![[PS4] The Last of Us: Remastered $12.47 (50% off) @ PlayStation Store](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/98/553498.jpg?h=4a6a7c4a)
Save 50% on The Last of Us: Remastered through the PlayStation Store.
Includes:
Left Behind - a story DLC
Abandoned/Reclaimed Territories - multiplayer maps
Grounded Mode - extra hard difficulty mode
(credit to damontyler)
[PS4] The Last of Us: Remastered $12.47 (50% off) @ PlayStation Store
870
Related Stores
closed Comments
Just posting this at the top of the comments. Pretty much all the big stuff in both TLoU 1 + 2 are spoiled below, which is fine, but if you want to go in fresh, stop reading right now. :)
I stopped reading after your comment so I don't know the context in which the spoilers were written. I hate pricks that write spoilers intentionally though. I read a comment on rockstars IG page that spoiled rdr2 for me. The person wrote it full well knowing that hw/she was being a (profanity).
TLOU is the best game I've ever played. Haven't played 2 yet.
Yep … 100% agree it is the best game i've ever played and i only play 1 player story type games… nothing has come close… before this my #1 game was ocarina of time .. n every Zelda prior and after haha
Some might spoil it due to how excited they get to share the experience… not always malicious but yeh the ones that do it out of fun are total dipsh*ts …
@flashi007: oh i have it on the switch and finished it (well story wise anyway .. you can play that game forever lol) ….. i still enjoyed TLOU more but BOTW takes the best zelda crown in my book (then ocarina).
Get this then get tlou2. Both awesome games.
u sure?
There isn't many games that can topple part 1.
It’s meant to be
Loved TLOU1
Wish i hadn't played TLOU2. Or at least, wish.Id played only the first half.
Out of curiosity, why is that?
@laraelise: I'd presume they didn't like the big switch that occurred at the halfway point, which was probably one of the main criticisms the game got. Don't want to say anymore to avoid spoilers (especially in a thread regarding the predecessor of said game).
Personally though, I did enjoy the game as a whole. I can definitely understand the criticisms it got regarding the plot as even I shared some of it initially, however it took a while for me to understand the actual themes/ideas the authors were trying to convey and helped me better appreciate it.
Gameplay-wise though, fantastic game, I'd safely bet money that there won't be any games that could surpass it in that aspect for this generation and perhaps even for the early stages of the next-gen.
@Shekster: Really ? I thought gameplay is probably the most forgettable part , it’s the same as the first game from 2011 but they added a dodge mechanic
Sekiro soundly leaves it behind imo, even Uncharted for me was more fun to play
@laraelise: The game pulls a swifty and switches the playable character from Ellie to her opponent.
I'm sure the developers felt very clever doing it but it just doesn't work for me (and it seems a large number of people on the internet).
I don't want to empathise with my opponent when I'm on a killing spree.
OR if they were going to do that then they needed to change the ending to be something more "redeeming"
It was a weird experience. I loved the game, the mechanics, the combat. Right up until the halfway mark. Then i stopped loving it. The mechanics were the same. I just stopped enjoying it because the game was forcing me to do something that I don't think was handled in a very nuanced way at all.
I will go back and play TLOU1 one day. Despite the fact that I disliked the ending, I still rate that game as one of the finest I've played. I can't see myself ever wanting to play TLOU2 again.
@mingofmongo: I'd argue that very first line is a decent spoiler for anyone going into it blind as there was no indication in any of the trailers/pre-release details that it would happen.
It's certainly something that would spoil it for a lot of people since a lot of the game's narrative hinges on that 'twist'.
@Shekster: Apologies for the spoiler - you're right, when I played it through, I wasn't expecting that to happen either as I'd religiously avoided internet discussion (good and bad) of the game and just wanted to enjoy it on my own terms. I really wanted to love it!
After I'd finished I couldn't quite put my feelings into words so I then went and read a few reviews. These two in particular helped me contextualised my own feelings of disappointment. They contain major spoilers, and people might disagree with them (what is art if not thought-provoking?) but may at least convey what I can't - that the structure underpinning the game was not as well-executed as the ideas it was trying to represent.
https://www.mmorpg.com/editorials/opinion-why-the-last-of-us…
https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2020/6/12/21288535/the-last-…
@mingofmongo: Horses for courses, I guess. For me, the second half is what made the game for me. The first half was still great (the gameplay, especially, I thought was a significant improvement on the original which was already good to begin with), but story-wise it just felt pretty uninspired. I was absolutely not expecting that shift in perspective halfway through, nor the way it was able to make me re-examine the motivation driving all of the characters. By the end I both loved and hated both of the characters, and no game has ever come remotely close to being able to make me feel that way.
