like there isn't in using deadly force to save yourself from a dog that's actively trying to rip your throat out.

    If anything it was just another (excessive, I will agree) example of how context and perspective matters (the way Alice dies isn't that much different than how Nora, Mel or Owen died), and how much tribalism is both easy as well as leads to this (perhaps even comparing the dogs to the soldiers of the WLF who fight with blind loyalty for their side and are immediately hostile at anyone perceived as the enemy. I mean, they're even nicknamed Wolves).

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiny212 View Post
    I completely disagree that things "experimental" in nature are difficult to judge as objectively bad, this has been the shield that abstract artists hide their lack of talent behind since the dawn of time. No one can say anyone's opinion is wrong about the game one way or another, but you can say it's highly likely the lukewarm reception of this game; the fall-off-a-cliff reception comparatively when put up against game one, is the result of their emboldened experimentation, and disregard for basic storytelling rules, such as protagonist-antagonist, beginning, middle, end, over use of flashback devices, lack of suspense brought on by disjointed pacing, list goes on.

    In my opinion it's objectively bad to omit antagonists or pretend there isn't one in a story, and especially bad to mess with the beginning-middle-end formula, in this case essentially beginning the game anew as you approach climax. I think any fledgling writer would stay the hell away from doing anything like that if they were actually worried about popularity.
    I think it's only natural they are. If it was easy to judge it objectively, the reception wouldn't vary so wildly from player to player. There would be a lot more consensus. The reception has not been lukewarm, it has been mixed. Some people "loved" it, some people "hated" it. From any ratings site, as well as my experience looking at written user opinions, the people thinking it's average or having mixed feelings about it are a minority. And you can't forget that this is only the initial reception, and that it varies wildly from source to source.

    Metacritic in itself has been varying wildly, having started at an average of 3.3 and now up to 5.1. With the added fact that more than half (53%) of the negative reviews happened in the first 72 hours after release, whereas neutral and positive reviews were both only at less than a third (29%) of their current number at that time. And that the number of new positive reviews has been consistently higher than the number of new negative reviews as time went by.

    Meanwhile, there's also IMDB where the rating was always good and is currently sitting at a 7.7. And the TLOU subreddit where there is consistent praise for the game from an actual community dedicated to the franchise.

    We'll see as time goes by, but I think both the average ratings and the general perception of the game will only improve as time goes by.

    Anyway, regarding the broken "rules":

    If protagonist-antagonist is a rule, it's an extremely lazy one imo. But thinking about it, the game does follow that rule. Only it does it twice, as two stories are being told. The protagonists in one story are the antagonists of the other. It's only in the meta sense that there are no antagonists, because we understand that antagonists are only so in a given context.

    Beggining-Middle-Ending is still there. The fact that there are time jumps/flashbacks does not change this. The story begins with the previous game's protagonists being reintroduced, and Joel being murdered, it progresses with exploring the effects of grief in the protagonists through their Ellie's quest for vengeance and Abby's quest for redemption, and it ends with the realization that their quests were meaningless to begin with, and with the conclusion of how being faced with all these emotions explored through revenge affected them as characters and allowed them to grow and deal with their internal turmoil.

    Overuse of flashback devices fair enough, but I personally do think while not necessarily great it does serve a stylistic purpose that imho does work for the story.

    Lack of suspense I don't totally get. Part of why the pacing is an issue is because of the existence of suspense, at least to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiny212 View Post
    It has more to do with the fact that triple A video games are insanely expensive and time consuming to make, whereas TV-show seasons considerably less so. A game must stand on its own two legs. It's in everyone's interest to make that happen. This is also one of the few, if not the only video game, where I'd say if you don't enjoy the story, you won't enjoy playing it. At one point it goes twenty minutes without interaction. It's utterly consumed by the narrative, that part needs to be good, and it needs to be able to stand on its own legs without a 15hr "required viewing" first.
    I don' think those things mix well? What the game should be for the maker because of financial issues is completely different than what the game should be for the player to like it. Of course, it's in the player's interest that games they like do well financially, but whether they have been made in a risky way regarding its financial future or not is entirely irrelevant to its quality.

