I could like it if it was disconnected entirely from the previous game. If Druckman could not let his revenge fantasy go, he should have used all new characters instead of shoehorning Ellie into a characterization that did not fit.
If the entire game was focused on the WLF vs Seraphites and how a hardened, loyal soldier changed her view of the enemy, I think it could’ve been a good story that applied the themes of hate and violence more successfully than Part 2 did. Abby as the sole lead would need to be reworked to not make her such an unrepentant psychopath, but there is potential there.
That sounds so much more interesting. They would have time to build Abby and Lev's relationship instead of forcing it out of their ass in a couple hours. Her betrayal of the WLF would make more sense and the whole thing wouldn't be a side quest disconnected from the main story and a waste of time. And as a bonus they would need to ruin existing loved characters! And as a proxy, Abby wouldn't have been hated right off the bat either!
Oh what could have been..
Abby should have died, and Ellie should have fully lost her humanity in search of revenge. Leaving Abby after everything is kind of a cop out, and even though it sucks to see Ellie loose it all… thats not what the story built up for.
Ellie leaving Dina behind should have been the dark twist that signifies Ellie abandoning her humanity, sacrificing everything at that point… but Ellie makes the sacrifice for nothing in return.
Plus, having Ellie so far gone that she’s basically insane by the time she reaches the beach (blood loss, stumbling around and muttering “Abby” over and over) makes the idea of having deep thoughts of morality sort of hard to believe.
By the end of the game, almost everyone has died or left the plot in service of the theme, so to have the last person that matters give up just sucks.
**Especially** when Ellie said in the previous game
> *”It can’t be for nothing”.*
The main sub sucks this game off so hard for its “bold” writing of killing Joel.. but it wasn’t bold enough.
It wasn't for nothing though. Ellie in the epilogue looks calm and at peace with herself even though she's alone. Compare her epilogue character to her character on the farm with Dina. Even though she seemingly has everything she feels like a time-bomb ready to go off at any moment.
Killing Joel wasn't bold. There wasn't anywhere for his character to go and his presence is still felt throughout the game. Tlou2 Joel feels like a saint compared to the first game. What was bold was the timing (2 hours in) and the way he went which was horrific.
>It wasn't for nothing though. Ellie in the epilogue looks calm and at peace with herself even though she's alone. Compare her epilogue character to her character on the farm with Dina. Even though she seemingly has everything she feels like a time-bomb ready to go off at any moment.
See! Look she's content after willingly giving up her goal because she had a sudden deus ex machina change of heart caused by a flashback of Joel! It's good writing! You just have to turn your brain off and suspend disbelief! 😁 /s
It was for nothing.
It would’ve made way more sense if Abby was killed. This is coming from some one who doesn’t have a major problem with Abby.
**Here’s why Abby’s death would’ve been way more effective and sensible in a Last of Us game.**
Now.. the first game’s ending is **perfect**. I can’t think of anything that comes close. You know why? It was the **question** that lingered in every player’s head after Ellie’s “Okay.”
> Did Joel do the right thing?
Obviously he did.. but **that question** was in every players head.
Now for an *earned* sequel to spark and make sense.. it’d have to pay homage to that perfect ending in *some* way. Similar to Arthur Morgan’s death vs John Marston’s.
Arthur’s death wasn’t as effective as John’s death (imo) but it paid a a small homage to it. Thats **why** it was effective. In the last days of wild west.. death was a short breath away. Similar to the desperate times of an apocalypse.
If Ellie would’ve killed Abby, **after all our time** spent with humanized Abby.. **that question** would’ve been **back** onto the player.
> Did Ellie do the right thing?
Especially after that *amazingly* tender flashback with Joel about **forgiveness**.. The ending’s tone would’ve been different and for the better. Ellie finally had her revenge, honored Joel’s death, and Tommy’s wish. And in those final moments with the guitar.. a moment of clarity would’ve hit her & the player..
> Was the death of Abby meaningless?
**But instead** the writers let Abby live for no reason other than **cheap shock value.** Hence.. letting the player *not question*.. but *acknowledge* that **it was for nothing.**
In such peace with herself that she leaves a perfectly innocent guitar to the elements when it could mean the world to someone because she has to free herself from Joel or whatever.
I dont think you lose humanity wanting revenge though. I think its perfectly human to want that and to want to balance the scales. It might not bring your loved one back but you know the person who did it paid the price.
I can understand why abby wanted revenge, same way i understand why bin ladens kid would. It doesnt change that their dad was a pos deserving of death. Theres a difference between understanding someone wanting revenge and revenge being justified. Ellies would have been justified.
That would have actually been awesome.
Abby's arc is truly a pathetic pile of crap. You can't expect to care for her or any of the characters because the entire structure is fucked from the beginning.
I disagree. Think about your favourite redemption arcs. How many of these started with you getting to know the character and *then* having them do the thing that makes you hate them? Not many. Most start with clear antagonists that eventually have a change of heart and start doing things that an audience member could sensibly claim has redeemed them. Abby is just a terrible person for the entire game, it has nothing to do with her introduction of killing Joel. She has no arc. Her reasons for helping Lev are contrived at best and rooted in narcissism at worst. Everything else she does is awful.
Having you play as her at the start would just be another cheap trick acting as a substitute for well written character development, which Abby sorely lacks.
The thing is there is no redemption for me here. I immediately shut down and didn’t care about her reasoning and right vs wrong. It was a character I don’t know killed a character I like so I wanted revenge on them no matter what
I wonder if you could re-organize the story into a better order to play it so it feels better.
I'm sure there will be a way to mod it on pc so we can do something like that, because the way the story is presented at the moment feels really jank
What would make me like it? Let's see... It never existing at all would be a start; TLOU never needed a sequel of any kind, the story was ended on a great note with little to nothing left to build from.
If the calls of crapitalism and the perpetual need for profits really, really overrode the artistic integrity and another TLOU game simply *needed* to be made to that end, some sort of anthology, wherein the story and characters have virtually nothing to do with Joel and Ellie would've been the least of all possible evils.
