I haven't played either game, but I just finished watched a playthrough of both games and overall I loved them. It's a compelling world they set up and I enjoyed seeing the peeling back of the layers of what's happened to it and the people in it, though I agree with most that the pacing could have been better in the second game.
I really liked the moments in the games where the gameplay is subverted by story or action elements in surprising ways. In the first game in Salt Lake City when Joel tries to give Elly a boost, she's lost in her thoughts. The game sets you up with the button input and camera view you've seen dozens of times already for boosting a character up. Joel is left hanging and it smoothly transitions to a cutscene.
In the second game, Elly is at a weapon upgrade table she finds in a building, and you're just looking through menus when suddenly you hear a cry and someone grabs you. You wouldn't think that could happen - it's a menu, right? You're basically pausing the game! I guess not.
One last thing I wanted to mention...I felt like the light-hearted moments in the first game were better spaced to relieve tension, and that the second game could have used more of them. The flashback sequences were my favorite parts of the game, but more humor outside them would have been nice.
Another thing I really thought they improved on in this game was the environments. The original had the different seasons, but for the most part felt fairly generic. This game kept me asking "what are they going to show me next?" So many of the locations were unique and cool to see brought to life in a post apocalypse setting.
Also building on a point I made earlier about environmental storytelling, this game had way more side stories told through left behind notes and imagery in the environments, but I thought it lacked one 'great' story.
Without spoilers the first game had an amazing story in the sewer section- the sequel has one that comes close, but didn't hit quite as hard for me
I haven't played either game, but I just finished watched a playthrough of both games and overall I loved them. It's a compelling world they set up and I enjoyed seeing the peeling back of the layers of what's happened to it and the people in it, though I agree with most that the pacing could have been better in the second game.
I really liked the moments in the games where the gameplay is subverted by story or action elements in surprising ways. In the first game in Salt Lake City when Joel tries to give Elly a boost, she's lost in her thoughts. The game sets you up with the button input and camera view you've seen dozens of times already for boosting a character up. Joel is left hanging and it smoothly transitions to a cutscene.
In the second game, Elly is at a weapon upgrade table she finds in a building, and you're just looking through menus when suddenly you hear a cry and someone grabs you. You wouldn't think that could happen - it's a menu, right? You're basically pausing the game! I guess not.
One last thing I wanted to mention...I felt like the light-hearted moments in the first game were better spaced to relieve tension, and that the second game could have used more of them. The flashback sequences were my favorite parts of the game, but more humor outside them would have been nice.
I seem to recall this only happens once. They should have put it in a few more times.
It got me the first time because I believe the enemies are in a smaller room that isn't accessible to you when you first go into the room. I usually do a room check before I access the weapon bench menu in case using the menu triggers an event, but this is probably the first time it's actually a trigger event in a game. It's pretty impressive level design. After the encounter and fire fight with the enemy, the room door is open and you can go in to loot it.
It kinda reminds me of one of the puzzles in a Nintendo DS game where you close the DS to make an imprint. It was so clever and I'm surprised it's not done more often.
So I avoided this thread for potential spoilers until I finished the game at least once. I'll spoiler most of my comments just in case.
Overall impression - best game I've played on the PS4 easily. I understand why all the reviews gave it such high praise as I felt it was deserved. I think there are a few reasons why it didn't get as well received by the public though:
1) Naughty Dog hit a 400ft home run which objective reviewers saw as a huge success. Expectations of the public was for a 500ft home run and left people feeling like they wanted more
2) The morals and the objectives of the game seemed more in conflict with what is generally considered "right". There are also a lot of more progressive characters that some people in the world are not comfortable with
3) The issues around Naughty Dog as a company tainted the release and gave the negative side a running start before the game was even released
On to specifics and the spoiler tag
Spoiler!
Gameplay - Simply put, the second iteration improved greatly on the first installment. Crafting was so much better (hello silencers and ammo) and I actually felt compelled to make stuff and use it. AI was so much better - there were not a lot of times I felt like I had been detected unfairly but I also didn't think it was too easy to stay hidden. The dogs were a really nice touch that forced you to change your style (I think my wife is still mad at me for killing some of the dogs though...) I honestly don't think I could go back and play the first one again as its missing so much in terms of gameplay compared to this version. The mix of enemies was great too - I didn't find anything too repetitive and they created some really unique situations (fighting infected and non-infected at the same time, getting caught in a battle between the Seraphites and WLF, action scenes that got your heart pumping, etc) I did only play for 1-2 hours at a time so that probably helped too. The landscapes were great too and they gave more of an open world feeling, where you could choose to go some places or not and it didn’t affect the story. The ability to run away in combat was also great as that would be very realistic – just get the heck out of whatever trouble you were in.
