The Last of Us 2 (Coming June 19th)

[Thursday]

This bit where Tommy is sniping at you is AIDS incarnate.

[C_Larence]

I didn't mind that bit. You're coming up to the slog though.

[Thursday]

The Island? That was fine, but now I just got past

Spoiler alert

Ellie can't settle down for an idyllic life, because we insist the game goes on forever

[close]

[PlanktonSideburns]

Got to the Arm and Hammer scene that was in a trailer that upset everyone, very, very bizarre that it was in a trailer, but the bit after that was a great sequence, very dark and atmospheric. Kind of wish they'd been leaning into that mood more.

Yea it's a pretty intense toothpaste isn't it? Very gritty

[Thursday]

Alright, all done.

Spoiler alert

I think most people are pretty much in agreement, the game doesn't really have much interesting to say, and takes far too long to say it.
Even though the game has us spend all this time with Abby... it didn't actually make me build much more empathy for her. I don't think she was a very interesting character, nor any of her friends really.  We spent all that time with her, and yet... I still don't feel like I know much about her. That's partly just her personality, she's more reserved and distant, but she certainly doesn't get anywhere near the same character building we got from Joel and Ellie in the first game.

We know why people would want to kill Joel, and the fact that Abby's father is the doctor is extra icing on top of that. This is a weird aspect for me though, where a lot of people seem to basically side with Joel's actions at the end. It's an issue, I had with the game's ending, where I tried to find a way around killing the doctor, and tried to walk away before I accepted what the game wanted me to do - I felt like that bit should have just been a cut-scene, because the way game presents it, almost feels like it's suddenly giving you a choice, but you don't. It's a bit awkward really. So, for me, the lesson at the end of The Last of Us 1 was that I'm just the one pushing things along. This isn't a game about player choice - it's about the characters choice.

So that's the way I've felt from this game, I'm detached from the characters motivations, they aren't the actions I'd be making in their shoes. The intent of the game though seems to want me to feel what they feel, but I don't really. I might have fun in the violent sandbox, but they're compartmentalized for me, They're two separate things.

I'm also thinking to myself, what exactly is the point of the final act? It's supposed to get Ellie to the point where she drops her quest for revenge. I'm not too keen on her PTSD being essentially what set's back on the path. Not sure it really follows that she would think killing Abby is what would actually "cure" her of this. It's Druckmann's character I guess, but it doesn't really feel true to me.

Essentially, they wanted an ending where Ellie has gone through this arc of giving up on revenge, but fucked up her life on the way. But it took some real contrivances to get there. It might have been hard to buy Ellie giving it up and learning her lesson during the encounter at the theatre, but then they could have written it so things play out very differently there.

A large bulk of Abby's story ends up concerning the Seraphites and Yara and Lev's story. They were interesting enough character's in their own right, the idea of a cult like that springing up in this world is fine, but I don't know if it ends up adding much to the Ellie and Abby narrative and the overall theme's. It's more like an extended subplot, and I'm wondering if that time could have been better spent.

Anyway, I've not written much about the gameplay, but it doesn't feel interesting to do so. It's fine, but the downtime of scavenging and puzzles in this tends to feel like a bit of a drag on the pacing this time round compared to the first game where it helped build suspense and atmosphere. Combat can be great but stealth is pretty weak

[close]

[brat-sampson]

Matthewmatosis gives his thoughts.

[Thursday]

Yup those are some good thoughts, Noah Caldwell-Gervais' thoughts were excellent too, he had a much more positive reaction than me, which actually made feel slightly more positive towards the game, and I felt like I wasn't giving the game enough credit, even though I didn't agree with him on some things.

Writing On Games, thoughts were okay I actually strongly agreed with him at first, but then he kept hammering the Abby section of the game for making the same point over and over to the point where I thought, "well no, come on it was doing a bit more than that."

[FredNurke]

The Consolevania review (by Ryan; Rab didn't like the original enough to play this one).

(For context: Ryan's review of the original.)

Spoiler alert

One weak point in the review: he wasn't aware of the pre-release review-bombing (because he doesn't read social media stuff). He also came nowhere near close to finishing it, but he did sink quite a lot of time into it before he gave up, and I think he said he watched playthroughs of it for the story details once he knew he wasn't going to finish it.

