Why do people dislike Part II so much?

[ClearlyHopeless]

I'm curious as to the actual reasons people dislike part 2. I know a lot of people didn't like Joel dying which, while understandable, isn't really a criticism of the game. The story wasn't as good as the first game, most video game stories aren't, but it was still pretty good and had it's own message. I've also noticed a lot of people mentioning some kind of "agenda" that the game creators were trying to push, but I don't see that either. Ellie was already confirmed gay by the first game, buff women exist, and there is a trans boy in the game who is one of my personal favorite characters from the game. The game/plot never stops to display some kind of agenda, these are just people living in this world. If the game just wasn't for you I can understand, but I haven't heard people actually say why they disliked this game, usually it's just "part 2 sucks" and nothing more. So, if you dislike Part II please tell me why and ideally have it be as specific as possible

EDIT: I'd like to make some amendments to my previous statements. I have heard enough people mention some good enough points for disliking Joel's death that I consider it a valid criticism IF your reasons hold water. The buff women thing is also contested as someone has pointed out that she may be too big considering it's an apocalypse but I'm not entirely sure if that's true or not. I've also noticed a lot of the "agenda" crowd is very obviously just anti-whatever group of people, one going so far as to call it a "Jewish dystopia" for featuring a Jewish character. However, one user pointed out to me that there may be some Israeli politics in the game which, since I don't know much about that situation, is all I'll comment on. This thread has become more of a discussion about Part II between those who liked it and didn't like it and I'm fine with that. Just know that going in. :)

[zhhhhhhhhhhhheir]

They don't even know why the game is bad, they only follow popular opinions and surely they didn't even play the game.

[Pusto]

Thx for spoiler

[James™]

İlk olarak ClearlyHopeless tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Elevna tarafından gönderildi:

I simply don't like it because I think the way Joel's death in general is extremely badly written and forced, and the entire plot being based around revenge for this stupidly written death is even worse. On top of that, the game tries to force you to play as and sympathize with the one who killed Joel.
I played part 2 myself, apart from the badly written death I actually enjoyed the game up until the part where it switches to playing as Abby later in the game and goes back to the start of the week. After about an hour into that I just got too bored of it to play for the reason of I simply refuse to sympathize with this character.
What makes it even worse for me is that the plot of this game existing kinda ruins the first game in a way, because it's like, oh yeah the events of the first game happened and Ellie and Joel are at the settlement now, but it dosen't really matter, since Joel is gonna die in the dumbest way possible in like 3 years from now. Which sucks since the first game by itself is so amazing in pretty much every way.
I think people who are liking the HBO show including me, it's like, it's the first show where people love it while simultaneously hoping that season 2 dosen't happen lol. Because you know season 2 would just be the plot of the second game = Joel dies in this too.
And for the record Joel dying isn't a problem, it's how his death was written so poorly. If he had died in a more meaningful and well written way that encompassed a greater overall story there would be no issue.

I've mentioned Joel's death in other responses so I won't go too hard into it here but I can understand. I don't think it was TERRIBLE but it could have been done better. I think he died kind of non-meaningful death mainly to show how the world of The Last of Us is. This is our world and sometimes people just...die. Though if you didn't manage to sympathize with Abby then that's understandable and would sort of ruin the game for you. I don't understand why you think that Joel dying makes the first game "not matter". The first game still happened, the consequences of that literally make Joel die. In what way does it not matter?

IN MY OPINION I really do think it's terribly written because it just isn't believable. For instance Joel and Tommy have lived in the apocalypse for 20+ years and right after saving Abby and her crew Tommy says who they are and where they live. Tommy even offers them supply's right after meeting them. It really doesn't make any sense considering how long they've survived. But that's just my opinion.

[Ramschasar]

I think there is a crowd of loud people on youtube, forums that tell everyone how much they hate the game. Most people i know which just played the game and then took it to the side, say its great.

[GoodComrade]

İlk olarak Ramschasar tarafından gönderildi:

I think there is a crowd of loud people on youtube, forums that tell everyone how much they hate the game. Most people i know which just played the game and then took it to the side, say its great.

your imaginary friends are not real. You are literally 70th person who repeats the same thing "pEoPle wAtcH yOuTubE aNd ForUms tHuS hAtE" stop spreading lies.

Part 1 is great but Part 2 has a stupid story which dont make sense. Gameplay and Graphics? Awesome! but people mostly focus on the story. So your imaginary friends probably enjoyed the gameplay and that is why loved it.