Story - I went in knowing that this story was never going to top the first one, so I didn’t feel let down with the story as others. The first story was perfect – you were on a “noble” quest and at the end were forced to do Joel’s bidding and wreck the whole thing. This time around you started out with a much less noble goal and then you were suddenly playing Abby. I really liked the way they told Abby’s story and in the end I actually like her more as a character than Ellie (I wonder if others felt this way a bit and that’s what’s left a bad taste in their mouth?) The intermissions of peace were fun and playing through the two timelines was done well. I initially didn’t like the Santa Barbara part but realized how important it was to the story. The final battle in the water was intense but I like how it felt forced. Like Elly finally made it all the way to Abby and both Abby and Elly are shells of their former selves feeling obligated to “settle the score”. It didn’t feel right, which I think was the intent. Was it a very different story from the first one? Of course, but I still think it was a good one.
Themes – This is what really struck me as well done in the game. The ongoing theme of “an eye-for-an-eye leaves the world blind” was really well done. There was no real reason the WLF and Seraphites couldn’t co-exist or even work together and countless lives were lost for no reason. I especially enjoyed the fight on the island where you could hear it constantly and it reminded you that you were only playing though a few peoples stories, but hundreds of other stories were out there. It also really hit hard that Elly’s quest for revenge caused her to essentially lose everything – Deana and her kid, Eugene, two fingers and the ability to play guitar, the list goes on. I also thought it talked well about how people need to feel like there is some sort of purpose to everything. Elly felt like her purpose was to be operated on and Joel stole that from her, so she needed a new purpose, which was killing Abby. But when it came down to it, how awful of a purpose is that? Both Abby and Elly could have lived fulfilling lives had it not been for their need for revenge.
Elly vs Abby – As I mentioned above, I think the way you were forced to play both sides of this battle caused people to not like the game as their initial idea was that Elly was the good guy, but really she was the villain (at least in my eyes). Elly went on a totally selfish quest and ended up hurting and losing those she loved around her. Abby’s quests were much more noble in nature; going to find Owen when she thought he was in trouble or misunderstood, helping Lev and Yara, trying to track down the fireflies and re-join a group with goals that align with her values. Abby was also the first one to call the truce, buy not killing Deana and Elly at the theater. Quite simply, Abby was a better person than Elly in this instalment and that was a bit difficult to swallow when playing the California portion of the game. I also really liked how Abby’s kit was very different from Elly – it allowed you to play two different styles in the game which helped keep it fresh for me.
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
The Following User Says Thank You to mrkajz44 For This Useful Post:
So I avoided this thread for potential spoilers until I finished the game at least once. I'll spoiler most of my comments just in case.
Overall impression - best game I've played on the PS4 easily. I understand why all the reviews gave it such high praise as I felt it was deserved. I think there are a few reasons why it didn't get as well received by the public though:
1) Naughty Dog hit a 400ft home run which objective reviewers saw as a huge success. Expectations of the public was for a 500ft home run and left people feeling like they wanted more
2) The morals and the objectives of the game seemed more in conflict with what is generally considered "right". There are also a lot of more progressive characters that some people in the world are not comfortable with
3) The issues around Naughty Dog as a company tainted the release and gave the negative side a running start before the game was even released
On to specifics and the spoiler tag
Spoiler!
Gameplay - Simply put, the second iteration improved greatly on the first installment. Crafting was so much better (hello silencers and ammo) and I actually felt compelled to make stuff and use it. AI was so much better - there were not a lot of times I felt like I had been detected unfairly but I also didn't think it was too easy to stay hidden. The dogs were a really nice touch that forced you to change your style (I think my wife is still mad at me for killing some of the dogs though...) I honestly don't think I could go back and play the first one again as its missing so much in terms of gameplay compared to this version. The mix of enemies was great too - I didn't find anything too repetitive and they created some really unique situations (fighting infected and non-infected at the same time, getting caught in a battle between the Seraphites and WLF, action scenes that got your heart pumping, etc) I did only play for 1-2 hours at a time so that probably helped too. The landscapes were great too and they gave more of an open world feeling, where you could choose to go some places or not and it didn’t affect the story. The ability to run away in combat was also great as that would be very realistic – just get the heck out of whatever trouble you were in.