The only major drawback for me is that I just found TLOU2 too long. I will definitely play it again, but not as many times as I did the original simply because it takes about twice as long to get through and there are other things I also want to play.
@mingofmongo: "I don't want to empathise with my opponent when I'm on a killing spree."
this is why people say TLOU2 haters are too dumb to understand the game
@[Deactivated]: I understand the game, I just think it was ham-fisted.
It's not intellectually superior to create a game that forces you to do something you shouldn't.
That's not interactive storytelling - that's just a movie where you watch things happen.
This can be done well - look at Spec Ops: The Line. That game was intense and uncomfortable to play, but it worked really well.
This game provides two linear paths that you cannot deviate from, ie.
Protagonist - You must kill people to get to the end of the game. The majority of the game involves holding a weapon and using it.
then
Antagonist - You must kill people to get to the end of the game. The majority of the game involves holding a weapon and using it.
The game then says - Aha! But you shouldn't kill people because when you look at it from the other person's point of view, they might not have deserved to die!
The player then says - so why did you make me do all the killing then? It's not a lesson I needed to be taught. I know killing is wrong. The ultimate revenge isn't killing someone, but seeing them brought to justice.It's also unsatisfying storytelling, at least in part because how the stories are structured and timed. It could have been done well, but wasn't.
I don't want to consider myself a TLOU2 hater. I wanted to love it. I certainly don't hate it. I enjoyed the good parts a lot. I don't care at all about the "PC" allegations, I'm happy to have the game represent the broad society in which we live, and it's not just all ripped white dudes.
SPOILER ALERT:
REAL SPOILERS FOR THE GAME ENDING:
I felt the game could have been redeemed in its final scene. After protagonist liberates antagonist from hellhole - in fact, she was fighting her way through the hellhole to get to her - I was waiting for protagonist to forgive antagonist and allow her to leave freely - THAT would have given meaning to the game's lesson. Instead we got yet another bloody fight scene which showed that the protagonist is basically unchanged as a person from the beginning of the game. No personal growth. No moral awakening that antagonist's suffering was already greater than protagonist could cause. Just another bloody fight.
Get rid of the final fight scene and my view of the game would go up significantly.@mingofmongo: @mingofmongo
Hmm, interesting take, I'm happy to engage with someone that doesn't say "ded white man bad, leftist agenda."
BIG SPOILERS AHEAD
I can't help but think the ending would have been way worse in what you described though, because that wouldn't have been true to the character at all if she just had a random epiphany and just turned around and went back to Jackson. Ellie begrudgingly left Dina because she was still so miserable and troubled that she thought the only way she could move on with her life was by killing Abby. But I honestly thought that final section of the game was truly perfect, because Ellie truly drags herself through torture just to kill someone (who in my opinion did not deserve to be killed). I think you were meant to be sort of against Ellie's actions at that point, and that's reinforced by the moment you actually find Abby. The game puts another buff woman with a plait in front of you on that pillar to make you think that's Abby, so that when you do find her you're like "oh…wow…" - she's had her head shaved, she is half the size she was before, she is literally about to die. I think anyone who got to that moment and was still like "**** this bitch, gotta stab her now" is crazy.
Ellie first walks away to another boat and is about to get in it before she sees Joel's broken face again and it pushes her back into "no, I have to end this" mode. So she holds a knife to a dying child's throat, and challenges an unarmed, dying woman to a fight to the death while wielding a knife. It felt absolutely horrible, and it was meant to. When you've utterly defeated Abby anyway and Ellie has shown she actually can kill her, she sees Joel's face and is reminded that it will achieve nothing. I guess you could say that logical leap doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I was happy with it because I was so relieved she lets Abby go, who I genuinely felt for the entire way through - I mean her dad was actually innocent and was murdered ffs.
Only after this does Ellie grow. She goes back to the house, she holds Joel's guitar for the last time and sets it down and walks away, free from her baggage.I feel like what you've described as a better final scene takes all the power away from what goes on in Ellie's head during the end. She needed to reach rock bottom to let go, and rock bottom was triumphing over Abby, it's just that that triumph was meaningless because Abby was near-death as it was, and she was looking after a child just like Joel had looked after Ellie. Ellie (and Tommy and Joel) had already taken literally everything from Abby's entire life as it was, there was no reason to take her life because she'd taken Joel's (who started the cycle in the first place).
I absolutely adored this game and could talk about it for years, given Naughty Dog's stellar record and the length of the development for this game I can't imagine anyone else could have told the story better, they admitted the structure and relationships in the game evolved all throughout the development so I'm sure they tried to tell the story differently but decided this was the best - I'm inclined to agree with them.
Anyway, in summary, I don't think that final fight was "just another bloody fight" at all and was an awesome culmination of the protagonist finally coming to the conclusion that the audience had come to hours earlier: that Abby was not the big-bad she'd been made out to be, and killing her would solve nothing.