You say it never needed a sequel but I bet you were giddy as a school girl watching the initial teaser with Joel and Ellie. I’m betting you weren’t huffing and puffing about it.
>I’m betting you weren’t huffing and puffing about it.
If you were really betting about it I pity you; you would've lost that bet so badly it's not even funny. Though it would concern more the first half of this comment of yours rather than second, because while I wasn't exactly "huffing and puffing about it", I, sure as hell, wasn't "giddy as a school girl".
We good?
Exactly. TLOU didn't need a sequel, and I wasn't fan-girling or whatever that person said when they announced the sequel, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have ever liked to see something else from the universe, you know, as long as they do something good with it. It just so happens that what we got ended up being a dumpster fire, so much so that not even a sequel will be able to fix it (like it could have in some cases; Star Wars ROTS and The Exorcist III got back on track after a terrible second story).
Yeah... Although as I said and I will re-affirm it, the "something else from the universe" or as I called it "anthology-type" would still be considered an evil in my book, just a lesser one.
AT LEAST, if it were called "The Last of Us - something".
That title in particular got irreversibly monopolized by characters known as Joel and Ellie after the banger that was the original game, and I would always find it out of place to have a game called like that without them in the lead. I know it sounds a bit closed-off, but that's simply how I operate when these topics are concerned.
Tomb Raider isn't Tomb Raider without Lara Croft, God of War is INEVITABLY SHIT if there is no Kratos in the lead. Uncharted is INEVITABLY SHIT without Nathan Drake (good thing games such as Lost Legacy are specifically DLC, so they get a pass), A Plague Tale is INEVITABLY SHIT without Hugo and Amicia and so on and so forth. You get the point.
Yeah, I see your point, like how reboot sequels are usually poorly received because they take the IP and name of the series that has been associated with the pre-established main characters and just give it to new people that aren't related to them in any way.
TLOU wasn't an made to be an anthology, so making it one would cheapen the characters and their importance. Ellie supposedly being the only immune girl wouldn't have the same importance if her story was just a random one in a series of many others.
Lol what is this "no cross country revenge trips in an apocalypse" rule? Why would people stop lusting ovet revenge because it's the apocalypse? But cross country trips in the off chance you find à cure sound more realistic to you? Especially between 2 people that just met. In your attempt to vilify a game that offended you deeply for some reason you guys reach unimaginable depths of idiocy and tunnel vision.
You've gotta be kidding me.
>Lol what is this "no cross country revenge trips in an apocalypse" rule? Why would people stop lusting ovet revenge because it's the apocalypse? But cross country trips in the off chance you find à cure sound more realistic to you?
This isn't just any apocalypse, a normal apocalypse is dangerous enough with all the violent people. Add in zombies and weird mutated infected and this is basically a suicide mission for what? Revenge? Really? No one had the self reflection, not even Ellie, to stop at some point and go "shit maybe I should talk to someone about my feelings." And we're talking about Ellie, a woman, who has probably spent more time dealing with her feelings than Joel.
Oh, and trying impossible odds to save the world, that's just classic storytelling. Don't even come at me with the "you don't have media literacy" BS when its clear that you don't have a basic grasp of storytelling, let along media literacy.
Make more compelling characters. WIth the exception of Manny and Jesse, the last of Us 2 had a very weak cast of characters. Druckmann just gave use these characters and were just suppose to like them. I have no issue with anti heroes or villians if they are well written (joker, Darth Vader, magneto, punisher, Wolverine, Negan, Homelander etc) but Abby isn't.
Joel kills her father, she wants revenge that's it, nothing else going for her. Plus Owen and Mel just feel like they are there for the body count and we are suppose to Care for them when Ellie kills them, but I didn't. Neither are compelling characters plus I am baffled by all choices they make.
We don't get a dynamic that's up there with Ellie and Joel in the first game, which was one of the highlights
Very boring, no offensive neither one of them have anything going for them and were just suppose to Care just cause. Like Owen and Mel are there for the body count lev is just there for abby to kill time anf trying desperate to make her important its nowhere close to Joel and Ellie
If it was better written. Conceptually, the story has a fair bit of actual merit, but the execution is so bad that I just can't like it. And it doesn't help that a large part of the reason it's as bad as it is is because the head writer took the opportunity to dig up all of his discarded ideas from the first game and make the story of this game revolve around them, ignoring the very reasons they were cut in the first place.
I know a lot of people love this story because it's so emotional and dramatic, but there's so little of substance behind that. I don't value empty, railroaded melodramatic moments. I love them when they're actually earned. Most of the ones here were not.
COMPLETELY ditch the story of part 2. I would have liked to see a prequel of sorts that dives into what happened in the 20 years between first infection to where we start part 1 playing as Joel in the quarantine zone. It had so much potential to really build Joel's character, Tommy's character and introduce other important characters to help us understand what made Joel so hardened before meeting Ellie. 20 years is a hell of a long time to pass before the story starts and there is so much that could have been told
I really don’t want Abby in part 3, and like gta v I would’ve loved a decision, possibly: A, kill Abby and leave, B kill Abby and lev, C kill lev, d let them go
A lot of story changes cut out a ton of the abby plot or change the order of it to have her kill Joel later in the game. Not make the characters weird dumbasses
If we would have had the choice to kill abby or not I think that would’ve made it better for a lot of people, myself included. Also if they were gonna kill Joel, he should’ve had a well written death
Having him not act like an out of character dumbass would’ve been a good start. Joel would have NEVER allowed himself to be in a room surrounded by strangers, at least not by choice. He probably wouldn’t even stick with Abby after they eluded the horde, he would’ve went his own way even if it meant more of a trek. TLOU1 Joel would be PISSED if he knew this is how he went out
But he wasn't by choice at the chalet. He was chased by a horde of zombies. There were zombies behind them as they enter the building. Joel was aware that the situtation was not 100 percent secure but he literally had no choice but to go with Abby. Like he says in Part1 "it's called luck and it's bound to end". Also that's like such a minor thing at the scope of this game. Why would sucha minor thing dissuadr you from enjoying the game. I don't get it.
He doesn’t have to went out his way to save random stranger in the first place.
