The justifications used to not like the game are terrible. And they pretty much all come from a common background.  

It's important that you read the polygon article mentioned in the video, and look at DCG's actual review of TLOU2, it's one of the best out there, and I've watched a few. It highlights the points where the game shines, but points out the single glaring flaw. If you understand that flaw, it  will help ND evolve. I'll let you watch it. https://youtu.be/Oc7iWZqyWQ4

In the Polygon article,  Rob Zacny from Vice mentions a nuanced opinion, not a one-sided view. Your post is very well written and often true, but unfortunately it's misinformed on the topic at hand and ultimately not true in this case. Here is the excerpt that matters:

"The vibe around the game hasn’t gotten much better since then. On June 12, Vice published its review of The Last of Us Part 2, in which critic Rob Zacny said that while the game had “memorable moments” that made for great “spectacle,” he was less taken with the story and characters. “Nobody ever reconsiders their quest for vengeance,” Zacny wrote. “Everyone acts under a kind of vindictive compulsion that goes little remarked and unexamined.” Zacny went on to describe the game’s message as complacent, full of “oppressive bleakness and violence.”"

So, underlined is positive, bold is negative, in other words: nuanced. You will notice that DCG's review mentioned the same problem, so perhaps it's not a gangup. Perhaps there's a real problem in the way the game's overall narrative is constructed that made gamers feel forced to do bad things without the characters being questioned about it, without having any valid reason for doing it. Just maybe?

The justifications used to not like the game are terrible. And they pretty much all come from a common background.  

Conservatives can’t support regulation? News to me, that’s politically neutral and something both sides can agree with.

He actually spoke out on it and admitted it when his own site Giant Bomb was purchased by the same parent company that owns Gamespot. It’s still very much the Wild West in gaming as shady dealings are the norm and rarely exposed to end users like us. 

You are saying things that are just not true.  The Naughty Dog games were the best selling 1st party games on the PS3.  GT experienced a significant decline at the same time.  Naughty Dog has been their flagship studio for the past two generations.

Also, I'm not the first person to suggest that the rating system is biased and unreliable, not even close.  I'm just pointing out the details in this specific incident.

I think you're thinking of Libertarians rather than Republicans. It's Libertarians who are strongly opposed to all forms of government regulation. While many Republicans are Libertarians, not all of them are. Some Republicans are ok with government regulation of certain things. 

My mistake.  I took a second look at GT numbers.  However, Naughty Dog was still basically their flagship studio on the PS3 since they had several high sellers.  The same can be said for PS4.

What if someone doesn't like apocalypse type games, third person, or anything dealing with this genre.  Not everyone likes the same genres or game settings.  I'm sure you don't like most of my favorite games.

It's important that you read the polygon article mentioned in the video, and look at DCG's actual review of TLOU2, it's one of the best out there, and I've watched a few. It highlights the points where the game shines, but points out the single glaring flaw. If you understand that flaw, it  will help ND evolve. I'll let you watch it. https://youtu.be/Oc7iWZqyWQ4

In the Polygon article,  Rob Zacny from Vice mentions a nuanced opinion, not a one-sided view. Your post is very well written and often true, but unfortunately it's misinformed on the topic at hand and ultimately not true in this case. Here is the excerpt that matters:

"The vibe around the game hasn’t gotten much better since then. On June 12, Vice published its review of The Last of Us Part 2, in which critic Rob Zacny said that while the game had “memorable moments” that made for great “spectacle,” he was less taken with the story and characters. “Nobody ever reconsiders their quest for vengeance,” Zacny wrote. “Everyone acts under a kind of vindictive compulsion that goes little remarked and unexamined.” Zacny went on to describe the game’s message as complacent, full of “oppressive bleakness and violence.”"

So, underlined is positive, bold is negative, in other words: nuanced. You will notice that DCG's review mentioned the same problem, so perhaps it's not a gangup. Perhaps there's a real problem in the way the game's overall narrative is constructed that made gamers feel forced to do bad things without the characters being questioned about it, without having any valid reason for doing it. Just maybe?

There were threats and bribes. DCG testifies not receiving a Ghost of Tsushima preview copy (Quote from my summary post):

"- DCG asked for a preview copy of Ghost of Tsushima, and Sony did not give a response, even if they're apparently throwing copies around."

@bold. The article is clear that it's unusual and considered weird (see not really moral) if it isn't done by a big publisher to point out a factual error:

"Zacny clarified that the exchange wasn’t “confrontational,” but that it was nonetheless “unusual,” as the site doesn’t typically have big publishers asking in an official capacity why a review reads the way it does. Such things can happen, of course, though often with smaller developers, or from publishers who have spotted a factual error in a piece that they want corrected."

In my opinion, the true problem with this thread is that people don't read the source material and just post incomplete opinions. Looks at the number of times I've used the source to explain parts that people should have known had they read the article linked in OP, or watched the referenced videos. People need to read the content and make sense of it, otherwise we will just keep getting less informed.

As for DCG, he mentioned:

"- Sony, on behalf of Naughty Dog, wrote to them that "They felt some of the conclusions I [Zacny] reached in my review were unfair and dismissed some meaningful changes or improvements", Zacny told Polygon over Twitter.
- Dreamcastguy says that this is bonkers, and it only happened to him once before when he gave a 2/10 over a game that he considered very bad. Years ago, after DCG published the negative review, the CEO of the game studio reached him by email saying that he "didn't quite get it", trying to explain how the game worked, and more condescending comments. No matter how much cash or power these companies have, they are obsessed with client feedback, to be hyper in tune with gamers, to make sure that everyone is on the same wavelength."

@XL-klaudkil. Two in OP, unless you don't believe independent journalists.

They were not allowed to talk about some parts if they wanted to publish the review a week before the release of the game, but if they waited for the day of release they could talk about those. Most of the reviewers prefered to do a early review. Digital Foundry and some others prefered to do two reviews, one where they obbeyed the holding of some points for early review and another where they didn't hold for the full review. And few reviewers opted for the full review at release date or later.