[close]

[Zetetic]

So that's the way I've felt from this game, I'm detached from the characters motivations, they aren't the actions I'd be making in their shoes.

I think that's interesting, and it possibly betrays the attitudes of the authors (at least in certain contexts...), and the extent to which they simply assume those in others.

I'm wondering if that time could have been better spent.

I suppose that turns on what you think the function of Lev is in Abby's journey, and how essential that function is or not.

[Thursday]

Yes, after playing this and watching Caldwell-Gervais' video I'm less certain about how I view the writers intentions.

I'm trying to decide what I think the conflict between the WLF and Seraphites and Lev adds to the overall story and the themes of the game.

A lot ends up hinging on him, but because of the game's structure he's introduced very late on and he still feels like more of a side character.

[Chedney Honks]

One recurring criticism I've seen of this game which people increasingly lean on in our individualistic, expertless society is that 'the game didn't make me feel what I believe it wanted me to feel'.

Rather than consider this a gaping chasm of imagination, insight and empathy on the part of the critic, the shameless dullard who parrots this inane self-reflection labours to frame this as a fault of the work.

Is my mate right to find Terrence Malick or Wong Kar-Wai 'boring' because he's a thick, artless, simple-minded cunt? That may well be his 'opinion', but an opinion holds absolutely zero inherent value despite the contemporary misconception that all perspectives are equal. Of course he finds it boring. He is a thick, artless, simple-minded cunt.

Likewise, if someone doesn't understand or feel why a particular character behaves a certain way, it's not the responsibility of the work to spoonfeed every empathic cue to each numbskull who may pay their entry fee.

Edit: This is not a response to anyone here, but a conclusion I've reached from reading much of the bland commentary on this game over the last few weeks, and around games for several years now. In any other medium, I feel such a self-centered perspective would reflect a lack of insight or experience but in the gaming sphere, the most important criteria appears to be 'did it push my particular buttons?' without questioning the limits of this approach.

[Zetetic]

I think it makes sense to consider works in large part, if not actually exclusively, in the context of their audience (and their intended audience, if that differs).

You've framed the question in such way that it's hard to take it seriously. The opposite would seem to be: Is it the responsibility of the audience to excuse every failing of the work as they experienced it? Is it up to them to find something of value in the most banal produce?

[Zetetic]

But then I still think that the far bigger problem with games is that people will excuse almost any old shite because 1) games can be engaging for extended periods of time even when they convey tedious or hateful nonsense (because they can happily if artlessly disconnect gameplay and experience from that nonsense) and 2) because it doesn't take much novelty to contrast with the vast ocean of awfulness that dominates games (and movies and so on).

"This game failed to provoke me in the hamfisted way that the author seems to have intended" seems a relatively healthy position compared to the far more widespread view that truly vast production costs must have resulted in something worthwhile.

[ImmaculateClump]

I just watched that episode of consolevania the other day. Nice to see Ryan with a bit of passion again, you could really smell the old "vids" influence creeping back in.
Haven't played the game, but after reading so much wanky bilge spouted by the usual suspects, it was a lovely palate cleanser.

It was a fun episode in general, him chipping away at Rab's favourite, shenmue all the way through and then Rab getting to kick him back at the very end only to have his fat face replaced by a fray bentos pie lid :D

[Chedney Honks]

I think it makes sense to consider works in large part, if not actually exclusively, in the context of their audience (and their intended audience, if that differs).

You've framed the question in such way that it's hard to take it seriously. The opposite would seem to be: Is it the responsibility of the audience to excuse every failing of the work as they experienced it? Is it up to them to find something of value in the most banal produce?

Yep, I understand the first point. 99.99999999% of games do exactly that. The audience is so spoiled for choice and there are so many micro variations that anything which doesn't push your exact buttons can be dismissed immediately and you can move onto the next one to see if it does the trick. Games challenge their audience less than any other medium because they're so desperate to kowtow and frightened of being switched off. See also the response to any game which dares to employ a control scheme which takes getting used to. Twenty years ago, learning the controls was part of learning the game. These days, novel controls only exist as a USP. The 'blockbuster franchise cinema' audience is probably on a similar level, though, and I imagine there's a massive overlap - people whose entire sense of self comprises the media they prefer. Imagine a band rerecording sections of an album following 'community feedback'. Of course, the vast majority of work in all media is produced with an audience in mind - but none with such restrictive deference to such a critically limited audience.