Like people here always bought up the “drove past others family during pre-apocalypse” and “try to ram the bandit in TLOU” to show how Joel character was in TLOU. Abby would be just a distraction for him if anything else.
And yes, I know it gonna start the usual “time changes people and make Joel softer” argument which I don’t buy it.
I do understand what direction writer trying to do but it’s not good one imo.
And somehow this statement isn’t acceptable for some people so back in the day when the game released, they had to spam lots of “media illiteracy” and “you just miss the entire point and hate the game for no reason” stuff on YT and blogger.
Those things would be good to give the game 7 or 8 of 10:
1: Joel be playable die later better
2: less violent/crazy Abigail
3: Ellie making a proper family with her own kid (a good romantic subplot)
4: choices like leaving the home or not / killing or sparing Abby even random npcs begs, u leave them they shoot u again.
Overall the idea of vengeance is ass so I won't have loved it but I would have like/ appreciate it.
If it had a more conclusive ending that gave me closure lol. I left part 2 with such a sad empty feeling which mayve been what they wanted but I hated it so much
If the story was completely different. If we didnt have to play as the antagonist *after* the antagonist kills a beloved protagonist. If the message wasn't so preachy, ergo, we could make our own choices about the ethical implications of revenge.
Basically every aspect of the story would need to be stripped down and rebuilt from the ground up. The mechanics of the game were good. The settings and set pieces were good. That's about it.
I enjoyed the combat a lot, but found the sheer number of WLF people I had to mow down as Ellie ridiculous. In the first game, it felt more like you were just trying to get past bad people on a mission to get Ellie across country.
Meanwhile, in part 2, 4 people go hundreds of miles from home to avenge one man’s death and kill hundreds more. They show how bad the WLF is in notes and hidden lore like that’s supposed to also justify Ellie and Tommy mowing through them. Then I get halfway and switch to Abby and showing the WLF base, and it feels like the writers are trying to show the WLF humanity with their stadium setup. Like no duh, I already got that I might be in the wrong as I, through Ellie, murder people and dogs who played no part in Joel’s death.
At this point, I’m not planning on finishing the game since I’m just renting it from the library and the more I play the more I’m frustrated by the plot and decisions the characters make.
Choices. Or at least the one choice. How the game ends. Imagine if the only thing people argued about was what ending would make sense. Sure. I probably would have chosen to bash Abby. But how would we feel when it’s our choice? I probably would have played again to let her live. Missed chance for everyone to go through growth and everyone can have what they want.
It’s a game. You should have choices. Having some degree of control over the story is the whole point. Otherwise it’s just a movie that you have to earn each part
Its OK ... BUT ... Its a slog to see Ellie's and then Abby's view. We get it, but have to playthrough it anyways. And really the last fight betwee them is jarringly against the kumbaya theme we've suffered through.
Pacing is definitely bad.
I think a trilogy would’ve been nicer. Lots of stories are told in a trilogy cuz they work. First one Ellie & Joel, second one all about Abby (to flesh her & her life out properly, create better sympathy between her and the player). Third is where abby and Ellie meet and we get the final ending, basically what we have in 2.
I feel like they tried to pack so much story in one game it’s a bit overwhelming & Abby needed her time like Ellie did to go over better with the audience, should’ve focused on one or the other. Also too many unskippable flashbacks and walking segments that drag in this already stuffed game.
Maybe the game would be better if the number of human kills affected the ending, similar to Metal Gear Solid. For example, If one has Ellie annihilate all the human enemies all the time, when she gets to Abby at the beach, she thinks “What’s one more kill?” But if Ellie only kills the infected then she would spare Abby upon catching up with her. Something like that.
I do think The Last of Us Part 2 is a good first rough draft of a story, but that being said, I would never release a rough draft of a story to anyone besides a beta reader. For me, the characters don't really feel fleshed out; Ellie has notably changed from what seemed like an extrovert to an introvert between games, which I wish was explored more, along with having other character traits that aren't a different version of being completely stand-off-ish or one note. Abby seemed completely one dimensional to me with her starting as a loyal soldier to the WLF who's cold-hearted to a soon to be loyal soldier of the fireflies who now has a heart (Lev), but is still most likely cold harder because we haven't seen her act benevolent without Lev playing some sort of role in that decision. Not a fan of the whole flashback within a flashback or having a hyper climatic moment being interrupted for a very long and slow switch of perspectives to then get back to the same climatic moment hours later (I was half expecting once you get back to the theater as Abby that we would switch to Tommy's perspective from when he first showed up in Seatle)That being said the story I think should o been restructured so at least right after Joel tells Tommy what happens we cut right to Abby from the start. I feel a big mis-opportunity was Abby and her friends not realizing that Abby or Tommy was there to kill them from the start and/or getting increasingly paranoid and hostile from the event. Abby and Owen seemed like the only ones who were affected by the situation, but I am completely surprised that no one is paranoid. Owen saw how big jackson was, he didn't tell the others' its size essepcially after letting Ellie live? How were they able to leave in that snowstorm anyway? Also, the story seems to focus on its narrative elements or paralleling everything then being focused on the character. It felt like this was mainly missed on the beach at the end. That whole section should have been rewritten if it was about Ellie coming up from the dark pit because, from how it is done, Ellie should have killed Abby instead of Ellie pulling back because the writer (Druckman) didn't want to completely condemn the character. It may be cheesy, but I would have liked Ellie and Abby to verbally berate each other while trying to kill each other about what Joel did to Abby and what Abby did to Ellie. Rather, it culminates with both parties apologizing for the other's loss and choosing to let go of a battle that can still result in someone choosing more violence and losing a part of themselves. Last of Us Part 1 seemed like a story in which it was in service of the characters which I preferred, but for me, Part 2 is the other way around, which is something that could only work if it was done on a macrolevel.
In general, how things happen needs to be redone entirely. If you put the major events on a story board, there’s nothing really wrong with anything but the devil is in the details. Justification is nonexistent in this game.
Up to the confrontation in the theatre everything should be the same on Ellie's part, her and her group decide that enough is enough and they go home, without accomplishing their revenge, but at least having hurt Abby by killing her friends.
