The Last of Us 2 (Coming June 19th)

[Sheffield Wednesday]

Don't see myself replaying any time soon but was thinking it would be good if there was an option to replay specific encounters.

I don't know if I've misread but there specifically is this option!

That's absolutely not the case for me. I think they're very well written in the details, alongside their extremely high production values in every other way - they clearly represent the pinnacle of particular kind of game.

I wouldn't be nearly so disappointed and exercised by them otherwise.

Apologies, I kind of skipped the back and forth so only had a superficial reading of how you both felt.

I also don't know what exercised means in that context.

Can I ask a straightforward question? What stuff are you disappointed with? Also cheers for the Noah vid. Seen his stuff before ages ago, maybe Souls stuff, and I thought that was a superb piece of work.

[Zetetic]

Ellie is driven to take revenge, and in the process engages in horrible violence, at length. The violence is mechanically satisfying to the player, although Ellie's revenge remains frustrated. We're lead to better understand Abby's drive for revenge and, for other reasons, she also engages in lots of violence for her own ends, bound up with Lev.

Throughout this, the violence is presented as unpleasant and of - at most - limited satisfaction to the characters. Nevertheless, the script says the characters continue with it, at length, and is good at convincing the player that it makes sense that they do so.

The game tries to cultivate empathy on the part of player, and does so as effectively as I can imagine with Abby - but the player can't do anything with this empathy. That's not a criticism to be clear - doing this is a way of making the player feel increasingly conflicted about the coming dreadful confrontation between Abby and Ellie (and somewhat relieved by its resolution). (I'm less convinced that the dogs and death-barks stuff really achieves anything artistically.)

The violence continues inescapably, then, up until that confrontation, at which point the script says it starts to stop. Before getting at why it stops: What's the game about again?

I think we should be generous and take the game seriously enough to believe that it's not just about two made-up people in a world with a fungus-gone-bad. I think it wants to be understood as about violence and revenge, out there in the real world, and not just as a $100 million emotional rollercoaster.

It's been developed in and for a country that is currently seeing widespread protests about the abuse of violence by those privileged by the state to wield it. A major part of its audience's most significant engagement with any media is playing games where violence is the only interaction and whose plots are overwhelmingly about how it is the only effective tool in certain situations (often involving Nazis, Muslims or Russians).

"The story was inspired by a video in which two Israeli reservists were killed in Ramallah while a crowd cheered". It raises "philosophical questions and asks the players to interpret some of the material that's there and see where they stand on those questions". Okay.

Abby doesn't kill Dina for, broadly, two reasons. One, Mel and empathy. Two, a trans-kid called Heart asks her not to. I think the combination of these is perfectly compelling for the character and the story itself. Later on, eventually, Ellie packs it in as she comes to understand how her impulse for vengeance isn't helping. Again I think it makes good sense for her, and the game sells this well.

I think there are problems with how these turns fail to balance against the amount of time spent acting out "regrettable" but inevitable (and mechanically satisfying) violence - perhaps particularly given much of its audience - but let's not get caught up on those right now.

My deeper disappointment is rooted in trying to understand what the game is really trying to tell us about violence rather than just its own story. What it's talking about when it "asks players to see where they stand on [philosophical questions]"? But I don't think there's anything really there to hold onto. At best, it's facile - it's about listening to your conscience. At worst, it's hateful - it's about suffering enough yourself until you understand.

It's nice to have a big budget game emphasising the limited utility of violence, but having done that - and made me care about what it's saying at all - it doesn't really seem to have much else to say.

[popcorn]

Very interesting thoughts Zezetic, I'm going to have to think about them for a while.

But look, is The Last of Us Part 2 the first game where you can listen to your own smell?

[Harpo Speaks]

you can listen to your own smell?

Yet another thing in this trash game that makes no sense.

Thanks Neil CUCKmann

[FredNurke]

I'm not going anywhere else on the Internet to read about this for reasons that Popcorn basically alluded to above in relation to the type of discussion happening elsewhere, so I don't have anywhere else to ask this fairly basic question about something that happens right near the end:

Spoiler alert

Is it supposed to be completely obvious that, because Ellie was bitten (but's immune) and Abby bit Ellie's fingers off that she's gonna go crazy on that boat and kill Lev in an hour or so? Or does the virus not work that way? Might it NOT happen?

And if that IS the case, then don't the complainers still get to know that Abby's gonna die, anyway?

