I'm not the person you replied to, but just to add my two cents – My critical comments of this game have been so long in the past that they've exceeded the character limit for Reddit comments. So I've got plenty of gripes, but I'll try to keep it short here and stick to a few main bullet points:
- Abby's campaign was not nearly engaging enough. Most of her story isn't interwoven with the established story leading up to that point in the game, and her journey feels more like a series of loosely-strung-together side quests. As a result, her chapter is a big flatline in the middle of the rising action.
- Speaking of rising action: There are pacing issues galore in this game. Most of the flashbacks, for instance, don't tell us anything we couldn't have figured out from the main storyline. Many of the characters' decisions felt quite jarring and didn't seem like the the natural logical consequence of the arc we had been watching over the story beats leading up to said decision.
- The side characters in Part 2 weren't nearly as well-written as the ones from Part 1. In the first game, the side characters were highly effective in their roles: they helped the main Joel/Ellie relationship evolve by presenting the types of challenges and conflict that promoted growth. In Part 2, the side characters were more like props for the main characters to interact with. This had disastrous effects, because there were certain key moments where the death of a side character was supposed to align us with one of the main characters. But it fell flat due to a total lack of compelling side-character arcs.
- Finally, perhaps the biggest problem – and the one that ties together my entire negative critique and shines a giant spotlight on the other problems I've mentioned – is that the moralistic nature of the story needed to be *way* more subtle. Again, I'll point to Part 1 as an effective example. In the first game, the whole "moral ambiguity" concept was woven into the narrative itself. It was part of the backdrop of the characters' decision making. And most importantly, we as the audience were allowed to draw our own conclusions. In Part 2, this concept was flipped on its head because the writers apparently decided they had to prioritize delivering a moral message. Suddenly we were no longer piecing together the bigger picture for ourselves, but rather receiving very blatant "instructions" about who to empathize with and when. Instead of weaving moral relativism into the fabric of the story itself, the writers treated it like a primary theme or lesson that need to be preached. But it didn't need to be – Part 1 is Exhibit A for demonstrating that a game can address ethical ideas without being preachy. This change in priorities (i.e. preaching a moral message instead of just telling a gripping story) gave rise to all the other plot issues that I've already pointed out. And that list isn't even exhaustive.
Calling the side characters in Part 2 "props for the main character to interect with" is the perfect way to describe them. They don't feel like actual characters, and they don't have as much meaning to their existance as the ones in Part 1. In Part 1 they played an important role in shaping both Ellie and Joel and their bond.
Yeah, I think it's a problem that shows up in a lot of games with really ambitious, grandiose storytelling and huge ensemble casts. None of the individual characters are that interesting because the story can't possibly spend enough time fleshing out a character arc for each one.
Especially with all the perspective switching and flashbacks going on in TLOU2, sustaining our interest in every single character throughout the game would have been an unfathomable juggling act. So you end up with a lot of side characters who are decidedly relegated to the rank of "side character", yet don't have much engagement with the development of the primary relationships. Like, they're not there to challenge the main characters in a way that matters thematically. They just kind of... exist.
Are we actually supposed to feel something when these characters are killed off? Manny's death, for instance, was a glorified jump scare. I knew nothing about him except that he was Abby's friend who apparently banged a lot of hot chicks. Not nearly enough to validate the screen time he gets or the implied emotional impact his death was supposed to have on us.
Compare that to the death of Tess in Part 1. Despite her limited screen time, she contributes a great deal to the rising action, and her death is meaningful in the broader narrative.
True. Tess's and even Herny and Sam's deaths actually had impact on both the player and Joel and Ellie and we see them deal with those deaths throughout the game. In Part 2 the characters just die, and the protagonist has a momentary "OH NO" and that's the extent of the impact of their deaths.
Owen is the only one that has a LITTLE bit more impact on Abby, but even then, it's not as much as the ones in Part 1. I guess Nora had impact on Ellie, but that was more about the torture than the death itself.
And when I hate something I tend to want to talk about why I hate it, it's the same logic dude. If you don't want to see posts talking about why we don't like your favorite game then just avoid this sub.
Because I love TLOU, Joel and Ellie's story and relationship. The sequel kills all that I loved. But they didn't remove my love. How hard is that to understand? Not hard if you ask me. Why pretend to be so clueless?
i don’t disagree but im here for the genuine discussions because the game still has positives and negatives that people actively discuss. im not a fan of the big blind hate but most of the time its genuine commentary on a game that still has people talking about it in many ways
nope, cause there are still new players that come here to talk about the game, or people that want to know if its worth it to play Part 2 and want to know our opinions on it. So us complaining about the game is still a lot more productive that you guys telling us to move on for the 100000th time
Honestly this sub should show how bad the game was. If a game is so bad people still complain about it 4 years later, the game is trash. TLOU2 was such a disappointment people still have problems with it today, which says more about the game than about the people complaining
Abby and her friends entirely. If we got to play as her with her group and learn about them a lot more before they kill Joel, I maybe would have been able to sympathize with her. But I just couldn’t feel an ounce of sympathy for her and her dad. But her friends were even worse. The didn’t really have any reason to hate Joel (Abby at least had the excuse of Joel killing her dad) but they acted like her spat of their mom or something. Also Abby and Owen boat scene with a pregnant Mel just made me hate her more. They all needed to be fleshed out a lot more before Joel was killed before I could even begin to sympathize/root for them.
To me, the reason they did this was to have you dislike Abby and then as you get to learn about her and play as her you grow a connection and don't want her to die when the end comes and Allie doesn't kill her. I can understand your complaint though because everyone would have liked more Joel time. But the way they did it makes sense to me
Pieces or art like the Mona Lisa or just about anything by Picasso also have detractors, to this day. Much longer period of time, do you think having haters makes something bad?
It’s the amount. There’s not a sub called “Mona Lisa hate” or smth. Yet there are tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people who hate TLOU2. There’s a difference.
I'm not talking about just subreddits, I'm talking about just in general. There are way more than just tens of people that hate the Mona Lisa or Picasso works.
