The Last of Us 2 - SPOILERS!!!

leggo

The Last of Us podcast is adding loads of awesome nuggets to this, about how this was seen as a second part of the same story rather than a sequel. For example, the parallels between Ellie and Bill from the first game, who warned Joel not to care about anyone but ended up alone and twisted by his pain. Ellie cared about Joel and the pain his death caused her led to her ending up alone and twisted.

I love how, at the root of it all, this is just a story about grief and how people cope with it (or don’t).

ThePott

Yeah I think that was definitely proven with them choosing the title of Part II instead of just 2. I think they do a great job drawing parallels between characters and imagery from the first and second game. I think even the Abby/Lev stuff was quite reminiscent of Joel and Ellie in the first game. There was also moments from Ellie's section of the game that reminded me of David in the first game.

gimli2112

ThePott wrote: »

Yeah I think that was definitely proven with them choosing the title of Part II instead of just 2. I think they do a great job drawing parallels between characters and imagery from the first and second game. I think even the Abby/Lev stuff was quite reminiscent of Joel and Ellie in the first game. There was also moments from Ellie's section of the game that reminded me of David in the first game.

Not for me, not even close. I'm coming up to the end of day 3 of Abby's story second time round and hate her even more this playthrough.
It's been a desperate struggle to get this far. If I don't platinum(I'm considering giving up) it at the end it's getting deleted forever anyway. Might play through the first one to wash away the pain of this.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

The Last of Us podcast is adding loads of awesome nuggets to this, about how this was seen as a second part of the same story rather than a sequel. For example, the parallels between Ellie and Bill from the first game, who warned Joel not to care about anyone but ended up alone and twisted by his pain. Ellie cared about Joel and the pain his death caused her led to her ending up alone and twisted.

I love how, at the root of it all, this is just a story about grief and how people cope with it (or don’t).

Ironically, the same could be said about some of the people playing the game.

ronano

Thinking about the game, I do think it's a fantastic game but have issue with Ellie going back to fight Abby, why go back from her perspective? I felt it was ptsd of Joels death and she needed to end it but it doesn't really tie into Ellie realising why Abby came for Joel in the first place. Anyone got ideas or good article?

Penn

ronano wrote: »

Thinking about the game, I do think it's a fantastic game but have issue with Ellie going back to fight Abby, why go back from her perspective? I felt it was ptsd of Joels death and she needed to end it but it doesn't really tie into Ellie realising why Abby came for Joel in the first place. Anyone got ideas or good article?

In my own opinion a large part of it was the fact that Ellie has deep regrets over the fact she and Joel never properly made up, and she never got a chance to forgive him for lying to her. So it goes beyond just wanting to avenge his death, but also the chance at making it up with Joel has been stolen from her and he died without her forgiving him. That's why the events of the dance and their last conversation is kept until then, that's still what's weighing on her mind as much as his actual death.

leggo

Penn wrote: »

In my own opinion a large part of it was the fact that Ellie has deep regrets over the fact she and Joel never properly made up, and she never got a chance to forgive him for lying to her. So it goes beyond just wanting to avenge his death, but also the chance at making it up with Joel has been stolen from her and he died without her forgiving him. That's why the events of the dance and their last conversation is kept until then, that's still what's weighing on her mind as much as his actual death.

Exactly this, it’s not even about Abby. You can see it in the way she pities her when she sees her being crucified and wants to have both of them just go their separate ways. But her rage is guilt at not being able to make up with Joel that she projects this onto Abby because it’s too painful when she weighs it up with all the good memories like the museum, even though we know by then that Abby was probably justified in her reasons (even if we don’t like the end result). On some more rational level, Ellie could probably admit that her and Joel had done some stuff in the first game that meant they deserved to be hunted down. But, again, it’s not about Abby. Her anger is at herself and her revenge mission is her doing what she can to make up to Joel.

The one thing everyone involved in the game speaks of is how the two would probably have been able to bond and relate in different circumstances, so that’s something that was a conscious decision.

RGARDINR

Wonder will there be a third game or a spin off of Abby down the line like the spin off for uncharted. Wouldn't mind seeing the fireflies if she meets up with them.

CastorTroy

Finished over Saturday, Sunday and today. Very good game. Some parts did annoy me but likely just because I wasn't very good.

Dina and Ellie looking for the gas reminded me a lot of the very similar part of Lost Legacy.

