A Masterclass in How to Ruin a Franchise

[cypher]

Let’s be real: The Last of Us Part II is one of the most insulting, pretentious, and downright offensive sequels in gaming history. This isn’t just a “bad” game—it’s a deliberate middle finger to the fans who loved the original. Naughty Dog took a masterpiece, a once-in-a-generation storytelling triumph, and mutilated it beyond recognition.

First off, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: Joel’s death. Killing off one of gaming’s most beloved protagonists in the first two hours isn’t just a bold move—it’s a slap in the face. And how does it happen? Joel, a hardened survivor who spent decades navigating a brutal post-apocalyptic world, suddenly decides to trust a group of complete strangers with no caution whatsoever. This isn’t just bad writing—it’s an assassination of his character. It’s lazy, nonsensical, and exists solely to shock the audience.

Then there’s Abby. Oh boy. The game forces you—forces you—to play as the very person who brutally murdered Joel with a golf club. Not only that, but the narrative goes out of its way to try and make you sympathize with her. It’s the equivalent of watching a movie where the villain kills the hero, and then the rest of the film is spent making you feel bad for the villain. It’s manipulative, and frankly, it doesn’t work. Abby isn’t just unlikeable; she’s insufferable. And yet, the game expects you to root for her? Get out of here.

And what about Ellie? Our protagonist, our girl, the one we followed through thick and thin in the first game? She gets the worst treatment of all. Her entire arc is reduced to a nihilistic, miserable slog where she loses everything—her friends, her fingers, and ultimately, her soul. And for what? To make some vague, pseudo-intellectual statement about the cycle of revenge? No thanks.

Gameplay-wise, sure, it’s polished. But what’s the point of a great combat system when you’re constantly being forced to play as a character you despise, trudging through a story that actively punishes you for caring about the original game? By the end, The Last of Us Part II isn’t just depressing—it’s exhausting. It’s a game that hates its own audience.

People can spin this however they want—"Oh, it’s supposed to make you feel uncomfortable!"—but there’s a fine line between challenging storytelling and outright disrespecting your fanbase. And The Last of Us Part II doesn’t just cross that line; it obliterates it.

If you loved this game, hey, more power to you. But for the rest of us, it stands as a shining example of how NOT to do a sequel.

Edit after being banned on April 24.

So I got temporarily Banned [imgur.com]from The Last of Us Part II Remastered community hub on Steam, and not for harassment, threats, or anything remotely extreme. No, it was for saying “no one wants to be associated with you people” in response to someone proudly gatekeeping the fandom and trashing anyone who didn’t worship the game. That’s it.

Let’s be real. This wasn’t about "toxicity" or "community safety." This was about stepping out of line with the approved narrative. Steam’s moderation system has clearly become another ideological echo chamber where only one side of a debate is allowed to speak freely. If you’re not clapping like a seal for every divisive writing choice or praising every piece of AAA content as sacred, you’re labeled “toxic” and tossed out like garbage.

What’s hilarious is the smug crowd that celebrates bans like this as if silencing disagreement is some moral victory. Imagine being so insecure in your opinion that a slightly spicy comment makes you scream for a moderator. You’re not defenders of art. You’re thought police roleplaying as victims. You don’t want a fandom. You want an echo chamber where the only acceptable emotion is praise and criticism gets you exiled.

Steam should be ashamed. If you can’t handle honest disagreement, even if it’s blunt, maybe you’re not cut out for community discourse. Banning people over a single sentence like that is pathetic. And anyone cheering for it is even worse.

[CannabisTaco]

this is how you know its a great game with great writing, the women gets all crazy and emotional about it

[CrazyIvan]

I finished TLOU 1 on a PS3 long time ago, never bought PS4/5. This is the first time I'm playing TLOU2 and I just arrived at the Seattle Day 1 Abby chapter. I opened the forum to see if anyone agrees with me that this is a bad narrative choice.
Honestly I can't force myself to progress. I really do hate Abby and I don't want to play as her. I am very surprised the game forces me to try to understand her. I don't care about her, I don't care about her motives. The scene just before I am forced to play as Abby - she telliing her dad that she agrees with him to kill Ellie - just made me really want to punish her.
Why do I have to play as Abby at this particular moment, without anything that would convince me to do it besides game progress forcing me to? I don't know and I am not certain I will be able to.
Disappointing.

