How big is the backlash against the story really?

after holding myself for a few days i saw the leaks today , naughty dog can do what they want with their game but it's not for me anymore.....after loving the first one and the main characters i can't get behind to what they are doing to them and the silly let's shock everyone story

@humanity: if you finish a game and dislike an aspect so much that it colors the entire game, I think that that is fair. Writing it off ahead of time is stupid though, IMO, and while Jeff might be guilty of it, it is still mostly angry forum dwellers. They habitually write stuff off with very little information.

I don't know. I guess it depends of how it is handled, and I understand that people might be upset about mayor characters deaths, but to say this is a turn of events, unexpected or doesn't go with the tone of the franchise didn't pay attention...

That being said, the payment allegations are not cool, one person sabotaging the work of the entire team because of it is not cool either. The whole discussion about gender politics getting into the game is just the same old bullshit.

At the end of the day nobody is obligated to buy or play the game, plenty of folk don't want what they're selling (most of which has nothing to do with how the characters identify, much as some of you would like to pretend otherwise).

There's clearly a lot of interest for it here and that's great, have fun! Dismissing those who don't have the same interests is just a shitty attitude. We all make judgement calls on what we play ahead of release, if you don't like anime stuff, you probably don't buy that new anime game, nobody expects you to buy it and finish it anyway just to make sure that you don't like it.

I don't like seeing characters I've come to care about being viciously killed and this game 100% has it in spades. I can understand the argument that this is the more interesting way for them to go and I agree in an academic sense. I still don't wanna see it on a personal level though, regardless of how good the story might be.

It's a deal-breaker for me personally but that doesn't stop anyone else enjoying it, so can we please stop pretending that folk are stupid and/or monsters for not being interested in a video game?

@hermes: Yeah. The whole "they're just being shocking to be shocking" argument doesn't make sense when you consider the original game was pretty dire and grim too. The ending of the first game ends with two clashing ideology: Joel attempts to justify himself with his "ends justify the means" schtick, which is pretty much standard video game fare. It's okay to brutalize and murder others so long as you're doing it for the "right reasons," while Ellie argues that that's a senseless existence and that she'd rather die trying to help people than to continue living watching others. Everything I've heard about TLOU2 seems to be solely about proving Joel wrong.

@kemuri07: I don't think the trend of the series being grim and dark really addresses the issue of having shock value for the sake of shock value. A story can be grim and shocking at one point but fall off a cliff for the sake of trying to continue to be grim and shocking. It isn't saved from criticism just because "it's always been grim and dark".

See the Walking Dead. Lots of great surprise moments in the series, but ultimately it's desire to continue the pattern of "we're going to surprise you at any moment" caused that series to spiral out of control. In my opinion of course. It wasn't good writing just because "we've always done this".

That's not to say this won't be well written and that they won't earn that moment. Maybe they do. But they don't make it good just because they set the expectation already.

@mezza: I guess my point is that what I've read of TLOU2 doesn't sound all that far off from the brutality of the original game, which was a major selling point of TLOU: an uncompromising narrative that will make you think hard about the nature of violence. Considering ND's pedigree for storytelling, I don't think there's much evidence that this all leading to surface level shock. That's where the trust comes in, and in that regard I think ND has my trust.

Look, I don't like darker storylines because I'm an edgy edgelord who gets off on people dying; I tend to like darker stuff because, when done right, they can push the boundaries of storytelling and characters. I have my issues with TLOU as a game, but in terms of its narrative abilities it really is pretty incredible. And a large part of that is its willingness to disect and deconstruct certain aspects of gaming narratives we take for granted. Namely, the anti-hero willing to do "whatever it takes" to save the people he cares about. Except what if that included torturing, and murdering in the same way as "the bad guys;" what if the person you're trying to save doesn't really want to be saved. These are the questions TLOU left me with it, and everything I've seen of TLOU2 seem to be a continuation of that.

@kemuri07: That's fair and I can understand trusting them to handle it well. My main point was just that the comment that the opposing opinion "doesn't make sense" seems a bit unfair because Naughty Dog isn't infallible and they aren't incapable of making a mistake with the surprise just because they've set the tone in the first game. I can understand why someone would be worried or even feel like it's a cheap shot, and that doesn't go way just because the first game had dark moments that landed well. The question is, does this one land well which each individual is obviously going to feel differently about until they see it for themselves.

My walking dead example was mainly to illustrate that point. A series can have many great "oh shit that just happened moments" but all it takes is one "oh come on" mistake to push some people away. Totally understand that while you may trust them others may be skeptical.

The Walking Dead also suffered a bit with its episodic format. It kind of forced them into ending each one on a cliffhanger. And choice in games gets reduced a lot into life or death. Or death and death.

I think it's incredulous for some folks to act like ND are clueless despite adoring the first one and it winning dozens of awards and what not. At least wait until the game is out before crying about it.

@arcadefire: You can be skeptical of something you learned without feeling like the source of it is clueless. Liking something someone made doesn't mean you'll always like everything they make in the future. Are some people going off the handle? Sure. It's people. The extremes aren't worth discussing because they're inevitable and don't represent the whole. But ultimately the people who are expressing concern and criticism shouldn't be written off for not blindly trusting they'll like what they've heard is going to happen. We'll see what happens when people play it. Ideally it's great and this becomes a remember when laugh.

I feel like, in a way, this is the only sensible direction for that story to ultimately go.

Also, I'm not a big fan of it and may well pass on it.

I think both of these ideas can coexist fairly neatly without making broad assumptions that what they're doing is automatically "bad".

So apparently what I thought the leaks were, was wrong and one of the telephone game descriptions that made the most sense of the initial YouTube reactions before videos started getting yanked. I'm told it's much...MUCH...worse.

...

Disagreed when there's the big "don't make a sequel at all" button right there everyone at ND could have hit vs make this game at all. (well I don't mean to blame rank and file employees doing their job but you know what I'm saying here).

Okay, I got a more bulletpointed story explanation. Or at least the bigger beats. I don't like what it implies about Ellie, the world and the people within it. On the other hand, where else would that story go? Ellie possibly, maybe, supposedly had the world's secrets in her dumb mushroom head and that chance set sail at the end of The Last of Us.

Maybe that world is fucked forever. It was all for nothing.

Actually, putting it like that makes me want to see how Naughty Dog write that, assuming that's what they're going for.

@shindig: I'd disagree that it was all for nothing though, sure they didn't save the world but Joel learned to let himself care again (cheesy I know) and move someway past Sarah and Ellie found family she could count on, despite his faults.

Who among us would actually sacrifice a loved one (especially a child) for what was essentially a long shot to "save" a world that was probably too far gone to repair anyway? I know I sure as shit wouldn't.

I agree that really this was the likely way for a second story to go, so I'm happy to end it on a hopeful note with the first.

@stephen_von_cloud: To be fair, why wouldn't they make a sequel to their most well-regarded game? Does it need a part 2? Not at all, but I feel it was always gonna happen. I'm getting real interested to see how this one does now though, given the circumstances.

I never understood this argument. It was a good game that people enjoyed. There is room to explore more of that world. Was it a great self contained story? Of course. Does a sequel somehow negate anything about the original? I'm just not sure I see the perspective about why a sequel shouldn't exist. This isn't like Schindlers List 2 or something.

There's expressing concern and criticism and then there's whining like spoiled brats and as if ND are hapless. Some gamers need to get a grip.

So, I've only skimmed this and a few other threads because I don't want to get spoiled. Not that I care thaaaat much since I don't think TLoU is all that good but I might as well go in blind. But I've seen one reoccuring argument that peeves the shit out of me. It's the "why do they care about gender/sexuality stuff in an apocalypse eyeroll"-argument.

First of all, fuck off! Secondly, why do people think that self-reflection, personal development, self-hate and -love, or whatever else applies, suddenly just stops because there's zombies out there!?! Like everyone just becomes a survivalist automaton! When someone comes up with that argument they immediately signal to me that they feel the expression of gender and sexuality are frivolous and privileged.

But what I really wanted to write about was that this argument could be boiled down to "What about the loooooore?!" And that's such a limited view to have on media and art. And I see it constantly for all kinds of media.

TLoU is a game about fatherhood, the passing of the torch, loving a single person over the rest of the world, if your love for someone is selfish... It has all these interesting themes about parent-child-relationships and it makes so much sense that a followup would deal with puberty, romantic love, identity, self exploration...

There's a chance that none of this applies to the spoilers at all. If so, I'm getting angry at idiots over nothing but what's new?

@humanity: I’m pretty sure I remember Neil Druckmann saying he wrote the game with possible plans for a sequel.

@arcadefire: As I said, the extremes aren't really interesting to discuss in my opinion. Unless the intent is for this thread to become a room of everyone agreeing that water is wet. Some people do need to get a grip, but that's nothing new or unique to this game.

@thechris: I mean the ending is about as wide open as you can leave it.

@humanity: It’s open but also manages to close the story very neatly in such a way that even if it didn’t get a sequel it wouldn’t have hurt it at all. I just find the whole argument about how the game can’t have a sequel, when it very clearly leaves enough threads to pursue a new story with these characters. It’s an argument I hear a lot in regards to the Last of Us, and I get it on some levels. Like I don’t feel every game needs a sequel and I respect developers who avoids that to tell a complete story. I certainly felt Bioshock and Final Fantasy X would have been better off without sequels. I imagine some devs might want to avoid creating a brand that can limit how they creative they can go.

But yeah, we still have some story we can go on and I’m still interested to see where this game goes.

My problem with this logic has always been that this idea is "objectively moral", especially when TLOU both disputes and dismisses the idea that Joel's parental love absolves him from all of the shit he does. That's the beauty of TLOU's ending, it's subversive because it takes something we often take for granted, that very notion that parental love and protecting your child at all costs as "objective good," and complicates it severely by ending it from Ellie's perspective. She's clearly unnerved by Joel's constant prattling about how she would be great friends with his dead daughter. And the hesitation she says before that final "okay" more than implies that she knows Joel is lying. It's not as simple as "well now they're one big happy family." It's a fucked up ending for a fucked up game. That's what moved me.

Unfortunately, many people seemed to opt for the more simplistic reading of "Joel did Nothing Wrong" because it lets them maintain the usual moral superiority that most games let them have, the very thing that TLOU itself if deconstructing.

@kemuri07: I never said it was objectively good, my point was more that it's human and relatable. I'm not trying to paint Joel as some kind of saint but he had his reasons for doing the terrible shit he did and many of us might have done the same.

The ending was great, the moral uncertainty was definitely part of that and that Ellie obviously knowing he was lying was a perfect note to end on. Painting Joel as an irredeemable monster is just as disingenuous as pretending he was some sort of unquestionable hero though (not saying that's what you were suggesting but there's plenty that have and I just wanted to present the point)

Joel isn't a hero or a villain, he's just a dude in a shitty situation. He's not infallible and does some questionable shit in an extreme situation and that's part of why I like him. I don't pretend that he's any more than that.

@someoneproud Joel didn't grow or move past Sarah's death, though. He replaced her and his commitment to keeping Ellie around led to a massacre and a bold-faced lie to Ellie's dumb face.

Joel is a horrible human being. If you think the circumstances made him into it then what does that say about the world at large? Is there no humanity? The ... last ... of us.

I think I'm back in.

@shindig: That's a bingo. He's a monster--but a remarkably human one at that. He just now has a moral justification to do what he does--Ellie.

I'd argue that Joel was already a broken person even before meeting Ellie, and becomes much worse by the end of the game. There's a difference between a person (Ellie) being thrown into an ambiguous morally situation, and a person like Joel who cruelly and calmly enacts some disturbing acts of violence all for the good of saving Ellie. Joel is a deconstruction of the typical anti-hero that allows people to embrace wanton acts of violence while having just enough of a moral compass to not be a complete villain.

It's so easy to see through Joel's bullshit, especially in the end when Ellie calls him out on it. Because it's kind of pathetic hearing him spurt some bullshit about doing what it takes to survive and Ellie interrupts him because she knows he's full. of shit.

@shindig: Hahaha, yeah that makes sense. The guy mourns his murdered daughter for 10 years, rediscovers his shits to give and forms a paternal relationship with someone else and then lies to their dumb face... What sort of person does that?! He really is an evil piece of shit huh? If we're talking massacres, see virtually every game protagonist ever.

The world of the Last of Us is a pretty horrible place with little humanity left, that was rather my point... Joel's a person who's been through a major trauma, living in a truly horrible world... With supernatural hearing...

Great stuff, have fun!

Everyone who does horrible things "has their reasons". Joel is a horrible man who does horrible things there's not really any reason to find a way to add a "but!" at the end of that.

This topic is talking me into liking what they are doing more and more.

Show me an Uncharted where Nathan Drake shoots up a hospital.

Or where he brutally tortures two mooks and then also beats their heads in with a pipe after getting the info anyway.

But like, he had to.

@kemuri07: He's a monster, also not a complete villain. That's some special kind of consistency you have there duder. Kinda illustrates my point, this "monster" talk is pure hyperbole.

@shindig: Sorry, you're right. When he shoots up dig sites, ships, museums, cities etc. full of para-military extremists that's completely different from when Joel shoots up a hospital full of them, and to save someone he cares about rather than find some treasure no less. What a bastard...

I think there is a very large difference there actually and its sort of alarming if you don't see it.

Context is important, my friend. Most other video games justify the protagonist by either portraying the villains as cartoon monsters or as generic punching bags so I don't ever have to think about the moral implications of what I'm doing. TLOU clearly wants you to think about it (though I think it's not that successful in that regard) as it informs Joel's mental state of mind. The violence is portrayed much differently in TLOU than it is in other games. That's literally one of the selling points that ND was pushing for: to make you think about the violence you're enacting. And while I don't think it always worked, it was admirable what they were going for.

Also: Plenty of people lose their loved ones are able to adjust to it without resorting to violence. Hell, there are plenty of people in-game where that's the case. Joel constantly tries to justify himself, but the fact is--a murderer is still a murderer.

There's also everyone's in-game reactions to Joel. He's seen as a crazy person, even within the context of a broken world. The man is a bomb scare.

@efesell: I think your selective morality is a little silly. Murder is murder and murder happens a whole bunch in video games. I'm not saying any of it is good (I would have thought this was obvious), just that any rightful condemnation of it should be applied evenly.

The whole torture thing was extreme and obviously a horrible thing to do. I'd have to disagree that it automatically makes Joel irredeemable given his situation but you do you, I get it.

@kemuri07: You didn't think about the implication of violence in the other games but that doesn't change the fact that it's there and you probably should have if it's important to you. Now that ND has opened your eyes to the implications of violence in video games though, surely you could recognise that this stuff is everywhere. It may be better executed and striking in TLOU but the root morality is much the same.

I don't think the violence has all that much to do with his grief tbh but who knows, not everyone handles it the same/at all well. He reacted violently to a violent world, alienating his brother and hurting a lot of folk in the process in the name of survival. Many of the characters make it clear they don't think it's justified and I agree on a human level but this is a video game and killing stuff is par for the course. I find it a little inconsistent that all of a sudden this is unacceptable behaviour for a MC.

Whilst actually playing the game Joel doesn't have much choice in the vast majority of cases, if he doesn't kill them they kill him. I don't think anyone can be blamed for killing in those situations, unpleasant as it is. It's also worth noting that TLOU2 is likely to feature all the same violence and cruelty that Joel committed, enacted by some fresh (& familiar) faces. I'll be interested to see how liberally this shaky standard of morality is applied then.

I'm not sure anyone is making this argument?

@efesell: Oh cool, I thought folk were calling Joel a monster for killing people while not holding other MC's to the same standard. Must've misread the situation, my bad.