[close]

Spoiler alert

After Dina finds out about Ellie's immunity, Ellie tells her that she can neither infect her, nor transfer her immunity to her. So I assume that holds true for Abby as well.

[close]

[magval]

Spoiler alert

When she says that though, she's talking just about her own infection from being bitten years ago. Whereas with that ending, she's just been bitten again, so has some fresh infection possibly still live inside her? I don't know how infections with fictional diseases work, like.

[close]

[Zetetic]

I'm not sure what the point of Abby being infected would be.

[magval]

Spoiler alert

Bloodthirsty fan appeasement, perhaps? Ellie doesn't kill her, but she "kills" her anyway?

[close]

[popcorn]

So... yeah pointless.

[magval]

I don't feel strongly about it either way, but in a game series where subtlety is clearly valued, it's not accidental that someone with immunity is bitten on the same hand by a human enemy shortly after being bitten by an infected one.

[popcorn]

This vid (LOU1 spoilers) explains why Abby did what she did

[Kelvin]

Have people seen the complete arse that Troy Baker has made of himself recently? Such a pompous, pretentious dickhead; his Twitter bio simply reads S T O R Y T E L L E R, for fucks sake.

Anyway, following games journalist Jason Schreier tweeting that "Video games are too long", this tremendous sack of wind posted: 



I wouldn't mind so much, but Schreier is one of the few legitimately great journalists in gaming, one with actual integrity, who stands up for workers rights, unionisation, and revealed studio crunch multiple times. Baker literally can't speak more than three sentences in interviews without sounding like the most tedious, self indulgent arsehole on the planet.

[Zetetic]

And it follows Bruckmann setting his followers on Schreier as well.

[popcorn]

The ND guys are blowhards but I don't equate Druckmann responding to comments about the game on Twitter with "setting his followers on them".

[Zetetic]

What Druckmann actually did was screenshot and tweet jokes about the Schindler's List comparison. These weren't even comments about the game.

[popcorn]

But those were just people RIFFIN on the Schindler comparison which was a comment about the game. Druckmann was probably sincere in his disapproval but I don't think that's the same as "sic em boys"

[Thursday]

It comes across as particularly suspicious since Schreier wrote about the crunch at Naughty Dog, so for Druckmann to single out him in particular makes him look like a complete bellend.

[Kelvin]

What Druckmann actually did was screenshot and tweet jokes about the Schindler's List comparison. These weren't even comments about the game.

Druckman was defending the Schindler's List comparison. He took issue with Scheier for retweeting the jokes, and as Thursday said, it was particularly dubious due to the crunch stuff Scheier had revealed at ND. Corey Barlog got involved (attacking Screier), too. At best, they're over-sensitive egos, at worst a bunch of high ranking, respected directors closing ranks to attack one of the few journalists who regularly goes after them.

[Zetetic]

Yes - I wasn't meaning to imply that Druckmann was endorsing those jokes. Like I say, it serves to set his followers on Schreier.

[popcorn]

Or it serves to express his opinion? Am I just being horribly naive here

[Timothy]

At the end of the game

Spoiler alert

after the credits you see Abby's boat at the beach at the house at the firefly base so I guess they aren't infected by Ellie and have, for now, a happy end.

[close]

[Zetetic]

Or it serves to express his opinion?

Or both.

But I think it'd be dreadfully unfair on the man to believe that "games is serious business, no joking about the discourse please" is a sincerely-held belief.

[Bazooka]

Story for part 3 has leaked, Ellie goes after Dina for revenge for just leaving and not packing up her art shit.

[Harpo Speaks]

I was laughing last night as I dipped into a Let's Play by theradbrad, and his comment when

Spoiler alert

Ellie returned to the empty Farmhouse was along the lines of 'don't tell me Dina has been abducted'. He has some bizarre takes on things.

What do people make of the build up to the inciting incident in this? A lot of people seem to be furious about the manner in which Tommy and Joel give their names to a group of strangers.

[close]

[Sheffield Wednesday]

Z-man, I'm too tired to reply right now but I appreciate the extended response and I have been thinking about it. Will reply properly when I CBF.

[popcorn]

Is there some protocol that establishes when we can all stop using spongler tags?

What do people make of the build up to the inciting incident in this? A lot of people seem to be furious about the manner in which Tommy and Joel give their names to a group of strangers.