[Jesus puked...]

Diposting pertama kali oleh CrazyIvan:

I finished TLOU 1 on a PS3 long time ago, never bought PS4/5. This is the first time I'm playing TLOU2 and I just arrived at the Seattle Day 1 Abby chapter. I opened the forum to see if anyone agrees with me that this is a bad narrative choice.
Honestly I can't force myself to progress. I really do hate Abby and I don't want to play as her. I am very surprised the game forces me to try to understand her. I don't care about her, I don't care about her motives. The scene just before I am forced to play as Abby - she telliing her dad that she agrees with him to kill Ellie - just made me really want to punish her.
Why do I have to play as Abby at this particular moment, without anything that would convince me to do it besides game progress forcing me to? I don't know and I am not certain I will be able to.
Disappointing.

It wasn't just a bad narrative choice, they made Abby not likeable on every front on purpose, they even gave her adult female bodybuilder roided body, trans sidekick and then they forced players to play as her for the half of the game. It's woke garbage. Only complete morons can defend this slop.

[Grahf]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ♥♥♥♥♥ puked...:

Diposting pertama kali oleh CrazyIvan:

I finished TLOU 1 on a PS3 long time ago, never bought PS4/5. This is the first time I'm playing TLOU2 and I just arrived at the Seattle Day 1 Abby chapter. I opened the forum to see if anyone agrees with me that this is a bad narrative choice.
Honestly I can't force myself to progress. I really do hate Abby and I don't want to play as her. I am very surprised the game forces me to try to understand her. I don't care about her, I don't care about her motives. The scene just before I am forced to play as Abby - she telliing her dad that she agrees with him to kill Ellie - just made me really want to punish her.
Why do I have to play as Abby at this particular moment, without anything that would convince me to do it besides game progress forcing me to? I don't know and I am not certain I will be able to.
Disappointing.

It wasn't just a bad narrative choice, they made Abby not likeable on every front on purpose, they even gave her adult female bodybuilder roided body, trans sidekick and then they forced players to play as her for the half of the game. It's woke garbage. Only complete morons can defend this slop.

Yup and look at all the delusional creatures now.

[cypher]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Mitcheeta:

Diposting pertama kali oleh cypher:

I get what you’re saying, and I actually agree that some fans oversimplified Joel in Part I. Treating his choice at the hospital like it was unquestionably right does flatten what made that ending so impactful. But here’s the thing: the problem with Part II isn’t that Joel faces consequences. It’s that the way those consequences are delivered feels careless and emotionally tone-deaf.

Yeah, Joel says he’d do it all again at the end, and that’s a great moment. But by then, the damage is done. We’ve spent most of the game watching his memory get dragged through the mud by characters who never knew him. His death is brutal, sudden, and completely unceremonious. The story doesn’t give us time to reconnect with him, to sit with him, or even to mourn him properly. It almost feels like the game wants us to move on before we’ve had the chance to feel anything real.

I don’t think the characters drag him through the mud at all though, no one really condemns him. Tommy, the other person that witnessed the trauma that was Sarah, even says he would have done the same. Specifically at that point Ellie does not give a crap about Joel’s decision, there’s never a moment where she’s like Maybe he deserved it. And although I think Joel’s name was only dropped like maybe once or twice, Abby’s whole campaign is a parallel to Joel and it’s like she’s indirectly learning why Joel did what he did via bonding with Lev.

The problem with Abby’s story isn’t that we’re asked to empathize with her. It’s that we’re asked to do it immediately after watching her murder one of the most beloved characters in gaming in the most violent, personal way possible. And instead of letting the emotional fallout breathe, the game shoves us into her perspective and expects us to roll with it. That’s not bold storytelling. That’s just bad pacing. It forces a shift in emotional allegiance without building any kind of bridge for the player to cross.

Well not immediately, her campaign doesn’t start till way later. There definitely is a moment of initial Ugh really? when you first start playing as her (I really did not like seeing my upgrades get “reset”). But as I got into it I started to appreciate it. The game does not reward Abby for what she did either, all her friends are lost and the nightmares only get worse after Joel and only by doing Good does her torment turn to healing.

