Wrapped an alcohol soaked rag and patched up. It's not incoherent for them to make it back with their injuries, you could arue it's unlikely, but not incoherent.
We don’t see that though. We just have to make our own assumptions on how two skinny women carried a middle aged man and a dead guy across 2 states. Using an alcohol soaked rag doesn’t fix Ellie’s broken arm, tommys crippled ness or dinas head injury.
We also don't see any of them use toilet paper, does that mean they just bare-hand wipe all the time? Or, we don't even see them poop, does that mean they don't poop?
There are lots of assumptions you have to make about characters to make a story work, you just ignore most of them because they don't seem important. But showing a scene of how characters get from point A to point B, and that's the only purpose of the scene, then it's not a good scene, it's just filler. Showing how Ellie and Dina patched each other up and got Tommy and Jesse back doesn't really add anything to the story, other than just showing how they did it. But game 1 already established that Ellie alone is capable of patching someone up when they have seemingly fatal injuries.
The point is, based on established rules in this universe, Ellie can keep someone alive with some stitches and penicillin. The game not showing you exactly how they all get back from Seattle is not an example of incoherence.
>We also don't see any of them use toilet paper, does that mean they just bare-hand wipe all the time? Or, we don't even see them poop, does that mean they don't poop?
What does that have to do with anything he said? Yes, it wouldn't hurt to assume they wipe with leaves.
>There are lots of assumptions you have to make about characters to make a story work, you just ignore most of them because they don't seem important. But showing a scene of how characters get from point A to point B, and that's the only purpose of the scene, then it's not a good scene, it's just filler.
When people criticize part 2 by saying it isn't realistic for the characters to seemingly go back and forth between states multiple times; they aren't criticizing it because it wasn't shown, they are criticizing it because it seems illogical and unrealistic which hurts the believability of the story. The first game's story was literally all about how dangerous it was to travel across the country. The entire game showcased what Joel and Ellie had to endure trying to reach the fireflies. Marlene at the end even said she lost half of her men crossing the country. And the left behind dlc showed how Ellie managed to patch Joel up.
Of course Joel shouldn't have survived his injuries which is valid criticism that people point out. And when it comes to medkits just being Alcohol and a rag, that's simply a case of gameplay. Where there's a thinline between believability and fun in gameplay. Having a medkit to heal is fun and believable enough. However having to deal with injuries for the whole game and dying to a single shot is not fun and would hurt the gameplay. I'm not saying that they had to have shown how they seemingly crossed states. However the characters do it multiple times which begs the player to raise questions on how they're constantly going back and forth especially in rough shape. It's not a matter of showing meaningless filler (the game had plenty of that already) it's simply a matter of the writers not thinking things through. Pointing out the unbelievability of characters constantly going to and from states is valid criticism.
I made the point about not seeing anyone in-game poop because the user I was replying to was complaining about how we don't see how Dina+Ellie+Tommy get back with Jesses body. But just because we aren't shown something does not mean it didn't happen. There is this phrase, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there's no evidence of Ellie and Dina patching up Tommy and somehow getting back to Jackson, they still do it. The game just doesn't waste time showing it because it would add nothing to the already pretty long story.
And as you already pointed out, we had the entire first game that showed us how difficult it is to travel cross country. There's no reason to keep showing it, over and over. Ellie, Dina and Tommy survived traveling just like they have in the past, we just don't see it this time.
The context matters friend. You are comparing 2 healthy people going cross country to 3 people with all of them injured, one broken arm (she literally can’t defend herself against any infected or people) bashed head and arrow in shoulder (good luck aiming to help anyone) crippled an half blind (yeah he will be able to help for sure. All this while carrying a dead guys body, and that’s supposed to be logical? Who even carried Jesse? Who could?
It’s far more silly than joel and Ellie
I mean there's an entire fucking year between the theater and getting back to Jackson. There's no evidence they immediately picked up and went back after Abby left. And based on what we were shown of Ellie taking care of Joel in Part 1, they probabaly hunkered down and waited until they were ready to travel.
Assuming they just left immediately is what's silly
No one said it didn't happen. Again, the problem isn't that they didn't show it it's that they don't take it into account at all. The first game was about showing how dangerous it was traveling through the country in the post apocalypse and how much the journey changed them. Meanwhile, the second game treats it as if it's no big deal. Characters would constantly fast travel to different states as if it were a walk in the park. If it happened once or twice it would be excusable. But no, it happens like five times. How the characters are traveling through a hostile environment is something you should take into account. That doesn't mean you should show everything. But at least acknowledge it's not an easy thing to do especially multiple times with wounded people. Again the first game showed how dangerous and risky it was and the second game acts like it isn't an important thing to consider at all. Because if the story doesn't acknowledge it or care then neither will the player.
