+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 125

Thread: The Last of Us Part II: Battle Tendency

  1. #81
    21st Century Schizoid Man Johnny B. Decent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arizona

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but if a game doesn't want me to play it, and wants me to feel bad for making it's choices, then I'm not gonna play it. That Spec-Ops: The Line game was horsehockey.

  2. #82

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by FolhaS View Post
    So haven't played this game, nor the first,
    So why are you even trying to comment on something that you clearly haven't even played, know about or even understand?

    Like shouldn't you be familiar with the source material to even start the discussion? But let's ignore that for a second.

    it doesn't mean you are her or that you have to make decissions for her
    Yes.

    Because a story about petty revenge shouldn't at least attempt to show the character descending into madness through natural progression rather than forced "MUH REVENGE" where the character goes from 0% to 100% in the matter of minutes. You know how you would portray an complex topic like cycle of violence? Through the use of complexity. Through the means of making the gameplay be approachable from multiple means and give player choices thus ALLOWING PLAYERS to witness how *bad* violence can be and THEN giving them the option to try something else instead.

    And yes, that would require the game developers to approach the story and game-design with much more open mind. And that is just one of the ways that you can actually begin to tackle the issue. Creating a very linear movie-like story with very clear shortcuts and cliched approach doesn't exactly work for the game.

    The narrative and the gameplay here are intertwined. They are not separate entities but rather the driving force behind what the game wants to really convey.

    This is what you get when people spend more time watching games on Youtube rather than playing it themselves and even understanding *WHY* the gameplay sections exist. Which, if you don't realize, is more insulting to the game developers because their aim here was to portray/explore the cycle of violence by making it the driving force behind every enemy encounter.

    you are more than free to have your opinion in how well or how poorly that was handled
    I have an opinion from playing both games.

    You don't.

    So..........

    So from a narrative stand-point it makes sense you spend the sequel killing everyone
    You did that in the first game regardless anyway.

    Ellie *already* killed many people in the first game. Same with Joel. Yet NOW is when the game *wants* to bring those actions through a super lazy plot-device.

    And THEN uses one major character as another plot-device for the sake of kick starting the entire cliched revenge plot AND THEN once again uses that as a plot-device to just resolve it.

    If you're reading a book
    This is not a book. This is not a tv-show. This is not a movie.

    Trying to apply the rules of those particular medium is completely irrelevant here. Video games are interactive medium that are capable of conveying variety of complex topics through different means and approach because they aren't limited by anything aside from the creator's own imagination.

    Try playing games that actually use the form properly and doesn't just exist as a filler.

    Starting point: MGS series. A series that has been dealing with similar themes with much more creative approach, means and execution.

    funnest away to acomplish them
    Maybe you are under the impression that *gameplay* only exists to be fun.

    But it's not. Every game, when the developer has really thought about it, will have different things to convey with the gameplay. And yes, there are games that fundamentally don't care and only make the gameplay side of things to be fun. Yakuza is a pretty big example of a series where the gameplay and the story are fundamentally separated and the devs don't care. And it works for them.

    It doesn't work for TLOU2 because the entire gameplay is designed around portraying violence and brutality of it going as far as to have you kill dogs in order to make the point more and more obvious. While at the same time, the gameplay isn't really that hard, or conveys a true sense of violence. It makes the gameplay fun. Not real or brutal or exhausting but fun. The game WANTS me to care about each individual NPC and question my actions as a player and Ellie as a character. But then turns around and says "beating the shit outta people is fun, isn't it? Here kill everyone :)"

    And then there is the fact that you are *already* doing the same exact thing you did back in the first game. Joel and Ellie already killed crap ton of people in the first game.

    It's not like the first game had the player making different choices and THEN used the sequel to put these characters into different situations and showing how bad violence can be in contrast to the first game.

    But here; in the first game, character's first logical choice is to kill everyone. And then in the second part; the character's first logical choice once again is to kill everyone again. There is no contrast. No highlighting one method or choice over the other and using that as a way to comment on the whole thing.

    And that's why director's interviews and words are important because this is what they were hoping to accompolish with this game. They WANTED you to question Ellie. They WANTED you to question yourself and your actions. But you can't because it's literally the same shit you have been doing since the first game. You can't expect people to take it seriously and question shit when you mindlessly throw NPC's for the player to kill.

    It doesn't need to give you an option to play the game without killing everyone
    Spec Ops the line already did this much much better and more organically. Hell, it uses lots of the same techniques but with much greater understanding and execution.

    You know why? Because the game's fundamental plot resolves around a Black Ops squad heading to Dubai on a investigation/rescue mission and then slowly by slowly start getting involved in the conflict with other people and then start committing atrocities as the toll of the causalities become huge for the main cast. It doesn't rely on cheap revenge tale. But rather showing how a squad of Black Ops group lose their minds as they descent deeper and deeper into the conflict in Dubai.

    The entire game is setup to be a commentary on how other military shooters use real warfare type scenarios but never have a correct representation of the war experience, or express the psychological changes that some combatants experience after participating in a war. And the commentary of gamers that "enjoy" playing war games or first person shooters where you are made out to be the hero.

