Forums - Politics Discussion - (POSSIBLE SPOILERS INSIDE) The agenda and political discussion of Naughty Dog

Have politics damaged the quality of ND games

No 28 39.44%
 
Yes 43 60.56%
 
Total:71
Torillian said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

But then how do you define reasonable? If a single character is a gay, black, transgender woman with green eyes they're an amalgam of unlikely things but they are just a single person and if I want to make a game about such a character it would be no different to me finding someone like that in the real world and doing a documentary on them or making that a character in a movie for a story I felt like telling. If I tell a story about a lottery winner is that not reasonable? 

At least someone's being reasonable and intelligent. Sadly, nothing in this thread makes me think the people you're aiming it towards will heed its logic. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Around the Network
Torillian said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

But then how do you define reasonable? If a single character is a gay, black, transgender woman with green eyes they're an amalgam of unlikely things but they are just a single person and if I want to make a game about such a character it would be no different to me finding someone like that in the real world and doing a documentary on them or making that a character in a movie for a story I felt like telling. If I tell a story about a lottery winner is that not reasonable? 

That is why I said it isn't reasonable, but is possible and it could happen and there is no problem in that happening.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Runa216 said:
Torillian said:

But then how do you define reasonable? If a single character is a gay, black, transgender woman with green eyes they're an amalgam of unlikely things but they are just a single person and if I want to make a game about such a character it would be no different to me finding someone like that in the real world and doing a documentary on them or making that a character in a movie for a story I felt like telling. If I tell a story about a lottery winner is that not reasonable? 

At least someone's being reasonable and intelligent. Sadly, nothing in this thread makes me think the people you're aiming it towards will heed its logic. 

@Runa216 you sir are my hero!



padib said:

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.



EricHiggin said:
padib said:

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.

As I said to John, perhaps if they done a RE2 way, you choose to play as Abby or Ellie and get to the ending, and if you finish both you can do the true ending. That way some would even ignore that they had to play with Abby they hate because it killed Joel, and perhaps as said by him it would be easier for some to accept the story if they did it linear in time so they would understand Abby's reasons earlier.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

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.

As I said to John, perhaps if they done a RE2 way, you choose to play as Abby or Ellie and get to the ending, and if you finish both you can do the true ending. That way some would even ignore that they had to play with Abby they hate because it killed Joel, and perhaps as said by him it would be easier for some to accept the story if they did it linear in time so they would understand Abby's reasons earlier.

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.

Last edited by EricHiggin - 5 days ago

EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

As I said to John, perhaps if they done a RE2 way, you choose to play as Abby or Ellie and get to the ending, and if you finish both you can do the true ending. That way some would even ignore that they had to play with Abby they hate because it killed Joel, and perhaps as said by him it would be easier for some to accept the story if they did it linear in time so they would understand Abby's reasons earlier.

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.

So what makes it not acceptable?  

Also I have no idea how you can finish the game and think that part of the story should have been split up.

I definitely think some parts should have been removed but splitting the story up would have missed a big point of the story. 



the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

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.

So what makes it not acceptable?  

Also I have no idea how you can finish the game and think that part of the story should have been split up.

I definitely think some parts should have been removed but splitting the story up would have missed a big point of the story. 

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.



EricHiggin said:
the-pi-guy said:

So what makes it not acceptable?  

Also I have no idea how you can finish the game and think that part of the story should have been split up.

I definitely think some parts should have been removed but splitting the story up would have missed a big point of the story. 

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.

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

Spoiler!

The core part of the story is that Ellie gets revenge for Joel, and through that she finally understands the actions that he made during the end of the last game.  

Abby's story is important as well, because it gives the motivation for Abby, it also puts Ellie's actions into context.  The people that she killed were people had names.  

The game doesn't work without seeing both sides.  



EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

As I said to John, perhaps if they done a RE2 way, you choose to play as Abby or Ellie and get to the ending, and if you finish both you can do the true ending. That way some would even ignore that they had to play with Abby they hate because it killed Joel, and perhaps as said by him it would be easier for some to accept the story if they did it linear in time so they would understand Abby's reasons earlier.

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.

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994