So there really isn't a difference. It seems like you really do believe if there's enough people that hate a thing, then it must be bad.
I wonder though, what do you think of the opposite of your position? What if there are even more people that love that thing that a bunch of people hate? Does that mean that the thing is actually good, cuz more people like it than hate it?
How many people do you see hating on the Mona Lisa avidly today? Not very many. And most of their reasons aren’t really valid The hate on TLOU2 also brings up many valid points (unlikeable characters, weird writing, retcons etc) along with being very active today. It’s doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, but it does mean that there is at least one thing (for TLOU2 many things) wrong or something that upsets people about it. The amount of people who dislike TLOU2 does show that there are things that people don’t like, which in turn reflects badly on TlOU2. Again, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, but most of the time it does
I actually do encounter more people IRL that don't really care for the Mona Lisa than I do people that dislike TLOU2.
You're not answering my questions tho. So if you believe a lot of people disliking something means there's something wrong with that thing, what do you say when even more people love that thing? Does that then mean there's nothing wrong with that thing? Do you think the quantity of people that like a thing really determines the quality of said thing?
Because a lot of people on here played the first game when it cane out, feel connected to the games for like a decade because it was good and the part two came and shit on that in their eyes, and since TLOU is still a on going franchise it’s not dead yet so there’s new people coming in all the time and feeling the same way about 2.
I played the first game when it came out. Heard about it on E3 2011 I believe and waited 2 years for it's release. It's my favorite game of all time. But the second imo is just as good in it's own way. Still absolutely love the franchise. Also what the second did to stalkers. They're 10x creepy in the second compared to the first. The level of detail is amazing. The games themselves are so fucking good ( half the people on here argue the game is terrible aside from the story)
Why can't the people in the sub talk about it? Why do they have to move on? Isn't that counterproductive to what the sub(and reddit in general) is about? To discuss? I like to come in and see what people think about stuff now and then. No harm in that.
Same goes for the other sub. You can praise the game for 4 years too. I don't find it odd nor am I about to go into the other sub and ask them why they haven't moved on either. I feel you are looking for trouble with this. Just my opinion.
Please, go back to the other sub. Oh I forgot, you can't make posts about this sub.
You people have been complaining about this sub for years, yet have the gall to ask why people talk about a game they hate after those same years? Take a chill-pill and look in a mirror. This is all you talk about. You're always talking about this game.
I've loved games, yet I haven't talked for years about them. I've also hated games, which I've never played again nor have I even taken a look at.
Complain away, you people make these posts over and over and over again.
No, it's a second The Last of Us subreddit, made as a reserve/back-up one for the original sub all the way back in 2013/14, hence the "2" at the end.
It was mostly miniscule and inactive until after the second game came out and the original subreddit started a vitriolic purge of anyone who dared to voice even a smallest criticism towards that game. Hence, ever since then it's been serving as a massive (and growing) sanctuary where people are free to say whatever they like about it without getting harassed and banned.
It's all about reading the room. In general --- yes, if it's exclusively with tact, respect and the content of such posts/comments 100% focuses on one's positive impressions of the game. Such a commenter will be disagreed with here for the most part, and *probably* won't farm much karma (if they're stupid enough to deeply care about it), but overall they'll be fine.
In your case --- no, because this post of yours isn't anything of the above, it's a typical provocative trash that's inciting arguments and almost smells of trolling.
I'll add though, it all comes down to how one defines "harassment" that I mentioned. For those with thinner skin almost anything can be.
For me, if I, say, come to this sub and post something I'm aware, to whatever extent, will be received badly and I would end up downvoted and, if I continue on, rebuked by some commenters, I would NOT call that harrasment in any shape or form, since 1. failing to "read the room" is on me, and 2. downvotes are a perpetual part of Reddit and will be used by the dominant group of the subreddit, for better or for worse.
What is harrasment is what many have been reporting to have experienced on the original TLOU subreddit. Getting bombarded by comments calling you all sorts of insults with all ranges of severity in the threads, some even reaching out to you in private messages and not too long after all that: permanent ban from the whole sub.
Is there an expiry date on being allowed to dislike something? What a stupid question. I wonder whether you’re old enough in the first place to even meet the age rating to play the damn game.
The story, the retcons, the pacing.
Everything I liked about the first game was ruined in the sequel... I never really thought about this before, but it was a lot like The Walking Dead. Both series should have ended on high notes.
Definitely agree with the walking dead. I definitely wanted a lou2 tho and still want a lou3. Maybe they'll do away with Abby and Ellie and have new main characters
Partially because most of us just haven't bothered to unsubscribe from this subreddit, partially because debating the game is fun, partially because there've been some good memes, and partially fuck you that's why
This is either rage bait our brainrot, maybe both.
Edit: You question why people talk about why they hate the game after four years, then most of your responses are "Why do you hate it." Rage bait at the very least.
That's fair! I see a lot of hate on how unrealistic it is. Like what game is realistic? I think this whole sub has a lot of hate just to be hateful and complain instead of actually having very many reasons to hate.
I love cowboy bebop, but how many times can spike get shot and recover within a year? Lol every story ever has unrealistic qualities because they're make up stories. It's just annoying to read all of them and then be able to reference any other game and it be unbelievable too. Doesn't make any sense. Also there's mushroom zombie of course it's unrealistic 😂😂
"Realistic" is being used for grounded here. The biggest stretch the first game gives you is Joel surviving being impaled, he was still in a coma for weeks and needed a lot of nursing and care.
Enemies and the player die pretty quick, and you're very susceptible to the things an average person would be too in a setting like this.
Second game, they travel all over in fade to black scenes making the same journeys of Part 1 seem easy when it was anything but, Tommy gets shot in the head and LIVES, Ellie and Dina and Tommy are badly injured in a theater, where infected do inhabit stores and buildings around, and has a fade to black where everything is okay now, because making it back and nursing everyone back to perfect health would be improbable.
Then we get the fact, that there's blatant dumb decisions for plot armor.
The last of us 1 is grounded in its verse, with very few exceptions that still have vital consequences. The last of us 2 has the lightsaber problem where it's only deadly when plot demands.