I have a friend who dont care about story and thinks graphics what makes the game great which is absolutely stupid

[Ramschasar]

Sure.

[Blacksmyth Zephlyn]

Never did I say you "offended me"nor have that thought process when responding but I see you're just jumping to conclusions which is a typical behavior pattern I've noticed in people that defend The Last of Us Part 2...or really any game that gets a huge amount of criticism so let me instead say that our viewpoints are completely different. And this goes across the board with the entire fanbase hence why everyone is so divided with it.


You view the story based on how YOU perceive and feel it while I view it from an objectionable standpoint and this is totally fine. A lot of your defenses see going along the lines of "Well maybe this..." or "I assume..." because you think that certain characters are feeling something that the game isn't explaining too well like how you feel Ellie was probably too "emotionally stressed" to find her map. This would never be the case in real life especially since you wouldn't know your way around a city in a post apocalyptic area that you've hardly been in but like I said we view this both differently.


You say it's "an understandable response" to torturing someone yet never explain why. Just because someone did it in real life doesn't mean it's the right thing to do or what people would do and also you never gave any examples of someone doing it IRL so your claim of someone doing it IRL in this type of scenario is kinda moot. You also never answered my question pertaining to Jerry's death being inconvenient and Joel's being premeditated so it's not really the same even if you think it's an understandable response. Once again, you're just viewing it from your own thoughts and feelings rather then viewing it from an objectionable point of view. Once again, totally fine but it's hence why this game is divided.


You say Ellie's changed because she witnessed Joel's death then heading for Seattle but it's also seen before his death when you first play as her in Jackson she doesn't really have any sort of humor about her and during the time she went hunting with Tommy and Joel before she discovered Joel's lie about the incident. I guess she did play snowball fight with those kids so maybe it kinda sorta makes up for it but that's really about it. Also remember she collects cards and comments on them even after killing a bunch of people so the claim of "Why would she look at a handheld device in enemy territory" is kinda just conflicting. So you remember in the flashback where Joel takes Ellie to the dinosaur museum for her birthday? I absolutely loved that scene and probably regard it as the best scene in the entire game. Why? It's the only scene in the ENTIRE GAME that fully understood it's characters and why we loved them so much in the first game. Too bad it's placed in a very awkward point in the game after Joel's death making the whole thing very taunting from Naughty Dog. Really wish they had put this before his death. This is really just my personal opinion and really just a nitpick which I should've mentioned so my apologies.


Once again, your assumption about Marlene and Abby about Joel is exactly what it is an assumption. Because it's never explained which should be for very important things (not saying everything should be explained) it has to get called into question. You can make your assumption and I'm not saying you're wrong but it's just not proven. So I have to ask how these things happened especially since the game has proven to have so many plot conveniences without any explanations or clever writing for the matter. The thing for Jordan (thanks for getting the name) wanting to get information out of her is true but for what reason? To see if there is any more of her people out there? Sure but then Mike comes in and gives out Issac's orders to kill all trespassers and Jordan just disobeys
orders just long enough for Dina to save her at the last second. I didn't mind that scene so much until Jordan strangling Dina instead of just shooting both of them and being done with it especially since Dina kills Mike right in front of Jordan. All of this happening was just pure ridiculousness and why I got punched out of the immersion because this would never happen. Hence why I called it plot convenience.


I watched the scene to and yea Yara wanted Abby to be saved but even Lev questions why Abby should be cut loose since she's a WLF and killed a lot of scars. Like I said before just because they aren't with the serraphites anymore doesn't mean they would just help a random WLF member even if she saved her. So my point still remains.


Once again, you are making assumptions about Abby knowing anything about Joel and Tommy without very important evidence to back up your assumptions so it has to be put into question. I understand her knowing the name because of the conversation about Ellie traveling with Joel that's fairly explained but none of the other details about his appearance, him being related to Tommy or anything else was clearly explained in the game. Hence why it doesn't make sense for her to know she found the correct Joel since there seems to be a lot of people still alive considering how many people you kill in both games, any one of them can be someone named Joel. This also was really another nitpick I had with the game and something that comes down to personal opinion hence why I said it.


