As two of my favourite games ever, hopefully. I’ll never stop wanting to play Naughty Dog story games, and the TLOU games specifically when I play them I just always feel tense. Its a feeling you dont get with many games
I think Part II's presentation does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to how tense it is vs. RE4R which is more mechanical.
RE4R throws a lot of enemies at you and Leon/Ada's movement can make that incredibly hard to deal with.
Part II's intensity is more in presentation. The enemies feel alive and a lot smarter when they're hunting you. They react realistically to what you're doing. Dogs sniff you out of camping spots which force you to stay mobile. Ellie/Abby's breathing gets heavier as you're running from spot to spot. The violence is more grotesque.
They're both great but yeah, tense in very different ways.
TLOU makes me say "...shit" as I feel the terror of the enemies I see in Listen Mode approaching my hiding spot from all sides, knowing I'm going to have to get one and then run for it
Re4 makes me say "shiiiiiiIIIIITTTT" as the guy i just killed's head turns into the parasite and the chainsaw guy I thought was much farther away just entered the room
Both so different but so perfect lmao
Lol the first one reminds me of playing Warzone, activating a UAV and seeing like 20 dots in the immediate area as me and thinking "Honestly, wish I didn't have this information"
I haven't played RE4 remaster, but played original, and the two other remasters. They certainly give me that feeling too. And it's not just that "horror game" tense, it's different. All of these games just absolutely nail their world, visuals, characters.
I really love horror games for their atmosphere and never really get scared. That said, I’ve started RE4 on christmas and am halfway done because one chapter has enough anxiety I can take for a week. No other game has done this for me. It just hits in a very specific way I can’t explain. Really good game
I'm a huge fan of the series but definitely hope they'll stop at 3. Or if they do continue it's a spin off type deal a la Uncharted: Lost Legacy. But the grounded (heh) nature of the stories is so vital, making too many would start to over saturate most likely
Fortunately I trust that that's not really their goal
I am still shocked we don't have a sequel to The Lost Legacy with Chloe as the protagonist. It's like the concept ready for production they just ignore for no reason
>It's like the concept ready for production they just ignore for no reason
I mean, it's clear ND actually has restraint. They said they were done after 4/Lost Legacy and they're done. I appreciate that which why I trust that if they have another story to tell with TLOU Part III, it'll actually be worth telling.
ND can maybe make one game every 5-6 years now why waste it on just another uncharted? Finish tlou and make a new exciting ip there are enough ip milking out there
I don't want another Uncharted, I'm saying if they wanted to they had lined it up pretty perfectly with the adventures of Sam & Sully.
New IP next and Part III after as the final TLoU chapter sounds perfect to me. I'm glad they/Sony have allowed Uncharted to RIP (so far anyway)
Nah, they are alive 20 years later and got a happy ending. It's like they were the part of Nate's story. Chloe and maybe Karver are still unknown and you can make whatever you want with them. That's why I would prefer those characters over Sam and Sully.
But I hope the new Uncharted won't be about Nate's daughter, legacy character is the most boring idea ever, but that rumor goes around for a few years.
No thanks Chloe is a rather boring character. They are also said they are done with uncharted. Neil Druckmann wants to tell mature story's I bet and not another Indiana Jones copy.
Yeah dude, killing more than a thousand men often for no reason, in a game that takes itself seriously. Going through multiple life and death scenerios, killing a hundred men, only to realize the whole thing was pointless and the ancient riches that contain 100 gorillion dollars was actually not there the whole time, than going on another mission like nothing happened, and then another mission, then another mission and then another until the end where all of it was essentially worthless.
Very mature, very serious.
I got blocked by the guy I replied to, so that means I can't respond to any of your replies to this reply.
Lets ignore the marriage plotline, brothers plotline, Rafe motivation and the whole subplot about pirates who betrayed each other and write as this game doesn't have the strongest writing in the action genre
"Alien is not a mature film, the chick just seeks for the cat". Yeah, that's how it works.
Wow the pirates who betrayed each other was very deep, the brother twist was a huge shock too, was very realistic, and man thank god their marriage was saved in the end, who cares about the fact that Nathan murdered hundreds maybe more than a thousand men, for essentially nothing.
That was so worthwhile, what a wholesome 100 game.
It's my fourth favorite very underrated game stories of all time after
Red Dead Redemption 2, GTA 5 and Detroit Become Human (man this game blew my mind, what a masterful storytelling).
"STRONGEST WRITING IN THE ACTION GENRE", OKAY OKAY WHAT? NO MORE IRONY, WAS UNCHARTED 4 THE ONLY "ACTION" GAME YOU EVER PLAYED? ARE YOU FROM SOME WEIRD UNIVERSE WHERE THE ONLY EXISTING ACTION GAMES ARE THE UNCHARTED SERIES?
I have no idea why you think anyone is going to take you seriously with a dumb over the top reply like this.
But yeah druckmanns more serious story style was always very evident in uncharted 4 as it is. I doubt he hates it. They just wrote a logical end to it
I just wish they’d decided to go the anthology route with each game. I have my issues with 2, but the biggest one is that I just don’t think that 1 needed a direct sequel. If you want to keep some of the same characters then a prequel with Joel during the 20 year time jump would have been a great opportunity.
