By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - TLOU2 is losing steam. Why?

Hynad on 30 October 2020
Azzanation said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Yeah, he grew overtime and became a decent jedi. But that's all he ever was, decent. He certainly didn't single-handedly take down the empire or anything like that.

Thus him failing to re-establish the jedi order and going into hiding due to shame and/or guilt over his failings in the new movies doesn't really seem out of character to me.

That's because the movies were based on a nobody becoming a somebody. They started when he wasn't powerful and you watch him grow. Being afraid was not in Lukes character. He was cocky and learnt his lessons the hard way. In Return of the Jedi, you see how powerful Luke became taking out Jabbas Palace. He had himself caught by the emperor on purpose because he was full of confidants that he could turn Vadar to the good side, something that was deemed impossible. Only reason the Emperor had Luke on the floor was due to Luke throwing his Light Sabar away after OVERPOWERING Vadar and on the verge of killing him. If you know anything about Star Wars, you would know that Vadar is no push over and Luke soloed him to the point of mercy.. or don't you remember that or choose to ignore that part? 

Luke was an extremely powerful Jedi, one of the best ever, something the movies don't really show often. If you read the books in between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, you would know that his incredibly powerful even Vadar was impressed with hearing about Luke's feats. Seeing him giving into fear in the later movies made no sense, not when he was single handily responsible of beating the greatest Sith Lord in Vadar, next to the Emperor. You don't go in hiding after that, Siths wouldn't scare Luke. Anyway i think you both need to watch the movies again.

Luke didn’t go into hiding because he was afraid of the Siths. He went into seclusion because of the guilt he felt for having let down his sister and his best friend, feeling responsible for Kylo Ren’s turn to the Dark Side, for not having been able to prevent it.



Around the Network
EnricoPallazzo on 30 October 2020
Azzanation said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Yeah, he grew overtime and became a decent jedi. But that's all he ever was, decent. He certainly didn't single-handedly take down the empire or anything like that.

Thus him failing to re-establish the jedi order and going into hiding due to shame and/or guilt over his failings in the new movies doesn't really seem out of character to me.

That's because the movies were based on a nobody becoming a somebody. They started when he wasn't powerful and you watch him grow. Being afraid was not in Lukes character. He was cocky and learnt his lessons the hard way. In Return of the Jedi, you see how powerful Luke became taking out Jabbas Palace. He had himself caught by the emperor on purpose because he was full of confidants that he could turn Vadar to the good side, something that was deemed impossible. Only reason the Emperor had Luke on the floor was due to Luke throwing his Light Sabar away after OVERPOWERING Vadar and on the verge of killing him. If you know anything about Star Wars, you would know that Vadar is no push over and Luke soloed him to the point of mercy.. or don't you remember that or choose to ignore that part? 

Luke was an extremely powerful Jedi, one of the best ever, something the movies don't really show often. If you read the books in between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, you would know that his incredibly powerful even Vadar was impressed with hearing about Luke's feats. Seeing him giving into fear in the later movies made no sense, not when he was single handily responsible of beating the greatest Sith Lord in Vadar, next to the Emperor. You don't go in hiding after that, Siths wouldn't scare Luke. Anyway i think you both need to watch the movies again.

But he was only able to take down Vader because he was being taken by the dark side at that moment. Which is why he then throws away his light saber so he is not consumed by the dark side. I really really love that part of the movie and it shows how much of a hero Luke is. And I totally agree with you, going into hiding has absolutely no connection to his character, neither throwing away his beloved light saber and other stuff. Anyway, this has been discussed to death already.



KratosLives on 30 October 2020
Srassy said:
KratosLives said:

No need to be insulted, there is no shame in someone feeling they could learn more and better from it. Those who do attend classes and such , online forum discussions, I applaud them, they gain a lot of insight , appreciation , value, and So don't think I feel that people are dumb for how they reacted to a game.  Plenty of people loved the game, and the many that didn't, for those who weren't bigots ( the whole trans thing, lesbian issues, muscular woman)they couldn't really move on past the joel/abby scene, and adjust. 