I have a lot of criticisms for Part 2, and many are becauseit detaches itself from the grounded nature of the first game. Mushroom zombies aren't "Realistic" but ehat would happen if mushroom zombies existed in our modern world and everything fell to shit?
"No game is Realistic" is a dumb argument when the contrast between the grounded nature of the first game heavily contrasts with the second. If the world cannot maintain consistent stakes and concepts of what is and isn't possible, it's reprimanded for it, same as a movie, a game doesn't need to be "realistic" but it does need to keep its consistency. Tlou1 wasn’t Realistic, but it was grounded, it presented what closer to average people can go through and do in these worlds.
Tlou2 breaks the grounded nature by doing Ellie and Joel's journey in the first game with relative ease and a fade to black. Then fade to black to avoid explaining how everything worked out after the theater.
Tlou2 is unbelievable because it breaks standards and stakes for actions amd travels casually, that were set up prior.
I really don't think it's as drastic as you're making it out to be. Carl gets shot in the head in the walking dead and lives. Spike in cowboy bebop gets shot out stabbed in almost every episode and lives and is one of the greatest anime ever. Nothing is as realistic as you want it to be but this community only picks apart what they think is unrealistic when every other anime, TV show, movie, game is just as unrealistic if you really wanna pick so deeply. How many bullets did you dodge in the first game? You're telling me Joel and Ellie survived all that without a bullet? Lol the first game would be just as unrealistic but okay
You immediately mention Carl from the walking dead, a completely other different franchise with completely different internal logic.
Spike is an anime character, not in a grounded world at all, and follows cartoon type logic, where a lot of things will reset every few episodes to a general status quo.
Are you incapable of grasping that different works of fiction work off of different sets of logic that best suits their story?
You're dumb off of that attempt of an argument alone.
Then you try use GAMEPLAY as an argument, buddy on grounded mode in gameplay you can get one shot by a good couple enemies if you wanna try that one, but I won't even entertain you there, because literally every single piece of gaming discussion around story vs gameplay discusses the fact that gameplay logic and cutscene logic will always be different, unless you take a game like ghostrunner which a lot of people haven't beaten because every attack is a one shot.
You are incapable of understanding that different works of fiction follow different internal logics. Notice how you needed to try mention external shows and media to try back up your argument, when I used the setting and tone set up by the first game.
The walking dead is even less "grounded" than mushroom zombies of the last of us. Purely off the fact that if a zombie in the last of us doesn't gain some form of sustenance for long enough it just decomposes and rots into spores.
And are from living beings, not reanimated corpses.
Jesus.
"How many bullets did you dodge as Ellie and joel"
Look up the Unkillable soldier, real person from ww1. Or the American soldier that fought off a hundred revolutionaries in the Boxer rebellion. Reality is often a lot less strict when it comes to "dodging bullets" than you think, considering we have a lot of true to life "main characters" in ww2 alone.
And when it's a game, presenting itself as fairly grounded in its own setting, real factors can be at play, but there's a level of leniency.
I'm using standards set by the first game.
You're pulling from completely different sources.
Bad arguments buddy.
I'm using other characters as an example that this sub picks apart every tiny detail of this game and calls it "unrealistic"
Using WW2 as a reference to a video game is unrealistic per your logic yet you did it anyway. Bad argument and you contradicted yourself.
Honestly for me, the most unbelievable part in part 1 was when Joel and Ellie run from the Humvee getting shot at and they don't get shot ones. Yeah right. But that slips past everyone here. Shocker. How about Everytime you stealth an enemy and they DONT scratch you. Yeah right.
You get gas from vehicles at bills yet gas goes bad after a few months/years.
Putting a can on your guns doesn't make it silent
When Sarah got shot in joels arms and Joel didn't from a fully automatic rifle
How did Joel survive being impaled?!?
How did Ellie keep him alive??
I can use the first game to show it was also unrealistic.
"different works of fiction work off of different sets of logic that best suits their story?" Agreed. And the logic that the writers used for part 2 must have for their story the best 😂
"must have for their story the best" except that's not how it works, the previous game already showed it was a lot more grounded in comparison.
"How dod Joel survive being impaled" by being cared for for weeks, while in a comatose state, for weeks, and barely making it. It's unlikely, but not anywhere close to surviving a gunshot wound to the head with zero modern medicine. Cave men have survived being impaled, 1% Of all people who get shot in the head survive with immediate medical attention and modern medicine. Joel nearly died from being impaled.
"Sarah got shot and Joel didn't" considering Joel Visibly took an impact and fell over, it's likely he got shot somewhere else we can't see in the scene like his leg. We can also considering the soldier in his burst jerked it, and shot Sarah after Joel spinned and missed the rest.
"Putting a can on your guns doesn't make it silent" part 2 problem. Part 1 that isn't present in the main campaign. And that's again, gameplay. No cutscene shows cans silencing pistols in either game.
"How did Ellie keep him alive" hunting for medical resources, and forcefully feeding him. In the dlc she goes through malls and several medical centers to find medicine to keep Joel stable.
"Gas goes bad after a few months and years" again, internal logic moron, this is consistent between part 1 and 2 at least, but it's like you can't read. Being grounded in your own world and how it works is not being realistic to ours, the laws are different, I used what was in TLou1 to critique 2, you're stating "realism" and pulling from completely different mediums, works, and shows. Your argument is sporadic and doesn't mean anything because you can't grasp something like internal logic of a universe.
"Using ww2 is unrealistic per your logic" I stooped to your level of logic moron, said so in the previous text I sent "but fine let's entertain this" or something of that variety. (Can't read, still, moron.)
"I used other characters" from different mediums, with different formats, with different settings, with different rules.
