The Last of Us, Part II

+
I'm not saying that the gameplay is bad, I'm saying that the gameplay is not a step forwards. And that cover shooter mechanics just happen to be one of those gameplay styles that eventually becomes boring.

Unlike for instance platforming, which by empirical evidence is evergreen.
Combat is a big step forward compared to the first game in every aspect. Still, you're decision not to play it is absolutely perfect.
 
Both games have been written and directed by Neil Druckmann. Who is a man, ofc.

The writer you are referring to is Amy hanning and she has worked on the Uncharted series in her last years at ND. Also, not sacked, she just left.
The first game is written by Druckmann, and he's a creative director of the game. Game director is Bruce Straley.
The second game is directed by Druckmann (plus Anthony Newman and Kurt Margenau as game directors), but written by Druckmann and Haley Goss. Plus some additional writing was done by some people, I don't remember their names.

Amy Hennig indeed has nothing to do with The Last of Us. It's Druckmann's and Straley's baby.

Speaking of Bruce Straley. I wonder what's his opinion on Part II.
 
It's kinda hard to take such deep and analytical criticisms on the basics of the game to heart when one can't even get the basic genre of said game correct. Third-person cover shooters would be the developer's other mega-popular franchise, not so much this one. Just saying...at least recognize what the game actually is, which would be stealth survival and not a cover shooter, before deep diving into more personal taste criticisms about the title. If one is already starting off wrong about that, who knows what else they might find themselves mistaken about?
 
Combat is a big step forward compared to the first game in every aspect. Still, you're decision not to play it is absolutely perfect.

Combat may be a refinement of a formula, but not a refinement of the art of making video games.

Just saying...at least recognize what the game actually is, which would be stealth survival and not a cover shooter, before deep diving into more personal taste criticisms about the title.

And? It's still a safe formulaic AAA blockbuster, not a further evolution of video gaming.
 
I don't think ND's ambition is crafting new gameplay mechanics. They're trying to elevate narrative and presentation of games. And the story is anything but safe.

Gameplay is a solid improvement of TLOU1 mechanic - more spacious arenas, verticality, evade, prone are substantial additions. And arrow pulling is really cool too. I was really impressed how both fluid and cinematic it is. Especially when you go for more active battling instead of sneaky approach and do "combos" on enemies. Adrenaline-pumping shit.

If I had to fault game design at something is that game situations stop evolving 1/3 into the game. By day 2 you basically saw everything that the game has to offer till a boss battle much later in the game and some enemies wearing helmets. I still had fun through the whole thing just because I liked the base mechanic plus there are some new toys you get in the second half... I just wish they found a way to spread gameplay challenge better. But that's basically it. Otherwise, it's really great for what it aims to do.
 
I don't think ND's ambition is crafting new gameplay mechanics.

Which is to say, they don't have any ambition in refining video games as a artform.

They're trying to elevate narrative and presentation of games. And the story is anything but safe.

Hmm, is it really? The safe formulaic zombie apocalypse story would have zombies being more of an obstacle than an enemy. The real enemy would be other survivors. Specifically a group of evil soldiers / scientists / religious people. Sound familiar?
 
Which is to say, they don't have any ambition in refining video games as a artform.
Games aren't defined only by gameplay mechanics.
Hmm, is it really? The safe formulaic zombie apocalypse story would have zombies being more of an obstacle than an enemy. The real enemy would be other survivors. Specifically a group of evil soldiers / scientists / religious people. Sound familiar?
It's such a generalized description of something, that I'm not even sure what to argue here with? Just because the setting is a zombie apocalypse and drama is about people, doesn't mean it's safe. You have to consider what it tries to say, it's themes, structure, how it handles it's characters and so on.
 
Combat may be a refinement of a formula, but not a refinement of the art of making video games.



And? It's still a safe formulaic AAA blockbuster, not a further evolution of video gaming.
You do realise that complaining of lack of revolutionary ideas is applicable to 99.99% of games in the last 30 years, right?

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. I don't want to say you're trying to prove that TLOU2 is shit because reasons, but that's what it really seems.
 