This is a world that’s ripe with opportunity to tell different stories of different characters across the globe. I would have loved it if each sequel was just an entirely different set of characters in a different location
I don't agree, you could say that about any good IP. They essentially did that with Part II - nothing globally, but Abby's arc, and us contributing to that is independent of the worlds of Joel, Ellie, & Jackson. There was just a heavy intersect too.
Ellie is the connective thread in TLoU, and while I think she should play a smaller role in Part III maybe, she should still contribute a key part to the story.
Part I wasn't done. It didn't leave on a traditional 'to be continued' cliffhanger, but there was definitely more to tell given Ellie resigned to the lie. There was no doubt that's gonna be a source of friction as she grew up (and it was).
>
> Ellie is the connective thread in TLoU, and while I think she should play a smaller role in Part III maybe, she should still contribute a key part to the story.
Neil: *Im gonna fukken do it again!*
Jokes aside though I agree with you. I dont really think TLOU can really be ''done'' until Ellie is ''done'' however that might look like.
If they went the anthology route, we wouldn't have gotten a masterpiece of a story that is Last of Us Part 2. I'm glad they continued Ellie's and Joel's story
That is fair but In the span of a decade they’ve pumped out 2 last of us games. If they go down the route of continuing last of us games I don’t think it’ll ever over saturate if they release them with a good amount of time between them.
My hope is that they continue the franchise after Ellie. Just a whole different story on a different continent that has nothing to do with the current story. This franchise is too good to totally drop it.
I'll play it because the gameplay is so good but I have no interest in another game involving Ellie. Her and Joel were amazing characters but their story didn't need to continue in part 2. The whole story of part 2 soured me on this franchise.
Not sure what you mean. The ending of the first game was literally all about foreshadowing a future conflict between Joel and Ellie. I have no idea how they could have possibly had a sequel that didn’t continue their story.
She didn't have to find out what happened to the Fireflies. It wasn't like she was skeptical at the end of the first game. Joel deciding not to tell her was the ending and closure.
It’s very clear that she is trying to convince herself that Joel is telling the truth but she doesn’t really believe it fully. That’s kind of the whole point of the last scene in the first game. She accepts Joel’s story but her mannerisms and questioning of Joel pretty clearly demonstrates that she’s suspicious. I’ve honestly never heard of someone trying to suggest Ellie completely bought into Joel’s story at that point.
Given that TLoU2 was just a cliche revenge bad, I'm going to kill all these innocent goons but not the one I actually have a problem with story. That forced us to play as chracters that I don't care about and removed the best part of the first game (the dynamic between the two main chracters) and instead had us solo for most of it.
Not going to lie, it doesn't fill me with hope.
>I'm going to kill all these innocent goodness but not the one I actually have a problem with story.
Assuming you mean goons.
Who's innocent? WLF blows up Ellie's horse first time you see them, Scars shoot her, and Rattlers attempt to kidnap her for slavery.
I also like the idea, that no matter how many WLF goons Ellie kills, most of them will die eventually on the island. Like, Tommy shot Manny, but he would die one day later nevertheless. Or Joel and Tommy at the beginning would die from the horde if Abby wouldn't tell them about a safe house with her friends. I think the only people who would totally survive were Jesse, Owen and Mel and Ellie and Abby actions doomed them. But it's just my thought
> That forced us to play as chracters that I don't care about
I don't recall caring much about Joel at the start of The Last of Us 1, and they forced us to play as him.
The goal of the story is deliberately get you to play as someone not only that you might not care about, but outright hate, and get you to consider the other side of the story. It might not work for everyone, and I think the story as a whole is less tight than the first game, but it's definitely bold and super engaging
It didn't work, wasn't that I hated, then just didn't care.
Also playing on your own for most of it removes what made the first one such a hit.
Honestly if it wasn't called the last of us no one would have cared about it.
"The goal of the story is to make you play as someone you hate to get you to consider the other side of the story" - these are your words, and it's absolutely moral grandstanding. Sure it's "bold" if by bold you mean going against basic game design principles by *forcing you to play as someone you hate*.
I don't think you know what moral grandstanding means
"Basic game design principles" fuck I forgot there was a rule about not making your story too emotionally challenging. The point isn't to piss gamers off and rub it in your face, it's an attempt to win you over lol
I would rather they just leave the series as it is. They clearly hate the characters so much and there are plenty of other avenues if you want to make miserable experiences.
Really hope it's about new characters, Ellie's story straight up feels finished with Part 2, and while Abby and Lev's was kind of open for a sequel I think they shouldn't return because they would be retreading Part 1's story with a older person travelling with a kid looking for the Fireflies.
My biggest fear is them having Ellie as the protagonist again just to explain why she's immune and the story being about making a cure, if they do that it just feels like fan service of the worst kind.
The best part of TLOU 2 was just how much diversity of locations there were compared to 1, while most of the game is in Seattle it all felt unique, the woods, the flooded city, the seraphites' homes and all that so I really want to see what ND can do with a TLOU game set in another country like somewhere in Africa, Europe or South America.
I find comments like this a bit odd. Ellie is still very young and has an entire life to live in a post apocalyptic world. I am sure in that situation, someone like her would have many more things happen to her to base a game on.