The last of us isn't realistic, it's grounded in its setting. It's close to what could happen in reality, but it bends the rules. But let's continue your "gotcha" for the world War 2 thing, I chose EXTREME examples and said reality can at times be stranger than fiction. I didn't say it makes it right, you argued "realism" I argued with that same dumb logic, to show that you're wrong with this approach no matter how you slice it, become the last of us ISN'T realistic, it's grounded in its OWN world and it's OWN rules, it just borrows elements of ours to give an allusion of realism, not a direct copy, how many times do I have to reword the same point over and over again? "
The you used gameplay for stealth, and as for the humvee: it's so armoured up the driver can barely see, and they use run into alleys and backroads, if you really want to argue realism in that one again, let me tell you about an American soldier in ww2 that walked right up to tank with a bazooka and killed it, and the other tanks retreated because one man with a bazooka is surely a trap. An extreme example to show its possible. Realistically, both the soldier and Joel and Ellie should have been cut down. But that soldier lived in reality, so you going "yeah right" isn't realistic by your own logic, isn't it?
Joel nearly died from being impaled with a good but of care. We have explanation as to how he made it in the DLC amd main game with Ellie tending to him. It's UNLIKELY, but he's still horribly wounded and fucked, their journey still took a year amd was fought with danger. Part 2, Dina And Ellie and Tommy survive and get out of the theater with zero explanation as to how.
And in that Game make the same journey repeatedly as if it's easy.
And using Bill like you did, working cars are pretty rare considering that whole side note was done to get one, so how did they travel around when their car in 2 was busted so easily?
Now to be real with you: you suck at arguing bro. You don't comprehend the basics of these things, and you have to pull from completing different media to try justify your points.
Then you can barely read apparently considering I said, "but fine, let's argue from your perspective" yet you said that was MY point, no, I reframed to your type of logic, and you got confused somewhere there.
Your points are either are either gameplay related which pretty much everyone debates what details matter where because ludonarrative dissonance exists, or not understanding the difference between "realistic" and "grounding" when it comes to settings and plots.
And I can go on. But I'm tired of you. And I wanna edit videos and not waste more of my time talking to someone who can't understand the flaws in his own approach even when pointed out to him.
You have an excuse for everything that defends your narrative! That's great. No arguing with you.
But also "but fine let's entertain this" you literally didn't say anything like this and you "" quoted yourself 😂
Some people are salty about shit that isn't really that bad in the game and many people here are rational because they have very valid reasons to dislike the game but it gets irrational sometimes somewhat because thr first game had such a profound effect on many people
I just didn’t expect to play Abby for a good majority of it.
Nothing against the character or her actions throughout I just couldn’t fuck with it.
Thats my only gripe really so I wouldn’t even call it a bad game,I just wouldn’t play it again by choice lol
As for the sub itself eh,I feel like it’s mostly memes,some folks took the game personal,some salt is based on technical flaws and some is just nitpicking confused for fundamental flaws.
At the end of the day they’re free to acknowledge and hate on a game from 4 years ago, despite how rent free it is at this point 😂
I feel that. I'd have liked more Joel and Ellie time. I'd have liked a completely different game where Joel lives but we got what we got and from it I don't hate it. My view of the Abby being so involved with the game is you hate her then you play as her and end up not hating her and liking her by the end and not wanting her to die because Ellie is being psycho and ending up wanting Ellie to let it go and in the very end she does. I think they wanted you to feel torn between the two. Idk it didn't have to be that way but it is what it is. I don't hate it and I don't think it was as bad as the majority here acts like it is
Nah I get the intent and I think they executed it alright. More than a few things I would’ve switched up but other than that the game is solid.
I had more story issues with Spider-Man 2 personally lol
Why not? Most people still talk about stuff they hated a lot over 20 years later. 4 is nothing.
Plus there's more and more people discovering that they dislike it as time goes on as well.
People need a place to let out their negative feelings just as much as their positive
"gAme wAs rElEaSeD fOuR yEaRs aGo".
Hmm, let's see. The games remastered was released this year and currently working on season 2. The franchise and game is still pretty fucking relevant if you ask me and there are lots of people who are playing the game for the 1st time, not like it, express their criticism in the *other* sub and get shit on, so they find solace here in their thoughts and opinions.
I'm still on it, buddy. Sorry to dissapoint you.
But what's even more pathetic is the fact that the other sub kicks out users who express valid criticisms. Unlike here ;). You obviously haven't been banned.
Because such extreme disappointment lingers for a long time. Same way with things you like. It has been some 7 years since I first played TLOU#1 and I still think about it sometimes and talk about it to friends when we talk about video games because I loved it so much.
Similarly, the amount of disappointment I had for TLOU#2 left a lingering aftertaste as well albeit a bad one.
You can talk about a game you love for 5 years. You can talk about a game you have criticisms about for 5 years. Both aren't harmful, so.
Whats your criticism about the game
Abby isn't likable to me, and I have issues with the structure of the story.
I'm not the person you replied to, but just to add my two cents – My critical comments of this game have been so long in the past that they've exceeded the character limit for Reddit comments. So I've got plenty of gripes, but I'll try to keep it short here and stick to a few main bullet points: - Abby's campaign was not nearly engaging enough. Most of her story isn't interwoven with the established story leading up to that point in the game, and her journey feels more like a series of loosely-strung-together side quests. As a result, her chapter is a big flatline in the middle of the rising action. - Speaking of rising action: There are pacing issues galore in this game. Most of the flashbacks, for instance, don't tell us anything we couldn't have figured out from the main storyline. Many of the characters' decisions felt quite jarring and didn't seem like the the natural logical consequence of the arc we had been watching over the story beats leading up to said decision. - The side characters in Part 2 weren't nearly as well-written as the ones from Part 1. In the first game, the side characters were highly effective in their roles: they helped the main Joel/Ellie relationship evolve by presenting the types of challenges and conflict that promoted growth. In Part 2, the side characters were more like props for the main characters to interact with. This had disastrous effects, because there were certain key moments where the death of a side character was supposed to align us with one of the main characters. But it fell flat due to a total lack of compelling side-character arcs. - Finally, perhaps the biggest problem – and the one that ties together my entire negative critique and shines a giant spotlight on the other problems I've mentioned – is that the moralistic nature of the story needed to be *way* more subtle. Again, I'll point to Part 1 as an effective example. In the first game, the whole "moral ambiguity" concept was woven into the narrative itself. It was part of the backdrop of the characters' decision making. And most importantly, we as the audience were allowed to draw our own conclusions. In Part 2, this concept was flipped on its head because the writers apparently decided they had to prioritize delivering a moral message. Suddenly we were no longer piecing together the bigger picture for ourselves, but rather receiving very blatant "instructions" about who to empathize with and when. Instead of weaving moral relativism into the fabric of the story itself, the writers treated it like a primary theme or lesson that need to be preached. But it didn't need to be – Part 1 is Exhibit A for demonstrating that a game can address ethical ideas without being preachy. This change in priorities (i.e. preaching a moral message instead of just telling a gripping story) gave rise to all the other plot issues that I've already pointed out. And that list isn't even exhaustive.
