@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Lol, yes, I can say what I said because I said it. You're trying to demean me by likening my response to something Jim Ryan would say as opposed to actually countering the points I made by standing up for your own opinions with rationale reasoning. Lame tactics.
Yes, PC gamers are a different breed and may be less likely to migrate to PS than from a rival console competitor. But you have to understand, that perceived exclusivity, whether it's timed or not, is about brand recognition. PS wants to be the place associated with FF. They want to be the place that always gets it first. That builds the PS brand and retains loyalty.
Maybe that doesn't work on you. But it does on a lot of people. I, for one, grew up on FF. I played Nintendo because of FF. And I now play PS because of FF. I like the convenience of a console, but I don't care what console I play so long as they have FF as soon as possible. This is what Sony is banking on. That is their strategy, and it is one they've stuck to the majority of time since the launch of the original PS and FF7.
They do it for a reason because it clearly benefits them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. But, yeah, gone on about how it would benefit PS more to assume risk heavily in an unknown project than to moderately invest in timed-exclusivity with a franchise they have a long standing history with, contributes toward their brand recognition and gamer retention, and is wildly successful.
In any case, PS already does invest in new IP regularly. It turns out they do both! Wild idea.
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Yeah, Sony just shelled out millions for timed exclusivity without it benefiting them. You're totally right. The industry leader in video games doesn't know what they're doing or have statistics to back up their strategy. You should be running Sony with what I'm sure is great business acumen.
Your hot take is an absolute joke.
Anyone with half a brain knows the high level of anticipation and media engagement generated for the PS5 when the slate of games were first being announced near launch. FF16 headlined many of those presentations. It has been hotly anticipated and has only picked up steam since. People are basically salivating for this game. To think that that doesn't affect sales of the PS5 is beyond mind boggling.
People who are not delusional know that a 6-month exclusivity does not mean that the game is going to Xbox in 6 months. It's likely going to PC after 6 months. Same as FF7R. When it goes to Xbox is anyones guess. PS is the place to play FF16, and fans of the series are not going to buy Xbox to play it later down the road. Console gamers who want to play FF16 are buying a PS. End of story.
Honestly, my only major complaint for the first game was how lacking the game was in varying enemy types. Aside from that it was an absolute masterpiece. So pumped about a sequel.
@Shad361 Buying exclusivity is not wasting money. It is cheaper to buy a timed exclusive than it is to develop an entire game. Having that exclusivity to games, even if they're timed, can massively affect console choice among gamers. This contributes to keeping PS competitive and profitable and the current leader in the market. People in this very comment section have stated they specifically bought a PS5 because Playstation had timed exclusivity to this game. That is not wasted money.
@Eagly Bragging rights? No. That is stupid and juvenile. Convenience to play it early? Yes. Only tools brag. I have no interest in bragging. Most FF fans want to play it as soon as possible. That's all. Period. Bringing up bragging rights is seriously baffling. The vast, vast majority of Final Fantasy games throughout the series history have been console exclusives or timed exclusives to either Nintendo or PS. Final Fantasy games on Xbox at release have been the acceptation, not the rule. This is because Sony PS has always had a closer relationship with SquareEnix compared to Microsoft. This is a result of business relationships, a long-formed history over the years, and business strategy. It's not to give a middle finger to Xbox fans. It is to add to the allure of the PS platform so that the platform remains competitive with Xbox and attractive to gamers. You say that Sony could have made another game to bolster the console. Somehow I doubt you know the best strategy for Sony to bolster it's console. Buying exclusivity is cheaper than developing an entire game. And having exclusivity bolsters fans excitement for the system and commit to the system. Yes, of course, it's a contest between consoles. It's called business, and markets do not have infinite growth, so there is competition. There's nothing petty about it.
@Eagly You get to play the game 6 months sooner than you would if you were on any other system. So, yes, you do get something out of it if you intend to play it within the first 6 months of release. And if you want to play it at a cheaper price, used PS copies will be floating around sooner than they will be elsewhere.
@Tharsman Not everyone thinks the same. A one-month subscription to PS+ Extra is $15, enough time to finish the game. That's less than the cost of God Of War standalone by your numbers. When Ragnarok is advertised as a brand new game, a percentage of people who never played the first will sign up for the service to catch up on the series because they also get access to a bunch of other games they might want to try out. People who played the first game years ago may be interested in signing up if they sold their copy and want to play it, again, before the second comes out. There could very well be an uptick in subscriptions when looking at the broad player base and their different motivations. How big that uptick is is anyone's guess, but it's not an unreasonable assumption that the release of such a massive title will generate interest in the first game. And PS+ Extra is the most affordable option to try it out.
@Tharsman The upcoming release of God Of War Ragnarok will generate interest in playing the first game in anticipation. The first game is on PS+. Thus the new game will drive players to subscribe to PS+ to play the first game, possibly increasing subscriptions.
It's absolutely zero surprise that there's been a steady backslide in membership from the height of the pandemic when people were staying home and playing more.
@jrt87 After updating the game, was CDPR nominated for a "tradesman of the year" award equivalent?
Hardly. People are just rediscovering it because of a well-time anime used to market the game now that the game is in solid shape.
You can still praise the game for what it is and simultaneously recognize the poor state it was in when released.
These two things are not mutually exclusive, and your average player isn't going to be a negative, axe-grinding Nancy about the game's release for infinite.
I've put in about 40 hours in the last couple weeks. It started feeling very, very immersive. I was very impressed and I enjoyed the story. There is, however, plenty to critique about the game that has been well documented, but I find that with most open world games. As time has passed, I have felt less immersed because when navigating the open world I don't seem to stumble upon side missions/stories like I would in The Witcher 3. In that game, you'd randomly talk to someone and it would kick off a whole adventure. In Cyberpunk, everyone just calls you and suddenly you have a new mission. Missions, however, don't seem to organically spring up out of wandering. I don't know, maybe I'm driving too much and missing them if they're there. That said, the side missions that you get calls for are enjoyable for what they are, and in general I enjoy the game well enough. Given the controversy of the game's release, I'm glad that it has a new lease on life, and I hope CD Projekt Red has learned a lesson.
“Tribalism, as you describe it, has zero to do with anything.”
I don’t know, man. This was a pretty broad all-encompassing statement. Pardon me for misconstruing your hyperbole.
Even still, you say you understand tribalism. And yet you say tribalism has nothing to do with your opinion.
And then you say: "If I have a slight preference for Ellie, it is probably because I want to see characters from TLOU in a sequel to TLOU."
This is a tribal statement. Showing preference for a group, .I.e the previous game’s characters, due to a sense of familiarity.
So on one hand you say tribalism isn’t part of your opinion, and on the other hand you’re showing signs of tribalism while saying an opinion.
And you seem to want to undermine the thematics of tribalism by cutting the playtime as Abby.
There is an incongruity between your statements is all I’m saying. I’m not saying you’re completely unfamiliar with the idea of tribalism. But it does seem like you’re missing how the game is intentionally using the idea of tribalism to manipulate our feeling about Abby and Ellie on some level.
If you shortchange Abby’s playtime the tribal experiment the game is executing on the player would be ruined.
@Westernwolf4 it’s funny that you think that tribalism has nothing to do with this game. Which suggests you don’t understand this game as well as you think you do. Seraphites. Fireflies. WLF. Rattlers. Factions. In other words tribes. Tribalism has EVERYTHING to do with this game. It’s embedded in the game’s DNA. And how we relate to Ellie and Abby directly is influenced by our tribal relations to these characters. We start out as a tribe as players with Ellie and Joel in the first game. We are a tribe of three. Ellie. Joel. The player. We highly relate to them based on our familiarity. Familiarity is what gels a tribe, in part. Abby is unfamiliar to use in the second game and is distinctly in conflict with our tribe, Joel and Ellie. Tribalism blocks our ability to extend empathetic understanding to those we find ourselves in opposition with. This game wants to challenge are tribal nature by placing someone outside of our tribe on equal footing with those inside our tribe. To extend the same empathy. That you want Abby’s gameplay time to be shortened while showing preference to Ellie suggests that tribalism does indeed affect how you’re approaching this game in contrast with how the game is actively requesting that you give up your tribal affiliation by giving Abby her due as a full co-lead alongside Ellie.
"If I have a slight preference for Ellie, it is probably because I want to see characters from TLOU in a sequel to TLOU."
This is the inherent tribalism the game is exposing. Learning to empathize equally with people even when you have a greater attachment originally with one person.
You've expressing exposed the point. Some people have much greater reactions to Abby's equal role. Yours is not as great. But it's still there. That is what the game is exposing.
@liljazzy2 I would then recommend doing some reading up on converging plot lines as a narrative device. Your opinion that TLOU2 has a convoluted narrative appears to, in part, lie in your unfamiliarity with this writing technique.
Just because something seems convoluted doesn't mean that it does not fulfill an artistic intent.
A painter can paint an ugly painting with the intent of illustrating a truth. That truth justifies painting something that is ugly. If you just look at the painting and say, "I don't like this painting because it's ugly," that just shows you don't understand the intent of the work.
When you call a converging plot line convoluted as a negative, it suggests you don't understand the artistic intent of using a converging plot line as a device.
Something being convoluted is not inherently a negative if there is a reason for it. And there is very much a reason why TLOU2 is structured the way it is.
@Westernwolf4 C'mon now. We are discussing Abby's role in the narrative and how that adds length to the narrative. We are not talking about running around and collecting items that have little to no bearing on the central plot dynamics.
There are 144 collectibles in the first game and nearly double that in the second while hidden in much larger environments. If you want to complain about the game being too long that's not on Abby's involvement.
You can make just about any game unbearably long by collecting every last thing. But that's not what we're truthfully talking about.
My actual argument is that our playtime as Abby is just as vital as our playtime with Ellie.
If you want to argue shortening Abby's story, then you have to shorten Ellie's. (But even if you do this I think this would undermine the goal of wearing out the player on an emotional level). Because the game's intent is to put them on equal footing.
If you want to belabor calling it a long game (which I still contend that it's not in the grand scheme of gaming) and if you want to shorten it overall, you can't just remove parts of Abby's story. You'd have to shorten the entire game to maintain the artistic intent of the game.
Jumping immediately to trimming Abby's role without acknowledging that you would need to trim Ellie's, as well, to maintain the balance the game is intent on striking, betrays a misunderstanding of the intent behind the narrative's form.
I admit to exaggerating the pittance statement. My point was that you don't seem to want Abby's role to be as large as Ellie's, as evidenced by your preference to jump immediately to only reducing Abby's role.
This betrays hints of tribalism, subconsciously or otherwise, in favor of Ellie. This game is daring you not to be tribal.
But we're not talking about 100%ing a game. Cyberpunk takes about 25 hours to complete the main story, but you can spend upwards of a 100 hours to doing everything. And, yet people actually complain that Cyberpunk's main quest is too short.
The extra hours are simply gameplay minutia that you're free to play or not. Heck, you can draw out Uncharted 4 to like 30+ hours searching out every nook and cranny for collectibles. But that's still a short to medium length main game. Obsessively searching out collectibles is separate from the main narrative. TLOUS 2 is still a medium length game for the intent of this discussion.
In regards to hammering the themes in. Abby had to go on a journey of her own to put her on the same narrative and sympathetic level as Ellie and Joel. So, again, minimizing her narrative would diminish her footing with Ellie and Joel as an equally sympathetic and important character, and the thematic goals would not be met.
It's like you argue you know the thematics of the game without allowing the thematics of the game to actually play out. This game is intended to be as much Abby's game as it is Ellie's game. Not surprisingly you play as each for about the same exact time.
The game wants you to give equal credence to both these characters. Diminishing Abby undermines this goal.
You say: "They could have done half of the Abby section and still made their point."
No, they absolutely could not have. That would betray the intent of the game.
@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.
@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.
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.
Comments 392
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Lol, yes, I can say what I said because I said it. You're trying to demean me by likening my response to something Jim Ryan would say as opposed to actually countering the points I made by standing up for your own opinions with rationale reasoning. Lame tactics.
Yes, PC gamers are a different breed and may be less likely to migrate to PS than from a rival console competitor. But you have to understand, that perceived exclusivity, whether it's timed or not, is about brand recognition. PS wants to be the place associated with FF. They want to be the place that always gets it first. That builds the PS brand and retains loyalty.
Maybe that doesn't work on you. But it does on a lot of people. I, for one, grew up on FF. I played Nintendo because of FF. And I now play PS because of FF. I like the convenience of a console, but I don't care what console I play so long as they have FF as soon as possible. This is what Sony is banking on. That is their strategy, and it is one they've stuck to the majority of time since the launch of the original PS and FF7.
They do it for a reason because it clearly benefits them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. But, yeah, gone on about how it would benefit PS more to assume risk heavily in an unknown project than to moderately invest in timed-exclusivity with a franchise they have a long standing history with, contributes toward their brand recognition and gamer retention, and is wildly successful.
In any case, PS already does invest in new IP regularly. It turns out they do both! Wild idea.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@EaglyTheKawaiiShika Yeah, Sony just shelled out millions for timed exclusivity without it benefiting them. You're totally right. The industry leader in video games doesn't know what they're doing or have statistics to back up their strategy. You should be running Sony with what I'm sure is great business acumen.
Your hot take is an absolute joke.
Anyone with half a brain knows the high level of anticipation and media engagement generated for the PS5 when the slate of games were first being announced near launch. FF16 headlined many of those presentations. It has been hotly anticipated and has only picked up steam since. People are basically salivating for this game. To think that that doesn't affect sales of the PS5 is beyond mind boggling.
People who are not delusional know that a 6-month exclusivity does not mean that the game is going to Xbox in 6 months. It's likely going to PC after 6 months. Same as FF7R. When it goes to Xbox is anyones guess. PS is the place to play FF16, and fans of the series are not going to buy Xbox to play it later down the road. Console gamers who want to play FF16 are buying a PS. End of story.
Re: Control 2 Is Official as Remedy Enters Publishing Agreement
Honestly, my only major complaint for the first game was how lacking the game was in varying enemy types. Aside from that it was an absolute masterpiece. So pumped about a sequel.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@Shad361 Buying exclusivity is not wasting money. It is cheaper to buy a timed exclusive than it is to develop an entire game. Having that exclusivity to games, even if they're timed, can massively affect console choice among gamers. This contributes to keeping PS competitive and profitable and the current leader in the market. People in this very comment section have stated they specifically bought a PS5 because Playstation had timed exclusivity to this game. That is not wasted money.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@Eagly Bragging rights? No. That is stupid and juvenile. Convenience to play it early? Yes. Only tools brag. I have no interest in bragging. Most FF fans want to play it as soon as possible. That's all. Period. Bringing up bragging rights is seriously baffling. The vast, vast majority of Final Fantasy games throughout the series history have been console exclusives or timed exclusives to either Nintendo or PS. Final Fantasy games on Xbox at release have been the acceptation, not the rule. This is because Sony PS has always had a closer relationship with SquareEnix compared to Microsoft. This is a result of business relationships, a long-formed history over the years, and business strategy. It's not to give a middle finger to Xbox fans. It is to add to the allure of the PS platform so that the platform remains competitive with Xbox and attractive to gamers. You say that Sony could have made another game to bolster the console. Somehow I doubt you know the best strategy for Sony to bolster it's console. Buying exclusivity is cheaper than developing an entire game. And having exclusivity bolsters fans excitement for the system and commit to the system. Yes, of course, it's a contest between consoles. It's called business, and markets do not have infinite growth, so there is competition. There's nothing petty about it.
Re: Final Fantasy 16 Is Exclusive to PS5 for Six Months, Sony Confirms
@Eagly You get to play the game 6 months sooner than you would if you were on any other system. So, yes, you do get something out of it if you intend to play it within the first 6 months of release. And if you want to play it at a cheaper price, used PS copies will be floating around sooner than they will be elsewhere.
Re: PS Plus Lost Two Million Members in the Last Three Months
@Tharsman Not everyone thinks the same. A one-month subscription to PS+ Extra is $15, enough time to finish the game. That's less than the cost of God Of War standalone by your numbers. When Ragnarok is advertised as a brand new game, a percentage of people who never played the first will sign up for the service to catch up on the series because they also get access to a bunch of other games they might want to try out. People who played the first game years ago may be interested in signing up if they sold their copy and want to play it, again, before the second comes out. There could very well be an uptick in subscriptions when looking at the broad player base and their different motivations. How big that uptick is is anyone's guess, but it's not an unreasonable assumption that the release of such a massive title will generate interest in the first game. And PS+ Extra is the most affordable option to try it out.
Re: PS Plus Lost Two Million Members in the Last Three Months
@Tharsman The upcoming release of God Of War Ragnarok will generate interest in playing the first game in anticipation. The first game is on PS+. Thus the new game will drive players to subscribe to PS+ to play the first game, possibly increasing subscriptions.
Re: PS Plus Lost Two Million Members in the Last Three Months
It's absolutely zero surprise that there's been a steady backslide in membership from the height of the pandemic when people were staying home and playing more.
Re: Rumour: PS Plus Essential PS5, PS4 Games for November 2022 Leaked Early
Pumped about Nioh 2. Worth the cost of admission alone.
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Popularity Still Soaring a Month After Edgerunners Anime and Update
@jrt87 After updating the game, was CDPR nominated for a "tradesman of the year" award equivalent?
Hardly. People are just rediscovering it because of a well-time anime used to market the game now that the game is in solid shape.
You can still praise the game for what it is and simultaneously recognize the poor state it was in when released.
These two things are not mutually exclusive, and your average player isn't going to be a negative, axe-grinding Nancy about the game's release for infinite.
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Just Smashed The Witcher 3's All-Time Concurrent Player Record
I've put in about 40 hours in the last couple weeks. It started feeling very, very immersive. I was very impressed and I enjoyed the story. There is, however, plenty to critique about the game that has been well documented, but I find that with most open world games. As time has passed, I have felt less immersed because when navigating the open world I don't seem to stumble upon side missions/stories like I would in The Witcher 3. In that game, you'd randomly talk to someone and it would kick off a whole adventure. In Cyberpunk, everyone just calls you and suddenly you have a new mission. Missions, however, don't seem to organically spring up out of wandering. I don't know, maybe I'm driving too much and missing them if they're there. That said, the side missions that you get calls for are enjoyable for what they are, and in general I enjoy the game well enough. Given the controversy of the game's release, I'm glad that it has a new lease on life, and I hope CD Projekt Red has learned a lesson.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@Westernwolf4
“Tribalism, as you describe it, has zero to do with anything.”
I don’t know, man. This was a pretty broad all-encompassing statement. Pardon me for misconstruing your hyperbole.
Even still, you say you understand tribalism. And yet you say tribalism has nothing to do with your opinion.
And then you say: "If I have a slight preference for Ellie, it is probably because I want to see characters from TLOU in a sequel to TLOU."
This is a tribal statement. Showing preference for a group, .I.e the previous game’s characters, due to a sense of familiarity.
So on one hand you say tribalism isn’t part of your opinion, and on the other hand you’re showing signs of tribalism while saying an opinion.
And you seem to want to undermine the thematics of tribalism by cutting the playtime as Abby.
There is an incongruity between your statements is all I’m saying. I’m not saying you’re completely unfamiliar with the idea of tribalism. But it does seem like you’re missing how the game is intentionally using the idea of tribalism to manipulate our feeling about Abby and Ellie on some level.
If you shortchange Abby’s playtime the tribal experiment the game is executing on the player would be ruined.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@Westernwolf4 it’s funny that you think that tribalism has nothing to do with this game. Which suggests you don’t understand this game as well as you think you do. Seraphites. Fireflies. WLF. Rattlers. Factions. In other words tribes. Tribalism has EVERYTHING to do with this game. It’s embedded in the game’s DNA. And how we relate to Ellie and Abby directly is influenced by our tribal relations to these characters. We start out as a tribe as players with Ellie and Joel in the first game. We are a tribe of three. Ellie. Joel. The player. We highly relate to them based on our familiarity. Familiarity is what gels a tribe, in part. Abby is unfamiliar to use in the second game and is distinctly in conflict with our tribe, Joel and Ellie. Tribalism blocks our ability to extend empathetic understanding to those we find ourselves in opposition with. This game wants to challenge are tribal nature by placing someone outside of our tribe on equal footing with those inside our tribe. To extend the same empathy. That you want Abby’s gameplay time to be shortened while showing preference to Ellie suggests that tribalism does indeed affect how you’re approaching this game in contrast with how the game is actively requesting that you give up your tribal affiliation by giving Abby her due as a full co-lead alongside Ellie.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
"If I have a slight preference for Ellie, it is probably because I want to see characters from TLOU in a sequel to TLOU."
This is the inherent tribalism the game is exposing. Learning to empathize equally with people even when you have a greater attachment originally with one person.
You've expressing exposed the point. Some people have much greater reactions to Abby's equal role. Yours is not as great. But it's still there. That is what the game is exposing.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@liljazzy2 I would then recommend doing some reading up on converging plot lines as a narrative device. Your opinion that TLOU2 has a convoluted narrative appears to, in part, lie in your unfamiliarity with this writing technique.
Just because something seems convoluted doesn't mean that it does not fulfill an artistic intent.
A painter can paint an ugly painting with the intent of illustrating a truth. That truth justifies painting something that is ugly. If you just look at the painting and say, "I don't like this painting because it's ugly," that just shows you don't understand the intent of the work.
When you call a converging plot line convoluted as a negative, it suggests you don't understand the artistic intent of using a converging plot line as a device.
Something being convoluted is not inherently a negative if there is a reason for it. And there is very much a reason why TLOU2 is structured the way it is.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@Westernwolf4 C'mon now. We are discussing Abby's role in the narrative and how that adds length to the narrative. We are not talking about running around and collecting items that have little to no bearing on the central plot dynamics.
There are 144 collectibles in the first game and nearly double that in the second while hidden in much larger environments. If you want to complain about the game being too long that's not on Abby's involvement.
You can make just about any game unbearably long by collecting every last thing. But that's not what we're truthfully talking about.
My actual argument is that our playtime as Abby is just as vital as our playtime with Ellie.
If you want to argue shortening Abby's story, then you have to shorten Ellie's. (But even if you do this I think this would undermine the goal of wearing out the player on an emotional level). Because the game's intent is to put them on equal footing.
If you want to belabor calling it a long game (which I still contend that it's not in the grand scheme of gaming) and if you want to shorten it overall, you can't just remove parts of Abby's story. You'd have to shorten the entire game to maintain the artistic intent of the game.
Jumping immediately to trimming Abby's role without acknowledging that you would need to trim Ellie's, as well, to maintain the balance the game is intent on striking, betrays a misunderstanding of the intent behind the narrative's form.
I admit to exaggerating the pittance statement. My point was that you don't seem to want Abby's role to be as large as Ellie's, as evidenced by your preference to jump immediately to only reducing Abby's role.
This betrays hints of tribalism, subconsciously or otherwise, in favor of Ellie. This game is daring you not to be tribal.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
But we're not talking about 100%ing a game. Cyberpunk takes about 25 hours to complete the main story, but you can spend upwards of a 100 hours to doing everything. And, yet people actually complain that Cyberpunk's main quest is too short.
The extra hours are simply gameplay minutia that you're free to play or not. Heck, you can draw out Uncharted 4 to like 30+ hours searching out every nook and cranny for collectibles. But that's still a short to medium length main game. Obsessively searching out collectibles is separate from the main narrative. TLOUS 2 is still a medium length game for the intent of this discussion.
In regards to hammering the themes in. Abby had to go on a journey of her own to put her on the same narrative and sympathetic level as Ellie and Joel. So, again, minimizing her narrative would diminish her footing with Ellie and Joel as an equally sympathetic and important character, and the thematic goals would not be met.
It's like you argue you know the thematics of the game without allowing the thematics of the game to actually play out. This game is intended to be as much Abby's game as it is Ellie's game. Not surprisingly you play as each for about the same exact time.
The game wants you to give equal credence to both these characters. Diminishing Abby undermines this goal.
You say: "They could have done half of the Abby section and still made their point."
No, they absolutely could not have. That would betray the intent of the game.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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).
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Video: Here's Why The Last of Us: Part 2 Is Better Than Part 1, But It's Nothing Without It
@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.
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Player Numbers Have Exploded Since the Edgerunners Update
@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.
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Player Numbers Have Exploded Since the Edgerunners Update
@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.
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Player Numbers Have Exploded Since the Edgerunners Update
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.
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Player Numbers Have Exploded Since the Edgerunners Update
@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.
Re: Rumour: PS5 Redesign to Feature Detachable Disc Drive
@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.
Re: PlayStation Bites Back At 'Inadequate' Call of Duty Offer from Microsoft
@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.
Re: Poll: Did You Buy The Last of Us: Part I?
@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.
Re: The Last of Us: Part I (PS5) - A Better, More Beautiful Remake of a Modern Classic
@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.
Re: The Last of Us: Part I (PS5) - A Better, More Beautiful Remake of a Modern Classic
@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.
Re: The Last of Us: Part I (PS5) - A Better, More Beautiful Remake of a Modern Classic
@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.
Re: The Last of Us: Part I (PS5) - A Better, More Beautiful Remake of a Modern Classic
@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.
Re: The Last of Us: Part I (PS5) - A Better, More Beautiful Remake of a Modern Classic
@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.
Re: The Last of Us: Part I (PS5) - A Better, More Beautiful Remake of a Modern Classic
@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.
Re: The Last of Us: Part I (PS5) - A Better, More Beautiful Remake of a Modern Classic
@Nutstool Games are cheaper today then they were 20-30 years ago.
Re: The Last of Us: Part I (PS5) - A Better, More Beautiful Remake of a Modern Classic
Can't wait for people to stop talking about this game. Buy it or don't buy or wait.
Re: The Last of Us 2 Is 'One of the Greatest Games Ever Made' Say Avengers Endgame Directors
@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.
Re: The Last of Us 2 Is 'One of the Greatest Games Ever Made' Say Avengers Endgame Directors
@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.
Re: The Last of Us 2 Is 'One of the Greatest Games Ever Made' Say Avengers Endgame Directors
@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.
Re: The Last of Us 2 Is 'One of the Greatest Games Ever Made' Say Avengers Endgame Directors
@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.
Re: The Last of Us 2 Is 'One of the Greatest Games Ever Made' Say Avengers Endgame Directors
@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.
Re: The Last of Us 2 Is 'One of the Greatest Games Ever Made' Say Avengers Endgame Directors
@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.