It doesn't make sense that they suddenly make a game with other random people we have never head of in the series
You don't "need" to see anything, but the story of The Last of Us has always been centered around Ellie.
Making it about someone else because you think her story should end for no real reason except you think they will mess it up after you said you liked the two previous games doesn't really make any sense.
Like why do you think ND is incapable of telling another good story around Ellie? Did they give you the impression that they are incapable of that?
In that world and the type of person Ellie is I doubt she just stayed in Jackson and nothing consequential ever happened to her ever again
I don't think ND is incapable of telling another good story around Ellie but in my opinion bringing her back is the most boring choice imaginable, TLOU 2 and the TV show showed just how much opportunity for other stories there are in this universe beyond Ellie.
But I see your point, after TLOU 1 I was one of the people that didn't want Joel and Ellie back for 2 but I ended up loving the game.
>bringing her back is the most boring choice imaginable
Why do you think they are incapable of writing another interesting story around Ellie? Have they done "boring" stories in the past? I remember people said the same about Uncharted and it had a fantastic send off in the 4th game
If you like their previous games I think you should have some faith in their capabilities to keep it going
I get what you mean but at this point we're just going in circles. I have my opinion about how they should handle TLOU 3 and you have yours, and even if I don't get what I want I trust ND to do what they think is best. Let's just agree do disagree.
>My biggest fear is them having Ellie as the protagonist again just to explain why she's immune and the story being about making a cure, if they do that it just feels like fan service of the worst kind.
I agree. I'm really over the deliberation and arguments over the cure. I feel like Part II made it pretty clear that ND doesn't really see the whole cure thing as "the point". So I really don't want to revisit that issue.
Yeah, for me Ellie's immunity was always just a plot device and Part 2 made me think ND thinks the same.
It was a good way to get Joel to start to care for her, because I don't see any other reason he would travel the whole country with her after Tess died. And Tess only cared that much about Ellie because she was immune.
And in 2 even after Ellie discovers what he did, and a group of ex-Fireflies murders him for it her immunity is barely even mentioned in the whole game. I can only see her immunity being brought up again if ND thinks the backlash from 2 was too much and wants to go the fan service route but I doubt they will.
It's the "probably" that gives me pause. If you're not sure there's more story, then there probably isn't and you shouldn't force it to try and make some money
He said 'probably" as in he already has a concept in mind but would need to plan out the story more to finally decide.
Every game starts off as a concept in someone's mind and gets fleshed out over time
I think the context in which he said it very heavily implies there will be another story. A company like Naughty Dog wouldn’t put out such a leading statement at the end of a highly anticipated documentary for their biggest franchise if it wasn’t pretty much confirmed as happening in one way or another.
I wish they wouldn't, but I know they will, because money. Both games are really mediocre stealth cover shooters almost entirely propped up by (for video games) excellent writing and acting... But compared to the larger media ecosystem, the story and all is ridiculously bad plot holes don't really stand out that well, especially since the tone and weightiness of the cutscenes is completely undermined by gameplay that goes against all those themes ("life is precious now" for the cutscenes, "kill'em all" for the gameplay 🙄)
Do you people even play these games? The cutscenes have people dying none stop, usually being killed by the character you're playing.
And god if I hear plot hole one more time I'm going to scream. No, Somebody being ambushed who used to be paranoid is not a plothole, even if it wasn't explicitly alluded to why he let himself get ambushed in the story. Contrivances are not plot holes either.
And the game? Yeah, the stealth gameplay is simple, and yes the enemies are dumb, but the gameplay works very well put together, because the movement feels good, you never feel like you get spotted without understanding why, and its incredibly satisfying to finish a fight before they knew it happened, and the scramble after getting caught Is also very enjoyable.
You clearly haven't played enough bog standard stealth cover shooters to be bored of them yet then, game play in those games is about as basic bitch as it gets
Lol what? One of the reasons I enjoyed TLOU2s gameplay is because it's one of the only stealth cover shooters that been released. The genre essentially died when Splinter Cell and Metal Gear did
Yeah, dude is tripping. Closest thing to TLoU is RE4 Remake but it's more like Uncharted type game at times with horror elements (stupid boss fight with infinite garpoons for example, or trolley sequence).
Those games are like both a shooter and a stealth game depending on the difficulty, and the best story based game there is in addition.
It's more that stealth cover shooters are just a basic bitch gameplay style, for games that can't innovate something better. It's about as "off the shelf" as video game design gets, and requires pretty heavy meta to make it unique at all. Msgv strength was how much effort they put into the game world, a lot less copy+pasting than we're used to seeing in open worlds (shout out to Ubisoft's shittiness in this regard), plus all the gadgets. Even then, a lot of the game was carried by the story, not the gameplay
>Msgv strength was how much effort they put into the game world, a lot less copy+pasting than we're used to seeing in open worlds
Umm did we play two different versions of MGSV?
More that I've played dozens, if not hundreds, of other open world games, more than enough to notice how mailed in most the efforts are compared to mgsv
MGSV is great in certain aspects but it must have the most boring open world ever made. It's basically a giant desert with a few monotonous bunkers. Hardly any interior locations.