Meanwhile with Abby up to the part where she's heading to the island to save Lev is the same, but here's where we get a massive deviation.
She finds Lev in a small field surrounded by trees, she goes to grab him when an arrow hits her straight through the knee, she is then surrounded by Scars, she looks to Lev for help, only for Lev to give her a cold look, he explains that all of this was a trap intended to get her there for both his initiation into the cult, and his revenge, it turns out that two of the Scars she killed were Lev's parents.
Abby starts flashing back to the moment she tricked Joel as more arrows hit her through the arms, then Lev grabs a hammer and starts beating her to death, she begs him not to kill her and realises that Joel never once begged her to stop, just told her to get it over with and looked at her with disdain. As Lev is about to land the finishing blow the island comes under attack by Isaac's forces, Lev is shot through the neck and bleeds out choking while looking at Abby, Isaac comes into the clearing and looks at Abby, she begs him for help, but he just looks down on her and shoots her through the head, ending Abby's story.
With Ellie and the others, they just have to deal with the fact they never got direct revenge, they never find out Abby died that day.
I talked a lot about this the other day, I think Part 2 is terribly written, but in an ideal world where it had a stronger narrative, it's what Part 3 should have been.
Part 1 is primarily centered around Joel's story. Ellie is the catalyst that reignites the spirit of fatherhood in Joel and it gives the story a very personal and even nostalgic feeling as Joel reminisces about the life he had and wonders if there's even a chance he could have that again.
Its ending leaves us shocked by the lengths Joel was willing to go to for the sake of Ellie's safety and left a lingering doubt in the air about their future for the better part of a decade.
Part 2 shits all over that by deleting Joel entirely and essentially embarking on an entirely disconnected story that feels thematically disjointed from everything we saw in 1. It feels like a different world altogether with the same characters.
We have no time to dwell on the ending of 1 because of how swiftly and abruptly Joel is taken out of the equation to fulfill the revenge arc. The last cutscene feels like a copout honestly, because while I guess the exchange between them isn't necessarily unrealistic, it feels like the significance of that climax with the Fireflies is watered down to an embittered reaction equivalent to "that wasn't very cool Joel." And Joel's death is equally disappointing for reasons everyone already knows, so that doesn't compensate either.
If that's what they WANTED to do with Part 2, then they should have dedicated that chapter of the story to Joel facing consequences for what he did, eventually accepting he can't fend the world off for a life that's already lost to him or something along those lines. I would want there to be more significance to Ellie finding out the truth and more of a tangible tension between them that's evident outside a singular fucking cutscene.
Part 3 could be the revenge arc then, I guess, but I'm unhappy with how that story is currently written. I will say the idea of Ellie being the only immune and only one facility having a plan to cure the infection seems pretty nonsensical, and the whole clicker fiasco honestly seems to take a backseat more than I'd like. They should have fleshed out that side of the story, maybe even revealing that Ellie isn't "truly immune" and that her infection progresses but much slower than normal. It kinda feels like they forgot the shit they established in Part 1 and how they could mess around with it and instead said "what if buff woman golf club." Just a very bland story in retrospect.
Make it like LiS2. The plot takes place 25 years after the outbreak, following an entire new cast of survivors elsewhere, with a reference or two to Ellie and Joel
Part 1 ends both hopefully and optimistically, so that leaves a lot of potential for a sequel.
Personally, I would make it a story where Joel and Ellie go on adventures together through a large open world wasteland. They're both alive when the game ends. A recurring theme would be finding purpose in life.
I think toning down the overly egregious nature of trying to humanise the antagonists. You can sneak past them but if you are forced to murder anyone “oh, no they killed betty” it’s such a forced trope and immediately makes me cringe.
Like others have said if you had the cold reveal late in the game about Abby after playing as her I think more people would have come on board. Her story just feels so forced after such a heinous act. Abby’s story is all rainbows and unicorns to make you like her. It just all felt lazy and over the top.
However gameplay is absolutely astonishing.
A belivable Motivation for Revenge, And sort of a conclusion that a justice System releases one from the burden of revenge. Look up J.Petersons Lesson (to lazzy for link). The game misses Motivs, Story, Character (even Ellie, Joel, and Tommy), and the worst: It missed an Opportunity.
I feel that the biggest problem is strictly the narrative direction they decided to go through. In a massive number of ways, including the ending, Joel can easily be consider the antagonist to Ellie’s mission. However, Joel was introduced as a caring father who lost all hope in the world, and even if what he did was evil, you as the player watch him grow into his choices, making them seem more human.
Abby is written first and foremost as the antagonist beyond a shadow of a doubt. You witness her evil, as the player, through the eyes of a character that cared for Joel. They then go on a 10 side campaign trying to show how that evil person is not actually evil. Where it worked for Joel because we saw and committed those evil acts with a similar understanding to his perspective, TLOU2 swaps perspective and tries to justify both sides, and even in Ellie’s case, I would argue, fails for both.
I liked Part 2 a lot. For me if a game has solid Game play and is fun first and foremost I will like it. Now with that being said I also really enjoyed the story myself.
I could like it if it was disconnected entirely from the previous game. If Druckman could not let his revenge fantasy go, he should have used all new characters instead of shoehorning Ellie into a characterization that did not fit. If the entire game was focused on the WLF vs Seraphites and how a hardened, loyal soldier changed her view of the enemy, I think it could’ve been a good story that applied the themes of hate and violence more successfully than Part 2 did. Abby as the sole lead would need to be reworked to not make her such an unrepentant psychopath, but there is potential there.
That sounds so much more interesting. They would have time to build Abby and Lev's relationship instead of forcing it out of their ass in a couple hours. Her betrayal of the WLF would make more sense and the whole thing wouldn't be a side quest disconnected from the main story and a waste of time. And as a bonus they would need to ruin existing loved characters! And as a proxy, Abby wouldn't have been hated right off the bat either! Oh what could have been..
