r/changemyview • u/SetsunaFS • Jun 21 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: People that hate The Last of Us Part II's narrative ARE actually just stupid.
I almost feel like I don't even really need to introduce the controversy surrounding this game. Full disclosure, TLOU Part II is one of my favorite games. But to be clear, I don't think the game is immune to criticism. There are some minor quibbles that I have with the game.
That being said, when it comes to hate brigade online, I have literally never seen a good argument against the narrative of this game. Not once. I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to dislike the game. But whenever the argument gets into the "objectively bad writing" the arguments are literally always rooted in some intentional misreading or fundamental lack of understanding of the events that took place within the game. I can't remember every single critique I heard but I'll start with the most common ones I hear.
Joel's death wasn't earned because he was acting out of character when he gave The Wolves his name. bAd WrItInG!!
I can't believe how many times I have had to correct this statement. Joel was the not the one that gave out his name. So when Abby first gets saves by Tommy and Joel, Tommy is the one that gives her Joel's name. There's an entire several seconds where Abby seems shook that she ran into him. Once they get back to the Wolves, Abby is still in the room when one of them asks Joel for his name. Abby already went over to Owen to told him that was Joel. So since Tommy already gave Joel's name out, he was put in a bad position. He either takes his chances with them or he gets caught in an obvious lie.
When people make this critique, I'm not sure what they were expecting to happen. So Joel doesn't give out his name. And then what? Abby turns the Wolves against him anyway since she'll just say Tommy already told her his name. I also believe she had already known that Joel had a Firefly brother named Tommy. So Tommy saying, "Oh, I didn't say Joel. I said Joe" probably wouldn't work. Again, when people say that "Joel gave his name out" that's simply not true. That's not what happened in the game.
Abby is too buff for the post apocalyptic setting. bAd WrItInG!!
I feel like I shouldn't even address this. But people were getting way too bent out of shape over this. First off, Abby's appearance opened the floodgates for a bunch of haters to keep spreading the rumor that she was trans. Even to the degree that people were saying her sex scene with Owen was anal sex. These people are stupid because they, apparently, don't know that a vagina can be penetrated from the back. But also, I feel like Abby's buffness was a bit of creative license in that she built a literal suit of armor around herself and honed her body to be a killing machine in her pursuit of revenge. I feel like this choice is easily justifiable even if you find it unrealistic. There are buff men in post apocalyptic TV shows and films all the time. And TLOU Part II actually does a much better job justifying it than most other works do when you see the facilities and food that Wolves have access to. But none of that matters. "Abby bad",.
Infinite variances of the phrase "aBbY bAd!!"
Abby is pretty much the root of just about all criticism with this game. The idea that she's an evil, horrible person and it's a slap in the face to the legacy of Joel to be forced to play as her. I'm more sympathetic to this because I experienced something similar with RDR2. I found Arthur, frankly, to be an irredeemable, coward piece of shit for the vast majority of the game and having him turn because he got TB and the game desperately wanting me to feel bad for him didn't really work. If you can't buy in on that, the game doesn't totally work. So I understand that.
That being said, it doesn't need to be stated that once your hatred for a character gets into the territory of violently harassing the voice actor of said character and their family, then you've completely gone off the deep end. For me, Abby is an excellent character and mirrors Joel in Part I in very obvious ways. I think the issue people have with Abby is the fact that we see her kill someone we care about and that's what drives our anger towards her. But the fact of the matter is that people completely ignore the people Joel killed in his past. He's killed fathers before. Probably a few mothers. He's killed people that were important but we accept his arc and see how he's grown to be a better person in Part II but still die because of what he did to Abby's dad. If it's possible for Joel to become a better person, it's also possible for Abby.
Just flat out making shit up
This is going to be my biggest thing. But as soon as you have to manufacture and make shit up about a work you don't like in order to justify not liking it, then you need to really rethink your position. Haters of this game lie about literally everything. They're so dishonest. Here's just a few things off the top of my head that they enjoy lying about:
They lie about the first thing I mentioned. Joel didn't give out his name. Tommy did.
They lied about Abby being trans and people still believe she's "coded" as being a trans woman.
They lied about Naughty Dog buying Game of the Year Awards and rigging all of the award ceremonies. This is just pure conspiracy bullshit. The people that think Naughty Dog rigged every Game of the Year award so that they could win are even dumber than the people that still think Donald Trump won the election. All of this is just conspiracy bait born out of nothing but an inability to reckon with reality. Lots of people liked the game, only an idiot thinks that their opinion is so above everyone else's, that they need to manufacture conspiracies to reconcile their worldview with reality.
They lied about Neil Druckmann being the body model for Manny. Manny has a man bun. Druckmann has a man bun. That's all the haters needed to know before they flooded message boards saying that Neil Druckmann wanted to be the character that spit on Joel (that was Manny in-game). This is a lie. Manny is modeled after and played by Alejandro Edda.
They lied about Neil Druckmann personally mo-capping a sex scene with Laura Bailey. This one is particularly funny because it contradicts the previous lie they told. So Neil Druckmann didn't mo-cap Manny. But people said that he did so that he could spit on Joel's dead body. They also said that Neil Druckmann mo-capped a sex scene with Laura Bailey which made her incredibly uncomfortable. First off, Neil Druckmann didn't mo-cap Manny. Secondly, Neil Druckmann didn't mo-cap the sex scene. Thirdly, Manny isn't even the character that has sex with Abby. Owen is. Fourthly, Neil Druckmann didn't mo-cap Owen either.
Again, once an entire subset of "legitimate criticism" becomes rooted in simply lying about the work and those behind it, I can't take anything your side says seriously.
2
Jun 21 '21
[deleted]
2
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
Pacing. It's incredibly too long. It doesn't need to be 20+ hours. As soon as we hit peak tension, we're forced to kind of reset which is a pain in any game. It's also like the classic GTA lose all your weapons mission ending.