    And here is the big big thing that separates the approach of Spec Ops and TLOU2; Spec Ops never makes the gameplay sections "fun" or use excessive amount of violence to get the message across. Instead, the gameplay is repetitive, raw, dull and doesn't glorify the act of killing someone. It becomes mindless as the game goes along and the focal point of the gameplay in latter sections isn't what you are doing but rather how the characters respond as their language, vocal performance and their character models become more and more aggressive on the verge of losing their shit.

    Look at this gif here just to show the transformation of the main protag's model:
    Spoiler:




    And that is what TLOU2 is fundamentally missing. It knows that it wants to be serious and wants to comment on violence but then also wants it to be "fun". Spec Ops The Line is committed to it's premise and its intentions and doesn't compromises that for the sake of being "fun". It's not fun. It sticks with that game-design philosophy. That, to me, is more gutsy then anything I have seen from TLOU2.

    TLOU2 wants to be mature but also wants to pander to casual gamers that just want to shoot the shit. No amount of blood, or gore is going to make me take it seriously when the devs themselves don't. "Violence is bad but it's ok when it's fun" is what I got out of the game if I'm analyzing both narrative and gameplay together.
    Last edited by HeartOfDarkness; June 28th, 2020 at 01:42 PM.

  3. #83

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny B. Decent View Post
    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but if a game doesn't want me to play it, and wants me to feel bad for making it's choices, then I'm not gonna play it. That Spec-Ops: The Line game was horsehockey.



    But the game wants to be played, and wants to make you feel bad, or sad, or angry or whatever.
    The same way not all movies are meant to end on a high note. Image a scary movie ending in a big party, that's usually not the intent.
    You're free not to like scary movies, but saying they're a wrong form of cinema or a bad story just because they're not comedies is not a proper review/opinion on the art work.

    I feel like sometimes people forget that a videogame is different than a game/sport.
    For several decades now, videogames are also narratives and so they need and want to mix the feelings you get from completing a task to the feelings you get from getting into a story.
    Spec Ops is also on my backlog, for like 10 years now I really gotta play it sometime, but from what I understood of the premise, it's meant to be the opposite of a Call of Duty. Where in Call of Duty you get a game/sport, with high-scores and rewards for killing and obeying orders, Spec Ops was meant to put you trough the soldier experience but be dissatisfied with those orders and actions you are forced to take. I can't speak for how well that was handled, I haven't played the game, but the premisse is solid.

    The lastest God of War also ponders these questions a bit. Kratos went to the north of the world to leave behind all the killing and destruction he was responsible for, but in the game you're forced to kill everything in your path, and the game confronts you for it. You have characters calling Kratos a monster, to which he replies, Yes, I am, but now I'm not anyone's monster anymore.
    He still has to kill a ton of creatures but now he's not doing it for revenge or hatred or by being pulled by the leash of someone else. He's doing it to fulfill the last wish of his wife, that he teaches and takes care of their son.

  4. #84

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Image a scary movie
    If we are comparing it like that then TLOU2 would be your typical found-footage film that exists purely to scare you through cheap jump scare devices and means and has nothing to convey beyond cheap scares.

    Yes, it might scare you but that doesn't mean there is some talent or skill behind the scare. Anyone can be scared with jump scares.

    Just like how anyone can chuckle or laugh at a joke about piss or shit. Not because the joke is good but because it's fundamentally catered towards the lowest common denominator.

    And that my friend is what TLOU2 is. A scary movie about pure jump scares. A comedy movie about fart and piss. While the director thinks it's Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now. So to speak.

    Also on a side-note; GoW is far far superior to both TLOU1 and TLOU2. It's basically similar premise but without cutting any corners and taking the time to establish and explore character relationships and arcs. Atreus is a much much better child character that *actually* goes through actual character development whose character isn't just limited to saying "FUCK YOU" like Ellie 90% of the time.
    Last edited by HeartOfDarkness; June 28th, 2020 at 02:01 PM.

  5. #85

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by HeartOfDarkness View Post
    So why are you even trying to comment on something that you clearly haven't even played, know about or even understand?

    Like shouldn't you be familiar with the source material to even start the discussion? But let's ignore that for a second.
    You kept saying other people just aren't understanding yet you also fail to understand the first couple of phrases I put out...
    I said I haven't played the game, so I did not comment on any specifics because I do not know them. I talked about the medium and what we should expect of it. You can replace any of the names from TLOU2 in that quote and I'm still making the same point.

    Yes.

    Because a story about petty revenge shouldn't at least attempt to show the character descending into madness through natural progression rather than forced "MUH REVENGE" where the character goes from 0% to 100% in the matter of minutes. You know how you would portray an complex topic like cycle of violence? Through the use of complexity. Through the means of making the gameplay be approachable from multiple means and give player choices thus ALLOWING PLAYERS to witness how *bad* violence can be and THEN giving them the option to try something else instead.

    And yes, that would require the game developers to approach the story and game-design with much more open mind. And that is just one of the ways that you can actually begin to tackle the issue. Creating a very linear movie-like story with very clear shortcuts and cliched approach doesn't exactly work for the game.

    The narrative and the gameplay here are intertwined. They are not separate entities but rather the driving force behind what the game wants to really convey.

