Only had an issue with the pacing. I would restructure some narrative moments, but I think it's a good game as it stands.
---
Master P-in' on these lost Europeans thievin'. I'm Jack Johnson, I beat a slave catcher snaggletooth. This life'll stress you like Orson Wells on the radio.
As others said, the first time around, the pacing felt off. I swear, during the epilogue, the game ended five times before the credits actually rolled.
But overall, it was a very solid game. The narrative challenged people to actually understand and see different perspectives. It also handles grief and trauma very well, because often, Ellie's actions don't make sense in our eyes, but grief and trauma are individualized, it's not going to make sense to us. It does a good job with her not being able to verbalize how she feels and how self-destructive people can be.
I did know spoilers going into the game, and I went in, immediately wanting to know Abby's story. I vibed with her more than I did with Ellie, primarily because she had a more hopeful and optimistic storyline rather than Ellie's.
---
Officer, I promise, she's a 300-year-old Vampire Dragon. You dare challenge probabilitizzle? Don't step to the wizard, 'cause the wizard don't play nice.
It's lame game design carried by a story that doesn't engage you like the first, told in a very shallow yet self satisfied way. It thinks it's clever while saying asinine obvious things in very dumb ways.
it's an emotional rollercoaster that's in the top five games to come out this gen, and it also has some of the best gameplay in its genre.
definitely love it.
Are you for real?
Did it not bother you at all that you were playing as a character murdering a bunch of innocent people when they absolutely didn't have to? The whole thing is "violence is bad mmkay" but then also you play as 2 idiots routinely killing people they have no reason to believe deserve to die and thene only feeling sad about it during cutscenes.
Did it not bother you at all that you were playing as a character murdering a bunch of innocent people when they absolutely didn't have to? The whole thing is "violence is bad mmkay" but then also you play as 2 idiots routinely killing people they have no reason to believe deserve to die and thene only feeling sad about it during cutscenes.
who are these innocent people that you're referring to? and you don't have to kill people outside of scripted events, so "only feeling sad about it during cutscenes" is valid
and yea, the game's basic (and I emphasize the basic) message is "violence is bad", but it goes a lot deeper than that - it's also about empathy, loss, grief, coping, and resolution
who are these innocent people that you're referring to? and you don't have to kill people outside of scripted events, so "only feeling sad about it during cutscenes" is valid
and yea, the game's basic (and I emphasize the basic) message is "violence is bad", but it goes a lot deeper than that - it's also about empathy, loss, grief, coping, and resolution
No it pays lips service to those ideas but it's basically how you'd explain the ideas to 6 year olds.
Also there are LOTS of parts that you can't do pacifist.
As far as "innocent people" goes? Let's walk through the logic: When you are playing as Abby, you guys get attacked by Serphites which you of course "have to kill" because they are trying to kill you innocent decent WLF people. Then later you attack Serphites and of course you have to kill them because once you start attacking them they start acting in self defense and so your only choice is to act in self defense and kill them. Then later when defending a Serphites from the WLF you of course have to act in self defense and kill the WLF because the WLF were trying to kill the Serphite who we grew to like, even though it stands to reason we could've grown to like any given Serphite, but we never did because we were too busy killing them and the game wanted us to only grow empathy for a single one even though there is no reason to believe that one was uniquely un-evil.
FFS, the game wants you to feel ok killing the Serphites because "they try to kill you" but then it also wants you to feel ok killing WLF because the WLF are attacking the Serphites. It's all silly nonsense.
Think about it from your WLF team member's point of view: Abby a formally good person just starts killing WLF members, they don't know why. What are they going to do? Well they are going to "defend themselves" and by this game's very own logic that is the morally right thing to do. The WLF friends you murder are, as far as they know, simply trying to kill a WLF person who has gone rogue and is on a murder spree. But I, they player, am supposed to revel in smashing in these people's heads.
You know what I was thinking instead? I was thinking "Where's the button for 'explain the misunderstanding to my friends as opposed to murdering all of them'" I was thinking "Where's the button for saying 'Look, I don't want to hurt anybody! We are friends, me and this child are just looking to escape!"
The level of moral themes this game tries to traffic in is childish. Anybody in the same scenario
You tell me, who is "innocent" in the game? Abby? Ellie? "NoBoDy AnD tHaTs WhY iTs DeEp"? Why should I feel ok hunting and murdering countless people in a vague claim of self defense when almost all the people I hunt and kill are literally just doing the exact same act of self defense against me?