    I strongly object to that logic, because it's strongly implying that the "correct" way to make games from the players' perspective is to play it safe and don't take risks and release the same uninspired derivative reiterations that are proven to sell well, leaving the industry stagnant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiny212 View Post
    I firmly disagree that this game would EVER happen the way it has without the warm bosom of game one's massive success. The entire thing would be different, the creators would have had something to prove still, as opposed to the freedom to experiment, which imo NEVER works in sequels. I honestly don't think the story pitch for this game would've made it past the first meeting were it not for all the good will game one generated.
    I think the creators have FAR more to prove in this sequel than they had in the original game. It would always be different, but I don't see how any of the storytelling style they attempt is impossible to reproduce in a new game.
    Last edited by Kolvarg; 2020-07-03 at 08:11 PM.

  12. #2792
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    The thing is I don't find it convincing that there is such a thing as immutable "objective tenets of good storytelling", and that those are the ones that were broken by this game. Yes it breaks the mold, yes it's not conventional. But that's exactly how storytelling evolves, and how those tenets and general guidelines and consensus on what is good storytelling originated in the first place, and evolved over time.
    Storytelling is not life - it doesn't evolve perpetually. It's a very very very old art that has evolved to the max long long long time ago. So yes, there are immutable tenets of good storytelling, just like there are certain combinations of notes that resonate with all normal people. Just like there are rules of composition in visual art.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  13. #2793
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    The thing is I don't find it convincing that there is such a thing as immutable "objective tenets of good storytelling", and that those are the ones that were broken by this game. Yes it breaks the mold, yes it's not conventional. But that's exactly how storytelling evolves, and how those tenets and general guidelines and consensus on what is good storytelling originated in the first place, and evolved over time.
    You do realize that humanity has been telling stories for thousands of years right? The formula has been the same whether a story is told on stage, in a book or in a film. Storytelling doesn't evolve, the structure has always stayed the same. What makes a great story is the writers ability to weave peaks and valley's in the story together with a combination of suspense, action and good characters.
    Last edited by Rennadrel; 2020-07-03 at 08:58 PM.

  14. #2794
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Metacritic negative reviews are a range of 0-4, and not all of them are 0, there are plenty of 3s and 4s. Positive reviews are 8-10. Mixed - 5-7.

    A divisive game is by definition an average game. Good/Bad games don't have divisiveness in ratings. They always have a leaning towards one of the ends. A divisive game is a game that failed to satisfy half of its target audience.
    Mate, even Metacritic makes the distinction: "User Score: 5.1. Mixed or average reviews based on 110856 Ratings"

    Mixed = lots of positive ratings, lots of negative ratings.
    Average = mostly average ratings.

    The fact that there are "plenty of 3s and 4s" does not prove the majority of the negative ones are extremely low. That information might not be available in metacritic, but it's available in IMDB:




    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Everything is a risk. Your point is moot. People trusted ND, believed their marketing, and were screwed over. Their expectations were subverted. Expectations instilled by ND. So it's ND fault.

    Game developers should innovate- but they also should recognize when they fail while innovating, and players should not defend failed innovations.
    Which expectations, exactly?

    And how exactly do you know that even a significant amount of people who are displeased with the game were in that situation?

    The point is absolutely not moot. They released a game in a specific style, and you or anyone else not liking that style says nothing about how good the game actually does and how well it works for the people that are open to said style.

    That's all fine and dandy, but it only works if you assume it is a failed innovation. Which, judging by the feedback so far, a lot of people disagree with that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    They did the same thing. They just wrapped it up in a convoluted story. And the entire purpose of ND existence is milking the cash cow. They are a business, they have bills to pay. Making games is expensive. The irony of course is that the players wanted to be milked in this case.

