Forums - Sony Discussion - SPOILERS The Last Of Us P2 SPOILERS

RolStoppable said:
JWeinCom said:

But can you recall ever seeing the same kind of reaction when fan favorites are replaced by non "diverse" characters?  For example, when Snake was replaced by Raiden people were upset, but it wasn't met with this kind of reaction.  When Dante was replaced by Nero for half of Devil May Cry 4, the reaction was not all that extreme.  

If it is solely about replacing older characters, we should expect the same general level of outrage whenever an old character is replaced.  But, that's not what we see.  I'm sure part of the reaction is because of displacing beloved characters, but that doesn't explain it all.

Not exactly comparable situations because the method of replacement differs, namely that the previous main characters die in The Last of Us Part II (Joel confirmed, Ellie unconfirmed). That means that those characters won't return in future games, so the replacement has something final to it instead of being a temporary state like in your examples.

But on the other hand, you are correct that there's more to it on top of the replacement. I mentioned it in a previous post of mine in this thread that the current controversy provides a platform for people who push their own political narrative. They don't account for the majority of people who complain right now, but they are going to be very vocal about it, so the whole issue grows into something really big.

One amplying factor in this is that the medium video games is basically the last bastion of entertainment that is largely free of political messaging - movies, TV and the internet in general are already infested by it - so this creates more paranoia, fear and hostility in response to Naughty Dog's story-driven decisions.

I don't think that video game is free of political messaging.  I think there are tons of political decisions in gaming.  For example, the creator of missile command has discussed how he intentionally made the game about defending bases rather than having the player use missiles offensively.  That's a political statement even in that simple Atari era game.

And there are political messages in pretty much every story driven game.  FF7 for instance is very pro-heterosexual (aside from that obvious sexual tension between Cloud and Barett).  That's a political message... but since it's a message that nearly everyone agrees with nobody takes much issue.

People mainly take an issue when it's a political message they happen to not agree with.  And I'm sure a lot of people are going to say they just don't want any controversy... But it kind of seems like the people who don't want controversy are also the ones most involved in the arguing. So I kind of wonder.



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

I don't think that video game is free of political messaging.  I think there are tons of political decisions in gaming.  For example, the creator of missile command has discussed how he intentionally made the game about defending bases rather than having the player use missiles offensively.  That's a political statement even in that simple Atari era game.

And there are political messages in pretty much every story driven game.  FF7 for instance is very pro-heterosexual (aside from that obvious sexual tension between Cloud and Barett).  That's a political message... but since it's a message that nearly everyone agrees with nobody takes much issue.

People mainly take an issue when it's a political message they happen to not agree with.  And I'm sure a lot of people are going to say they just don't want any controversy... But it kind of seems like the people who don't want controversy are also the ones most involved in the arguing. So I kind of wonder.

I wouldn't call the gameplay of a game political messaging (barring very few exceptions), because video games are supposed to have objectives, otherwise there's no real point to the medium. Your FF VII example also makes it look like you are trying too hard. You confuse lack of pro-homosexual with pro-heterosexual when there's actually no particular agenda in regards to sexuality being pushed. That's why video games are largely free of political messaging because they usually don't take any particular side.

Maybe you remember the discussion about theism and atheism, and how anyone who isn't a theist has to be an atheist by default when it's actually the case that atheism is an active stance where someone is convinced that no gods exist as opposed to the large space between theism and atheism where people are either indifferent or ignorant of what theism and atheism entail. Don't overlook the broad middle on the spectrum.

We don't disagree that there are people who complain under a disguise.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

JWeinCom said:
RolStoppable said:

Not exactly comparable situations because the method of replacement differs, namely that the previous main characters die in The Last of Us Part II (Joel confirmed, Ellie unconfirmed). That means that those characters won't return in future games, so the replacement has something final to it instead of being a temporary state like in your examples.

But on the other hand, you are correct that there's more to it on top of the replacement. I mentioned it in a previous post of mine in this thread that the current controversy provides a platform for people who push their own political narrative. They don't account for the majority of people who complain right now, but they are going to be very vocal about it, so the whole issue grows into something really big.

One amplying factor in this is that the medium video games is basically the last bastion of entertainment that is largely free of political messaging - movies, TV and the internet in general are already infested by it - so this creates more paranoia, fear and hostility in response to Naughty Dog's story-driven decisions.