And the dumbest thing in the universe is the ending. "I won't kill the one person it makes the most sense to kill out of revenge after killing hundreds of people who had nothing to do with Joel's death because of revenge."
You can't go "I broke the cycle of revenge" after killing 10 thousand people in the name of revenge.
It's so shallow, it's so stupid.
It's silly to have to play as the bad guy, and then the game has the audacity to lecture me about it's trite interpretations of shallow themes of revenge, all while forcing me to participate in shallow violence that I completely disagree with. Might as well make a game called "Kick the puppy simulator" which forces you to kick a puppy and restarts the scene if you don't kick the puppy over and over, and then at the end it fades to black and text appears saying "kicking puppies is bad".
I don't really think the game is lecturing much of anything in regards to killing enemy soldiers. They're all in a conflict and they're all extremely hostile to due to being warped by hate and conflict.
At the end of the day it's still a video game. If you could go around asking nicely there wouldn't be a game.
It's also kinda obvious in the game why Ellie killing Abby and Abby protecting Lev are treated differently than sparing or killing enemy soldiers.
Loved it and on the sex scene it made me realise how sheltered many people are as a good few people on the LoU2 board seemed unaware that you can enter the vagina from behind and seemed to think you can only do anal from that position.
It's just not fun or interesting in anyway. I dont think Naughty Dog in general is good. Their games are more about production values than substance tbh.
Loved it and on the sex scene it made me realise how sheltered many people are as a good few people on the LoU2 board seemed unaware that you can enter the vagina from behind and seemed to think you can only do anal from that position.
No it pays lips service to those ideas but it's basically how you'd explain the ideas to 6 year olds.
I'm not sure what you mean by this; none of those themes are as in your face or surface level as "violence is bad"
As far as "innocent people" goes? Let's walk through the logic: When you are playing as Abby, you guys get attacked by Serphites which you of course "have to kill" because they are trying to kill you innocent decent WLF people. Then later you attack Serphites and of course you have to kill them because once you start attacking them they start acting in self defense and so your only choice is to act in self defense and kill them. Then later when defending a Serphites from the WLF you of course have to act in self defense and kill the WLF because the WLF were trying to kill the Serphite who we grew to like, even though it stands to reason we could've grown to like any given Serphite, but we never did because we were too busy killing them and the game wanted us to only grow empathy for a single one even though there is no reason to believe that one was uniquely un-evil.
one of the main points of the game is empathizing with others, so if by getting to know Lev and his sister, and realizing that the Seraphites have "normal", decent people, it's not much of a leap to figure out that they're not the only ones and that it's the case with every faction that you come across
and when Abby first fought the Seraphites and then the WLF, they were all hostile towards her on the battlefield; it's not like she could have reasoned with them while they were killing others, even if she wanted to...so I feel it's a reach to say that she was killing innocents, especially when every enemy you come across in the game is hostile towards you and is willing to kill you
FFS, the game wants you to feel ok killing the Serphites because "they try to kill you" but then it also wants you to feel ok killing WLF because the WLF are attacking the Serphites. It's all silly nonsense.
the game doesn't want to make you feel "okay" with killing anyone, that's something you inferred.
Think about it from your WLF team member's point of view: Abby a formally good person just starts killing WLF members, they don't know why. What are they going to do? Well they are going to "defend themselves" and by this game's very own logic that is the morally right thing to do. The WLF friends you murder are, as far as they know, simply trying to kill a WLF person who has gone rogue and is on a murder spree. But I, they player, am supposed to revel in smashing in these people's heads.
the game doesn't even paint Abby as a "good person" - she's said to be the WLF's best Scar killer, she's alienated herself from the people she cares about, and Mel even calls her a piece of shit
and Abby isn't necessarily a bad person either; people are more complicated than that, and the game tries to show you how different perspectives can shape one's narrative
plus, what is Abby going to say during war, "I met this young Seraphite that I grew to care about so please don't attack us while we escape" while everyone else is killing each other?
You know what I was thinking instead? I was thinking "Where's the button for 'explain the misunderstanding to my friends as opposed to murdering all of them'" I was thinking "Where's the button for saying 'Look, I don't want to hurt anybody! We are friends, me and this child are just looking to escape!"
