• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

All The Last of Us 2 leaks/spoilers in here and nowhere else.

You didn't but the first game had some moments of hopefulness sprinkled throughout the story(even if things eventually ended up bad), a criticism about part II is that there's none of those making things seem more nihilistic.

A criticism only being spouted by outlets like Polygon and Kotaku, exactly the sort of SJW-pandering outlets that were anticipated to like the game most by this thread since the game is apparently sponsored by Anita Sarkeesian.

Also, yes... I did. Two entries here, for Remastered and vanilla, remastered I mostly just did MP tho.


and a replay on a second account, not finished but far enough to craft all items

 
Last edited:
"You didn't" referred to having choices in the first game. :p :p :p

Yeah that was my point, though, Joel is judged for the violence he commits at the end of the game but you had no choice, I don't see the real difference. This whole game is based on the revenge of the daughter of someone Joel killed in a cut-scene in the first game.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Yeah that was my point, though, Joel is judged for the violence he commits at the end of the game but you had no choice, I don't see the real difference. This whole game is based on the revenge of the daughter of someone Joel killed in a cut-scene in the first game.
Yeah but that's at the end, after Joel learns to open up and love again, even if the end is questionable, the earlier parts gave a bit of hope for some happiness. Part II doesn't seem to have that.
 
Yeah but that's at the end, after Joel learns to open up and love again, even if the end is questionable, the earlier parts gave a bit of hope for some happiness. Part II doesn't seem to have that.

Which is fine, honestly. I considered the first game's ending uniquely bleak, if they wanted you to feel hopeful they wouldn't have had that speech Ellie gives Joel, or the look on her face when he lies. They get to safety, and they get to be together but at what cost is the question? Did Joel lose Ellie by saving her? Bleak and hopeless endings are what zombie fiction has been known for since it was pioneered by Romero, the reason the genre is such a good vehicle for it is the metaphorical role zombies play in the medium. There's room in video games for AAA storylines that are bleak and downer, and after TLOU a sequel to that game makes perfect sense as the vehicle for such a narrative. To me the maturation of the medium is at stake if we can't allow such things to be.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Which is fine, honestly. I considered the first game's ending uniquely bleak, if they wanted you to feel hopeful they wouldn't have had that speech Ellie gives Joel, or the look on her face when he lies. They get to safety, and they get to be together but at what cost is the question? Did Joel lose Ellie by saving her? Bleak and hopeless endings are what zombie fiction has been known for since it was pioneered by Romero, the reason the genre is such a good vehicle for it is the metaphorical role zombies play in the medium. There's room in video games for AAA storylines that are bleak and downer, and after TLOU a sequel to that game makes perfect sense as the vehicle for such a narrative. To me the maturation of the medium is at stake if we can't allow such things to be.
Be that as it may, I guess lots of people(myself included) prefer to have some/enough uplifting elements in a bleak story. If there's only pain and misery in store for the protagonists then people tend to avoid such stories.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
I actually like my stories hopeless, bleak, nihilistic/pessimistic. I would not criticize anything for being those things. But from what I've seen the writing itself is amateurish.
Then you should watch "The road" movie, bleak as hell and heavily toned down from the book I hear. >.>

Bleak settings can make for powerful story telling but if it turns into 100% torture pron then it's generally a turn off for me. :lollipop_grinning:
 
Then you should watch "The road" movie, bleak as hell and heavily toned down from the book I hear. >.>

Bleak settings can make for powerful story telling but if it turns into 100% torture pron then it's generally a turn off for me. :lollipop_grinning:

I've seen it and read the book, as well as other Cormac novels like Blood Meridian. 👍
 
Be that as it may, I guess lots of people(myself included) prefer to have some/enough uplifting elements in a bleak story. If there's only pain and misery in store for the protagonists then people tend to avoid such stories.

I mean, the romance between Ellie and Dina is probably mostly uplifting moments even if it ends on a sour note.
 