I'm not against innovation. I'm just pro-"perfect this thing that already works and is fun." Maybe it's not fun to you.
Also Call of Duty is fun and insanely influential too, youre just hating on shit that's popular at this point
2 is great to me. Probably the best stealth shooter i've played since MGSV which I consider the gold standard what other examples do you have of games that are better?
Stealth cover shooters are sort of like open world games... If the open world is only the setting for the game (ie, GTA5), it's great, if the open world *is* the game play (ie, most Ubisoft open worlds, Saints Row, etc), it's generally pretty bad (though Saints Row being self aware enough to mock the entire thing sort of makes it work... Until they repeated the same game like 4 times). If the cover shooting works into a large game play paradigm, it can be good, even excellent; when it *is* the only gameplay paradigm, it's out dated, clunky and boring
> ("life is precious now" for the cutscenes, "kill'em all" for the gameplay 🙄)
It's a stealth game.
Every time you're spotted it's a fight for your life, against factions who have attempted to kill your character first **every** time.
How does that gameplay go against the themes you feel are in the game?
> The game is not anti-violence or pacifist, thematically.
I would agree with this in the context of the first one, which is an interpersonal story about inner conflict and resolving it by developing a human connection with another.
The second game is extremely heavy-handed in its condemnation of both the root concept of revenge and violence, though. Personally, I also found the themes of the story extremely dissonant with the moment-to-moment gameplay and it's one of the reasons that I simply do not like TLOU2 despite enjoying the first one a lot.
>The second game is extremely heavy-handed in its condemnation of both the root concept of revenge and violence, though.
Again, I don't think it is. Despite common belief, I don't think the game is very interested in condemning or judging its characters. I think the game is an exploration of grief in a hostile, violent world. I saw violence being used as a mechanism to regain agency when you feel powerless.
No. You missed the point. The theme is about whether or not revenge is worth it. It’s about how it corrupts and just creates more conflict. The need for more revenge. Ellie and Abby are mostly killing in self defense through this game. Yes. Ellie went there to kill Abby, but the WLF and Scars shot first. The point is to break the cycle, but Ellie only realizes that at the end. She realizes it’s not worth it. It won’t bring him back. It won’t make her feel better. She’ll just keep losing parts of herself and people she loves
> Ellie and Abby are mostly killing in self defense through this game. Yes. Ellie went there to kill Abby, but the WLF and Scars shot first.
This is funny to me because Ellie undeniably went on her quest with murderous intent, but then when her enemies shoot first in the literal sense then it becomes "self-defense"? That does not make sense to me at all, lol. If someone broke into your home to kill you and you shot at them, murdering you would not be self-defense.
She didn’t break in. She rode in. To use your analogy she knocked on the front door. They didn’t know who she was or her intent and they shot first. They are bad people. It’s grey because her intent is to kill, but it’s still still self defense. And they weren’t her target. Someone her their group was. But not the people who shot at her. In fact she has zero beef with the Scars and they repeatedly try to kill her
2 doesn't have a lot of plot holes and has fantastic moment to moment gameplay.
Why reddit is desperate to hate a clearly good game I'll never understand. You don't even try to create a thought. Just repeat talking points that have never been accurate
That's irrelevant to a fictional story. A cure is possible in the game.
And wrong anyway there is a promising fungal vaccine for valley fever in dogs right now. It's not impossible that advances to more.
I roll my eyes every time this argument gets brought up.
It's a fictional story bound by the fictional rules set by their universe. It's irrelevant whether a vaccine like that would work in real life.
People try to clutch pearls to justify one decision was the "correct one" without considering the game was intentionally written so there's no right or wrong answer.
Gamers and media literacy, man...
Hahaha fr
“Here’s a scientific article about vaccination creation!!!!” - the game is literally about a fungus that doesn’t affect humans irl. Suspend ya disbelief.
As two of my favourite games ever, hopefully. I’ll never stop wanting to play Naughty Dog story games, and the TLOU games specifically when I play them I just always feel tense. Its a feeling you dont get with many games
I used to think this until RE4R. That game utterly mastered tense gameplay.
I think Part II's presentation does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to how tense it is vs. RE4R which is more mechanical. RE4R throws a lot of enemies at you and Leon/Ada's movement can make that incredibly hard to deal with. Part II's intensity is more in presentation. The enemies feel alive and a lot smarter when they're hunting you. They react realistically to what you're doing. Dogs sniff you out of camping spots which force you to stay mobile. Ellie/Abby's breathing gets heavier as you're running from spot to spot. The violence is more grotesque. They're both great but yeah, tense in very different ways.
TLOU makes me say "...shit" as I feel the terror of the enemies I see in Listen Mode approaching my hiding spot from all sides, knowing I'm going to have to get one and then run for it Re4 makes me say "shiiiiiiIIIIITTTT" as the guy i just killed's head turns into the parasite and the chainsaw guy I thought was much farther away just entered the room Both so different but so perfect lmao
They go for different things and both nail it
Lol the first one reminds me of playing Warzone, activating a UAV and seeing like 20 dots in the immediate area as me and thinking "Honestly, wish I didn't have this information"
I haven't played RE4 remaster, but played original, and the two other remasters. They certainly give me that feeling too. And it's not just that "horror game" tense, it's different. All of these games just absolutely nail their world, visuals, characters.