I’m not saying Abby’s side shouldn’t exist, or that the revenge theme isn’t valid. But the execution undercuts its own impact. The first half of the game is cold, relentless, and joyless. Joel’s legacy gets reduced to how much pain he caused others, while the love and humanity that made him such a complex figure in the first game get buried under other people’s grief. If you’re going to kill a character like Joel, you owe it to the audience to make it meaningful, not just shocking.

Well that’s what the flashbacks are for, right? Joel’s presence is still felt. Even after the drama of the truth, Ellie’s love never diminished and it turned into a violent rage at his death. Which is upsetting, it’s definitely a different tone compared to 1, but for me I appreciate seeing her reaction and how much focus what he meant to her got that’s what made it meaningful. Joel too went on a rampage on Ellie’s behalf. Joel being such a great character everyone loves made this arc more meaningful it really “challenges” the player.

As for Joel’s arc being “done,” I just don’t buy that. There was clearly more to explore in his relationship with Ellie after she learned the truth. Instead, we got a flashback structure that kept them apart and a story that focused more on retribution than reconciliation. The game fumbles what could have been a powerful, layered goodbye and replaces it with something that feels hollow and rushed.

The flashbacks didn’t keep them apart in a literal sense the flashbacks all include Joel, it did show them drifting apart but the narrative purpose of that wasn’t to permanently damage their relationship and moreso enhance the pain of his loss. There is reconciliation, and that was kind of point of catharsis that they had this moment before the end. I think that final porch scene was kind of like our goodbye to Joel. And if you are satisfied with him just being a flashback character depends on the person, I think the flashbacks are meaningful and it was an interesting way using the TLOU cliffhanger ie Ellie feels guilt at being angry at him for their final year(s). I do wonder how much of the complaints would have been waylaid if they gave him a more traditional emotional death, like Lee from TWD.

So no, I don’t think the game outright hates Joel. But it definitely doesn’t seem interested in letting players remember him as more than a catalyst for someone else’s pain. And for a sequel to a story that was so deeply personal and character-driven, that feels like a betrayal of everything that made the original so special.

Well that whole sequence with Ellie’s birthday felt like a tribute to Joel and a promise-kept kind of moment where we see Joel being a dad, and not only that the opening scene of him singing to Joel was really beautiful because of the contrast with how he was in the first game. And also just nice references like Ellie begging for him to sing at The University, or Joel promising to teach her how to play the gee-tar or playing along with her puns.

And it’s just really hard to articulate why I liked things without just being like “I liked it because… I just do OK?” My mindset for consuming media has definitely relaxed a lot, I used to be That Insufferable Guy who would be like “Uhm actually, Joel would not survive that rebar! What crappy writing!!!” without really asking why a scene like that works/happened, not to say that’s what you are doing. I give writers a lot more credit now because they pour so much of their soul into their product most of the time and I do feel the Passion radiating from both TLOU.

I get where you’re coming from and I totally respect that the game clicked for you emotionally. But honestly, I just don’t think the structure or the emotional payoff holds up, especially not for a sequel to something as intimate and character-driven as the first game.

Saying that characters don’t “drag Joel through the mud” feels like a technicality. Sure, no one verbally crucifies him, but the narrative implicitly does. Joel’s death is the inciting incident, but what follows is a steady stream of reminders that the world saw him as a villain. And while that could have been powerful if we were also allowed to see more of his humanity or his relationship with Ellie in the present, we mostly get silence, flashbacks, and regret. There’s no real moment for the player to sit with his loss because the game is so eager to move on to Abby.

Speaking of which, yeah, her section comes later, but that doesn’t change the fact that the shift is abrupt and emotionally jarring. The game asks us to understand the person who just murdered a beloved character before it even gives us time to process what just happened. And instead of earning that empathy through slow, deliberate storytelling, it just resets the game and says, now you’re her. That’s not compelling, it’s manipulative.

As for the flashbacks, sure, some of them are great. The museum scene especially. But scattering Joel’s presence across a few carefully chosen memories doesn’t make up for the fact that he’s essentially removed from the main narrative. And the final porch scene is powerful, yeah, but it’s too little, too late. It retroactively tries to patch an emotional hole the game spent 20 hours digging. It's like giving someone a heartfelt goodbye letter after they've already been blindsided by a gut-punch of a funeral.