Your reframing of the opposite doesn't ask an equivalent question, in my opinion. Do you see the audience as infallible, insightful and empathetic enough to appreciate or understand what's happening in every work? Of course not. They're two separate points. I'm not suggesting that every game, film, work is bursting with meaning and hidden richness. I'm saying that the gamer audience is so limited that 'I didn't like it' is considered the definitive word in criticism and that any challenge to their emotional expectation is considered a slight. "How dare they not let me live out my power fantasy?" Of course, that level of criticism is actually quite elevated because games typically have fuck all to say or to ask of the audience.

My position doesn't dictate that TLOU2 is rich and multi-layered, or that it has anything to say, let alone that it says it well. The point I'm making is that criticism and discussion of games is largely so poor and dull because it becomes little more than a discussion of preference - by people who typically have a very limited frame of reference. Maybe we can agree that we liked the combat but we didn't like the open world sections and ultimately, we can agree to disagree on how much we liked it overall. That's about as good as it gets, and that would be a pretty rare, high quality interaction. Far more common would be 'it's fucking shit, what you like is shit, how can you like that it's shit' ad nauseam.

But then I still think that the far bigger problem with games is that people will excuse almost any old shite because 1) games can be engaging for extended periods of time even when they convey tedious or hateful nonsense (because they can happily if artlessly disconnect gameplay and experience from that nonsense) and 2) because it doesn't take much novelty to contrast with the vast ocean of awfulness that dominates games (and movies and so on).

"This game failed to provoke me in the hamfisted way that the author seems to have intended" seems a relatively healthy position compared to the far more widespread view that truly vast production costs must have resulted in something worthwhile.

I agree with some of what you're saying, definitely. It doesn't take too much, given what I've said above, for a game to stand out from the vast quagmire of deferent, iterative mulch and that shouldn't automatically mean that this game should be immediately held up as a triumph. However, I do think that TLOU2 (and RDR2 and FF7R) should be commended for daring to challenge their specific audiences and the gamer audience as a whole. They may well fail in many respects and be far less successful than their creators (or supporters) believe but I will always celebrate the idea of challenging an audience, particularly this one. You only had to witness the complete psychological breakdown in response to the FF7R (even on here) to see what the medium is up against.

I don't see anyone claiming that vast production costs automatically result in something worthwhile, though. I literally haven't seen that expressed anywhere. I would be equally critical of that claim if I came across it.

___

To return to my original point then, do you agree that 'it didn't make me feel what I think it wanted me to feel' can also be a failing of the audience rather than a failing of the work?

I find that specific criticism increasingly common as people believe their own 'customer satisfaction' to be the definitive litmus test, not only in gaming but very commonly so. I fundamentally disagree with that idea and in most cases, it highlights the failings and limitations of the audience rather than the work.

I'm not especially interested in whether I should be more concerned about a different critical position because I've raised this one for discussion.

[ImmaculateClump]

I don't like everyone and their ganny thinking their critics nowadays. I'd much rather someone gave their gut reaction and tried to explain why they did or didn't enjoy something rather than taking a detached stance and rating it from a technical standpoint.

The point I'm making is that criticism and discussion of games is largely so poor and dull because it becomes little more than a discussion of preference - by people who typically have a very limited frame of reference. Maybe we can agree that we liked the combat but we didn't like the open world sections and ultimately, we can agree to disagree on how much we liked it overall. That's about as good as it gets, and that would be a pretty rare, high quality interaction. Far more common would be 'it's fucking shit, what you like is shit, how can you like that it's shit' ad nauseam.

That's because most of the people who like AAA games, that's all they play. It's their only frame of reference.

Jack of all trades, master of none. Some shitty open world third person guff with average combat, insulting "put the cube in the square hole" puzzles, press "E" to progress interaction, 1 dimensional characters written by aliens/nerds, terrible stories that mean and say nothing.

It'd be like being into films and getting to the age of 40 and still watching nothing but the big blockbuster super hero dross.

