[PS]The Last of Us: Part 2 - Page 2
Forum Index > General Games |
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41087 Posts
| ||
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I guess it depends on how much you empathize with Abby. Obviously when I started playing as her I just wanted it to be over so I could kill her, but as the game went on I liked her more and more. Thought fighting Ellie was a great twist too, although a very cruel one. Since she's kind of a virtual daughter to me I was really depressed that I'd have too kill her(even let her kill me a couple of times), but it really drove in the message of the game. | ||
Sbrubbles
Brazil5763 Posts
On June 25 2020 21:03 dmnum wrote: So, did anyone else play it? It's very polarizing but I loved it. + Show Spoiler + I guess it depends on how much you empathize with Abby. Obviously when I started playing as her I just wanted it to be over so I could kill her, but as the game went on I liked her more and more. Thought fighting Ellie was a great twist too, although a very cruel one. Since she's kind of a virtual daughter to me I was really depressed that I'd have too kill her(even let her kill me a couple of times), but it really drove in the message of the game. I played the first one back when I lived with buddies who had a ps3, but now I don't have the console so I'm not gonna be able to. Anyway, because I played the first one I decided to check out why a lot of reviewers and commenters were hating on the story. The thing I found most interesting was the criticism of disconnect between between actions taken during gameplay and (story) actions during cutscenes. + Show Spoiler + Specifically a character stops from killing another during a cutscene after realizing the futility of revenge (and wanting to break the cycle or something like that), and there is a disconnect because she already killed 100+ NPCs to get there during gameplay. There are already 100+ families who are bound to want revenge, nevermind the families of all the first game's NPCs. There's a certain hypocrisy here. This is a valid criticism, but what I hadn't truly realized is how egregious video games, and even other media like movies are in this sense. Harming hundreds of nobodies during an action scene? Irrelevant. Having the big bad at gunpoint? Now is the time to reflect on the morality of the use of violence or whatever other philosofical concept is at stake, and change your ways. Like, a week ago I was playing the new GW2 episode, and the characters get all morally righteous ("they didn't deserve to die like this" style of outrage) when the general tricks them into throwing a magic grenade into a research facility, killing something like 10 people inside. Nevermind the 100 people you brutalized in melee combat to get there, and that a lot of characters already have grenade-like skills. | ||
RKC
2847 Posts
On June 25 2020 23:18 Sbrubbles wrote: I played the first one back when I lived with buddies who had a ps3, but now I don't have the console so I'm not gonna be able to. Anyway, because I played the first one I decided to check out why a lot of reviewers and commenters were hating on the story. The thing I found most interesting was the criticism of disconnect between between actions taken during gameplay and (story) actions during cutscenes. + Show Spoiler + Specifically a character stops from killing another during a cutscene after realizing the futility of revenge (and wanting to break the cycle or something like that), and there is a disconnect because she already killed 100+ NPCs to get there during gameplay. There are already 100+ families who are bound to want revenge, nevermind the families of all the first game's NPCs. There's a certain hypocrisy here. This is a valid criticism, but what I hadn't truly realized is how egregious video games, and even other media like movies are in this sense. Harming hundreds of nobodies during an action scene? Irrelevant. Having the big bad at gunpoint? Now is the time to reflect on the morality of the use of violence or whatever other philosofical concept is at stake, and change your ways. Like, a week ago I was playing the new GW2 episode, and the characters get all morally righteous ("they didn't deserve to die like this" style of outrage) when the general tricks them into throwing a magic grenade into a research facility, killing something like 10 people inside. Nevermind the 100 people you brutalized in melee combat to get there, and that a lot of characters already have grenade-like skills. I haven't played the game, but read some reviews making your same point. Yes, I agree that such 'moral messages' get rather unrealistic, or even hypocritical. Why should the 'good guy' refrain from killing the big bad boss at the last moment after already killing 100 minions to get there? How does refraining from the last kill act as a redemption for all the good guy's past misdeeds? Is the lesson that so as long as you repent right at the end, all your sins will be forgiven? I get the message that no matter how person is lost in the darkness, there's always 'hope' that the person can come back to the light and why we should keep trying to plead rather than fight with the person (Vader in SW). Then again, there's an equally compelling message that we shouldn't tolerate evilness too much and just snuff them out from the beginning - that some people are truly lost and irredeemable (Michael in Godfather). Maybe the game was trying to get the first message across. Personally, I feel the second message is more effective - don't even get down the road, and there's nothing you can do anymore to right your wrongs so just stop everything and retire, MIkey boy! Point is, if the game was trying to paint a certain protagonist as Michael, just go full Godfather (or John Wick) mode. No redemption, no happy ending. Let the protagonist execute the revenge, and the scene ends will how this triggers even more chaos in the future (to be continued). Then in the next game, you can set up the protagonist as the big baddie even! (Those two analogies may not be a true and fair depiction of their characters, of course. Vader and Michael are much more complex and nuanced characters. Just simplifying in this context purely to drive my point.) Edit: Here's why Michael serves as a better cautionary tale than Vader. If I were about to do something bad (out of revenge or some sense of injustice), thinking in terms of Vader would be: "Hey, killing one or two people isn't that bad, I can come back again!". Whereas thinking as Michael would be more chilling: "Hmm. No-one will know if I kill this one pathetic goon. But wait, wouldn't making excuses for one kill just leads me to making excuses for the next, and the next..." | ||
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
while it's true that Ellie goes through a bunch of soldiers, the game tries as much as it can to humanize them. For example everyone has a name, some of them have casual conversations while patrolling etc. It's not much, but it's rarely done in games so I thought it was a nice touch. I'm also not sure the NPC killing is without effects. It's very emphasized during the story that all the killing is taking a toll on Ellie. Also, killing the enemies is not required outside some very specific instances. You can sneak past them.Actually, towards the end of the game, I was actually trying to be stealthier and avoid killing the scars. I did kill most of the Rattlers though because enslavers don't deserve sympathy. I do agree, though, that a mechanic affecting the character on the basis of how much people you killed would be nice and in touch with the game's theme. On the last post, + Show Spoiler + I think the game actually mixes both messages, RKC. After Seattle Ellie is living with her girlfriend and baby and having a normal life(as normal as can be even in that world, of course). However, she leaves again to find Abby and because of that: i) she loses two fingers in her guitar-fretting hand, which renders her unable to do the last thing Joel taught her; ii) when she comes back home, Dina has left, taking her son. So she doesn't get redemption. In fact, she loses everything she had because she can't let go of her hate. Lastly, + Show Spoiler + I think whether or not you like the game depends on how much you feel about the twist halfway through. The game kind of builds up your hatred for Abby for ~10 hours and then shows you her side of the story and how she's not that different from Ellie. It's kind of funny, really, because the whole story revolves around the killing of a minor NPC in the first game. I remember when I played it I blasted through the doctors because I really wanted to save Ellie. Didn't think twice. The sequel made me reflect upon that action. | ||
Mataru
Norway356 Posts
Now on to the controvesial part: the story. + Show Spoiler + Like you said dmnum, your enjoyment of the experience as a whole hinges on you being able to empathize with Abby. After the inciting incident the thought of spending 20 hours playing as Abby would have absolutely repulsed me (yes I spent that long playing as her, took 47 hours total for my first playthrough trying to soak it in as much as possible). Once I realized I was going to be playing as Abby I was initially not happy about it, but I kept an open mind and after seeing the ending of the first game from her perspective it really softened me up to the idea. Now I feel like it was a pretty brilliant move, as it really does make you consider both sides of the story. At the very end, I really did not want to kill Abby any more, and considering how I felt at the beginning of the game, that is quite an achievement. As for the topic of hypocrisy in killing loads of nameless (well actually named in this game) NPCs while making a big deal out of sparing the main antagonist, I do think this criticism has some validity. However, the game actually does draw attention to this rather than try to sweep it under the rug by attempting to humanize them through giving them names and conversations, aswell as notes scattered around the world showing how some of them question their actions and that of their comrades, and some even defecting to another faction. So does this attempt at humanizing the enemies work? I'd say to some small degree yes, but not really. It definitely feels very brutal when you kill an NPC in a visceral way and watch his comrades react to it with horror, and I think it works to reinforce the themes of the game through the gameplay. But in the end these NPCs will kill you on sight, so killing them really feels more like an act of self-defense, or you can even try to stealth past all encounters without killing anyone unnecessarily. I think as a total package the game absolutely delivers, and for as bleak and depressing as the story is, the ending is actually quite hopeful. + Show Spoiler + I don't think it's true that Ellie loses everything. She gains something by sparing Abby. Closure. She is able to put the hatred behind her as she remembers her final conversation with Joel, which was all about forgiveness. Who knows if Dina will be able to forgive her for leaving, but I think she is definitely going out to seek it out at the very end. Notice that in Ellie's Santa Barbara model, she isn't wearing the bracelet Dina gave her, while when she is back at the farm the 2nd time, she is. | ||
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
Didn't notice the bracelet thing. I guess I'd call the ending bittersweet then. Kind of work as a setup for a third entry too. | ||
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
Like many others, I struggled with the Abby portion because I had such a strong affinity for Ellie. There was that one moment, I think you all know, where I just let go of the controller cause I didn't want to do what the game wanted me to. That's pretty amazing in its own way. Really yanks you out of your comfort zone. I can see why a lot of people wouldn't reflect on that portion fondly, but by the ending I had come around to appreciate how much this game can challenge you. I'm really looking forward to playing through it again. I think I may enjoy it even more this time with that extra sense of perspective. | ||
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12116 Posts
Story is generic and, well, not that great. But the game itself, the moments... on the Psycho rating I would give it 4,5 chainsaws, maybe 4. (out of 5) The story was really lazy. Everything else was superb. 4k HDR graphics were EPIC, really glad I bought new TV for this Also gore, blood everywhere, really bloody and gory. + Show Spoiler + So, let's talk the story. It's just a stolen revenge story from any other movie, this just has bad-ish ending. That's all. When the game was ending, I was jkust yelling at Ellie to stop, that she's better than this and that Joel wouldn't want it and then it happened. Finally some game character listened to me!!! Ellie lost everything, Abby lost everything. Ellie did what she had to do and I understood her completely. While they tried to make me like Abby, I was just feeling sorry for her in the end. And I still love Ellie. The Abby part - loved it. OK, I hated the 1st day, but the more and more I was in, I saw what ND tried and while I would love to skip this part, I enjoyed it from the 2nd day. They really tried to show Abby as a nice person. It was brave and I really liked it, always wanted to play as the villain (brave in the sence they had to know people will hate this) Long story short - they really need good therapist in the apocalypse. Really. | ||
RKC
2847 Posts
Should violent shoot 'em up games even try to humanise the characters? I mean, we need stories like The Godfather, John Wick and Kill Bill. It's entertaining, but also serves a cautionary message as well - don't kill, don't go revenging, period. Characters should be nuanced, but clearly shown as deranged, damaged, well, basically, just not normal people. The problem, I see, of humanising such characters is that it rationalises and excuses their behavior. We don't want people watching these shows thinking "Wow, I want to be Michael/John Wick/The Bride when I grow up!'. Of course, most right-thinking gamers aren't like that. But it's mainly because such characters are depicted as caricatures or just plain evil. I'm not saying we can't have brutal shows and games. But just let them be as what they are. One-dimensional fun. No moralising (beyond clear messages of 'don't do that please'). Either make brutal games with black-white morality, or don't make them at all. It's just a random thought preying on my mind. Still divided... (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that 'The Last of Us 2' humanises flawed characters too much. Maybe the game even gets the balance right. Just raising a question about games in general.) | ||
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
I also seriously challenge the premise that a piece of art is going to be the determining factor on whether or not someone commits an act of violence. The wackos who claim to be inspired by a certain book to murder someone are not right in the head to begin with. Society shouldn't organize itself to extinguish every possible trigger. | ||