Story - I went in knowing that this story was never going to top the first one, so I didn’t feel let down with the story as others. The first story was perfect – you were on a “noble” quest and at the end were forced to do Joel’s bidding and wreck the whole thing. This time around you started out with a much less noble goal and then you were suddenly playing Abby. I really liked the way they told Abby’s story and in the end I actually like her more as a character than Ellie (I wonder if others felt this way a bit and that’s what’s left a bad taste in their mouth?) The intermissions of peace were fun and playing through the two timelines was done well. I initially didn’t like the Santa Barbara part but realized how important it was to the story. The final battle in the water was intense but I like how it felt forced. Like Elly finally made it all the way to Abby and both Abby and Elly are shells of their former selves feeling obligated to “settle the score”. It didn’t feel right, which I think was the intent. Was it a very different story from the first one? Of course, but I still think it was a good one.
Themes – This is what really struck me as well done in the game. The ongoing theme of “an eye-for-an-eye leaves the world blind” was really well done. There was no real reason the WLF and Seraphites couldn’t co-exist or even work together and countless lives were lost for no reason. I especially enjoyed the fight on the island where you could hear it constantly and it reminded you that you were only playing though a few peoples stories, but hundreds of other stories were out there. It also really hit hard that Elly’s quest for revenge caused her to essentially lose everything – Deana and her kid, Eugene, two fingers and the ability to play guitar, the list goes on. I also thought it talked well about how people need to feel like there is some sort of purpose to everything. Elly felt like her purpose was to be operated on and Joel stole that from her, so she needed a new purpose, which was killing Abby. But when it came down to it, how awful of a purpose is that? Both Abby and Elly could have lived fulfilling lives had it not been for their need for revenge.
Elly vs Abby – As I mentioned above, I think the way you were forced to play both sides of this battle caused people to not like the game as their initial idea was that Elly was the good guy, but really she was the villain (at least in my eyes). Elly went on a totally selfish quest and ended up hurting and losing those she loved around her. Abby’s quests were much more noble in nature; going to find Owen when she thought he was in trouble or misunderstood, helping Lev and Yara, trying to track down the fireflies and re-join a group with goals that align with her values. Abby was also the first one to call the truce, buy not killing Deana and Elly at the theater. Quite simply, Abby was a better person than Elly in this instalment and that was a bit difficult to swallow when playing the California portion of the game. I also really liked how Abby’s kit was very different from Elly – it allowed you to play two different styles in the game which helped keep it fresh for me.
Naughty Dog hit a home run in your opinion only. I didn't expect a game that was better than the original but I did expect one on par or a slight step down such as Uncharted 4 was in that series. The review scores for this game are no more credible than the review scores for TLJ. I'm not saying it was trash or even a bad game but IMO this is not a great game. It has some great aspects but the sum is less than its parts as it's merely good and a step down from the original. It's not like every non-glowing review of this game is a review bomb as there are plenty of people that played the entire game and just didn't love it. Glad it was a home run for you though but don't tell me that my expectations were too high when they weren't. When it comes to games fun matters and I've had more fun in the first two hours of Ghost of Tsushima than 25+ hours of The Last of Us Part 2.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 07-22-2020 at 04:44 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
They hit a home run for me as well. I loved the game. The story and gameplay was fantastic.
It was a step down from the first for me only in that it will be a while before I play it again. I tried right away to play through again but quickly didn't want to do all the "puzzle" parts of the stories. Things like getting the generators running again.
So I avoided this thread for potential spoilers until I finished the game at least once. I'll spoiler most of my comments just in case.
Overall impression - best game I've played on the PS4 easily. I understand why all the reviews gave it such high praise as I felt it was deserved. I think there are a few reasons why it didn't get as well received by the public though:
1) Naughty Dog hit a 400ft home run which objective reviewers saw as a huge success. Expectations of the public was for a 500ft home run and left people feeling like they wanted more
2) The morals and the objectives of the game seemed more in conflict with what is generally considered "right". There are also a lot of more progressive characters that some people in the world are not comfortable with
3) The issues around Naughty Dog as a company tainted the release and gave the negative side a running start before the game was even released
On to specifics and the spoiler tag
Spoiler!