If the book is a 10 for bleakness, how toned down is the movie? :lollipop_downcast_sweat:

The movie is very similar to the novel in terms of themes and events. The difference is that in the novel you have quite explicit descriptions of unpleasant things like cannibalism, and a window into the characters' consciousness and internal monologues.

But really, I've seen and read bleaker than the Road.
 
The movie is very similar to the novel in terms of themes and events. The difference is that in the novel you have quite explicit descriptions of unpleasant things like cannibalism, and a window into the characters' consciousness and internal monologues.

But really, I've seen and read bleaker than the Road.

I'd like to read the book because I found the movie actually kinda tame, maybe it was because I was too hyped to see a
baby roasted on a spit
for my own good but I'd rather watch stuff like Cannibal Holocaust.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
* Cautionary tale of revenge set across a post-apocalyptic backdrop.
* Attempts to make the player feel bad for the carnage they inflict.
* Deals explicitly with issues of prejudice and bigotry.
* Major characters are gay or of non-binary gender.
* Much doggo death and all-round cycles of tragedy.
* Laura Bailey has a lead role.

What game am I?

Nier (2010). And noone ever bemoaned it for it's SJW-ness
 

Teslerum

Member
* Cautionary tale of revenge set across a post-apocalyptic backdrop.
* Attempts to make the player feel bad for the carnage they inflict.
* Deals explicitly with issues of prejudice and bigotry.
* Major characters are gay or of non-binary gender.
* Much doggo death and all-round cycles of tragedy.
* Laura Bailey has a lead role.

What game am I?

Nier (2010). And noone ever bemoaned it for it's SJW-ness

The thing about bullet points is that they mean absolutely nothing when it comes to comparing actual writing and execution (Which is what a lot of people here have problems with).

I'd also take this over *bigot-sandwiches* anyday.

 
Last edited:

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
The thing about bullet points is that they mean absolutely nothing when it comes to comparing actual writing and execution (Which is what a lot of people here have problems with).

Oh please, what exactly is the problem with the "bigot sandwiches" thing anyway? In context isn't it actually critical of taking an unforgiving reactionary stance post insult?
 

HotPocket69

Banned
I’ve been on Team This Doesn’t Need A Sequel since 2013 and I will absolutely be picking up a copy on Friday, but man.

MAN.

After seeing that Joel ambush/death scene...

They really fucked this one up.

If you were at all familiar with Joel and Tommy from LOU1 then you would know that they would NEVER just go along with a group of armed strangers ESPECIALLY ones that were discovered outside their home base! This just seems so completely ass fucking backwards.

They shouldn’t have given him a last name either. And out of all names, “Miller”? Really? Jesus christ.

*Takes big bite out of bigot sandwich*
 

PanzerAzel

Member
These plot spoilers don’t include the destruction of Jackson, which I’ve seen pics of burning. Nor of Abby mourning her father in the operating room, which I’ve seen a cutscene of.

But man has TT given me some good laughs. Thanks guys.
 
Last edited:

Umbral

Member
We see her aim the shotgun in the video, though, it wasn't already aimed there and she was probably holding it the whole time, they're all armed.
You think I’m pulling this stuff out of my ass?

Abby enters the room without a shotgun. Everyone enters the room with no weapons in their hands. They may have a pistol on their person, but that’s just a guess and what would make sense for this world.

Joel and Tommy enter a room with complete strangers, with a 2:8 ratio. Tommy does the smart thing unintentionally and puts his back to the wall next to the door. From this perspective Tommy can see everything in the room, including his periphery. Joel walks into the center of the room so that he’s now surrounded and can’t get to the door or Tommy easily. Tommy then volunteers personal information, their location, and offers the group to restock before they head out again. Then Joel has to say, for any morons watching since they think you need an extra hint “Y’all act like you heard of us or something.” Even though we can see 2 characters centered who react to Joel saying his name. Then the camera pans to show Abby with a shotgun already pointed at Joel’s knee in plain fucking sight of Tommy the whole time. Tommy doesn’t react until after she’s already shot Joel and he’s laying on the ground. Shotguns shoot pellets and don’t need to be aimed quite as precisely as a pistol that shoots individual bullets.