Quality storytelling can elevate experience even with lacking player agency, like the first TLOU. Yet the effect can be much more powerful if two things are combined. One of my absolute favorite moments in gaming history (and one of the most underrated) is saving Faridah Malik in Human Revolution. Doing something against odds by your own choice and succeeding - the feeling is absolutely unreal.

ND doesn't change it's blockbuster approach, but tries to improve the medium by presenting more challenging and thought-provoking material.

I agree and I found that the first TLoU really did give me a great experience, despite a lack of player agency. Though it's worth noting that was 7 years ago. Like I said, it's a perfectly valid form of story-telling. My complaint with regards to the sequel's reception was simply that some critics act like, from a story-telling angle, it was breaking new ground when it's identical to the first in terms of how it goes about its business, albeit with incredibly high production values.

And yeah, Faridah is a great example :) When games use player agency to their advantage, that's when I start to feel like the story-telling does something no other medium can. There's just so much potential. It's a powerful tool and I love to see devs use it.
Post automatically merged:

Then I understand even less how the dude who wrote original TLOU could create such a mediocre history in TLOU2. Weird.

I'm just guessing but it could be due to Bruce Straley. He was co-director (possibly with more seniority?) on the first and Druckmann gives him a big credit for his 'instrumental role' creating the world of TLoU. So maybe he had a lot of input that was sorely lacking this time around?

Also, it could be that Halley Gross, who was co-writer and narrative lead this time around, had an effect one way or the other.

Personally, at my age, a revenge story was also always going to have to work extra hard to win me over, as opposed to the themes from the first that are used much less often in games.
 
Last edited:
Games aren't defined only by gameplay mechanics.

No, but they are primarily defined by their mechanics.

It's such a generalized description of something, that I'm not even sure what to argue here with? Just because the setting is a zombie apocalypse and drama is about people, doesn't mean it's safe. You have to consider what it tries to say, it's themes, structure, how it handles it's characters and so on.

The themes are the tried and tired formula of the zombie apocalypse, dominated by the Hobbes was Right trope, of man's inhumanity to man. Consider then the adverse;

Most humans you encounter are good and the majority of the threat actually comes from the source of the apocalypse, zombies. The drama then is not because people are evil, but emerges from the challenges of survival itself. If you add to this the survival of some tattered remains of society, you supercharge these themes. See Falling Skies as an example.

You do realise that complaining of lack of revolutionary ideas is applicable to 99.99% of games in the last 30 years, right?

Sturgeon's Law

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. I don't want to say you're trying to prove that TLOU2 is shit because reasons, but that's what it really seems.

I'm trying to prove that as a video game, neither TLoU or it's sequel are masterpieces. Good, perhaps great games, sure. Masterpieces, no. Not by a long shot.

And yeah, Faridah is a great example :) When games use player agency to their advantage, that's when I start to feel like the story-telling does something no other medium can. There's just so much potential. It's a powerful tool and I love to see devs use it.

That scene is one of the best storytelling moments in gaming. I can't easily imagine it being done better. Differently, but not better.
 
My complaint with regards to the sequel's reception was simply that some critics act like, from a story-telling angle, it was breaking new ground when it's identical to the first in terms of how it goes about its business, albeit with incredibly high production values.
If I understood you right, you probably talk about the overall nature of the game, how gameplay and storytelling are delivered to a player, and if so, I agree that it's the same as in the first game, but it tries new things too:
1) Structure and perspective reversal, at least to this extent. (I have my problems with it, but I'm glad they tried.)
2) Portrayal of women, fleshed out homosexual relationship, touching on transsexual themes. These aren't exactly exclusive in the media, but they pushed overall quality and substance (even if to mixed results sometimes, imo).
3) Trying to use interactive violence as a narrative element and pushing it to new heights/lows. (I don't think it worked like they wanted it to, but I commend the effort.)
4) Trying to use personal affection of a player as a narrative function. I believe this one caused the most damage. People, instead of hating perpetrators, ended up hating creators. Perpetrators got shit too, but I believe majority of hate is directed more at Druckmann, because by going for it, ND broke the 4th wall. It stopped being just a story element.
 
No, but they are primarily defined by their mechanics.
Primarily or not - the rest is suddenly irrelevant? Gaming experience frequently extends beyond gameplay mechanics. And TLOU is a good example of that.
The themes are the tried and tired formula of the zombie apocalypse, dominated by the Hobbes was Right trope, of man's inhumanity to man. Consider then the adverse;

Most humans you encounter are good and the majority of the threat actually comes from the source of the apocalypse, zombies. The drama then is not because people are evil, but emerges from the challenges of survival itself. If you add to this the survival of some tattered remains of society, you supercharge these themes. See Falling Skies as an example.
Neither "humans are evil" nor "Hobbs was right" themes are the focus of Part II.
Post automatically merged:

actually CP77 in theory can't compete since it's coming after november 15th, which is the deadline. GOTY 2021 then?
I refuse (lalala chipping in!) to follow any deadlines. If it comes out in 2020, then it's a 2020 game and it competes with other 2020 games.
 
Two words;

Dwarf.

Fortress.
And? You can name Pong as well. Games come in different forms and use different means to deliver experience. And aim for different things.
They are, however, key to the setting. Thus making the story unfortunately predictable.
You might as well say that nothing is new under the Moon. Part II explores nature of love and hate. Tries to do it in the medium of computer games and tries new things while doing that. There's probably an argument if it succeeded or not.

But you won't prove anyone it's not a masterpiece or if it is. It's subjective. Some people are deeply affected, other were bored out of their minds, but I believe the game has something to say.
 
And? It's still a safe formulaic AAA blockbuster, not a further evolution of video gaming.
Interesting...I guess its a shame that you probably won't find very much enjoyment in Cyberpunk 2077 since its not really an evolution in gaming either if you boil it down to the bare basic essence as you did to The Last of Us 2, a game you admittedly didn't play and are basing things mostly of second-hand information from others. :censored:
 
I'm trying to prove that as a video game, neither TLoU or it's sequel are masterpieces. Good, perhaps great games, sure. Masterpieces, no. Not by a long shot.
I think people's definition of "masterpiece" may vary, since what you believe outstanding may be different from what I believe (and it's pretty obvious from the whole conversation). According to mine, they both are masterpieces. But I'm absolutely ok to agree to disagree. Proving that they (don't) fit someone's definition of the word masterpiece, is extremely subjective and far from any logic I wish to pursue.
 
And? You can name Pong as well. Games come in different forms and use different means to deliver experience. And aim for different things.

And what those prove is, that yes; A game can stand on pure gameplay.

You might as well say that nothing is new under the Moon. Part II explores nature of love and hate. Tries to do it in the medium of computer games and tries new things while doing that. There's probably an argument if it succeeded or not.

Judging from sensible, but less than satisfied reviews, I have gotten this feeling;

We as a species, have been telling stories, since the dawn of language. In that hundred thousand year tradition, certain conventions have emerged. Naughty Dog though that they were cleverer than the wisdom of eons.

They weren't.

But you won't prove anyone it's not a masterpiece or if it is. It's subjective. Some people are deeply affected, other were bored out of their minds, but I believe the game has something to say.

My entire purpose in this thread was to explain why I'm not interested in the game and how that intersects with my thirst for novel gameplay. And use those as a vehicle for exploring the dissatisfaction of the sequel among many.

Interesting...I guess its a shame that you probably won't find very much enjoyment in Cyberpunk 2077 since its not really an evolution in gaming either if you boil it down to the bare basic essence as you did to The Last of Us 2, a game you admittedly didn't play and are basing things mostly of second-hand information from others. :censored:

Cyberpunk 2077 already possesses a marked evolution from a dialogue tree to an interaction tree. This in and of itself is novel, if this is combined with some elements common to immersive sims, then we are looking at a major step forwards in terms of player agency.

Furthermore, I never claimed that I couldn't find a game like TLoU enjoyable, but that I couldn't find specifically TLoU enjoyable because and I quote... Myself;

That said, I have nothing against the interactive miniseries type of a game. If there was one of say Dune, let alone TNG or B5, I would eat it up. It's just that the grimdark zombie apocalypse genre is played out.

So recap;

Zombie apocalypse - done to (un)death
Cyberpunk - fresh as Menthos™
 
Top Bottom