I don’t get the TLOU2 hate

Hate is too strong a word, speaking for myself. I don’t hate it.  Rather, I spared myself the hate, by not playing it.

Stepping back to the original game, which I did play:  One part that bothered me pertained to the unarmed doctor, towards the end of the game.  Harming him was unavoidable to save Ellie, and any amount of defensive damage to him instantly killed him.  It was perhaps the easiest kill in the game.  The game forced us to kill him.  I resented that.  Now, of course, I understand why.  Like it or not, the doctor’s death was an essential component to the story.

But the slaughter of dogs and observing their grieving owners? Not essential to the story.  Nor were the other unavoidable guilt traps reportedly prevalent in the sequel.  Rather, they served Neil Druckmann’s sadistic appetite for making players feel bad, or in his words “uncomfortable”.    He wanted to “make it uncomfortable because art at times should be uncomfortable.”  Judging by reactions to the game, mission accomplished. If “art” is judged by the amount of discomfort, TLoUP2 is a bona-fide masterpiece.

Neil Druckmann’s goal with TLoUP2, by his own account in interviews leading up to the release, was to deliver a moral lesson to players (grown adults, this being a mature-rated game) about violence and revenge (never mind the glaring contradiction with Abby, ultimately having her cake and eating it too). Neil Druckmann serves this agenda by forcing players to do bad things, then making them feel guilty about it,  over and over and over.  That’s twisted.

I object to Druckman’s agenda. I don’t play games to feel miserable or to be brainwashed with someone else’s ideology.  I play games to have fun.

I also prefer video games which permit me to take the moral high ground.   I don’t need to be lectured about the pitfalls of violence and revenge by a video game, especially not by Neil Druckmann.

I personally would have liked TLoU games better as RPGs.   I would have avoided killing that doctor toward the end of the original game (Abbey’s father?).  I would have also told Ellie that the doctors weren’t positive she held the cure (but they wanted to kill her anyway, to find out) and that their actions at the hospital rendered them untrustworthy.   Indeed, my sequel would have been very different.

But this isn’t my game.  It’s Neil Druckmann’s game, and he’s obviously enamored by his own creation. Maybe he should make more games to please himself — but he won’t be making them with my money.

They totally changed her face, moron, nothing to do with growing up

There’s a ton of reasons for why someone could be angry/hate TLOU2, honestly, some completely away from gaming (yet another show of being called “Russian bots”, “istaphobes” etc. if you dared dislike it) to how the issues around the leaks were handled (with this being the Geeks&Gamers forums and with how Jeremy’s been treated, obviously the majority here will REALLY dislike that aspect). But since countless repetition doesn’t always bring anything constructive, there’s one more aspect I feel like we’re omitting.

The game’s really fresh. Of course, games can get finished and maxed out really easily nowadays, especially now with many people stuck at home, but… essentially, there’s been no real time to come ‘to terms’ with the game amongst those who avoided the spoilers in particular (and I’d argue even those who didn’t avoid them; it’s still pretty fresh). The first play-through or check of a particular medium isn’t always the most satisfying or the best, but I feel this is just yet another aspect in which Naughtydog actually failed badly.

You see, they *knew* they were making a game that will make people feel bad in a variety of ways. To an extent it was the goal, even. I’d argue while games aren’t the best medium for “makes you feel bad but also makes you think and reconsider” type of stories, it COULD be pulled off with a lot of thought being paid to HOW you pull it off. In essence, the game throws a big injection of negative feelings and emotions with the torture-death of Joel before even attempting to make Abby’s motivations understandable (and a lot of people argue that even after they attempt it, it’s actually rather weak), then pushes you into playing as that very same character you’re bound to have a bunch of negative emotion towards, then gives you an ending that is altogether meant to feel somewhat punishing and unsatisfying after a game that in many ways feels “bad”. This is not a product you’ll easily swallow on the first go, and it won’t settle in the stomach easily, either, but Naughtydog writers will likely try to defend themselves with the deep theme of “BREAKING THE CYCLE OF REVENGE” (which is a theme that, indeed, could be pulled off but should’ve been pulled off better). And therein lies the problem… The game is not super fresh because of the leaks, but it is fresh for those actually playing it, and Naughtydog failed to give it true replay value. You can replay games that you liked with low replay value, but it’s pretty rare for games you DON’T like as you play them. By removing player options and player agency in so many ways, including both how Ellie goes about obtaining her revenge AND the ability to obtain it at the end, Naughtydog removed one of the big incentives for replaying : Alternative plot lines/alternative endings.

It truly wouldn’t be this big of a challenge for this game to have multiple endings. The “Vengeance” endings could be negative in a sense in multiple ways, showing the cycle of revenge not being broken or Ellie losing her humanity figuratively or literally, while the “no vengeance” endings could come in some more bright and positive variants as well as the current ending. If they don’t want to put that decision DIRECTLY in the player’s hands, well… if they had the time to obtain “amazing rope and cable physics”, they also had the time to put in other mechanics and incentives. Silent Hill 2 all the way back in 2001 had a system that’d determine the ending for the player by accumulating hidden points throughout the playthrough just by sensibly observing player behavior. Nier Replicant and Gestalt in 2010 had a second playthrough incentive of both bonus ending AND being able to understand the enemy’s language, thus providing a whole new feel to the narrative as we now had a vision of both sides. It’s 2020. For some reason, between some of the things they DID have the time to put in the game (rope physics, dog killing, double standard sex scenes), I find it hard to not call it a failure when they didn’t put in something that could both massively improve the people’s opinion of the game AND would give it replayability, thus giving the player the time to ‘grow’ into the theme and narrative as they wanted to present it.

Ps. I also feel that if you really overanalyze the narrative over 2 games with nearly SJW logic, you could find a REALLY nefarious anti-male anti-fatherhood message in the narrative, but precisely because it’s such a reach and such a deep dive and it is comparable to SJW logic, I’m not even sure if I should mention it here.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by Venithil.

you know being a monopoly is bad? just cause you think your abvoe the law of free of speech. doesn’t eman you have the right to take others down or silence them or kill them cause they don’t agree with you. t

go somewhere else liberal.

there not above the laws to break them. not how first place works. yoru democrats are not above the trolls. are you proud of neil?sound slike you are. fanboy of him.

disgusting. liberal. nazi.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by Talion_Ranger. Reason: editing

@NienNub24

Bait & Switch