I don't think that video game is free of political messaging.  I think there are tons of political decisions in gaming.  For example, the creator of missile command has discussed how he intentionally made the game about defending bases rather than having the player use missiles offensively.  That's a political statement even in that simple Atari era game.

And there are political messages in pretty much every story driven game.  FF7 for instance is very pro-heterosexual (aside from that obvious sexual tension between Cloud and Barett).  That's a political message... but since it's a message that nearly everyone agrees with nobody takes much issue.

People mainly take an issue when it's a political message they happen to not agree with.  And I'm sure a lot of people are going to say they just don't want any controversy... But it kind of seems like the people who don't want controversy are also the ones most involved in the arguing. So I kind of wonder.

Well now you have to think about degrees. Some political messages aren’t subjects of controversy in video games. A simple game about firing missiles isn’t cause for outrage. Just protest the real thing. Military interventionism is not up there on the list of outrage as other things like say race and religion. 

Your FF7 message is simply demographics. It’s not pushing hetero agendas it’s a game made by Japanese developers who recognize certain realities. That the vast majority of the human population is straight. There would be an issue if it made being gay problematic by comparison...but we all know that’s not the case. I wouldn’t call Japanese people an overly sexist and racist bunch....remember the Resident Evil 5 controversy? Since when do Japanese people exhibit white supremacy? Chris Redfield is a fan favourite and the game took place in Africa. People look for problems that aren’t there. 

Just like western society is mostly comprised of Christians. Not just white people but Hispanics who are just as devout. A big chunk of western society is also conservative. Again not just Christians but the millions of the growing Muslim population. So when you make anti religious messages and overly left leaning messages in western catered games of course you will get blowback....know your demographics. 

Or in LOU2s case one may argue Joel was killed off because ND politics dictate that gaming needs less straight white males. That’s real ramifications of injecting a political bias into video games...causing a fan favourite to die because of the color of his skin. And having you play as his killer...how does ND expect people to get on board with this? 

Final point and I want to make perfectly clear I’m talking about stats. There is little fruit in making a political statement that appeals to a statistical minority while potentially pissing off the majority of the fanbase. It ignores the stats in favour of personal virtue signalling. ND literally put their agenda ahead of fans and profits. Sony won’t be happy about this. 

You said there were other factors at play then gamers merely wanting to keep their fan favourites, hope this answers the question. Any actual racists, sexists and homophobes joining in on the conversation are a vocal minority. Their views are deplorable but they do not define nor represent the concerns of the majority.

Last edited by sales2099 - on 03 May 2020

 

 

I thought they said they wouldn't make TLOU2 if they didn't have a story to tell and why would they even think, any large portion of the people who praised TLOU would go along with a revenge story. My main criticism of this, something I've siad since the cultist trailer dropped, is it's a revenge story and now we know that that is true and the execution from a glance looks shoddy as fuck. Maybe it works better on screen but I highly doubt it and lord I hope Abby isn't transgender or they used the extra time to scrub that out cause it just adds salt to the wound, I mean a post apocalypse transgender person it just doesn't add up.

NaughtyDog have gone way past the point of addin things to there games for the sake of adding them already, like turning Chloe half Indian but It didn't bother me all too much, now though, it's really starting to stink of a forceful hand instead of an organic creation... okay that's not entirely true I nearly stopped playing LL because Chloe's ethnicity change was such a fucking weird choice for them to make and eventually did stop cause the dialouge in that game was like somrthing out of a disney star wars film. That change had absolutely no reason and that's what exactly why it bothered me, they add these things in but fail to have them make sense or have a purpose aside from stroking their Californian collective smugness. I want new and unique themes explored so it fucking bugs me as to why these people can't leave it on the cutting room floor if you can't make it work cause you're only having other media producers avoid it when it fails.



 

China Numba wan!!

RolStoppable said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't think that video game is free of political messaging.  I think there are tons of political decisions in gaming.  For example, the creator of missile command has discussed how he intentionally made the game about defending bases rather than having the player use missiles offensively.  That's a political statement even in that simple Atari era game.

