kcarnes9051

@liljazzy2 It's called a converging plot line. It's done quite regularly. Like it's not an uncommon phenomenon in narratives. Ever read a Song Of Ice And Fire book? Basically every character in that series develops separately with the consequences of each only tangentially affecting other characters. The actions of one character and their development on one side of the continent can have Earth shattering effects to characters and their development on the other side of the continent.

Regardless, everything that Abby experiences separate from the first half of the game directly affects the final confrontation and resolution. Abby's ordeal with Lev directly puts her in her state of mind at the beach. It is all consequential.

It doesn't matter if Abby's character develops separately. Criticizing the game on that front is a bit unfair in the grand scheme of narrative design.

Even still saying that her character wholly develops separately is a bit of an exaggeration, as Abby frequently comes across Ellie's war path and is affected by those events. She is directly affected and develops due to the consequences of the first half of the game. It's often interwoven.

This game isn't supposed to follow the exact same character development formula as the first. It mirrors certain aspects but that's it. It has different goals in mind.

@TheArt I whole heartedly agree. The moment you're tasked with trying to kill Ellie as Abby at the theater is a monumental storytelling and thematic achievement from a game design perspective. The complexity of emotions, thematic overlays, and intentional dissonance that this scene creates is unlike anything created in any medium because it's wholly unique by taking advantage of a video game medium. You can't do this in a book. You can't in a movie. They can't actively make you be two sides in a conflict. And no other game has attempted this level of role reversal that I'm aware of. It's groundbreaking honestly and reaches a level of mature, nuanced storytelling never before seen in a game (or at the very least rarely seen).

@liljazzy2 Your comments about the cycle of revenge and that being absent from most of Abby's story betrays that you fundamentally do not understand the story and what it is trying to achieve.

Abby's character isn't so much supposed to mirror Ellie's arc and thematics. Thus, when we start playing Abby the thematics of revenge haven't kicked in.

Abby's character is moreso supposed to mirror Joel when we find him at the beginning of game one. Both Joel and Abby are grey people that have done questionable things in their past. And they're both put into a position of helping a younger person navigate a dangerous world and learn to love them. Abby and Joel both grow in similar ways.

Abby learns to love Lev and betrays her people to save him because of that love and regains some of her humanity.

Joel learns to love Ellie and kills a bunch of people to protect Ellie and, likewise, regains some of his humanity.

We as the player in the first game are positioned by the framing of the game to associate with Joel and think of him as the hero of that story. We are positioned this way despite the bad things he has done in his past.

The second game is challenging us to look at Abby in the same way. It is challenging us to sympathize with her in the same way we sympathized with Joel, despite the bad things she's does.

It is trying to challenge us to recognize the hypocracy of associating with a particular side and dehumanizing the other side when all things are relatively equal.

This feeds back into the themes of perspective and contextual motivation as they relate to violent acts. This is not just a "revenge bad" game. If your takeaway is that revenge is the deepest, most complex thematics of the game you've woefully only broken ground on the true depths of this game. You are not reading the full intent.

So critiquing Abby's arc as lacking revenge is a complete misunderstanding.

The game is far more complex and intentional than just having revenge everywhere willy nilly.

@Westernwolf4 The game's length is like 25 hours on average for most people to complete. This is not a long game by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sorry, it's just not. Not in comparison to most AAA games. Medium length maybe.

But it is indeed exhausting, which makes it feel long. Which is not the same as actually being long. And, again, herein lies the point. You're supposed to feel exhausted when you reach the theater because Abby is exhausted.

The game wants you to feel exhausted. It wants you to be fed up and exhausted by the death, exhausted by the cycle. Tired of your own culpability as the player. And it wants you to push forward despite all that exhaustion to encapsulate the drive for revenge, to show you how far revenge pushes a person. To literally push you as the player to continue completing the game despite maybe not wanting to. Pushing you as the player beyond exhaustion, beyond what's good for your own wellbeing, beyond rationality.

Again, this is a game that doesn't just want you to understand the complex emotions of the characters. It literally wants you to embody them via simulation and feel them as your own.

The length of the game, as in the feeling of exhaustion, is literally a design choice. It is a feature. It is form following function. It fulfills the intended thematic goals of the game.

Furthermore, it is challenging you to sympathize with Abby on the same level that you sympathize with Joel or Ellie. You don't have to, but the game is very much putting your empathy to the test. The game intends to challenge the player to embody Abby, despite absolutely detesting her, as a character deserving of empathy. As deserving just as much empathy as the other characters we've been positioned to love. You do not do that by giving Abby a pittance of the gameplay time.