You won't get intelligent conversation from these people because they're all knuckle dragging fuckwits. It's as insane as expecting a good story from a AAA game. You ain't gonna get it.
All they're gonna do is compare it to all the other shite they've played and go "me likey" or "me no likey"

I've recommended games to people on gaming forums before and been rudely told to stick my indie shit up my arse "I don't play that crap" they genuinely think a games worth is tied to it's price.
If it doesn't cost 50 quid, it'll be bobbins. If it isn't on the latest console and near the top of the charts, then it doesn't exist.
Christ, when roguelites started getting big 10 years ago, the whining from the people who were used to hand crafted levels was deafening.
Anything different, anything that's not the bland homogenised sludge they're used to and they don't want to know. It's like my nephew with his chicky nug nugs.

I've been gaming all my life, and trust me, I stuck with AAA longer than I would have due to eejits on gaming forums overhyping the latest crap and me falling for it again and again. I saw the slow decline in real time. I saw all the rough diamond games getting turned into conveyor belt franchises, I saw all the interesting mechanics getting boiled down, I saw the big companies swallowing great studios whole and turning them into cogs in their shit for cunts factory, everything getting dumbed down more and more.
AAA gaming used to be fantastic, believe it or not. Now it's garbage for morons.

I finally made the decision "No more" and it's the best thing I ever did.
You wouldn't go and watch spiderman 12 just because it was smashing the box office and everyone was talking about it, would you?
Get out of the shallow end, listen to your immense ego, it's right for once! You're better than that.

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

Thinking about ways to edit down the story is interesting. I definitely feel that there are way too many characters, meaning we don't get a chance to form particularly strong attachments or even get much of  a sense of who they are.

The original was canny in that each of the secondary characters had strong, clearly defined personalities that reflected aspects of Ellie & Joel; who they were or what they might become.

Two characters that feel superfluous to me are Jesse and Yara. Jesse purely exists as a way for a love triangle to mirror Abby's own love triangle, but so little is made of this and he's dispatched so unceremoniously as to render him obsolete.

The existence of Yara distracts from Lev - the relationship that arguably becomes most important to Abby - and reduces the amount of time we can build a bond with them.

What's there with Lev has potential, but I believe we spend approximately five scenarios with him - whereas Ellie and Joel had the lion's share of an entire game to form a relationship - so the bond ultimately feels extremely rushed.

Scenarios with Lev include:

The Forest, where more emphasis is placed on panicked survival than forming attachments, and greater emphasis is placed on Yara, anyway - the character who is rendered most vulnerable and who we end the chapter physically carrying.

The Shortcut, which is absolutely the most effective portion at establishing the Lev character and the Lev/Abby dynamic. Lev's combination of naivety and innocence in some situations and extreme worldliness and capability in others creating an interesting dynamic.

The Descent, where Lev is absent for the beginning portion and the subsequent section is more about establishing an oppressive, dangerous atmosphere than exploring character particularly.

The Escape, represents the next time we're paired with Lev. After only two chapters of actual relationship building, we're now chasing Lev, before eventual reunification.

2425 Constance, the final section we spend with Lev is more of a prologue of sorts, setting things up for Ellie's final section. We've clearly missed huge swathes of Abby and Lev's relationship for story expedience.

As said, what's there has potential and may be enough for some, but I feel this one relationship is asked to bear more emotional weight and story significance than it's actually earned. I am told the relationship is key, but not shown enough for this to resonate more strongly.

[Zetetic]

Twenty years ago, learning the controls was part of learning the game. These days, novel controls only exist as a USP.

I think this mostly reflects the establishment of gameplay genres with a common language of controls and mechanics. It doesn't take much to get away from these genres, but it does involve playing games with lower budgets.

I'm saying that the gamer audience is so limited that 'I didn't like it' is considered the definitive word in criticism and that any challenge to their emotional expectation is considered a slight. "How dare they not let me live out my power fantasy?"

it becomes little more than a discussion of preference

I find that specific criticism increasingly common as people believe their own 'customer satisfaction' to be the definitive litmus test

These things all seem very different to:

it didn't make me feel what I think it wanted me to feel

There's a huge gulf between something not being what you thought you wanted (which I agree affords only a very limited perspective, but is not totally worthless) and something not being what its creators seemed to want it to be (which is also somewhat limited, but is generally a lot more interesting).