    You do love playing with words. Hating the thing a character does is the same as hating the character. You can't hate the thing alone. You always hate the character for the thing they did. It's just insane to suggest that you can love an unknown character but hate the thing they did while that thing is the only thing that defines that character. That's the entire purpose of the thing - to make players hate Abby.
    How is it exactly the same thing, when a vast majority of the complaints are about what they did differently, not just about a "convoluted story"?

    Except I've never said that people love a character but hate a thing they do. What I did say making you hate a character for something they did, and then progressively put that thing in context to paint in a different light is entirely valid and plausible to work on anyone with any degree of empathy and the ability to separate an emotional reaction from logical thinking. No one is supposed to love Abby, especially not those who had a strong emotional connection with Joel. What the game does is put what she does into context, and tells you her story. It's supposed to challenge your gut reaction to her, not completely flip it around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Did you really need to state the obvious? You do know it sounds patronizing, right?

    Of course, the game cannot force you to do anything. The fact that the game failed to motivate you to do what it needs you to do to enjoy it - that's a sign of failure on the part of the game.

    The invitation was not received. Go on, blame the players.
    I can't really know it's obvious when we so vehemently disagree, can I?

    The thing is motivation is entirely personal. It might have failed to motivate you, and many others, but it certainly didn't fail to motivate me and many others. This is especially true when by the time the thing that makes you "hate her" happens, you already know why it's happening. You already know it's justified. The single fact that it motivates you to do the exact same thing to her for the exact same reasons should be quite telling even without the further context it gives you later.

    As I've said, not for everyone, sure. But not bad by default. To me, it's like saying a game of a given genre fails because it doesn't motivate players that don't like that genre to play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Go on, give us a synopsis of the plot.
    Apart from what I've already said, I don't think I'm good enough with words to properly do it, not to mention it would inflate an already extremely big post.
    So I'll re-link a video I've mentioned before that does a pretty good job at exploring the plot and how it connects to the story and the way it's told, that is a pretty good overview of the plot as I see it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh5gzGs-63Y

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    I know why it is structured the way it's structured. Duh. I'm saying it's dumb structuring. Bad storytelling.
    Abby should've been the first thing player plays for the story to click.
    That's your opinion. Disagree with both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    A parallel timeline must go in parallel and not in the past. Abby's timeline starts in the past - therefore it's a flashback. And we immediately know it's in the past because the game tells that and it's kinda obvious anyway. It's that cliche of "X years ago" - bad storytelling at it's finest. If you want to tell something that happened before the story - START THERE.
    The 2 present timelines go in parallel with each other.
    The 2 past timelines go in parallel with the corresponding present ones in tone and emotional progression.

    Or start wherever you think is more fitting for the story you're telling! Not every story needs to be told in the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    I didn't say it makes players love her - I said it tries to. And it does - if you disagree - then you didn't get it.
    The issue is not with how they present the story pieces but with the order of said pieces. There's nothing unique about it. It has been done before and is considered to be in bad taste. One example of this is the Witcher series, they had like 3 timelines, two of which started at different points in the past and converged only by episode 5. But all three were about the protagonists and they didn't tell viewers about the time differences. So some of the viewers had their AHA moments. But some didn't like that and were confused. There will be no timelines in season 2. Though I liked them, I understand how it can be confusing to some people. They did it better because the timelines start at the same "showtime" but in-universe the starting points differ in time. They show them in parallel even though they are not.

    TLOU2 is explicit about it and it's jarring.
    But it doesn't try to make players love her. It shows the players the full context, and allows them to take their own conclusions.

    Unique doesn't necessarily mean it's the only to ever have done it. It's unique in the sense that it isn't commonly done. And I was specifically talking about having the initially perceived antagonist as a playable character for a significant amount of the game. Though the non-linear storytelling is also unique in the sense that it's rarely done to this level and with such intent of creating these parallels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    It's not subjective. Everything was literally objectively for NOTHING- no resolution, it's not even a sad ending (Abby killed Ellie and has to live with herself), it's a nothing ending. And if you even think about claiming that that was the point of the story = FUCK THAT STORY.
    There's only no resolution if you make the story about something that it isn't. It's framed around revenge, but it was never about revenge.