And there are political messages in pretty much every story driven game.  FF7 for instance is very pro-heterosexual (aside from that obvious sexual tension between Cloud and Barett).  That's a political message... but since it's a message that nearly everyone agrees with nobody takes much issue.

People mainly take an issue when it's a political message they happen to not agree with.  And I'm sure a lot of people are going to say they just don't want any controversy... But it kind of seems like the people who don't want controversy are also the ones most involved in the arguing. So I kind of wonder.

I wouldn't call the gameplay of a game political messaging (barring very few exceptions), because video games are supposed to have objectives, otherwise there's no real point to the medium. Your FF VII example also makes it look like you are trying too hard. You confuse lack of pro-homosexual with pro-heterosexual when there's actually no particular agenda in regards to sexuality being pushed. That's why video games are largely free of political messaging because they usually don't take any particular side.

Maybe you remember the discussion about theism and atheism, and how anyone who isn't a theist has to be an atheist by default when it's actually the case that atheism is an active stance where someone is convinced that no gods exist as opposed to the large space between theism and atheism where people are either indifferent or ignorant of what theism and atheism entail. Don't overlook the broad middle on the spectrum.

We don't disagree that there are people who complain under a disguise.

In that particular game though the designer chose to make the gameplay that way for a particular reason.  He particular designed the gameplay that way because he didn't want to portray aggression in a positive light, and instead wanted to portray defensive action as a virtue.  Isn't that a political statement that the designer was making?

Likewise, I think there is a statement (not necessarily an agenda) being made whenever a heterosexual couple is portrayed.  When heterosexuals are portrayed in a positive light, that reflects what how the developers feel about heterosexual romance.  I'm not saying Square went into this with a purpose of WE MUST CONVERT THE HETEROPHOBIC or anything else, but the way they design the story is reflective of their views.  Just happens to be a view that basically nobody disagrees with.  

To use another example, a commercial in the US was deemed "controversial" because it featured two dads.  It doesn't make a big deal out of it, just two dads getting their kids to eat Cheerios.  Is this a "pro-homosexual" agenda?  If so, why wouldn't a commercial with a heterosexual couple, be "pro-heterosexual" agenda?

There's a joke that I'm probably not telling right.  Two fish are in the water.  One of them says "how's the water today"?  The other says, "What the fuck is water?"

In the same way, we are surrounded by political messages in pretty much any story telling medium.  What is portrayed as positive or negative reflects the developer's positions. But when the message is one that is universally accepted and not questioned, we tend not to question it.  It's only when the particular political message is one people disagree with that it gets noticed.  

sales2099 said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't think that video game is free of political messaging.  I think there are tons of political decisions in gaming.  For example, the creator of missile command has discussed how he intentionally made the game about defending bases rather than having the player use missiles offensively.  That's a political statement even in that simple Atari era game.

And there are political messages in pretty much every story driven game.  FF7 for instance is very pro-heterosexual (aside from that obvious sexual tension between Cloud and Barett).  That's a political message... but since it's a message that nearly everyone agrees with nobody takes much issue.

People mainly take an issue when it's a political message they happen to not agree with.  And I'm sure a lot of people are going to say they just don't want any controversy... But it kind of seems like the people who don't want controversy are also the ones most involved in the arguing. So I kind of wonder.

Well now you have to think about degrees. Some political messages aren’t subjects of controversy in video games. A simple game about firing missiles isn’t cause for outrage. Just protest the real thing. Military interventionism is not up there on the list of outrage as other things like say race and religion. 

Your FF7 message is simply demographics. It’s not pushing hetero agendas it’s a game made by Japanese developers who recognize certain realities. That the vast majority of the human population is straight. There would be an issue if it made being gay problematic by comparison...but we all know that’s not the case. I wouldn’t call Japanese people an overly sexist and racist bunch....remember the Resident Evil 5 controversy? Since when do Japanese people exhibit white supremacy? Chris Redfield is a fan favourite and the game took place in Africa. People look for problems that aren’t there. 

Just like western society is mostly comprised of Christians. Not just white people but Hispanics who are just as devout. A big chunk of western society is also conservative. Again not just Christians but the millions of the growing Muslim population. So when you make anti religious messages and overly left leaning messages in western catered games of course you will get blowback....know your demographics. 