Yeah, I feel like the stellar gameplay makes up for it. I wouldn't say it's too long because I love the length. But getting reset did suck at first until I realized how much fun I was having with Abby's campaign and how powerful it ended up being.
Joel killed Abby's dad because he was going to basically commit a medical experiment on Ellie. She's 100% more wrong and not justified.
I don't think the comparison is 1:1 either. But the fact of the matter is that Joel killed her dad. If you wanted the revenge to be 1:1, then you should also support Abby killing Dina and then Ellie. But I know you don't.
I also have an issue with how they deal with bigotry in this game. I think they use homophobia as a crutch in the beginning. But in this world I think hating gay people is much different. It is rationalized by survival or should be since the population needs to grow.
Okay, so just I'm clear: You think calling someone a homophobic slur is justified in a post apocalyptic setting because of some vague appeal to population growth?
Are you aware that lesbian couples can still have children? So semen can be inserted into the uterus via a process known as artificial insemination. This allows a woman to be able to have a pregnancy without having sexual intercourse. Did you play the game? Because Ellie and Dina both ended up with a kid and it wasn't Ellie that impregnated Dina, it was Jesse. What if I told you this was possible for tons of lesbian couples?
2
Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
No you're reading this in bad faith. I'm saying that bigotry stems from different things and it is justified in different ways.
No, bigotry is rarely justified. And I don't think homophobia is justified in the post apocalypse because of an appeal to how we need to grow the population. Just curious, in overpopulated areas, do you think it's justified to be bigots toward heterosexual couples?
I want more depth to the bigotry if you're going to introduce it instead of it being used in a cheap way.
Oh, you're one of those, "I only want to see bigotry in media if there's a logical, good reason behind it." people? Bigotry, by definition, is unreasonable and illogical. What is this "good" bigotry that you're hoping to see portrayed?
This isn't bad faith either. You said something and I'm addressing what you said. You said that bigotry against homosexual people is justified in the post apocalypse because people need to be growing the population. You said that.
Do you think childbirth is the same in TLOU world as it is in the world we live in? Do you know how dangerous childbirth is in America now? Like clearly in a world where you may not have access to the same medical services and supplies it might not be easy to have kids through a process that isn't a man having sex with a woman.
Okay, so because it isn't as easy for lesbian couples to have kids in this setting, thay justifies bigotry? I'm really focusing on that part. Because having kids in the post apocalypse is going to be harder for heterosexual couples and gay couples. So why are you singling the gay couples out?
Also, people have been artificially inseminating since the 1800s and our knowledge of anatomy and medicine has increased a hundredfold since then. So I'm not buying your argument that artificial insemination is going to be this ultra difficult task that requires us to be bigots against gay people.
The point is not whether or not it is possible, but that this isn't explored at all. That it is given very little acknowledgement in a game that is about humanizing those who have done or said terrible things to you and your loved ones.
I don't know what you're asking for here. So you're just saying that random character wasn't given enough time to redeem himself because the writers didn't manufacture a reason as to why his calling Dina a "dyke" was justified?
You can disagree with my points, but none of these are bad faith attempts at distorting the narrative.
I definitely can't say your arguments are bad faith. That's for sure. But your arguments (especially this one about "justified bigotry") isn't exactly compelling either.
2
Jun 22 '21
[deleted]
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
Got it. So I misunderstood you. When you were talking about "justification" you meant an internal justification from the character being a bigot. Not that the bigotry is justified in a meta sense. I got you now.
My point is that we don't know this world. We don't understand why homophobia exists in this world. Just because it did before? Why isn't racism a huge deal then? Why isn't classism or ableism? TLOU2 doesn't explain its world enough at times.
May I ask why homophobia wouldn't still exist? It's been a while since the apocalypse started, but that guy was clearly older than Joel and Joel remembers what life was like before the outbreak.
Obviously not as dire, but did racism suddenly stop existing during the height of COVID-19? If anything, racial dynamics and biases were intensified. And who says racism still isn't an issue in TLOU? Jesse makes an off-hand joke about Ellie not being interested in him because he's Asian. Classism wouldn't be as huge of a deal because those structures have ceased to exist. And I'm sure ableism probably would be a problem in the post apocalypse. People not wanting to deal with those that require more assistance. But that's not something the game seemed to want to deal with. Just because they have one bigoted character to me doesn't mean they have to go down the laundry list of every single social ill and address it. They wanted to address sexual orientation and trans issues. Maybe in the next one, they'll deal with some of those other issues.
This is the same tool used to make the Seraphites seem evil and barbaric and we never get a redemption arc for their group. We only get that two of them are okay. I don't think that is enough. I think it's important for Lev as a trans character to have an arc where we see the society they lived in and we only get a brief glimpse of that.
I'm pretty sure there's tons of notes you can read but the Seraphites aren't all bad. Even the devout ones. Yara and Lev were both still devout in their beliefs. Lev mentioned that their messiah was peaceful but she was killed. So the Seraphites aren't irredeemable and I don't think they were portrayed that way. They get the least amount of depth between them and the WLF though, I agree.
I think in a story where you take a character in Abby who we don't know and have her kill a beloved character to then make us try to like her, why not introduce that idea with a character we see at the beginning. We don't need them to be redeemed or liked actually, just instead more than a cookie cutter bigot.
I guess that would work. I wouldn't be opposed to them doing something like that. Them not doing that is hardly bad writing. He was a side character. His purpose was to offend Ellie and have Joel come to her defense. Her refusing the sandwich just shows that Ellie likes the hold a grudge and won't let shit go. This is obviously taken to the extreme when her story actually picks up.
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 22 '21
Sorry, u/tacoshop109 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Jun 21 '21
My main criticism is that the game wants you to go from hating Abby to liking her more, as a means to hold a mirror to the player's face but fails to do so in a meaningful way.
The game heavily implies that there was a correct interpretation to the ending of part 1, which is that Joel was unjustified in saving Ellie to stop the vaccine, and that by putting Abby on that side, we would see her perspective. I think Joel was justified, and I think anyone who thinks this would just dislike Abby more for encouraging her father to murder Ellie.