    It's fine if you don't like that story. I'll tkae it over any simple revenge story of hero kills villain any day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    It's a failed experiment that didn't need to be run because it had been run before and deemed worthless. The story is objectively bad from the writing perspective, but technically the game is awesome. It's a good tech demo of what PS4 can do, what artists and animators can pull off on it.
    Nah mate, the story is bad from your (and others') perspective. And that's fine.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    You do realize that humanity has been telling stories for thousands of years right? The formula has been the same whether a story is told on stage, in a book or in a film. Storytelling doesn't evolve, the structure has always stayed the same. What makes a great story is the writers ability to weave peaks and valley's in the story together with a combination of suspense, action and good characters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Storytelling is not life - it doesn't evolve perpetually. It's a very very very old art that has evolved to the max long long long time ago. So yes, there are immutable tenets of good storytelling, just like there are certain combinations of notes that resonate with all normal people. Just like there are rules of composition in visual art.
    So? We've also been living in societies, fighting each other, moving from place to place, making all sorts of art for thousands of years. Everything evolves, and so did storytelling, especially across different media.

    The basis may always be similar, but the details of what is considered good and what is preferable do change over time.

    Are there very basic concepts that don't change much and that are generally considered good even across the entirety of the history of storytelling? Sure. But those are certainly not "Thou shalt tell every story in a linear fashion", nor "Thou shalt not humanize thy antagonist".

  15. #2795
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Mate, even Metacritic makes the distinction: "User Score: 5.1. Mixed or average reviews based on 110856 Ratings"

    Mixed = lots of positive ratings, lots of negative ratings.
    Average = mostly average ratings.
    Mate, why are you telling me this after I provided you with how metacritic defines what is positive and what is negative and what is mixed? I didn't invent those, it's from their site, just click at that 110856 ratings to see the breakdown.

    They call average ratings (5-7) MIXED. True story. There's like 5k of those. Same as 10/10 on IMDB. Think about that. IMDB 10/10 ratings are definitely bogus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Which expectations, exactly?
    If this is a serious question, I'm speechless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    And how exactly do you know that even a significant amount of people who are displeased with the game were in that situation?
    It's at least 2M according to ratings. Those 4M? Preorders or day one purchases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Apart from what I've already said, I don't think I'm good enough with words to properly do it, not to mention it would inflate an already extremely big post.
    I didn't ask for the plot, I asked for a synopsis which supposed to be short.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    The 2 past timelines go in parallel with the corresponding present ones in tone and emotional progression.
    So not in parallel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Or start wherever you think is more fitting for the story you're telling! Not every story needs to be told in the same way.
    Obviously, but a good story needs to be told in a specific way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    But it doesn't try to make players love her. It shows the players the full context, and allows them to take their own conclusions.
    It does, you just don't get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Unique doesn't necessarily mean it's the only to ever have done it.
    That's exactly what it means. Seriously, cut this wordplay out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    There's only no resolution if you make the story about something that it isn't. It's framed around revenge, but it was never about revenge.
    That literally makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    It's fine if you don't like that story. I'll tkae it over any simple revenge story of hero kills villain any day.
    False dichotomy. No one suggested it to be a simple revenge story. It could be anything BETTER.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Nah mate, the story is bad from your (and others') perspective. And that's fine.
    The story is legitimately bad from the storytelling science point of view. It's ok if some people like it. Perfectly normal. We can call it a niche story for a lucky few.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    So? We've also been living in societies, fighting each other, moving from place to place, making all sorts of art for thousands of years. Everything evolves, and so did storytelling, especially across different media.