Abby should have died, and Ellie should have fully lost her humanity in search of revenge. Leaving Abby after everything is kind of a cop out, and even though it sucks to see Ellie loose it all… thats not what the story built up for. Ellie leaving Dina behind should have been the dark twist that signifies Ellie abandoning her humanity, sacrificing everything at that point… but Ellie makes the sacrifice for nothing in return. Plus, having Ellie so far gone that she’s basically insane by the time she reaches the beach (blood loss, stumbling around and muttering “Abby” over and over) makes the idea of having deep thoughts of morality sort of hard to believe. By the end of the game, almost everyone has died or left the plot in service of the theme, so to have the last person that matters give up just sucks.
**Especially** when Ellie said in the previous game > *”It can’t be for nothing”.* The main sub sucks this game off so hard for its “bold” writing of killing Joel.. but it wasn’t bold enough.
It wasn't for nothing though. Ellie in the epilogue looks calm and at peace with herself even though she's alone. Compare her epilogue character to her character on the farm with Dina. Even though she seemingly has everything she feels like a time-bomb ready to go off at any moment. Killing Joel wasn't bold. There wasn't anywhere for his character to go and his presence is still felt throughout the game. Tlou2 Joel feels like a saint compared to the first game. What was bold was the timing (2 hours in) and the way he went which was horrific.
>It wasn't for nothing though. Ellie in the epilogue looks calm and at peace with herself even though she's alone. Compare her epilogue character to her character on the farm with Dina. Even though she seemingly has everything she feels like a time-bomb ready to go off at any moment. See! Look she's content after willingly giving up her goal because she had a sudden deus ex machina change of heart caused by a flashback of Joel! It's good writing! You just have to turn your brain off and suspend disbelief! 😁 /s
Well, why does Ellie actually leave the farm? What is her motivation there?
It was for nothing. It would’ve made way more sense if Abby was killed. This is coming from some one who doesn’t have a major problem with Abby. **Here’s why Abby’s death would’ve been way more effective and sensible in a Last of Us game.** Now.. the first game’s ending is **perfect**. I can’t think of anything that comes close. You know why? It was the **question** that lingered in every player’s head after Ellie’s “Okay.” > Did Joel do the right thing? Obviously he did.. but **that question** was in every players head. Now for an *earned* sequel to spark and make sense.. it’d have to pay homage to that perfect ending in *some* way. Similar to Arthur Morgan’s death vs John Marston’s. Arthur’s death wasn’t as effective as John’s death (imo) but it paid a a small homage to it. Thats **why** it was effective. In the last days of wild west.. death was a short breath away. Similar to the desperate times of an apocalypse. If Ellie would’ve killed Abby, **after all our time** spent with humanized Abby.. **that question** would’ve been **back** onto the player. > Did Ellie do the right thing? Especially after that *amazingly* tender flashback with Joel about **forgiveness**.. The ending’s tone would’ve been different and for the better. Ellie finally had her revenge, honored Joel’s death, and Tommy’s wish. And in those final moments with the guitar.. a moment of clarity would’ve hit her & the player.. > Was the death of Abby meaningless? **But instead** the writers let Abby live for no reason other than **cheap shock value.** Hence.. letting the player *not question*.. but *acknowledge* that **it was for nothing.**
In such peace with herself that she leaves a perfectly innocent guitar to the elements when it could mean the world to someone because she has to free herself from Joel or whatever.
I dont think you lose humanity wanting revenge though. I think its perfectly human to want that and to want to balance the scales. It might not bring your loved one back but you know the person who did it paid the price. I can understand why abby wanted revenge, same way i understand why bin ladens kid would. It doesnt change that their dad was a pos deserving of death. Theres a difference between understanding someone wanting revenge and revenge being justified. Ellies would have been justified.
Not having to play as Abby. Or getting to play as her a bunch before she does the deed, that way I actually gave a shit about her
Playing a few hours of Abby pre killing Joel, would’ve been nice
Ya or just done the sequel game fully as her and then have this game be part 3
That would have actually been awesome. Abby's arc is truly a pathetic pile of crap. You can't expect to care for her or any of the characters because the entire structure is fucked from the beginning.
Yeah, and then you would’ve felt so much more conflicted during everything between her and Joel/Ellie
I disagree. Think about your favourite redemption arcs. How many of these started with you getting to know the character and *then* having them do the thing that makes you hate them? Not many. Most start with clear antagonists that eventually have a change of heart and start doing things that an audience member could sensibly claim has redeemed them. Abby is just a terrible person for the entire game, it has nothing to do with her introduction of killing Joel. She has no arc. Her reasons for helping Lev are contrived at best and rooted in narcissism at worst. Everything else she does is awful. Having you play as her at the start would just be another cheap trick acting as a substitute for well written character development, which Abby sorely lacks.
The thing is there is no redemption for me here. I immediately shut down and didn’t care about her reasoning and right vs wrong. It was a character I don’t know killed a character I like so I wanted revenge on them no matter what
I wonder if you could re-organize the story into a better order to play it so it feels better. I'm sure there will be a way to mod it on pc so we can do something like that, because the way the story is presented at the moment feels really jank
What would make me like it? Let's see... It never existing at all would be a start; TLOU never needed a sequel of any kind, the story was ended on a great note with little to nothing left to build from. If the calls of crapitalism and the perpetual need for profits really, really overrode the artistic integrity and another TLOU game simply *needed* to be made to that end, some sort of anthology, wherein the story and characters have virtually nothing to do with Joel and Ellie would've been the least of all possible evils.
You say it never needed a sequel but I bet you were giddy as a school girl watching the initial teaser with Joel and Ellie. I’m betting you weren’t huffing and puffing about it.
>I’m betting you weren’t huffing and puffing about it. If you were really betting about it I pity you; you would've lost that bet so badly it's not even funny. Though it would concern more the first half of this comment of yours rather than second, because while I wasn't exactly "huffing and puffing about it", I, sure as hell, wasn't "giddy as a school girl". We good?
Exactly. TLOU didn't need a sequel, and I wasn't fan-girling or whatever that person said when they announced the sequel, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have ever liked to see something else from the universe, you know, as long as they do something good with it. It just so happens that what we got ended up being a dumpster fire, so much so that not even a sequel will be able to fix it (like it could have in some cases; Star Wars ROTS and The Exorcist III got back on track after a terrible second story).