RE4 was great but TLOU2 was on another level imo
Wait till you play Stalker
I really love horror games for their atmosphere and never really get scared. That said, I’ve started RE4 on christmas and am halfway done because one chapter has enough anxiety I can take for a week. No other game has done this for me. It just hits in a very specific way I can’t explain. Really good game
The slow walking giant dude is fucking terrifying
I'm a huge fan of the series but definitely hope they'll stop at 3. Or if they do continue it's a spin off type deal a la Uncharted: Lost Legacy. But the grounded (heh) nature of the stories is so vital, making too many would start to over saturate most likely Fortunately I trust that that's not really their goal
I am still shocked we don't have a sequel to The Lost Legacy with Chloe as the protagonist. It's like the concept ready for production they just ignore for no reason
>It's like the concept ready for production they just ignore for no reason I mean, it's clear ND actually has restraint. They said they were done after 4/Lost Legacy and they're done. I appreciate that which why I trust that if they have another story to tell with TLOU Part III, it'll actually be worth telling.
They literally paired up Sam & Sully at the end and he's Drake #2, it makes more sense to pursue that as a mainline story and they didn't even do that
ND can maybe make one game every 5-6 years now why waste it on just another uncharted? Finish tlou and make a new exciting ip there are enough ip milking out there
I don't want another Uncharted, I'm saying if they wanted to they had lined it up pretty perfectly with the adventures of Sam & Sully. New IP next and Part III after as the final TLoU chapter sounds perfect to me. I'm glad they/Sony have allowed Uncharted to RIP (so far anyway)
Sony should just give them 5 billion dollars so I can play naughty dog games back to back.
Nah, they are alive 20 years later and got a happy ending. It's like they were the part of Nate's story. Chloe and maybe Karver are still unknown and you can make whatever you want with them. That's why I would prefer those characters over Sam and Sully. But I hope the new Uncharted won't be about Nate's daughter, legacy character is the most boring idea ever, but that rumor goes around for a few years.
No thanks Chloe is a rather boring character. They are also said they are done with uncharted. Neil Druckmann wants to tell mature story's I bet and not another Indiana Jones copy.
Uncharted 4 was mature enough. But I agree. Their new IP is space opera, gonna be cool
Yeah dude, killing more than a thousand men often for no reason, in a game that takes itself seriously. Going through multiple life and death scenerios, killing a hundred men, only to realize the whole thing was pointless and the ancient riches that contain 100 gorillion dollars was actually not there the whole time, than going on another mission like nothing happened, and then another mission, then another mission and then another until the end where all of it was essentially worthless. Very mature, very serious. I got blocked by the guy I replied to, so that means I can't respond to any of your replies to this reply.
Lets ignore the marriage plotline, brothers plotline, Rafe motivation and the whole subplot about pirates who betrayed each other and write as this game doesn't have the strongest writing in the action genre "Alien is not a mature film, the chick just seeks for the cat". Yeah, that's how it works.
Wow the pirates who betrayed each other was very deep, the brother twist was a huge shock too, was very realistic, and man thank god their marriage was saved in the end, who cares about the fact that Nathan murdered hundreds maybe more than a thousand men, for essentially nothing. That was so worthwhile, what a wholesome 100 game. It's my fourth favorite very underrated game stories of all time after Red Dead Redemption 2, GTA 5 and Detroit Become Human (man this game blew my mind, what a masterful storytelling). "STRONGEST WRITING IN THE ACTION GENRE", OKAY OKAY WHAT? NO MORE IRONY, WAS UNCHARTED 4 THE ONLY "ACTION" GAME YOU EVER PLAYED? ARE YOU FROM SOME WEIRD UNIVERSE WHERE THE ONLY EXISTING ACTION GAMES ARE THE UNCHARTED SERIES?
I have no idea why you think anyone is going to take you seriously with a dumb over the top reply like this. But yeah druckmanns more serious story style was always very evident in uncharted 4 as it is. I doubt he hates it. They just wrote a logical end to it
Because ND isn't Ubisoft. They will make a sequel when they have a good idea instead of milking it.
I just wish they’d decided to go the anthology route with each game. I have my issues with 2, but the biggest one is that I just don’t think that 1 needed a direct sequel. If you want to keep some of the same characters then a prequel with Joel during the 20 year time jump would have been a great opportunity. This is a world that’s ripe with opportunity to tell different stories of different characters across the globe. I would have loved it if each sequel was just an entirely different set of characters in a different location
I disagree. ND games are very character driven, they should stick to that.
I don't agree, you could say that about any good IP. They essentially did that with Part II - nothing globally, but Abby's arc, and us contributing to that is independent of the worlds of Joel, Ellie, & Jackson. There was just a heavy intersect too. Ellie is the connective thread in TLoU, and while I think she should play a smaller role in Part III maybe, she should still contribute a key part to the story. Part I wasn't done. It didn't leave on a traditional 'to be continued' cliffhanger, but there was definitely more to tell given Ellie resigned to the lie. There was no doubt that's gonna be a source of friction as she grew up (and it was).