I also think the whole “it’s supposed to be upsetting, it’s supposed to challenge you” argument gets thrown around too easily as a defense. Challenging doesn’t automatically mean good. You can tell a painful, devastating story and still make it emotionally coherent. The game wanted to shock us and subvert expectations, but in the process, it sacrificed the emotional groundwork that made the first game so impactful. Joel’s death could have meant something more than just kicking off another revenge cycle, but the game didn’t give itself the time or the interest to do that.

And yeah, I get that the writers poured their souls into this. That doesn’t make the story immune to criticism. Plenty of passion projects miss the mark, especially when they mistake bleakness for depth.

At the end of the day, I don’t hate the idea of where they wanted to go. But the way they got there feels cold, rushed, and hollow. And no amount of beautifully shot flashbacks can fix that.

[cypher]

Diposting pertama kali oleh CrazyIvan:

I finished TLOU 1 on a PS3 long time ago, never bought PS4/5. This is the first time I'm playing TLOU2 and I just arrived at the Seattle Day 1 Abby chapter. I opened the forum to see if anyone agrees with me that this is a bad narrative choice.
Honestly I can't force myself to progress. I really do hate Abby and I don't want to play as her. I am very surprised the game forces me to try to understand her. I don't care about her, I don't care about her motives. The scene just before I am forced to play as Abby - she telliing her dad that she agrees with him to kill Ellie - just made me really want to punish her.
Why do I have to play as Abby at this particular moment, without anything that would convince me to do it besides game progress forcing me to? I don't know and I am not certain I will be able to.
Disappointing.

Totally feel you on this. You're not alone at all. That shift to Abby's perspective is one of the most jarring and, honestly, tone-deaf narrative decisions I’ve seen in a major game.

You're fresh off watching this character murder someone you spent an entire game building a deep emotional bond with. You’re still reeling, angry, hurt, maybe even numb. And instead of letting that sit, instead of letting you grieve or process it, the game just goes, “Alright, now here’s Abby. Time to walk a mile in her shoes.” Like... what? There's zero emotional bridge. No breathing room. Just a hard reset that expects you to instantly switch gears and start caring about someone you actively resent.

And it’s not even about hating Abby as a concept. It’s about timing. You don’t try to humanize someone immediately after they brutalize a beloved character. That’s not bold writing, it’s emotionally manipulative. The game basically says, “If you don’t empathize with her right now, you’re missing the point,” and that’s not fair storytelling. That’s forcing a perspective, not earning it.

It’s crazy because Naughty Dog usually gets emotional nuance. But here, it just feels like they were so focused on making a “statement” that they forgot how human emotions actually work. You can’t cram guilt, grief, and empathy into a schedule and expect players to be on board just because the pacing says it’s time.

If you're stuck and unsure whether to keep going, that makes total sense. When the narrative push feels this unnatural, it becomes work to keep playing. That shouldn't happen in a story-driven game that’s supposed to grip you emotionally. Instead, it feels like you're being dragged through someone else's idea of what you should be feeling, and that's not just disappointing — it’s frustrating.

You’re not being unreasonable. You’re reacting like a normal person would.

[Kan3da.]

Diposting pertama kali oleh cypher:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Mitcheeta:

I feel like the people that think the game wants you to hate Joel are just being dishonest or something, I’ve made this point many times in the past but the 2nd game literally ends with Joel sympathetically saying he’d do it all over again. And people still come out of it thinking the game writers want you to hate him and his decision. This relates to the discussion years ago after TLOU1, a chunk of the fanbase defended Joel by saying the fireflies are just evil terrorists and scientifically there was no way to make a cure: so their way of defending Joel is scrubbing away any moral ambiguity his choice had, which does his character a disservice and ignores the compelling reasons he did it, and so when Joel’s actions have consequences they reject it and say the writers must spite us for siding with Joel.

The game doesn’t expects you to sympathize with Abby right away, they want you to hate her until you get her side of the story. Some people just couldn’t bring themselves to like Abby, which is fair but I don’t think it was because of any bad writing and more like it was rejected on principle. I don’t think Abby’s campaign was bad at all and her character was believable, most of the complaints regarding her character (aside from the just general idea of playing Joel’s killer) was frankly they didn’t like her design. I don’t think many people have criticism for the actual writing of her campaign disregarding the icky ♥♥♥ scene. I can’t really imagine any kind of rewrite which would make that chunk of the playerbase empathize with Abby, unless she was somehow written into the first game.