I think a sins video is great to describe my gripes I have with a game. While I don't have issues with everything that is mentioned in the video it does bring up a lot of the MAJOR FLAWS the game has that I personally had problems with. Especially since you originally were talking about people complaining about Joel being killed wasn't a valid criticism when there are other people that found it to be rushed just to have Joel die and completely invalidated all of his traits that were shown in the first game. It also talks about how Abby never actually felt any sort of distraught or regret for the actions she's done that caused her friends to be killed. The only two people that Abby seemed to care about was Lev and Yara after only knowing them for a few days which is not believable for us the audience to understand or relate with. They saved her only once so she's perfectly fine with betraying her entire miltia over two people she's known for a few days? Even the game questions it when someone (forgot who) says "Isaac's top scar killer having a change of heart?" So for the people saying that Abby has gone through the same emotional pain that Ellie did after loosing Joel did not see clearly that this was not the case and I'm glad that I wasn't the only person who saw this. Not sure if you watched the video or glossed over a few parts but I would say it's very informative.



We can go back and forth forever on why I didn't like certain parts that you did simply because we both view it differently. The original discussion was you wanting opinions on why some people didn't like Part 2 without complaining of the fact that Joel died or talking about agendas the game possibly was implying. I gave you my personal opinions and yet you're just trying to deflect my points because you felt things that I didn't. Like I said, I'm not saying your wrong but you can't just ask for opinions on a thread then attempt to refute those points because you felt something I personally didn't. This is specifically why I don't like giving out opinions that tend to be different from others simply for these specific reasons but it is what it is.

[DR GOO]

The LGTB stuff doesn't bother me at all. I love to see inclusion for sure. Ellie being gay is no problem for me, I can happily role play as a bi-sexual/lesbian female. The issue is Neil effed up the flow and player agency by throwing everything that was good about the first game out with the kitchen sink with an experimental cross-play.

All Abby stuff should have been cut-scene.
We should have played as Ellie 100%
Or as Joel up to his death and then Ellie.
There was no logic in being forced to play as Abby.

It would have been better sense to actually have played the whole game as Abby if you're going to do some ludicrous cross lore, which ends with the urika moment as to who she is and the death of Joel as an end.

That paves the way for part 3, back as Ellie
But no, it was bad writing and don't get me wrong I love Neils writing in the first game but he was not alone during the creation of that game, so after taking complete control over the sequel there was noone there to tell him:

"No Neil, that is not a good idea"

Not only that, the TV adaption was a complete fail right of the bat with the wrong casting.

[Corona Scurrae]

İlk olarak SUDAKA tarafından gönderildi:

They don't even know why the game is bad, they only follow popular opinions and surely they didn't even play the game.

I expect nothing else of people with questionable mental capacity to bust out occam's razor because you might actually have no argument, which begs the question, why post in this forum and make a fool of yourself?
just curious as to what you are trying to achieve by throwing bogus arguments around, despite there being thousands of well written, well structured critiques about part 2.

I guess ignorance is bliss and if you simply close your ears and put a shutter in front of your eyes, you never have to accept, your taste is terrible.
nothing wrong with that considering you are just part of the masses that believe consumption is a hobby and identity.

[nwad]

It was blatant propaganda first and a game after, just like Life is Strange 2 and the Dead Space remake. It's easy to find interviews with every studio that does this where they emphatically state they're going to shoehorn politics into their games. Their priorities are wack.

[ClearlyHopeless]

İlk olarak Mr. Wittaker tarafından gönderildi:

You say it's "an understandable response" to torturing someone yet never explain why. Just because someone did it in real life doesn't mean it's the right thing to do or what people would do and also you never gave any examples of someone doing it IRL so your claim of someone doing it IRL in this type of scenario is kinda moot. You also never answered my question pertaining to Jerry's death being inconvenient and Joel's being premeditated so it's not really the same even if you think it's an understandable response. Once again, you're just viewing it from your own thoughts and feelings rather then viewing it from an objectionable point of view. Once again, totally fine but it's hence why this game is divided.

It doesn't mean its the right thing to do and that's true, hence why I never claimed it was. I don't have an example where someone has tortured someone because they killed a loved one in real life because I don't want to find that nor do I think I need one. Torture happens, that we can agree on I'm sure and usually the person doing the torture doesn't even have a personal connection to the victim so I don't think it's unrealistic for a human being to do the same to someone who murdered their father. I don't think you're Jerry question was something I needed to answer. Just because someone kills someone "because it was inconvenient" doesn't make it better. Plus I don't believe I EVER compared Joel killing Jerry to Abby killing Joel so you appear to have read my response incorrectly. I never claimed they were equivalent hell the game never claims that. I'd also like to laser focus on this part "Just because someone did it in real life doesn't mean...[it's] what people would do". That's actually exactly what that means. If someone does something in real life...it's something people would do. What I'd like to ask is why exactly you believe Abby's actions to be unrealistic? You seems to think they are but you're only reason for that, as far as I can tell, is that it's a bad thing which, while true, wouldn't mean something is unrealistic.