So often I thought it was done, then it kept going

Now just waiting for the cut content to be released as dlc including

Tommy's pov of the 3 days
Jesse's pov
And, of course, Alice's pov

El Gato De Negocios

Late to it but finished tonight.

Pretty meh about it.

Far too much filler imo, reminded me heavily of Days Gone and the stuff that dragged on for ages.

The first "ending" I felt like fcuking the controller through the tv.

The farm was boring and drawn out.

Really enjoyed the build up to the final confrontation. The ending though, bollocks tbh.

After all that we are expected to swallow that ellie has an epiphany moment?

Not buying it.

Pluses were that it was gorgeous looking throughout and the combat / kills were superbly brutal.

Cut about 10 hours out of it and it would be fantastic, overall though pretty disappointed.

bot43

Managed to avoid all spoilers and not read a single review. So this is as unbiased as I can be.

Overall it was a great game. Not without flaw obviously. Initially I HATED the change over to Abbie. Why should I care about the person I was hunting all along? But her story is very legit. Of course she hates Joel and her actions were completely justified. She is a good person despite what Mel says

My biggest issue was the first Abbie Ellie fight. I didn’t want to fight Ellie and hated that Ellie ran away. Ellie doesn’t run away. Then that farm cut. Just glad it didn’t end on that as it would have killed the whole game for me.

I have similar issues with the very end. Abbie doesn’t run away. But she does. Ellie’s epiphany I can get. She saw that Abbie had suffered at the hands of savages. She is haunted by a pretty crappy life. She has had enough death.

Personally I had hoped that an unlikely alliance materialised. In my head after Abbies capture and Ellie’s arrival I thought we would have the reunion as an attempted rape which Ellie’s thwarts due to empathy from her previous experience with Dave in the restaurant in part one.

Gameplay was so much less difficult that part one. Part one is an overall better game.

As mentioned I avoided all spoilers but couldn’t avoid the controversy and the wambulancing about characters and NDs “virtue signalling”. To that I say get a fecking life. If the fact that all your characters weren’t white and straight affects your enjoyment of a game I’d say seek help.

So ya. Loved it. Gonna miss it. But I’ve no doubt that part 3 is going to happen.

El Gato De Negocios

Was the controversy about Joel dying and Lev?

The Joel piece I loved as it was very much unexpected.

The Lev piece was no more than a passing, "huh" from me when it was revealed.

Stuff like this triggering people really doesn't paint gamers in a very flattering light.

leggo

I honestly haven’t seen any people giving out about Lev being trans, but I’ve seen loads of counter takes giving out about how disgraceful it is that people are giving out about Lev. Maybe I just missed the initial reaction while I was first playing the game and avoiding spoilers.

ThePott

I have seen it in some corners of the internet alright but it's not as widespread as some articles would have you believe. It's the usual 'go woke, go broke' brigade. I think the leaks actually might have helped it in that regard, people were almost anticipating the backlash to it so a lot of the moaning about the LGBT representation actually came before the game was available, while the people who actually had an intention of playing the game were avoiding the leaks so the backlash was people who had no interest in the game anyway and wasn't really picked up on by mainstream outlets for fear of spoiling the game.

People were definitely pissed about Joel's death. Which I was fine with but I think some people feel they were mislead by the marketing and expected another Joel/Ellie adventure and that made them angry. People are pissed about playing as Abbie as well, which you can probably again point to people feeling mislead. Threre's definitely problems with the game but people are having sort of knee jerk reactions instead.

SMC92Ian

leggo wrote: »

The Last of Us podcast is adding loads of awesome nuggets to this, about how this was seen as a second part of the same story rather than a sequel.

They can say what they want, it's a sequel. :P

Retr0gamer

SMC92Ian wrote: »

They can say what they want, it's a sequel. :P

It's like saying they are infected not zombies.

leggo

SMC92Ian wrote: »

They can say what they want, it's a sequel. :P

Like I get it if it wasn’t for you and you want to differentiate the two, I wouldn’t try stop someone mentally putting it in a box they felt comfortable with to protect how they felt about the first game.