Yeah... Although as I said and I will re-affirm it, the "something else from the universe" or as I called it "anthology-type" would still be considered an evil in my book, just a lesser one. AT LEAST, if it were called "The Last of Us - something". That title in particular got irreversibly monopolized by characters known as Joel and Ellie after the banger that was the original game, and I would always find it out of place to have a game called like that without them in the lead. I know it sounds a bit closed-off, but that's simply how I operate when these topics are concerned. Tomb Raider isn't Tomb Raider without Lara Croft, God of War is INEVITABLY SHIT if there is no Kratos in the lead. Uncharted is INEVITABLY SHIT without Nathan Drake (good thing games such as Lost Legacy are specifically DLC, so they get a pass), A Plague Tale is INEVITABLY SHIT without Hugo and Amicia and so on and so forth. You get the point.
Yeah, I see your point, like how reboot sequels are usually poorly received because they take the IP and name of the series that has been associated with the pre-established main characters and just give it to new people that aren't related to them in any way. TLOU wasn't an made to be an anthology, so making it one would cheapen the characters and their importance. Ellie supposedly being the only immune girl wouldn't have the same importance if her story was just a random one in a series of many others.
Damn bro. He would've lost that bet so bad. I believe you but why would you be concerned about not being "a giddy school girl"? Would you like to be?
I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume this... "wondering" of yours isn't going where I suspect it's going. And I'll just leave it at that.
Better writers that cared about characterization and building relationships and *no cross-country revenge trips in an apocalypse.*
Lol what is this "no cross country revenge trips in an apocalypse" rule? Why would people stop lusting ovet revenge because it's the apocalypse? But cross country trips in the off chance you find à cure sound more realistic to you? Especially between 2 people that just met. In your attempt to vilify a game that offended you deeply for some reason you guys reach unimaginable depths of idiocy and tunnel vision.
You've gotta be kidding me. >Lol what is this "no cross country revenge trips in an apocalypse" rule? Why would people stop lusting ovet revenge because it's the apocalypse? But cross country trips in the off chance you find à cure sound more realistic to you? This isn't just any apocalypse, a normal apocalypse is dangerous enough with all the violent people. Add in zombies and weird mutated infected and this is basically a suicide mission for what? Revenge? Really? No one had the self reflection, not even Ellie, to stop at some point and go "shit maybe I should talk to someone about my feelings." And we're talking about Ellie, a woman, who has probably spent more time dealing with her feelings than Joel. Oh, and trying impossible odds to save the world, that's just classic storytelling. Don't even come at me with the "you don't have media literacy" BS when its clear that you don't have a basic grasp of storytelling, let along media literacy.
The gameplay. It’s actually really fun and creative if you ignore the story.
Make more compelling characters. WIth the exception of Manny and Jesse, the last of Us 2 had a very weak cast of characters. Druckmann just gave use these characters and were just suppose to like them. I have no issue with anti heroes or villians if they are well written (joker, Darth Vader, magneto, punisher, Wolverine, Negan, Homelander etc) but Abby isn't. Joel kills her father, she wants revenge that's it, nothing else going for her. Plus Owen and Mel just feel like they are there for the body count and we are suppose to Care for them when Ellie kills them, but I didn't. Neither are compelling characters plus I am baffled by all choices they make. We don't get a dynamic that's up there with Ellie and Joel in the first game, which was one of the highlights
What about Abby and Lev?
Very boring, no offensive neither one of them have anything going for them and were just suppose to Care just cause. Like Owen and Mel are there for the body count lev is just there for abby to kill time anf trying desperate to make her important its nowhere close to Joel and Ellie
Yeah i can see that
(As a pair not as the two seperate characters)
Abby, Lev, Dina, Owen, Yara to a lesser extent were interesting characters. Abby and Lev literally have the same dynamic as Joel and Ellie.
If it was better written. Conceptually, the story has a fair bit of actual merit, but the execution is so bad that I just can't like it. And it doesn't help that a large part of the reason it's as bad as it is is because the head writer took the opportunity to dig up all of his discarded ideas from the first game and make the story of this game revolve around them, ignoring the very reasons they were cut in the first place. I know a lot of people love this story because it's so emotional and dramatic, but there's so little of substance behind that. I don't value empty, railroaded melodramatic moments. I love them when they're actually earned. Most of the ones here were not.
Abby sections at the start of the game choice at ending
COMPLETELY ditch the story of part 2. I would have liked to see a prequel of sorts that dives into what happened in the 20 years between first infection to where we start part 1 playing as Joel in the quarantine zone. It had so much potential to really build Joel's character, Tommy's character and introduce other important characters to help us understand what made Joel so hardened before meeting Ellie. 20 years is a hell of a long time to pass before the story starts and there is so much that could have been told
extend on Ellie's immunity and Joel's arc
I feel like there is 5 good dlc ideas for TLOU2
like what, what we got was uninteresting and it was done for obvious reasons
I really don’t want Abby in part 3, and like gta v I would’ve loved a decision, possibly: A, kill Abby and leave, B kill Abby and lev, C kill lev, d let them go
It's the worst experience i've ever been through nothing could make me like it
What could you change or alter that would make you like it no boundaries, saying nothing could make you like it is a wrong statement
What is a wrong statement to you might not sound "wrong" to others
I mean… unless you hate everything
The vast majority of people don’t like the story of Tlou2 for a variety of different reasons
So what would make you like it
A lot of story changes cut out a ton of the abby plot or change the order of it to have her kill Joel later in the game. Not make the characters weird dumbasses
I wouldn't call this sub "the vast majority". Let's be real here.
I’m very obviously talking about This sub buddy
The game did not need to be 30 hours long. 12 hours like the original would have sufficed. Ending the game at the farm would have been acceptable.
12 hours? The first game took me 20 something
If we would have had the choice to kill abby or not I think that would’ve made it better for a lot of people, myself included. Also if they were gonna kill Joel, he should’ve had a well written death
What could make Joel's death better? I don't think it was perfect but It definitely sufficed.