Or in LOU2s case one may argue Joel was killed off because ND politics dictate that gaming needs less straight white males. That’s real ramifications of injecting a political bias into video games...causing a fan favourite to die because of the color of his skin. And having you play as his killer...how does ND expect people to get on board with this? 

Final point and I want to make perfectly clear I’m talking about stats. There is little fruit in making a political statement that appeals to a statistical minority while potentially pissing off the majority of the fanbase. It ignores the stats in favour of personal virtue signalling. ND literally put their agenda ahead of fans and profits. Sony won’t be happy about this. 

You said there were other factors at play then gamers merely wanting to keep their fan favourites, hope this answers the question. 

Well... have you played Resident Evil 5?  Cause when I played through the game at first I was thinking "why would people have a problem with this?  Of course zombies will be black in Africa."  And then when I got to the part where I'm fighting literal spear chuckers, living in huts, dressed in tribal garb I'm like... "Oh... ok.  I kind of get it."

This...

Is quite different than this...

And... I don't think those kind of pre-contact tribes are very common in Africa anymore.  I'm not going to assume intentions, but it was a poor choice.

As for FF7, I'm not saying anything about homosexuality.  I'm not saying they're putting it down by focusing on heterosexual relationships, just that portraying heterosexual relations positively, is a pro-heterosexual relationship message.

To think of it another way, let's turn to FF8.  In the beginning we have Squall who is a withdrawn sullen lad.  His relationship with Rinoa makes him open up and is portrayed as a very positive thing.

The message is basically that love is great and desirable. Find your manic pixie dreamgirl.   That's a position that the developers are espousing.

Alternatively, they could have had Rinoa completely fuck Squall's live up, they could have had them wind up in an incredibly abusive relationship, they could have had Squall reject her and instead use his solitude to become an even better SEED person.

FF8 could have had an anti-relationship message.  Instead they have a pro-relationship message.  That's as much of the developers expressing their opinion about how the world should be as it is when two gay characters are portrayed positively in a game.    So, I'd call that a political message.  

As for the rest, you're kind of just making assumptions on what Naughty Dog's motivations are.  You are assuming that they killed of Joel specifically to include a non-white character, and I think that's incredibly unlikely.  If they wanted you to play as a non-white character, they could have accomplished that easily without killing anyone.  And that would probably make more sense, cause I would imagine they don't expect everyone to love this new character.

Basically correlation does not imply causation.  You're saying the conversation went like this: "Well our main priority is to include a "diverse character".  Therefore, let's kill Joel."  How do you know that the conversation didn't go like... "We want to make this story about someone taking revenge on Joel for the horrible things he did.  Oh, and why not make this new character "diverse"?  Couldn't the desire to include more "diverse" characters and the decision to kill Joel have been completely independent?



Around the Network
John2290 said:
I thought they said they wouldn't make TLOU2 if they didn't have a story to tell and why would they even think, any large portion of the people who praised TLOU would go along with a revenge story. My main criticism of this, something I've siad since the cultist trailer dropped, is it's a revenge story and now we know that that is true and the execution from a glance looks shoddy as fuck. Maybe it works better on screen but I highly doubt it and lord I hope Abby isn't transgender or they used the extra time to scrub that out cause it just adds salt to the wound, I mean a post apocalypse transgender person it just doesn't add up.

NaughtyDog have gone way past the point of addin things to there games for the sake of adding them already, like turning Chloe half Indian but It didn't bother me all too much, now though, it's really starting to stink of a forceful hand instead of an organic creation... okay that's not entirely true I nearly stopped playing LL because Chloe's ethnicity change was such a fucking weird choice for them to make and eventually did stop cause the dialouge in that game was like somrthing out of a disney star wars film. That change had absolutely no reason and that's what exactly why it bothered me, they add these things in but fail to have them make sense or have a purpose aside from stroking their Californian collective smugness. I want new and unique themes explored so it fucking bugs me as to why these people can't leave it on the cutting room floor if you can't make it work cause you're only having other media producers avoid it when it fails.