@[Deactivated]: BIG SPOILERS AHEAD
I guess it just goes to show what an amazing game Naughty Dog made the first time around that we as players feel we can know a character and think we can predict them. We overlay what we want on the characters and for me, I had already given up on killing Abby bringing Ellie any kind of closure. Ellie was no longer a thinking person at this point - just a vengeance-hungry animal. She was willing to throw away her wife and child just to get "closure".
Bad things happen in life and we all want closure, but I didn't really think that killing a crucified girl would bring me any closer to it. Thankfully in real life we all don't equate death of our enemies with ending our psychological trauma.
Abby had already spared Ellie once. I felt like having Ellie spare Abby would have been a nice full-circle moment.
But my suggested ending is just one of hundreds of ways they could have ended it. It resonates with me in a way the game's actual ending didn't. There's plenty of people who liked the game's ending.Of course we (and every other armchair critic out there) can sit back and point out how the game should have finished in order to satisfy us. Normally I'd say it's a good thing that artists don't listen to these suggestions. In this case, I can't help but think that at some point in the development of the game, several people told Neil Druckmann that the game was going to be "divisive" and he said "hell yeah, that means it's good art". But it'd be a logical fallacy to think that way. Good art is divisive. Divisive art isn't necessarily good.
I enjoyed the game until I saw through it and felt the hand of the artist at work. You're not meant to watch a movie and noticing the lighting and set design. You're not meant to listen to an album and hear the work of the mixing engineer. Likewise you're not meant to be playing a game and to feel the game designers forcing your heartstrings to twang. You're meant to just feel it.
What game are you moving on to next? I'm just getting started with Control.
Abby had already spared Ellie once. I felt like having Ellie spare Abby would have been a nice full-circle moment.
But ultimately that is what happened. i was actually furious with Ellie leaving her partner and child for a woman who had spared her life multiple times and that she'd basically taken everything from already anyway. but that final scene just felt so emotional i couldn't imagine it any other way, and I didn't get any sense of the "manipulation" everyone else did, to me it honestly felt fairly organic except that we as the player were watching the story more than impacting it, but I was fine with that, I was just constantly curious where the story was actually going.
What game are you moving on to next? I'm just getting started with Control.
Control looked awesome on release but I heard it's marred by technical issues, how is it? I've started Ghost of Tsushima last week and am SUPER impressed by it, although it's an entirely different experience compared to TLOU
@[Deactivated]: I'm playing Control on XboneX and haven't found any technical issues at all thus far. Not sure I'm enjoying the game yet but I'm intrigued enough to keep playing. I may have ruined the game for myself by listening to Yahtzee's review of it before playing, in which he basically observed that for a game centred around combat with ethereal enemies, it's a pity they didn't have the imagination to make the gameplay something other than holding a gun and shooting bullets.
I wasn't sure whether I'd like Ghosts of Tushima or not - it sounded a bit too "open" for my liking from some of the reviews. I don't get as much time to play games as I'd like, so I enjoy games that have a strong narrative vs open worlds with lots of grind. Games like Just Cause and Assassins Creed are about my level of openness - you can pissfart around as much as you like between missions, but the story missions are clearly designated and in a comfortable linear order, and if you only have an hour to spare you can make the most of that time and progress the story. For reference, I am possibly the only gamer in the world who found Zelda Breath of the Wild to be boring. But I acknowledge I'm in a tiny minority there!
Hated the switch when it happened but as the game went on i began to understand and see from the other perspective which was the point. Not often you come away from a game thinking about the people you are killing and wondering if you were the actual hero in the story.
@astrotrain: Mod: [SPOILER ALERT]
Each to their own, but to be fair. Joel was never a hero type of character. If you think about the actions and his choices throughout the first campaign, he was brutal and didn't hesitate in the slightest. He was very weary and cautious of everyone, and his interrogations was gory and brutal.
Heck, put it this way, he pretty much wiped out the Fireflies and the chance to save humanity (pretty much been proven it was impossible but neverless) just to save Ellie because of his selfishness (in a way).
That was one of my favourite reasons why TLOU 1 was so enjoyable, I wasn't playing some white knight/hero, I was playing as a man who did everything regardless of the consequences (saving Ellie as he did not want to go through loss again with Sarah)
My biggest issue with TLOU2 was the way they structured the story. If they introduced her first, then at least it would have been deemed justifiable. But to have that major turning point so early on in the game and then be forced to go with it? Really sucks that they didn't nail that part, had so much potential.
@Crimson Shinigami: "If they introduced her first, then at least it would have been deemed justifiable."
but they did?
Get this and then don’t get tlou2.
Thank me later.
Get this and forget part 2 exists.