I watched the scene to and yea Yara wanted Abby to be saved but even Lev questions why Abby should be cut loose since she's a WLF and killed a lot of scars. Like I said before just because they aren't with the serraphites anymore doesn't mean they would just help a random WLF member even if she saved her. So my point still remains.

I really don't think it does. Abby saves Yara, we saw that since we both watched the scene. Lev is hesitant naturally but he agrees when Yara tells him to. You seem to be saying that just because someone saved her life doesn't mean Yara would save theirs too but I don't believe you have any reason to think she wouldn't. Her character (from what I remember) is kind-natured. They don't trust Abby they just don't want to leave her hanging from a tree. This scene shows that Yara WOULD save someone if they saved her life so you'd need a good reason to show that Yara normally doesn't save people who saved her life which I don't think we have.

Once again, you are making assumptions about Abby knowing anything about Joel and Tommy without very important evidence to back up your assumptions so it has to be put into question. I understand her knowing the name because of the conversation about Ellie traveling with Joel that's fairly explained but none of the other details about his appearance, him being related to Tommy or anything else was clearly explained in the game. Hence why it doesn't make sense for her to know she found the correct Joel since there seems to be a lot of people still alive considering how many people you kill in both games, any one of them can be someone named Joel. This also was really another nitpick I had with the game and something that comes down to personal opinion hence why I said it.

Correct sort-of. I am making some assumptions that being that somewhere down the line Abby had been informed that Tommy and Joel were brothers. The game explains how she got Tommy's location and how she knew Joel's name. I'd imagine that if Abby was able to get Tommy's location she'd probably get his name too. I don't think appearances matter so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. If you are going into a small town like Jackson looking for a Joel Miller who's brother is Tommy and is probably pretty good at the whole surviving thing what with the journey across the country, and then you find a Joel and Tommy who say they are brothers and are good at surviving it's pretty likely that you've found your guy. Jackson isn't big and while people share names that would be a ♥♥♥♥ ton of life details to have identical.

As to the Abby not caring for any of her friends thing...I don't remember that being true but I would have to go replay the game again for certain. I'm fairly certain she is at least upset when they die so that's something I guess lol

The thing for Jordan (thanks for getting the name) wanting to get information out of her is true but for what reason? To see if there is any more of her people out there? Sure but then Mike comes in and gives out Issac's orders to kill all trespassers and Jordan just disobeys
orders just long enough for Dina to save her at the last second. I didn't mind that scene so much until Jordan strangling Dina instead of just shooting both of them and being done with it especially since Dina kills Mike right in front of Jordan. All of this happening was just pure ridiculousness and why I got punched out of the immersion because this would never happen. Hence why I called it plot convenience.

I already explained why I disagree with this so I guess I'll say it again. Jordan clearly wants to get information out of them. Ellie is tied up and Dina is pretty injured (maybe unconscious but I don't think so). Jordan, wanting information, decides he wants to tie them both up and so he makes sure Dina is unconscious before doing so. If he is trying to kill Dina there (which is uncertain but given the context I'm assuming he isn't) then yeah him strangling her is a bit dumb I agree. He get's and disagrees with Issac's orders since he believes it makes more sense to go info out of them than to just kill them. That isn't silly or unrealistic.

You say Ellie's changed because she witnessed Joel's death then heading for Seattle but it's also seen before his death when you first play as her in Jackson she doesn't really have any sort of humor about her and during the time she went hunting with Tommy and Joel before she discovered Joel's lie about the incident. I guess she did play snowball fight with those kids so maybe it kinda sorta makes up for it but that's really about it. Also remember she collects cards and comments on them even after killing a bunch of people so the claim of "Why would she look at a handheld device in enemy territory" is kinda just conflicting. So you remember in the flashback where Joel takes Ellie to the dinosaur museum for her birthday? I absolutely loved that scene and probably regard it as the best scene in the entire game. Why? It's the only scene in the ENTIRE GAME that fully understood it's characters and why we loved them so much in the first game. Too bad it's placed in a very awkward point in the game after Joel's death making the whole thing very taunting from Naughty Dog. Really wish they had put this before his death. This is really just my personal opinion and really just a nitpick which I should've mentioned so my apologies.