I remember when the trailer first came out a long time ago I felt so deflated in playing it because they made it so obvious Joel was going to die, and Joel was the main sauce for The Last of Us soup, so I get that feeling of dissatisfaction in regards to Joel content. After playing it for the first time in 2025 I got what they were putting down though and maybe the loss of Joel was already dulled over the years.

But I still think there was no literal reframing of Joel’s character, everything was already in TLOU1 even if Abby never existed the “sin” would still be there. The only difference is it doesn’t have the same impact without the firefly daughter losing her firefly dad, the only named firefly was Marlene and shockingly no one had any sympathy for her (I stan Marlene). What would have been reframing is if they for example pushed a narrative where Joel only did it out of some unhealthy obsession with Ellie, or something like that, but everything is consistent.

I think the reason I accept Joel’s immediate death is his plot line was already wrapped up, the only part left was Ellie’s reaction to the truth. All they really could do with Joel is see him enjoying being a dad again, and his reaction to Ellie’s reaction. I think Joel quietly letting Ellie be upset was in itself pretty good characterization because it’s like he didn’t care if she hated him (well he obviously would prefer being in her life) his priority was always her safety. Maybe there was more story to tell with Joel and I’m lacking imagination, if like Abby killed Tommy instead of Joel and it was Joel/Ellie going for revenge I could see myself loving that because obviously Joel/Ellie is more compelling than Ellie/Dina… but at the same time, that would have been the safe cowardly narrative route and deflate Abby’s revenge?

I get what you’re saying, and I actually agree that some fans oversimplified Joel in Part I. Treating his choice at the hospital like it was unquestionably right does flatten what made that ending so impactful. But here’s the thing: the problem with Part II isn’t that Joel faces consequences. It’s that the way those consequences are delivered feels careless and emotionally tone-deaf.

Yeah, Joel says he’d do it all again at the end, and that’s a great moment. But by then, the damage is done. We’ve spent most of the game watching his memory get dragged through the mud by characters who never knew him. His death is brutal, sudden, and completely unceremonious. The story doesn’t give us time to reconnect with him, to sit with him, or even to mourn him properly. It almost feels like the game wants us to move on before we’ve had the chance to feel anything real.

The problem with Abby’s story isn’t that we’re asked to empathize with her. It’s that we’re asked to do it immediately after watching her murder one of the most beloved characters in gaming in the most violent, personal way possible. And instead of letting the emotional fallout breathe, the game shoves us into her perspective and expects us to roll with it. That’s not bold storytelling. That’s just bad pacing. It forces a shift in emotional allegiance without building any kind of bridge for the player to cross.

I’m not saying Abby’s side shouldn’t exist, or that the revenge theme isn’t valid. But the execution undercuts its own impact. The first half of the game is cold, relentless, and joyless. Joel’s legacy gets reduced to how much pain he caused others, while the love and humanity that made him such a complex figure in the first game get buried under other people’s grief. If you’re going to kill a character like Joel, you owe it to the audience to make it meaningful, not just shocking.

As for Joel’s arc being “done,” I just don’t buy that. There was clearly more to explore in his relationship with Ellie after she learned the truth. Instead, we got a flashback structure that kept them apart and a story that focused more on retribution than reconciliation. The game fumbles what could have been a powerful, layered goodbye and replaces it with something that feels hollow and rushed.

So no, I don’t think the game outright hates Joel. But it definitely doesn’t seem interested in letting players remember him as more than a catalyst for someone else’s pain. And for a sequel to a story that was so deeply personal and character-driven, that feels like a betrayal of everything that made the original so special.

You didn’t want a sequel.

You wanted an emotional sequel to your feelings about the first game.

The story moved on.
You didn’t:

• “Consequences are delivered carelessly and tone-deaf”
  → This isn’t about consequence. It’s about a deep emotional wound the writer never processed. “Tone-deaf” means “this hurt me and I needed it to feel justified.”
  
  
• “Dragged through the mud by characters who never knew him”
  → Projection of intent. The writer can’t separate narrative complexity from perceived disrespect. Any criticism of Joel = betrayal in their eyes.
  
  
• “Doesn’t let us mourn him properly”
  → Grief suppression. The story didn’t hold their hand through loss, so they call it bad writing. They’re angry the game didn’t slow down and comfort them.
  