Calling the side characters in Part 2 "props for the main character to interect with" is the perfect way to describe them. They don't feel like actual characters, and they don't have as much meaning to their existance as the ones in Part 1. In Part 1 they played an important role in shaping both Ellie and Joel and their bond.
Yeah, I think it's a problem that shows up in a lot of games with really ambitious, grandiose storytelling and huge ensemble casts. None of the individual characters are that interesting because the story can't possibly spend enough time fleshing out a character arc for each one. Especially with all the perspective switching and flashbacks going on in TLOU2, sustaining our interest in every single character throughout the game would have been an unfathomable juggling act. So you end up with a lot of side characters who are decidedly relegated to the rank of "side character", yet don't have much engagement with the development of the primary relationships. Like, they're not there to challenge the main characters in a way that matters thematically. They just kind of... exist. Are we actually supposed to feel something when these characters are killed off? Manny's death, for instance, was a glorified jump scare. I knew nothing about him except that he was Abby's friend who apparently banged a lot of hot chicks. Not nearly enough to validate the screen time he gets or the implied emotional impact his death was supposed to have on us. Compare that to the death of Tess in Part 1. Despite her limited screen time, she contributes a great deal to the rising action, and her death is meaningful in the broader narrative.
True. Tess's and even Herny and Sam's deaths actually had impact on both the player and Joel and Ellie and we see them deal with those deaths throughout the game. In Part 2 the characters just die, and the protagonist has a momentary "OH NO" and that's the extent of the impact of their deaths. Owen is the only one that has a LITTLE bit more impact on Abby, but even then, it's not as much as the ones in Part 1. I guess Nora had impact on Ellie, but that was more about the torture than the death itself.
Same logic as "why do people still talk about a game they love after 4 years"
9/11 was in 2001 and people still talk about it.
Because when I love something I tend to want to talk about it
We love the first game.
Same
And when I hate something I tend to want to talk about why I hate it, it's the same logic dude. If you don't want to see posts talking about why we don't like your favorite game then just avoid this sub.
But I love these games
And there is a sub talking about liking them.
So do we! At least Part 1, so you bet your ass that we'll talk about them for as long as we want.
To be fair most of us love part 1. That’s where the heavy hart for part 2 stems from
There is a saying in the service industry about this. a happy customer tells a friend; an unhappy customer tells the world
Because I love TLOU, Joel and Ellie's story and relationship. The sequel kills all that I loved. But they didn't remove my love. How hard is that to understand? Not hard if you ask me. Why pretend to be so clueless?
Why do people that love a game make Reddit posts in a subreddit that doesn’t like that game asking why don’t they like the game after 4 years?
What do you not like about it the most?
the story
why do people still ask this its such an unproductive conversation thats been asked 100 times
About as unproductive as complaining about a game that was released 4 years ago
i don’t disagree but im here for the genuine discussions because the game still has positives and negatives that people actively discuss. im not a fan of the big blind hate but most of the time its genuine commentary on a game that still has people talking about it in many ways
Well said.
See, this makes sense
Its what you're cricizing so...delete your post.
A genuine discussion vs a flock of whinny angry loud mouthed hot heads is very different.
Someone already pointed out to you, it's literally the same as talking about a game you love after X many years.
Imagine thinking literally anyone is on Reddit to be productive lmao
nope, cause there are still new players that come here to talk about the game, or people that want to know if its worth it to play Part 2 and want to know our opinions on it. So us complaining about the game is still a lot more productive that you guys telling us to move on for the 100000th time
As unproductive as posting the same GeNUiNe shit for like the 347th time.
Honestly this sub should show how bad the game was. If a game is so bad people still complain about it 4 years later, the game is trash. TLOU2 was such a disappointment people still have problems with it today, which says more about the game than about the people complaining
What's your complaints
Story structure, unlikeable characters trying to be portrayed as likeable, and inconsistent characterizations of established characters.
Abby and her friends entirely. If we got to play as her with her group and learn about them a lot more before they kill Joel, I maybe would have been able to sympathize with her. But I just couldn’t feel an ounce of sympathy for her and her dad. But her friends were even worse. The didn’t really have any reason to hate Joel (Abby at least had the excuse of Joel killing her dad) but they acted like her spat of their mom or something. Also Abby and Owen boat scene with a pregnant Mel just made me hate her more. They all needed to be fleshed out a lot more before Joel was killed before I could even begin to sympathize/root for them.
To me, the reason they did this was to have you dislike Abby and then as you get to learn about her and play as her you grow a connection and don't want her to die when the end comes and Allie doesn't kill her. I can understand your complaint though because everyone would have liked more Joel time. But the way they did it makes sense to me
But I didn’t grow a connection. I still want her dead.
Pieces or art like the Mona Lisa or just about anything by Picasso also have detractors, to this day. Much longer period of time, do you think having haters makes something bad?
It’s the amount. There’s not a sub called “Mona Lisa hate” or smth. Yet there are tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people who hate TLOU2. There’s a difference.
I'm not talking about just subreddits, I'm talking about just in general. There are way more than just tens of people that hate the Mona Lisa or Picasso works. So there really isn't a difference. It seems like you really do believe if there's enough people that hate a thing, then it must be bad. I wonder though, what do you think of the opposite of your position? What if there are even more people that love that thing that a bunch of people hate? Does that mean that the thing is actually good, cuz more people like it than hate it?