No need to apologize, that's what I made this thread for. I loved the dinosaur museum too because they felt a lot like how they were in the first game (because it's closer to that game in the timeline). I think our perspectives on Ellie appear to be completely based on what we think she should have been like during the game. I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to change a lot from when they were 15 or so. She had gone through things and the firefly question was always looming over her and Joel. She still talks and makes some jokes with Dina and Jesse but she doesn't make them as often anymore because of her experiences and just the fact the people change over time. She feels like the same kid to me but older.

Especially since you originally were talking about people complaining about Joel being killed wasn't a valid criticism when there are other people that found it to be rushed just to have Joel die and completely invalidated all of his traits that were shown in the first game.

Having discussed with people on here I think there are some valid reasons that people disliked Joel's death. It never bothered me but I can understand. I have noticed a few people just say "because joel died" in response to my original post though and those people were who I was talking about originally. I don't trust those sins videos mainly because if you just go back and watch/play the original piece of media you find that a lot of it is kinda crap. Like I said just from those first 5 minutes almost everything he said was either wrong or irrelevant, mostly wrong.

You seem, from what I read, to think I'm attacking your opinion when I'm really not. I disagreed with you and wanted to explain why. Going back and forth like this is how we learn and adjust our views. I did ask for opinions but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with someone and ask them to explain further. Especially when some of what they said I knew was inaccurate. This isn't an argument or an attack of any kind. We're conversing or debating depending on whatever word you want to use.

[ClearlyHopeless]

İlk olarak nwad tarafından gönderildi:

It was blatant propaganda first and a game after, just like Life is Strange 2 and the Dead Space remake. It's easy to find interviews with every studio that does this where they emphatically state they're going to shoehorn politics into their games. Their priorities are wack.

Which politics exactly?

[ClearlyHopeless]

İlk olarak DR GOO tarafından gönderildi:

The LGTB stuff doesn't bother me at all. I love to see inclusion for sure. Ellie being gay is no problem for me, I can happily role play as a bi-sexual/lesbian female. The issue is Neil effed up the flow and player agency by throwing everything that was good about the first game out with the kitchen sink with an experimental cross-play.

All Abby stuff should have been cut-scene.
We should have played as Ellie 100%
Or as Joel up to his death and then Ellie.
There was no logic in being forced to play as Abby.

It would have been better sense to actually have played the whole game as Abby if you're going to do some ludicrous cross lore, which ends with the urika moment as to who she is and the death of Joel as an end.

That paves the way for part 3, back as Ellie
But no, it was bad writing and don't get me wrong I love Neils writing in the first game but he was not alone during the creation of that game, so after taking complete control over the sequel there was noone there to tell him:

"No Neil, that is not a good idea"

Not only that, the TV adaption was a complete fail right of the bat with the wrong casting.

I don't know about the show yet since we've only seen the first episode but I think they're doing alright. Not great and not as good as the game but alright for new audiences. Anyway, I do think it would have been better to move around where Abby's stuff happens. I think we should have done Day 1 as Abby, then Ellie, and then repeat that pattern all the way through. You couldn't have done Abby's sections as cut-scenes since that's too long/many cutscenes. I believe the logic was to try and make you care for Abby which worked for me but evidently didn't for a lot of other people. I 100% agree with the flow being ♥♥♥♥♥♥ by the way they did the Abby stuff though. They needed to execute that way better.

[ClearlyHopeless]

İlk olarak James™ tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak ClearlyHopeless tarafından gönderildi:

I've mentioned Joel's death in other responses so I won't go too hard into it here but I can understand. I don't think it was TERRIBLE but it could have been done better. I think he died kind of non-meaningful death mainly to show how the world of The Last of Us is. This is our world and sometimes people just...die. Though if you didn't manage to sympathize with Abby then that's understandable and would sort of ruin the game for you. I don't understand why you think that Joel dying makes the first game "not matter". The first game still happened, the consequences of that literally make Joel die. In what way does it not matter?

IN MY OPINION I really do think it's terribly written because it just isn't believable. For instance Joel and Tommy have lived in the apocalypse for 20+ years and right after saving Abby and her crew Tommy says who they are and where they live. Tommy even offers them supply's right after meeting them. It really doesn't make any sense considering how long they've survived. But that's just my opinion.

For Tommy it makes sense to an extent. He's trying to build a community and seems willing to help those who need it. Joel is understandable and while it didn't bother me I can understand how it'd bother others.

[sick duck]

How many more years is this going to in fashion for? 5?