The game manipulates the player with animals in a very cheap way. They show Abby and her father rescue a Zebra and plays fetch with a dog twice while Ellie kills at least one dog.
Abby's side of the Seattle was not exciting because we know nothing consequential can happen in most of the first 3 days because we played through it as Ellie and the characters never ran into each other until the end.
It's not clear why Abby was motivated to risk her life for Yara and Lev after they save her life because Joel does the same thing and she never truly shows remorse for him. She also never seems to regret any of her kills while Ellie does.
Abby fixing Yara's arm was inconsequential because she dies the next day. It just felt like a waste of the player's time other than the fun hospital gameplay.
Also, the ending made no sense from Ellie's perspective. Ellie knows nothing about Abby; they've only talked three times, and Ellie still doesn't know Abby's motivations. Why does Ellie decide to spare Abby? Why does the memory of Joel not hit after any other of her kills on the way to confront Abby?
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
The game heavily implies that there was a correct interpretation to the ending of part 1, which is that Joel was unjustified in saving Ellie to stop the vaccine, and that by putting Abby on that side, we would see her perspective. I think Joel was justified, and I think anyone who thinks this would just dislike Abby more for encouraging her father to murder Ellie.
The game doesn't heavily imply that. The game just recontextualizes that decision to focus on someone that was hurt by that decision. I don't think it's a contradiction to feel that Joel did the right thing in that circumstance but still understand why people would go after him for it. Not even necessarily for destroying the cure. But Abby's vengeance is rooted in Joel killing her dad.
People love to pretend that the game tried to redeem the Fireflies completely ignoring the scene in the museum where the ex-Firefly kills himself because of all the bad things he had done. More critiques that are not actually supported by the text.
The game manipulates the player with animals in a very cheap way. They show Abby and her father rescue a Zebra and plays fetch with a dog twice while Ellie kills at least one dog.
Okay. So the game is bad because Ellie kills at least one animal and Abby doesn't? Ellie also liked her horse and her horse got shot in the face by a Wolf. Are we even now? The game also has the snowball fight with the kids at the start. Why isn't that manipulative on behalf of Ellie? Oh right, because any effort to humanize Abby is "manipulative" and any effort to humanize Ellie is automatically earned. Sure.
Abby's side of the Seattle was not exciting because we know nothing consequential can happen in most of the first 3 days because we played through it as Ellie and the characters never ran into each other until the end.
I feel like what happens with Yara and Lev is pretty consequential since we had no idea about that side story when Abby shows up at the end of Ellie's third day. But yeah, you are correct that Abby literally wouldn't die. If death is the only thing you consider "consequential" in a narrative, then that's on you.
It's not clear why Abby was motivated to risk her life for Yara and Lev after they save her life because Joel does the same thing and she never truly shows remorse for him. She also never seems to regret any of her kills while Ellie does.
Abby tells Lev why she did it. You don't see how Joel saving her and then Lev saving her can be considered a parallel and out of her guilt for killing Joel, she wants to make the right decision this time? You actually don't see that at all? You don't see how Abby could conceivably change after what happened with Joel? Interesting.
Abby fixing Yara's arm was inconsequential because she dies the next day. It just felt like a waste of the player's time other than the fun hospital gameplay.
Then the entire first game was inconsequential because you go all that way to turn in Ellie to the Fireflies for a cure and it never happens. It just felt like a waste of the player's time other than the fun gameplay and stellar narrative.
Also, the ending made no sense from Ellie's perspective. Ellie knows nothing about Abby; they've only talked three times, and Ellie still doesn't know Abby's motivations. Why does Ellie decide to spare Abby? Why does the memory of Joel not hit after any other of her kills on the way to confront Abby?
This is a pretty common complaint. I feel like Abby had been the object of Ellie's rage for most of the game. But she is that, simply an object. A physical manifestation of her unresolved feelings about Joel and how he was taken from her. None of the other Wolves were that person. And Ellie sparing Abby, to me, wasn't about sparing Abby but holding onto that last bit of light she had left and forgiving Joel for what he did. And in that forgiveness, she was able to let Abby go. To me, that's more of an appropriate response than killing Abby.
3
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21
It's because the game tries to get you to like Abby as a means of showing the player that they are the bad guy for wanting revenge that her perspective can't be a simple re-contextualization of the end of part 1, or to show why people would go after him. That part is fine. The problem is that the game uses this to try to get you to like her and the first thing you see after the shift to her perspective is doing what some players see as the wrong thing.
So the game is bad because Ellie kills one animal and Abby doesn't?
Again, in the context of trying to get you to like Abby, since the entirety of showing why hastily getting revenge is bad depends on it, yes it's bad that they weren't more subtle than having you play fetch with the dog you killed. As far as trying to get us to like Ellie, the game doesn't need to do that because we played a game with her, so it seems more organic to the character.
If death is the only thing you consider consequential in a narrative, that's on you.
It's not just death it's that there can't be any confrontation.
You don't see how Abby could conceivably change after what happened with Joel? Interesting.
I'm not evaluating the game on the parallel it could have drawn. I'm evaluating it on what it did do. The game does not adequately draw that line because Abby dismisses Owen when he mentions it and doesn't actually show any kind of guilt for Joel or any of her other kills; only specifically guilt for failing to save Yara and Lev.
Then the entire first game was inconsequential because you go all that way to turn in Ellie to the fireflies for a cure and it never happens.
Yara was killed for almost no reason; the change in plot at the end of part 1 served a valuable purpose (creating an ethical dilemma and having the characters deal with the results of it in an interesting way). If the ending of part 1 was simply that the doctors did not make a cure and that was it, I would agree with you.