Gameplay - Simply put, the second iteration improved greatly on the first installment. Crafting was so much better (hello silencers and ammo) and I actually felt compelled to make stuff and use it. AI was so much better - there were not a lot of times I felt like I had been detected unfairly but I also didn't think it was too easy to stay hidden. The dogs were a really nice touch that forced you to change your style (I think my wife is still mad at me for killing some of the dogs though...) I honestly don't think I could go back and play the first one again as its missing so much in terms of gameplay compared to this version. The mix of enemies was great too - I didn't find anything too repetitive and they created some really unique situations (fighting infected and non-infected at the same time, getting caught in a battle between the Seraphites and WLF, action scenes that got your heart pumping, etc) I did only play for 1-2 hours at a time so that probably helped too. The landscapes were great too and they gave more of an open world feeling, where you could choose to go some places or not and it didn’t affect the story. The ability to run away in combat was also great as that would be very realistic – just get the heck out of whatever trouble you were in.
Story - I went in knowing that this story was never going to top the first one, so I didn’t feel let down with the story as others. The first story was perfect – you were on a “noble” quest and at the end were forced to do Joel’s bidding and wreck the whole thing. This time around you started out with a much less noble goal and then you were suddenly playing Abby. I really liked the way they told Abby’s story and in the end I actually like her more as a character than Ellie (I wonder if others felt this way a bit and that’s what’s left a bad taste in their mouth?) The intermissions of peace were fun and playing through the two timelines was done well. I initially didn’t like the Santa Barbara part but realized how important it was to the story. The final battle in the water was intense but I like how it felt forced. Like Elly finally made it all the way to Abby and both Abby and Elly are shells of their former selves feeling obligated to “settle the score”. It didn’t feel right, which I think was the intent. Was it a very different story from the first one? Of course, but I still think it was a good one.
Themes – This is what really struck me as well done in the game. The ongoing theme of “an eye-for-an-eye leaves the world blind” was really well done. There was no real reason the WLF and Seraphites couldn’t co-exist or even work together and countless lives were lost for no reason. I especially enjoyed the fight on the island where you could hear it constantly and it reminded you that you were only playing though a few peoples stories, but hundreds of other stories were out there. It also really hit hard that Elly’s quest for revenge caused her to essentially lose everything – Deana and her kid, Eugene, two fingers and the ability to play guitar, the list goes on. I also thought it talked well about how people need to feel like there is some sort of purpose to everything. Elly felt like her purpose was to be operated on and Joel stole that from her, so she needed a new purpose, which was killing Abby. But when it came down to it, how awful of a purpose is that? Both Abby and Elly could have lived fulfilling lives had it not been for their need for revenge.
Elly vs Abby – As I mentioned above, I think the way you were forced to play both sides of this battle caused people to not like the game as their initial idea was that Elly was the good guy, but really she was the villain (at least in my eyes). Elly went on a totally selfish quest and ended up hurting and losing those she loved around her. Abby’s quests were much more noble in nature; going to find Owen when she thought he was in trouble or misunderstood, helping Lev and Yara, trying to track down the fireflies and re-join a group with goals that align with her values. Abby was also the first one to call the truce, buy not killing Deana and Elly at the theater. Quite simply, Abby was a better person than Elly in this instalment and that was a bit difficult to swallow when playing the California portion of the game. I also really liked how Abby’s kit was very different from Elly – it allowed you to play two different styles in the game which helped keep it fresh for me.
I think it wasn’t universally well-received by the public because as a game or experience or piece of art or whatever, everyone’s opinion (outside the technical details) is subjective. I think trying to boil it down to things like “expectations were too high!” or “the characters were progressively” or “people had a grudge against Naughty Dog!” is pretty dismissive and kind of silly. My expectations didn’t exist, I went in clean, hoping to love it but ready to enjoy it for whatever it was, and it just didn’t deliver in any way. And I’m definitely the last person in the world who is going to care about how progressive characters are, but just throwing LGBTQ characters into your game doesn’t score points with me if their stories don’t feel genuine.
It’s no different than a Marvel movie. Some people love them for perfectly valid reasons related to the films themselves, some people dislike them just as valid reasons. There’s not a lot of sense in saying “the only people who didn’t like it did so for reasons beyond the actual game experience.” That’s be no different than me saying the only reason you loved it is because IGN told you it was a 10/10. Silly, right?