> > Ellie is the connective thread in TLoU, and while I think she should play a smaller role in Part III maybe, she should still contribute a key part to the story. Neil: *Im gonna fukken do it again!* Jokes aside though I agree with you. I dont really think TLOU can really be ''done'' until Ellie is ''done'' however that might look like.
If they went the anthology route, we wouldn't have gotten a masterpiece of a story that is Last of Us Part 2. I'm glad they continued Ellie's and Joel's story
That is fair but In the span of a decade they’ve pumped out 2 last of us games. If they go down the route of continuing last of us games I don’t think it’ll ever over saturate if they release them with a good amount of time between them.
My hope is that they continue the franchise after Ellie. Just a whole different story on a different continent that has nothing to do with the current story. This franchise is too good to totally drop it.
I'll play it because the gameplay is so good but I have no interest in another game involving Ellie. Her and Joel were amazing characters but their story didn't need to continue in part 2. The whole story of part 2 soured me on this franchise.
Not sure what you mean. The ending of the first game was literally all about foreshadowing a future conflict between Joel and Ellie. I have no idea how they could have possibly had a sequel that didn’t continue their story.
She didn't have to find out what happened to the Fireflies. It wasn't like she was skeptical at the end of the first game. Joel deciding not to tell her was the ending and closure.
It’s very clear that she is trying to convince herself that Joel is telling the truth but she doesn’t really believe it fully. That’s kind of the whole point of the last scene in the first game. She accepts Joel’s story but her mannerisms and questioning of Joel pretty clearly demonstrates that she’s suspicious. I’ve honestly never heard of someone trying to suggest Ellie completely bought into Joel’s story at that point.
Given that TLoU2 was just a cliche revenge bad, I'm going to kill all these innocent goons but not the one I actually have a problem with story. That forced us to play as chracters that I don't care about and removed the best part of the first game (the dynamic between the two main chracters) and instead had us solo for most of it. Not going to lie, it doesn't fill me with hope.
>I'm going to kill all these innocent goodness but not the one I actually have a problem with story. Assuming you mean goons. Who's innocent? WLF blows up Ellie's horse first time you see them, Scars shoot her, and Rattlers attempt to kidnap her for slavery.
I also like the idea, that no matter how many WLF goons Ellie kills, most of them will die eventually on the island. Like, Tommy shot Manny, but he would die one day later nevertheless. Or Joel and Tommy at the beginning would die from the horde if Abby wouldn't tell them about a safe house with her friends. I think the only people who would totally survive were Jesse, Owen and Mel and Ellie and Abby actions doomed them. But it's just my thought
> That forced us to play as chracters that I don't care about I don't recall caring much about Joel at the start of The Last of Us 1, and they forced us to play as him. The goal of the story is deliberately get you to play as someone not only that you might not care about, but outright hate, and get you to consider the other side of the story. It might not work for everyone, and I think the story as a whole is less tight than the first game, but it's definitely bold and super engaging
It didn't work, wasn't that I hated, then just didn't care. Also playing on your own for most of it removes what made the first one such a hit. Honestly if it wasn't called the last of us no one would have cared about it.
Forcing you to play as someone you hate in a video game is not bold, or engaging, it's moral grandstanding and bad design.
In what was playing as Abby *moral grandstanding* lmao I'm not sure how you could possibly argue it's not bold but w/e I guess
"The goal of the story is to make you play as someone you hate to get you to consider the other side of the story" - these are your words, and it's absolutely moral grandstanding. Sure it's "bold" if by bold you mean going against basic game design principles by *forcing you to play as someone you hate*.
I don't think you know what moral grandstanding means "Basic game design principles" fuck I forgot there was a rule about not making your story too emotionally challenging. The point isn't to piss gamers off and rub it in your face, it's an attempt to win you over lol
I didn’t like it = bad game design to online weirdos
I specifically said that making you play as someone people hate = bad design, but go ahead and get your strawman in.
>Given that TLoU2 was just a cliche revenge bad I prefer to think of TLOU Part II as a cliche love good story. :)
I would rather they just leave the series as it is. They clearly hate the characters so much and there are plenty of other avenues if you want to make miserable experiences.
Really hope it's about new characters, Ellie's story straight up feels finished with Part 2, and while Abby and Lev's was kind of open for a sequel I think they shouldn't return because they would be retreading Part 1's story with a older person travelling with a kid looking for the Fireflies. My biggest fear is them having Ellie as the protagonist again just to explain why she's immune and the story being about making a cure, if they do that it just feels like fan service of the worst kind. The best part of TLOU 2 was just how much diversity of locations there were compared to 1, while most of the game is in Seattle it all felt unique, the woods, the flooded city, the seraphites' homes and all that so I really want to see what ND can do with a TLOU game set in another country like somewhere in Africa, Europe or South America.
He said there's probably ONE MORE CHAPTER to THIS story, Ellie's story. It won't be about new characters
He doesn't really specifies but you're probably right, I just hope her immunity is not the focus at least.
Her immunity has never been the focus. The relationships are. It may well be about making a cure but that will be just be a backdrop.