@jamison1993 Except the game wants to put you in the position of fighting Ellie as Abby at the theater. It wants you to wrestle with the idea of fighting with the person who you originally viewed as the protagonist. And fight as the person you originally viewed as the antagonist. It wants you to occupy that role reversal. To really embody the other side, to see how one person or another can be viewed simultaneously as the hero and villain. You can’t occupy a role reversal unless you literally do it. They didn’t have you play as Abby just for funsies. This is a deep form of simulating two sides of a conflict that only a video game can provide by making you an active participant as each character. Actively participating as Abby is essential. It is this confrontation when we as the players are asked to continue pushing forward to kill Ellie, despite empathizing with both characters. The game wants to create the hesitancy. It wants to make you uncomfortable and attempt to see Ellie as the enemy as Abby would. It wants you to more fully explore both sides from a deeper empathetic place by embodying them each. If you don’t play as Abby, you can’t have this same confrontation. You can’t have as deep of a connection. That theater scene is the fulcrum for the entire story. This isn’t just a “revenge is bad story” or a “hey, these are real people, too” story. That’s surface level. It ignores the distinct advantage of the video game medium as a simulation that is being leveraged to force the player into two people at conflict. This isn’t just a morality story that you read. This is a morality tale that you experience. You would not have the same experience if Abby was just an NPC that you fought and who watched in cutscenes. That would not land in remotely the same way and would not achieve the very intentional goals the game sets out to achieve. Making you fight the protagonist as the antagonist and feeling torn about the situation is the dynamic the game wants to create. That is completely unachievable unless you play as Abby.

@jrt87 You complain about one-dimensional vapid characters and then come up with a barebones cliche kidnapping story . . . Why exactly? . . . Just another romp with the old crew? To explore what new themes exactly and what new morality tale? How does a kidnapping story progress these relationships and the overall story beyond what they were at the end of the first game into new territory that’s more deep than what we got. Your idea is shallow and doesn’t contain an ounce of the pathos in TLOU2. You complain about supporting characters and yet your basic idea is hardly skin deep. As supporting characters, they were fleshed out as much as necessary for the purpose of the story. If you were unable to empathize with them you’re so clouded by the emotions surrounded the killing of Joel that you’re unable to get beyond you’re hatred. There were things to like about these characters. You just refuse to see them. You’re blinded. They each had their separate motivations and were as deep as necessary for the story. And it seems like you’re just pissed about them killing your BFF and that you didn’t get the romp with the old crew that you wanted, seeing as how your cool kidnapping story is your super smart idea to keep your BFF alive and well. Druckman was not interested in staying in a safe place with these characters and just running it back. He is exploring far more nuanced and complex ideas than your vapid kidnapping idea.

@jamison1993 The entire point of the game is for you to play as Abby. Not playing Abby would entirely change the thematics of the game, the emotions you’re supposed to feel, and the moral failings you’re supposed to wrestle with. The game’s entire intent hinges on you playing as Abby.

@liljazzy2 How is the game not coherent? I followed it perfectly fine. Everything made complete sense to me. Seemed plenty coherent if you understand the game’s intent. People that simply hate Abby seem to have the most problem understanding the game’s intent because they let their hatred and grief get in the way of understanding the game’s complexity.

@liljazzy2 The game’s story does indeed have a structure. You just don’t like it, and it apparently doesn’t resonate with you. But it very much has purpose, and it does indeed resonate with a great many players. Its a structure that intentionally tricks you into thinking that you’re the hero as Ellie and that everyone she kills is a two-dimensional villain that’s inconsequential to kill off in a revenge fantasy. The game is pointing out than in real life, nobody is a two-dimensional villain. Everyone has complex motivations and perspectives. Even moreso it wants us to feel the repercussion of failing to understand that. But we can’t fully understand the emotional repercussions without first acting out the revenge and then doubling back to learn to regret it by understanding Abby’s perspective. This game wants us to commit violent acts so that we can later learn and feel what that truly means after those violent acts are set in stone. Telling this story in a more conventional structure would completely undermine the entire games intent.

@liljazzy2 Proclaiming that ND takes an L for TLOU2 is such a weird take. It's sold over 10 million copies, had the best-selling PS exclusive release of all time, won numerous game of the year awards, and is considered one of the best games of the PS4 generation. It is for all intents and purposes a quality game with some controversial narrative choices.

Even if I don't like a game for its narrative or gameplay choices, I can still recognize quality when I see it. I can be like, "I didn't like this game and object to certain choices, but I can recognize the quality and still appreciate how so many other people might love it."

Regardless, outside of the story itself, the gameplay is absolutely exquisite.

Calling it an L, even if it's an opinion, just comes across like massive hyperbole.

And the story structure is very intentional, and goes hand-in-hand with the central themes of the game. It's convoluted, as you put it, by design. The game constantly replays the theme of shifting perspective and revisiting past events through a new lens with a different perspective. It is constantly re-contextualizing.

It is vastly more complex than the first game. Where the first game seems hyper focused, neat and tidy with it's narrative, the second game can come across convoluted if you completely ignore its intent and lack the ability to connect with it.

Where folks with your opinion find a convoluted plot, I find nuanced complexity and an intentionally crafted tale where form meets function. A massive W.

@Mr_Gamecube All of the characters that die get dispatched by Ellie while she's on her revenge killing spree before you play as Abby and actually meet the characters you kill. You're supposed to feel justified in your killings as Ellie and dehumanize those people who you're killing. You're not supposed to connect with those characters at that time. You're not supposed to feel for those characters at that time. They're supposed to just be people in your way that get offed in a blink of an eye, as you say. That's intentional.