When you have two people in the same house,  who both absolutely loved the first game, and only one loved the sequel, while the other didn't like it, you then ask yourself, how and why. Both experienced the full game, so the issue becomes, it's not what ( the guy who loved it) got from it, but what the person ( that didn't like it), miss , to not like it.  And when you look to forums and the reasons to people who didn't like it, they share a similar trait.  I went from a hater to the complete opposite. This is the psychological aspect of it, and when you look deeply into it, there is a reasoning to address it. I myself experienced it and have had my own feelings change to a game.

I have seen others change their opinions after some discussions and reasonings. It's amazing how one thing can alter the mind and view towards something. I only care so much, because when people make comments like they know the game, speaking on behalf of everyone as though it's fact, that the game falls short here and there and bring up weak arguements that everyone else then copies, is annoying. 

What's the logical limit here?  If I profess to love Superman 64, is everyone else in the world missing something?  It's not what I loved about it, it's what everyone else missed to not like it, right?  I don't believe that argument for a bit.

And if you had to be logic-ed into liking it after having previously hating it, wouldn't you agree it did some things wrong or made things unclear.  My friends and I found the ending particularly unsatisfying and felt we'd wasted out time as everything just got worse the longer we played and I certainly don't have any desire to revisit it to catch anything I hypothetically might have missed.  What changed your mind in particular?

no it didn't mean it did things wrong, I just went in with the wrong mindset. It is the mind afterall that controlls what we feel, and several factors can influence our state of mind at the time. 

If you didn't get Abby's or ellie's chapters and feel their emotion, then the ending wouldn't mean anything to you. You have to have felt something for abby/ellie to really appreciate the ending, because not only did ellie save abby and lev, she saved herself from a future of regret, anxiety and torment had she stayed at the farm.  It's also important, to try pay close attention to the converstations and small talk in all cutscenes and lines of dialogue, whether in custscenes or gameplay, and to try give all the characters a chance and listen to what they have to say. On my second and third playthrough I was really intune with the dialogue, and emotions shown, to the point where I felt I knew them or got to know them. Prior to playing the game I was thinking neil had some agenda push and was mad at the leaks and the direction.  But I calmed myself down and cleared my mind, gave neil a chance. I also thought hard about the theme of "the last of us", what to expect in that world, joel's dark past, to be realistic in what kind of sequel to expect, " joel and ellie team up just wouldn't work again", and all the haters and disgrace from haters on line about abby made me feel bad to almost sink at their level, and I was determined to give abby a chance cause of all that. 



KratosLives on 30 October 2020
IcaroRibeiro said:
Jaicee said:

Speaking purely for myself, The Last Jedi was my favorite Star Wars movie and The Rise of Skywalker my least favorite. I enjoyed The Last Jedi's character-driven focus (among other things about it), which was indeed unusual for a Star Wars film. The J.J. Abrams style of direction, in contrast, just seemed a little overly dependent on callbacks and retreading familiar sorts of plots.

I suppose it's correct to say then that it takes a certain openness to new things to really appreciate The Last of Us Part II, so maybe there's some commonality in that sense between that game and The Last Jedi. I do think it's almost inevitable that when you make more than just cosmetic changes to a franchise with a given installment, you'll tend to alienate a good portion of the that franchise's fans. ...I guess I just don't care that much. I think it'd be nice if this game could be completely as popular as the original, but the fact that it might not hardly makes it an unworthy sequel, IMO.

That said, when I think of The Last of Us Part II, I don't think of Star Wars. The one does not particularly remind me of the other.