Tommy could easily see from where he was standing: Abby walk in, grab a shotgun while Joel has his back turned, and point it at Joel‘s knee. Tommy should have said something, had his hand on his pistol, called out to Joel, asked Abby “What the hell’s that for?” or something. No, he stands by and watches his brother get killed so the writers can have their big moment.

A group of strangers. Passing through Jackson’s guarded territory. On Tommy and Joel’s route. They’ve only been there for less than a day. That sounds like a group of people I should cast away all caution around. Makes sense.

It’s poor writing. They wanted the shock and awe scene of the shotgun to the knee to be unexpected, so they worked their way backwards to get it, without considering the characters they were writing for and what would make sense. They wanted the shotgun for ”impact”. I swear, so many parts of this game appear as though they thought of the big moment, and then tried to papier-mâché the rest of the story and gameplay around it.

Clearly whatever happens prior to that scene earns the trust of Tommy and Joel. It's not bad writing, enough said, we need to get past people like you deciding a character ever making a mistake is bad writing, they're humans, not robots.
What happens prior to that scene is Joel saves Abby from an infected about to kill her by shooting it point blank, he then gives her his hand and he and Tommy help her escape. Once they’re safe she invites them back to her cabin since it’s walled off and guarded. They have been with her for 5 mins at most. If anything, it should incline Abby to trust Joel and Tommy, not the other way around.

I wanted to like this. I’m a big fan of the first game. They botched it and should have never made a sequel.
 
Last edited:

HotPocket69

Banned
Remember in the first game, when Ellie and Sam are having that quiet moment together and Sam asks her what she’s afraid of? She sarcastically avoids answering at first with scorpions, but she finally says she’s scared of being by herself. Being alone.

If the ending of 2 really ends as posted above, then what a fucking downer. Full circle indeed.
 

hemo memo

You can't die before your death
So they want the player to feel bad because pf an action they are forced to do in the first game? Isn’t the dev the one who should feel bad in this case?
 
You think I’m pulling this stuff out of my ass?

Abby enters the room without a shotgun. Everyone enters the room with no weapons in their hands. They may have a pistol on their person, but that’s just a guess and what would make sense for this world.

Joel and Tommy enter a room with complete strangers, with a 2:8 ratio. Tommy does the smart thing unintentionally and puts his back to the wall next to the door. From this perspective Tommy can see everything in the room, including his periphery. Joel walks into the center of the room so that he’s now surrounded and can’t get to the door or Tommy easily. Tommy then volunteers personal information, their location, and offers the group to restock before they head out again. Then Joel has to say, for any morons watching since they think you need an extra hint “Y’all act like you heard of us or something.” Even though we can see 2 characters centered who react to Joel saying his name. Then the camera pans to show Abby with a shotgun already pointed at Joel’s knee in plain fucking sight of Tommy the whole time. Tommy doesn’t react until after she’s already shot Joel and he’s laying on the ground. Shotguns shoot pellets and don’t need to be aimed quite as precisely as a pistol that shoots individual bullets.

Tommy could easily see from where he was standing: Abby walk in, grab a shotgun while Joel has his back turned, and point it at Joel‘s knee. Tommy should have said something, had his hand on his pistol, called out to Joel, asked Abby “What the hell’s that for?” or something. No, he stands by and watches his brother get killed so the writers can have their big moment.

A group of strangers. Passing through Jackson’s guarded territory. On Tommy and Joel’s route. They’ve only been there for less than a day. That sounds like a group of people I should cast away all caution around. Makes sense.

It’s poor writing. They wanted the shock and awe scene of the shotgun to the knee to be unexpected, so they worked their way backwards to get it, without considering the characters they were writing for and what would make sense. They wanted the shotgun for ”impact”. I swear, so many parts of this game appear as though they thought of the big moment, and then tried to papier-mâché the rest of the story and gameplay around it.