The level of moral themes this game tries to traffic in is childish. Anybody in the same scenario
You tell me, who is "innocent" in the game? Abby? Ellie? "NoBoDy AnD tHaTs WhY iTs DeEp"? Why should I feel ok hunting and murdering countless people in a vague claim of self defense when almost all the people I hunt and kill are literally just doing the exact same act of self defense against me?
no one argued for it being deep because of that, lol. and did anyone necessarily say that its themes were deep? deep doesn't necessarily mean good, and simple doesn't necessarily mean bad.
the people you're hunting thing just doing the same thing as you are is something the game is trying to get across, and attempts to do so by giving almost all the enemies names and having their comrades grieve/be angered by their deaths
And the dumbest thing in the universe is the ending. "I won't kill the one person it makes the most sense to kill out of revenge after killing hundreds of people who had nothing to do with Joel's death because of revenge."
You can't go "I broke the cycle of revenge" after killing 10 thousand people in the name of revenge.
It's so shallow, it's so stupid.
at that point, she didn't even want to go after Abby, and only did so because Tommy guilted her into it/she was suffering from PTSD, and thought that killing Abby would settle things
but after seeing Abby tied up like that, beaten and almost dead, if she just wanted her to die, she could have left her strung up
if she had killed Abby, it would have also meant that she would either have to let Lev die (someone she owed her life to, as well as Dina's and baby JJ) or let him die, and she already knew the effect killing people like this had on her
"breaking the cycle of revenge" is maybe a personal thing for her and Abby. no one said anything about any of the countless people Ellie or Abby killed having others pursue either of the two later on
it's silly to have to play as the bad guy, and then the game has the audacity to lecture me about it's trite interpretations of shallow themes of revenge, all while forcing me to participate in shallow violence that I completely disagree with. Might as well make a game called "Kick the puppy simulator" which forces you to kick a puppy and restarts the scene if you don't kick the puppy over and over, and then at the end it fades to black and text appears saying "kicking puppies is bad".
lol, no one's forcing you to do any of those things, though.
you can easily not play the game or put it down when you face any kinda personal moral dilemma.
sorry if the formatting of my posts look weird, but I had to split my responses to two posts
I'm not sure what you mean by this; none of those themes are as in your face or surface level as "violence is bad"
one of the main points of the game is empathizing with others, so if by getting to know Lev and his sister, and realizing that the Seraphites have "normal", decent people, it's not much of a leap to figure out that they're not the only ones and that it's the case with every faction that you come across
Right, which is why it is dumb that all the gameplay mechanics and on rails cutscenes force you to ignore the obvious possible innocence of these people
and when Abby first fought the Seraphites and then the WLF, they were all hostile towards her on the battlefield; it's not like she could have reasoned with them while they were killing others, even if she wanted to...so I feel it's a reach to say that she was killing innocents, especially when every enemy you come across in the game is hostile towards you and is willing to kill you
There
the game doesn't want to make you feel "okay" with killing anyone, that's something you inferred.
Every game design choice pushes you to kill people. It is the main gameplay mechanic. Saying this game doesn't want you to kill people is like saying breath of the wild doesn't want you to explore. Sure you could stand still, but you also wouldn't be able to advance the game if you did.
the game doesn't even paint Abby as a "good person" - she's said to be the WLF's best Scar killer, she's alienated herself from the people she cares about, and Mel even calls her a piece of shit
and Abby isn't necessarily a bad person either; people are more complicated than that, and the game tries to show you how different perspectives can shape one's narrative
The problem is these people don't come across as "complicated" they come across as frankly dumb. No crap humans don't seem as evil when you aren't trying to kill each other and instead are talking. WHAT A COMPLICATED INSIGHT! This game never gets deeper than Anakin's "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil". And what's worse is the game does expect us to be impressed by that insight.
plus, what is Abby going to say during war, "I met this young Seraphite that I grew to care about so please don't attack us while we escape" while everyone else is killing each other?
You notice how even Isaac was uncomfortable killing Abby? Well after Yara shoots Isaac, Abby can simply flee (which is her goal anyway). Despite the game contorting the next characters into being silly "Were you the one to warn them, you fucking snake?" Abby still has not killed a single WLF. Abby could easily say "No, Isaac was going to shoot me for defending this kid, then one of the Serphites shot him, I'm just looking to flee, I don't want to fight or hurt anybody." Remember, up until that point Isaac was the only person who even considered shooting Abby. In anything resembling the real world you could reason with these people, at least well enough to get permission to escape.