To return to my original point then, do you agree that 'it didn't make me feel what I think it wanted me to feel' can also be a failing of the audience rather than a failing of the work?

Of course, it can be.

And a good critic might be able to recognise that it might work better for others, or that something has value regardless of whether it lives up to its author's intent or not. (Or, sometimes, precisely because it surpassed the author's purposes.)

I don't see anyone claiming that vast production costs automatically result in something worthwhile, though. I literally haven't seen that expressed anywhere. I would be equally critical of that claim if I came across it.

I don't think it's something that people express directly. I think people readily recognise the vast amount of work and craft that goes into something like the The Last of Us 2 - the rope physics, the environmental art, the breathing system - and that becomes a factor in trying to make sense of its value. In any AAA game, there is usually something awe-inspiring, if you're not put off it enough.

I watched Annihilation recently. It has a couple of interesting ideas, but it's mostly a rubbish pointless film. Well, maybe not any actual ideas - some engrossing scenes, brought to the screen at enormous expense and effort, that gesture at some interesting ideas. Part of me despises the film for the waste, but part of me can't quite hate that it exists.

[Chedney Honks]

There's a huge gulf between something not being what you thought you wanted (which I agree affords only a very limited perspective, but is not totally worthless) and something not being what its creators seemed to want it to be (which is also somewhat limited, but is generally a lot more interesting).

This is a good point, I totally agree that there's a substantial difference. My issue with the criticism 'it didn't make me feel what I think it wanted me to feel' is that I'm so rarely convinced that these people really do understand or appreciate what the game wanted them to feel. The phrase is almost never accompanied by an explanation of the game's intent and how or why it failed, which makes me believe that it's been adopted in place of an expression of preference because it sounds insightful and dismissive.

AAA games vs roguelikes

Now you tell me!

Thinking about ways to edit down the story is interesting. I definitely feel that there are way too many characters, meaning we don't get a chance to form particularly strong attachments or even get much of  a sense of who they are.

The original was canny in that each of the secondary characters had strong, clearly defined personalities that reflected aspects of Ellie & Joel; who they were or what they might become.

Two characters that feel superfluous to me are Jesse and Yara. Jesse purely exists as a way for a love triangle to mirror Abby's own love triangle, but so little is made of this and he's dispatched so unceremoniously as to render him obsolete.

The existence of Yara distracts from Lev - the relationship that arguably becomes most important to Abby - and reduces the amount of time we can build a bond with them.

What's there with Lev has potential, but I believe we spend approximately five scenarios with him - whereas Ellie and Joel had the lion's share of an entire game to form a relationship - so the bond ultimately feels extremely rushed.

Scenarios with Lev include:

The Forest, where more emphasis is placed on panicked survival than forming attachments, and greater emphasis is placed on Yara, anyway - the character who is rendered most vulnerable and who we end the chapter physically carrying.

The Shortcut, which is absolutely the most effective portion at establishing the Lev character and the Lev/Abby dynamic. Lev's combination of naivety and innocence in some situations and extreme worldliness and capability in others creating an interesting dynamic.

The Descent, where Lev is absent for the beginning portion and the subsequent section is more about establishing an oppressive, dangerous atmosphere than exploring character particularly.

The Escape, represents the next time we're paired with Lev. After only two chapters of actual relationship building, we're now chasing Lev, before eventual reunification.

2425 Constance, the final section we spend with Lev is more of a prologue of sorts, setting things up for Ellie's final section. We've clearly missed huge swathes of Abby and Lev's relationship for story expedience.

As said, what's there has potential and may be enough for some, but I feel this one relationship is asked to bear more emotional weight and story significance than it's actually earned. I am told the relationship is key, but not shown enough for this to resonate more strongly.

Great post.

I saw Lev predominantly as a narrative tool for us to develop empathy with Abby and as a mirror for Joel's own redemption. To that end, the character 'worked' but I felt he was superficially drawn and there was a touch of 'mystical trans' about his role and personality. I also found the naif chat a hackneyed way to generate banter and levity. At first, I thought it was a misguided attempt at Chingrish style 'humour' but I soon attributed this to my own experiences of similar racism. I actually found Yara a more interesting, expressive character and I wish more had been done with her than quest prompter.