Have any of the overtly negative opinion holders regarding TLOU2 actually played it? Most people I know who've actually played it hold mixed or positive feelings towards the game whereas hive mind angry internet users seem to be the ones who dislike it despite not having played it
yeah….. I don't have to eat shit to find out how good it is.
Awfully philosophical of you, but doesn't put you out of the camp of people that hold a negative perspective of a video game they've never played
What a crap argument lol
Wouldn't say I am overly negative, but I didn't find TLOU2 that enjoyable. But games never appeal to all players. Bit of a warning though, the violence in this game is hyper real and won't appeal to a lot of people, but that was the developers intent and they did a good job in that regard.
Was it terrible? No
Was it repetitive? In parts, forced myself to keep playing, felt like a chore.
Playing as Abby? For me that was actually a fun part, the game play was smash and bash. Not like the hulk, but enjoyable at first.
The Story Expectations were possibly too high, doesn't hold a flame to TLOU (I didn't like the ending of that either). Not that I would say it was bad, I just didn't feel any connection to the characters. Aspects seemed forced to create emotions but felt out of place.
Sure it's not a 2 or even a 5, probably deserves somewhere between 7 and 8. But no friggin way did that deserve a 10.The internet critics on this one appeared mainly against ND and Sony for the way they handled the leaks, by financially penalising reviewers for mentioning that leaks occurs. Reviewers didn't even need to discuss leaks or any content and received copywrite claims resulting in demonstration and channels pulled.
Never before have they done this, normally they only target channels and people actually talking about the leaks and sharing spoilers.
NG and Sony's go-to response was that the hate was due to LBGT content, but they ignore the facts that LGBT content was in the first edition and embraced by 99%.As they say, no such thing as bad publicity, doesn't look like it hurt sales.
I appreciate your well-balanced perspective attained through genuine experience.
I personally haven't played either Last of Us, but thoroughly enjoy Naughty Dog's other franchises (particularly Uncharted).
While I won't sing the praises of a game I've not played as that would put me in the same camp as the bandwagon critics, neutrality has really shown me quite an ugly side to the influenced perspective many are holding towards this title.
The game itself is not really that bad.
The story or the twist, is actually acceptable because this is not the first sequel kills its main character
However, it’s never about what story is told, it’s about how the story is told. The arrangement of the events is just bad and unskillful. You make your audience hate your character before the character is built and bond is just a terrible idea.Also there are a lot OOC issue. The characters are not behaving reasonably or rationally as a real person would do. They are just tools to push a bad story forward.
Fairly speaking, the gameplay is still solid, better than most games in its genre.
However, I still hate ND’s manipulation of political correctness that he kinda say if you hate this game, you are a closed minded homophobic loser. If you don’t like the story, you are a stupid ass who has no appreciation for art. He tried to use political correctness as his weapon against the critics of the game and the story. He used up all the credits the naughty dog has built for years. He single-handly destroyed one of the greatest game studios. Good job ND.
The game itself is not really that bad.
I think people really undercomment on the game's quality and attention to detail. I'm not saying this is the best game ever, and I totally didn't like the pacing and the overall story, but the game itself was top notch quality wise.
in no way shape or form has Naughty Dog been destroyed lmao
I did play. I started it with hard but once I had to play abby, I just changed it to easy and played til end as quickly as I can. Game has full of Political correctness and the story line is awful, no make sense at all. The game play itself also boring, keep doing same things in every battles and it makes me bored with the awful story line. But the visual effect is the best of the best.
I’m not sure you understand the definition of “political correctness”. TLoU2 didn’t deal in political correctness (unless you think mowing down dudes with explosive arrows is politically correct), it dealt with deep themes that weren’t pleasant to deal with and that most gamers probably aren’t used to seeing, that would be more familiar to film lovers. The theme of revenge begets more revenge is relatively common, but ND just takes it to such extreme lengths they almost make it something new. The theme of seeing conflict from all sides is probably the hardest one for gamers because once you realise every faction is essentially the good guys, it becomes hard to enjoy blowing them up.
While we get the key themes, Neil's writing on this one has issues:
- The characters we knew (for part 1) all have behavioural change in part 2 (sometimes 180 degree change).
- That event was poorly written, not because of what happened, but why Joel all of the sudden became the trust worthy type.
- Tommy and Ellie both flip flopped in the game. Both of them are not the characters we knew in part 1.
- It is fine with all the revenge begets more revenge theme, but the antagonist got a happy ending and the protagonist, well…
- When looking at the story from the antagonist point of view, you see this quite unbalanced treatment.
One thing that makes part 1 great is some of those jokes and funny dialogues that lighten up the mood. The combination of Bruce and Neil makes the game more balanced, rather than gloomy throughout.