  
• “Forces a shift in emotional allegiance”
  → Again: cognitive rigidity. Can’t tolerate being placed in an opposing viewpoint immediately after an emotional trauma. That’s a processing failure, not a pacing flaw.
  
  
• “Joel’s legacy gets reduced”
  → Identity threat. The version of Joel that comforted them is gone, and now they’re being asked to accept other people’s pain as valid. That feels like erasure.
  
  
• “You owe it to the audience to make it meaningful”
  → Moralistic entitlement. They mistake personal emotional payoff for narrative obligation. “You owe it to us” is a fan-centric demand, not a critique of structure.
  
  
• “There was clearly more to explore”
  → Grieving what could have been. This isn’t an objective failure — it’s a longing for a different game that preserves the bond they weren’t ready to lose.
  
  
• “Doesn’t hate Joel, but…”
  → Denial masking resentment. It’s not that the devs “hate” Joel — it’s that they no longer centered his story, and the poster feels abandoned by that shift.
  
  
• “Feels like a betrayal”
  → Final confession. This post isn’t about writing, pacing, or character arcs. It’s about betrayal, grief, and the collapse of a personal narrative they had built around Joel.

[Talemann]

well i first hated it but now i really love that they did somethime entkrely different. No happy ending like in all other movies and games. I really also love movies with open endings. Why should i play the 11th assassins creed again where know what will happen?! If you have seen enough movies it is the same thing there. After 5 minutes in you can tell who is who. This game surprised when it came out.

[dazowx]

Worst writing ever. Woke, woke, woke. Sony get a clue

[Facts above feelings]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kan3da.:

Diposting pertama kali oleh cypher:

I get what you’re saying, and I actually agree that some fans oversimplified Joel in Part I. Treating his choice at the hospital like it was unquestionably right does flatten what made that ending so impactful. But here’s the thing: the problem with Part II isn’t that Joel faces consequences. It’s that the way those consequences are delivered feels careless and emotionally tone-deaf.

Yeah, Joel says he’d do it all again at the end, and that’s a great moment. But by then, the damage is done. We’ve spent most of the game watching his memory get dragged through the mud by characters who never knew him. His death is brutal, sudden, and completely unceremonious. The story doesn’t give us time to reconnect with him, to sit with him, or even to mourn him properly. It almost feels like the game wants us to move on before we’ve had the chance to feel anything real.

The problem with Abby’s story isn’t that we’re asked to empathize with her. It’s that we’re asked to do it immediately after watching her murder one of the most beloved characters in gaming in the most violent, personal way possible. And instead of letting the emotional fallout breathe, the game shoves us into her perspective and expects us to roll with it. That’s not bold storytelling. That’s just bad pacing. It forces a shift in emotional allegiance without building any kind of bridge for the player to cross.

I’m not saying Abby’s side shouldn’t exist, or that the revenge theme isn’t valid. But the execution undercuts its own impact. The first half of the game is cold, relentless, and joyless. Joel’s legacy gets reduced to how much pain he caused others, while the love and humanity that made him such a complex figure in the first game get buried under other people’s grief. If you’re going to kill a character like Joel, you owe it to the audience to make it meaningful, not just shocking.

As for Joel’s arc being “done,” I just don’t buy that. There was clearly more to explore in his relationship with Ellie after she learned the truth. Instead, we got a flashback structure that kept them apart and a story that focused more on retribution than reconciliation. The game fumbles what could have been a powerful, layered goodbye and replaces it with something that feels hollow and rushed.

So no, I don’t think the game outright hates Joel. But it definitely doesn’t seem interested in letting players remember him as more than a catalyst for someone else’s pain. And for a sequel to a story that was so deeply personal and character-driven, that feels like a betrayal of everything that made the original so special.

You didn’t want a sequel.

You wanted an emotional sequel to your feelings about the first game.

The story moved on.
You didn’t:

• “Consequences are delivered carelessly and tone-deaf”
  → This isn’t about consequence. It’s about a deep emotional wound the writer never processed. “Tone-deaf” means “this hurt me and I needed it to feel justified.”
  
  
• “Dragged through the mud by characters who never knew him”
  → Projection of intent. The writer can’t separate narrative complexity from perceived disrespect. Any criticism of Joel = betrayal in their eyes.
  
  
• “Doesn’t let us mourn him properly”
  → Grief suppression. The story didn’t hold their hand through loss, so they call it bad writing. They’re angry the game didn’t slow down and comfort them.
  
  
• “Forces a shift in emotional allegiance”
  → Again: cognitive rigidity. Can’t tolerate being placed in an opposing viewpoint immediately after an emotional trauma. That’s a processing failure, not a pacing flaw.
  
  
• “Joel’s legacy gets reduced”
  → Identity threat. The version of Joel that comforted them is gone, and now they’re being asked to accept other people’s pain as valid. That feels like erasure.
  
  
• “You owe it to the audience to make it meaningful”
  → Moralistic entitlement. They mistake personal emotional payoff for narrative obligation. “You owe it to us” is a fan-centric demand, not a critique of structure.
  
  
• “There was clearly more to explore”
  → Grieving what could have been. This isn’t an objective failure — it’s a longing for a different game that preserves the bond they weren’t ready to lose.
  
  
• “Doesn’t hate Joel, but…”
  → Denial masking resentment. It’s not that the devs “hate” Joel — it’s that they no longer centered his story, and the poster feels abandoned by that shift.
  
  
• “Feels like a betrayal”
  → Final confession. This post isn’t about writing, pacing, or character arcs. It’s about betrayal, grief, and the collapse of a personal narrative they had built around Joel.

Imagine using ChatGPT cause you are unable to put up an argument. You proved nothing.

[clownbabby]

the story would have worked better if they started with abby first and interleaved their gameplay

but it's still telling a story no one wanted to be told.

it's pretty much in line with all of the other "subversive" stories told around the same time when character deconstruction and assassination was still seen as fresh and intellectual

[PawgaliciouS QueeN]

Diposting pertama kali oleh clownbabby:

the story would have worked better if they started with abby first and interleaved their gameplay

but it's still telling a story no one wanted to be told.

it's pretty much in line with all of the other "subversive" stories told around the same time when character deconstruction and assassination was still seen as fresh and intellectual

Yeah "no one".

[Kan3da.]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Facts above feelings:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kan3da.:

You didn’t want a sequel.

You wanted an emotional sequel to your feelings about the first game.

The story moved on.
You didn’t:

• “Consequences are delivered carelessly and tone-deaf”
  → This isn’t about consequence. It’s about a deep emotional wound the writer never processed. “Tone-deaf” means “this hurt me and I needed it to feel justified.”
  
  
• “Dragged through the mud by characters who never knew him”
  → Projection of intent. The writer can’t separate narrative complexity from perceived disrespect. Any criticism of Joel = betrayal in their eyes.
  
  
• “Doesn’t let us mourn him properly”
  → Grief suppression. The story didn’t hold their hand through loss, so they call it bad writing. They’re angry the game didn’t slow down and comfort them.
  
  
• “Forces a shift in emotional allegiance”
  → Again: cognitive rigidity. Can’t tolerate being placed in an opposing viewpoint immediately after an emotional trauma. That’s a processing failure, not a pacing flaw.
  
  
• “Joel’s legacy gets reduced”
  → Identity threat. The version of Joel that comforted them is gone, and now they’re being asked to accept other people’s pain as valid. That feels like erasure.
  
  
• “You owe it to the audience to make it meaningful”
  → Moralistic entitlement. They mistake personal emotional payoff for narrative obligation. “You owe it to us” is a fan-centric demand, not a critique of structure.
  
  
• “There was clearly more to explore”
  → Grieving what could have been. This isn’t an objective failure — it’s a longing for a different game that preserves the bond they weren’t ready to lose.
  
  
• “Doesn’t hate Joel, but…”
  → Denial masking resentment. It’s not that the devs “hate” Joel — it’s that they no longer centered his story, and the poster feels abandoned by that shift.
  
  
• “Feels like a betrayal”
  → Final confession. This post isn’t about writing, pacing, or character arcs. It’s about betrayal, grief, and the collapse of a personal narrative they had built around Joel.

Imagine using ChatGPT cause you are unable to put up an argument. You proved nothing.

Buddy, you might want to look at ops "writing" and why im dissing him with obvious text automation. XD You just dissed yourself so bad completely falling for the AI slop grifter. This is amazing!