What happens prior to that scene is Joel saves Abby from an infected about to kill her by shooting it point blank, he then gives her his hand and he and Tommy help her escape. Once they’re safe she invites them back to her cabin since it’s walled off and guarded. They have been with her for 5 mins at most. If anything, it should incline Abby to trust Joel and Tommy, not the other way around.

I wanted to like this. I’m a big fan of the first game. They botched it and should have never made a sequel.

I watched the same video you saw, you're making up elements. For instance the shotgun isn't already aimed. They also don't show Abby until she's there with the shotgun, so no, it's not clear how long she had it for. Not even sure what the problem is with Joel's comment, that's not necessarily for the audience, that's simply his reaction. Tommy may have been slow, hard to say, but that's pretty realistic, they looked comfortable in the setting, whatever had happened prior to the scene had built trust for him to look comfortable. I never cared for this crap anyways, because it's the good guys making tactical errors it's dumb writing, but the same person would never give two shits about the villains doing the same thing.

"Abby walk in" I saw no suggestion she wasn't already in the room, or any footage of her grabbing a gun, the second we see her she has the gun. Man, you're really emotional about this, like Tommy legit saw it coming and did nothing or something, even if he saw it who's to say his reaction time would be perfect? I'm guessing you've never been in a situation even remotely dangerous because humans tend to do things like hesitate and not react quickly for myriad reasons, heck you could spill a drink and if you reacted fast enough have caught the glass but most people are so surprised it happened it takes a second for it to click.

"A group of strangers" based on the leaked outline they earn each others trust prior to this scene. I mean, I don't really care what you would have done in the situation, that's not how you criticize writing.

It's literally not. The fact that you would have done something different (while knowing the outcome of the actions) isn't interesting to anyone besides you and says nothing about how a character should behave in the situation, a situation you have only a surface level idea of the context for. Man, you know a lot,. you even know what order they did things in? Maybe what they really wanted was for them to be helpful and nice to each other before this scene to emphasize the pointlessness of Abby's revenge? The thing is you're the one papier-macheing a story around the big moments, because you only know the big moments, in your mind they have no proper build-up and justification, but you aren't exactly knowledgeable on the issue.

5 minutes at most? Where's your proof of this? Wanted to like it? Big fan? Sorry, I've never seen someone who wanted to like something go through so much mental gymnastics to not like it. Why is the scene bad? Oh well because from that angle Tommy could probably see it coming and didn't react fast enough for me... but trust me, I WANTED to like it. Another hallmark of wanting to like something is watching out of context clips and deciding how well they work without actually experiencing the game as a whole.
 

Umbral

Member
I watched the same video you saw, you're making up elements. For instance the shotgun isn't already aimed. They also don't show Abby until she's there with the shotgun, so no, it's not clear how long she had it for. Not even sure what the problem is with Joel's comment, that's not necessarily for the audience, that's simply his reaction. Tommy may have been slow, hard to say, but that's pretty realistic, they looked comfortable in the setting, whatever had happened prior to the scene had built trust for him to look comfortable. I never cared for this crap anyways, because it's the good guys making tactical errors it's dumb writing, but the same person would never give two shits about the villains doing the same thing.

"Abby walk in" I saw no suggestion she wasn't already in the room, or any footage of her grabbing a gun, the second we see her she has the gun. Man, you're really emotional about this, like Tommy legit saw it coming and did nothing or something, even if he saw it who's to say his reaction time would be perfect? I'm guessing you've never been in a situation even remotely dangerous because humans tend to do things like hesitate and not react quickly for myriad reasons, heck you could spill a drink and if you reacted fast enough have caught the glass but most people are so surprised it happened it takes a second for it to click.

"A group of strangers" based on the leaked outline they earn each others trust prior to this scene. I mean, I don't really care what you would have done in the situation, that's not how you criticize writing.

It's literally not. The fact that you would have done something different (while knowing the outcome of the actions) isn't interesting to anyone besides you and says nothing about how a character should behave in the situation, a situation you have only a surface level idea of the context for. Man, you know a lot,. you even know what order they did things in? Maybe what they really wanted was for them to be helpful and nice to each other before this scene to emphasize the pointlessness of Abby's revenge? The thing is you're the one papier-macheing a story around the big moments, because you only know the big moments, in your mind they have no proper build-up and justification, but you aren't exactly knowledgeable on the issue.