Or at the very least, you could do non-lethal takedowns of all of them. Or even just the first few, then get them on their walkie-talkies or something and have them admit you didn't hurt them and just want to flee. There are like a zillion better options but the game doesn't let you do any of them, then later it has the audacity to tell you violence is bad.
I remember an article where one of the developers said a valid way to play the game was to just stop playing. Which is like a choose your own adventure book where every ending is "fuck you for reading". It is beyond asinine.
But rather than having any option when it comes to killing your friends, instead the game has conditioned you that these people (your former friends who have done nothing to hurt you, and who believe you murdered the leader of) these people totally deserve to die. And lots of times you can't progress unless you kill them. Stealth kill them before they see you for bonus points! Light 'em on fire with your plus 1 molotov! Arcade style murder of friends is gameplay YAY.
It is ludonarrative dissonance to the extreme. I didn't want to kill a single damn one of them, yet the game funnels you to do so. When it comes to dozens of friends and one misunderstanding (where neither you no they were violent) the only option is mass murder!
The game wants to make you feel "conflicted", but the only reason anybody would feel conflicted is if they made the choice to do these evil things. But the game gives you no choice. So the viewer is no more complicit in the evil than they are if they fast forward through a war movie. You just press the button to go to next scene, it's not me killing these people, it's Ellie/Abbie/The Game that did.
no one argued for it being deep because of that, lol. and did anyone necessarily say that its themes were deep? deep doesn't necessarily mean good, and simple doesn't necessarily mean bad.
Simple means bad if the goal is to expose the audience to a novel idea. You can't impress or surprise anybody if you tell them something that every 8 year old knows. Maybe you are arguing a simple theme can be expressed in complex and engaging ways, and I grant that, but that's not what happens here.
And yes many many many annoying reviewers and some of the developers very much talk about this game as a profound and deep artistic "masterpiece"
the people you're hunting thing just doing the same thing as you are is something the game is trying to get across, and attempts to do so by giving almost all the enemies names and having their comrades grieve/be angered by their deaths
at that point, she didn't even want to go after Abby, and only did so because Tommy guilted her into it/she was suffering from PTSD, and thought that killing Abby would settle things
but after seeing Abby tied up like that, beaten and almost dead, if she just wanted her to die, she could have left her strung up
if she had killed Abby, it would have also meant that she would either have to let Lev die (someone she owed her life to, as well as Dina's and baby JJ) or let him die, and she already knew the effect killing people like this had on her
"breaking the cycle of revenge" is maybe a personal thing for her and Abby. no one said anything about any of the countless people Ellie or Abby killed having others pursue either of the two later on
She didn't have to go period. And there is no likable or relatable reason for her to go. She's killed a zillion people, if anything is going to give her PTSD it's the look of the explosion where an innocent strangers head used to be after I tried out the newly upgraded shotgun this game wanted me to try.
She obviously didn't have to go, and she obviously didn't have to spare or kill Abby or Lev. If the game really wanted to challenge people it would be this point where you had options, and regardless of the choice you made you'd return home to an empty house.
But no, the game picks one of the several dumb choices and says "it's the only way!" Hell, it would've been insanely valid to kill Abby and let Lev go. Realizing that Ellie had become the new Joel and that Lev was the new Ellie. Maybe Ellie let's Lev go and says "don't become what i became, don't let hate rule you." Hell, she could even give a gun to Lev and let lev decide to spare her.
This game conditioned it's fans, because it forces you into a series of choices and then the fans say "there was no other way."
There are a million movies where people talk their way out of getting shot, there are plenty of times when people DO kill even when they know it's wrong. As a player you are given 0 choices, and then chided for your violent actions.
But we as players didn't do any of it, we as players just watched Abby and Ellie murder a ton of people because they are so apparently stupid as to think of everybody except those they have cutscenes with as possible humans.
lol, no one's forcing you to do any of those things, though.
you can easily not play the game or put it down when you face any kinda personal moral dilemma.
sorry if the formatting of my posts look weird, but I had to split my responses to two posts
No worries on the formatting.
If the most logical and moral way to play a game which tries to teach you themes about violence and revenge is to not play it, then it's a bad game.
If I opened an ice-cream shop and sold a bunch of ice-creams with names like "racism" and "violence", and they all tasted terrible. "They are supposed to taste terrible, that's the point" would not be a valid response. It's bad ice cream, just like this is a bad game.
