With Abby I have 0 problem. But with nadine that is exactly the problem, Natan have killed whole armies, have beaten supernatural enemy but get schooled by Nadine even with the help of his brother and can't even touch her... I understand why that is done and can overcome it, it is something common in game to show the level of the challenge, but felt very unnatural (and not only because she was a woman that wasn't muscle head, because we know that most of the top fighters in our world aren't really that big on muscles).

You're filled with so much hate, I feel for ya man. I has a period in my life where I was like you and I didn't realise until after the fact. Life gets better man, i hope it does for you. 

I never said it was good, I said the reasons people are hating it are not good reasons to say it's bad. I don't like The Last of Us and likely won't play the sequel because I don't much care for the gameplay or Naughty dog's style over substance mentality. I play games that are fun, I watch movies or TV or read books for deep, nuanced storytelling and character work. 

I just think the reasons people are hating this game indiscriminately are not good reasons to hate a game and are entirely based off entitlement or bigotry. 

Guess you are mixing things.

Would it be reasonable to meet you on the street at random? 1 in 7 billions people? Nope. Would it be possible? Yes it would.

So it is possible that someone like her exist (and we have the female that was used as reference that is very similar to her), but is it reasonable as within expectations? Not really. Is it a problem? Of course not, after all life is made of very (un)likely events that are unique when weaved together.

Within the story they created around that foundation, I think that in the end they wanted us to feel enraged at Abby, but then try to understand where she was coming from in her revenge story as things progressed. For me I would disconnect from the start, because I see through it, but I respect that you kept going and gave the game a chance regardless. I'm not against that, I'm generally just against injecting an agenda into a game at the game's foundation, much like what's being done with movies.

I don't want to take the fun away from anyone, I know that people are enjoying the game and good for them. The thread is asking us our opinion on a possible agenda behind TLOU2 given staff changes at Naughty Dog and I believe it matches with what I see in Hollywood, and I really don't like it.

I respect this game, those who created it, especially the visual work and the script, but in the end the game to me is flawed due to a political agenda, and once I see that, I lose my immersion and I disconnect, and I find it unfortunate, esp. since franchises are dying right now because of it.

Situations like these are actually hurting the cause just as much if not more than it would otherwise. One of the biggest problems is the idea of taking something that is well known and popular, dismantling it, and building something considerably different from it. People hate change in general, and they hate it even more the faster it happens, which tends to lead to significant backlash.

The reason this approach is taken in the first place, is because it's extremely difficult to start something fresh and original and turn it into something widely popular, or at the very least takes a considerable amount of time to come to fruition. Not to mention, considering the agenda's and narrative's they wish to portray in these cases, it's likely to take even longer because of what type and how much change is being asked of people.

I mean just look at vehicles for example as something simple and not all that personal. The more recent Dodge Dart did not do well and was discontinued quickly because if you knew what the old Dodge Dart was and what it stood for, you didn't want anything to do with the new one. That car got a lot of backlash and had a lot of negativity towards it. It's the same reason why the more recent Dodge Challenger is accepted and does reasonably well, because it's a fairly minor deviation from what it once was.

Trying to take things like Star Wars or TLOU and turn them into something they weren't, especially in the way it's been done, is way too much change to quickly. People are not only being pushed to hard to fast, or somewhere they just won't go period, but at the same time, to them, something they love or hold dear is being ruined. To some it even seems like they're almost being given an ultimatum. Change quickly and agree or what you enjoy will be torn down. This approach isn't exactly working out they way it was meant to, unless of course tearing everything down is actually part of the agenda.

In today's world, while tech may change and advance quickly in just a few years time, people do not change at that same pace. Not even close. Younger generations have a harder time understanding this though and are under the impression that personal changes to people's thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, should change just as quickly. The older you get, the more set in your ways you become, which is tough to understand when you're younger and more malleable.

While I don't have the exact answer if there is one, it's been one step forward, two steps back for quite a while now, so if they actually want to make positive forward progress, they've got to either find another way, or just let off the gas for a while and coast and see where that get's them. People are way more open to a Sunday drive vs jumping into a race car at the track. ND should have at the very least, saved some of this story narrative for Part III. It would have been more palatable for everyone all around and presumably wouldn't have received near as much backlash.

Not my personal view on it but i understand how others can look at this and when there is so much backlash for that same thing then it raises the question if this was a bad direction or not.

I truly haven't, I watched a number of portions of the game, and I appreciated what I saw. But I did not play it myself.

That probably would have helped a little, but it would all get out their quickly and the worst scenario would still get a similar reaction. While it's way too late now, some of this character development should have been foreshadowed or hinted at in the very least in TLOU, and then expanded upon in Part II. Then some of the story (narrative) of Part II should have been saved for Part III. It doesn't flow well and almost feels rushed.