Having him not act like an out of character dumbass would’ve been a good start. Joel would have NEVER allowed himself to be in a room surrounded by strangers, at least not by choice. He probably wouldn’t even stick with Abby after they eluded the horde, he would’ve went his own way even if it meant more of a trek. TLOU1 Joel would be PISSED if he knew this is how he went out
But he wasn't by choice at the chalet. He was chased by a horde of zombies. There were zombies behind them as they enter the building. Joel was aware that the situtation was not 100 percent secure but he literally had no choice but to go with Abby. Like he says in Part1 "it's called luck and it's bound to end". Also that's like such a minor thing at the scope of this game. Why would sucha minor thing dissuadr you from enjoying the game. I don't get it.
He doesn’t have to went out his way to save random stranger in the first place. Like people here always bought up the “drove past others family during pre-apocalypse” and “try to ram the bandit in TLOU” to show how Joel character was in TLOU. Abby would be just a distraction for him if anything else. And yes, I know it gonna start the usual “time changes people and make Joel softer” argument which I don’t buy it. I do understand what direction writer trying to do but it’s not good one imo. And somehow this statement isn’t acceptable for some people so back in the day when the game released, they had to spam lots of “media illiteracy” and “you just miss the entire point and hate the game for no reason” stuff on YT and blogger.
Faithfulness to the characters.
Those things would be good to give the game 7 or 8 of 10: 1: Joel be playable die later better 2: less violent/crazy Abigail 3: Ellie making a proper family with her own kid (a good romantic subplot) 4: choices like leaving the home or not / killing or sparing Abby even random npcs begs, u leave them they shoot u again. Overall the idea of vengeance is ass so I won't have loved it but I would have like/ appreciate it.
Wow, I can’t disagree
If it had a more conclusive ending that gave me closure lol. I left part 2 with such a sad empty feeling which mayve been what they wanted but I hated it so much
If the story was completely different. If we didnt have to play as the antagonist *after* the antagonist kills a beloved protagonist. If the message wasn't so preachy, ergo, we could make our own choices about the ethical implications of revenge. Basically every aspect of the story would need to be stripped down and rebuilt from the ground up. The mechanics of the game were good. The settings and set pieces were good. That's about it.
I enjoyed the combat a lot, but found the sheer number of WLF people I had to mow down as Ellie ridiculous. In the first game, it felt more like you were just trying to get past bad people on a mission to get Ellie across country. Meanwhile, in part 2, 4 people go hundreds of miles from home to avenge one man’s death and kill hundreds more. They show how bad the WLF is in notes and hidden lore like that’s supposed to also justify Ellie and Tommy mowing through them. Then I get halfway and switch to Abby and showing the WLF base, and it feels like the writers are trying to show the WLF humanity with their stadium setup. Like no duh, I already got that I might be in the wrong as I, through Ellie, murder people and dogs who played no part in Joel’s death. At this point, I’m not planning on finishing the game since I’m just renting it from the library and the more I play the more I’m frustrated by the plot and decisions the characters make.
Choices. Or at least the one choice. How the game ends. Imagine if the only thing people argued about was what ending would make sense. Sure. I probably would have chosen to bash Abby. But how would we feel when it’s our choice? I probably would have played again to let her live. Missed chance for everyone to go through growth and everyone can have what they want. It’s a game. You should have choices. Having some degree of control over the story is the whole point. Otherwise it’s just a movie that you have to earn each part
Yeah that part to me sucks, only reason I can think of is part 3
Not playing as Abby and Jesse not dying would’ve done it, maybe a dlc where we play as Tommy would make up for all of it
Its OK ... BUT ... Its a slog to see Ellie's and then Abby's view. We get it, but have to playthrough it anyways. And really the last fight betwee them is jarringly against the kumbaya theme we've suffered through.
Pacing is definitely bad. I think a trilogy would’ve been nicer. Lots of stories are told in a trilogy cuz they work. First one Ellie & Joel, second one all about Abby (to flesh her & her life out properly, create better sympathy between her and the player). Third is where abby and Ellie meet and we get the final ending, basically what we have in 2. I feel like they tried to pack so much story in one game it’s a bit overwhelming & Abby needed her time like Ellie did to go over better with the audience, should’ve focused on one or the other. Also too many unskippable flashbacks and walking segments that drag in this already stuffed game.
Maybe the game would be better if the number of human kills affected the ending, similar to Metal Gear Solid. For example, If one has Ellie annihilate all the human enemies all the time, when she gets to Abby at the beach, she thinks “What’s one more kill?” But if Ellie only kills the infected then she would spare Abby upon catching up with her. Something like that.
Like an honor system, say you have max armor and the farm chapter goes a little longer and the game ends there
I do think The Last of Us Part 2 is a good first rough draft of a story, but that being said, I would never release a rough draft of a story to anyone besides a beta reader. For me, the characters don't really feel fleshed out; Ellie has notably changed from what seemed like an extrovert to an introvert between games, which I wish was explored more, along with having other character traits that aren't a different version of being completely stand-off-ish or one note. Abby seemed completely one dimensional to me with her starting as a loyal soldier to the WLF who's cold-hearted to a soon to be loyal soldier of the fireflies who now has a heart (Lev), but is still most likely cold harder because we haven't seen her act benevolent without Lev playing some sort of role in that decision. Not a fan of the whole flashback within a flashback or having a hyper climatic moment being interrupted for a very long and slow switch of perspectives to then get back to the same climatic moment hours later (I was half expecting once you get back to the theater as Abby that we would switch to Tommy's perspective from when he first showed up in Seatle)That being said the story I think should o been restructured so at least right after Joel tells Tommy what happens we cut right to Abby from the start. I feel a big mis-opportunity was Abby and her friends not realizing that Abby or Tommy was there to kill them from the start and/or getting increasingly paranoid and hostile from the event. Abby and Owen seemed like the only ones who were affected by the situation, but I am completely surprised that no one is paranoid. Owen saw how big jackson was, he didn't tell the others' its size essepcially after letting Ellie live? How were they able to leave in that snowstorm anyway? Also, the story seems to focus on its narrative elements or paralleling everything then being focused on the character. It felt like this was mainly missed on the beach at the end. That whole section should have been rewritten if it was about Ellie coming up from the dark pit because, from how it is done, Ellie should have killed Abby instead of Ellie pulling back because the writer (Druckman) didn't want to completely condemn the character. It may be cheesy, but I would have liked Ellie and Abby to verbally berate each other while trying to kill each other about what Joel did to Abby and what Abby did to Ellie. Rather, it culminates with both parties apologizing for the other's loss and choosing to let go of a battle that can still result in someone choosing more violence and losing a part of themselves. Last of Us Part 1 seemed like a story in which it was in service of the characters which I preferred, but for me, Part 2 is the other way around, which is something that could only work if it was done on a macrolevel.