You are supposed to be frustrated that Ellie still goes on ahead with her revenge mission at the end. She could have let it go and have had a happy ending. But Ellie herself just can't let it go. She's too far gone. It's not just about Abby. It's just as much about Ellie being robbed of making ameds with Joel. She feels guilt that she didn't forgive him. That's why they saved the reconciliation cutscene until the very end. Ellie was on that path to forgiving Joel. She realized that her hate gave her absolutely nothing and she never moved forward in either scenario until she learned to just let it go.
Naughty Dog games are not games that give you the player a choice. It's the same thing as the ending of the first game. You do not make the decisions for the characters. They have their own wants and motivations that aren't influenced by the player. I don't really get this whole interpretation that the game is insulting the player for playing it. Outside of saying "These are all people who have their own wants, feelings and needs just like Ellie and friends" it really doesn't. It's a world filled with conflict.
You are supposed to be frustrated that Ellie still goes on ahead with her revenge mission at the end. She could have let it go and have had a happy ending. But Ellie herself just can't let it go. She's too far gone. It's not just about Abby. It's just as much about Ellie being robbed of making ameds with Joel. She feels guilt that she didn't forgive him. That's why they saved the reconciliation cutscene until the very end. Ellie was on that path to forgiving Joel. She realized that her hate gave her absolutely nothing and she never moved forward in either scenario until she learned to just let it go.
Naughty Dog games are not games that give you the player a choice. It's the same thing as the ending of the first game. You do not make the decisions for the characters. They have their own wants and motivations that aren't influenced by the player. I don't really get this whole interpretation that the game is insulting the player for playing it. Outside of saying "These are all people who have their own wants, feelings and needs just like Ellie and friends" it really doesn't. It's a world filled with conflict.
The difference is that naughty dog games are fun story, ("I'm indiana jones on a wild adventure), or an engaging meaningful story ("I'm a conflicted father figure just trying to protect my surrogate daughter.")
The games entirely fall apart if you don't like the story and don't like anybody you are playing as because the are short sighted sociopaths
Basically it comes down to this: Why would anybody play a naughty dog game where you play as somebody you don't like, doing things you don't want them to do?
The difference is that naughty dog games are fun story, ("I'm indiana jones on a wild adventure), or an engaging meaningful story ("I'm a conflicted father figure just trying to protect my surrogate daughter.")
The games entirely fall apart if you don't like the story and don't like anybody you are playing as because the are short sighted sociopaths
Basically it comes down to this: Why would anybody play a naughty dog game where you play as somebody you don't like, doing things you don't want them to do?
I guess it's just a fundamental difference with what people want from a game I guess. I'm fine with playing as flawed characters who do questionable things. If it's not for you that's fine but it doesn't automatically make it bad.
Even going back to the first game a few people hated Joel for what he chose to do.
I guess it's just a fundamental difference with what people want from a game I guess. I'm fine with playing as flawed characters who do questionable things. If it's not for you that's fine but it doesn't automatically make it bad.
IMO the characters in TLOU2 went beyond flawed. I not only thought their actions were very evil/dumb, but I didn't even believe that their decisions made sense with what we know about the characters.
Ellie went from unphased by graphic murder in gameplay to it being a big deal during almost every cutscene. And there are so many hints throughout the game that they really are not good writers.
Look at Jesse, here is what I can almost promise happened with writing Jesse.
"We want Ellie's girlfriend to be pregnant, so Ellie can have more stakes and also have a baby to consider against her revenge" "Ok well let's give Dina an on/off boyfriend, he can be a source of tension because it will make Ellie feel weird about Dina and his relationship" "Ok so we'll play out that tension in a scene, raising the stakes for Ellie and Dina" "Ok, then what happens with him?" "Well at that point we have no story use for him so let's have him just get shot in a cutscene." "Does he get any less competent to justify this death?" "Nope, we just have no more story use for him so he dies."
It didn't feel like characters organically interacting, it felt like scenes contorting to hit desired story beats.
Ellie's whole relationship with Tommy doesn't feel authentic. Ellie doesn't seem to care much about Tommy, Tommy is more or less a quest giver or prompt to get Ellie to advance the game.
I'm over-responding to you when really you and I agree a fair amount, I just think the main characters are almost completely unlikable because of their choices. And I also think it's very hard to get invested when it is so clear that the story is just going to be shaped by whatever beats the writers wanted to get to rather than anything organic.
I really recommend you watch the NakeyJakey video, he's more likable than me lol, and he does a lot better job articulating a similar argument.