The game engine, graphics, sound are awesome. The story, however, isn't great at all. Neil wants us to see the story from the characters' views. Problem is those characters are inconsistent. The characters we knew all seem to do 180 decision making change. It's not we don't understand, it is we feel it is lazy, irresponsible writing.
The characters we knew (for part 1) all have behavioural change in part 2 (sometimes 180 degree change).
Not true at all
That event was poorly written, not because of what happened, but why Joel all of the sudden became the trust worthy type.
- they had no other options for where to go
- he's been living in a safe, gated community for 4 years and dealing with new people the entire time
- as Troy Baker put it, he only has his back to Abby in that room, because he feels like he'd be safe with her given he just helped her.
Also I think this is a really dumb criticism anyway. How else would you have written that scene? Abby's gang has no way of identifying people in the apocalypse unless they give their name, so how else would it even have happened?
Tommy and Ellie both flip flopped in the game. Both of them are not the characters we knew in part 1.
"why is there so much character growth in my 'rEvEnGe bAd' story?!"
It is fine with all the revenge begets more revenge theme, but the antagonist got a happy ending and the protagonist, well…
In what universe does losing literally all your friends and family = happy ending? she is alive, that's it. just like Ellie.
When looking at the story from the antagonist point of view, you see this quite unbalanced treatment.
wut?
the criticisms of this game, for the most part, make no sense. people hold a microscope over every detail of the writing as a way to justify hating it, and then use their misinterpretations to justify REEEEEEing to the whole internet. i'm playing Ghost of Tsushima now, by the logic of TLOU2 haters the game is complete trash since the gear you use wasn't actually created til 400 years after the events of the game.
Hot take: the acclaimed writers of a 94/100 aggregate scored game know how to write better stories over seven years than some random kids on the internet.
@netsurfer: I actually really enjoyed the game although I had the same issues as you with the story and characters. Personally an 8.5/10 for me.
It seems to me that fanbois can't accept that there are flaws in the game, especially with the story and characterisation. Neil Druckmann would've done better if there was someone in his team to help balance his work; I heard that quite a few left (from Uncharted 4).
Haters also can't accept that the graphics, gameplay, character models and voice acting are excellent. Granted, some people might not enjoy the gameplay and that's fair (for e.g. I was in the minority of people that did not like Skyrim although I would never say that it's a bad game).
yes I am a gamer not an arrogant game reviewer who looks down normal gamer. shit is shit, but ppl like you always say there is more flavor other than the shit which normal ppl can't taste. you just look same ppl like Neil.
I loved it, one of the best games I've ever played. Actually it's not really a game, it is a masterpiece in art and story telling
Seconded. I feel sorry for anyone who wasn't able to appreciate what this game is because of their emotional reliance on the first.
100% this. The majority of people it seems that had a real problem with the story of the sequel genuinely didn't understand the story of the first. I thought the first was a great realistic representation of "the human experience", with what you do in the final section. Turns out people loved it despite it going entirely over their heads.
Part 1 has proper character development and has a strong and powerful latter half. It also has some funny moments and dialogues to brighten up the mood from time to time.
The fundamental issue with part 2 is that those characters from part 1 are out of character in key moments, even Ellie. When you look at part 2, it is trying to provide a closure for the final event in part 1. Thing is, it does so really early on in part 2. Then, it spends a good chuck of it on the background stories. Problem is, it is actually quite simple. For some reason, the writers feel that we need more background stories. That's another issue. Those are essentially padding. It's fine to do that, but if you whack that into the latter half of your game, you are really asking for trouble (no matter how talented the actresses and actors are).
It's how rough and unbalanced the story is that's the problem. Everything else is attention to details. Neil's written approach of simple story, complex characters was done poorly this time. The simple story is delivered, the complex characters are poor because, exactly which relationship(s) is part 2 really about? Is it still Joel and Ellie? If yes, there isn't much in there.
@netsurfer: I really think you're being reductive here. Part II stretches out the relationship of Joel & Ellie at the end of Part I and puts it under a microscope. By the end, Ellie has undergone a lot of transformation and changes in her feelings towards Joel. I felt like it perfectly resolved their story, and the other stories that are told in the game are beautifully self-contained while thematically reflecting and contrasting Ellie's journey.
I understand critiques about pacing and a lack of connection that some people have with the other plot, but I felt it was executed very well and did justice to the legacy of the first game marvellously.
@OfTheOverflow: Part 2 dangles a carrot which is Joel & Ellie's relationship and string people alone. And, considering pretty much nothing plays by the book throughout, why does the ending need to "do the right thing"? The last bit of fan service between Joel and Ellie, while nice, is another contrast to the rest of the ending (leaving the guitar in the room).
There are beautiful moments in the game and technical achievement on this game is top notch, but the writing is all over the place. Part 1's ending ruined. A whole bunch of new characters which don't really advance the story in any exciting or meaningful way.