The only things that can truly be talked about objectively are the technical elements. Reviewers of games, movies, music, etc are not objective any more than you or I.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
My expectations were definitely too high. I think a lot of peoples' were. I do think that contributed to the response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
And I’m definitely the last person in the world who is going to care about how progressive characters are, but just throwing LGBTQ characters into your game doesn’t score points with me if their stories don’t feel genuine.
While I agree with this, I didn't think the issue was that they didn't feel genuine. I found them genuine and the acting was generally good. I just didn't find the characters the stories were about interesting or compelling, and I didn't have an emotional connection to them.
Quote:
The only things that can truly be talked about objectively are the technical elements. Reviewers of games, movies, music, etc are not objective any more than you or I.
Eh, you can talk about things that are broadly subjective in more or less objective terms. There is a consensus about what makes for a well-told story, for example. There's a whole field of aesthetic philosophy, too, but let's not get into that mess. The point is, you can reasonably say with confidence that, for example, the story in The Godfather is better than the story in The Master of Disguise, and that the musical score in The Lord of the Rings is better than that of Transformers. You can, for example, legitimately criticize the structural issues with this game while praising the pacing of the first one without it being purely a matter of taste.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
My expectations were definitely too high. I think a lot of peoples' were. I do think that contributed to the response.
While I agree with this, I didn't think the issue was that they didn't feel genuine. I found them genuine and the acting was generally good. I just didn't find the characters the stories were about interesting or compelling, and I didn't have an emotional connection to them.
Eh, you can talk about things that are broadly subjective in more or less objective terms. There is a consensus about what makes for a well-told story, for example. There's a whole field of aesthetic philosophy, too, but let's not get into that mess. The point is, you can reasonably say with confidence that, for example, the story in The Godfather is better than the story in The Master of Disguise, and that the musical score in The Lord of the Rings is better than that of Transformers. You can, for example, legitimately criticize the structural issues with this game while praising the pacing of the first one without it being purely a matter of taste.
Having legitimate criticisms or praises is not the same as being objective. You can make a legitimate cases for all of the things you mentioned, you can also make a legitimate case against them.
Take the Shining, Blade Runner, Black Sabbath and Queen. What do they have in common? Early on, they were critically trashed and unsuccessful. Now? Classics, and examples of the peaks of their respective genres. Why? Did the objective truth about their quality change? Or, could it have been a matter of taste? And as taste evolved, so did their popularity and status?
Reviews are subjective. There is no such thing as the objective reviewer or the objective opinion on art as a whole. Again, you can objectively talk about the technical details. The sound design and visual presentation of TLOU2 were an improvement on TLOU1. This is objectively true. The enemies are more varied. This is objectively true. The story had construction issues. This is objectively true. But that doesn't tell us whether the story was emotionally captivating, engaging, interesting, or compelling. It doesn't tell us whether the game was fun, or enjoyable, or exciting, or boring. These are subjective qualities and the subjective qualities that are essential to how you view art. I don't think the characters were genuine, that's subjective, and that's ok. I think the flaws in the story construction were frustrating, others thought they were barely relevant, this is also subjective and also ok.
The point is that, you can make something that is objectively "made well" or objectively "made poorly" but it has little relevance in how it's received when it comes to any sort of artistic output. TLOU2 is made well, it has some objective flaws and some objective achievements. It is neither objectively a 10/10 nor objectively a 0/10, but subjectively it could be either of those things and anywhere down the middle. You can write a perfectly constructed story, strictly from an objective point of view. That doesn't automatically mean it's a good story.
There are no objective reviewers of art. If there were, their reviews would be very boring, and completely out of sync with the way the vast majority people look at and consume art.
I agree with EE. If I were to distill everything down, TLOU2 is less than the sum of its parts. And it had fantastic parts to work with.
I rated it a 7.5 and that actually pisses me off because I think with the most minor of tweaks (chapter ordering mainly), I think it would have absolutely deserved a full on 9.5 out of 10.
Take the Shining, Blade Runner, Black Sabbath and Queen. What do they have in common? Early on, they were critically trashed and unsuccessful. Now? Classics, and examples of the peaks of their respective genres. Why? Did the objective truth about their quality change? Or, could it have been a matter of taste? And as taste evolved, so did their popularity and status?