5 minutes at most? Where's your proof of this? Wanted to like it? Big fan? Sorry, I've never seen someone who wanted to like something go through so much mental gymnastics to not like it. Why is the scene bad? Oh well because from that angle Tommy could probably see it coming and didn't react fast enough for me... but trust me, I WANTED to like it. Another hallmark of wanting to like something is watching out of context clips and deciding how well they work without actually experiencing the game as a whole.
You accuse me of lying. Wow. I’m sick of your posts, they’re draining.

Owen enters with the shotgun. That I had wrong. It’s almost off-screen, so I overlooked it by mistake. Abby enters with empty hands, they walk in from the garage where they tied up the horses. I thought you watched the video too?

gAKQtl7.jpg

I went ahead and drew out a map of the room, complete with Tommy’s point-of-view with peripheral vision. The only person he may not be able to see is hat guy.


wFwSNz3.jpg

The “5 minutes“ is in the video you claimed to have also watched. It’s actually sub-5 minutes but I rounded up for simplicity. If you wanna split hairs, we can call it 8 minutes to include the arrival at the cabin and the tying up of the horses.

I’m done talking with you. You are more interested in being right and “winning” than you are in the truth. We’re at an impasse and I can’t do your thinking for you. I can’t help you with your mental projections either. You don’t know me, you don’t know what I want except from what I’ve told you. I wanted this to be good and it appears as though it’s less than its predecessor. Expect to see me here critiquing the game once it’s out and I’ve played it. I have no issue admitting when I’m wrong.
 
Last edited:

ZZZZ

Member
I watched the same video you saw, you're making up elements. For instance the shotgun isn't already aimed. They also don't show Abby until she's there with the shotgun, so no, it's not clear how long she had it for. Not even sure what the problem is with Joel's comment, that's not necessarily for the audience, that's simply his reaction. Tommy may have been slow, hard to say, but that's pretty realistic, they looked comfortable in the setting, whatever had happened prior to the scene had built trust for him to look comfortable. I never cared for this crap anyways, because it's the good guys making tactical errors it's dumb writing, but the same person would never give two shits about the villains doing the same thing.

"Abby walk in" I saw no suggestion she wasn't already in the room, or any footage of her grabbing a gun, the second we see her she has the gun. Man, you're really emotional about this, like Tommy legit saw it coming and did nothing or something, even if he saw it who's to say his reaction time would be perfect? I'm guessing you've never been in a situation even remotely dangerous because humans tend to do things like hesitate and not react quickly for myriad reasons, heck you could spill a drink and if you reacted fast enough have caught the glass but most people are so surprised it happened it takes a second for it to click.

"A group of strangers" based on the leaked outline they earn each others trust prior to this scene. I mean, I don't really care what you would have done in the situation, that's not how you criticize writing.

It's literally not. The fact that you would have done something different (while knowing the outcome of the actions) isn't interesting to anyone besides you and says nothing about how a character should behave in the situation, a situation you have only a surface level idea of the context for. Man, you know a lot,. you even know what order they did things in? Maybe what they really wanted was for them to be helpful and nice to each other before this scene to emphasize the pointlessness of Abby's revenge? The thing is you're the one papier-macheing a story around the big moments, because you only know the big moments, in your mind they have no proper build-up and justification, but you aren't exactly knowledgeable on the issue.

5 minutes at most? Where's your proof of this? Wanted to like it? Big fan? Sorry, I've never seen someone who wanted to like something go through so much mental gymnastics to not like it. Why is the scene bad? Oh well because from that angle Tommy could probably see it coming and didn't react fast enough for me... but trust me, I WANTED to like it. Another hallmark of wanting to like something is watching out of context clips and deciding how well they work without actually experiencing the game as a whole.
You are absolutely hopeless, you didn't even watch the leaks.