[ImmaculateClump]

Aw man, I was convinced I'd get a hit with the ego thing :D
As you were.

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

I think the naïveté/worldliness plays into ideas of myopia and obsession - in Lev's case, religious fundamentalism springing from ideas of love being twisted into hate - not creating a fully rounded individual. If we shut ourselves off to experiences and other perspectives, we miss out. Also, he's just a kid who grew up in a pretty oppressive society. To be fair, Yara's shown to be similarly naive in specific ways.

I emphasised Lev, because that's who the story already leans into, but sure, if you're more intrigued by Yara, go with her, although her characterisation felt slight to me. The mistake from my POV is more with the creation and introduction of two characters, when reducing it to one would likely strengthen the story, (especially when one is pretty unremarkably dispatched anyway.)

[Clownbaby]

Story aside cause I was never that arsed about the story of the first one to be honest, is TLOU2 one of those 60% interactive-cinematic games where you start to feel like you're just obeying single-button prompts for premeditated setpieces for minutes on end or is there plenty of hours of meaty gameplay, as in stealth, scavenging, plenty of action you can just get on with yourself in your own time? I'm trying to decide if I actually want to pay 35 quid for it or see if it goes down at Christmas

[Bazooka]

There's your standard bash square to keep ramming against a door until it opens, or shake this pole to move some rubble that is default in every 3rd person action game, but on the whole the action and progression is all very fluid, it is a story heavy game though so expect expensive motion capture cutscenes, but I didn't find them too heavy on first play through, I would skip them all next time around.

[Pancake]

Finished it, loved it, replaying it on HARD+ with my full load out and infinite ammo, because I want to relive the story knowing what I know, but enjoy the skirmishes with baddies with a bow and arrow, which there wasn't enough of

[Zetetic]

Having thought about the plot a bit in the last few weeks, perhaps the lesson is that Hamas needs to start breeding magic trans kids.

[Golden E. Pump]

Finally finished this. It's a great game, but n absolute mess of a story. Problem is, the first one is in the top five games of al time for me because of the story. It's a strange sequel that adds to the relationship so beautifully developed in the first game but spends far too much time introducing a tangential story that they try and railroad you into caring about despite its disgusting placement within an overlong narrative and the awful events that transpire before.

I'm deliberately avoiding story spoilers but suffice to say the whole third act is an uninteresting slog with no pay off. I really wanted to love this game, but instead it feels a bit Resident Evil 6. That may be unfair as the gameplay is absolutely fantastic and it is very well put together, but in terms of structure it's just everywhere and its aims feels cheap and manipulative. I adore Naughty Dog but this feels like a misstep - it feels like they got so much right with the darker tone of Uncharted 4 that Neil Druckmann wanted to expand on it. Ultimately it feels like The Walking Dead - it starts off well enough but there are too many characters and not enough narrative focus.

I'll platinum it at some point because I only have to play through New Game Plus and get all the weapons/skill upgrades I didn't do first time around but I'm in no hurry.

Spoiler alert

I did like the awesome Rat King Boss - that was straight out of Resident Evil 2.

[close]

And it should have been called Last of Us 2: Season of the Bitch.

[Chedney Honks]

I actually would have been happier if it cut out the first Act. The second Act was the core of the film in every respect.

[popcorn]

Just found out that

Spoiler alert

the jumpscare when Ellie gets jumped at a workbench

[close]

was conceived and designed by an old mate and colleague of mine who I haven't seen for years. Going to meet him next month for a post-lockdown pint, very much looking forward to telling him how much everyone in this thread seemed to like that bit.

[Chedney Honks]

When he goes the bog, run in and smash down the cubicle door with an axe.

[wooders1978]

I just finished playing this - overall I enjoyed it but I think they messed up the sequence of the story telling, it would have had far more weight had Ellie not known who killed Joel initially then, lezza kiss bit, Joel and Ellie accepting each other's role in their life, Abby kills Joel, only Joel's brother witnesses it but Ellie finds the body and it messes her up

3 years later Ellie has moved on in the farm cutscene, Joel's brother turns up to say he has found Abby and has the photographs of the friends who helped kill Joel - switch to abbys story until she is captured - switch to Ellie's story, culminating in her letting Abby go, but losing her new family and fingers so can't play Joel's song

Weighty