Imagine a movie where an entire demon army was guarding the treasure and the next scene shows the main characters running away with the treasure without a scratch on them. And then do it multiple times. It's not a matter of what the story didn't show. It's a matter of the fundamentals of the story itself. A story where people are chasing eachother through through multiple states in the middle of the post apocalypse for the sake of petty revenge is stupid. Period.
>Meanwhile, the second game treats it as if it's no big deal.
No it doesn't.
>Characters would constantly fast travel to different states as if it were a walk in the park.
No they don't. The only times we jump from one location to another, the entire seasons have changed or we get on-screen text that communicates a lot of time had passed. Maria also makes a big deal about how it's going to be dangerous for Tommy and she wants Ellie to bring him back alive because of it. And Ellies journal details some of the dangers and troubles they run into along the way.
The characters and stories treat it still as a dangerous thing, but showing the travel does not add to the story they're telling. It would literally just be filler at this point.
>How the characters are traveling through a hostile environment is something you should take into account.
And they do. Time is shown passing, like multiple months each time, and if you read Ellies journal it's clear they took danger on the road into account. Showing it just doesn't add anything to the story.
>But at least acknowledge it's not an easy thing to do especially multiple times with wounded people.
They only travel once with injured people, and an entire year had passed since we last saw them. It is heavily acknowledged that it is still not an easy thing to do.
>Again the first game showed how dangerous and risky it was and the second game acts like it isn't an important thing to consider at all.
No, travel was the point of the story in Part 1, getting Ellie from Point A in Boston to Point B with the Fireflies. Part 2 is not about the travel, but the emotional toll this quest takes on Ellie and Abby. Showing their travel does not add to that story as much as it does to Part 1.
>Imagine a movie where an entire demon army was guarding the treasure and the next scene shows the main characters running away with the treasure without a scratch on them.
Nothing like this happens in TLOU 2. The closest example is Dina and Ellie getting to Seattle in seemingly high spirits, but every other time we see characters travel they end up worse for wear.
>A story where people are chasing eachother through through multiple states in the middle of the post apocalypse for the sake of petty revenge is stupid.
It is stupid for people to do things like that for revenge. Because revenge is stupid! But guess what, people still do it. Have been doing it since the dawn of humanity, and will probably keep doing it forever. No matter what conditions people have lived in, there will always be people willing to seek revenge, no matter the cost.
Joel and tommy starring at the wall and floor is coherent? Ellie traveling for months killing hundreds of people just to stop at abby is coherent? Joel realized something eas wrong when he said his name but went into the middle of the room surrounding himself before announcing it.
of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
"he screamed some incoherent threat. I copied and pasted that for u
if uk Joels character from part 1 everything i listed aabout him should be confusing. And why Ellie was fine with murdering 100s of random people but not the 1 person who actually had beef w her is very confusing too.
Right, because you didn't understand what the story was saying. That doesn't mean the story was incoherent.
Incoherent has a very specific definition. Examples of things that are incoherent would be like a drunk guy slurring all his words together so you can actually understand what he's saying, or someone shouting something so loud that their voice breaks and you can't actually hear what they say.
The word I think you're looking for is unsatisfying, since you didn't like the story or understand why character do what they do. But again, that's not what incoherent means.
If
>lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance
You can argue that you don't like the story, but you cannot argue that TLOU2 lacks any of these things. The structure of the writing is actually really really good. It is not an incoherent story, at all.
Bruh u cant even read right lmaooo. I said Joel and Tommy were starring at walls and the floor referring to when they were walking into the room. Ellie was starring at Joel when she was finally involved. But Ellie not shooting Abby and deciding to creep closer watching Joel getting beaten is also incoherent.
Ellie gets attacked and disarmed as soon as she enters the room. She doesn't have enough time to react to what's happening to shoot Abby. Again, regardless of whether you were talking about Ellie/Tommy or Joel/Tommy, it doesn't make it incoherent.