The fact it's called Part II just makes it worse. You automatically expect it's simply a continuation of everything you've known from the first. When it doesn't turn out to be that way, or is considerably different, you're almost always going to get a negative reaction. Killing off a beloved main character is tough to do period, but if you're going to do it, it has to be in an acceptable manner to the story as told/known. If you want people to be able to swallow it that is.

While it's not quite the same equivalence, imagine if at the start of Horizon II, that Aloy get's brutally murdered by some new character, and then you play as Sylens to go after them. Whether that new character had previously 'legitimate' unknown reasons to the player, like Abby did, it would still be ridiculous and many people would not like it.

There are times stories can shift a bit, and points in the story for shock and awe, but I think ND messed up this time around.

I think since Nathan is the type of character that comes out of conflicts with entire armies alive, I don't really think about how much his battles make sense any more.
Though I think with Nadine they were presenting him with the challenge of a martial arts expert, which to my recollection Nate hasn't dealt with before. He usually solves his problems with guns. So when facing someone excelling at hand to hand combat, Nate is like a fish out of the water.
It reminded me a bit of how James Bond started getting beat up in humiliating ways by Jaws, after always looking like the cool guy before that.

And I think it can be charming to see our heroes fall flat on their butt a few times.

You are questioning John hating the story, I have done some convo with him and it have about 0 to do with what you think. You are just making straw man and dishing out personal attacks based on your own assumptions of why they don't like, while you yourself doesn't like. If we were to do like you we could say you don't like Naughty Dog games because they featured white males until now and you defend TLOU2 because it feature females, probably I would be wrong by over a country mile, but that is exactly the type of argument you are using.

There is no denying that ND is going for a progressive agenda, key people in the company already confirmed it. The point is have it ruined their work? For majority it doesn't seem like it, but some people don't like where they are taking the studio.

And since you don't like the original and didn't play the second, so your understanding of the IP is likely much smaller than the ones that are showing why they don't like what was done, yet you are acting like you know better than then not only about the game but also about what is going inside their mind.

Situations like these are actually hurting the cause just as much if not more than it would otherwise. One of the biggest problems is the idea of taking something that is well known and popular, dismantling it, and building something considerably different from it. People hate change in general, and they hate it even more the faster it happens, which tends to lead to significant backlash.

The reason this approach is taken in the first place, is because it's extremely difficult to start something fresh and original and turn it into something widely popular, or at the very least takes a considerable amount of time to come to fruition. Not to mention, considering the agenda's and narrative's they wish to portray in these cases, it's likely to take even longer because of what type and how much change is being asked of people.

I mean just look at vehicles for example as something simple and not all that personal. The more recent Dodge Dart did not do well and was discontinued quickly because if you knew what the old Dodge Dart was and what it stood for, you didn't want anything to do with the new one. That car got a lot of backlash and had a lot of negativity towards it. It's the same reason why the more recent Dodge Challenger is accepted and does reasonably well, because it's a fairly minor deviation from what it once was.

Trying to take things like Star Wars or TLOU and turn them into something they weren't, especially in the way it's been done, is way too much change to quickly. People are not only being pushed to hard to fast, or somewhere they just won't go period, but at the same time, to them, something they love or hold dear is being ruined. To some it even seems like they're almost being given an ultimatum. Change quickly and agree or what you enjoy will be torn down. This approach isn't exactly working out they way it was meant to, unless of course tearing everything down is actually part of the agenda.

In today's world, while tech may change and advance quickly in just a few years time, people do not change at that same pace. Not even close. Younger generations have a harder time understanding this though and are under the impression that personal changes to people's thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, should change just as quickly. The older you get, the more set in your ways you become, which is tough to understand when you're younger and more malleable.

While I don't have the exact answer if there is one, it's been one step forward, two steps back for quite a while now, so if they actually want to make positive forward progress, they've got to either find another way, or just let off the gas for a while and coast and see where that get's them. People are way more open to a Sunday drive vs jumping into a race car at the track. ND should have at the very least, saved some of this story narrative for Part III. It would have been more palatable for everyone all around and presumably wouldn't have received near as much backlash.

It would require a re-write. I'm not necessarily saying they had to change the overall direction, but it would either have to be shorter, or extended so that some of what was there, could play out in the third. Which might also mean juggling when certain moments in the game take place and filling them in.

That probably would have helped a little, but it would all get out their quickly and the worst scenario would still get a similar reaction. While it's way too late now, some of this character development should have been foreshadowed or hinted at in the very least in TLOU, and then expanded upon in Part II. Then some of the story (narrative) of Part II should have been saved for Part III. It doesn't flow well and almost feels rushed.

The fact it's called Part II just makes it worse. You automatically expect it's simply a continuation of everything you've known from the first. When it doesn't turn out to be that way, or is considerably different, you're almost always going to get a negative reaction. Killing off a beloved main character is tough to do period, but if you're going to do it, it has to be in an acceptable manner to the story as told/known. If you want people to be able to swallow it that is.

While it's not quite the same equivalence, imagine if at the start of Horizon II, that Aloy get's brutally murdered by some new character, and then you play as Sylens to go after them. Whether that new character had previously 'legitimate' unknown reasons to the player, like Abby did, it would still be ridiculous and many people would not like it.

There are times stories can shift a bit, and points in the story for shock and awe, but I think ND messed up this time around.

I truly haven't, I watched a number of portions of the game, and I appreciated what I saw. But I did not play it myself.

That probably would have helped a little, but it would all get out their quickly and the worst scenario would still get a similar reaction. While it's way too late now, some of this character development should have been foreshadowed or hinted at in the very least in TLOU, and then expanded upon in Part II. Then some of the story (narrative) of Part II should have been saved for Part III. It doesn't flow well and almost feels rushed.

The fact it's called Part II just makes it worse. You automatically expect it's simply a continuation of everything you've known from the first. When it doesn't turn out to be that way, or is considerably different, you're almost always going to get a negative reaction. Killing off a beloved main character is tough to do period, but if you're going to do it, it has to be in an acceptable manner to the story as told/known. If you want people to be able to swallow it that is.

While it's not quite the same equivalence, imagine if at the start of Horizon II, that Aloy get's brutally murdered by some new character, and then you play as Sylens to go after them. Whether that new character had previously 'legitimate' unknown reasons to the player, like Abby did, it would still be ridiculous and many people would not like it.

There are times stories can shift a bit, and points in the story for shock and awe, but I think ND messed up this time around.

I see.
I'll give a similar answer to Eric below, so I'll type it there.

I think people point out 'what' happened, but not 'why, they're commonly missing what TLOU2 tried to do that was unique to it unlike other revenge stories. Finding out the motive of an antagonist not unusual. Being able to play as them likewise.

Some of what makes TLOU2 unique in this regard could only have been achieved this way. Not if this was foreshadowed more in other parts, split into two games, or saved for Part 3, etc.

The first key factor is how Abby was introduced.
The second is the timing of the events.
And the third is the way Abby and Ellie are explored after that.

Yeah. Look, take any other game or movie that people loved because of the dynamics of the two main characters and their journey together. Bad Boys with Will Smith and Martin Lawrence comes to mind off the top of my head(yeah, it's ancient because I'm ancient, I know, although the third movie came out this year). Imagine people waiting for 7 years to get that second movie and then suddenly Mike or Marcus is brutally killed like 10 minutes into the film. Then the killer takes over the movie and never faces real consequences of what he has done. What the hell is that? The heart of the thing would have been destroyed and you would expect people to just love it and applaud the bold new direction? Well, apparently some people would. I mean, I accept now that Druckmann simply wanted to do something unexpected and controversial and that's his right of course. I just didn't find it appealing and I'm not alone.

I think the game would have benefitted from being shorter, but it would require a completely different game to try splitting up.

Don't think it would work on Aloy case because we having played as Joel knew full well that he have done shit and killed many people. Aloy I don't remember doing anything that would make she expected to be killed for justifiable reasons.

As soon as Joel was killed I already imagined it was people from the fireflies and knew it was totally justifiable from their perspective. Hell even Abby knew it was justifiable that even though she spared Ellie twice it was expected that she would still want revenge, it is just that besides being a little dumb and consumed by hatred against Joel she came to understand that Joel done what she would have done for someone she loved (she was with Lev for a short time and killed a lot of her partners for her, so how can she condem Joel for killing people he didn't know for the only person he loved?).

The game explain everything well enough that we can easily fill the blanks.

I see.
I'll give a similar answer to Eric below, so I'll type it there.

I think people point out 'what' happened, but not 'why, they're commonly missing what TLOU2 tried to do that was unique to it unlike other revenge stories. Finding out the motive of an antagonist not unusual. Being able to play as them likewise.

Some of what makes TLOU2 unique in this regard could only have been achieved this way. Not if this was foreshadowed more in other parts, split into two games, or saved for Part 3, etc.

The first key factor is how Abby was introduced.
The second is the timing of the events.
And the third is the way Abby and Ellie are explored after that.

I did understand the killing of Joel from the beggining and didn't hate Abby because of it. But because of the grouping and torturing.

After finishing the game it became clear that Abby wasn't bad but consumed by hate. Owen was just doing it because he loved her and Mel had a grudge but didn't had on her to really do it. But the rest of the people there were really bad people and you can see it from the convos.

Did you watch the second movie? Because that is almost what happens. And Abby had very real and direct immediate consequences. Actually Joel was the one that gone without consequence for a long time and you were ok with it because you liked him since you played with him. That is probably why people often like and sides with criminals if they are close enough.