I see where they’re coming from though. I don’t think they planned the two together, they admit themselves they conceptualised this (and Left Behind) after the first one was made. But they did leave loose ends and threads from the first untold: Ellie’s suspicion at the end of the original, Joel telling Ellie he’d teach her guitar and that becoming a defining part of this game etc. So I can accept it more as a second part than an outright sequel. For me a sequel, in the context I’d assume you mean it, is more when time has passed and they go back to try recreate the magic for the sake of making money. I finished TLOU in 2014 and remember talk of a sequel as soon as I went looking after that, it was always on the table, and I can believe that this story naturally flows from the original (eg the new Star Wars trilogy). I left the original assuming a sequel was on the cards based off the ending, hence me looking to begin with. Even the fact that “Did you kill the doctors?” was a big, deliberate talking point from the original...why include that tiny nuance that most of us didn’t even notice first time around at all?

I can totally accept someone saying they didn’t hit the high benchmark of the first one and having legitimate issues with story or gameplay, or that the risks they took didn’t work, even if I don’t necessarily agree myself. But I’d strongly disagree with implying this is just a lazy attempt to cash-in on the first game. This was made with a lot of thought and TLC, even if it didn’t work for some on an individual level. I’m still thinking about it weeks later and I haven’t had that experience with any other game beyond the original. Even all-timer games I adore like MGS and RE2, I could love them while playing and play them over and over, but they didn’t stay with me after I switched them off like these games have.

SMC92Ian

leggo wrote: »

Like I get it if it wasn’t for you and you want to differentiate the two, I wouldn’t try stop someone mentally putting it in a box they felt comfortable with to protect how they felt about the first game.

I see where they’re coming from though. I don’t think they planned the two together, they admit themselves they conceptualised this (and Left Behind) after the first one was made. But they did leave loose ends and threads from the first untold: Ellie’s suspicion at the end of the original, Joel telling Ellie he’d teach her guitar and that becoming a defining part of this game etc. So I can accept it more as a second part than an outright sequel. For me a sequel, in the context I’d assume you mean it, is more when time has passed and they go back to try recreate the magic for the sake of making money. I finished TLOU in 2014 and remember talk of a sequel as soon as I went looking after that, it was always on the table, and I can believe that this story naturally flows from the original (eg the new Star Wars trilogy). I left the original assuming a sequel was on the cards based off the ending, hence me looking to begin with. Even the fact that “Did you kill the doctors?” was a big, deliberate talking point from the original...why include that tiny nuance that most of us didn’t even notice first time around at all?

I can totally accept someone saying they didn’t hit the high benchmark of the first one and having legitimate issues with story or gameplay, or that the risks they took didn’t work, even if I don’t necessarily agree myself. But I’d strongly disagree with implying this is just a lazy attempt to cash-in on the first game. This was made with a lot of thought and TLC, even if it didn’t work for some on an individual level. I’m still thinking about it weeks later and I haven’t had that experience with any other game beyond the original. Even all-timer games I adore like MGS and RE2, I could love them while playing and play them over and over, but they didn’t stay with me after I switched them off like these games have.

What's with the mental essay? I didn't say anything about them game. Only that it is a sequel. The first game was written as only supposed to be 1 game, 1 story.

Funny you mention SW as the newer trilogy literally started where the second ended. So is that just a part 2 and not a sequel?

I've never once seen anyone question killing the doctor until around a year when all this TLOU2 was floating around, in 1 you had no choice, you couldn't not kill him.

johnny_ultimate

It’s a sequel. It is by any standard definition of the word ‘sequel’ a sequel.

The original game wasn’t planned as two parts, and even if it was it would still be a sequel. The Two Towers is a sequel to The Fellowship of the Ring.

I thought the game was decent, but honestly the creators need to stop pretending their wildly expensive shooty zombie game is some piece of unique high video game art that’s too worthy for common description. It’s a ****ing sequel.

leggo

SMC92Ian wrote: »

What's with the mental essay? I didn't say anything about them game. Only that it is a sequel. The first game was written as only supposed to be 1 game, 1 story.

Funny you mention SW as the newer trilogy literally started where the second ended. So is that just a part 2 and not a sequel?

I've never once seen anyone question killing the doctor until around a year when all this TLOU2 was floating around, in 1 you had no choice, you couldn't not kill him.

Why are you getting defensive? Go ‘way with that ‘mental essay’ nonsense. You clicked on boards.ie, went specifically to the video game message board, read a post about 500 posts deep into a discussion, quoted it with a pedantic point arguing whether something is ‘part 2’ or a sequel, and got a response from the person you chose to address yourself. You’re too deep to start acting above this discussion pal, sorry. :pac: I didn’t even argue with you, the first line of the ‘essay’ was me saying I respect how people choose to see it themselves. So if you’re on here trying to have a row to work through some stuff, leave me out of that thanks.