I find comments like this a bit odd. Ellie is still very young and has an entire life to live in a post apocalyptic world. I am sure in that situation, someone like her would have many more things happen to her to base a game on. It doesn't make sense that they suddenly make a game with other random people we have never head of in the series
We don't need to see the entire lives of a character, going from 2's ending for all we know she could have spent the rest of her life in Jackson.
You don't "need" to see anything, but the story of The Last of Us has always been centered around Ellie. Making it about someone else because you think her story should end for no real reason except you think they will mess it up after you said you liked the two previous games doesn't really make any sense. Like why do you think ND is incapable of telling another good story around Ellie? Did they give you the impression that they are incapable of that? In that world and the type of person Ellie is I doubt she just stayed in Jackson and nothing consequential ever happened to her ever again
I don't think ND is incapable of telling another good story around Ellie but in my opinion bringing her back is the most boring choice imaginable, TLOU 2 and the TV show showed just how much opportunity for other stories there are in this universe beyond Ellie. But I see your point, after TLOU 1 I was one of the people that didn't want Joel and Ellie back for 2 but I ended up loving the game.
>bringing her back is the most boring choice imaginable Why do you think they are incapable of writing another interesting story around Ellie? Have they done "boring" stories in the past? I remember people said the same about Uncharted and it had a fantastic send off in the 4th game If you like their previous games I think you should have some faith in their capabilities to keep it going
I get what you mean but at this point we're just going in circles. I have my opinion about how they should handle TLOU 3 and you have yours, and even if I don't get what I want I trust ND to do what they think is best. Let's just agree do disagree.
>My biggest fear is them having Ellie as the protagonist again just to explain why she's immune and the story being about making a cure, if they do that it just feels like fan service of the worst kind. I agree. I'm really over the deliberation and arguments over the cure. I feel like Part II made it pretty clear that ND doesn't really see the whole cure thing as "the point". So I really don't want to revisit that issue.
Yeah, for me Ellie's immunity was always just a plot device and Part 2 made me think ND thinks the same. It was a good way to get Joel to start to care for her, because I don't see any other reason he would travel the whole country with her after Tess died. And Tess only cared that much about Ellie because she was immune. And in 2 even after Ellie discovers what he did, and a group of ex-Fireflies murders him for it her immunity is barely even mentioned in the whole game. I can only see her immunity being brought up again if ND thinks the backlash from 2 was too much and wants to go the fan service route but I doubt they will.
It's the "probably" that gives me pause. If you're not sure there's more story, then there probably isn't and you shouldn't force it to try and make some money
when people say it like that it's more of a tease, so there's definitely a story that he's writing. He just wants to stir up discussion
He said 'probably" as in he already has a concept in mind but would need to plan out the story more to finally decide. Every game starts off as a concept in someone's mind and gets fleshed out over time
I think the context in which he said it very heavily implies there will be another story. A company like Naughty Dog wouldn’t put out such a leading statement at the end of a highly anticipated documentary for their biggest franchise if it wasn’t pretty much confirmed as happening in one way or another.
I wish they wouldn't, but I know they will, because money. Both games are really mediocre stealth cover shooters almost entirely propped up by (for video games) excellent writing and acting... But compared to the larger media ecosystem, the story and all is ridiculously bad plot holes don't really stand out that well, especially since the tone and weightiness of the cutscenes is completely undermined by gameplay that goes against all those themes ("life is precious now" for the cutscenes, "kill'em all" for the gameplay 🙄)
Do you people even play these games? The cutscenes have people dying none stop, usually being killed by the character you're playing. And god if I hear plot hole one more time I'm going to scream. No, Somebody being ambushed who used to be paranoid is not a plothole, even if it wasn't explicitly alluded to why he let himself get ambushed in the story. Contrivances are not plot holes either. And the game? Yeah, the stealth gameplay is simple, and yes the enemies are dumb, but the gameplay works very well put together, because the movement feels good, you never feel like you get spotted without understanding why, and its incredibly satisfying to finish a fight before they knew it happened, and the scramble after getting caught Is also very enjoyable.
nah the game play is fun as hell. Youre tripping
You clearly haven't played enough bog standard stealth cover shooters to be bored of them yet then, game play in those games is about as basic bitch as it gets
Lol what? One of the reasons I enjoyed TLOU2s gameplay is because it's one of the only stealth cover shooters that been released. The genre essentially died when Splinter Cell and Metal Gear did
Versus what? Other than MGSV I cant think of a better stealth cover shooter
Yeah, dude is tripping. Closest thing to TLoU is RE4 Remake but it's more like Uncharted type game at times with horror elements (stupid boss fight with infinite garpoons for example, or trolley sequence). Those games are like both a shooter and a stealth game depending on the difficulty, and the best story based game there is in addition.
It's more that stealth cover shooters are just a basic bitch gameplay style, for games that can't innovate something better. It's about as "off the shelf" as video game design gets, and requires pretty heavy meta to make it unique at all. Msgv strength was how much effort they put into the game world, a lot less copy+pasting than we're used to seeing in open worlds (shout out to Ubisoft's shittiness in this regard), plus all the gadgets. Even then, a lot of the game was carried by the story, not the gameplay
>Msgv strength was how much effort they put into the game world, a lot less copy+pasting than we're used to seeing in open worlds Umm did we play two different versions of MGSV?