The game then wants to recontextualize those killings as you play as Abby. It wants you to re-evaluate everything you had done as Ellie as you meet all the characters she killed while you play as Abby. Those characters that Ellie kills mean a great deal to Abby. So those deaths do have meaning, and your own emotional reaction to evaluating those deaths is entirely reliant on your ability to empathize with someone you think is the villain when given new information. It's reliant on your ability to understand motive and perspective. It is reliant on your ability to retrospectively evaluate past events when given new context.

The genius of this approach is that it uses the distinct unique abilities of video games as a mode of simulation. You could write a similar narrative in a book or movie, but it would never have the same effect as a video game simulation by involving the player/reader as an active participant in the actions of the two playable characters. Through this simulation in which the player is involved with the choices, the player should be able to more fully feel the emotional repercussions of the narrative. The players should more fully comprehend what it means to dehumanize other people when refusing to comprehend and give credence to other perspectives and motivations.

A truly empathetic player could draw lessons from this game when engaged in conflict in the real world in trying to understand the perspective and motivations of those on the other side of the conflict.

@KundaliniRising333 People generally do not WILLFULLY devote their lives to things they dislike in the absence of devotion, obligation or necessity. And if they do it's simply not mentally healthy.

Usually doing something you dislike by fulfilling devotion, obligation or necessity is done in service to the betterment of oneself, another or for a moral standard. In the absence of serving yourself, another or a moral standard you are simply subjecting yourself to something you dislike without cause. Which is neither rational or beneficial.

It makes sense to do things you don't like if it's beneficial. It is not healthy to do things you don't like if it's not beneficial.

You have a choice to play a game. It is not an obligation. Or a necessity. And their is no higher calling to playing a game out of devotion.

So playing a game you dislike is simply self-flagellation. Wasting your time simply to displease yourself when more enjoyable things are widely available.

Again, that is unhealthy.

The widely excepted metric for an average game out of a ten point scale is a seven, as this is the average score given to games in the industry across a wide swath of publications.

Saying that an average video game score is a five is an extreme position and, again, suggestive of your inclination for being overly critical with a habit for resorting to hyperbole.

@KundaliniRising333 I never said that you needed to accept or condone any of the poor practices illustrated by the release of this game. I explicitly said that is fair criticism.

Again, there is a difference between being cognizant and critical of mechanizations behind the scenes versus compartmentalizing the quality of a product in a vacuum.

I'm in short addressing that you're calling this an awful game as it stands now, which it simply is not. Maybe average at worst.

If you heard nothing of this game (nothing about the release and nothing about the development) and plopped yourself down in front of it today, it would be perfectly playable and enjoyable with minor issues. Certain elements are fairly average. But, again, far from awful.

You keep measuring it against what was promised and bringing in the wrongdoings of corporations and using that to judge the game against what it actually is.

The game is the game and what was promised is what was promised. Two different things.

It's very strange that you willfully put 40 or 50 hours into something that you thought was awful. There seems to be some kind of disconnect between the meaning of your words, your perception, and the self-flagellation you seem to put yourself through. Most people don't devote 40 to 50 hours to something they think sucks.

I have made no unreasonable assumptions about your emotional state. But considering that you are a human being and all human beings have emotions, it's reasonable to assume that you have negative emotions regarding this game based on the way it was developed and released. I take it you're not a robot.

But feelings about what should have been in the game or how it should have been released have no bearing on what the game actually is.

Judge the game for what is in the game. Not for what some creative director aspired to put in the game 10 years ago.

I just have to disagree. Being more critical is not always a must. Learning to be more discerning about when to be critical is higher level thought.

If you were willing to let go a little, I think you would find that being a less critical in certain situations sometimes will help you enjoy things more.

I'm especially critical of movies, and I find that I always start a discussion of a movie with things that I didn't like, even for movies that I did like overall. And then I follow up with saying, "Oh, yeah, but I did like this." Almost as an after thought. The realization quickly sets in that being so critical sometimes sucks all the air out of the room and out of life. Life can be more enjoyable focusing on the positive.

Regardless, there is a difference between being critical of a company's business practices and promises versus being critical of what the game actually is in front of you. These are two separate topics.

Yes, CDPR deserves criticism for how the game was released. It's fair to be critical that they overpromised and didn't follow through. It is fair to discern that level of criticism.

But the game is the game. And the game for what it is now is plenty playable and enjoyable taken on its own. It's worth the price of admission measured against similar games. It's far from awful. This is where discerning and letting go comes in.

One must be able to compartmentalize the game from the development of the game.

You seem hung up on what was promised. In creative fields projects often get out of hand. Grand visions ultimately get dialed back. It's not an uncommon phenomenon. And, yeah, it can lead to disappointed when the original vision isn't fulfilled or when a product is released unfinished by impatient execs. That legitimately sucks. But from the outside it looks like an ungodly affront to fans with diabolical intentions, when it's really a complex situation of various people missing the mark and making mistakes while others legitimately are doing the best they can.

But few people in the grand scheme of things actually obsessively cling to every word that a developer says to amp up anticipation or the highs and lows of a games life cycle. Most people are casuals. And I'd wager most casuals are enjoying Cyberpunk fine in its current state. I'm personally happy it's where it's at. I'm happy I was patient enough to wait to play it upon news that the launch went poorly. I played other things and am happier for waiting.

Sometimes it's better to have a casual mindset so that you don't get so deep in the industry talk building up what's supposed to be a revolutionary game. Buying into hype rarely turns out well.

Sometimes it's nice to just come into a game with few expectations and general knowledge and just enjoy it for what it is rather than basing your expectations on 10 years of development news and getting caught up emotionally in the drama.

But in a vacuum the game now is fine.

@KundaliniRising333 Like others have said, Night City has looked fantastic throughout my 15 hours of playtime so far. One of the most immersive games I've experienced, and I've played many.

The details of the city and characters look great. Maybe not best in class, and maybe not as good as a suped up PC. But a far, far stretch from awful.

Are there some minor issues here and there. Yes, but again, a far stretch from awful. I play all my games on a 7 foot wide projector screen with a 4k gaming projector, and I am constantly blown away by the detail.

If the roads during my play through had any more cars on them, it would make driving around a headache, as I regularly have to weave in and out of them. There are as many cars on the road as there are in a Need For Speed game.

Is there pop in, yes. But I notice pop-in while playing just about all games. It is not so egregious in this game, and given the size and detail of it, some pop-in is understandable. I've seen far, far worse. It's plenty playable. More so even.

The AI is nothing to write home about. It's plenty serviceable, but again, characterizing it as awful just seems like massive hyperbole.

Either you're ultra critical or there's something wrong with your setup. Everyone's opinion is valid though, and if the game is just not for you then it's not for you. But, man, the distance between this game and awful is huge.

@Uncharted2007 Creating one standard console will simplify their production pipeline in the long run, as they phase out the launch version. The add-on disk drive will be simple to make and will not have the same expenses associated with producing a second console with the disk drive built in.

@riceNpea Literally the definition of several is more than 2 but not many. You use several when the exact number is not known or disclosed. But 3 definitely qualifies as several. When he originally said several, a safe assumption would have been that 3 was among the options for the meaning of his words.

@Agramonte I would love to see that story, as well. There'd be a lot of detractors based on people that absolutely hate Abby. But I, personally, hope they double down on exploring her character.

@Richnj That's awesome and the gaming market at work. Sony still commands more than enough demand to justify their prices, which are in line with historical norms. Xbox is losing money through GamePass. So it's not exactly comparable.

@Would_you_kindly As demand goes up pricing goes up. Supply has tracked with demand keeping gaming prices stable for decades. Profitability is irrelevant. Nobody owes you a cheap game.

@Nutstool In 1995, the average game price in the states was $50. Adjusted for inflation that's $97.00 today. I'm betting UK prices tracked somewhat similarly.

@Nutstool You're being obtuse and intellectually dishonest if you don't account for inflation when stating whether something is more or less expensive with decades in between.

@Nutstool God Of War was released in 2018 for $60. Adjusted for inflation that $60 is worth $70 in 2022 money. So God Of War Ragnorak is essentially the same price as God Of War. Lol.

@Nutstool Adjust for inflation. I admittedly don't know exactly how inflation has gone down in the UK but I can imagine it's not wholly different. $40 USD in the 1980s would be like $140 today. And, yet, games for years remained at $60 and only recently went up to $70. $140 is double what games actually cost. Even adjusting for cost of living and cartridge and CD manufacturing, games are still quite cheap when inflation is taken into account. The inflation calculator I'm looking at says that 40 pounds in 1980 is 138 pounds today. I'm 39 so I'm not exactly a newb either.

@Nutstool Games are cheaper today then they were 20-30 years ago.

Can't wait for people to stop talking about this game. Buy it or don't buy or wait.

@Constable_What

It takes two to tango. Considering the theme of perspective, we might both realize that each of our comments can come off to the other as being a lecture. That said . . .

I know you can sneak past encounters. But that's all you're focused on. You've been basing this entire discussion on that false premise. Encounters are not the reason why I responded to your message to Ambassador Kong. You are correct that just like MGS you can stealth the majority. We are in agreement that ambassador Kong is making a false comparison about killing in-game. . . to a point. You see, MGS does not have Quick Time Events quite like TLOU2, and that's where they diverge in their representation of violence.

You were responding to Ambassador Kong as if the encounters are all that matter when considering the moral implications of events and why someone would or would not want to continue playing. The QTEs in which you brutally murder people matter, too, and that was the point I was trying to make in my response.

You have to pursue Nora through the hospital until Ellie grabs Nora and throws her into that pit of spores. You as the player drove her into those spores. She didn’t fall on her own. You’re responsible. You as Ellie then pushed square in a QTE to beat her to death. Whether she deserved it is irrelevant to the fact that it's a heightened level of violence you are obligated as the player to commit. This matters as much as any encounter.

In fact, I'd argue it matters even more because the game designers are trying to draw your attention to it.

I've been trying to get across how this intentional QTE gameplay design must be incorporated into the thematics of the game. This game design decision requires the player to embody Ellie's decision to go off the deep end and brutally murder someone. It exists for a reason in the game. And the implications must be considered.

And you're saying that this simulation of murder is not central to the thematics. Or that it's not necessary to discuss the thematics. I'd argue that this is one of the most decisive, thematically important moments in the entire game. It's when Ellie and you fully commits to how far she and you are willing to get revenge. If you're discussing this game's thematics without including this scene you are omitting one the most crucial moments. If you omit this scene and the violence it obligates you as the player to commit you are disregarding very intentional decisions made by the game's designers.

@Constable_What and yet you say multiple times that you can sneak past MOST encounters. Not all. I haven’t played MGS in ages so can’t necessarily compare. But you say that in some instances you have to kill people. That’s the point. The game insists even if you choose to go stealth through the majority. That is intentional on the part of the game’s writer. Whether or not that woman was going to die anyway, does not change the fact the game forces you to brutally beat her to death, which is by design. Are you sure you know what misanthropic means? It’s a disdain for humanity. This game advocates for letting go of cycles of violence by reconciling your trauma and seeing the humanity in others. It teaches this first by simulating revenge and then humanizing your enemy, so you experience what it means to exact revenge on real, 3-dimensional people. People seeking revenge often dehumanize their enemy. You see it in war all the time. This game is meant to humanize the enemy even if you disagree with them. That’s anything but misanthropic. Everything you say is true about the themes of grief. The game has multiple thematic threads. That is why it’s such a complex game. Just because one is true doesn’t mean the others are not. The game’s structure is very intentionally made. It’s a split structure. That’s not by accident. Many players negative critique of the split structure are completely missing that the split structure is its greatest strength in conveying one the core themes. Had they told the story by interweaving Ellie and Abby’s journeys it would have had a totally different effect. Going back as Abby reframes all of Ellie’s earlier encounters. That is intentional. It reframed a game the you think is just about revenge or “revenge bad” into a game about perspective, and perspective changes whether or not a violent act is good or bad or completely nonsensical and all meaning of right and wrong goes out the window. And when you lose your compass for what is right and wrong or necessary or unnecessary you need to take a step back and ground yourself. Again, none of this is misanthropic. It’s insight into how to navigate difficult human conflict. This game wants you to kill pixels, which is not misanthropic. Pixels are not real. It’s simulation. Simulation is not real. It is not moral or immoral. The game can only be misanthropic if it’s promoting inhumane ideas, as in encouraging you to commit or believe inhumane ideas in the real world. Again, this game is promoting reconciling trauma and letting go of conflict by way of viewing the humanity in others, achieved by its split structure and embodying both sides. That is philanthropic by way of promoting ideas for the benefit others wellbeing.

@Constable_What I do understand 100% what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that scene in the hospital is intentionally designed by the creators of the game to force you to kill someone. That's why you must push square to proceed. The game won't let you finish without participating in the killing. As the player embodying Ellie, you must live with that and deal with the emotional repercussions when you play as Abby, if you're able to truly see her sympathetically. This fulfills the the thematic goals of the game.

@Constable_What when the game makes you press square repeatedly to kill the woman in the hospital it is a very intentional creative decision to insist that you as the player bend to the will of the narrative and thematic trajectory. It is very, very intentional. You as the player, as Ellie, must brutally murder that woman. The creators want you to be an active participant because the game’s creators want you to viscerally feel the consequence of Ellie’s retribution. By making you as the player feel as an active participant you feel the regret and self-loathing that Ellie will feel for going down this path. The incredibly brutal killing animations are also very intentional. It’s not graphic for the sake of being graphic. It’s not just there for shock value. The game wants you to feel terrible about your killing spree if you decided to kill those in your path. That’s why it’s so realistic. It wants you to be disgusted by this vengeful mission even as you participate in it. That is the genius behind the how they use the video game medium in this instance. It does what no other medium can do, and this game immerses the player more thoroughly then any game previously made, in my opinion. It viscerally puts you in that situation more so than a movie or novel. It does only what a game can do by giving the player the illusion of agency and participation while simultaneously being driven down a predetermined narrative with an intentional thematic message. Even if you choose to go stealth, the game eventually says “you have to participate in the killing now. You press square and murder this woman and continue or you turn off the game.” Because, again, this game wants you to embody Ellie. It needs you to participate to understand what it’s trying to do. You have to do terrible things to later regret them. You have to do terrible things to your enemies as Ellie and then feel the pain of knowing what you did when you embody Abby. It wants you to feel what it means to by the person exacting revenge and also be the recipient of that revenge so you understand both sides of that dynamic.

Absolutely none of this is about enjoying killing for the sake of killing, as you suggested about me. If you’ve read a lick of what I’ve written, you’d know that to not be the case. This game loathes killing in the real world. And it’s using this medium of harmless simulation to fully immerse us into understand the repercussions of cycles of killing through various perspectives, so that we might better understand the perspectives of those we come into conflict with and the tragedy of perpetuating violence in the real world. It wants us to learn from this simulation. That is why it very intentionally insists that we must commit heinous acts. To learn that it was never worth it in the end.

@Constable_What The game literally wants you to kill people and then feel the regret later. That's part of the driving force of the thematics. Take for example when the game literally forces you to beat to death that one girl in the hospital. Your only option is to press one button. There's no choice because Ellie is fully committed to her course. It wants to you to commit violence. It needs you to for the game to achieve its thematic goals.

@Ambassador_Kong also, making the option to avoid the violence like in MGS, completely changes the goal of the game and it’s central theme. That game wants you to relish in the revenge. It wants you to want the revenge as much as Ellie. That’s the whole point. To put you in the state of mind. The game wants you to root for Ellie in her killing spree so that when you play as Abby it hurts more. But if you’re unable to understand that Abby is a victim of circumstance, and that that circumstance drives her down that monsterous path, then you’ll never be able to sympatheize with the tragedy of it all. It is a tragedy that Abby as a child doesn’t know her dad for who he really is. It is a tragedy that Abby doesn’t know the extent that he’s going to to save humanity. Because if she knew that then maybe she makes different choices.

@Ambassador_Kong you continue to miss the entire point. Abby does not know what we know. This is so important. Abby does not know why Joel killed her dad. Again, this is not about who is right or wrong. That is unimportant to the theme. It is unimportant if Joel was morally correct in saving Ellie. But doing so did set off a chain reaction. The game is saying that stubbornly clinging absolutely to who was right and wrong can create a situation worse than the original tragedy, perpetuating violence. Stubbornly perusing revenge is folly. Stubbornly saying that Joel was right without looking at the larger picture is folly. This is about how cycles of violence perpetuate themselves out of blind passion and connection to tribalism and familial ties without full information. Abby was a child when her dad was murdered. This affected her deeply. It made her who she became. Sure, call her a monster. It doesn’t matter. The game is not advocating for what Abby did. But it is showing how a child who is exposed to extreme violence against a family member will respond out of blind devotion, especially when they do not know the true actions of that family member. We do not have to like Abby to understand what she did. Understanding and relating does not mean advocating or liking. It means understanding cause and effect, what drives a character. Understanding why a person is driven to do what they do. And understanding the tragedy of going down a path set before you because of extreme trauma in the past. Same with sympathizing. Sympathizing does not mean we love or even like a character. It doesn’t mean we approve of their actions. Again, it means we can recognize the trauma. The death of her dad. Not knowing what we know, that her dad was going to kill Ellie. Abby likely thought her dad was the hero, trying to save humanity. And Joel killed him. Abby likely does not know her dad is a desperate scientist resorting to desperate measures and willing to kill subjects for a cure. She does not see that side. So in her mind her hero, her dad, was brutally murdered by someone she viewed as a monster. Perspective. That is the tragedy. Being blinded by one’s perspective and the information available.

@Ambassador_Kong You misunderstood the lesson of the game and how to apply it. It is precisely using a murder simulator to make you think about things that happen in the actual real world. A murder simulator is a video game. It is harmless art and entertainment. The game is not advocating against violence in video games, and yet you're trying to paint the creation of the game as a murder simulator as somehow hypocritical. This game is advocating against perpetuating violence in the real world. It's advocating against perpetuating cycles of violence in our own lives. It wants us to ruminate on how cycles of violence in our interpersonal lives, as well as in international conflict, start and persist, how violence can be born out of impossible scenarios largely out of our control. It wants us to identify these things so that when a moment comes for us in the real world to make a choice that we're able to deconstruct our perspective and attempt to infer the perspective of our perceived enemy and try to take a step back before things become untenable. Simulation is the perfect medium for exploring situations that would be otherwise heinous in the real world, so we can actually work through the emotions and attempt to deconstructed our own perspective without actually having to commit a terrible act to learn a lesson.

@Constable_What There's an awful lot of information about the Seraphites, gleaned almost entirely from the game itself, compiled on the Last Of Us Wiki:

https://thelastofus.fandom.com/wiki/Seraphites

It's pretty extensive. A great deal of it coming from notes found along the way, including other sources such as environmental details, as you mentioned. It details cultural and religious beliefs and how they relate and developed from the cordiceps virus, as well as how they clashed with surrounding communities.

I think this claim that you don't learn the ins and outs of the cult is a bit overblown.

@Ambassador_Kong The game is about differing perspectives and how that can bring about violence and cycles of conflict. You don't need to agree with what Abby did to sympathize with her. You can still think she was technically in the wrong. But from her perspective Joel killed her father. I can't remember but does Abby even know that her father's procedure was going to kill Ellie? She was just a kid. From her perspective Joel shows up and just kills everybody. So having emotionally complex feelings about all the characters is possible. Even Joel himself was heavily implied multiple times to have done some terrible things before the first game just to survive, and we can still sympathize with him. And he's only initially delivering Ellie to the Fireflies for a paycheck. He's hardly a hero until he develops attachment. Everyone is making decisions in a morally difficult situation with incomplete information and without time and opportunity to be sure they're making the right call. This breeds conflict and we see it in our everyday lives. There's lessons to be learned here in how we view other people we are personally in conflict with. So from a certain perspective Joel's actions were evil and selfish. That is why his actions are displayed in a more sinister way in this game, to indicate that in this game we're observing a perspective shift. Joel remembers these events more negatively, but he simultaneously says he doesn't regret what he did. People can be emotionally inconsistent when remembering traumatic events when they experience guilt in hindsight internally while externally staying steadfast in their decisions. The acting in those scenes is so great because you can see the trauma on his face from committing those actions while staying stubborn in his belief that he did right. If you're being honest calling Abby a psychopath is a massive exaggeration, if you understand her motivations to get revenge for her father. She had far more humanity than you're giving her credit for. Joel brutally killed her father and just about everyone else who was present. From her perspective all those people who Joel killed were trying to save humanity.

@EddieGreenheart I find that perspective very interesting. I think the whole point of running around as another character was supposed to be jarring. It's literally supposed to jar you into sympathizing with someone who was portrayed as being the villain. You needed to play as her for a long time to make you sympathize with her and to make the theater confrontation make sense thematically. The whole mission of the game is to put you in the enemy's shoes. To view the conflict from the enemy's perspective and see their valid grievances and suffering. To see how every side in a cycle of conflict has their rationale and can be viewed as both the hero and the villain. Making you as Abby fight Ellie in what felt like an end-game showdown was absolute genius from a thematic gameplay standpoint. And it couldn't have been done as effectively unless you had played as Abby for as long has you had. It may have dragged a bit, but it was necessary. Abby was exhausted by trauma by the time she arrived at the theater. And I think it was meant to be exhausting for the player in a way. This may have not been the case for you, but a lot of players I think made no attempt to sympathize with Abby because she killed their favorite character. They hated her so much that when it came time to play as her they couldn't let themselves connect, and their brain did gymnastics to find ways to hate that part of the game and reject it. I think if you try to come at it as a player a bit more dispassionately and give Abby an honest shake then that section of the game becomes a lot better.

@Constable_What I don't think you're supposed to know the intricacies of the cult's ritual killings / beliefs because you're viewing the story through the eyes of characters who wouldn't know that information. Sure, you have Lev. But Abby isn't exactly about to have a sit-down to learn the ins and outs of the religion while on the run.

@EddieGreenheart What issues did you have with the game's pacing? I loved it precisely because of its pacing and because the pacing of its split structure is directly tied to its themes. The pacing and writing is more akin to a novel than to a movie, which works for me because games are much longer than a flick. This allows games to take more narrative risks and meander a bit. But if you compare this game to something like The Witcher 3, which often gets praised as the pinnacle of video game writing, TLOU2 is comparatively laser focused. Basically all games are linear unless they involve some kind of time travel mechanic. For me TLOU2 succeeds because it dares to tell a video game narrative differently.

@KingDazzar I never said everyone was happy to pay it. I said plenty of people are happy to pay it. Plenty of people will be eager to pay to play it day one. Which will be true until it won't be, and Sony will then lower the price.

You misunderstand. I don't like the pricing either. I would actually like the game for free. I would like all games for free. Additionally, everything for free would be even nicer. Everything in the world. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being honest. I think most people would prefer free. But I simultaneously understand that's not the way the world works. Companies don't base pricing on a small minority. They use market based economics to maximize profits. So unless you'd prefer socializing the gaming industry and price fixing games then that's what we've got.

And, yeah, micro transactions and loot boxes suck. I don't play those games, and there's a huge demographic that doesn't want to play those games. There will always be plenty of people that don't want to game with that payment model. Play those games. Vote with your wallet. Deluxe and Ultimate editions are neither here nor there. Just don't buy them if you don't want what they offer. Some people want that stuff others don't, and that's fine.

Anyway, Sony doesn't care that you don't want to pay full price. They've done their market research and are willing to take the risk of charging full price. If it doesn't work out for them then you'll get to pay less sooner than expected. One way or another though you'll probably be able to play it for a pretty reasonable price within a year. Buy used. It's a great way to game cheap.

@KingDazzar How should a newly mastered record be priced ethically then if charging full price is anti-consumer? What 's the ethical metric for new iterations? Who sets that ethical metric? Do you set that metric? Does the government? If a bunch of people more than willing to pay 70 for the game think it's fair is Sony supposed to instead bend toward KingDazzar's opinion in spite of everyone else willing to pay? Companies in creative industries have every right to test the market to see if it will bare their pricing. This is a video game, not some necessary good the fulfills basic needs or saves life. It's entertainment. There's plenty of other entertainment and competition to keep prices fair. The price of this game will come down within 6 months. Even still 70 is not a lot for a video game, especially seeing as how games today require twice the development requirements as old games. Games were 40-60 in the flipping 80s. That would be like 120+ now. You've been getting games cheap this whole time due to marketing reasons. And there's an insane second hand market where you can get them even cheaper. Companies can charge whatever they want for intellectual property. This isn't like Martin Shkreli jacking up the price of Epi-Pen by 400% for a life saving medication.

@KingDazzar kind of weird how they also charge full price when a remaster of a music album or director’s cut of a movie is released even though all of the tracks and scene’s were already recorded. How about when they release a new version of software that’s built on the same framework of a previous iteration? It’s not like they always rewrite all the code for photoshop with each version, at least back when they did standalone builds. How about when they release a new version of a book with a new forward by the author for the same price as the original even though all the pages were already written? They literally do this in every creative industry.

@KundaliniRising333 Remakes have been a part of media production since the beginning of human existence through the form of storytelling around campfires and cave drawings on walls. Movies, songs and the written word have all been remade and republished at brand new price levels countless times for profit both by original artists, as well as cover artists. This is nothing new. When accounting also for the indie market there are probably more unique video games with higher production values made today for a cheaper price both in real dollar terms, as well, as accounting for inflation than any point in history, and we have unrivaled access to them. We just have micro transaction games and their ilk added to the mix. But unless you have some kind of study conducted on video games with graphs illustrating the decline in unique video game production then you're just complaining like every other person in history has when something is remade. And you're point about reusing assets—are you at all familiar with how the television and movie industry works? They literally use the same props and sets in different productions. There will always be reused assets in every creative industry both for practical and monetary reasons.

What does “cash grab” even mean? Nobody is forced to buy this game. Those who are excited about it will. Those who don’t care won’t. If it sells well it will do on its on merits. It’s almost as if some gamers feel obligated to interact with this game just because it exists. Why people are obsessing over this is so baffling. People need to get a life. There are so many games to play. It’s is a complete non-issue.

@77dreams This guy gets it.

@thefourfoldroot1 Naw, it is miserable to nitpick and obsessively look for flaws in things that are a fantastic value when taken as a whole. If you're complaining about this it's not the only thing. And it's plenty clear what taking a half-glass full approach to life does to a person. (Apologies for massive assumptions.)

I actually addressed your question in my first comment. You just refused to accept the answer and insisted on continuing to go down the same line of logic, just taking it to an extreme by bringing up a hypothetical 3-game overlap in the same month that if it's ever happen, has happened rarely.

I already said that when you have a catalog of 700 games, including many of the most popular games released for the system, you're going to have overlap. Especially when the service has been going on for over a decade and so many of the great games have already been featured on PS+. You start running out of quality games that make sense to release at a massive discount, while simultaneously needing to negotiate contracts with publishers. And there's only so many PS5 games currently out. Overlap is just going to happen.

There are only so many quality games to keep Essential attractive. It's the nature of the beast. From time-to-time they will inevitably dip into that 700-game catalog to give Essential subscribers access to a game.

There will be games that will always be in the Extra catalog, so, again, by your logic those games are forever inaccessible to Essential subscribers. Otherwise, they will have to arbitrarily remove those games from Extra when there's no need just to appease your fanatical obsession with wanting Extra absolutely unique in every conceivable way. That's ridiculous.

The problem with your thinking is that you're simplifying a complex issue to make the offerings seem insufficient and using that as justification to make everything about you! Gimme, gimme, gimme. Cater always to me. Make up unnecessary release rules that prohibit lower tiers from accessing games until some arbitrary time that makes me feel like I'm squeezing every last conceivable ounce out of my investment. Seriously listen to yourself. You're not the only demographic that they're appealing to. It's a balancing act.

You're right I am taking this way too seriously. I'm riled up because of issues outside of gaming, and I'm releasing some steam over people acting obtuse and entitled. I happily admit that because I recognize my flaws when pointed out.

I hope that you find some rationale to stop complaining over minutiae and spreading negativity. I'm going to do the same.

@thefourfoldroot1 Man, you sound miserable and hardline obsessive over minor details. There are so many great games to play at a fantastic value. And you get added value by being able to keep the essential games, whereas the catalog games can leave. But, by all means, keep going down this road of feeling affronted, being entitled, nitpicking, and over-analyzing. Seriously listen to yourself and look at what is actually on offer. You're going down a road of unhappiness when there is a plethora of enjoyment to be had. There has never been a clause that there wouldn't be any overlap. Gamepass works the same way. This is the way it works. And it will likely always work like this. Let. It. Go. And find happiness.

@thefourfoldroot1 So people on the essential plan just can never, ever have access to any game that exists in the 700 game catalog? All of those games are off limits? What kind of dumb logic is that.

@Balosi FF6 was exclusive to Super Nintendo despite the fact that the Sega Genesis could have easily ran it. My point is that the FF series being exclusive to a particular platform is nothing new. SquareEnix and Sony have a long-lasting relationship and have built their respective brands in tandem with each other for the last 25 years, and it got there by Sony building a system that as you say was the only thing that could run it at the time. Sony revolutionized the gaming world with the original PS, and they earned that relationship with Square and the brand recognition from the fans. Playstation could easily run Halo, but it will never sniff that series. None of this is new.

@GorosBat Except when FF7 was originally released it was a Playstation exclusive. It was only released on PC over 6 months later. And it didn't come to other platforms until many years later. Final Fantasy being exclusive to a console is nothing new. Before Playstation it was exclusive to Super Nintendo.