Last of Us 2 discussion

Why would we talk about the balance of NPC positions in this game to suss out what the actual authors meta perspective was on this game?

How is that relevant.

Stop calling them NPC's and redshirts and maybe you'll understand the point of the second game better.

They're people. When you make a decision to murder a bunch of people and doom the world, you're going to piss a lot of people off!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

One last post!

@RangerWickett

Two things.

1) No one with any level of intellectual or emotional maturity would look at Joel as a hero...or a villain. If there is a hero in TLoU, its clearly Ellie. But even Ellie has problems being anointed with that status. One of the reasons TLoU was compelling because it forced privileged humans living unscathed in modernity to tangle with extraordinarily difficult and novel concepts like "who is Joel", "is this world redeemable", and "is it possible that a person could be right making that decision that Joel made."

Which bridges to 2...

2) With all due respect, "violence begets violence" is one of the most interrogated and unoriginal themes in human history. There is nothing novel about it and because it is so deeply interrogated (in both philosophy and in art), it has lost its compelling thrust.

And finally (and this is the other stuff I don't feel inclined to get into), "violence begets violence", regardless of its status as one of the most interrogated themes in human history, can be done and done well. But there are artifacts of this game (as an actual game) and pacing issues that deeply affect the thematic heft of this game. Everyone's mileage may vary on this one, but a sandbox game with side quest bloat (and bloat of the variety that pulled me out rather than drew me in) will struggle mightily with pacing and coherency issues (unless it is so carefully crafted). I definitely felt that in this game (where I didn't remotely feel that in the first game). And there are plenty of other gameplay artifacts that I have issues with, mostly centered around offscreen/expository dialogue/momentum.

As a standalone zombie apocalypse survival game though...I was mostly pleased (sans the metaplot).
 

My thoughts:

The Last of Us 2 was a bit disappointing. But lets talk about the positives first. Graphics and art direction are amazing, combat has improved a bit, the facial mocap is some of the best I've seen, and inclusivity is welcome to see.

But lets talk about the elephant in the room, the story. The story is bare bones and ends on an unsatisfying note. Its message about violence is completely lost in its indulgence and glorification of it. Plus it forces the player to kill certain people, leaving no choice, and then tries really hard to make you feel bad about that choice. It just doesn't work. It tries to pull every cheap trick in the book to make you feel bad, but it ends up feeling manipulative. I think an argument can even be made that it commits character assassination in order to move the plot where it needs to go. But most importantly, there is a huge ludo-narrative dissonance here between the gameplay and what the story wants you to feel.

For example, the game wants you to feel real bad about killing a pregnant woman, but this is a scripted event, so the player had no hand in it. More importantly, the hours leading up to that scene Ellie has shanked hundreds of people brutally in the throat. She is a brutal killer at that point, and NOW the game stops to feel bad about it.

I had no issues with Joel's death, other than it being predictable, and a bit clumsily written into the story. He stumbles upon his soon to be killer by accident.

I was also really put off by the violence in the game. It is unpleasant and cruel, and it made me dislike the game even more. Whatever the writers were trying to say about violence, was lost in their glorification of it.

Forcing the player to play as Abby was the wrong decission I feel. It feels cheap when the game makes you play with the dog twice, knowing Ellie kills it. The game has taught the player at this point that dogs are annoying enemies that should be killed. So why is this one dog any different? Also, you had no choice to spare the dog, so it really wasn't the players doing.

Gameplay wise, the controls seem less responsive than in part 1, there are more bugs, and ai partners behave much more irratically. The fact that monsters ignore your ai allies is blatantly on display when your buddy parcours through a room full of enemies, dancing around 5 feet in front of them, which completely breaks immersion. The ai also often gets in your way when you are trying to stealth. During combat it is very obvious that the ai waits to let the player do most of the fighting. I also feel Clickers are a lot less threatening than they used to be. Melee combat is clunky as hell and I hate it. And why do they make the player spam the same button for everything? There are also too many stealth and combat sections, and it starts to outstay its welcome quickly. Plus, I don't think this game's stealth system is particularly good.

It feels the game goes on for longer than it needed to. It builds up to an ending, and then has Ellie go on yet another quest for revenge, only to have her change her mind at the end. It feels unevenly paced. It also feels like with this game Naughty Dog has reached the breaking point of their scripted transition mechanic, where they become annoying, predictable, and you start to dread them. You can see them coming from miles away, and now they feel like an unwelcome interruption of your game. I started to resent them, as if someone constantly took away my controller, killed some characters, then handed it back to me and said: "Look what you just did!"
 
Last edited:

2) With all due respect, "violence begets violence" is one of the most interrogated and unoriginal themes in human history. There is nothing novel about it and because it is so deeply interrogated (in both philosophy and in art), it has lost its compelling thrust.

But then when you read the critical reviews of this game, you can clearly see that this very theme was missed by most.

Seriously. Most negative reviews are bummed that the game didnt progress as a series of Abbys friends as mini-bosses on a kill list followed by Ellie killing Abby and riding off into the sunset.
 

Forcing the player to play as Abby was the wrong decission I feel. It feels cheap when the game makes you play with the dog twice, knowing Ellie kills it. The game has taught the player at this point that dogs are annoying enemies that should be killed. So why is this one dog any different? Also, you had no choice to spare the dog, so it really wasn't the players doing.

But dogs are not annoying enemies that should be killed. Neither are people. They're more than that, which is what the game is trying to show you here. People are not just faceless redshirts and NPCs to be slaughtered.

If the player (as Ellie) fails to come to that conclusion, it shows how much they miss that central theme.

I actually found it interesting that a lot of people had a harder time killing the dogs (or found it more disturbing), than they did killing people.
 


But dogs are not annoying enemies that should be killed. Neither are people. They're more than that, which is what the game is trying to show you here. People are not just faceless redshirts and NPCs to be slaughtered.

The story perhaps wanted you to think that, but the gameplay said exactly the opposite. Plus the game is full of encounters where enemies just attack you, and you have little choice but to return fire.
 

It was missed by most because the game also glorifies violence, and so the gameplay contradicts the story. It didn't work.
The game doesnt glorify violence. It forces you into violence, but then it shows you the effects of that violence (humanises your victims).

You can be critical of it taking away your choice to commit that violence in the first place, but the whole theme of the game is 'violence only begets more violence' which isnt exactly glorifying it.
 

You can be critical of it taking away your choice to commit that violence in the first place, but the whole theme of the game is 'violence only begets more violence' which isnt exactly glorifying it.

No, the theme of the STORY is violence begets violence. But the theme of the GAMEPLAY is stealth-shank people in the throat. The gameplay relishes in violence, while the story wants you to feel really bad about it.
 

For example, the game wants you to feel real bad about killing a pregnant woman, but this is a scripted event, so the player had no hand in it.

I'll half agree with you on this one.

I think the writers wanted you to feel bad that Ellie killed a pregnant woman. Naughty Dog games have never really been big on player agency. You are watching a story, and occasionally playing a game to invest you in the character's journey in a way that wouldn't be achieved if you just watched a TV show. You feel a level of participation in their trials and successes . . . and the idea, I'm sure, is that even when the game takes away your choices in cut scenes, you'll still feel invested in the character's emotions as they take actions.

I mean, this is the whole point of the game, right? Ellie knows deep down she shouldn't be doing this, but she keeps on her path for revenge. That's how hate and trauma works; you lose control of yourself.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top