    This is what you get when people spend more time watching games on Youtube rather than playing it themselves and even understanding *WHY* the gameplay sections exist. Which, if you don't realize, is more insulting to the game developers because their aim here was to portray/explore the cycle of violence by making it the driving force behind every enemy encounter.
    You are talking alot about these games in particular, I'm not. I don't care about your opinion on them, when I get to play them, I'll make my own.
    But I disagree that just because a game tries to discuss violence it has to give you a choice on it or not. Your opinion seems to be that you should bring your judgement into the game, and I think that works on alot of games, mostly RPGs, but this is a narrative driven action game, you do what the screen tells you and then you see how that's meant to play out.
    In real life people react to a bunch of things, you're not thinking about every little step you can or need to take, because you've been raised and conditioned to do things a certain way, same as your character. Your character should act according to it's own personality and backstory, so if the game says she's going to act like this because that's how it's meant to be then that's how it's meant to be, if at any point you stop finding the story engaging or the character to disagreeable just stop playing.[/QUOTE]

    I have an opinion from playing both games.

    You don't.

    So..........
    I've yet to express my opinion on the games.

    So.........

    You did that in the first game regardless anyway.

    Ellie *already* killed many people in the first game. Same with Joel. Yet NOW is when the game *wants* to bring those actions through a super lazy plot-device.

    And THEN uses one major character as another plot-device for the sake of kick starting the entire cliched revenge plot AND THEN once again uses that as a plot-device to just resolve it.
    So you agree that it makes sense for the game too keep it's violent streak, you just don't like how after a while the other characters start telling you you're too violent?
    Sounds fair to me. Both the characters opinions and yours.

    This is not a book. This is not a tv-show. This is not a movie.

    Trying to apply the rules of those particular medium is completely irrelevant here. Video games are interactive medium that are capable of conveying variety of complex topics through different means and approach because they aren't limited by anything aside from the creator's own imagination.

    Try playing games that actually use the form properly and doesn't just exist as a filler.

    Starting point: MGS series. A series that has been dealing with similar themes with much more creative approach, means and execution.
    But it's still a story. Just because this type of story gives you a little leeway to change a couple of details or explore this and that doesn't mean it has to give you full control.
    Take the latest Spider-Man game, as you go along the story mode you'll get a couple of "missions" where you have to meet MJ or aunt May and Pete keeps telling us Boy, I sure should go meet with them before I'm late!, but that mission is there wating for you until you do it. You can fuck around the city for as long as you want you'll never actually be late, you can't ruin your relationships on pourpose because the story does not want it.

    Maybe you are under the impression that *gameplay* only exists to be fun.
    This shit is a big no-no. You cherry picked half a sentence. The full quote is "figure out what's the best or funnest away to acomplish them".
    Gameplay needs to leave you with a sense of acomplishment, that's where you derive half of the fun. Take a Tony Hawk game, half the gameplay is just having fun rolling around pulling whatever trick you want and the other half is figuring out the best away to complete the challenges, and maybe for that you'll have pull a trick you don't really like or find fun but in the end you feel rewarded.

    But it's not. Every game, when the developer has really thought about it, will have different things to convey with the gameplay. And yes, there are games that fundamentally don't care and only make the gameplay side of things to be fun. Yakuza is a pretty big example of a series where the gameplay and the story are fundamentally separated and the devs don't care. And it works for them.

    It doesn't work for TLOU2 because the entire gameplay is designed around portraying violence and brutality of it going as far as to have you kill dogs in order to make the point more and more obvious. While at the same time, the gameplay isn't really that hard, or conveys a true sense of violence. It makes the gameplay fun. Not real or brutal or exhausting but fun. The game WANTS me to care about each individual NPC and question my actions as a player and Ellie as a character. But then turns around and says "beating the shit outta people is fun, isn't it? Here kill everyone :)"

    And then there is the fact that you are *already* doing the same exact thing you did back in the first game. Joel and Ellie already killed crap ton of people in the first game.

    It's not like the first game had the player making different choices and THEN used the sequel to put these characters into different situations and showing how bad violence can be in contrast to the first game.

    But here; in the first game, character's first logical choice is to kill everyone. And then in the second part; the character's first logical choice once again is to kill everyone again. There is no contrast. No highlighting one method or choice over the other and using that as a way to comment on the whole thing.

    And that's why director's interviews and words are important because this is what they were hoping to accompolish with this game. They WANTED you to question Ellie. They WANTED you to question yourself and your actions. But you can't because it's literally the same shit you have been doing since the first game. You can't expect people to take it seriously and question shit when you mindlessly throw NPC's for the player to kill.



    Spec Ops the line already did this much much better and more organically. Hell, it uses lots of the same techniques but with much greater understanding and execution.

    You know why? Because the game's fundamental plot resolves around a Black Ops squad heading to Dubai on a investigation/rescue mission and then slowly by slowly start getting involved in the conflict with other people and then start committing atrocities as the toll of the causalities become huge for the main cast. It doesn't rely on cheap revenge tale. But rather showing how a squad of Black Ops group lose their minds as they descent deeper and deeper into the conflict in Dubai.

    The entire game is setup to be a commentary on how other military shooters use real warfare type scenarios but never have a correct representation of the war experience, or express the psychological changes that some combatants experience after participating in a war. And the commentary of gamers that "enjoy" playing war games or first person shooters where you are made out to be the hero.