If you didn’t see people discussing whether you killed the doctors or not, that’s irrelevant. You had to kill the main doctor (Abby’s dad) but a big talking point of the first game was whether or not you killed all the doctors, because you didn’t need to. Joel did tell Ellie he’d teach her how to play guitar, then it was never mentioned again. The ending was left ambiguous because it was hinted but not confirmed that Ellie didn’t actually believe Joel’s version of events. These all happened and were loose ends they chose not to wrap up. So yeah I believe they probably had a Part 2 in mind (same way that the menu screen at the end of Part 2 is in Catalina and we don’t know where Ellie is going, leaving it open for another game). If you want to get super pedantic and believe these are all coincidences, that’s your right, but I’ve really no interest in continuing this super niche debate about nothing you’ve now made it weirdly confrontational, I just enjoy talking about TLOU2...

ThePott

I think the truth is in the middle with all of this.
Was a sequel always likely?
Yes, it's pretty rare for a platform exclusive to not become a series.
Did they always plan for a sequel?
They probably had thoughts of where the story would go next. Every creative team thinks of what a sequel would be even if they know they'll never make another one. Did they leave 'threads' there to continue if they did make another. Possibly, it's not uncommon. Ellie eventually finding out she was lied too was always something that could be explored later as was the repurcussions of Joel's actions. A lot of the things mentioned though can easily just have been there with no intention of a sequel but that they decided to pick up on when they went on to make a sequel. Naughty Dog have always questioned whether you were truly the good guy considering the actions you've done throughout the game, it's in the Uncharted series too. I always took the guitar line in the original to be more a sign that Joel was more willing to accept that there could be a better future and offering some optimism to Ellie and reassurance to himself.
Why did they call it a second part instead of a sequel?
The first game had a pretty conclusive story and was considered a masterpiece on the level not many games are. They possibly didn't want to call it a sequel as it would cheapen the first game in retrospect. It felt like quite a contained story so cynics may have seen sequelising it as a cashgrab. I do think definining something as a sequel or second part is pretty arbitrary. Then again it explores some pretty different themes and ideas from a story perspective, so I can see justification for them not calling it a straight-up sequel. I do think their intention for it to be viewed as a second part though is pretty clear from the title even if there is a fine line (if there's one at all) between a second part and sequel. Especially when you're dealing with two games that were likely not fully conceived at the same time.

I enjoyed the game either way so if they decide to do a Part 3 and call it a sequel or a third part of a story I wouldn't mind either way as long as it delivers like I feel these have.

SMC92Ian

leggo wrote: »

Why are you getting defensive? Go ‘way with that ‘mental essay’ nonsense. You clicked on boards.ie, went specifically to the video game message board, read a post about 500 posts deep into a discussion, quoted it with a pedantic point arguing whether something is ‘part 2’ or a sequel, and got a response from the person you chose to address yourself. You’re too deep to start acting above this discussion pal, sorry. :pac: I didn’t even argue with you, the first line of the ‘essay’ was me saying I respect how people choose to see it themselves. So if you’re on here trying to have a row to work through some stuff, leave me out of that thanks.

If you didn’t see people discussing whether you killed the doctors or not, that’s irrelevant. You had to kill the main doctor (Abby’s dad) but a big talking point of the first game was whether or not you killed all the doctors, because you didn’t need to. Joel did tell Ellie he’d teach her how to play guitar, then it was never mentioned again. The ending was left ambiguous because it was hinted but not confirmed that Ellie didn’t actually believe Joel’s version of events. These all happened and were loose ends they chose not to wrap up. So yeah I believe they probably had a Part 2 in mind (same way that the menu screen at the end of Part 2 is in Catalina and we don’t know where Ellie is going, leaving it open for another game). If you want to get super pedantic and believe these are all coincidences, that’s your right, but I’ve really no interest in continuing this super niche debate about nothing you’ve now made it weirdly confrontational, I just enjoy talking about TLOU2...