    The basis may always be similar, but the details of what is considered good and what is preferable do change over time.

    Are there very basic concepts that don't change much and that are generally considered good even across the entirety of the history of storytelling? Sure. But those are certainly not "Thou shalt tell every story in a linear fashion", nor "Thou shalt not humanize thy antagonist".
    The storytelling science is done. It is not evolving. Media evolves but tenets of storytelling stay the same. A game is not different from a movie is not different from a play is not different from a book is not different from an oral story. Same storytelling rules. The presentation differs, and that's it.

    A good story must be linear, with a few flashbacks here and there to spice things up, like when a character remembers something important or if a character can see into the past as a story device - that works too. Humanizing the antagonist is actually a very good thing in storytelling, it makes antagonist a good deep character. Grey characters are very interesting. It's the order in which you do it and how you do it - that's the issue. If you start off with antagonist torturing and caving hero's face in with a golf club - you can't then go on a humanizing trip making antagonist a protagonist. There's a better way of doing it hence why it's bad in TLOU2
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  16. #2796
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Mate, why are you telling me this after I provided you with how metacritic defines what is positive and what is negative and what is mixed? I didn't invent those, it's from their site, just click at that 110856 ratings to see the breakdown.

    They call average ratings (5-7) MIXED. True story. There's like 5k of those. Same as 10/10 on IMDB. Think about that. IMDB 10/10 ratings are definitely bogus.
    That's what individual 5-7 ratings are called. It's not what they call when a game has an average rating of 5-7.

    You said the game is average, because that's what its reception has been.

    Average
    * of the usual or ordinary amount, standard, level, or rate.
    * having qualities that are seen as typical of a particular person, group, or thing.
    * mediocre; not very good.

    The vast majority of the reception is either negative or positive, and specifically either very negative or very positive. That's by definition not what an average game is.

    And here's proof that they're mostly not 3's and 4's:
    On user metacritic user reviews you are able to see each individual review, as well as the total number of positive, mixed and negative reviews. Sorting by score and displaying 100 reviews per page, you can easily have a rough idea of how many reviews there are of a certain ratings. Using this method you can get the following numbers:
    55% of all negative reviews, and 30% of all reviews have rating '0'.
    74% of all negative reviews, and 40% of all reviews have rating '1' or '0'.
    78% of all positive reviews, and 32% of all reviews have rating '10'.
    92% of all positive reviews, and 38% of all reviews have rating '9' or '10'.

    This means that 62% of all reviews are at the extremes 0 and 10, and that 78% of all reviews are either 0, 1 , 9 or 10. Or, in other words, the vast majority is either very high or very low.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    If this is a serious question, I'm speechless.
    Literally can't argue with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    It's at least 2M according to ratings. Those 4M? Preorders or day one purchases.
    What are you on?

    Even if you could reliably assume that the metacritic rating IS correctly representitive of all players, how the hell are you jumping from that to assuming all of the ones who disliked the game was with the reasoning "People trusted ND, believed their marketing, and were screwed over"? There are a multitude of reasons people have found to dislike the game, and it not being the game they wanted is only one of them.

    But hey, I'll take it! By your own admition, everyone who disliked the game did so because it was not the game they wanted. This means there is absolutely no possible way to claim the negative ratings are an indication that the game is objectively bad, since all the negative ratings were related to purely subjective reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    I didn't ask for the plot, I asked for a synopsis which supposed to be short.
    And the video I linked does contain a synopsis of the plot.

    What is the point of making me type it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    So not in parallel.
    Parallel: occurring or existing at the same time or in a similar way; corresponding.

    The fact two of the timelines happen in the past does not mean they don't happen in parallel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Obviously, but a good story needs to be told in a specific way.
    And it just happens to be a way you personally like and approve of, and no other way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    It does, you just don't get it.
    By all means, do explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    That's exactly what it means. Seriously, cut this wordplay out.
    Unique:
    * being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.
    * particularly remarkable, special, or unusual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    That literally makes no sense.