    And here is the big big thing that separates the approach of Spec Ops and TLOU2; Spec Ops never makes the gameplay sections "fun" or use excessive amount of violence to get the message across. Instead, the gameplay is repetitive, raw, dull and doesn't glorify the act of killing someone. It becomes mindless as the game goes along and the focal point of the gameplay in latter sections isn't what you are doing but rather how the characters respond as their language, vocal performance and their character models become more and more aggressive on the verge of losing their shit.

    Look at this gif here just to show the transformation of the main protag's model:


    And that is what TLOU2 is fundamentally missing. It knows that it wants to be serious and wants to comment on violence but then also wants it to be "fun". Spec Ops The Line is committed to it's premise and its intentions and doesn't compromises that for the sake of being "fun". It's not fun. It sticks with that game-design philosophy. That, to me, is more gutsy then anything I have seen from TLOU2.

    TLOU2 wants to be mature but also wants to pander to casual gamers that just want to shoot the shit. No amount of blood, or gore is going to make me take it seriously when the devs themselves don't. "Violence is bad but it's ok when it's fun" is what I got out of the game if I'm analyzing both narrative and gameplay together.
    From what you keep saying you're pretty dissatisfied with how the gameplay and the narrative don't really intertwin, and I can get behind that. I've had experiences with games where I engaged with with the story but found the gameplay just okay, some where I engaged with the gameplay but found the story meh, and of course the best tend to be the ones where I engage with both.

    Again, I was never trying to oppose your opinion on the game itself, just on the premisse that because the game talks about violence you should be giving the choice to whether you should apply it or not. The ending has to be the same every time.
    Personal example, Infamous 2 evil ending. In order to complete the game as an evil character the last thing the game tells you to do is to kill your best friend. That's a character with many qualities and flaws and you spend both Infamous 1 and 2 having ups and downs in your relation, so he's a character you're attached. And at that point the game doesn't let you choose the good side anymore, you can't spare his life, you already went too far as an evil bastard and you can't stop your plan now, you can't have your cake and yet it too, even if you're the most powerfull character in the game. You either stop playing the game altogether or you see the end of that story.
    So even if the narrative falls flat because it was poorly done it doesn't mean it would be better if you were given a choice or a chance at redemption. They have a violent character, you play violently or you don't. From what I remember from the trailers and such, they never lied about what the game was gonna be, they never said you could choose how to interact with the new characters. They said Now you play as Ellie and she still sneaks around killing people.

  6. #86

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    You can replace any of the names from TLOU2 in that quote and I'm still making the same point.
    Ah, you aren't familiar at all with the titles.

    But somehow you are making a point.

    For titles that you haven't played.

    Makes sense.

    I don't care about your opinion on them
    So why are you even responding to me again?

    Just to prove some point while utterly exposing yourself as someone who doesn't know shit about the medium being discussed here? Who also haven't even played the games but is trying to talk about the thematic point of them? Who is using very limited story-driven games that aren't even doing the same thing as an example?

    In real life
    Please stop bringing irrelevant shit to the discussion here.

    Go play games, understand the very medium and then attempt to comment on something.

    Right now, it comes across as you talking outta your ass for the sake of proving some irrelevant point that EVEN THE DIRECTOR HIMSELF has already destroyed by plainly stating the game's thematic and game-design philosophy and what they wanted to convey. You wouldn't know this because A.) you haven't played them B.) aren't familiar with Neil's work at all and C.) are clueless about the difference between a Video Game Narrative and a novel/tv-show/movie narrative.

    Learn the difference and come back.

    Gameplay needs to leave you with a sense of acomplishment
    Nibba, go look at Pathologic 2 and see your "game" definition crumble before your eyes. This is what happens when people play the big triple A titles and ignore the indies and every other game that fundamentally doesn't stick with one definition of game-design.

    Your definition of gameplay fundamentally showcases your lack of any real understanding beyond playing some popular mainstream shit.
    Last edited by HeartOfDarkness; June 28th, 2020 at 03:14 PM.

  7. #87
    Discovered Stowaway andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The King Engine

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    This is some of the most laughably smug shit I've ever seen.

  8. #88

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by FolhaS View Post
    when all you have is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail. So from a narrative stand-point it makes sense you spend the sequel killing everyone, even if the game is trying to tell you that's not the best thing you could have done. It doesn't need to give you an option to play the game without killing everyone if the point it's trying to make is that Ellie is already broken and/or unfixable.
    The problem is its trying to make YOU feel bad about all the killing. Its a game, not a movie.

    That you had zero choice means that when the game finally tells you "hey, you should have chosen differently, don't you feel bad now?" that isn't your fault, or Ellie's, its about the game railroading you.