There is actually a third option here, which has to do with groupthink and critical consensus sometimes just being wrong (in fact you'd expect that to happen in at least a percentage of cases), or some aspect of the thing under consideration was distracting the critics from its other qualities. There's even a fourth option, which is that they were right in the first place and the subsequent following a piece gets is undeserved.
Quote:
The story had construction issues. This is objectively true. But that doesn't tell us whether the story was emotionally captivating, engaging, interesting, or compelling. It doesn't tell us whether the game was fun, or enjoyable, or exciting, or boring.
Not necessarily, I agree, but as soon as you admit that the former has something to do with the latter - that a story without construction issues is more likely to be interesting or compelling than one that has those issues - you've already admitted that there is an objective element to both things.
Quote:
These are subjective qualities and the subjective qualities that are essential to how you view art. I don't think the characters were genuine, that's subjective, and that's ok. I think the flaws in the story construction were frustrating, others thought they were barely relevant, this is also subjective and also ok.
This is true, obviously. No one could reasonably suggest that different people don't enjoy different things.
Quote:
You can write a perfectly constructed story, strictly from an objective point of view. That doesn't automatically mean it's a good story.
Well, sure, but only because there are other things that go into a good story beyond its construction. I am a bit surprised given the position that you're taking that you're simultaneously saying that there's even such a thing as a perfectly constructed story.
You seem very sure of your position about the roles of objective and subjective judgments in criticism of art, and it's hard to go much further here without doing exactly what I said I didn't want to do in my last post by diving into aesthetic philosophy. So, suffice it to say that there is a whole field of literature you can discover if you ever decide you're interested and want to challenge your preconceptions in this area.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 07-23-2020 at 08:16 AM.
Well, I don't want to get into an internet squabble but I do stand by my assertion that high expectations are a major factor in people's disappointment. I just don't buy that you can play both versions, compare gameplay, and say the first one was better.
If the first one was a 9+ out of 10 (as many people seem to agree based on the video game of the decade thread), but this one is a 7 or so, how else do you come to that conclusion unless you've set high expectations for the second one? The gameplay, mechanics, sound, graphics, etc. were all better than the first one.
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
There is actually a third option here, which has to do with groupthink and critical consensus sometimes just being wrong (in fact you'd expect that to happen in at least a percentage of cases), or some aspect of the thing under consideration was distracting the critics from its other qualities. There's even a fourth option, which is that they were right in the first place and the subsequent following a piece gets is undeserved.
I don't think either of those options exist with art. I don't believe consensus can be wrong, because it is a collective of subjective opinion. If I view something differently than the consensus, they are not wrong because I am right, there is simply a difference in subjective opinion.
The fourth is just silly. No following is undeserved, that's just a made up way of placing superiority in some subjective opinions on art over others. For that you would have to define what is deserving of a following, and then evaluate each piece of art on that made up criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Not necessarily, I agree, but as soon as you admit that the former has something to do with the latter - that a story without construction issues is more likely to be interesting or compelling than one that has those issues - you've already admitted that there is an objective element to both things.
But a story without construction issues is not more likely to be interesting or compelling than one with. Just as a piece of classical music performed by trained musicians is not more likely to be interesting than a song performed by a group of punks. Technical skill =/= creativity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Well, sure, but only because there are other things that go into a good story beyond its construction. I am a bit surprised given the position that you're taking that you're simultaneously saying that there's even such a thing as a perfectly constructed story.
Well, there is, but it's a very basic formula. There are seven story archetypes and five parts in the basic story structure. Building a story within these structures will lead to what we would define as a "perfectly constructed" story. Like any piece of art, stories too have technical elements that can be executed perfectly, but don't necessarily dictate the quality of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
You seem very sure of your position about the roles of objective and subjective judgments in criticism of art, and it's hard to go much further here without doing exactly what I said I didn't want to do in my last post by diving into aesthetic philosophy. So, suffice it to say that there is a whole field of literature you can discover if you ever decide you're interested and want to challenge your preconceptions in this area.
I'm well versed, and I'd probably agree that it's not a conversation worth getting into here as I don't run into many people who want to talk about philosophy when we're talking about zombie videogames. I think saying "go look into aesthetic philosophy" is a bit simplistic, as there are many theories and movements within that field that are worth consideration, so I'd be at least curious who or what you're referring to.