    False dichotomy. No one suggested it to be a simple revenge story. It could be anything BETTER.
    What about it doesn't make sense?

    But you did suggest that part of why the story is bad is that it doesn't fulfill the revenge plot. At least it's heavily implied when you say "Everything was literally objectively for NOTHING- no resolution", relative to the ending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    The story is legitimately bad from the storytelling science point of view. It's ok if some people like it. Perfectly normal. We can call it a niche story for a lucky few.
    What are your credentials as a storytelling scientist to make such claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    The storytelling science is done. It is not evolving. Media evolves but tenets of storytelling stay the same. A game is not different from a movie is not different from a play is not different from a book is not different from an oral story. Same storytelling rules. The presentation differs, and that's it.
    Can you list those tenets, and when, why and how they originated? When was the final tenet established?

    And is presentation not a part of storytelling? The same part you are mainly criticizing this story for?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    A good story must be linear, with a few flashbacks here and there to spice things up, like when a character remembers something important or if a character can see into the past as a story device - that works too. Humanizing the antagonist is actually a very good thing in storytelling, it makes antagonist a good deep character. Grey characters are very interesting. It's the order in which you do it and how you do it - that's the issue. If you start off with antagonist torturing and caving hero's face in with a golf club - you can't then go on a humanizing trip making antagonist a protagonist. There's a better way of doing it hence why it's bad in TLOU2
    Any but the very most stellar stories can be done better. The fact they could be better doesn't mean they are bad. Especially because "better" is highly subjective.

    You do you. If you're happy with that strict recipe on what a good story is great! In fact, I encourage you to pursue writing, as you clearly have very strong convictions on how to make objectively good stories, so more power to you.

    As far as I'm concerned, the idea that there's a strict recipe for a story to be good and that any story that doesn't follow it is objectively bad is bogus. And you not only can challenge that recipe, but a story like that can evidently be enjoyed by many people, as by your own interpretation of the ratings, 2M people out of 4M have enjoyed it - and I personally wouldn't call ~50% a niche.

    If you really believe the story is objectively bad, that's your choice. Obviously I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine. Agree to disagree I suppose. Ultimately it did work for plenty of people, even if at the expense of angering some fans. I genuinely believe it will only get better with time, and even if the game will always be seen as controversial and divisive, it at least attempted something different in a strong and cohesive fashion. And while it's not the story I would probably have wanted myself (in fact I'm not sure I even wanted a sequel in the first place), I believe it's a story fitting of the world it takes place in, that honors and respects the characters lovingly introduced by the first, and offers closure to its story and characters. I'm sorry you didn't get to enjoy it as I and many others did.
    Last edited by Kolvarg; 2020-07-04 at 12:15 AM.

  17. #2797

  18. #2798
    Old God Mirishka's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Get off my lawn!
    Posts
    10,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    While nobody deserves to be sent death threats, I have to say I haven't seen even one and I actually followed her Tweet that caused the backlash at her specifically. I think the whole "being sent death threats" is grossly exaggerated and is a way to deligitimize legitimate backlash. Laura Bailey's work is something I appreciate, especially in WoW, but she discredited a lot of gamers and people who are passionate about the game and franchise, who were let down by the characters and story related to them.
    https://twitter.com/LauraBaileyVO/st...73199918292992

    Well now you can say that you've seen one.
    Appreciate your time with friends and family while they're here. Don't wait until they're gone to tell them what they mean to you.

  19. #2799
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    https://twitter.com/LauraBaileyVO/st...73199918292992

    Well now you can say that you've seen one.
    And this is why people can't take gamers seriously. Too many manbabies that will call for death threats on voice actors ffs

  20. #2800
    just finished and a solid 8 or 9/10 for me. Hell its the first game to hold my attention to the point i finished it in ages.
    Member: Dragon Flight Alpha Club, Member since 7/20/22

Posting Permissions

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