Tip: try to look for some characteristic " - " dashes in his early replies and what happened after i mentioned them. Ops so shaking in his boots he cant find a way to counter because even his AI slop is lazy ♥♥♥♥ and his cringy pettiness comes through.

This made my day. "No Argument".... Hilarious.

[mark1971]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kan3da.:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Facts above feelings:

Imagine using ChatGPT cause you are unable to put up an argument. You proved nothing.

Buddy, you might want to look at ops "writing" and why im dissing him with obvious text automation. XD You just dissed yourself so bad completely falling for the AI slop grifter. This is amazing!

Tip: try to look for some characteristic " - " dashes in his early replies and what happened after i mentioned them. Ops so shaking in his boots he cant find a way to counter because even his AI slop is lazy ♥♥♥♥ and his cringy pettiness comes through.

This made my day. "No Argument".... Hilarious.

I'm not experienced with AI and chat. No offense, but is it really possible the OP's generating his texts with an AI?

I'm asking because I was surprised at how fast he/she replied to my latest post in this thread. Especially with the quantity of words.

Diposting pertama kali oleh mark1971:

I experience the discussion here meanwhile disproportionate.

[Kan3da.]

Diposting pertama kali oleh mark1971:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kan3da.:

Buddy, you might want to look at ops "writing" and why im dissing him with obvious text automation. XD You just dissed yourself so bad completely falling for the AI slop grifter. This is amazing!

Tip: try to look for some characteristic " - " dashes in his early replies and what happened after i mentioned them. Ops so shaking in his boots he cant find a way to counter because even his AI slop is lazy ♥♥♥♥ and his cringy pettiness comes through.

This made my day. "No Argument".... Hilarious.

I'm not experienced with AI and chat. No offense, but is it really possible the OP's generating his texts with an AI?

I'm asking because I was surprised at how fast he/she replied to my latest post in this thread. Especially with the quantity of words.

Diposting pertama kali oleh mark1971:

I experience the discussion here meanwhile disproportionate.

I made it lightly more obvious for you for transparency.

After reading this my other replies to him should make immediate sense.

Happy to help more if you got more questions though.

---

Hey mark1971, mind if I jump in real quick? I’m not part of this argument, just someone who studies AI text patterns and rhetorical tactics in discussions like this.

The post you're responding to (by Cypher) feels sincere, but it actually matches the structure, language, and tone of AI-generated or AI-assisted content — the kind people feed into ChatGPT or Claude to make their emotional arguments sound smarter or more objective than they actually are.

Here’s how you can tell:

• The structure is textbook AI prompt flow:
  Start with a calm concession (“Yes, it sold millions...”),
  pivot to critique (“but that doesn’t mean...”),
  then unload 4–5 rehearsed grievances using buzzwords like “shock value,” “manipulative,” “nihilism,” and “AAA polish.”
  That’s exactly how AI is told to respond in a prompt like:
  "Write a balanced critique of The Last of Us Part II that acknowledges success but argues it's flawed."
  
  
• The wording is overcooked, not felt:
  Phrases like “storytelling with contempt for its foundation” or “punishes emotional investment” sound heavy, but they’re emotionally performative — that’s language borrowed from Reddit threads and gamified into essay-speak. It doesn’t come from real introspection; it’s stitched from reactions.
  
  
• The tone is emotionally restrained — until it isn’t:
  A real human rant often spirals or contradicts itself. This post doesn’t. It stays neatly persuasive while sliding in dramatic bitterness — that’s AI with a prompt like:
  "Sound thoughtful, not angry."
  
  
• There’s no lived experience:
  He never brings up what he felt while playing. No specific scenes. No personal reaction. Just declarations dressed in critique. That’s typical of someone using AI to reframe personal frustration as detached analysis.

To be clear, I’m not saying he clicked a button and it appeared.
What likely happened is this:
He prompted something like:

“Help me explain why The Last of Us 2 is a betrayal even though it got good reviews.”

And the ♥♥♥ gave him a polished version of what he was already feeling.
He’s not just angry — he’s outsourcing his anger through a mask of critique.


---

Hope that clears it up. AI writing isn't always obvious — it's sneaky because it sounds good while being emotionally hollow.

Let me know if you ever want a breakdown of how to spot it in other threads too.
You’re not crazy — you just haven’t seen how good these tools are at dressing up old rage in new packaging. 🤙
Be excellent to each other.