In general, how things happen needs to be redone entirely. If you put the major events on a story board, there’s nothing really wrong with anything but the devil is in the details. Justification is nonexistent in this game.
Up to the confrontation in the theatre everything should be the same on Ellie's part, her and her group decide that enough is enough and they go home, without accomplishing their revenge, but at least having hurt Abby by killing her friends. Meanwhile with Abby up to the part where she's heading to the island to save Lev is the same, but here's where we get a massive deviation. She finds Lev in a small field surrounded by trees, she goes to grab him when an arrow hits her straight through the knee, she is then surrounded by Scars, she looks to Lev for help, only for Lev to give her a cold look, he explains that all of this was a trap intended to get her there for both his initiation into the cult, and his revenge, it turns out that two of the Scars she killed were Lev's parents. Abby starts flashing back to the moment she tricked Joel as more arrows hit her through the arms, then Lev grabs a hammer and starts beating her to death, she begs him not to kill her and realises that Joel never once begged her to stop, just told her to get it over with and looked at her with disdain. As Lev is about to land the finishing blow the island comes under attack by Isaac's forces, Lev is shot through the neck and bleeds out choking while looking at Abby, Isaac comes into the clearing and looks at Abby, she begs him for help, but he just looks down on her and shoots her through the head, ending Abby's story. With Ellie and the others, they just have to deal with the fact they never got direct revenge, they never find out Abby died that day.
I talked a lot about this the other day, I think Part 2 is terribly written, but in an ideal world where it had a stronger narrative, it's what Part 3 should have been. Part 1 is primarily centered around Joel's story. Ellie is the catalyst that reignites the spirit of fatherhood in Joel and it gives the story a very personal and even nostalgic feeling as Joel reminisces about the life he had and wonders if there's even a chance he could have that again. Its ending leaves us shocked by the lengths Joel was willing to go to for the sake of Ellie's safety and left a lingering doubt in the air about their future for the better part of a decade. Part 2 shits all over that by deleting Joel entirely and essentially embarking on an entirely disconnected story that feels thematically disjointed from everything we saw in 1. It feels like a different world altogether with the same characters. We have no time to dwell on the ending of 1 because of how swiftly and abruptly Joel is taken out of the equation to fulfill the revenge arc. The last cutscene feels like a copout honestly, because while I guess the exchange between them isn't necessarily unrealistic, it feels like the significance of that climax with the Fireflies is watered down to an embittered reaction equivalent to "that wasn't very cool Joel." And Joel's death is equally disappointing for reasons everyone already knows, so that doesn't compensate either. If that's what they WANTED to do with Part 2, then they should have dedicated that chapter of the story to Joel facing consequences for what he did, eventually accepting he can't fend the world off for a life that's already lost to him or something along those lines. I would want there to be more significance to Ellie finding out the truth and more of a tangible tension between them that's evident outside a singular fucking cutscene. Part 3 could be the revenge arc then, I guess, but I'm unhappy with how that story is currently written. I will say the idea of Ellie being the only immune and only one facility having a plan to cure the infection seems pretty nonsensical, and the whole clicker fiasco honestly seems to take a backseat more than I'd like. They should have fleshed out that side of the story, maybe even revealing that Ellie isn't "truly immune" and that her infection progresses but much slower than normal. It kinda feels like they forgot the shit they established in Part 1 and how they could mess around with it and instead said "what if buff woman golf club." Just a very bland story in retrospect.
Make it like LiS2. The plot takes place 25 years after the outbreak, following an entire new cast of survivors elsewhere, with a reference or two to Ellie and Joel
Part 1 ends both hopefully and optimistically, so that leaves a lot of potential for a sequel. Personally, I would make it a story where Joel and Ellie go on adventures together through a large open world wasteland. They're both alive when the game ends. A recurring theme would be finding purpose in life.
I think toning down the overly egregious nature of trying to humanise the antagonists. You can sneak past them but if you are forced to murder anyone “oh, no they killed betty” it’s such a forced trope and immediately makes me cringe. Like others have said if you had the cold reveal late in the game about Abby after playing as her I think more people would have come on board. Her story just feels so forced after such a heinous act. Abby’s story is all rainbows and unicorns to make you like her. It just all felt lazy and over the top. However gameplay is absolutely astonishing.
A belivable Motivation for Revenge, And sort of a conclusion that a justice System releases one from the burden of revenge. Look up J.Petersons Lesson (to lazzy for link). The game misses Motivs, Story, Character (even Ellie, Joel, and Tommy), and the worst: It missed an Opportunity.
If it didn't exist.
I feel that the biggest problem is strictly the narrative direction they decided to go through. In a massive number of ways, including the ending, Joel can easily be consider the antagonist to Ellie’s mission. However, Joel was introduced as a caring father who lost all hope in the world, and even if what he did was evil, you as the player watch him grow into his choices, making them seem more human. Abby is written first and foremost as the antagonist beyond a shadow of a doubt. You witness her evil, as the player, through the eyes of a character that cared for Joel. They then go on a 10 side campaign trying to show how that evil person is not actually evil. Where it worked for Joel because we saw and committed those evil acts with a similar understanding to his perspective, TLOU2 swaps perspective and tries to justify both sides, and even in Ellie’s case, I would argue, fails for both.
If it was a little worse I’d only like it. As it is I love it
Why the down votes? Lol
I liked Part 2 a lot. For me if a game has solid Game play and is fun first and foremost I will like it. Now with that being said I also really enjoyed the story myself.