That said, I'll just restate my point to make it clear: there are no objective reviewers of art. I am not saying objectivity plays no role in how we process art or define what art is, but the idea of the objective reviewer is false, as subjectivity cannot be separated from art. Do objective elements like adherence to colour theory inform our subjective interpretation of beauty? Yeah, but the subjectivity doesn't cease to exist, beauty is still defined as that which gives us pleasure. Our final interpretation of any piece of art, even videogames, relies on the subjective.
Well, I don't want to get into an internet squabble but I do stand by my assertion that high expectations are a major factor in people's disappointment. I just don't buy that you can play both versions, compare gameplay, and say the first one was better.
If the first one was a 9+ out of 10 (as many people seem to agree based on the video game of the decade thread), but this one is a 7 or so, how else do you come to that conclusion unless you've set high expectations for the second one? The gameplay, mechanics, sound, graphics, etc. were all better than the first one.
Games are more than their gameplay, mechanics, sound, and graphics, though. And I agree that most of those were at least equal if not big improvements over TLOU1, but that doesn't mean that TLOU2 is a better game.
That argument may have been true 20-30 years ago, maybe, but games have evolved far past an experience of mechanics and build.
Well, I don't want to get into an internet squabble but I do stand by my assertion that high expectations are a major factor in people's disappointment. I just don't buy that you can play both versions, compare gameplay, and say the first one was better.
If the first one was a 9+ out of 10 (as many people seem to agree based on the video game of the decade thread), but this one is a 7 or so, how else do you come to that conclusion unless you've set high expectations for the second one? The gameplay, mechanics, sound, graphics, etc. were all better than the first one.
Gameplay is slightly improved in the sequel but as I said a while back in this thread that gameplay was not the strength of the original which was carried by its story and characters. Also while the gameplay was tweaked Naughty Dog also saddled us with hours of searching empty buildings for loot that got monotonous and the zombies for the most part are marginalized into a nuisance. If you judged both games strictly on gameplay alone neither would be anything more than 7.5/10 at best as plenty of other 3rd person games have better control, better stealth, and better shooting mechanics.
This game falls off as said by others in that the characters are not compelling in this game and the heavy handed story is take it or leave it. The best part of the original game is the weak point of the sequel which IMO is a major issue for a game like this that's trying to straddle the fine line between game and theatrical experience. I would give the first game a 9.5/10 (I rarely ever play games twice and I did this one) and this one 7.5/10. Most games when I finish I feel satisfied. This one I felt relieved to finish so I could get out of the miserable universe Naughty Dog painted where all humans can kill others without the slightest of hesitation. They could remaster this game for PS5 and I won't play it again, ever. Glad I played it to see Naughty Dog's vision for the sequel of a game I loved but now I may be done with this franchise so once again it's not about raised expectations and more that the gameplay was simply not good enough to overcome the overly bleak story and weak characters.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 07-23-2020 at 10:46 AM.
Well, I don't want to get into an internet squabble but I do stand by my assertion that high expectations are a major factor in people's disappointment. I just don't buy that you can play both versions, compare gameplay, and say the first one was better.
If the first one was a 9+ out of 10 (as many people seem to agree based on the video game of the decade thread), but this one is a 7 or so, how else do you come to that conclusion unless you've set high expectations for the second one? The gameplay, mechanics, sound, graphics, etc. were all better than the first one.
I don't think it's a bloody squabble overall. If anything, it's kinda just splitting hairs. Many who are vocal about their disappointment probably wouldn't be as vocal and upset if TLOU2 received a ton of 9.5 rather than full marks.
I don't think you'll really find anyone that disagrees that TLOU2 > TLOU1 in terms of game play, mechanics, visuals and under the hood stuff. Much of the vocal comments are often about TLOU2 story telling issues and saying the game doesn't deserve a 10/10 due to these raw issues. Many don't even feel the need to compare TLOU2 to TLOU1 story telling to argue the story telling issues with TLOU2.
IMO, it seems obvious that TLOU2 was released with DLC or a TLOU3 in mind. Who knows if this is true or not, but the ending seems like it was designed in a manner to springboard more story.
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
Director Neil Druckmann said he is investigating angles that The Last of Us, Part 3 could explore but apparently Naughty Dog has drawn a line under Part 2.
It seems you're correct. If they add more story, it'll be a TLOU3.
I believe they are working on multiplayer mode for TLOU2 though.