    Undertale works really hard to make you accidentally kill the first boss in the game. You have to NOT fight her for a long time before you can pass her peacefully. The first attack only hurts her a little, and so you might end up thinking "Oh well I guess like most games I have to whittle her down before she lets me pass" but then the second attack instant kills her. That is ENTIRELY your choice and your fault. ANd you immediately feel bad about it, reset the game, and try again... only for the villain character to then tell you "hey, I know what you did. You killed a person. And you felt so bad you reset the game" and that stays with you. Because the game gave you a choice, it makes you feel bad for making the wrong choice, and emphasizes it in a way you can't ever escape the consequence of that first time, even if it was an accident. And it manages that within the first five or ten minutes. Then throughout the entire rest of the game, almost every scenario is easier if you just slash a guy and get some exp to get some more health, but the challenge is to figure out their quirks and NOT needlessly kill anything and you KNOW the game is keeping track.. Even a flawless mercy run still doesn't get the best ending and requires you to backtrack and be even nicer to a few characters. ANd if you do the full blown murder route, it depopulates the world, changes the music, and huge chunks of the game are missing and it throws you up against basically unfair bosses and it really makes you think about having gone down the dark path. There's consequences the entire time and actively makes the game more and more unfun as you go. And you, the player, have to actively choose to do this unfun thing for literally hours just for the sake of getting to one more challenge you heard about, and even up to the very final boss you can still change your mind. It challenges you, makes you think about consequences *constantly*..

    LOU2, there is no choice, no weight, no alternative, you just go on feel good murder sprees with no consequence applied to the entire time. It MAKES you kill the enemies, there is no "stealth past them" option, much like the Uncharted games which have forced body counts in the hundreds. Its not doing anything to affect the player of make you think. it just goes in 15 hours later, and says "well, NOW you're a horrible person I guess! Don't you feel bad after having been desensitized to this for hours? Killing the first 30 dogs wasn't a big deal, but that 31rst sure was traumatic wasn't it? " and that's hollow.

    Now, if the game had you play as Ellie for ike an hour or two, then switched to the other character and immediately gave you her victim POV where you saw some of those guys you JUST saw getting killed, and then switched to Ellie for another hour of horrible murder, and then switched to the victim again for a while, it would very quickly become a case where you felt bad playing Ellie and the message would absolutely work. You WOULD start to feel like a monster and that would get through and either you'd start to hate playing Ellie, or you as the player would want to start finding alternate routes to not kill as much as you realized "well in an hour its going to make me feel bad about killing that guy, I'd rather he lived in a better version of the cinema" . And even if it still railroaded you into killing with no stealth options, it'd at least make you think "But I didn't want to kill them..." But of course they didn't actually want that because that might demotivate players early on, they wanted a game where it was fun to kill mindless enemies for long periods, like most games. That one single change would have completely made the difference... intersplice the opposing viewpoint make them actual equals in the story, don't do it in strict halves where you try to add the weight *after* the fact..

    But instead, you play basically the entire game, then it tries to pull a surprise twist. But by that point its too late, its just a shallow twist, not something that was actually in the gameplay, and the first half of the game was too long for any of it to ring true.

    The game also has to cheat with flashback sequence to make you think certain things about Joel for the entire game that Ellie herself doesn't think, so its cheating twice. Which is fine for a movie, but weaksauce for a game.


    Incidentally, LoU1 you could get through almost the entire game without killing anyone with the exception of one sequence, and the very end. It IS up to you.
    Last edited by Robby; June 29th, 2020 at 07:16 PM.
    To support Viz hosting all Jump manga for FREE and day of release, Arlong Park will now support the official release.
    https://www.viz.com/shonenjump

    Official chapter discussions now start Sundays at Noon, EST.
    Please do not post threads when scan sites release their version, and just discuss those releases in the spoiler thread.

  9. #89

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    I just finished TLoU1 again. You have to kill a lot of people. At a minimum.

    I feel like people don't remember TLoU1.

  10. #90

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by tatermoog View Post
    I just finished TLoU1 again. You have to kill a lot of people. At a minimum.

    I feel like people don't remember TLoU1.
    Lots of people die but the only place you HAVE to kill people is the sniper section, 1 of the 2 guys that attack Ellie, and the ending.

    18 deaths (16 from the sniper section) is still a mass murderer count, but nowhere near the hundreds you can get in a normal play through.
    Last edited by Robby; June 29th, 2020 at 07:28 PM.
    To support Viz hosting all Jump manga for FREE and day of release, Arlong Park will now support the official release.
    https://www.viz.com/shonenjump

    Official chapter discussions now start Sundays at Noon, EST.
    Please do not post threads when scan sites release their version, and just discuss those releases in the spoiler thread.

  11. #91

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Hunter ambush. Hotel. David. Literally torture and kill two. Minimum bodycount has to be mid-20s, at least.

    It ain't Dishonored. And it doesn't pretend to be.

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Actually, now I'm curious, can you get through the dam without killing anyone? Feel like that would be weird.
    Hang in there, Kierkegaard.

  12. #92

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread



    Their final count, going by the game counter, is 18. But that counts things like shooting the final doctor in the foot... or leaving problems for other people to deal with... which apparently doesn't count as a kills but acts like one.

    Meanwhile you CAN barrell through everyone in the hospital and get like 30 people in that sequence alone.
    Last edited by Robby; June 29th, 2020 at 07:49 PM.
    To support Viz hosting all Jump manga for FREE and day of release, Arlong Park will now support the official release.
    https://www.viz.com/shonenjump

    Official chapter discussions now start Sundays at Noon, EST.
    Please do not post threads when scan sites release their version, and just discuss those releases in the spoiler thread.

  13. #93

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    ...that's...that's mostly exploits? Like, you find ways to kill all those people, but it doesn't count in the game's tracked kill-count?