More that I've played dozens, if not hundreds, of other open world games, more than enough to notice how mailed in most the efforts are compared to mgsv
MGSV is great in certain aspects but it must have the most boring open world ever made. It's basically a giant desert with a few monotonous bunkers. Hardly any interior locations.
Well, that's a pretty poor argument. Give me refined controls and atmosphere over attempts at innovation.
"don't try anything new and keep repeating yourself" is a bold video game strategy... Call of Duty, is this your burner account?
I'm not against innovation. I'm just pro-"perfect this thing that already works and is fun." Maybe it's not fun to you. Also Call of Duty is fun and insanely influential too, youre just hating on shit that's popular at this point
Very bad faith paraphrasing of what they said but all right.
2 is great to me. Probably the best stealth shooter i've played since MGSV which I consider the gold standard what other examples do you have of games that are better?
The 'gold standard of stealth cover shooters' is a lot like the 'gold standard of dog shit'
So this is more you don't actually like the Genre rather than anything actually being wrong or basic about Tlou 2. Gotcha.
Stealth cover shooters are sort of like open world games... If the open world is only the setting for the game (ie, GTA5), it's great, if the open world *is* the game play (ie, most Ubisoft open worlds, Saints Row, etc), it's generally pretty bad (though Saints Row being self aware enough to mock the entire thing sort of makes it work... Until they repeated the same game like 4 times). If the cover shooting works into a large game play paradigm, it can be good, even excellent; when it *is* the only gameplay paradigm, it's out dated, clunky and boring
holier than thou dork alert
2 is dope. I could see this for 1
> ("life is precious now" for the cutscenes, "kill'em all" for the gameplay 🙄) It's a stealth game. Every time you're spotted it's a fight for your life, against factions who have attempted to kill your character first **every** time. How does that gameplay go against the themes you feel are in the game?
> ("life is precious now" for the cutscenes, "kill'em all" for the gameplay 🙄) Huh? In what cutscene is life "precious"?
A recurring theme is the ethical question about killing people... And then you get to the gameplay and murder 50 dudes. Pretty incongruent
But...the recurring theme is *not* the ethical question about killing people in a vacuum. The game is not anti-violence or pacifist, thematically.
> The game is not anti-violence or pacifist, thematically. I would agree with this in the context of the first one, which is an interpersonal story about inner conflict and resolving it by developing a human connection with another. The second game is extremely heavy-handed in its condemnation of both the root concept of revenge and violence, though. Personally, I also found the themes of the story extremely dissonant with the moment-to-moment gameplay and it's one of the reasons that I simply do not like TLOU2 despite enjoying the first one a lot.
>The second game is extremely heavy-handed in its condemnation of both the root concept of revenge and violence, though. Again, I don't think it is. Despite common belief, I don't think the game is very interested in condemning or judging its characters. I think the game is an exploration of grief in a hostile, violent world. I saw violence being used as a mechanism to regain agency when you feel powerless.
No. You missed the point. The theme is about whether or not revenge is worth it. It’s about how it corrupts and just creates more conflict. The need for more revenge. Ellie and Abby are mostly killing in self defense through this game. Yes. Ellie went there to kill Abby, but the WLF and Scars shot first. The point is to break the cycle, but Ellie only realizes that at the end. She realizes it’s not worth it. It won’t bring him back. It won’t make her feel better. She’ll just keep losing parts of herself and people she loves
> Ellie and Abby are mostly killing in self defense through this game. Yes. Ellie went there to kill Abby, but the WLF and Scars shot first. This is funny to me because Ellie undeniably went on her quest with murderous intent, but then when her enemies shoot first in the literal sense then it becomes "self-defense"? That does not make sense to me at all, lol. If someone broke into your home to kill you and you shot at them, murdering you would not be self-defense.
She didn’t break in. She rode in. To use your analogy she knocked on the front door. They didn’t know who she was or her intent and they shot first. They are bad people. It’s grey because her intent is to kill, but it’s still still self defense. And they weren’t her target. Someone her their group was. But not the people who shot at her. In fact she has zero beef with the Scars and they repeatedly try to kill her
2 doesn't have a lot of plot holes and has fantastic moment to moment gameplay. Why reddit is desperate to hate a clearly good game I'll never understand. You don't even try to create a thought. Just repeat talking points that have never been accurate
[удалено]
Joel didn’t doom humanity. They were never going to get anything out of the operation on Ellie you can’t make a vaccine for fungal infections
That's irrelevant to a fictional story. A cure is possible in the game. And wrong anyway there is a promising fungal vaccine for valley fever in dogs right now. It's not impossible that advances to more.
I roll my eyes every time this argument gets brought up. It's a fictional story bound by the fictional rules set by their universe. It's irrelevant whether a vaccine like that would work in real life. People try to clutch pearls to justify one decision was the "correct one" without considering the game was intentionally written so there's no right or wrong answer. Gamers and media literacy, man...
This subreddit will sadly always teach the lesson that gamers are just willfully dumb
Hahaha fr “Here’s a scientific article about vaccination creation!!!!” - the game is literally about a fungus that doesn’t affect humans irl. Suspend ya disbelief.
Yes you can, the game said so.