Again on the first game, Tommy with his wife and the gang point weapons at a man and a child before even asking their names because of the situation and the dangers that they currently live in. They are even attacked by humans a few minutes later.

On the second game they are doing patrols to watch for dangers on the surrounding area, and a few minutes after saving Abby they let themselves get surrounded by a group of armed strangers that are close to their city(this should literally trigger alarm bells) and act like they are their war buddies or something, it goes against everything Tommy and Joel did to survive for the past 20+ years, it makes absolutely zero sense.
Tommy even offers them(armed guerrillas) to go inside Jackson to restock i mean who is this character? before they even introduce themselves, Mel literally says a second later "I'm Mel by the way".

According to the characters that ND presented to us, how they developed during the first game and the start of the second one, Tommy and Joel wouldn't put themselves in that situation, they didn't "make a mistake", the writers did.

PS: I maybe wrong but i think there's a scene on the 1h30m leak from a month ago that Joel's tell Ellie never to say her name or that she's immune to strangers because that could put herself in a dangerous situation and here he is doing exactly that.

Honestly, if i'm wrong and the writing is a masterpiece i'll be the first to come here and acknowledge it after i beat the game, but from almost 5 hours of leaked footage, this looks like a shitshow right now.
 

Mochilador

Member
I’ve been on Team This Doesn’t Need A Sequel since 2013 and I will absolutely be picking up a copy on Friday, but man.

MAN.

After seeing that Joel ambush/death scene...

They really fucked this one up.

If you were at all familiar with Joel and Tommy from LOU1 then you would know that they would NEVER just go along with a group of armed strangers ESPECIALLY ones that were discovered outside their home base! This just seems so completely ass fucking backwards.

They shouldn’t have given him a last name either. And out of all names, “Miller”? Really? Jesus christ.

*Takes big bite out of bigot sandwich*
He had a last name since TLOU 1. You were able to see it in a portrait.
 

ManaByte

Member
1. Don't post TLOU2 spoilers on Twitter.
2. Don't taunt Naughty Dog with said spoilers.

That's what Geeks & Gamers did and they got suspended.
 

ZZZZ

Member
I don't believe this, Ellie bites her on the fight before and Abby doesn't get infected.
Ellie shouldn't be able to infect her through saliva.
Now if Abby bites her finger off, and some of Ellie's blood end up on her mouth and she ends up swallowing it, that would make a lot more sense.
 

Fake

Member
I don't believe this, Ellie bites her on the fight before and Abby doesn't get infected.
Ellie shouldn't be able to infect her through saliva.
Now if Abby bites her finger off, and some of Ellie's blood end up on her mouth and she ends up swallowing it, that would make a lot more sense.

In the other forum and reddit people are talking about a possibility of both Abby and Ellies gilrs get infected. Somehow about the virus transmission being similar to the HIV. Dunno if is true, but maybe explain why Ellie don't find his girl at the end.
 
So, there’s no saving grace with this story, it’s just bad. I mean, earlier leaks hinted at it being irredeemable but I still had hope those smaller events that were maybe not mentioned will somehow tie everything up and make sense of it all, but I’m afraid no. And wow, ending is really stupid, isn’t it?

I thought buying this when it goes on sale someday or for PS5 but now, not even that. It really looks like festival of misery, sorrow and depression like many reviewers hinted. No, thank you. Not every game needs to be “fun” but it also shouldn’t make me feel miserable.

Poor Joel, RIP my man.
 
This really is like the last jedi all over again.
Force awakens was a new hope 2.0, but there was enough interest there to see where the rest of it would go. Then The last jedi happened and messed it all up.

I'm in the camp that thinks certain situations and outcomes in part 2 will make the first part hollow and pointless, and hard to enjoy going forward, unless I headcanon that part one was the end of their story.

I'm also in the camp that this should have been a series with a revolving set of main characters like Dragon Age, as this is something that has effected the entire of the u.s if not the world, and there are so many people and stories that should should have/can be told.

The name of the series is "the last of us" meaning Humanity, not "The Joel and Ellie show."








 
Last edited:
Top Bottom