She's not the leak footage clearly shows that, people are jumping to conclusion and pasting together a narrative that's not even hinted at it. We played as joel for 3/4 of game, we now will play as Abby for 1/2 of game... why do people think ND can't build that character up to be someone we care about. When Joel almost died in the first game that was half way... ask you're self did you care about him them? Well that's the same amount time we will get with Abby.



sales2099 said:

Well now you have to think about degrees. Some political messages aren’t subjects of controversy in video games. A simple game about firing missiles isn’t cause for outrage. Just protest the real thing. Military interventionism is not up there on the list of outrage as other things like say race and religion. 

Your FF7 message is simply demographics. It’s not pushing hetero agendas it’s a game made by Japanese developers who recognize certain realities. That the vast majority of the human population is straight. There would be an issue if it made being gay problematic by comparison...but we all know that’s not the case. I wouldn’t call Japanese people an overly sexist and racist bunch....remember the Resident Evil 5 controversy? Since when do Japanese people exhibit white supremacy? Chris Redfield is a fan favourite and the game took place in Africa. People look for problems that aren’t there. 

Just like western society is mostly comprised of Christians. Not just white people but Hispanics who are just as devout. A big chunk of western society is also conservative. Again not just Christians but the millions of the growing Muslim population. So when you make anti religious messages and overly left leaning messages in western catered games of course you will get blowback....know your demographics. 

Or in LOU2s case one may argue Joel was killed off because ND politics dictate that gaming needs less straight white males. That’s real ramifications of injecting a political bias into video games...causing a fan favourite to die because of the color of his skin. And having you play as his killer...how does ND expect people to get on board with this? 

Final point and I want to make perfectly clear I’m talking about stats. There is little fruit in making a political statement that appeals to a statistical minority while potentially pissing off the majority of the fanbase. It ignores the stats in favour of personal virtue signalling. ND literally put their agenda ahead of fans and profits. Sony won’t be happy about this. 

You said there were other factors at play then gamers merely wanting to keep their fan favourites, hope this answers the question. 

Well... have you played Resident Evil 5?  Cause when I played through the game at first I was thinking "why would people have a problem with this?  Of course zombies will be black in Africa."  And then when I got to the part where I'm fighting literal spear chuckers, living in huts, dressed in tribal garb I'm like... "Oh... ok.  I kind of get it."

This...

Is quite different than this...

And... I don't think those kind of pre-contact tribes are very common in Africa anymore.  I'm not going to assume intentions, but it was a poor choice.

As for FF7, I'm not saying anything about homosexuality.  I'm not saying they're putting it down by focusing on heterosexual relationships, just that portraying heterosexual relations positively, is a pro-heterosexual relationship message.

To think of it another way, let's turn to FF8.  In the beginning we have Squall who is a withdrawn sullen lad.  His relationship with Rinoa makes him open up and is portrayed as a very positive thing.

The message is basically that love is great and desirable. Find your manic pixie dreamgirl.   That's a position that the developers are espousing.

Alternatively, they could have had Rinoa completely fuck Squall's live up, they could have had them wind up in an incredibly abusive relationship, they could have had Squall reject her and instead use his solitude to become an even better SEED person.

FF8 could have had an anti-relationship message.  Instead they have a pro-relationship message.  That's as much of the developers expressing their opinion about how the world should be as it is when two gay characters are portrayed positively in a game.    So, I'd call that a political message.  

As for the rest, you're kind of just making assumptions on what Naughty Dog's motivations are.  You are assuming that they killed of Joel specifically to include a non-white character, and I think that's incredibly unlikely.  If they wanted you to play as a non-white character, they could have accomplished that easily without killing anyone.  And that would probably make more sense, cause I would imagine they don't expect everyone to love this new character.

Basically correlation does not imply causation.  You're saying the conversation went like this: "Well our main priority is to include a "diverse character".  Therefore, let's kill Joel."  How do you know that the conversation didn't go like... "We want to make this story about someone taking revenge on Joel for the horrible things he did.  Oh, and why not make this new character "diverse"?  Couldn't the desire to include more "diverse" characters and the decision to kill Joel have been completely independent?

For Re5 the point was that people were reading into something that wasn’t there because again I wouldnt call Japanese people racist against Africans. It’s just video game design and the lore explained why they reverted to ancestral behaviour. 

Cant speak on Ff8 but I’ll again bring up degrees. Political messages about relationships or anti relationships do not register on the same level as say religion or identity politics. Some subjects are more hot button and others aren’t worth the controversy. 