Yup, it's exactly that. Just for the record, TROS is awful much beyond any resorts on fanservice or nostalgia effect, that's why I excluded it from my argument and used The Force Awakens instead, which is nice even if inoffensive, but lack something to stand out by itself  

Regarding entertainment. Most people are conservative, not only in their moral values, but in what  they given value for. Just look at Nintendo selling a few million copies with ports of their 30 years old games just because people will choose to play those games again instead of trying something new  (as if the possibility of playing something new was too much risky for them)

Most of consumers wants  something there is familiar to them, and there isn't anything really bad about it, but when a media try to be disruptive it need customers who are indeed welcoming to changes, which history proves most of us are not. This happened with both TLOU 2 and TLJ, that's what my point, but I agree the works themselves aren't that similar

While TLJ was a victim of a strong outrage including many sexist comments and screams about a political subtext beyond any levels of stupidity and scrutiny I've seeing in 9 years following closely movie industry, it was an overall nice and positive movie still and I'm sure it gathered millions of new generation fans. Most of people I know who never cared much  about Star Wars just liked the movie and I think fans liking or not this is the right direction for the franchise

TLOU 2 is just miserable; The first one was a tale of a hope to finding a cure for a virus in a zombie world, the second is nothing but a circle of pity and darkness with one the most depressing endings I've ever seen. It's a game that it's hard to play again, even for people who liked it, it's just not a experience for everyone and I don't think ND will make a sequence of the same nature. The first game looks more suited for more audiences than the sequel, and that's alright not every game needs to have the same market

SPOLER : Lol, there is more hope in tlou2 than the first. The first game had a young girl shot right at the start and die, another young death, suicide, woman and innocent gunned down in the street and mocked at, cannibalism, and near sexual assualt on ellie, and a sad an anticlimactic ending. Where was the hope there? If you think the sequel has no hope, go and replay Abby's chapters. Also the ending is full of hope and far from depressing,  ellie gets a second shot at life, with dina most likely, is recovering, and abby and lev get saved from dying on the stakes, and no doubt make it to the fireflies. This was a more complete ending than the first, not to mention that final cutscene.

Last edited by KratosLives - on 30 October 2020

KratosLives on 30 October 2020
IcaroRibeiro said:
Jaicee said:

Speaking purely for myself, The Last Jedi was my favorite Star Wars movie and The Rise of Skywalker my least favorite. I enjoyed The Last Jedi's character-driven focus (among other things about it), which was indeed unusual for a Star Wars film. The J.J. Abrams style of direction, in contrast, just seemed a little overly dependent on callbacks and retreading familiar sorts of plots.

I suppose it's correct to say then that it takes a certain openness to new things to really appreciate The Last of Us Part II, so maybe there's some commonality in that sense between that game and The Last Jedi. I do think it's almost inevitable that when you make more than just cosmetic changes to a franchise with a given installment, you'll tend to alienate a good portion of the that franchise's fans. ...I guess I just don't care that much. I think it'd be nice if this game could be completely as popular as the original, but the fact that it might not hardly makes it an unworthy sequel, IMO.

That said, when I think of The Last of Us Part II, I don't think of Star Wars. The one does not particularly remind me of the other.

Yup, it's exactly that. Just for the record, TROS is awful much beyond any resorts on fanservice or nostalgia effect, that's why I excluded it from my argument and used The Force Awakens instead, which is nice even if inoffensive, but lack something to stand out by itself  

Regarding entertainment. Most people are conservative, not only in their moral values, but in what  they given value for. Just look at Nintendo selling a few million copies with ports of their 30 years old games just because people will choose to play those games again instead of trying something new  (as if the possibility of playing something new was too much risky for them)

Most of consumers wants  something there is familiar to them, and there isn't anything really bad about it, but when a media try to be disruptive it need customers who are indeed welcoming to changes, which history proves most of us are not. This happened with both TLOU 2 and TLJ, that's what my point, but I agree the works themselves aren't that similar

While TLJ was a victim of a strong outrage including many sexist comments and screams about a political subtext beyond any levels of stupidity and scrutiny I've seeing in 9 years following closely movie industry, it was an overall nice and positive movie still and I'm sure it gathered millions of new generation fans. Most of people I know who never cared much  about Star Wars just liked the movie and I think fans liking or not this is the right direction for the franchise

TLOU 2 is just miserable; The first one was a tale of a hope to finding a cure for a virus in a zombie world, the second is nothing but a circle of pity and darkness with one the most depressing endings I've ever seen. It's a game that it's hard to play again, even for people who liked it, it's just not a experience for everyone and I don't think ND will make a sequence of the same nature. The first game looks more suited for more audiences than the sequel, and that's alright not every game needs to have the same market

Lol, there is more hope in tlou2 than the first. The first game had a young girl shot right at the start and die, another young death, suicide, woman and innocent gunned down in the street and mocked at, cannibalism, and near sexual assualt on ellie, and a sad an anticlimactic ending. Where was the hope there? If you think the sequel has no hope, go and replay Abby's chapters. Also the ending is full of hope and far from depressing,  ellie gets a second shot at life, with dina most likely, is recovering, and abby and lev get saved from dying on the stakes, and no doubt make it to the fireflies. This was a more complete ending than the first, not to mention that final cutscene.



Around the Network
Azzanation on 30 October 2020
Hynad said:
Azzanation said:

That's because the movies were based on a nobody becoming a somebody. They started when he wasn't powerful and you watch him grow. Being afraid was not in Lukes character. He was cocky and learnt his lessons the hard way. In Return of the Jedi, you see how powerful Luke became taking out Jabbas Palace. He had himself caught by the emperor on purpose because he was full of confidants that he could turn Vadar to the good side, something that was deemed impossible. Only reason the Emperor had Luke on the floor was due to Luke throwing his Light Sabar away after OVERPOWERING Vadar and on the verge of killing him. If you know anything about Star Wars, you would know that Vadar is no push over and Luke soloed him to the point of mercy.. or don't you remember that or choose to ignore that part? 

Luke was an extremely powerful Jedi, one of the best ever, something the movies don't really show often. If you read the books in between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, you would know that his incredibly powerful even Vadar was impressed with hearing about Luke's feats. Seeing him giving into fear in the later movies made no sense, not when he was single handily responsible of beating the greatest Sith Lord in Vadar, next to the Emperor. You don't go in hiding after that, Siths wouldn't scare Luke. Anyway i think you both need to watch the movies again.

Luke didn’t go into hiding because he was afraid of the Siths. He went into seclusion because of the guilt he felt for having let down his sister and his best friend, feeling responsible for Kylo Ren’s turn to the Dark Side, for not having been able to prevent it.

Regardless on why he went into hiding, the fact that someone at his caliber does not run away which was proven many times in his character in previous movies. If you think the new movies did Luke justice i wont change your mind, however to the majority of the fan base, he was hard done by and felt he was pushed aside to make room for newer characters. Good characters like Luke and Han require good send offs not cheap and easy removals. Make them die like heroes not remembered as someone who became a chicken or fell into a blatantly obvious trap.

I find it rather ironic that the Jedi who did the impossible by turning Vadar good, ran away when a nephew turned dark.. like did he just forget that he turned the most powerful Sith Lord to light? This is what i consider bad writting.



Azzanation on 30 October 2020
Ka-pi96 said:

If you know anything about Star Wars you'd know how to spell Vader

Was Darth Vader even "the greatest Sith Lord" though? That seems like an assumption based on... very little. Firstly, he isn't even the master. He's still only the apprentice to Palpatine. Whether it's due to lack of ability of lack of ambition doesn't really matter he still hasn't surpassed him and even though he technically killed (IIRC that was retconned in the 9th movie though) Palpatine he never did so in an actual fight. Who did he beat in an actual fight? Count Dooku? That's it. And even that fight is suspect. When you're fighting the guy who's just a puppet of your future master you have to wonder if that fight was rigged. He then lost to Obi-Wan on Mustafar. He may have beat Obi-Wan in episode 4, but that fight was farcical (probably due to budget reasons to be fair) and Obi-Wan literally gave up and let himself be "killed". So, he beat the puppet of his future master in a suspect fight, slaughtered a bunch of kids, then lost to a jedi who wasn't even the "best" jedi (Obi-Wan was definitely weaker than Yoda and wasn't Mace Windu the best in terms of lightsabre skill, in which case Obi-Wan was beneath him too) and then beat an old man that had accepted death.