@netsurfer: Agree to disagree I guess, don't really understand how it 'ruins' the ending of the first game at all.
'The story' of Joel & Ellie was resolved, the new characters have their own story that compliments the concluding Ellie & Joel arc nicely. I found the new characters' story pretty compelling, but to each their own I guess. I'm excited for a hypothetical Part III.
@netsurfer: Joel and Ellie's relationship is the entire motivator for the whole story though? They can't just park that and forget it existed.
The last bit of fan service between Joel and Ellie, while nice, is another contrast to the rest of the ending (leaving the guitar in the room).
Huh? Can you explain what this means?
Part 1's ending ruined
Let me guess, you thought the first game ended with Joel being presented as a hero? Spoiler alert: you got it wrong
Let me guess, you thought the first game ended with Joel being presented as a hero? Spoiler alert: you got it wrong
No, that's the whole point of part 1 ending (he did a selfish thing) and what makes it great. But, in part 2, this becomes a revenge cycle. It was suppose to have a high impact, but part 2 shows that this is now a personal issue. If it was so wrong, it should be made public. Why was a sneaky revenge necessary?
contrast to the rest of the ending (leaving the guitar in the room)
When the guitar is left in the room, it implies Ellie letting go right? So this chapter is closed, this whole thing is a lesson for Ellie. That's it?
It's fine to show us the bad parts of the main characters from part 1 and let them suffer. However, you don't need to exaggerate the other side to rub it in so much. The spitting, I don't think it is necessary. The final fight, Ellie did save Abby and yet it still resorted to a bit of dirty fight. It's fine to have a bitter ending, but antagonist is powerful throughout and got away with so many things. Ellie could have a happy ending too, but the writer dragged us alone and then did another 180.
Part 1 was well written, I really don't think Neil really had a proper part 2 planned.
If it was so wrong, it should be made public. Why was a sneaky revenge necessary?
public to who, dude? it's an apocalypse! Joel slaughtered what was left of the Fireflies, they fell apart after that, and it took several years to track Joel down. They can't just post on Facebook about it, or call their mates, or put up flyers.
When the guitar is left in the room, it implies Ellie letting go right? So this chapter is closed, this whole thing is a lesson for Ellie. That's it?
…yeah?
However, you don't need to exaggerate the other side to rub it in so much. The spitting, I don't think it is necessary.
are people actually offended someone spit on a fictional character? but anyway I think Manny spits on him to show just how big a deal this was to them, it wasn't just some random slaughter, they truly despised Joel to their very core (and for good reason).
The final fight, Ellie did save Abby and yet it still resorted to a bit of dirty fight.
well yeah, Ellie goes to get in her own boat and then remembers she's only come this far because she thinks she has to kill Abby. she ultimately defeats her but then decides killing her won't help anything, and it's true. I dont see the issue here? it was meant to be a dirty fight because Ellie thinks she HAS to do this, even though it's clear to the player that she doesn't
antagonist is powerful throughout and got away with so many things.
???
her dad = dead
her lover = dead
her lover's unborn child = dead
her friends = dead
her military friends = deadgirl literally has nothing left except this kid who almost died with her.
Ellie could have a happy ending too, but the writer dragged us alone and then did another 180.
but her ending was sorta happy (as you even said earlier, she finally lets go). i don't understand why people think a dead Abby = "happy ending". where was the 180?
I really don't think Neil really had a proper part 2 planned.
this was written by several people including the actors of these characters over 7 years, I think they did an awesome job. they don't have a full plan for a part 3 yet either but I'm sure it'll be amazing.
@[Deactivated]: The reason Abby didn't let Joel know is because the game needs it that way isn't it?
No one says a dead Abby is a happy ending. The dirty fight is what Abby did to Ellie. Anyway, it doesn't need that. It actually makes what happened later (Ellie letting her go) harder to believe.
It is interesting that actor(s) and actresses Neil likes all survived. Wouldn't it be more impactful if that kid who almost died for Abby also died? Die while saving Abby perhaps?
Ellie goes to get in her own boat and then remembers she's only come this far because she thinks she has to kill Abby. she ultimately defeats her but then decides killing her won't help anything, and it's true. I dont see the issue here? it was meant to be a dirty fight because Ellie thinks she HAS to do this, even though it's clear to the player that she doesn't
A 180 is a one 180. You go through all that trouble, force your opponent to fight you and she did some nasty things to you. Then, a flashback and you go 180. All that because another character did a 180 earlier on. That's the issue. One 180 is okay, but you do that repeatedly on characters, by the time you reached the 3rd 180, you start to feel it is just ridiculous. It is the build up from earlier ones hurting the last one. It also cheapens the bond between that character and Joel. You lessen it, then harden it for one character. You harden it, lessen it, harden it, lessen it for another character.
Some cheap deaths in the game. Again, once you start doing that, it becomes harder for players to accept deaths later on which are suppose to be impactful.
Anyway, I think Naughty Dog is better off with a new IP. While it is a fantastic team effort, someone really needs to pull Neil back a bit. There used to be Bruce and Amy earlier on to pull things back.
@[Deactivated]: I was trying not to spoil too much. Anyway, the short of it is this:
While it is understandable the writers made a brave decision earlier on, they put in a big gamble (by choosing to let a fan favourite character go cheaply). They didn't make that a tough fight or a struggle (which would make it a lot easier for fans to accept) does show guts. As such, you would think they have something really good planned later on.
Problem is, they have characters (Tommy, Dina) doing things which are really out of characters at certain key moments. We get why - because it makes setting up future events easier. Mel, she should not be out there fighting, but we know why - because to setup an event later on. It's fine to have some shocking moments, but you generally try to keep the rest of the story organic to balance it out. If you keep on doing abnormal things, players will tune out of the story.
The story is just a very messy revenge cycle, and by putting in talented, arguable one of the best actresses in gaming business as the antagonist, anyone who doesn't like the story or that character is being unfair or biased. Another talented actor was put in so if you have issue with LGBTQ, again, it is your fault. The reality is that we have no issue with the actress, actor, or LGBTQ in part 2. It's using them as an excuse that no story with those involved can possibly be bad that's annoying. Same goes for the ending. It is bitter and if you don't like it, it is your fault and you don't understand (as how can you possibly expect a comfortable ending after such a bumpy journey).
they have characters (Tommy, Dina) doing things which are really out of characters at certain key moments.
no they didn't
Mel, she should not be out there fighting
this I do agree with, how tf did this heavily pregnant woman traverse that environment
if you have issue with LGBTQ, again, it is your fault.
it sure is!
It's using them as an excuse that no story with those involved can possibly be bad that's annoying.
no one has said that
It is bitter and if you don't like it, it is your fault
no one is "at fault", but you've missed the point if you dont get it. you could say that's the fault of the writing that some people got it immediately and thought it was amazing while others didnt get it at all, maybe 100% of people should have gotten it, HOWEVER everyone loves the original but if you read the hate, people don't even understand the ending to THAT game, but they were free to live in their fantasy world for 7 years til the sequel showed up and told them how it really was meant to be interpreted it. it is definitely on them for not being able to grasp basic storytelling fundamentals (the "Joel did nothing wrong" crowd is extremely stupid), then they blame the writing of the sequel when that wasn't the problem
What a (profanity) bargain. Imagine if only it was free a few months ago on ps+
Great game. Easily in my top 10 favourite games of all time. Played both the first and the second but I have to say that the first was better at the time it was released compared to the second.
This is a very good 16 hour movie
Does this include the bonus content?
Like actual revenge at the end of a revenge plot?
You didn't understand the point of the story, did you fam
The point of any revenge story is to get your revenge at the end. There's no expression that goes "when seeking revenge just dig one grave for yourself, because probably you won't get your revenge at the end". It's like the lamest Clint Eastwood movie ever.
@AustriaBargain: "it's just a basic revenge story"
"why isn't my basic revenge story predictable enough"
TLOU2 haters really are the dumbest part of the internet
@[Deactivated]: You're meant to be left feeling bad about killing her. That's the point of any revenge story. You're not meant to be left not feeling bad about not killing her.
That's the point of any revenge story
"why isn't my basic revenge story predictable enough"
@[Deactivated]: Predictable would be if she didn't kill her at the end, because she thought about Sam's good nature right at the last moment. Oh wait, that's what they did.
@[Deactivated]: I played it. I know all about all the main mission moments and most of the early sidequests. I just can't remember the name of that guy I guess.
@[Deactivated]: It is a basic revenge story. The problem with part 2 is the story is too simple. It's just revenges. Then, you want to push the idea of complex characters. Issue is that it is dangerous to go character building for so long and expect player experience not be get pear shaped. Too much on Abby's side stories. All those extra characters for her story arc and then to kill them off. Not to mention you put Abby in the most unenviable position at the beginning.
To be fair, the expectation on the story side is too high for part 2.
It's one thing to be brave, but don't go overboard too often. We know TPTB (Neil) can decide on everything. Problem is, Naughty Dog need to take on some player feedback, rather than it's their way or the high way. We will give Naughty Dog plenty of concession and free brownie points for their earlier work and professionalism. However, when we fork out our money to support ND, please don't go overboard on some weird ideas all the time. That's not the direction we want to see from ND.
Naughty Dog need to take on some player feedback, rather than it's their way or the high way.
The game has a review aggregate of 94/100, the haters are very much in the minority. They don't have to listen to any of this, because the feedback isn't even consistent. Of the haters you're all split into little groups, some simply hate Abby, some thought Joel was a hero and should never die, some think it's pushing an agenda and some think it's too simple (???).
The feedback they should take into consideration is sales and reviews, cos people have NO idea what they want. Situations where fans have written the story have been awful, that happened for future seasons of Heroes and it completely destroyed the show.
@[Deactivated]: No, that's not true. Given what happened in part 1, it is not a surprise that Joel…. The annoying part is the way it is done.
Quoting Angry Joe's review:
They completely destroyed Ellie. Ellie is beyond dark. She goes into the murder streak after already having closure, having the most ideal life. This game spits on the original story. It undermines it. It diminishes it. It leaves our characters in a much worse place. It is beyond tragedy, it is more parody and on purpose, without a profound message at the end that make those types of stories bittersweet.
They tried to show two characters at once, but they cannot show Abby and Ellie in a fair and meaningful way. They give Abby everything (all the agency, all the attention).
They started with something truly bold, but the problem is with believability. You need to have perfect pacing, meaningful dialogue, endearing you to characters, tying everything together, but the problem is they didn't.
Anyway, the animators and the developers are truly top notch and really pull this game back up in a big way.
@[Deactivated]: That's based on critic reviews and there's also a lot of unscored reviews that were more critical of the game. Whilst I liked the game, it's definitely not perfect. The fact that it has over 100k reviews with an average of 5.5 on metacritic indicates that a lot of people did not like this game. To put it into perspective, GTA V and The Witcher 3 sold 130+ million and 28+ million copies respectively and they both had less than 15k user reviews.
I don't take it personally when someone doesn't have the same taste as me.
@driew: metacritic user review is absolutely worthless given how many 0/10 reviews came within hours of the game's official release. to balance it a heap of people then gave it 10/10s. that score means nothing at all due to the capital G Gamers who had to make their voice heard before playing the damn game
Includes:
Left Behind - a story DLC
Abandoned/Reclaimed Territories - multiplayer maps
Grounded Mode - extra hard difficulty modethanks mate. worth the purchase then.
So you're the person who hasn't already played it! :P
But yes, it is as essential a game as any that has ever been made. And really, for the price, it's a low risk propsition. Best case, you get one of the greatest games of all time for an absolute steal. Worst case you don't like it and you're out 12 bucks plus change.
Do bear in mind that it's still basically a PS3 game, though. There's a gap in visual quality compared to modern day AAA PS4 games like TLOU2 or RDR2. Although this PS4 remaster does give it a pretty nice spruce up, and a much better frame rate than the original PS3 version.
It does include the Left Behind dlc
What disappointed me most about the second game was the lack of a multiplayer. I played Factions in TLOU1 so many times, on both PS3 and PS4 (and played through the story on both versions as well). I was stoked to finish the long single player campaign in TLOU2 and jump into Factions so I wouldn't have any spoilers, then I realised they hadn't made it as part of the game but may put it out as a separate multiplayer at some point in future.
Understandable, I also loved Factions. But I'm glad ND put all their resources on delivering an uncompromised single-player story first and foremost.
My money is on a standalone multiplayer release that expands on Part II's gameplay suite down the road. Crossplay with PS4 and PS5, book it.I agree, I was super pumped for the multiplayer, but they did make the single player like 30 hours long. It's the longest linear single player campaign I think I've ever played, and none of it felt rushed or tacked on. They've said MP is still coming though so I'm just gonna sit around and hype myself up for that.
I don't mind as I mostly play single player games. Also I would've preferred they spend their resources crafting an excellent single player campaign rather than half arsing it on both. Look at what happened with Resident Evil 3 and the Resistance multiplayer. Resistance is average at best and RE3 is one of the shortest AAA games I've ever played.
Excellent game. More fun than the second for sure. But I’d actually say the second game is the better game. It’s not fun to play, but it’s a more visceral experience.
I never bought this because I read there are a ton of cut scenes. Make me change my mind
TLoU (1) is a game that has a strong latter half and it is the latter half that makes the game great. So, if you don't have the patience to really sink some time on it, then you are better off not buying or wait for the price to drop further. It was free for PS Plus a few months ago.
You need to enjoy stealth play. You don't need to worry about cutscenes because there is a lot of game play.
There are a huge amount but it's worth it. It's a story-driven game, but the gameplay is good if a little dated. If you like the Uncharted games but would be interested in something a bit slower but more intense, you'll enjoy it. $12 is pretty good for like 15 hours of enjoyment, and it has multiplayer.
I think it holds up pretty well considering the game first came out on PS3 in 2013 and the remastered version a year later though I do agree that gameplay is a little dated.
good……