@someoneproud: I mean I think you are being terribly reductive, it puts me in the mind of comparing real violence and cartoon violence, but I don't think Joel being a monster has any particular bearing on whether or not he can also be a compelling protagonist.

@efesell: To be fair I was never talking about whether or not he was compelling but whether his killing warranted the sort of reaction he's been getting, actions that a great many other protagonists have made without eliciting the same response. I'm sorry if that was unclear. I think the argument for cartoon vs realistic depictions is pretty superficial tbh, sure it has more impact but it's still straight up murdering a bunch of people either way in the end.

This has been fun and interesting distraction for me but this has gone on longer than I was expecting, we're pretty much bogarting the topic and I'm itching to slam my head against Nioh 2 for a while before bed.

Thanks guys, all the best.

@someoneproud: To be honest, as someone not involved in this conversation, you're mostly just coming across as needlessly argumentative and talking in circles (also a little passive aggressive, if I'm being honest). Who cares if many games are murder simulators when we're talking about a specific game here and the actions of a character involved? It seems kind of crazy to me that a person would approach every game they play under the lens of "well, violence in video games is everywhere" and allow that to influence how they engage with the characters of every game. If they're effectively all the same to you, why play at all then?

Yeah..lose the passive aggressiveness because it's not warranted.

2. Again. Context is important. It's the reason why John Wick gunning people down is fun and exciting, but the violence in Dragged Across Concrete is horrific. How a medium choses to frame its violence is incredibly important how its audience reacts to it. It's common sense, and you don't need to be a film major to understand that.

3. Your constant assurance that because it's a "dog eat dog world" that Joel is justified in his actions is, not only does it say something about how you perceive violence, but it's also the very thing that the game itself critiquing. And I would argue that the game itself completely disagrees with that very point of view: That violence is ok because "it is what it is" or because "you're doing it for a moral reason." Hell, TLOU2 is entirely rebuking that idea by focusing on the idea that violence begets violence. Everything that I'm talking about is within the context of the game. It is literally what its creators want you to feel. Because if the take away is that Joel is just a "simple man living in a brutal world," why the fuck would you end it with Joel lying to Ellie?

Yes, a lot of the violence in The Last of Us is contextualised by tone. You do a lot of it but it carries more weight than in something like Halo or Uncharted. It goes back to how the opposition views Joel. He's a threat but he has Ellie who might be the key to the cure. They have to engage him to get to her and he will not just give her up.

The Fireflies knock Joel out at the end not to be bad guys but because Joel's reputation precedes him. He doesn't negotiate, he doesn't lay down arms, he is not to be trusted. And he proves them right when he wakes up.

Joel's lie is interesting. It's a selfish act that allows him to keep playing the protector. In the longer term, if Ellie's sacrifice proved successful, Joel would completely lose his purpose in the world. Nobody to protect and, if society got back on it's feet, he'd be completely out of place. It's making me want to replay The Last of Us, to be honest.

Sorry if it came across as passive aggressive. I'm prone to sarcasm when something seems truly nonsense to me, I'll try and lay off it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this whole thing because we're going 'round in circles, I've said my piece, I know where you guys stand and it doesn't matter to me much whether anyone agrees with me or not.

@sethmode: I only expressed my opinion on it to start with, folk vehemently argued with me about it for hours and I responded (because clearly we all have too much time on our hands). We are on a forum, I'd say this whole thing is needlessly argumentative.

@shindig: I'm itching to replay it again now too. Such a good game.

I haven't played the game since it's release but for what it's worth I never got this impression that Joel was a psychopath that people tiptoe around that some of you are arguing for. He was a broken man that went went to unhealthy extremes in his need to fill a void that wasn't as simple to fill as he might have wanted it to be. The people he interacted with treated him as much - as a walking shadow rather than a bomb scare. It is fun that everyone gets their own interpretation out of it.

This thread has made me want to buy 5 copies of the game.

I never cared about this game anyway. More so now.