Spoiler alert

I thought the buildup was handled really well in dramatic terms. I went into the game without knowing anything about the story and, having played Naughty Dog games before, no expectations about who I'd be playing as for most of the time. The way the mood in the room suddenly darkens is chilling - more than any game I've played, I think LOU2 creates a brilliant sense of dread. I also think it is the most effective use of perspective switching in the game, because by having us play as a chapter as Abby, we - or at least I - assumed she'd be on Joel's side. I didn't see Joel's death coming and I thought it was effective.

I've now listened to a few of the furious nerds on YouTube and yeah many of them are angry that Tommy and Joel would give their identities away so willingly. That initially seemed like a really weird criticism, but having now watched a compilation of LOU1 cut scenes there are at least two moments where Joel, and later Ellie, refuse to give their names to strangers because they've learnt not to trust anyone. I suppose this is therefore seen as a HORRIBLE RAMPANT FLAW



but I don't think it was out of character at this point in the saga because we're seeing Joel at a different time in his life now. He's been living as part of a settled, trusted community for several years, he's become a (sort of) father again, he (like me) is endeared towards Abby because he's just survived a massive zombie attack with her. And in a way it's this softening of his heart that is his downfall.

[close]

There's an awful lot of being hit on the head and

Spoiler alert

blacking out

[close]

in this story.

[Bazooka]

What did you noobs think of the infected boss fight in the hospital?

[popcorn]

More totally vanilla uninspired thoughts on the plot and characters:

Spoiler alert

Ellie remains a brilliant character with a brilliant arc. She changes in the first story and she changes more in this one. All the good story scenes are the game are Ellie's. I really like her physical transformation, how gangly and sinewy she is by the end. I've never seen a character in a game that has her particular sense of physicality.

Unfortunately I do agree with many that the overall story structure doesn't work so well. I found switching to Abby halfway through was a major energy drop, and in all the new characters you meet as her, I didn't find any of them particularly interesting. Since her big white whale, Joel, is already dead, I didn't feel she had a strong goal all the time. She starts off wanting to find Owen, the world's most boring man, and to be honest I didn't completely follow what was mysterious about the circumstances of his vanishing. Some of the story sequences, like playing with the dog, fell flat for me because they were just so transparent in intent and basically dull to participate in.

When you meet the cult as Ellie, it's brilliant - scary and weird - another masterpiece of mood. The minute you start fighting them as Abby, you realise they're just dumb Resident Evil 4 goons, with hacky culty dialogue, and also not particularly different to fight from other human enemies. This new, sort of cheesy enemy, my lack of interest in Abby's story, and the abundance of back-and-forth time skips gave the second half of the game the sense of a bolted-on DLC pack. Always fun, always well crafted, but missing the magical chemical X that made it truly satisfying.

I guess I am more gamergatey than I realised because I found the Lev character trite. Would it occur to a child raised in an ultraviolent religious cult that they could present as a different gender? And be so cool and aloof about it? I was so pleased for video games, so delighted, when Ellie kissed Riley, but this felt pat. LGBTQ+ issues aside, Lev is boring, a sort of wise-beyond-his-years magical child. Whereas the Joel-Ellie relationship was tender and felt real, the way Abby attaches herself to Lev feels a bit desperate and creepy, there's no chemistry there.

One thing I will say about Abby is that I've played as about a hundred soldiers in video games but Abby is the first I've seen who really feels like a soldier in her character. Like, I really believe that she's a warrior in her guts. When she and Ellie fight in the theatre I thought the contrast between them - their different physicalities and their different ways of fighting - was very good. I love how Ellie seems like such a fucking pain in the arse nightmare bitch to fight.

As I said above, I watched a compilation of all the LOU1 cut scenes to refresh myself, and man does that story blast along. It's way more conventional, and sticks way more closely to the zombie genre tropes (zombies are almost irrelevant in LOU2), but it's just built like a brick shithouse from start to finish, and of course at its heart is the wonderful developing relationship between Joel and Ellie. I respect that they didn't just repeat that formula here, but I think the results are less effective.

[close]

[popcorn]

What did you noobs think of the infected boss fight in the hospital?

I really liked it and the entire Abby hospital sequence. It was the closest the game felt to being an unselfconscious video game and just ended up being a good, juicy, satisfying bit of GAME CONTENT. It's RE4 basically.

[Sheffield Wednesday]

Cunts on the RE2 Remake as a survival horror game. Totally nukes it in fanny batter.