Defensive? People on the net read too much into things. I didn't read all that, just a bit, I clicked a bookmark, brought me here. I like both games but people are acting like these games are the second coming of christ, no they're just brilliant games, actually no the gameplay is a bit bland and janky, 2 has terrible aim mechanics and went on way to long but I love the characters and passion the cast put in. It's not OMFG and is a sequel. Neil has no intention of making a 2nd game, watch him talk to Troy.

leggo

I really don’t understand how people are getting triggered by that tbh. It’s such a tiny, insignificant detail that you can easily just choose to see your own way and not a single person on the planet is trying to take that away from you. I get that that’s what happens on the Internet but it doesn’t make it any less weird when it does.

I get exactly what they’re saying: some sequels are brand new stories just involving most of the same characters, some are direct continuations of the first story dealing with consequences and themes left open in that. They’re saying that it’s the latter, which it clearly is. But it’s a tiny perception thing that, again, you can choose to frame however you like in your own head and it changes nothing about either of the games.

For example, I see Harry Potter all as one story spread over different books/movies, I see Star Wars Episodes 1-6 as one story (and 7-9 as a separate one), and I see this as one story spread over two games. That’s me though, you’re allowed see any of the above your own way, and arguing about that is like arguing when you read a book that the way you imagine a character is ‘right’ and the way someone else does is ‘wrong’.

It's literally called Part Two

Not The Last of Us 2. The name in this thread is wrong to note

Yes it's a sequel but from day one it was indicated as a continuation of the first games story

He has a point about the game he made

johnny_ultimate

Putting the word ‘part’ into the title doesn’t absolve it from being a sequel. Honestly, a lot of this to me just rings as Druckmann and co being pretentious - and I absolutely HATE using the word pretentious, but can’t think of a more appropriate description in this case. They’re trying to insist the game is ‘better’ and ‘more worthy’ than a ‘mere’ sequel.

Lots and lots of sequels directly continue and expand on the narrative and themes of their predecessor - even widely acclaimed ones such as The Godfather Part 2 (which I’d imagine most creators who use Part 2 are trying to harken back to), Toy Story 2, Before Sunset etc... The Last of Us is nowhere near unique in this regard: although in a medium so infatuated with reboots, follow-ups, spin-offs... this is perhaps a more traditional and straightforward sequel than we often get.

It’s not a matter of being ‘triggered’ or argumentative: in this case, the very dictionary definition of a sequel is 100% applicable to TLOU2. And while I completely respect artists’ right to say and believe what they want about their own work, I equally respect people’s right to call out the artists’ comments as being horse**** when they clearly are talking absolute horse**** :pac:

leggo

But why do you care? Why if someone considers it all to be the one story told in two parts does it bother you to the point that you need to then argue with and try ‘prove’ that the way you perceive a story is the ‘correct’ way?

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Putting the word ‘part’ into the title doesn’t absolve it from being a sequel. Honestly, a lot of this to me just rings as Druckmann and co being pretentious - and I absolutely HATE using the word pretentious, but can’t think of a more appropriate description in this case. They’re trying to insist the game is ‘better’ and ‘more worthy’ than a ‘mere’ sequel.

Lots and lots of sequels directly continue and expand on the narrative and themes of their predecessor - even widely acclaimed ones such as The Godfather Part 2 (which I’d imagine most creators who use Part 2 are trying to harken back to), Toy Story 2, Before Sunset etc... The Last of Us is nowhere near unique in this regard: although in a medium so infatuated with reboots, follow-ups, spin-offs... this is perhaps a more traditional and straightforward sequel than we often get.

It’s not a matter of being ‘triggered’ or argumentative: in this case, the very dictionary definition of a sequel is 100% applicable to TLOU2. And while I completely respect artists’ right to say and believe what they want about their own work, I equally respect people’s right to call out the artists’ comments as being horse**** when they clearly are talking absolute horse**** :pac:

Never said it did

johnny_ultimate

leggo wrote: »

But why do you care? Why if someone considers it all to be the one story told in two parts does it bother you to the point that you need to then argue with and try ‘prove’ that the way you perceive a story is the ‘correct’ way?

Not going to lose any sleep over it, I can tell you that I do feel words and their meaning matter, and a developer suggesting the sequel they made is not a sequel just seems utterly preposterous and rather silly to me.

SMC92Ian

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Neil Druckmann's insistence on calling it "part 2" is a ploy to legitimise plot developments like Joel's death - which was a fairly obvious ass-pull in order to justify a sequel. Still a good game regardless but he should just own it as a sequel.

Even before 2 was announced I knew Joel was dying, it was obvious.