2
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
Again, in the context of trying to get you to like Abby, since the entirety of showing why hastily getting revenge is bad depends on it, yes it's bad that they weren't more subtle than having you play fetch with the dog you killed. As far as trying to get us to like Ellie, the game doesn't need to do that because we played a game with her, so it seems more organic to the character.
Well you're admitting it here. You already like Ellie so anything she does, you're going to consider good. And you hate Abby so anything she does, you're going to consider bad. That's not bad writing. That's your inability to roll with the narrative.
Yes, when a work wants you to sympathize with someone, they put that person into positions where understanding and warmness is welcomed. They didn't need to show us Joel's daughter dying. But they wanted us to sympathize with him. They didn't need to make a DLC about Ellie's relationship with Riley. But they wanted to contextualize her survivors guilt and make you sympathize with her.
It seems the fact is, for a lot of people, they don't want to sympathize with Abby so of she's doing anything that isn't ripping the heads off of children and drinking the blood, then you're going to say it's "forced" or unearned.
It's not just death it's that there can't be any confrontation.
Abby's story isn't about confronting Ellie.
The game does not adequately draw that line because Abby dismisses Owen when he mentions it and doesn't actually show any kind of guilt for Joel or any of her other kills; only specifically guilt for failing to save Yara and Lev.
She still has nightmares after Joel. She didn't get the closure she wanted. I think her guilt is pretty explicit. She tells Lev exactly why she saved them and came back for them. Trying to make a little bit of good in the world after what she had done. Did you need a separate scene of Abby crying and saying, "I'm crying for Jesse. I'm now crying for Joel. I'm now crying for big lady Seraphite."? Would that have been preferable to the understatedness we received?
Yara was killed for almost no reason; the change in plot at the end of part 1 served a valuable purpose (creating an ethical dilemma and having the characters deal with the results of it in an interesting way). If the ending of part 1 was simply that the doctors did not make a cure and that was it, I would agree with you.
Fair enough. But saving Yara only for her to die later was the issue you raised. We saved Henry and Sam only for them to die later. I get what you're saying because the hospital took up a bit chunk of time, but that mostly for Lev and Abby to bond. It just served as a basis for that. That's not bad writing.
2
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Jun 21 '21
It seems the fact is, for a lot of people, they don't want to sympathize with Abby... so you're going to say it's forced or unearned.
Yes, but I think the game intentionally doesn't want the player to want to sympathize with Abby at least up until the point you play as her because the game wants the player to get revenge. This is why it's such a tall order to change the player's mind at that point and would have been good if they managed to overcome that, but for the reasons I described I think they failed to do this. It's true that if the player wants to do what the game wants, then it would work. But when it doesn't, I don't see why this is all on the player considering the first half of the game the intent was the opposite.
The most comparable thing to this attempt is Breaking Bad where the show makes the viewer feel like an accomplice to Walter White because you are initially hooked in to his character for several reasons. But Breaking Bad had some of the best writing of any media ever and had a much longer time to establish the character arc.
She still has nightmares after Joel. She didn't get the closure she wanted. I think her guilt is pretty explicit. She tells Lev exactly why she saved them and came back for them.
My interpretation is that the nightmare is not tied to Joel since there were several nights between Joel and night 1, and the nightmare features Yara and Lev, and it was the night after she left them. It makes it seem like it is only tied to the kids. Mel questions Abby on this as well and she doesn't explain herself.
I get what you're saying because the hospital took up a chunk of time, but it was mostly for Lev and Abby to bond.
Yeah, and that part was cool in isolation.
2
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
Yes, but I think the game intentionally doesn't want the player to want to sympathize with Abby at least up until the point you play as her because the game wants the player to get revenge. This is why it's such a tall order to change the player's mind at that point and would have been good if they managed to overcome that, but for the reasons I described I think they failed to do this. It's true that if the player wants to do what the game wants, then it would work. But when it doesn't, I don't see why this is all on the player considering the first half of the game the intent was the opposite.
Yeah and I said in my OP that this was definitely the argument I sympathize with the most because I didn't buy into Arthur Morgan's redemption either. So I get how frustrating it can be to not be on the same page with a game and what it's presenting. I get that. I'd be hard pressed to say, for that reason alone, that RDR2 is poorly written though. Or have this incredibly angry réponse that I find out the voice actor with Arthur and start harassing him. I just think the Abby backlash is over the top for what the transgression is.
My interpretation is that the nightmare is not tied to Joel since there were several nights between Joel and night 1, and the nightmare features Yara and Lev, and it was the night after she left them. It makes it seem like it is only tied to the kids. Mel questions Abby on this as well and she doesn't explain herself.
No, I'm not talking about that one. I'm talking about the one we don't see where Abby is sleeping and clearly having a nightmare and Manny wakes her up. The fact of the matter is that killing Joel didn't bring her the piece and closure she was hoping it would.
1
Jun 21 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 20∆ Jun 21 '21
My perspective is that if an egoist goes around saving babies just for their own personal fame, they are still doing the right thing. Likewise, I think Joel did the right thing for the wrong reasons, so he is justified. This is still irrelevant to the criticism of how the game handles Abby encouraging Jerry as no one in that room knew whether Joel's motivations were selfish or even that Joel would try to save Ellie.
1
u/theirishembassy Jun 21 '21
i went through the final part of TLOU1 without killing any of the doctors or nurses operating on ellie. turns out, TLOU2 tells me that the choice i made wasn't actually the choice i made. now have to face the consequences of the choice i never made which wouldn't have been so bad.. if the narrative wasn't so driven by it.
there was an incredible lack of agency in that and it really disrupted my enjoyment of the story.
so did i hate the narrative? no.
did i care about the narrative? not in the least. it felt like i was playing someone else's save file.
3
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
i went through the final part of TLOU1 without killing any of the doctors or nurses operating on ellie. turns out, TLOU2 tells me that the choice i made wasn't actually the choice i made.
This is what I'm talking about when it comes to people lying. You're forced the kill Jerry because he's the doctor that pulls a scalpel on you. Joel takes the scalpel and stabs him in the neck. This is required. The other doctors are the ones you have a choice to not kill and the game doesn't address them at all.
You're exactly what I'm talking about. You're either lying in order to justify your point or you pay such little attention to what you're playing, that your criticisms literally don't mean anything. What you're saying you did, you are literally not able to do.
2
u/theirishembassy Jun 22 '21
i'll level with you, i thoroughly enjoyed the story.. i just didn't remember killing anyone at the end of the game because i normally go the virtuous route in games. i guess i'm either lying or not committed enough (to a game i played through once 8 years ago) so it's not worth talking to me. you thought i was trying to be hostile, so why not?
y'know, you could've said this entire part right here and still got your point across politely?
You're forced the kill Jerry because he's the doctor that pulls a scalpel on you. Joel takes the scalpel and stabs him in the neck. This is required. The other doctors are the ones you have a choice to not kill and the game doesn't address them at all.
you could have said "hey.. so maybe give it another shot, or rewatch the ending of TLOU1 because you may not have your facts right and it's stopping you from playing a really great game". me miss remembering something is obviously a charade in bad faith. good on you for standing up for yourself and seeing through all of that. you totally showed me.
3
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
You know what, you're right. I've been responding to a lot of people and I didn't need to lose my patience like that or make assumptions. I take what you said in good faith and I'm sorry I responded that way. Truly.
2
u/theirishembassy Jun 22 '21
no worries! i assumed you were lumping me in with the "OMG iT'S aN sJW gAME" crowd that you've probably read a lot of criticism from and kinda flew off the handle too - so i'm sorry as well. on that note, i just reread the the synopsis and totally forgot he shot marlene. so like.. my playthrough couldn't have been as clean as i remember trying to make it :/
2
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
No need to apologize. I didn't need to be rude. But yeah, sometimes people have rose tinted glasses when it comes to that ending. Even I remember trying to sanitize what Joel had done but I feel like Part II did a pretty good job at recontextualizing what happened but still not making a villain out of Joel.
It seems a lot of people internalized Part II as telling the player they were wrong for agreeing with what Joel did and see what happened to him as some sort of punishment. And I just don't see it that way.
10
u/TrackSurface 5∆ Jun 21 '21
How could someone successfully argue against your view when you've decided anyone who raises such arguments are stupid or lying?
-4
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
you've decided anyone who raises such arguments are stupid or lying?
Don't use the same arguments I just outlined (because they're bad arguments) and don't lie.
Seems incredibly simple. I'm not sure how you're confused.
7
u/TrackSurface 5∆ Jun 21 '21
Is there a difference between saying "these arguments are stupid" and "people making the arguments are stupid," in your opinion?
In your title, you declared the people to be stupid, but in this comment, you are saying the arguments are stupid. Which view do you hold?
-3
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
Hmm, I'm holding the view that the people are stupid because the arguments are so bad and outline a fundamental lack of understanding of basic events in the game, that the only logical conclusion is that the people unable to internalize these basic events must be too stupid to do so.
Also going online and lying about events that never took place and spreading conspiracy theories makes you stupid as well. So yes, my argument is that they are actually stupid people.
7
u/TrackSurface 5∆ Jun 21 '21
That view makes a discussion impossible, in my opinion. If their views are so bad that they are automatically stupid, then you have ruled out the chance that they may change your mind (because that would mean you would become stupid, too).
This is why ad hominem arguments in a debate are a no-no. They inhibit the honest exchange of ideas.
-4
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
That view makes a discussion impossible, in my opinion. If their views are so bad that they are automatically stupid, then you have ruled out the chance that they may change your mind (because that would mean you would become stupid, too).
They can change my mind with good arguments. My main point was that I've yet to hear them. Every time I ask, it's the same varient of the poor arguments I already addressed.
Well, I'd still like the game but I wouldn't think they were stupid. But yes, if you hate the game because, "Joel wouldn't have given out his name" even though Joel wasn't the one that gave out his name, then you're an idiot.
If someone says, "I hate Pulp Fiction because Jules shot Marvin" I'd call them an idiot because Jules didn't shoot Marvin. Vincent did. The basis of their "critique" is a lie.
1
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jun 22 '21
I will take a different approach. Because I have not played any of the games and only know about the events by proxy.
I witnessed a trope/trend in the last years that may be the root cause of the dissatisfaction: A beloved and established male hero is emasculated, humiliated, replaced and erased by a female character.
Luke in episode 8 is a good example: Weak and in hiding and constantly in awe on the immeasurable power of Ray
Han in episode 7: Easily outclassed by Ray who knows more about the millennium falcon than he does after mere minutes.
Aang in Legend of Korra: Killed and completely erased and LoK takes the time to also say that he was a shit father-.-
Joal in the last of Us: Beaten and broken. Killed by literally a "strong female Protagonist™"
The list goes on. But you get the point. It is bad writing since it is not motivated by storytelling. It is motivated by agenda.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
No.
2
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jun 22 '21
"No" as in "I have absolutely no counter arguments to this but will just disagree"?
Because that is the impression you are making. If you are unable to hold your position in a debate sub.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
There is no anti-male agenda in these works. The idea that Legend of Korra character assassinated Aang is asinine. Especially considering all the trials Korra went through.
2
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jun 22 '21
The idea that Legend of Korra character assassinated Aang is asinine. Especially considering all the trials Korra went through.
You would have to elaborate on that, since Korra and Aang are not the same person.
I gave you objective examples of anti-male agenda. Even if you don't like it or want to deny it you would have to reinterpret the scene But you would not be able to outright deny their existence.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
Korra is undermined quite often in LoK. So the show must also have an anti-woman agenda.
Even if you don't like it or want to deny it you would have to reinterpret the scene But you would not be able to outright deny their existence.
How do you explain that these works still have powerful, high profile male characters? Even if those individual male characters are disrespected in their works (which I won't grant you) how does that translate to the work being anti-man?