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On July 05 2020 17:14 RKC wrote: Good insights on the story. Sorry to sidetrack from the game itself and get all philosophical, but here goes... Should violent shoot 'em up games even try to humanise the characters? I mean, we need stories like The Godfather, John Wick and Kill Bill. It's entertaining, but also serves a cautionary message as well - don't kill, don't go revenging, period. Characters should be nuanced, but clearly shown as deranged, damaged, well, basically, just not normal people. The problem, I see, of humanising such characters is that it rationalises and excuses their behavior. We don't want people watching these shows thinking "Wow, I want to be Michael/John Wick/The Bride when I grow up!'. Of course, most right-thinking gamers aren't like that. But it's mainly because such characters are depicted as caricatures or just plain evil. I'm not saying we can't have brutal shows and games. But just let them be as what they are. One-dimensional fun. No moralising (beyond clear messages of 'don't do that please'). Either make brutal games with black-white morality, or don't make them at all. It's just a random thought preying on my mind. Still divided... (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that 'The Last of Us 2' humanises flawed characters too much. Maybe the game even gets the balance right. Just raising a question about games in general.) + Show Spoiler + TLOU2 actually tries to show how violence is bad. The best example is that if you kill a dog owner theirs dog will sit next to them, tries to wake them up with the nose, produces sad noices and it's a really sad scene to watch and is one of the reason why dog persons will kill the dog before the owner. TLOU2 doesn't humanise anyone, it shows how bad it is. - killing spree from TLOU1 almost killed Joel & almost killed Ellie, and then killed Joel in TLOU2 - bloody revenge almost killed Ellie - twice. - bloody revenge almost killed Abby - helping in the violence seriously hurt Tommy, almost killed Dina and killed Jesse. I believe it costed Tommy his marriage. - Ellie and several others got PTSD over Joel's death, killers included - Ellie also lost her family Abby was crucified in the end... just sayin. TLOU2 is a classic tragedy art. The hero goes for a bloody revenge no matter the costs and it costs everything. If it would be a Greek drama or written by Shakespeare even Ellie would have died in the end. That's why so many people are not into the story - the story is old as the mankind and was written multiple times. The exception being that many has better ending because people like happy endings. (the closest thing from some recent movies would be the Paybeck with Mel Gibson, where he ends almost beaten to death and had to walk through many bodies) TLOU2 added the Abby part where she does 'Joel things' from TLOU1, but it ends with tragedy. IMO the part was there to show Abby wasn't just a villain but a human and how revenge creates a vicious cycle where you cannot leave any open ends(in other words you have to kill everyone, otherwise the vicious cycle continues - be it Joel leaving Fireflies alive, or Abby leaving Tommy/Ellie alive). Ellie broke the cycle with the realisation that while Joel wasn't as good as many people see him, he wouldn't want Ellie to go and be the angel of death. (sorry, cannot remember any good antic drama about a revenge as I have bad memory and I don't know many Greek drama pieces, yet I believe there are some) I put everything into the spoiler as it's easier to write with spoilers TL, DR I disagree with you. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19033 Posts
| ||
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On July 25 2020 03:42 BisuDagger wrote: Finished the game. I thought the game mechanics and visuals were very good, but I hated the story. And more so, I hated that I was forced to do so many violent scenes. I watch the Walking Dead, but I skip parts if they make me feel uncomfortable. In order for me to complete the game, I had to partake in a lot of things that made me uncomfortable. I loved the first game and didn't feel like I was just on a murder spree the whole time. It was about hope and survival. The way the butchered Ellie's soul and made us spend the last 3 hrs on a horrifying revenge plot was just the tipping point. I was so bothered that I had to drown someone when it was clearly the wrong thing to do. The storytelling was extremely effective, I'll give them that, but I immediately uninstalled this game and couldn't be paid enough money to go through those scenes again. That's why I loved the game. Don't get me wrong, I didn't enjoy any of it, but I liked that such a game was created. If we are talk about games like about art it should bring up emotions just based on the game itself(not the shit about). Hate is a very strong emotion. | ||
bentnormal
112 Posts
https://kotaku.com/the-last-of-us-part-2-wins-game-of-the-year-at-the-2020-1845855047 I finished the game yesterday, a bit late to the "party". Liked it a lot. Felt it could be a bit more tidy (dragged at times). Overall one of the greatest games I've played hands down. Congrats to all that worked on it. | ||
| ||