    Genuinely nifty, but have no idea how that's relevant to the general narrative discussion.

    Regardless, I'm out on this until I finish TLoU2. Comes in tomorrow.

    also, general take on TLoU1 stayed fairly consistent: a weirdly not-great-to-play game thanks to some super-iffy AI and spawns lifted by some great performances and the usual Naughty Dog wizardry. Neat world development, but eye-rollingly oppressive. Well-done take on the zombie genre but seems pretty much well in line with the rest, so not much for me there.Ending is even less ambiguous than I remembered. Think much of my general ambivalence to the narrative is I have immense trouble buying Ellie as a person that could exist.

    I still unapologetically like the Uncharteds. Well, except 3.

    [apologies, feel free to move this too]
    Last edited by tatermoog; June 29th, 2020 at 07:45 PM. Reason: typing whilst robby worked modmagic

  14. #94

    Default Re: The Last of Us Part II: Battle Tendency

    Yes, even with a semi-pacifict route available, its clearly not what the game actually intended you to do as an option, they expect you to mow guys down by the dozens and don't really make it a moral question until the final sequence. And then the sequel does the same thing except the final sequence is 10 hours long.

    I haven't played the original since it came out and have no plans to revisit it, and no plans to play the sequel at this point, so I have to take other's word on it at face value for how much or how little you can get by with.
    To support Viz hosting all Jump manga for FREE and day of release, Arlong Park will now support the official release.
    https://www.viz.com/shonenjump

    Official chapter discussions now start Sundays at Noon, EST.
    Please do not post threads when scan sites release their version, and just discuss those releases in the spoiler thread.

  15. #95

    Default Re: The Last of Us Part II: Battle Tendency

    I always thought the main point of this game/franchise was fungi-infected zombies instead of how many people you kill along the way.

  16. #96

    Default Re: The Last of Us Part II: Battle Tendency

    I don't think it's a game problem as much as it's ND problem.

    In all their modern titles, Uncharted 1-4 + Lost Legacy and now TLOU1&2, they always have to rely upon typical third-person shooter mechanics that ultimately only resolves with the player having to kill crap ton of enemies whether human or zombie. The argument that lots of people are making is that all the killing in part 2 is intentional and that you are *supposed* to question it but I just don't really see it. Their entire modern library of games all showcase/demonstrate that there isn't much thought put into the gameplay side of things and how it connects with the narrative and thematics. The struggle within TLOU2 in regards to thematic point and the gameplay doesn't feel different from any other struggle within ND title. It's just that TLOU2 is the only game that wants to comment on violence while the gameplay is just stupidly fun to play and kill people.

    It feels like A.) ND doesn't really have the ability to pull off a game that doesn't force you to kill or B.) they have to *stick* with the triple A formula and not deviate from it.

    Coming off from something like Death Stranding where the game comments on the over-reliance of murder/killing/violence in major video game titles and then creates gameplay systems that fundamentally don't resolve around killing (i played over 80 hours of the game without killing anyone) seemed a lot more creative of a approach. It has a point and it makes that point by offering something that doesn't revolve around killing and shows that gameplay mechanics can still be engaging so long as you are willing to actually put the effort and try new things.

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Quote Originally Posted by KageKageKing View Post
    I always thought the main point of this game/franchise was fungi-infected zombies instead of how many people you kill along the way.
    Fungi-zombies in TLOU2 only exist for those cheap Resident Evil-type horror gameplay. Aside from that, their role is pretty much non-existent. They occasionally pop up in favor of boss battles and what not. Even the bite on Ellie's arm is dropped and isn't brought up aside from some Joel and Ellie moments in flashback.

    The main conflict of this game take place between the humans and different factions. It's just going for the more traditional "humans were the biggest monsters all along".

  17. #97

    Default Re: The Last of Us Part II: Battle Tendency

    Quote Originally Posted by HeartOfDarkness View Post
    Even the bite on Ellie's arm is dropped and isn't brought up aside from some Joel and Ellie moments in flashback.
    Bringing this up in the interest of fairness, but it was also discussed between Ellie and Dina.

    Ellie covered her bite scar with a chemical burn to hide what happened from the people of Jackson.
    She opened up and tried to reveal the truth to Dina when they were lying together and telling stories about their scars, but Dina didn't believe her and punched her arm.

    This changed when Ellie's mask broke later in the game and she could breathe spores without issues.
    Dina was in denial for a minute, but everything clicked when she remembered "the chemical burn..."

    ---------------------------------[Youtube]-[Patreon]-[Twitter]---------------------------------

  18. #98

    Default Re: The Last of Us Part II: Battle Tendency

    Eh, my point was more about how it doesn't really go anywhere plot-wise. Especially considering how important it was for the first game but then here, it's only mentioned at the beginning when Joel, mentioned during Dina scenes and shown again during the flashback scenes but plot-wise it doesn't really go anywhere. Nothing comes outta it aside from writers bringing it up and then lazily shoving it under the rug.

  19. #99

    Default Re: The PlayStation Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by HeartOfDarkness View Post
    Ah, you aren't familiar at all with the titles.

    But somehow you are making a point.

    For titles that you haven't played.

    Makes sense.



    So why are you even responding to me again?