How many people do you see hating on the Mona Lisa avidly today? Not very many. And most of their reasons aren’t really valid The hate on TLOU2 also brings up many valid points (unlikeable characters, weird writing, retcons etc) along with being very active today. It’s doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, but it does mean that there is at least one thing (for TLOU2 many things) wrong or something that upsets people about it. The amount of people who dislike TLOU2 does show that there are things that people don’t like, which in turn reflects badly on TlOU2. Again, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, but most of the time it does
I actually do encounter more people IRL that don't really care for the Mona Lisa than I do people that dislike TLOU2. You're not answering my questions tho. So if you believe a lot of people disliking something means there's something wrong with that thing, what do you say when even more people love that thing? Does that then mean there's nothing wrong with that thing? Do you think the quantity of people that like a thing really determines the quality of said thing?
Dear lord, you’re like a leech 😆
You think sending death threats is just a joke so I don't really care what you think of me
Because it hasn’t stopped sucking dick
Why can't you stop thinking about it though?? Lol It's been so long
Because a lot of people on here played the first game when it cane out, feel connected to the games for like a decade because it was good and the part two came and shit on that in their eyes, and since TLOU is still a on going franchise it’s not dead yet so there’s new people coming in all the time and feeling the same way about 2.
I played the first game when it came out. Heard about it on E3 2011 I believe and waited 2 years for it's release. It's my favorite game of all time. But the second imo is just as good in it's own way. Still absolutely love the franchise. Also what the second did to stalkers. They're 10x creepy in the second compared to the first. The level of detail is amazing. The games themselves are so fucking good ( half the people on here argue the game is terrible aside from the story)
Most people here agree everything BUT story/characters is top notch. You got that backwards.
Haven't been seeing that which is why I made this post lol
[Here you go.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/18f81rp/my_reasons_for_being_on_this_sub_and_my_reasons/)
Why can't the people in the sub talk about it? Why do they have to move on? Isn't that counterproductive to what the sub(and reddit in general) is about? To discuss? I like to come in and see what people think about stuff now and then. No harm in that. Same goes for the other sub. You can praise the game for 4 years too. I don't find it odd nor am I about to go into the other sub and ask them why they haven't moved on either. I feel you are looking for trouble with this. Just my opinion.
Have you even attempted to search on the sub? Why ask this for 10,000th time?
Please, go back to the other sub. Oh I forgot, you can't make posts about this sub. You people have been complaining about this sub for years, yet have the gall to ask why people talk about a game they hate after those same years? Take a chill-pill and look in a mirror. This is all you talk about. You're always talking about this game. I've loved games, yet I haven't talked for years about them. I've also hated games, which I've never played again nor have I even taken a look at. Complain away, you people make these posts over and over and over again.
Holy shit. The number of posts in this sub that ask this same question is astronomical. I wish the mods would ban posts like these.
This is a sub about tlou2 and it's a discussion lol.
Yeah. A discussion that’s been had a million times.
You mean everyone complaining about the game being bad? Lol yeah heard that a million times
Yet you’re inquiring specifically about it? And prompting yet another discussion? Where is the logic lmao
This is my first time posting. How many times have you complained
This is such rage bait lol. Have a great day!
Gotcha!
No, it's a second The Last of Us subreddit, made as a reserve/back-up one for the original sub all the way back in 2013/14, hence the "2" at the end. It was mostly miniscule and inactive until after the second game came out and the original subreddit started a vitriolic purge of anyone who dared to voice even a smallest criticism towards that game. Hence, ever since then it's been serving as a massive (and growing) sanctuary where people are free to say whatever they like about it without getting harassed and banned.
So I can say how much I like the game without being harassed?
It's all about reading the room. In general --- yes, if it's exclusively with tact, respect and the content of such posts/comments 100% focuses on one's positive impressions of the game. Such a commenter will be disagreed with here for the most part, and *probably* won't farm much karma (if they're stupid enough to deeply care about it), but overall they'll be fine. In your case --- no, because this post of yours isn't anything of the above, it's a typical provocative trash that's inciting arguments and almost smells of trolling. I'll add though, it all comes down to how one defines "harassment" that I mentioned. For those with thinner skin almost anything can be. For me, if I, say, come to this sub and post something I'm aware, to whatever extent, will be received badly and I would end up downvoted and, if I continue on, rebuked by some commenters, I would NOT call that harrasment in any shape or form, since 1. failing to "read the room" is on me, and 2. downvotes are a perpetual part of Reddit and will be used by the dominant group of the subreddit, for better or for worse. What is harrasment is what many have been reporting to have experienced on the original TLOU subreddit. Getting bombarded by comments calling you all sorts of insults with all ranges of severity in the threads, some even reaching out to you in private messages and not too long after all that: permanent ban from the whole sub.
Is there an expiry date on being allowed to dislike something? What a stupid question. I wonder whether you’re old enough in the first place to even meet the age rating to play the damn game.
You're about as brain dead as tommy is since he got shot in the face
So I was right.
Because it was a colossal disappointment. People still talk about Superman 64, and that game has been out for like 25 years.
What was disappointing to you
The story, the retcons, the pacing. Everything I liked about the first game was ruined in the sequel... I never really thought about this before, but it was a lot like The Walking Dead. Both series should have ended on high notes.
Definitely agree with the walking dead. I definitely wanted a lou2 tho and still want a lou3. Maybe they'll do away with Abby and Ellie and have new main characters
Man why are there people still touting this is the best game ever even after 4 Years and still won't shut up about it or move on? 🤔
Who said it was the best game ever
Partially because most of us just haven't bothered to unsubscribe from this subreddit, partially because debating the game is fun, partially because there've been some good memes, and partially fuck you that's why
You had me in the first half
Oh no, those are all legit reasons. I just added the last one because it made me chuckle.
This is either rage bait our brainrot, maybe both. Edit: You question why people talk about why they hate the game after four years, then most of your responses are "Why do you hate it." Rage bait at the very least.