Did you not see the interviews making the rounds? Everything I said is public record of interviews I read, mostly concerning Neil Druckman the director of the game. Some form of actual ties with Anita S (Feminist Frequency). He went on record saying white males in games are the “default” and he had to rethink portrayals in his projects going forward. That’s a heavy implication Joel’s death was a narrative decision by the company and the plot written around it. 

I get your position of the possibility of plausible deniability. However the personal politics of ND, which again is a quick google search away, is making your scenario increasingly unlikely. The sequel is playing as 2 strong women, which in itself isn’t a problem. It becomes a problem when a fan favourite is squeezed out (Joel) to make way for this form of game they want to create.

Playing as Joel was also a power fantasy for many male fans of the game, and they will be pissed to have him go out unceremoniously because ND has decided to go a different direction. Like I said, know your demographic. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 03 May 2020

 

 

sales2099 said:

Well... have you played Resident Evil 5?  Cause when I played through the game at first I was thinking "why would people have a problem with this?  Of course zombies will be black in Africa."  And then when I got to the part where I'm fighting literal spear chuckers, living in huts, dressed in tribal garb I'm like... "Oh... ok.  I kind of get it."

This...

Is quite different than this...

And... I don't think those kind of pre-contact tribes are very common in Africa anymore.  I'm not going to assume intentions, but it was a poor choice.

As for FF7, I'm not saying anything about homosexuality.  I'm not saying they're putting it down by focusing on heterosexual relationships, just that portraying heterosexual relations positively, is a pro-heterosexual relationship message.

To think of it another way, let's turn to FF8.  In the beginning we have Squall who is a withdrawn sullen lad.  His relationship with Rinoa makes him open up and is portrayed as a very positive thing.

The message is basically that love is great and desirable. Find your manic pixie dreamgirl.   That's a position that the developers are espousing.

Alternatively, they could have had Rinoa completely fuck Squall's live up, they could have had them wind up in an incredibly abusive relationship, they could have had Squall reject her and instead use his solitude to become an even better SEED person.

FF8 could have had an anti-relationship message.  Instead they have a pro-relationship message.  That's as much of the developers expressing their opinion about how the world should be as it is when two gay characters are portrayed positively in a game.    So, I'd call that a political message.  

As for the rest, you're kind of just making assumptions on what Naughty Dog's motivations are.  You are assuming that they killed of Joel specifically to include a non-white character, and I think that's incredibly unlikely.  If they wanted you to play as a non-white character, they could have accomplished that easily without killing anyone.  And that would probably make more sense, cause I would imagine they don't expect everyone to love this new character.

Basically correlation does not imply causation.  You're saying the conversation went like this: "Well our main priority is to include a "diverse character".  Therefore, let's kill Joel."  How do you know that the conversation didn't go like... "We want to make this story about someone taking revenge on Joel for the horrible things he did.  Oh, and why not make this new character "diverse"?  Couldn't the desire to include more "diverse" characters and the decision to kill Joel have been completely independent?

For Re5 the point was that people were reading into something that wasn’t there because again I wouldnt call Japanese people racist against Africans. It’s just video game design and the lore explained why they reverted to ancestral behaviour. 

Cant speak on Ff8 but I’ll again bring up degrees. Political messages about relationships or anti relationships do not register on the same level as say religion or identity politics. Some subjects are more hot button and others aren’t worth the controversy. 

Did you not see the interviews making the rounds? Everything I said is public record of interviews I read, mostly concerning Neil Druckman the director of the game. Some form of actual ties with Anita S (Feminist Frequency). He went on record saying white males in games are the “default” and he had to rethink portrayals in his projects going forward. That’s a heavy implication Joel’s death was a narrative decision by the company and the plot written around it. 

I get your concern of the possibility of plausible deniability. However the personal politics of ND, which again is a quick google search away, is making your scenario increasingly unlikely. The sequel is playing as 2 strong women, which in itself isn’t a problem. It becomes a problem when a fan favourite is squeezed out (Joel) to make way for this form of game they want to create. 

The thing with RE5 shows a similar problem from the other end.

It's perfectly justifiable to point out that the portrayal of some Africans as literal spear chuckers is problematic in the context of Western culture.  Asserting that there is a particular agenda about that, ie racism, is not justifiable without particular evidence.

At the same time, blaming a particular narrative choice on an agenda is similarly not justifiable without evidence. I don't think what you've provided counts.  There is just a huge leap between "we have to re-think portrayals" and "we have to kill the white man".  I'm not denying that they wanted to add more "diverse" characters cause they clearly did.  But there were many other ways to get there.  Developers wanting to add more "diverse" characters isn't going to lead to a virtual genocide of white male protagonists.  

Your response to FF8 is pretty much my point.  There are political statements all around.  But the only ones that are problematic are the ones that are "controversial".  So, let's say that Abby was actually a trans character as people initially suspected.  What makes this a "controversial" issue, aside from the fact that people don't approve of gender non-conforming people? Without that being at the core, it's just another political statement that would just be like "relationships are good" that would just blow right by without anyone caring.



vonny said:
John2290 said:
I thought they said they wouldn't make TLOU2 if they didn't have a story to tell and why would they even think, any large portion of the people who praised TLOU would go along with a revenge story. My main criticism of this, something I've siad since the cultist trailer dropped, is it's a revenge story and now we know that that is true and the execution from a glance looks shoddy as fuck. Maybe it works better on screen but I highly doubt it and lord I hope Abby isn't transgender or they used the extra time to scrub that out cause it just adds salt to the wound, I mean a post apocalypse transgender person it just doesn't add up.

NaughtyDog have gone way past the point of addin things to there games for the sake of adding them already, like turning Chloe half Indian but It didn't bother me all too much, now though, it's really starting to stink of a forceful hand instead of an organic creation... okay that's not entirely true I nearly stopped playing LL because Chloe's ethnicity change was such a fucking weird choice for them to make and eventually did stop cause the dialouge in that game was like somrthing out of a disney star wars film. That change had absolutely no reason and that's what exactly why it bothered me, they add these things in but fail to have them make sense or have a purpose aside from stroking their Californian collective smugness. I want new and unique themes explored so it fucking bugs me as to why these people can't leave it on the cutting room floor if you can't make it work cause you're only having other media producers avoid it when it fails.

She's not the leak footage clearly shows that, people are jumping to conclusion and pasting together a narrative that's not even hinted at it. We played as joel for 3/4 of game, we now will play as Abby for 1/2 of game... why do people think ND can't build that character up to be someone we care about. When Joel almost died in the first game that was half way... ask you're self did you care about him them? Well that's the same amount time we will get with Abby.

Because she killed someone that you admitted players spent more time actually playing as. Also fighting Ellie as a final boss. The image of Abby choking out Ellie is very unsettling, and not in a good way. Compared to Abby (the shot of her arm muscles in particular) Ellie looks like a defenceless victim. And this is the other fan favourite that you spend the first half of the game playing as, on top of the first games character building. Killing Joel and forcing the gamer to beat Ellie within an inch of her life makes any character building of Abby by ND a seriously uphill battle. 



 

 

sales2099 said:
vonny said:

She's not the leak footage clearly shows that, people are jumping to conclusion and pasting together a narrative that's not even hinted at it. We played as joel for 3/4 of game, we now will play as Abby for 1/2 of game... why do people think ND can't build that character up to be someone we care about. When Joel almost died in the first game that was half way... ask you're self did you care about him them? Well that's the same amount time we will get with Abby.

Because she killed someone that you admitted players spent more time actually playing as. Also fighting Ellie as a final boss. The image of Abby choking out Ellie is very unsettling, and not in a good way. Compared to Abby (the shot of her arm muscles in particular) Ellie looks like a defenceless victim. And this is the other fan favourite that you spend the first half of the game playing as, on top of the first games character building. Killing Joel and forcing the gamer to beat Ellie within an inch of her life makes any character building of Abby by ND a seriously uphill battle. 

Ellie is not a defenseless victim, she's killed dozen of Abby's friend by that point. You reap what you sow and Joel and Ellie have caused nothing but pain we cna love the characters but we weren't meant to side with their actions.

So it's going to be challenging? Yea sure that what makes it interesting, so maybe people stop complaining and she how they actually tackle her development and if they fail to make a connection than complain other wise it's pissing into the wind