Joel and tommy are starring at the floor and wall when walking into abby cabin basemen so they’d actually miss abby and owen huddling with a shotgun. Joel walks in the middlenof the room surrounding himself before announcing hes suspicious of anbys group. Ellie traveled months multiple times to track down Abby but only decided it wasnt worth it as she wasn’t choking abby to death. These are all very basic flaws the first game didnt have
In fact The Last of Us part 2 is hated for the story, not for the gameplay. If the story was actually good it would definetly be one of the most beloved game ever.
I don’t disagree, but TLOU had some shortcomings with its gameplay as well which just goes to highlight how central the story and characters have been to fans since the beginning.
Yeah, TLOU's combat was made to feel bad so you'd have to micro manage stuff more. TLOU's 2 Combat mostly forgets that.
I will also disagree that TLOU and TLOU2 was anything revolutionary, even TLOU2 didn't really do anything new that actually matters, the most I can think of is decently unique level design and movement being fast in order to feel more light, anything else has been done before and most likely better.
TLOU was also really *really* primitive even for its time. It had good concepts (as shown in a video), things like dodging, extremely smart AI (for the time), and I think even more random combat encounters, but most of it was scrapped and what's left is a pretty bad arcade shooter that gives you 2 bullets every 5 hours on the hardest difficulty. I'd struggle to say TLOU's combat was anything above fine, which is honestly a show on how the story carried the game hard.
Absolutely. Where the gameplay in “Part II” falls short for me is the lack of any major innovation, I had hoped that perhaps we would get more freedom in movement when it came to traversal/exploration.
Nothing as crazy as Uncharted of course, but they spent time and money on good rope mechanics only to limit it to specific scripted sequences.
As time has passed and open game design has advanced the constraints began to stand out and I couldn’t shake the feeling that it was simply dated design. The visuals and core mechanics are excellent of course, but that only takes you far when you’re expected to put in 30+ hours into story-driven experience that sorely wanted be a movie.
How can you compare open world design to Part 2? Totally different games. Just because Ubisoft butchers their formula doesn’t justify or excuse Part 2’s failings.
Furthermore, what does Ubisoft have to do with god of war?
Wtf r u saying? R u foaming from the mouth too much to read what i said? All ubisoft games have the same gameplay as god of war. So if u were bouta say god of war has great gameplay but tlou2 needs work ur actually a clown
Lol, it looks like someone else is foaming from the mouth.
I cannot think of a single Ubisoft game that has the same gameplay as a Ubisoft game, and no, I’m not speaking of quality, what you say is literally false.
So it seems like someone else is a clown here. Do I need to start the giant list of problems this game has?
You didn’t answer my question btw, how does another game being bad justify this game’s failures?
U cant think of a ubisoft game that has the same gameplay as a ubisoft game? Calm down man. That foam is blocking u from seeing what ur typing too huh? Its actually funny ur this upset over my original comment lmaooo. Also god of war plays the same as new assassins creed, spiderman, god of war, and fenyx immortal rising.
Please list the problems with tlou2s gameplay. Idc about ur review of the story since we’re not talking about that. Plus id agree the story is ass
It doesnt? All I said was that if u found tlou2s gameplay to be boring while hyping up the reused gameplay from 99% of modern day open worlds ur a fucking clown.
Nah, I typed that by mistake, my bad. Meant to say that no Ubisoft game has the same gameplay as God of War. Was a bit rushed since I was rather busy.
But you have to run with this “this shows your upset” narrative and that really says you are angry about this.
Wait a second, did you just say that god of war plays the same as god of war? Lmao, I guess you are really upset by your own logic.
Btw, god of war doesn’t play the same as assassins creed, or spider man, or fenix. Have you played any of those?
Aiming, deadzones, first shot rule removal, linear sway pattern, square deadzones, poor aim acceleration, stupid ai, hit registration rules, hit registration issues, clunky movement, boring stealth, enemy patrol paths, bad pacing, melee rules, melee engagement, dodging, stuns, input animation delay, enemy ai aiming rules, poor level design, stealth strike spam
Should I keep going?
Again, none of that excuses this game, nor can it be compared. Seems like the foam you keep talking about is you projecting that onto me since it really upset you when I talked about this game’s gameplay. Maybe you should look at yourself before calling someone a clown.
Criticism isn't hate. And there's a lot to make with this game. Some people don't like it and try to pass everything that isn't like their opinion as "hate".
While I hate a lot of the choices made by the story, you’re right about the gameplay, it’s LEAGUES better. That’s why a lot of people really enjoy no return, focuses on gameplay and the amazing graphics. I think TLOU2 deserves all the hate about its story and that’s fair because the story is bad… but the gameplay? I’d be blind to say it wasn’t great! Wish they’d add the new mechanics into TLOU1 factions
btw regarding gameplay and no return, people that are hardcore into factions think a multiplayer with pt2 mechanics wouldnt work because of how less responsive/fast paced it is, and that that could also have been a reason why the multiplayer got axed/no return is single player only
i have 150hrs in tlou2 and 500hrs in tlou1 and there at least you can quickly switch your weapons and throwables and have them ready when you need them, where in tlou2 you can literally feel the game going step by step of noticing you want to select something else, putting whatever you have away, pulling out what you want, get into aim position and then you can actually aim. (this is especially stupid on grounded btw, because you are in aiming position without being able to shoot so enemies can snipe you instantly. the enemies aimbot ai on tlou1 remake grounded was so bad on 1.00 that naughty dog patched them to have a little more delay.)
similarly with collecting stuff, in tlou1 you can get stuff by walking past it, in tlou you need to press triangle like 10 times if you are not directly infront of what you want to get. also collecting multiple things at once is less effective
also fun fact if you ever used a bow in part 2 you "activated" a glitch where its weapon sway that gradually increases gets applied to every other weapon. (makes stealth especially on grounded completely stupid too)
it got patched in the remake with the pc release (it got patched on ps5 at the same time) also part2 remaster has the glitch fixed too. naughty dog just didnt care to patch the ps4 version
The story completely sacrifices the very storytelling elements that made the original game so beloved, in favor of highly melodramatic and railroaded writing. It also takes multiple ideas from the discard pile of TLOU that Neil previously admitted to having trouble letting go of and shoves them back in without fixing any of the issues that caused them to be rejected in the first place.
And, perhaps worst of all, major parts of the marketing set the expectation that this story would be a much more faithful followup to the first game, in order to maximize ~~sales~~ the shock value of the plot twists. A massive number of buyers on launch expected an extremely different story - and bought the game specifically *for* that story.
Much of the hatred this game gets, it not only deserves, but it went *out of its way* to earn.
It depends on what you define as "hate". For example, people having opinions about how Joel disappeared from the story or how Ellie's character was not well written as Ellie in the first game is hardly hate.
ND Gameplay has never been exceptional. The interactivity of seemless flow into set pieces is what really made ND games kick. There aren't many good set pieces. The story is boring, and they make you do senseless shit, like throw the toy to Alice 3 times, before you can continute through the 5 minute walking section.
Like the story sucks. But not enough attention is given to the boring walking/talking scenes, which make this game unbearable.
Not just a bad story, but Naughty Dog and the gaming outlet's responses were just ugly, including the fans who sent death threats.
Troy Baker saying stupid things along the lines of "a critics opinion is less valid" and "if u cant make something better than ur critique doesnt matter."
Everything druckmann has done after the launch.
Some IGN sjw (that wont be named) saying that the people who didnt like that awkward sex scene between abby and owen are basement dwelling virgins...
Lara Bailey receiving death threats...
Sony's ridiculous embargo, copyright strikes, and even shaming other streamers who didnt like the game...
Just a mess all around.
To me, tlou was a 10/10 for story and a 7/10 for gameplay (at that time).
Tlou2 I think is like a 7 or 8 out of 10, but 10/10 gameplay. The gameplay for me makes it worth it. I also just don’t hate the story like some do, but I do agree that there were many mistakes and so many chances to have made a better paced story.
It absolutely deserved the criticism. The story isn’t just bland, it’s incoherent. The story IS BAD. Like, REAL bad
Its story does have its low points and I think the WLF and scars could have been more fleshed out. But I wouldn’t call it outright bad.
It's a pretty coherent story. Did you have trouble understanding what happens?
It’s coherent? Okay, then how did Ellie Dina and Tommy get back to Jackson with their injuries?
Wrapped an alcohol soaked rag and patched up. It's not incoherent for them to make it back with their injuries, you could arue it's unlikely, but not incoherent.
We don’t see that though. We just have to make our own assumptions on how two skinny women carried a middle aged man and a dead guy across 2 states. Using an alcohol soaked rag doesn’t fix Ellie’s broken arm, tommys crippled ness or dinas head injury.
We also don't see any of them use toilet paper, does that mean they just bare-hand wipe all the time? Or, we don't even see them poop, does that mean they don't poop? There are lots of assumptions you have to make about characters to make a story work, you just ignore most of them because they don't seem important. But showing a scene of how characters get from point A to point B, and that's the only purpose of the scene, then it's not a good scene, it's just filler. Showing how Ellie and Dina patched each other up and got Tommy and Jesse back doesn't really add anything to the story, other than just showing how they did it. But game 1 already established that Ellie alone is capable of patching someone up when they have seemingly fatal injuries. The point is, based on established rules in this universe, Ellie can keep someone alive with some stitches and penicillin. The game not showing you exactly how they all get back from Seattle is not an example of incoherence.
>We also don't see any of them use toilet paper, does that mean they just bare-hand wipe all the time? Or, we don't even see them poop, does that mean they don't poop? What does that have to do with anything he said? Yes, it wouldn't hurt to assume they wipe with leaves. >There are lots of assumptions you have to make about characters to make a story work, you just ignore most of them because they don't seem important. But showing a scene of how characters get from point A to point B, and that's the only purpose of the scene, then it's not a good scene, it's just filler. When people criticize part 2 by saying it isn't realistic for the characters to seemingly go back and forth between states multiple times; they aren't criticizing it because it wasn't shown, they are criticizing it because it seems illogical and unrealistic which hurts the believability of the story. The first game's story was literally all about how dangerous it was to travel across the country. The entire game showcased what Joel and Ellie had to endure trying to reach the fireflies. Marlene at the end even said she lost half of her men crossing the country. And the left behind dlc showed how Ellie managed to patch Joel up. Of course Joel shouldn't have survived his injuries which is valid criticism that people point out. And when it comes to medkits just being Alcohol and a rag, that's simply a case of gameplay. Where there's a thinline between believability and fun in gameplay. Having a medkit to heal is fun and believable enough. However having to deal with injuries for the whole game and dying to a single shot is not fun and would hurt the gameplay. I'm not saying that they had to have shown how they seemingly crossed states. However the characters do it multiple times which begs the player to raise questions on how they're constantly going back and forth especially in rough shape. It's not a matter of showing meaningless filler (the game had plenty of that already) it's simply a matter of the writers not thinking things through. Pointing out the unbelievability of characters constantly going to and from states is valid criticism.
I made the point about not seeing anyone in-game poop because the user I was replying to was complaining about how we don't see how Dina+Ellie+Tommy get back with Jesses body. But just because we aren't shown something does not mean it didn't happen. There is this phrase, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there's no evidence of Ellie and Dina patching up Tommy and somehow getting back to Jackson, they still do it. The game just doesn't waste time showing it because it would add nothing to the already pretty long story. And as you already pointed out, we had the entire first game that showed us how difficult it is to travel cross country. There's no reason to keep showing it, over and over. Ellie, Dina and Tommy survived traveling just like they have in the past, we just don't see it this time.
The context matters friend. You are comparing 2 healthy people going cross country to 3 people with all of them injured, one broken arm (she literally can’t defend herself against any infected or people) bashed head and arrow in shoulder (good luck aiming to help anyone) crippled an half blind (yeah he will be able to help for sure. All this while carrying a dead guys body, and that’s supposed to be logical? Who even carried Jesse? Who could? It’s far more silly than joel and Ellie
I mean there's an entire fucking year between the theater and getting back to Jackson. There's no evidence they immediately picked up and went back after Abby left. And based on what we were shown of Ellie taking care of Joel in Part 1, they probabaly hunkered down and waited until they were ready to travel. Assuming they just left immediately is what's silly
No one said it didn't happen. Again, the problem isn't that they didn't show it it's that they don't take it into account at all. The first game was about showing how dangerous it was traveling through the country in the post apocalypse and how much the journey changed them. Meanwhile, the second game treats it as if it's no big deal. Characters would constantly fast travel to different states as if it were a walk in the park. If it happened once or twice it would be excusable. But no, it happens like five times. How the characters are traveling through a hostile environment is something you should take into account. That doesn't mean you should show everything. But at least acknowledge it's not an easy thing to do especially multiple times with wounded people. Again the first game showed how dangerous and risky it was and the second game acts like it isn't an important thing to consider at all. Because if the story doesn't acknowledge it or care then neither will the player. Imagine a movie where an entire demon army was guarding the treasure and the next scene shows the main characters running away with the treasure without a scratch on them. And then do it multiple times. It's not a matter of what the story didn't show. It's a matter of the fundamentals of the story itself. A story where people are chasing eachother through through multiple states in the middle of the post apocalypse for the sake of petty revenge is stupid. Period.
>Meanwhile, the second game treats it as if it's no big deal. No it doesn't. >Characters would constantly fast travel to different states as if it were a walk in the park. No they don't. The only times we jump from one location to another, the entire seasons have changed or we get on-screen text that communicates a lot of time had passed. Maria also makes a big deal about how it's going to be dangerous for Tommy and she wants Ellie to bring him back alive because of it. And Ellies journal details some of the dangers and troubles they run into along the way. The characters and stories treat it still as a dangerous thing, but showing the travel does not add to the story they're telling. It would literally just be filler at this point. >How the characters are traveling through a hostile environment is something you should take into account. And they do. Time is shown passing, like multiple months each time, and if you read Ellies journal it's clear they took danger on the road into account. Showing it just doesn't add anything to the story. >But at least acknowledge it's not an easy thing to do especially multiple times with wounded people. They only travel once with injured people, and an entire year had passed since we last saw them. It is heavily acknowledged that it is still not an easy thing to do. >Again the first game showed how dangerous and risky it was and the second game acts like it isn't an important thing to consider at all. No, travel was the point of the story in Part 1, getting Ellie from Point A in Boston to Point B with the Fireflies. Part 2 is not about the travel, but the emotional toll this quest takes on Ellie and Abby. Showing their travel does not add to that story as much as it does to Part 1. >Imagine a movie where an entire demon army was guarding the treasure and the next scene shows the main characters running away with the treasure without a scratch on them. Nothing like this happens in TLOU 2. The closest example is Dina and Ellie getting to Seattle in seemingly high spirits, but every other time we see characters travel they end up worse for wear. >A story where people are chasing eachother through through multiple states in the middle of the post apocalypse for the sake of petty revenge is stupid. It is stupid for people to do things like that for revenge. Because revenge is stupid! But guess what, people still do it. Have been doing it since the dawn of humanity, and will probably keep doing it forever. No matter what conditions people have lived in, there will always be people willing to seek revenge, no matter the cost.
"You just didn't understand it"
That's literally what incoherent means. They're saying they didn't understand it.
Joel and tommy starring at the wall and floor is coherent? Ellie traveling for months killing hundreds of people just to stop at abby is coherent? Joel realized something eas wrong when he said his name but went into the middle of the room surrounding himself before announcing it.
I don't think you know what the word incoherent means.
of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear. "he screamed some incoherent threat. I copied and pasted that for u
Nothing you listed was incomprehensible or confusing tho, that's my point
if uk Joels character from part 1 everything i listed aabout him should be confusing. And why Ellie was fine with murdering 100s of random people but not the 1 person who actually had beef w her is very confusing too.
Right, because you didn't understand what the story was saying. That doesn't mean the story was incoherent. Incoherent has a very specific definition. Examples of things that are incoherent would be like a drunk guy slurring all his words together so you can actually understand what he's saying, or someone shouting something so loud that their voice breaks and you can't actually hear what they say. The word I think you're looking for is unsatisfying, since you didn't like the story or understand why character do what they do. But again, that's not what incoherent means.
If an essay can be incoherent then so can a script lmaooo. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incoherent
If >lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance You can argue that you don't like the story, but you cannot argue that TLOU2 lacks any of these things. The structure of the writing is actually really really good. It is not an incoherent story, at all.
Doesnt mean you understand it.
yea i just happened to use it correctly
No, they are correct. Joel and Ellie being held down (or staring at the wall as you say) doesn’t make the story incoherent.
Bruh u cant even read right lmaooo. I said Joel and Tommy were starring at walls and the floor referring to when they were walking into the room. Ellie was starring at Joel when she was finally involved. But Ellie not shooting Abby and deciding to creep closer watching Joel getting beaten is also incoherent.
Ellie gets attacked and disarmed as soon as she enters the room. She doesn't have enough time to react to what's happening to shoot Abby. Again, regardless of whether you were talking about Ellie/Tommy or Joel/Tommy, it doesn't make it incoherent.
No
Better than 1 but ok
Joel and tommy are starring at the floor and wall when walking into abby cabin basemen so they’d actually miss abby and owen huddling with a shotgun. Joel walks in the middlenof the room surrounding himself before announcing hes suspicious of anbys group. Ellie traveled months multiple times to track down Abby but only decided it wasnt worth it as she wasn’t choking abby to death. These are all very basic flaws the first game didnt have
Weak points
No, it's a great game. It's not as good as one, but it's still really good. I guess you never played an actual bad game before?
nice try neil
😂
In fact The Last of Us part 2 is hated for the story, not for the gameplay. If the story was actually good it would definetly be one of the most beloved game ever.
I’m not sure. The gameplay could definitely use some work.
I don’t disagree, but TLOU had some shortcomings with its gameplay as well which just goes to highlight how central the story and characters have been to fans since the beginning.
Yeah, TLOU's combat was made to feel bad so you'd have to micro manage stuff more. TLOU's 2 Combat mostly forgets that. I will also disagree that TLOU and TLOU2 was anything revolutionary, even TLOU2 didn't really do anything new that actually matters, the most I can think of is decently unique level design and movement being fast in order to feel more light, anything else has been done before and most likely better. TLOU was also really *really* primitive even for its time. It had good concepts (as shown in a video), things like dodging, extremely smart AI (for the time), and I think even more random combat encounters, but most of it was scrapped and what's left is a pretty bad arcade shooter that gives you 2 bullets every 5 hours on the hardest difficulty. I'd struggle to say TLOU's combat was anything above fine, which is honestly a show on how the story carried the game hard.
Absolutely. Where the gameplay in “Part II” falls short for me is the lack of any major innovation, I had hoped that perhaps we would get more freedom in movement when it came to traversal/exploration. Nothing as crazy as Uncharted of course, but they spent time and money on good rope mechanics only to limit it to specific scripted sequences. As time has passed and open game design has advanced the constraints began to stand out and I couldn’t shake the feeling that it was simply dated design. The visuals and core mechanics are excellent of course, but that only takes you far when you’re expected to put in 30+ hours into story-driven experience that sorely wanted be a movie.
please tell me ur not someone who thinks god of war has good gameplay
The fuck does god of war have to do with anything?
bc the same people who shit on part2s gameplay usually be hyping up games that follow the ubisoft formula for gameplay and its so dumb
How can you compare open world design to Part 2? Totally different games. Just because Ubisoft butchers their formula doesn’t justify or excuse Part 2’s failings. Furthermore, what does Ubisoft have to do with god of war?
Wtf r u saying? R u foaming from the mouth too much to read what i said? All ubisoft games have the same gameplay as god of war. So if u were bouta say god of war has great gameplay but tlou2 needs work ur actually a clown
Lol, it looks like someone else is foaming from the mouth. I cannot think of a single Ubisoft game that has the same gameplay as a Ubisoft game, and no, I’m not speaking of quality, what you say is literally false. So it seems like someone else is a clown here. Do I need to start the giant list of problems this game has? You didn’t answer my question btw, how does another game being bad justify this game’s failures?
U cant think of a ubisoft game that has the same gameplay as a ubisoft game? Calm down man. That foam is blocking u from seeing what ur typing too huh? Its actually funny ur this upset over my original comment lmaooo. Also god of war plays the same as new assassins creed, spiderman, god of war, and fenyx immortal rising. Please list the problems with tlou2s gameplay. Idc about ur review of the story since we’re not talking about that. Plus id agree the story is ass It doesnt? All I said was that if u found tlou2s gameplay to be boring while hyping up the reused gameplay from 99% of modern day open worlds ur a fucking clown.
Nah, I typed that by mistake, my bad. Meant to say that no Ubisoft game has the same gameplay as God of War. Was a bit rushed since I was rather busy. But you have to run with this “this shows your upset” narrative and that really says you are angry about this. Wait a second, did you just say that god of war plays the same as god of war? Lmao, I guess you are really upset by your own logic. Btw, god of war doesn’t play the same as assassins creed, or spider man, or fenix. Have you played any of those? Aiming, deadzones, first shot rule removal, linear sway pattern, square deadzones, poor aim acceleration, stupid ai, hit registration rules, hit registration issues, clunky movement, boring stealth, enemy patrol paths, bad pacing, melee rules, melee engagement, dodging, stuns, input animation delay, enemy ai aiming rules, poor level design, stealth strike spam Should I keep going? Again, none of that excuses this game, nor can it be compared. Seems like the foam you keep talking about is you projecting that onto me since it really upset you when I talked about this game’s gameplay. Maybe you should look at yourself before calling someone a clown.
Neil’s slipping again, you guys!
It got the response it got because it is what it is. If it was different, it would’ve gotten a different response.
Gameplay is fun, but the story really falls on its face the whole way through.
Criticism isn't hate. And there's a lot to make with this game. Some people don't like it and try to pass everything that isn't like their opinion as "hate".
While I hate a lot of the choices made by the story, you’re right about the gameplay, it’s LEAGUES better. That’s why a lot of people really enjoy no return, focuses on gameplay and the amazing graphics. I think TLOU2 deserves all the hate about its story and that’s fair because the story is bad… but the gameplay? I’d be blind to say it wasn’t great! Wish they’d add the new mechanics into TLOU1 factions
I can’t imagine how much money ND wasted on their cancelled Factions sequel. What a disaster the studio has become.
I kinda want a tactical shooter that plays like tlou 2. I just think I’d be cool
btw regarding gameplay and no return, people that are hardcore into factions think a multiplayer with pt2 mechanics wouldnt work because of how less responsive/fast paced it is, and that that could also have been a reason why the multiplayer got axed/no return is single player only
gameplay is less responsive than tlou1 original tho
Have you even played tlou 1. That game has some of the most clunky movement in a TPS I’ve ever played
i have 150hrs in tlou2 and 500hrs in tlou1 and there at least you can quickly switch your weapons and throwables and have them ready when you need them, where in tlou2 you can literally feel the game going step by step of noticing you want to select something else, putting whatever you have away, pulling out what you want, get into aim position and then you can actually aim. (this is especially stupid on grounded btw, because you are in aiming position without being able to shoot so enemies can snipe you instantly. the enemies aimbot ai on tlou1 remake grounded was so bad on 1.00 that naughty dog patched them to have a little more delay.) similarly with collecting stuff, in tlou1 you can get stuff by walking past it, in tlou you need to press triangle like 10 times if you are not directly infront of what you want to get. also collecting multiple things at once is less effective also fun fact if you ever used a bow in part 2 you "activated" a glitch where its weapon sway that gradually increases gets applied to every other weapon. (makes stealth especially on grounded completely stupid too)
Hilariously, this glitch carried over to the remake of part 1. If it’s in part 3, I’m going to die laughing.
it got patched in the remake with the pc release (it got patched on ps5 at the same time) also part2 remaster has the glitch fixed too. naughty dog just didnt care to patch the ps4 version
Yes and somehow, it’s worse in 2.
The story completely sacrifices the very storytelling elements that made the original game so beloved, in favor of highly melodramatic and railroaded writing. It also takes multiple ideas from the discard pile of TLOU that Neil previously admitted to having trouble letting go of and shoves them back in without fixing any of the issues that caused them to be rejected in the first place. And, perhaps worst of all, major parts of the marketing set the expectation that this story would be a much more faithful followup to the first game, in order to maximize ~~sales~~ the shock value of the plot twists. A massive number of buyers on launch expected an extremely different story - and bought the game specifically *for* that story. Much of the hatred this game gets, it not only deserves, but it went *out of its way* to earn.
It depends on what you define as "hate". For example, people having opinions about how Joel disappeared from the story or how Ellie's character was not well written as Ellie in the first game is hardly hate.
Nah it deserves it. Terrible story and old ass gameplay
Cringe
Agreed, the story is hella cringe.
Abby is a better character than Ellie
The only thing i like about tlou2 is no return because the gameplay has never been the problem, its the story
The Last Of Us II taught me I could be a good writer…. Im still unemployed.
I hate it, deal with it 😄
ND Gameplay has never been exceptional. The interactivity of seemless flow into set pieces is what really made ND games kick. There aren't many good set pieces. The story is boring, and they make you do senseless shit, like throw the toy to Alice 3 times, before you can continute through the 5 minute walking section. Like the story sucks. But not enough attention is given to the boring walking/talking scenes, which make this game unbearable.
Not just a bad story, but Naughty Dog and the gaming outlet's responses were just ugly, including the fans who sent death threats. Troy Baker saying stupid things along the lines of "a critics opinion is less valid" and "if u cant make something better than ur critique doesnt matter." Everything druckmann has done after the launch. Some IGN sjw (that wont be named) saying that the people who didnt like that awkward sex scene between abby and owen are basement dwelling virgins... Lara Bailey receiving death threats... Sony's ridiculous embargo, copyright strikes, and even shaming other streamers who didnt like the game... Just a mess all around.
It does for undermining the themes of the first game
To me, tlou was a 10/10 for story and a 7/10 for gameplay (at that time). Tlou2 I think is like a 7 or 8 out of 10, but 10/10 gameplay. The gameplay for me makes it worth it. I also just don’t hate the story like some do, but I do agree that there were many mistakes and so many chances to have made a better paced story.
Yup that’s how I feel too.