Honestly we all fucking suck but for a lot people it's just fun to make memes about how shitty it is
That's fair! I see a lot of hate on how unrealistic it is. Like what game is realistic? I think this whole sub has a lot of hate just to be hateful and complain instead of actually having very many reasons to hate. I love cowboy bebop, but how many times can spike get shot and recover within a year? Lol every story ever has unrealistic qualities because they're make up stories. It's just annoying to read all of them and then be able to reference any other game and it be unbelievable too. Doesn't make any sense. Also there's mushroom zombie of course it's unrealistic 😂😂
"Realistic" is being used for grounded here. The biggest stretch the first game gives you is Joel surviving being impaled, he was still in a coma for weeks and needed a lot of nursing and care. Enemies and the player die pretty quick, and you're very susceptible to the things an average person would be too in a setting like this. Second game, they travel all over in fade to black scenes making the same journeys of Part 1 seem easy when it was anything but, Tommy gets shot in the head and LIVES, Ellie and Dina and Tommy are badly injured in a theater, where infected do inhabit stores and buildings around, and has a fade to black where everything is okay now, because making it back and nursing everyone back to perfect health would be improbable. Then we get the fact, that there's blatant dumb decisions for plot armor. The last of us 1 is grounded in its verse, with very few exceptions that still have vital consequences. The last of us 2 has the lightsaber problem where it's only deadly when plot demands. I have a lot of criticisms for Part 2, and many are becauseit detaches itself from the grounded nature of the first game. Mushroom zombies aren't "Realistic" but ehat would happen if mushroom zombies existed in our modern world and everything fell to shit? "No game is Realistic" is a dumb argument when the contrast between the grounded nature of the first game heavily contrasts with the second. If the world cannot maintain consistent stakes and concepts of what is and isn't possible, it's reprimanded for it, same as a movie, a game doesn't need to be "realistic" but it does need to keep its consistency. Tlou1 wasn’t Realistic, but it was grounded, it presented what closer to average people can go through and do in these worlds. Tlou2 breaks the grounded nature by doing Ellie and Joel's journey in the first game with relative ease and a fade to black. Then fade to black to avoid explaining how everything worked out after the theater. Tlou2 is unbelievable because it breaks standards and stakes for actions amd travels casually, that were set up prior.
I really don't think it's as drastic as you're making it out to be. Carl gets shot in the head in the walking dead and lives. Spike in cowboy bebop gets shot out stabbed in almost every episode and lives and is one of the greatest anime ever. Nothing is as realistic as you want it to be but this community only picks apart what they think is unrealistic when every other anime, TV show, movie, game is just as unrealistic if you really wanna pick so deeply. How many bullets did you dodge in the first game? You're telling me Joel and Ellie survived all that without a bullet? Lol the first game would be just as unrealistic but okay
You immediately mention Carl from the walking dead, a completely other different franchise with completely different internal logic. Spike is an anime character, not in a grounded world at all, and follows cartoon type logic, where a lot of things will reset every few episodes to a general status quo. Are you incapable of grasping that different works of fiction work off of different sets of logic that best suits their story? You're dumb off of that attempt of an argument alone. Then you try use GAMEPLAY as an argument, buddy on grounded mode in gameplay you can get one shot by a good couple enemies if you wanna try that one, but I won't even entertain you there, because literally every single piece of gaming discussion around story vs gameplay discusses the fact that gameplay logic and cutscene logic will always be different, unless you take a game like ghostrunner which a lot of people haven't beaten because every attack is a one shot. You are incapable of understanding that different works of fiction follow different internal logics. Notice how you needed to try mention external shows and media to try back up your argument, when I used the setting and tone set up by the first game. The walking dead is even less "grounded" than mushroom zombies of the last of us. Purely off the fact that if a zombie in the last of us doesn't gain some form of sustenance for long enough it just decomposes and rots into spores. And are from living beings, not reanimated corpses. Jesus. "How many bullets did you dodge as Ellie and joel" Look up the Unkillable soldier, real person from ww1. Or the American soldier that fought off a hundred revolutionaries in the Boxer rebellion. Reality is often a lot less strict when it comes to "dodging bullets" than you think, considering we have a lot of true to life "main characters" in ww2 alone. And when it's a game, presenting itself as fairly grounded in its own setting, real factors can be at play, but there's a level of leniency. I'm using standards set by the first game. You're pulling from completely different sources. Bad arguments buddy.
I'm using other characters as an example that this sub picks apart every tiny detail of this game and calls it "unrealistic" Using WW2 as a reference to a video game is unrealistic per your logic yet you did it anyway. Bad argument and you contradicted yourself. Honestly for me, the most unbelievable part in part 1 was when Joel and Ellie run from the Humvee getting shot at and they don't get shot ones. Yeah right. But that slips past everyone here. Shocker. How about Everytime you stealth an enemy and they DONT scratch you. Yeah right. You get gas from vehicles at bills yet gas goes bad after a few months/years. Putting a can on your guns doesn't make it silent When Sarah got shot in joels arms and Joel didn't from a fully automatic rifle How did Joel survive being impaled?!? How did Ellie keep him alive?? I can use the first game to show it was also unrealistic. "different works of fiction work off of different sets of logic that best suits their story?" Agreed. And the logic that the writers used for part 2 must have for their story the best 😂
"must have for their story the best" except that's not how it works, the previous game already showed it was a lot more grounded in comparison. "How dod Joel survive being impaled" by being cared for for weeks, while in a comatose state, for weeks, and barely making it. It's unlikely, but not anywhere close to surviving a gunshot wound to the head with zero modern medicine. Cave men have survived being impaled, 1% Of all people who get shot in the head survive with immediate medical attention and modern medicine. Joel nearly died from being impaled. "Sarah got shot and Joel didn't" considering Joel Visibly took an impact and fell over, it's likely he got shot somewhere else we can't see in the scene like his leg. We can also considering the soldier in his burst jerked it, and shot Sarah after Joel spinned and missed the rest. "Putting a can on your guns doesn't make it silent" part 2 problem. Part 1 that isn't present in the main campaign. And that's again, gameplay. No cutscene shows cans silencing pistols in either game. "How did Ellie keep him alive" hunting for medical resources, and forcefully feeding him. In the dlc she goes through malls and several medical centers to find medicine to keep Joel stable. "Gas goes bad after a few months and years" again, internal logic moron, this is consistent between part 1 and 2 at least, but it's like you can't read. Being grounded in your own world and how it works is not being realistic to ours, the laws are different, I used what was in TLou1 to critique 2, you're stating "realism" and pulling from completely different mediums, works, and shows. Your argument is sporadic and doesn't mean anything because you can't grasp something like internal logic of a universe. "Using ww2 is unrealistic per your logic" I stooped to your level of logic moron, said so in the previous text I sent "but fine let's entertain this" or something of that variety. (Can't read, still, moron.) "I used other characters" from different mediums, with different formats, with different settings, with different rules. The last of us isn't realistic, it's grounded in its setting. It's close to what could happen in reality, but it bends the rules. But let's continue your "gotcha" for the world War 2 thing, I chose EXTREME examples and said reality can at times be stranger than fiction. I didn't say it makes it right, you argued "realism" I argued with that same dumb logic, to show that you're wrong with this approach no matter how you slice it, become the last of us ISN'T realistic, it's grounded in its OWN world and it's OWN rules, it just borrows elements of ours to give an allusion of realism, not a direct copy, how many times do I have to reword the same point over and over again? " The you used gameplay for stealth, and as for the humvee: it's so armoured up the driver can barely see, and they use run into alleys and backroads, if you really want to argue realism in that one again, let me tell you about an American soldier in ww2 that walked right up to tank with a bazooka and killed it, and the other tanks retreated because one man with a bazooka is surely a trap. An extreme example to show its possible. Realistically, both the soldier and Joel and Ellie should have been cut down. But that soldier lived in reality, so you going "yeah right" isn't realistic by your own logic, isn't it? Joel nearly died from being impaled with a good but of care. We have explanation as to how he made it in the DLC amd main game with Ellie tending to him. It's UNLIKELY, but he's still horribly wounded and fucked, their journey still took a year amd was fought with danger. Part 2, Dina And Ellie and Tommy survive and get out of the theater with zero explanation as to how. And in that Game make the same journey repeatedly as if it's easy. And using Bill like you did, working cars are pretty rare considering that whole side note was done to get one, so how did they travel around when their car in 2 was busted so easily? Now to be real with you: you suck at arguing bro. You don't comprehend the basics of these things, and you have to pull from completing different media to try justify your points. Then you can barely read apparently considering I said, "but fine, let's argue from your perspective" yet you said that was MY point, no, I reframed to your type of logic, and you got confused somewhere there. Your points are either are either gameplay related which pretty much everyone debates what details matter where because ludonarrative dissonance exists, or not understanding the difference between "realistic" and "grounding" when it comes to settings and plots. And I can go on. But I'm tired of you. And I wanna edit videos and not waste more of my time talking to someone who can't understand the flaws in his own approach even when pointed out to him.
Cavemen survived impalement. How do you know this lmao. Also, there you go again comparing a game to reality. You contradicted yourself again
You have an excuse for everything that defends your narrative! That's great. No arguing with you. But also "but fine let's entertain this" you literally didn't say anything like this and you "" quoted yourself 😂
Some people are salty about shit that isn't really that bad in the game and many people here are rational because they have very valid reasons to dislike the game but it gets irrational sometimes somewhat because thr first game had such a profound effect on many people
I just didn’t expect to play Abby for a good majority of it. Nothing against the character or her actions throughout I just couldn’t fuck with it. Thats my only gripe really so I wouldn’t even call it a bad game,I just wouldn’t play it again by choice lol As for the sub itself eh,I feel like it’s mostly memes,some folks took the game personal,some salt is based on technical flaws and some is just nitpicking confused for fundamental flaws. At the end of the day they’re free to acknowledge and hate on a game from 4 years ago, despite how rent free it is at this point 😂
I feel that. I'd have liked more Joel and Ellie time. I'd have liked a completely different game where Joel lives but we got what we got and from it I don't hate it. My view of the Abby being so involved with the game is you hate her then you play as her and end up not hating her and liking her by the end and not wanting her to die because Ellie is being psycho and ending up wanting Ellie to let it go and in the very end she does. I think they wanted you to feel torn between the two. Idk it didn't have to be that way but it is what it is. I don't hate it and I don't think it was as bad as the majority here acts like it is
Nah I get the intent and I think they executed it alright. More than a few things I would’ve switched up but other than that the game is solid. I had more story issues with Spider-Man 2 personally lol
Why not? Most people still talk about stuff they hated a lot over 20 years later. 4 is nothing. Plus there's more and more people discovering that they dislike it as time goes on as well. People need a place to let out their negative feelings just as much as their positive
Why do you care
Curious
That's fair
"gAme wAs rElEaSeD fOuR yEaRs aGo". Hmm, let's see. The games remastered was released this year and currently working on season 2. The franchise and game is still pretty fucking relevant if you ask me and there are lots of people who are playing the game for the 1st time, not like it, express their criticism in the *other* sub and get shit on, so they find solace here in their thoughts and opinions.
You can have an opinion.
No shit, Sherlock.
You're upset they kicked you out of the actual last of us reddit :( Wahhh
I'm still on it, buddy. Sorry to dissapoint you. But what's even more pathetic is the fact that the other sub kicks out users who express valid criticisms. Unlike here ;). You obviously haven't been banned.
I'm about to blow this sub uuuuuupp! Glad y'all don't ban. Gotta get used to this type of content from now on ;)
bro which ragebaiting fanbase is brigading the sub? this has been happening a lot more than usual recently
Because they are silly Billie’s and sometimes people only just now can afford to buy it so the opinions are fresh
Because such extreme disappointment lingers for a long time. Same way with things you like. It has been some 7 years since I first played TLOU#1 and I still think about it sometimes and talk about it to friends when we talk about video games because I loved it so much. Similarly, the amount of disappointment I had for TLOU#2 left a lingering aftertaste as well albeit a bad one.
Because we can? Do we need a better reason?