    Just to prove some point while utterly exposing yourself as someone who doesn't know shit about the medium being discussed here? Who also haven't even played the games but is trying to talk about the thematic point of them? Who is using very limited story-driven games that aren't even doing the same thing as an example?



    Please stop bringing irrelevant shit to the discussion here.

    Go play games, understand the very medium and then attempt to comment on something.

    Right now, it comes across as you talking outta your ass for the sake of proving some irrelevant point that EVEN THE DIRECTOR HIMSELF has already destroyed by plainly stating the game's thematic and game-design philosophy and what they wanted to convey. You wouldn't know this because A.) you haven't played them B.) aren't familiar with Neil's work at all and C.) are clueless about the difference between a Video Game Narrative and a novel/tv-show/movie narrative.

    Learn the difference and come back.



    Nibba, go look at Pathologic 2 and see your "game" definition crumble before your eyes. This is what happens when people play the big triple A titles and ignore the indies and every other game that fundamentally doesn't stick with one definition of game-design.

    Your definition of gameplay fundamentally showcases your lack of any real understanding beyond playing some popular mainstream shit.
    Alright, alright, i could've expressed myself better on some points, so my apologies and I'll try to make myself clearer now.

    So, this is my first quote "So haven't played this game, nor the first, but they're on my backlog just because all of these discussions make want to try them for myself. But I got an issue with the point you're trying to make here."
    What I was trying to say was "I can't engage in a direct conversation/comparission about the TLOU but I disagree with the fundamental point here, not about TLOU only but about the medium in general". This is what I said the following post "
    I said I haven't played the game, so I did not comment on any specifics because I do not know them. I talked about the medium and what we should expect of it."
    I was trying to have a conversation about the medium not this particular game, hence why I said I didn't care about your opinion. I do not care about your opinion on every little detail about TLOU, I was interested about the topic in general, but you kept going deeper into TLOU.
    These posts were in the general Playstation Thread, it makes sense to discuss more than just the one game.


    Now, kid, you need to chill the fuck out.
    You are not the only person in the world who has played videogames. Everyone has and everyone has different experiences with them. Your opinion is not absolute and the way you express it still has a way to go. The post where you responded to the comparission to scary movies was great, the others were just mainly you being mad at other people because you don't like a piece of art.

    The same way we can compare movies to series or books you can compare any of those things to videogames, that's how you push the mediums forward, by trying to emulate what other mediums are capable, finding the limits and either break them, go around them, or turn back to a point where the other art forms can't reproduce what you're achieving.

    Videogames did not invent ludo-narratives, telling stories with the imput of the audience is as old as telling stories. So, I tried to talk about the authorship of the character.
    Robby, gave the example of Undertale, where you are The Player, so you have all these options in how to beat the game, you are basically the full author of that Player character. In GoW you play has Kratos, he has blades and he kills, if that's not what you want to do find another game, you have no authorship of the character you're just going along for the ride. Some games are in betwen, you aren't playing with a blank slate of a character but you get to decide some approaches to problems or situations.
    We can go back further and take the example of pen and paper rpgs where you have an alignment option. You can leave it blanc and develop your character as you play or you can write Lawfull Good right away and play the entire game trying to be the best boy/girl scout there ever was.

    I checked the trailer for Pathological 2 and found nothing that goes against feeling accomplished.
    Did you think I was talking about high-scores and ranking systems? Every game has different things that can make feel accomplished. Take the game The Witness, it's a puzzle game. You walk around a deserted island solving puzzles and with that you unlock doors and get to explore more of the island. So right of the bat you have a simple accomplishment, beat a puzzle -> unlock more puzzles -> feel good about it. But my most endearing experience with that game so far was not a puzzle. You can just walk to the top of the mountain and at the top you find a recording talling about space exploration. And that's it, you can just stay there, see the whole island and listen to pretty words about going beyond. And that makes you feel accomplished, you did something and were rewarded for the experience and with and experience. It's the difference betwen the Yakuza games, with their small maps full of things to discover in every corner, and triple AAA games with huge maps, where going out of your way to find stuff feels like a chore. You need to travel so much for something so little that it's not satisfying.


    As an ending note: what the fuck is that "nibba" shit?
    You either say the word or you don't. You're trying to be condescending but you're not even capable of using the vocabulary you want. Get that weak sauce outta here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Robby View Post
    The problem is its trying to make YOU feel bad about all the killing. Its a game, not a movie.

    That you had zero choice means that when the game finally tells you "hey, you should have chosen differently, don't you feel bad now?" that isn't your fault, or Ellie's, its about the game railroading you.

    Undertale works really hard to make you accidentally kill the first boss in the game. You have to NOT fight her for a long time before you can pass her peacefully. The first attack only hurts her a little, and so you might end up thinking "Oh well I guess like most games I have to whittle her down before she lets me pass" but then the second attack instant kills her. That is ENTIRELY your choice and your fault. ANd you immediately feel bad about it, reset the game, and try again... only for the villain character to then tell you "hey, I know what you did. You killed a person. And you felt so bad you reset the game" and that stays with you. Because the game gave you a choice, it makes you feel bad for making the wrong choice, and emphasizes it in a way you can't ever escape the consequence of that first time, even if it was an accident. And it manages that within the first five or ten minutes. Then throughout the entire rest of the game, almost every scenario is easier if you just slash a guy and get some exp to get some more health, but the challenge is to figure out their quirks and NOT needlessly kill anything and you KNOW the game is keeping track.. Even a flawless mercy run still doesn't get the best ending and requires you to backtrack and be even nicer to a few characters. ANd if you do the full blown murder route, it depopulates the world, changes the music, and huge chunks of the game are missing and it throws you up against basically unfair bosses and it really makes you think about having gone down the dark path. There's consequences the entire time and actively makes the game more and more unfun as you go. And you, the player, have to actively choose to do this unfun thing for literally hours just for the sake of getting to one more challenge you heard about, and even up to the very final boss you can still change your mind. It challenges you, makes you think about consequences *constantly*..

    LOU2, there is no choice, no weight, no alternative, you just go on feel good murder sprees with no consequence applied to the entire time. It MAKES you kill the enemies, there is no "stealth past them" option, much like the Uncharted games which have forced body counts in the hundreds. Its not doing anything to affect the player of make you think. it just goes in 15 hours later, and says "well, NOW you're a horrible person I guess! Don't you feel bad after having been desensitized to this for hours? Killing the first 30 dogs wasn't a big deal, but that 31rst sure was traumatic wasn't it? " and that's hollow.

    Now, if the game had you play as Ellie for ike an hour or two, then switched to the other character and immediately gave you her victim POV where you saw some of those guys you JUST saw getting killed, and then switched to Ellie for another hour of horrible murder, and then switched to the victim again for a while, it would very quickly become a case where you felt bad playing Ellie and the message would absolutely work. You WOULD start to feel like a monster and that would get through and either you'd start to hate playing Ellie, or you as the player would want to start finding alternate routes to not kill as much as you realized "well in an hour its going to make me feel bad about killing that guy, I'd rather he lived in a better version of the cinema" . And even if it still railroaded you into killing with no stealth options, it'd at least make you think "But I didn't want to kill them..." But of course they didn't actually want that because that might demotivate players early on, they wanted a game where it was fun to kill mindless enemies for long periods, like most games. That one single change would have completely made the difference... intersplice the opposing viewpoint make them actual equals in the story, don't do it in strict halves where you try to add the weight *after* the fact..

    But instead, you play basically the entire game, then it tries to pull a surprise twist. But by that point its too late, its just a shallow twist, not something that was actually in the gameplay, and the first half of the game was too long for any of it to ring true.

    The game also has to cheat with flashback sequence to make you think certain things about Joel for the entire game that Ellie herself doesn't think, so its cheating twice. Which is fine for a movie, but weaksauce for a game.


    Incidentally, LoU1 you could get through almost the entire game without killing anyone with the exception of one sequence, and the very end. It IS up to you.
    Now this is a good response, even though it's still very much around The Last of Us, it tries meet halfway, not in opinion but in finding a way to communicate with the other person.

    And this brings me back to the InFamous 2 story I told. When you have to kill your best friend you're doing it face to face, with both of you knowing what you want is "evil". He talks to you, he tells you "I can't let you do that, brother" and that Brother is heartfelt. And you shoot him. I actually shot him in the head thinking "it's faster, it won't be as painful". But still, the motherfucker gets up, coughs up blood and says it again "I can't let you do that, brother" and you shoot him again. And he gets up a third time, choughs up more blood and doesn't even say a word. He doesn't get up a third time. Congratulations, you beat the game, and now you're a son of a bitch.
    And that's because the main character o the narrative wasn't The Player, it was Cole. Even when you had to choose the good or bad options throught out the game, until that point, you're still only been given the options Cole considers, you're not allowed to take options outside of his spectrum. And when you get to that ending you're going to feel sad because that's the point of that story, not feeling bad but feeling sad for a while and then move on, because you did what was best, what was the only option, but that still takes a toll.

    This is one of the reasons I tried to initiate a discussion on how many options a game actually needs to give you. Limiting your options as an agent can create experiences you'd never had if you could take your cake and eat too everytime you wanted.

    Still, i gather from all of these opinions and comments that even if limiting your actions to violence and then talking about why are you so violent it fell very far away from it's goal.
    It wasn't just a final moment like in Infamous 2, meant to really leave you with that bitter-sweet taste, nor there was a mid way point where the character assumes who they are, like in God of War PS4.

  20. #100

    Default Re: The Last of Us Part II: Battle Tendency

    So despite all the negative things I've heard, I've finished the game.
    What the hell was that and how is this writing acceptable is beyond me.
    The fact that it caused a divide means that we are looking at a fanbase where half of it has misguided taste in the first place.
    Now hey, their cup of tea, their obligation to your rights, sure. But.. seriously?
    Like okay, it's not bad if you overlook some flaws as a standalone but as a successor to the first one which did everything right? It bombed terribly.
    Did Druckman pick up a zen book or go on a introspection journey or skim the surface of some philosophical facebook posts before writing this?
    God forbid any writer nowadays to not be pandering and write anything beyond feel good self-patting crap that makes no sense.
    Good riddance.
    And fuck Abby.

    Oh and gameplay wise its hella fun and at least i'm not spending half the time awkwardly stabbing zombies on the ground or running away from zombie daddy with a rocket launcher
    Last edited by zeltrax225; June 30th, 2020 at 01:52 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts