TLOU2 Review Thread

[Dreiko]

Well then a) why even comment on it, since my post was in regards to CriticalGaming saying being gay isn't normal, and b) that's straight-up false. Pandering to minorities (if we can even call having a minority main character 'pandering') didn't turn-off the majority to Black Panther. And that movie even had politics regarding the marginalized position of black people in America (from what I've heard anyway). And TLoU2 is going to sell perfectly fine, too. Now you might say 'well that's only because it's Marvel, and only because Sony AAA exclussives have a tendency to sell well anyway', but if pandering to minorities was really such a turn-off to the majority they would flop regardless. But they don't.

And sorry, but if someone refuses to either watch a movie or play a game because the main character (or any other character) is a minority, and soley for that reason alone, that's discrimination.

I just saw black panther as a fun fantasy movie, not as pandering to anyone. I don't think having a power fantasy that stems from african cultural roots is somehow any more pandering than a movie about a badass samurai set in a Japanese fantasy world or something and I love a lot of those as well and I never saw them as "pandering" to anyone so why would I treat the black panther any differently. Sure, there were people on the outside who were politicizing the movie, but that wasn't the movie's fault, at worst it was their marketing's fault. The movie itself was just a cool fantasy movie.


This is kind of the issue with coming into this from a racialized angle. I'm just seeing "well, they are making a film about african fantasy, of course everyone's black, it's africa" and kinda stop analyzing this aspect there and proceed to pay attention to the plot and action scenes. I'm not trying to nitpick things that could be considered pandering. That's why when something is actually coming of as pandering it has to be really making an effort to do so.


And are there really a lot of people who refuse to play games they'd otherwise definitely play solely for such a reason? That's kinda inconceivable. I guess by the law or probabilities there may be like 4 people out there like that but it's not a notable faction lol.

 

[dscross]

I'm not paying full price for it i don't think. I did that for RE3 recently and regretted it.

 

[Dreiko]

And to hit this on the opposite end away from negativity, there's this tweet review of the game that likens it to Schindler's List and people seem mad about that but I actually think it's great if people can be impacted by a game as much as they are impacted by a tragic real story. People need to stop treating games like they're inferior to a movie. A game can affect you just as much as anything else if it's good enough.

Hopefully that guy is right (and also doesn't get canceled out of existence lol).

 

[Ezekiel]

And to hit this on the opposite end away from negativity, there's this tweet review of the game that likens it to Schindler's List and people seem mad about that but I actually think it's great if people can be impacted by a game as much as they are impacted by a tragic real story. People need to stop treating games like they're inferior to a movie. A game can affect you just as much as anything else if it's good enough.

Hopefully that guy is right (and also doesn't get canceled out of existence lol).

I treat game stories as inferior to movie stories because the good game stories usually ARE inferior to the good movie stories. Nothing Naughty Dog has made since Uncharted: Drake's Fortune makes me believe this is as good as Schindler's List. Didn't really see what the big deal with The Last of Us was. It was merely competent.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

And that you specifically commented on my post calling out the claim that being gay and kissing someone of the same gender is not normal and worthy of making a fuss over as discriminatory, which it is.

If the definition of normal is something which is usual or typical then yes, homosexuality isn't normal. The idea that being normal is the only way to be good is something I am highly against as I myself am not normal as a person with aspergers but I also do not consider it bad that I am not normal, neither should homosexuals.

 

[Gyrobot]

Well then a) why even comment on it, since my post was in regards to CriticalGaming saying being gay isn't normal, and b) that's straight-up false. Pandering to minorities (if we can even call having a minority main character 'pandering') didn't turn-off the majority to Black Panther. And that movie even had politics regarding the marginalized position of black people in America (from what I've heard anyway). And TLoU2 is going to sell perfectly fine, too. Now you might say 'well that's only because it's Marvel, and only because Sony AAA exclussives have a tendency to sell well anyway', but if pandering to minorities was really such a turn-off to the majority they would flop regardless. But they don't.

And sorry, but if someone refuses to either watch a movie or play a game because the main character (or any other character) is a minority, and soley for that reason alone, that's discrimination.

Unless they are portrayed as stereotypes, I notice they get real quiet around titles like Senran Kagura or Saints Row because it portrays minorities the "right" way. Also they hate gaming trying to be art as I painfully learned from commenting in the review thread

 

[Hawki]

So, the website cut out a lot of what I posted, so when it comes to stuff like Black Panther, you'll never get my thoughts, because I'm not typing it all up again. You can guess from the thumbs up what I think. Here's the stuff that made it.

Which I still find baffling considering how rare a decent sequel is, damn near impossible a good one, and the overwhelming majority of sequels are hacked-together rushed committee fucked garbage.
Like the Last of Us...its been 6 years! Kids who were born during the LoU launch are going into 1st grade. Who keeps a torch burning for anything for that long?! How many brain-cells go to fan theories or hopeful ideas? How long has it been going on? Was there ever a lull in the anticipation?
I will never understand why anyone thinks something can be equally as good the second time. The fact the Last of Us was popular was unexpected. The writers didn't know, the VAs didn't know, the programmers didn't know. They all hoped, but they didn't know. Now with a sequel the bare-minimum is exactly as good as the first one. Even one breath of a whisper of a shadow of an iota worse and its a disappointment.
At best its a recipe for disaster that people get way, way, way too invested in.

I'm not sure where the idea has come from that there's some kind of expiry date as to when you can/should create a sequel. Even if there's a lull in anticipation, I can name plenty of sequels that came out after an extended period of time and were well received.

Being inclusive to the LBGTQ community doesn't mean appealing to ONLY the LBGTQ community. Like all things there should be balance, have gay characters and straight characters and trans characters all together in a story organically.

I mean they made Ellie a lesbian when she was like fucking 12 or some shit in that DLC. Why? There is no problem making her a lesbian but why as a child? Let her grow but and discover herself as a lesbian in a more interesting fashion. Meeting a girl in a community, finding herself attracted, battling with it a little, and giving into her sexuality as a bit of character growth.

The majority of the Last of Us 1 players did NOT play the DLC, so when they launch this game it's gonna be like "By the way Ellie's gay now because we said so." Fucking why? You could have told that story as a character growing arch in this game and made it feel good and natural. Instead you just flip a gay switch.

This seems like a roundabout way of saying "I'm not against gays, but I just don't want them in my games."

I'm not sure why it's suddenly "flipping a switch" to make Ellie a lesbian - would we be having this conversation if Riley was Ryan? Also, I don't why why 12 is apparently too early. I'm pretty sure most people would have some vague understanding as to where their attraction lies by this point, even if it doesn't translate into sexual desire.

No it isn't just having the main character be gay. It's the politics of having every character being gay (as in batwomen) or having it all over the product like it's the only thing that has any relevance. Politics alienate people.

Is it political to make everyone straight?

If having all your characters be gay is political, and politics turns people off, then that doesn't explain the success of She-Ra.

What was wrong with the normal Indiana Jones-like story about traveling around the globe looking for treasure. No sexuality needed.

Um, Elena? Chloe?

FFS, I've never even played Uncharted (or heck, any Naughty Dog game since Crash Bandicoot), but even I'm aware that Nate has it easy with the ladies.

Everything has to have a fucking message now and I hate it honestly. It's so on the nose that it makes me actively discredit the message on purpose.

Lesbian pairing...is a message?

Look, I actually agree that you can be heavy-handed about it. I never watched Batwoman, but I saw the trailer, and yeah, it's extremely heavy handed (Kate Kane is a woman, CW, I get it!). But I'm not sure where this is coming from in Last of Us.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

There seems to be a no-win scenario then. You say you want it subtle and then complain it was done in a DLC instead of being apart of a full story arc. What do you want then? Many would complain that Naughty Dog is trying to be all "woke" by having the main story arc being that Ellie is gay. It seems like minority characters have to be perfectly written and implemented into the game and everyone has their own interpretation for how that's done to not appear as some agenda or political statement and thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that it's done poorly thus leading to "they're ruining our games" argument. It's not like video games have a history of having good characters in the 1st place and minority characters will probably be as bad as majority characters, what does it matter? Why can't minority characters be as poorly written as straight white characters? Sure, we might get an overabundance of minority characters but that's mainly because we got an overabundance of majority characters before and once publishers start allowing minority characters, you'll have an influx of devs wanting to make a game with character(s) they weren't allowed to use before. At the end of the day, you're either going to feel like the game has well written characters or not and chances are low that forced minority characters will have ruined anything that wouldn't have been ruined already.


I don't feel like either Rurikhan or Skillup has purposefully held back footage that didn't support their views of the game. I'd say the 47 (if I counted correctly) perfect scores on Metacritic are far more likely to be full of confirmation bias and cherry picking than the aforementioned guys. Just look at all the bullshit confirmation bias and cherry picking in the "professional" reviews of Uncharted 3. From the games that both Skillup and I have played, I say he overrates games if anything. I don't at all feel like I was given a poor representation of what the game is by either of them and the less than stellar representation is a lot more due to the embargo than either of them. Hell, Skillup had to use footage from RDR2, Sekiro, and Witcher 3 (for the, you know, boating gameplay footage that he apparently left out purposefully) to try to demonstrate TLOU2 properly.

That's literally what a reviewer is supposed to do, share why they liked/disliked something based on their personal feelings. There's no way to assign universal value to a story and I don't see why one would even try to. Movie reviews have been getting along just fine for well over 50 years. You do just like you do with regards to other mediums and their reviews, find someone with similar tastes or someone that's just good at explaining why they liked/disliked something, then thinking mainly about the "whys" and basically ignoring the fact that they liked or didn't like it. To act like a large chunk of why someone likes/dislikes a TLOU game has little to do with story and characters is being dishonest as well. I definitely want to know what someone thinks of the characters and story in TLOU2, probably more so than the gameplay because I know what the gameplay is already.

TLOU2 plays far more like TLOU than it does MGS5. Just because the linear environments are more open than the last game doesn't equal the game playing more like MGS5 than TLOU1. I believe both Rurikhan and Skillup mentioned there's more routes around levels and encounters (like instead of say 2 routes, there's like 4 or 5). Also, MGS5 has far smoother and arcade-y shooting controls than TLOU.

You’re literally confirming what I’ve been saying, in that your mind is already made up about the game before you’ve even played it, just based on what those guys said and your previous experience with Naughty Dog games.

I don’t see why they had to use footage of other games either when describing things that have already been shown several times in this game. Expansive environments, boat gameplay and burning backgrounds aren’t spoiler territory and it seems they’re just being spiteful due to the leak drama that might’ve affected them earlier.

Being able to go prone and crawl around under vehicles (where patrols will still look for you and yank you out by a leg if found), still having access to your gear and crafting, getting knocked on your back from a gunshot and being able to fire from that position, being able to take hostages and interrogate before killing them, horseback traversal, using a boat for further stealth, etc. Do those sound like typical Naughty Dog gameplay mechanics? To me that sounds like they took cues from MGSV and even expanded upon it.

But of course, we wouldn’t know much of that just going by what Rurikhan or Skill Up said.

 

[Silvanus]

If the definition of normal is something which is usual or typical then yes, homosexuality isn't normal. The idea that being normal is the only way to be good is something I am highly against as I myself am not normal as a person with aspergers but I also do not consider it bad that I am not normal, neither should homosexuals.

This is overlooking a huge amount of baggage attached to the word "normal". Culturally, "abnormal" or "not normal" does not merely refer to something being "atypical". The term "atypical" is neutral, without judgement; the term "abnormal" is, 90% of the time, used as a condemnation or censure.

As it applies to people, "abnormal" takes on additional negative connotations as a result of its historical usage. If you're fine using the term, that's great; but other people aren't going to be coming at it with the same experience or free from that baggage. Other people will more than likely have only ever heard the term "abnormal" used as an insult when directed at people, as that's the most common usage by far; and it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume it's meant that way again.

Take the term "bastard" as another example. Sure, technically it merely refers to the child of unwed parents, which is a pretty common scenario nowadays. Yet the history of the term in reference to people is almost exclusively an insult.

 

[Houseman]

Unless they are portrayed as stereotypes, I notice they get real quiet around titles like Senran Kagura or Saints Row because it portrays minorities the "right" way. Also they hate gaming trying to be art as I painfully learned from commenting in the review thread

Who are "they"? Bigots?
Senran Kagura is, AFAIK, a game about fanservice ninjas, and Saints Row tries it's hardest to be as ridiculous as possible. How do they portray minorities the "right" way?

Like I said before, it's not as if media exists in a vacuum. Black Panther isn't the same as a Tyler Perry movie. You can't just call people hypocrites for liking one but not the other. You can but, not a lot of people will agree with you. It's rarely ever as simple as "game has a female lead being portrayed as strong and capable, guys hate it" or "game has a female lead with big boobs and a short miniskirt that you can look up, guys love it!"

Samus from Metroid and Lara Croft are probably better liked than, say, Rey from Star Wars or Captain Marvel. All are strong, capable female leads. Not all are liked equally. Why do you think that is?

 

[Hawki]

So, something's really weird with the forums right now, so I'm reconstructing my original post over various entries.

And yeah, you're right, if Ellie kissed a boy as a teenager it wouldn't be a big deal. Because like it or not, that's the normal and normal usually isn't a big deal.

"Hetronormativity!"

Okay, sure. I'm not actually fond of the term because the majority of the population is hetrosexual, so the prevalance of hetrosexual love isn't surprising. Last I checked, about 5% of the population was LGBT. But 5% is still one out of every twenty people. That's more than enough for the girl to get the girl instead of the girl getting the guy and it not really being that much of a deal.

I really hate this idea. The idea that any LGBT pairing is either "forcing politics" or "a symbol of representation." Some people are gay. Gay people fall in love. FFS, deal with it. Because there's a whole swathe of people who think that the mere presence of a gay character is "forcing politics," and it's mindblowing. Again, the Tracer "controversy." If Emily had been replaced with "Emile," you wouldn't have to change a line of dialogue, let alone change the plot, and for some people that was still "inserting politics." So much politics because Russia banned the comic from being accessed from within Russia. But somehow, in the year 2020, we're still discussing this as if it's some big revelation.

In Crash Bandicoot, Crash was paired with Tawna. In Jak and Daxter, Jak was paired with Kiera. In Uncharted, Nathan was paired with Chloe. In Last of Us, Ellie was paired with Riley. No prizes for guessing which of these has some people in a tizzy.

LGBT are in the minority, and one of those letters are even further in the minority than the others. Appealing (pandering) to a small percentage of the population has a chance to turn off those who aren't in that minority. That's not discrimination, that's demographics.



If The Escapist was branded as an LGBT site, like this, a lot of us wouldn't be here, not because we're bigots, but because it just doesn't appeal or apply to us.

Look, I actually agree about the minority thing in a sense. It's why "hetronormativity" is an iffy term IMO, because if you want to explain why hetrosexual love is so prevalant in fiction, some of that so doubt comes down to repression, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people are hetrosexual. Even if LGBT people were never forced to hide in the closet, the vast majority of culture would still represent the hetrosexual majority.



That being said, I object to the term "pandering," as if any deviation from the norm is "pandering." Because if that's the criteria that's being used, then I can just as easily use the accusation of "pandering" to the majority. I mean, sex sells, and the statistics back that up, so I can broaden romance of any kind into "pandering."



At the end of the day, Ellie's gay. I'm not. Ellie isn't obliged to 'pander' to me. Naughty Dog's 'pandered' to me in every IP of theirs prior to the Last of Us, I can take LGBT folks being 'pandered' to for once.

Politics are quite a bit more niche and quite frankly not a lot of video game players are interested in a game trying to push how the patriarchy is evil. Or want to be bombarded with alternate sexualities.



The best messages are subtle and in your face crap tends to get ignored.

I actually agree that messages in fiction tend to be better when subtle. But how is Ellie being gay a "message?"



Notice how no-one accused Riley of being a "message," despite being black, and a woman. Go back far enough, these traits would have been considered "messages" as well. Uhura on Star Trek was a "message" at the time (first interacial kiss on TV), nowadays, no-one would bat an eye at that.

 

[Hawki]

This is the last of the reconstructed posts.

Because you called it discrimination, and I disagreed with that assessment.



It's not as if a movie or a game exists in a vacuum. There are always multiple different factors at play. People who came for Captain America might sit through Black Panther or Captain Marvel so as to not miss out on important plot points that will be used in sequels, like Infinity War, and Spiderman: Far From Home.



So that doesn't disprove my argument.

That's a fair point, but look at the MCU films by gross. Not everyone sees certain films as leadup to big ones. For instance, I think Endgame sold the most. Black Panther sold over 1 billion. Ant-Man and the Wasp did nothing special, either financially or critically. So if people were solely interested in seeing themselves, then Black Panther should lurk near the bottom of the MCU in terms of gross.

You think that a disconnected Black Panther movie that isn't part of the connected cinematic universe would do as well?

As well? No. Well in of itself? Quite possibly. I mean, Blade, starring Wesley Snipes, was good enough to get a trilogy, and the first two films were reasonably well received. Do you think the box office returns came solely from black people?

This seems a little ridiculous to even explain. It seems like common sense that games are made for, and marketed towards, specific target audiences. Games about Barbie are aimed at little girls. Tyler Perry is aimed at black people. Shounen is aimed at teenage boys. Rom Coms are aimed at women. The further away you are from the target audience, the less likely it is that you'll ever consume that media. This is all common knowledge, isn't it?

Well, yeah, but two points.



First, is stuff like Black Panther and Last of Us really targeted at a specific audience? Because superhero movies have very broad appeal these days (or they did at least, it'll be curious to see how they fare post-Covid). Second, even if something is targeted at a demographic, that doesn't preclude people outside the demographic enjoying it. Women can like James Bond, and men can like My Little Pony. With the latter, there's an argument to be made that the show adjusted itself to take advantage of the new demographic, because there's a noticable shift from season 1 to 2, with the latter referncing stuff like Escape from New York and Metal Gear, and by season 4, DBZ.



But even back to the Last of Us, despite what this thread might have some believe, LoU is a zombie apocalypse story, not a LGBT story. Ellie being gay is simply part of her character, it's not the crux of the theme or plot. Like, this isn't the best example, but when Tara was 'revealed' as being gay in Walking Dead, did the show suddenly become gay themed?

And sorry, but if someone refuses to either watch a movie or play a game because the main character (or any other character) is a minority, and soley for that reason alone, that's discrimination.

This.

 

[Hawki]

Samus from Metroid and Lara Croft are probably better liked than, say, Rey from Star Wars or Captain Marvel. All are strong, capable female leads. Not all are liked equally. Why do you think that is?

I'd of thought that in the general population, Rey and Captain Marvel would be liked more, since videogames are more niche than movies.

 

[Houseman]

Last I checked, about 5% of the population was LGBT. But 5% is still one out of every twenty people.

Maybe if the girl gets the girl 5% of the time, people would be okay with it. But it seems like the percentage is much higher than that. That might just because these types of things get more media attention, but that's what it seems like.

then I can just as easily use the accusation of "pandering" to the majority.

Yes, please do. It's just as valid.

Ellie isn't obliged to 'pander' to me. Naughty Dog's 'pandered' to me in every IP of theirs prior to the Last of Us, I can take LGBT folks being 'pandered' to for once.

Yes, exactly.

The problem occurs when people say "Why don't you like this?! You must be a bigot/homophobe/transphobe/mysoginst" and won't take "it just doesn't appeal to me" as an answer.

There's nothing wrong with being pandered to, and there's nothing wrong with not being pandered to, and there's nothing wrong with not liking something when it doesn't pander to you.

So if people were solely interested in seeing themselves, then Black Panther should lurk near the bottom of the MCU in terms of gross.

I'm not saying that this is the case. I'm saying the opposite, in fact. People AREN'T solely interested in seeming themselves. Their choice of MCU movies is more complex than that.

Second, even if something is targeted at a demographic, that doesn't preclude people outside the demographic enjoying it

Of course not.
But it does affect sales. If targeting certain demographics didn't work, advertisers wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars doing it.

My point is that it has an effect, that's all.

But even back to the Last of Us, despite what this thread might have some believe, LoU is a zombie apocalypse story, not a LGBT story. Ellie being gay is simply part of her character, it's not the crux of the theme or plot.

If only the marketing department saw it that way. But they had to put Ellie's kiss front and center in one of their most important trailers. Marketing deliberately did that. It wasn't just some "oh this is a small side detail, it's not really that important", no it was "THIS IS FRONT AND CENTER, THIS IS THE FIRST THING YOU SEE. SEAR IT INTO YOUR BRAINS!"

If it was just a little side thing, it wouldn't have been in the trailers at all. Kind of like how killing zombies wasn't in that trailer at all.

but when Tara was 'revealed' as being gay in Walking Dead, did the show suddenly become gay themed?

Sorry, I can't comment on this because I never watched that show.

But I can relate to TLoU1, where a character was revealed to be gay. THAT was a side-detail. Bill sucking face with his male lover wasn't in the first few seconds of an E3 trailer. There's a huge difference there.

I'd of thought that in the general population, Rey and Captain Marvel would be liked more, since videogames are more niche than movies.

I'm thinking of the overlap between moviegoers and gamers.

 

[MrCalavera]

They basically described what Naughty Dog said the game would be; how some people might not like it and that being better than making something just to please the fans.

With all the controversy I’m more intrigued now than ever over how good or bad the whole thing is. I know their plan wasn’t to make a self-authored game full of player agency and feel-good tie-in’s to the original, which seems to be what Polygon is complaining about. So that’s kinda the most important battle checked off going into it.

The Polygon writer disagrees with the message the game tries to sell. Not about "transgenderism" or "representation", but about "human nature" in the face of extreme circumstances.
Found twitter post with some snippets, for those that don't want to/have time to read entire thing.

So, yeah, a contra to "game made me feel like shit, must be good".
I find that angle of dissection more interesting, than another tired debate about virtual character's genitalia.

 

[Hawki]

Maybe if the girl gets the girl 5% of the time, people would be okay with it. But it seems like the percentage is much higher than that. That might just because these types of things get more media attention, but that's what it seems like.

It depends on how you count it.

It's actually a problem I have with the representation "thing," because how do you measure it? Like, let's say, in 2020, 10% of all protagonists are LGBT (I've no idea how you'd even count that, but whatever). Some might call that over-representation. The counter-argument to that is that LGBT individuals have been unrepresented for so long, so when you place 2020 in the context of the history of fiction, the percentage plummets. I remember how on this very website, there was an article about a (coded?) trans character in Apex Legends being great for representation, but someone else pointed out that if you take the number of heroes, and cross reference it with the percentage of the population that's trans (between 0.1 and 1%), then the game has over-representation.

I know there's people who'll disagree with this, but my view is that if you remove barriers to creating fiction, the representation thing should sort itself out. Detractors of that view will point out that this isn't the world we live in, but the problem with representation is that you can multiply the factors ad infinitum. So generally, my view is that as a rule, creators should be free to do as they please, and let those works succeed or fall on their own merits. She-Ra has about 100% LGBT characters, and succeeded, while Avatar: The Last Airbender has 0% LGBT characters, and also succeeded.

I could play this game all day, so the winning move is not to play. But by the rules of not playing, I have to accept that LGBT characters shouldn't be considered "political" or "pandering" by virtue of their mere existence.

Yes, please do. It's just as valid.

Or we don't play the game at all? Because if everything's pandering, then nothing is pandering.

Pandering, to me, comes more from how something is presented, rather than mere presence. So, at least by trailers, I'd call Batwoman pandering, because it was trying to sell you on the fact that Kate Kane is female and gay. Black Panther I wouldn't call pandering, because it was confident enough in its material to present it naturally.

Of course not.
But it does affect sales. If targeting certain demographics didn't work, advertisers wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars doing it.

My point is that it has an effect, that's all.

Except as I pointed out, targeting one demographic doesn't preclude other demographics from enjoying the material.

Again, take MLP. It was targeted for little girls. It didn't stop people outside that demographic from latching on.

If only the marketing department saw it that way. But they had to put Ellie's kiss front and center in one of their most important trailers. Marketing deliberately did that. It wasn't just some "oh this is a small side detail, it's not really that important", no it was "THIS IS FRONT AND CENTER, THIS IS THE FIRST THING YOU SEE. SEAR IT INTO YOUR BRAINS!"

Except it wasn't the first trailer that we saw. This was.

If it was just a little side thing, it wouldn't have been in the trailers at all. Kind of like how killing zombies wasn't in that trailer at all.

But it WAS a side thing. It wasn't the first trailer released, and it wasn't the last. The majority of trailers showed Ellie either killing or surviving.

But I can relate to TLoU1, where a character was revealed to be gay. THAT was a side-detail. Bill sucking face with his male lover wasn't in the first few seconds of an E3 trailer. There's a huge difference there.

Difference being that Ellie's the protagonist, Bill's a side character.

I'm thinking of the overlap between moviegoers and gamers.

Even by that overlap, I'm dubious. Metroid is a niche franchise, no matter how many people claim otherwise. Rey may be mixed, but Star Wars is an IP that everyone at least knows the basics of. Rey is arguably more disliked than Samus, but Samus barely has a personality, so what is there to dislike? Samus is far more overpowered than Rey, but at least has in-universe rationale for it.

I'm not being wry, I genuinely can't say who the most popular is. It isn't helped when there's so many versions of Lara Croft, and there's many people who prefer Classic Lara to Reboot Lara.

 

[Houseman]

The counter-argument to that is that LGBT individuals have been unrepresented for so long, so when you place 2020 in the context of the history of fiction, the percentage plummets

Trying to play catch-up with all of recorded history in order to even out the percentage doesn't seem like a good way of doing it. If you're including a homosexual or trans character in order to "make up for lost time" and "even the playing field", then that's definitely activism, which is what people object to in the first place. That's pretty much an admission of ulterior motives.

So generally, my view is that as a rule, creators should be free to do as they please, and let those works succeed or fall on their own merits.

I agree.

Or we don't play the game at all? Because if everything's pandering, then nothing is pandering.

So what do we call it when a creative work is deliberately targeted at a specific demographic?
This definitely happens, and definitely needs to be called something, if, for no other reason, then for the sake of brevity.

I'm not using "pandering" like a dirty word. Is that what you object to?

Except as I pointed out, targeting one demographic doesn't preclude other demographics from enjoying the material.

Of course not. My point is that it has an effect, that's all.
Isn't that what I said last time?

We aren't disagreeing here. This fact doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Except it wasn't the first trailer that we saw. This was.

I didn't say it was in the first trailer that we saw. I said "in one of their most important trailers"

But it WAS a side thing.

I disagree. Having a big gay kiss front and center is not a side thing.
Bill from TLoU1 is a side thing.
The kiss in the DLC was a side thing, since it was DLC.
Tracer's sexuality, and any other characteristics from the Overwatch characters, are side things.

You can't measure this by counting the number of trailers, or by calculating an average based on the total number of scenes across all the trailers. That's not how marketing works. Marketing can take a minor plot point and blow it up so that it APPEARS as something major, and vice versa. Marketing can pull a bait-and-switch and make you think the work is about something else entirely.

By making this scene the focal point, they're making a statement. That's why everyone is still talking about it, because their statement was heard. This isn't some irrelevant detail that needed to be captured by walking through the trailer frame by frame, like some Marvel easter-egg. This was front and center.

No, it's not a side thing. By any means. This wasn't marketed as a side thing.

I'm not being wry, I genuinely can't say who the most popular is. It isn't helped when there's so many versions of Lara Croft, and there's many people who prefer Classic Lara to Reboot Lara.

Nobody has real data on this anyway, it's just a hunch. My point is that the reasons why some female characters are better-liked than others is probably not as simple as "bigotry!", that's all.

 

[Hawki]

Trying to play catch-up with all of recorded history in order to even out the percentage doesn't seem like a good way of doing it. If you're including a homosexual or trans character in order to "make up for lost time" and "even the playing field", then that's definitely activism, which is what people object to in the first place. That's pretty much an admission of ulterior motives.

I agree that "making up for lost time" is a form of activism, but I don't know if that's what people are objecting to. It seems that for a lot of people, the mere presence of such characters is inherently political, which for me, is rediculous. Also, even if someone wrote a gay character to "make up for lost time," does that affect the quality of that character?

Also, is activism bad? There's this idea of keeping politics out of games, but a lot of the time it comes off as "keep politics (that I don't like) out of games." The people who complained about the politics of Tonight We Riot probably aren't the same people who complained about the politics of Call of Duty.

So what do we call it when a creative work is deliberately targeted at a specific demographic?
This definitely happens, and definitely needs to be called something, if, for no other reason, then for the sake of brevity.

I'm not using "pandering" like a dirty word. Is that what you object to?

Pandering, at least to me, carries negative connotations. To quote a dictionary, pandering is "to cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses."

By your definition, pandering is catering to a specific demographic. That's not an unreasonable definition. The problem (for me) is that by that definition, everything is pandering. Sesame Street panders to children. James Bond panders to men. My Little Pony panders to little girls. Transformers panders to little boys. Last of Us panders to lesbians. Black Panther panders to black people. Lord of the Rings panders to white people. By this definition, it would be easier to list something that doesn't pander than to list every piece of media that does.

Pandering, for me, is more in the execution/presentation of a work, than by who a work is targeted at. And that's admittedly subjective, because if I call something pandering, others may disagree.

Having a big gay kiss front and center is not a side thing.
Bill from TLoU1 is a side thing.
The kiss in the DLC was a side thing, since it was DLC.
Tracer's sexuality, and any other characteristics from the Overwatch characters, are side things.

You can't measure this by counting the number of trailers, or by calculating an average based on the total number of scenes across all the trailers. That's not how marketing works. Marketing can take a minor plot point and blow it up so that it APPEARS as something major, and vice versa. Marketing can pull a bait-and-switch and make you think the work is about something else entirely.

By making this scene the focal point, they're making a statement. That's why everyone is still talking about it, because their statement was heard. This isn't some irrelevant detail that needed to be captured by walking through the trailer frame by frame, like some Marvel easter-egg. This was front and center.

No, it's not a side thing. By any means. This wasn't marketed as a side thing.

Okay. Let's take this as writ. I'm still dubious, because it isn't the only LoU2 trailer, and it wasn't the first, and it wasn't the last. Here's the questions that I'm still compelled to ask:

1) If Ellie had kissed a boy, would the trailer have generated as much controversy?

2) What is the statement?

3) If the statement is "this game has gay characters in it," then why is this a statement that's still so controversial?

I'll even grant you that Naughty Dog could have released the trailer to make a statement. That they knew it would stew up controversy. The question is, why? Why is it, that in 2018 (when the trailer was released, I think), that this is the kind of thing that triggers so many people?

Nobody has real data on this anyway, it's just a hunch. My point is that the reasons why some female characters are better-liked than others is probably not as simple as "bigotry!", that's all.

I do agree there, and it's a problem. The well's poisoned, and I don't think it can be un-poisoned for quite awhile.

Problem is that biggotry exists. To use an anecdote, there's Rose Tico from Last Jedi. Now, I didn't like Rose as a character much. A lot of other people didn't either. But I was astounded that so many people disliked Rose so much that they harassed Kelly Marie Tran off Twitter for it, and edited Rose's Wookiepedia page, calling Rose, among other things, a "*****" (despite the fact that Tran is Vietnamese, but bigots aren't always intelligent). So this left me in the bizzare position of wanting Rose to have a strong role in Rise of Skywalker. Not because I liked her character (which again, I didn't), but because I was afraid that her not being in the role would be seen as caving in to the mob. In the end, Rose is literally pushed to the sidelines, and while that's fairly minor compared to the range of issues the film has, it did make me feel uneasy. But on the other hand, we've recently had articles criticizing the sequel trilogy for Finn not being black enough (as in, not directly engaging with issues that exist in the real world), and I was like "huh?"

It's a weird world, where the accusation of bigotry can be used to shut down criticism, whereas those making the criticism can also deny that bigotry doesn't exist elsewhere.

 

[Houseman]

Also, is activism bad?

Some people don't like it, but that doesn't make it bad. And it doesn't make the people who don't like it, bad. And it doesn't make them bad people even if they like activism that aligns with their view, or the status quo, but dislike activism that disagrees with their view.

I'm sure many people would hate a pro-Trump game, and those same people would love an anti-Trump game. That doesn't make them hypocrites.

Pandering, for me, is more in the execution/presentation of a work, than by who a work is targeted at. And that's admittedly subjective, because if I call something pandering, others may disagree.

Okay, let's call it "Targeting" then. For example. "TLoU2 is targeted at the 'woke' crowd" or "Sesame Street is targeted at children"

So my main point becomes: You can't fault someone for not liking a work when it isn't targeted at them.

1) If Ellie had kissed a boy, would the trailer have generated as much controversy?

Nope. Because that would be "typical"

2) What is the statement?

"This game is hella woke, yo"

3) If the statement is "this game has gay characters in it," then why is this a statement that's still so controversial?

If the statement is "This game is hella woke yo", then that's a controversial statement because it reflects real life politics. In real life, not everyone is on board with "woke" culture. And that's what they get for activism.

 

[Hawki]

Okay, let's call it "Targeting" then. For example. "TLoU2 is targeted at the 'woke' crowd" or "Sesame Street is targeted at children"

So my main point becomes: You can't fault someone for not liking a work when it isn't targeted at them.

Targeting is fine. Though I dunno if TLOU2 is going for the "woke" crowd. I mean, fungus zombies don't usually discriminate based on how woke you are.

Nope. Because that would be "typical"

So why target something when it isn't "typical?"

"This game is hella woke, yo"

I'd counter that with "even after the apocalypse, love and joy can still be found."

I'm not directing this at you personally, but more at society at large - why are same sex relationships considered "woke" still?

If the statement is "This game is hella woke yo", then that's a controversial statement because it reflects real life politics. In real life, not everyone is on board with "woke" culture. And that's what they get for activism.

I have my problems with wokeness, but LGBT stuff isn't among them. At least not like this. Even if Naughty Dog made a game based on a character coming to terms with their homosexuality, it wouldn't inherently be "woke." Wokeness, for me, would be when someone starts seeing the entire world through their own lens - you know, cishetropatriarchy, and "the struggle" and "queer history" and whatnot. Far as I'm aware, the game doesn't do that.