That's exactly the point. It's a narrative meant to make the player challenge their beliefs. That feeling of internal conflict is the message. If that's how you felt, the it did it's job.
Unfortunately, you won't ever actually get to experience the story as intended, because you spoiled it for yourself. You can't actually go on that journey because you know where it's going and what it's trying to do. You can analytically try to look at the intent and think how you might have felt if you trusted someone to tell you a story but you will never actually get to have that emotional experience.
And that's what really drives me nuts here. You look at the Angry Joe review, and he clearly shows in his reaction shots to early scenes that he has spoiled the game for himself and he knows what's coming and then spends 45 minutes talking about how it's bad writing and it's predictable. Gee, Kreskin, how did you guess where this is going? It really makes you wonder how anyone can be that stupid.
Like I said before this is definitely not a game for everyone. It's a challenging narrative and nothing about is fun or satisfying. But that isn't bad writing, it's a powerful game that hits like a sledgehammer. It's brilliant. It's just miserable.
I didn't spoil it for myself. I and my 19 year old step daughter played it together, since we played the first one years back.
Spent about 2 hours talking about how shitty the story was and coyld have been better.
A great story could be spoiled and is still a great story.
Lawrence of Arabia opens with his death.
Still a great story.
This? Not so much.
The Lawrence of Arabia comparison completely misses my point. Achronological storytelling is still storytelling, it's a device to lead the viewer on a certain journey. All good storytelling involves some sleight of hand that, when spoiled, alters the emotional impact of what you are seeing.
But fine, I am glad you didn't spoil it. Going back and reading your comments I kind of think you missed the point of the first game, you thought it was something much more wholesome than it was and you're mad that this game is not only different but exposed that intent in the original.
The end of the first game is supposed to leave you feeling conflicted. Joel does the wrong thing by most measures. And it makes the whole journey pointless in some sense. Worse than that, he's killed countless people, good people who are just as important to their loved ones as Ellie is to him. And he saved this person that he loved but be completely betrayed her and took her agency from her. And then afterwards he lies about it to her for purely selfish reasons because he knows he did the wrong thing. TLOU2 forces you to reckon with all these things and I think that ruins what you somehow mistook for a happy ending.
The second game has a similar arc. At the end of the day nothing is accomplished but pain and misery, with maybe some character growth and a relationship formed as the silver lining.
Last edited by Frogacuda; 07 Jul 2020 at 02:33 PM.
No. I think i got the point of the first game. Impossible choice made for slightly selfish reasons against bad people.
Fireflys were not good people. They didnt care about anyone and lied. Going to kill both of them. Ya ya ya.
I have no problem with repercussions and fallout from the actions in that game. That was expected.
I do admire trying to humanize people who make bad choices. It isn't easy. Trying to retroactively do it was a poor choice.
Would have been 10x more effective to just tell a good story. Could literally pitch a better story.
But, whatever. Lotta people who played it find it lacking quite a bit even with whatever twists are there.
I don't think the reason for 117,000 scores averaging 5.3 is because people spoiled the story for themselves.
It just isn't a well told tale.
If that's how you understood the end of that game, then you are absolutely affirming everything I said.
I am having trouble even making sense of this comment.I have no problem with repercussions and fallout from the actions in that game. That was expected.
I do admire trying to humanize people who make bad choices. It isn't easy. Trying to retroactively do it was a poor choice.
I honestly don't see how it could have been effective any other way. Otherwise Ellie's story loses all of its impact and importance. In order to share Ellie's rage you also have to share her perspective and all its limits. And then you get the blinders taken off and the camera pulls back on the story. Doing it the other way around ruins that.
So far "Do it more good tho" is about the extent of the criticism I'm getting from you.Would have been 10x more effective to just tell a good story. Could literally pitch a better story.
And I understand that a lot of people don't like it. I really don't think it's for everyone. It's a challenging narrative, not broad entertainment. I'm not saying you should like it, I am saying that it realizes its narrative intentions. It's good art, but that doesn't make it a good time.
There's a reason more people go to Star Wars or Marvel movies than Irreversible or Straw Dogs. That's fine. It doesn't mean Star Wars is better.
Last edited by Frogacuda; 07 Jul 2020 at 02:52 PM.
Make a game that's entirely story and make the story more better.
Yeah that's the criticism.
Story is not a great story and it's not told well.
Thats the bulk of the game. It should be criticized.
Ellie was lied to by the fireflies. She was lied to by joel. One actually saved her rather than killed her.
The ignorant can't have their "agency" stolen.
Part 1 is a great game.
2 is okay.
It's this:
https://youtu.be/Mg5HOnq7zD0
Bookmarks