Yet apparently Darth Vader is the "greatest Sith Lord"? He was strong, yes. But he was never top of the pyramid. Even in a universe in which there were only 2 Sith and not a single known Jedi he was still only ever #2 in the power rankings. A 3rd rate Jedi could and would've achieved the same mythological status that he did if they had existed in the same universe where the majority of people didn't even know that the Jedi had ever existed.

As for Luke, the best at the time? Yes. By default though since he was literally the only one at the time. One of the best ever? There's nothing at all to suggest that. Not only did he not accomplish a single feat that other Jedi could've done just as well, he also failed at training new jedi which in the old Jedi order was a requirement for anybody to be considered a Jedi Master (with Anakin/Vader being the one and only exception due to political, rather than skill reasons).
I don't know what else to tell you. Ill answer your post with quick and easy Wiki searches just to prove my point.
Answers to your 2nd/3rd paragraph
(Anakin Skywalker, the Chosen One, possessed the highest known count in galactic history—over 20,000 midi-chlorians—surpassing the potential of all the Jedi including Grand Master Yoda.)
Answers to your 4th paragraph
(George Lucas himself has said that Luke is the most powerful Jedi ever.)
Times have changed, and the SW universe has definitely changed with its new owners. Regardless how well the new films are directed and how good the CGI is, the new trilogy has not done any justice to the original films and its story direction. George had Luke as the most powerful Jedi ever and Disney turned what was the most powerful Jedi to a coward, running away from his problems, a direct opposite to his character. Lets not get me started on all the plot holes with the new trilogy either.
Let me just say this, there is nothing wrong for those who like the new films, they aren't bad movies, i don't hate them, however those walking in thinking they are going to be proper continuations to the OG Trilogy will be highly disappointed. None of the old characters are in character in the new films, they are different. 
Last edited by Azzanation - on 30 October 2020

Dgc1808 on 30 October 2020
Srassy said:
Dgc1808 said:
The villain was too well introduced. Gamers couldn't handled it, their feefees got hurt.

No-one's able to discuss their opinions without cheap insults these days.  It's sad to see

That was a cheap insult? Ok. My bad. Not my intent.

Spoiler!

I really think that Abby's intro couldn't have been handled better. Much like Thanos being introduced in Infinity War, murdering Loki in front of Thor, thus giving Thor great motivation throughout his quest to become powerful enough to take down Thanos and his henchmen and army. Also, giving the viewers that were attached to that now dead character a strong desire to see Thor succeed. It only works if Thanos kills someone most of the audience likes and feels some attachment towards. It's most effective for sequels, where the audience had the entire previous entry to bond with the charter that gets murdered.

Abby's intro 1-ups Thanos' by the fact that she had stronger reason to want Joel dead, as the audience later learns in the story. And you know this is likely even in the beginning because we've learned since the first game that Joel is a bad guy that's killed and screwed over a lot of people in his past. Ellie straight up says so to Dina early on in their adventure. Abby's actions were personal and well understood. The audience accepted Joel's actions as justified as he savagely murdered and even tortured on screen in the last entry. And many of his victims never personally wronged him nor killed his family.

The game is genius. I hate Abby for killing Joel, but love the character as a whole. I hate what she did but understand and accept why she did it. That's why I think it's genius.

It did what it was trying to do for me. It hit me in the feefees in many ways. I feel like I'm handling it well and others maybe aren't.



4 ≈ One

chakkra on 30 October 2020
Hynad said:
Azzanation said:

That's because the movies were based on a nobody becoming a somebody. They started when he wasn't powerful and you watch him grow. Being afraid was not in Lukes character. He was cocky and learnt his lessons the hard way. In Return of the Jedi, you see how powerful Luke became taking out Jabbas Palace. He had himself caught by the emperor on purpose because he was full of confidants that he could turn Vadar to the good side, something that was deemed impossible. Only reason the Emperor had Luke on the floor was due to Luke throwing his Light Sabar away after OVERPOWERING Vadar and on the verge of killing him. If you know anything about Star Wars, you would know that Vadar is no push over and Luke soloed him to the point of mercy.. or don't you remember that or choose to ignore that part? 

Luke was an extremely powerful Jedi, one of the best ever, something the movies don't really show often. If you read the books in between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, you would know that his incredibly powerful even Vadar was impressed with hearing about Luke's feats. Seeing him giving into fear in the later movies made no sense, not when he was single handily responsible of beating the greatest Sith Lord in Vadar, next to the Emperor. You don't go in hiding after that, Siths wouldn't scare Luke. Anyway i think you both need to watch the movies again.

Luke didn’t go into hiding because he was afraid of the Siths. He went into seclusion because of the guilt he felt for having let down his sister and his best friend, feeling responsible for Kylo Ren’s turn to the Dark Side, for not having been able to prevent it.

And he felt that the best thing to do was to abandon his sister and his best friend to fight by themselves against their own son, the one he helped to go to the dark side.
Luke: "Jeez, I feel responsible for this kid going full evil. Hmmm... You know what? I'mma leave it to my sister. Everything will work itself out eventually"



chakkra on 30 October 2020
Azzanation said:

Jaicee said:

Speaking purely for myself, The Last Jedi was my favorite Star Wars movie and The Rise of Skywalker my least favorite. I enjoyed The Last Jedi's character-driven focus (among other things about it), which was indeed unusual for a Star Wars film. The J.J. Abrams style of direction, in contrast, just seemed a little overly dependent on callbacks and retreading familiar sorts of plots.

I suppose it's correct to say then that it takes a certain openness to new things to really appreciate The Last of Us Part II, so maybe there's some commonality in that sense between that game and The Last Jedi. I do think it's almost inevitable that when you make more than just cosmetic changes to a franchise with a given installment, you'll tend to alienate a good portion of the that franchise's fans. ...I guess I just don't care that much. I think it'd be nice if this game could be completely as popular as the original, but the fact that it might not hardly makes it an unworthy sequel, IMO.

That said, when I think of The Last of Us Part II, I don't think of Star Wars. The one does not particularly remind me of the other.

That's okay if you like the new SW films, it was never going to be a straight comparison of TLOU to SW as they are very completely different stories. The comparison sits more inline with the hate behind the new SW films and the hate behind TLOU2 to their direct predecessors.

For example, I love SW, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were some of my favorite movie characters, and to see them get killed off in the new films did not sit well with a lot of fans. Its not them dying which was the problem, its how they died. They were disposed of without any care and disrespected the history of what made them great in the first place.

SPOILERS

Luke, the character which fought through fear and single handily defeated Darth Vadar, the most powerful Sith Lord in existence and taking out the Empire all at the same time also gave into fear in The Last Jedi, where he was hiding, afraid, and banished himself.. Luke's exact line in A New Hope was "I am not afraid" to only revert back decades later that he is now afraid of a young apprentice.. someone he is more powerful than (Or should have been) That's the bad writing of the directors not understanding what made the old SWs films great. In The Last Jedi, Luke basically dies on a rock.. with what would be a great fight scene between Luke and Kylo-Ren, only to be disappointed it was all just a hologram and a trick. Luke's death was not deserving to his lore.

Han Solo also was killed off in such a cheap and quick way, basically gets stabbed in the back by his son, something Han would see coming, he relies on luck, and seeing him die like that was another movie character tragedy. Han is a skilled Pilot, one of the best ever, he relies on luck, his the type of character to go out with a bang, not a light saber in his gut, that even he would see coming. Lara also being strong with the force could have predicted this, instead she urges him to go confront Kylo.. wtf. These are major plot holes.

Now the same can be said with Joel, how he was killed off was premature, much like the old favorites in SWs. The death does not make sense to his character. Again no one is complaining that Joel died, its how he died. His a survivor and was just blatantly pushed aside to make room for this new character which felt the game forced you like. Sure Abby is not a bad character however she needed to be liked first before doing what she did before telling people to like her because of reasons.

Either are bad games or films, however they definitely fell short from their reputations of their predecessors.

But not only that; the guy who was so powerful that scared the crap of the man who defeated Darth Vader then got his ass handed to him by someone who didn't even know about the force a week before.

Yeah, The Last Jedi gets all the hate but the issues of this trilogy actually started in the first movie.