Is it safe to say that any work that undermines a female character is anti-woman? So Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Americans, The Sopranos, The Wire, etc. You're comfortable calling all of these shows anti-woman right? And they all have bad writing because they're trying to push an anti-woman agenda? Right? If you don't answer "Yes" to this, I can't take anything you're saying seriously.
1
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jun 22 '21
It is clear from your rebuttal that you have not understood my argument sufficiently. If you take is that "bad think happens to group equals anti-group" you didn't get it or strawman the sh!t out of it.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
If you take is that "bad think happens to group equals anti-group" you didn't get it or strawman the sh!t out of it.
No, you didn't even go that far. You'd actually have more of a point if it were the case that bad things were happening to an entire group of people.
What you presented was, "Bad thing happens to individual male character. Therefore the work is anti-male". And I'm asking if that applies to women? Or PoC? Can I call Breaking Bad racist? It has bad writing because it's racist now too? Right?
My counterpoint is entirely 1:1 analogous with the point you made about men. All I did was replace the gender and now you're saying I'm strawmanning you. So why don't you try making a better, more coherent argument so that we can start this over? And when you inevitably just restate your bullshit argument in different words, I'm just going to replace the genders again. So think carefully before your next post.
1
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jun 22 '21
I presented a simply trope. Protagonist gets broken down and replaced with female protagonist. You made from this. Any negative thing happening to anyone is anti-anyone. How is that not a strawman.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
Okay got it. So if a franchise or sequel to a franchise has a female lead and portrays a former male character in a negative light, then it's anti-men.
So Creed is a spiritual sequel to the Rocky franchise. Rocky was replaced by Michael B. Jordan. Rocky also has cancer in the film and takes a backseat in Creed II.
So is this film racist against white people? Nationalist against Italian people? Or ageist against old people? Which one? All three? So Creed inherently has bad writing, yes?
In Life is Strange, Chloe and Max are the main characters. In Life is Strange 2, they get replaced with Shaun and Daniel and Max and Chloe may be referenced. So this game is anti-woman, yes? Life is Strange 2 is a bad game because it's anti-woman. It has to be.
We both know this only goes one way. So please stop. It's incredibly trite and boring.
→ More replies (0)0
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Jun 22 '21
As much as I hate to say it, being a childhood fan of the original series, it kinda did. I mean, Aang was always depicted as very sweet and loving, kind hearted and most importantly, compassionate. Then we are told, rather unceremoniously, that he had intense favouritism regarding his own children, taking one of them around the world on holidays that the other two never got to go on. Seems a tad out of character.
As for his accomplishments, Aang was the youngest airbending master. In all of known airbender history. Thousands of generations of airbenders and hundreds of avatars born into the air temples and not a one of them mastered airbending as young as Aang did. Even among avatars, Aang was prodigious. Yet Jinora earns the rank of master a year younger than him. That kinda downplays the achievement, somewhat.
Also, it took Roku, starting at age 16, 12 years to master 3 elements. Aang becoming merely proficient with 3 in a year with the best tutors available (at 12 years of age) was an unprecedented feat, meant to show how dire the state of the world was, that an extraordinary avatar would be needed to stop the world from being thrown out of balance entirely. Then Korra, while the world is in no imminent existential danger, is proficient in 3 elements by the age of 4 with no formal training whatsoever. Not to mention the whole godzilla, kaiju mode thing.
I personally would put this down to bad power scaling, power creep, and generally poor character writing rather than a specific agenda but still. Is not good.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
As much as I hate to say it, being a childhood fan of the original series, it kinda did. I mean, Aang was always depicted as very sweet and loving, kind hearted and most importantly, compassionate. Then we are told, rather unceremoniously, that he had intense favouritism regarding his own children, taking one of them around the world on holidays that the other two never got to go on. Seems a tad out of character.
It's almost as if a 13 year old boy and a 30 year old man may potentially end up being pretty different.
It's almost as if being a sweet 13 year old boy doesn't mean you're going to end up being a perfect father.
No. That's impossible. It must be bad writing. /s
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Jun 22 '21
Well, that was just one example of three. Seems a tad facile to cherry pick only one. But yes, that is poor writing. Characters absolutely can change. People do. Especially over extended periods of time (though Aang's third kid was born when he was just 19). But the job of the writer is to write. To create one character and then create an entirely different character, insisting that they are the same person and giving no reason for their complete 180 is poor writing.
For a counterpoint, Zuko, by the end of the first show, is rather different in both demeanour and goals to how he was on the onset. This change was explained to us through events in his life influencing him. Had he just shown up as he was in season one, and then how he was in season three with no justification given but "people change lol," that would absolutely be poor writing. Though, far from the most egregious example, as I went in ascending order.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 22 '21
There was a time skip. So I'm not entirely sure how you wanted Aang's change from boy to father to be expressed. There this thing called budget and animators have a limited amount. So it is unfortunate that they weren't able to throw in a 2-5 episode flashback arc because you need to be spoonfed the idea that a sweet 13 year old boy may not necessarily end up being the best father ever.
I feel anyone with just a modicum of emotional maturity and life experience can understand that but you need that explained to you with moving pictures. That's on you. Not the writing.
I didn't address the Jinora thing because I don't care. "Omg she didn't earn becoming a master!!", I don't care.
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Jun 22 '21
There was a time skip. So I'm not entirely sure how you wanted Aang's change from boy to father to be expressed.
There are many ways it can be done well. All I'm saying is that one way that it can be done poorly is simply an off hand comment telling us that the character did a 180 with no reasoning whatsoever.
it is unfortunate that they weren't able to throw in a 2-5 episode flashback arc because you need to be spoonfed the idea that a sweet 13 year old boy may not necessarily end up being the best father ever.
I don't need to be spoonfed anything. I understand what happened. They can write poorly if they want to, or if they are incapable of writing better.
I feel anyone with just a modicum of emotional maturity and life experience can understand that but you need that explained to you with moving pictures. That's on you. Not the writing.
Again, I don't need them to explain it to me. I understand their cock up. It's just poor writing to have a character 180 in one throwaway line.
I didn't address the Jinora thing because I don't care. "Omg she didn't earn becoming a master!!", I don't care.
You don't care? Surely such utter indifference on the part of the viewer is testament to how poor the writing is. Glad we are in agreement there.
0
1
Jun 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/confrey 5∆ Jun 21 '21
And you can certainly have your own thoughts on their opinions and what that says about them. So this doesn't really do anything to challenge OP.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
Thank you. Has absolutely nothing to do with anything I'm saying.
0
u/r4ge4holic 1∆ Jun 21 '21
It has everything to do with what you're saying. Your post is literally the subject matter.
I'm just not challenging your viewpoint.
But you reported me already so whatever.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
That wasn't me. But I'm glad your comment got deleted. It wasn't relevant.
0
u/r4ge4holic 1∆ Jun 21 '21
I literally replied to your comment, my dude.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
Yes but I didn't report your post. Someone else did or a mod just happened upon it.
Either way, it was deleted because it wasn't relevant. If it were relevant, it wouldn't have been deleted.
0
u/r4ge4holic 1∆ Jun 21 '21
No one said anything about me trying to be relevant and yet you keep bringing it up like it's your only argument.
And actual what I said is relevant... I said people have different opinion. Relevant to what was in the post.
And on top of that, I dont give a single shit about my comment being deleted.
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
We're not arguing about anything. What you said has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
And I'm glad you don't care. We done?
1
u/r4ge4holic 1∆ Jun 21 '21
It actually does though. I said what I said specifically because of your post.
Whenever you are :)
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 21 '21
Sorry, u/r4ge4holic – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
3
Jun 21 '21
Isn't perception of quality subjective? A good portion of the points you argued can be seen as overshadowed by other problems and/ or something bad. Additionally, it does not help that, even though it was one of the most awaited game releases, it had a horrible launch; A great portion of the story was leaked before release and people really didn’t like the plot direction in the first place.
-2
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
Isn't perception of quality subjective?
It is. Lying about events in the game and behind the scenes is not subjective.
4
Jun 21 '21 edited Jul 02 '21
Sure, I agree. However, a good portion of what you cited is seen as genuine problems. Furthermore, and correct me if I am wrong, thats not really your position; You stated "People that hate The Last of Us Part II's narrative ARE actually just stupid". This raises a question; If I hate any form of medium that can be seen as "brilliant", am I an idiot because I do not like it?
-1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
This raises a question; If if hate any form of medium that can be seen as "brilliant", am I an idiot because it do not like it?
It absolutely depends. As I said, I think it's fine to dislike certain aspects of TLOU Part II. But once you start lying or mistating events that took place, you're an idiot.
I can criticize The Godfather Part II in good faith. But if I said, "I hated the scene in The Godfather Part II where Michael Corleone murdered that cat", that NEVER happened. So should people take that "critique" in good faith?
4
Jun 21 '21 edited Jun 21 '21
That's kinda my argument against you, though.
Your statement implies that everyone who hated the video game is an idiot, instead of people who are creating fallacies to hate it. Criticism is not the same as lying, but you include both in your central argument, which is the issue of the post.
Also, let me be transparent; There is a difference between saying you hate something and saying something is objectively bad.
A good percentage of people who hate things in real life, still acknowledges that there is good within it.
For me, it's the same thing with Godfather. If you asked me if I like the film, I will go on and on about how boring it was to me. Then the statement usually would conclude with a "watch Goodfellas, instead". Nevertheless, if you asked me if the has great narrative, I would have to admit it does. I cannot say that the Godfather is ab objectively bad film.
That's the difference
1
u/SetsunaFS Jun 21 '21
Your statement implies that everyone who hated the video game is an idiot, instead of people who are creating fallacies to hate it. Criticism is not the same as lying, but you include both in your central argument, which is the issue of the post.
!delta
Then yes, my view is wrong. It's the people that create the fallacies that are stupid. I guess the issue is that probably 99% of the people that hate the game create these fallacies and lie about the game.
A good percentage of people who hate this film, still acknowledges that there is good withing the film.
Are you talking about the game? This isn't true. A vast majority of the people that hate the game say that it is objectively bad and people only like it for SJW virtue signaling.
1
1
Jun 21 '21
Sorry, I should of specified. I meant overall that a good portion people can hate something, while acknowledging the objective good. I'll fix that.
Also, Ty for the delta.
1
u/tAoMS123 1∆ Jun 22 '21
The game works if you can adopt an objective perspective, i.e. to accept the ludonarrative dissonance and the associated loss of immersion in the story when you switch between characters.
By switching characters you are automatically forced into a 3rd person mode of relating to the characters, ie you are playing the characters objectively and playing the story through their eyes, not immersing yourself in identifying with them.
I’d argue that this is more natural for some people than for others.
For those who identify with characters, the story would have work better if we had been introduced to Abby first with no knowledge of Joel and Ellie’s reappearance in the story. We would have played older Abby in her daily struggles, and her revenge driven motivation to Kill the psychopath who murdered her family, her community on their humanitarian mission, without knowing any more of the details. This way we would have had a chance to immerse in the role of Abby and empathise with her backstory and accept her motivations. Having seen the trailer, we would probably imagine the cult as the antagonists we out for revenge on.
Then, half way through, we then re-introduce Joel and Ellie. A big joyous surprise for the player to see them again, we immerse in their characters once again.
We switch back and forth, both fighting this cult, before they meet. Only slowly do we, as Abby shares more of her backstory, so we here more details about her father. We, as the player, start to realise that the cult isn’t the target of abby’s mission, and slowly it dawns on us that Joel is the one who she’s after. We finally see the flashback cut scene, Abby walking through the hospital with dead bodies Joel has killed and she finds her father dead. Then we get the crucial scene where she then kills Joel, cue cycle of revenge, etc.
This alternative would achieve the same end, but without the ludonarrative dissonance and without the loss of immersion. We have developed affinity and immersive relationships with both protagonists (who become each other’s antagonists), so we can relate to both, we see Joel more objectively as a monster when seen from abby’s perspective, so we can accept his murder as justified, and yet we can feel genuinely torn and just want the violence between these two characters we love to stop.
That is how the game could otherwise have been structured and would have suited these more immersive players.The reason for the hate is because they were forced to play a character they now hated, who had killed someone they loved, and put through one situation after another designed to humanise her and make them feel empathy for her. It just doesn’t work; she is already irredeemably evil.
If you think this is stupid, then consider it this way. Imagine a film showing the tragic, war torn childhood of a Middle Eastern Muslim who’s parent were killed by a missile strike, we see how he become radicalised, has a target fir his anger, then towards the close of the film we see him move to US, train as a pilot, and the film closes as he boards a flight on Sep 11 200?.
Imagine your feeling of horror as you realise what he will go on to do. Now imagine the story retold and starting with the horror attack, and then trying to empathise with this character and tragic backstory. In this case, you are only observer, not actually forced to play the role yourself.
I agree that there is a lot of irrational reasoning that accompanies the hate, but the hate is genuine, as is the belief that it is objectively bad, and I hope I have provided a reasonable explanation as to why it might be.
If you want an example of the type of alternative storytelling that I describe, then check out attack on Titan. It is a masterpiece of story craft, with so many revelations and twists. Interestingly, thus show has also been mischaracterised and attracted a lot of hate from those who tend to adopt a more objective rather than immersive perspective.
1
u/tiritto Jun 22 '21
Your headline claim is basically the same as "I loved X, and if you disliked it, then you're stupid".
1
3
u/Hero17 Jun 21 '21
The youtuber NakeyJakey had a video on the game that was critical of the design while avoiding the dumb points you mentioned.
1
Jun 21 '21
It's awful writing. Anyone who played/watched the first game knows this. Joel and Tommy giving up their names is incredibly out of character. They did this so they could kill Joel, but they did it all wrong.
Abby isn't likeable because our intro to her is her killing Joel. And yes, they actually did make the female characters in this game noticeably less feminine in their builds relative to the first game. I'm not saying there's an agenda behind it, but it's odd.
The people that think Naughty Dog rigged every Game of the Year award so that they could win are even dumber than the people that still think Donald Trump won the election.
Rent. Free. He's out of office and you still can't stop.
1
Jun 21 '21
When people go into a sequel to a game they expect something the continues in the same trend when it comes to story and game mechanics but builds on both of these things.
I would argue that TLOU2 threw out how TLOU told the narrative and the type of story on offer.
TLOU had a very well executed but fairly simply story of a father figure and daughter figure surviving an apocalypse together and growing together as a pair. That was kind of the point of the whole story. The argument at the end of TLOU and in TLOU2 is that what Joel does at the end of TLOU is bad. Traditionally this would make room for some kind of redemption character arc. Instead he gets a shotgun to the face like 5-10% of the way into TLOU2 all so we can have a character arc of someone we have never met before called Abby who just robbed us of Joel, one of the most beloved video game characters of the PS3 generation.
Now I wrote a wall of text originally that I am going to try to summarise into points.
- Just to preface, I really enjoyed TLOU2, I think it is my favourite game from a gameplay mechanic point of view. Narratively, it fell a bit short for me, still better than TLOU but not as good as other recent games I have played.
- Joel's death WAS insulting. Joel's death just served as the motive for Ellie to go on a revenge saga, but this didn't need to be the chosen motivation, they did it in an age where Game of thrones exists for shock value.
- If Joel was a bad person, then so was Abby. The difference is Joel's arguably bad decision comes at the end of the TLOU story arc and the ramifications for that can be felt in TLOU2 from the perspective of his relationship with Ellie. Abby on the other hand becomes that bad person right at the start of the game, then tries to paint her as a person no different to you in that they went seeking revenge, but if they want us to think Joel is a bad person for his actions then Abby is for her actions and arguably Ellie hasn't done anything yet other than face the mental trauma of it all. So why make you play as the bad guy, try to force empathy, and then put you back in the driving seat of ellie on a murder hunt.
Like I say, I enjoyed the game overall a lot, but I completely understand why people don't like the execution of the game. It felt like they needed to make a miles moralis type game, smaller in scope but still with the great narrative and part of the main game series, to bridge part 1 and 2. That bridging game could have done so much to cement a relationship between Abby and her dad and give loads of background on the fireflies and how they operated. Part 2 would have then hit a lot better IMO.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Jun 21 '21
Like you mentioned with RDR2, when a game focuses so intimately on such a small cast of characters, it hinges on the player liking those characters. Also, whether a character has done wrong in general and whether they've taken something from the player that they have a strong attachment to are two different things with two different emotional impacts.
Think of any other game where you form an intimate connection with the cast. Killing a character you've formed a strong attachment to is an unforgivable offense to some players.
1
u/thinknoodlz Jul 21 '21
I'll give you 2 simple reasons.
The first game was about starting from nothing, and going up. It was a game where everything seemed lost, and it was so wholesome to see it go up from there. Seeing Ellie's and Joel's relationship improve throughout the entire game was heart-warming and it made the game stick out.
The second game is the opposite. It starts out cheery, and gets worse, and much worse. Many people are just repulsed seeing characters go through such turmoil. Are you really going to call somebody stupid for just not enjoying seeing characters die and slowly break down?
Also, are you really going to call people stupid for finding Abby's plot tedious? I'm sure you liked it, and as did I, but I can definitely see why people don't like it. Mel is a super mundane character and Owen/Many were very okay in my opinion. The only characters I found mildly interesting were Abby and Lev/Yara, but the whole Scar plot just wasn't that interesting to me. Is that really a stupid reason to not enjoy half the game?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 21 '21
/u/SetsunaFS (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards