TLOU2 Review Thread

[Samtemdo8]

Considering the names this guy has in his featured channels (Nerdrotic, Geeks + Gamers) I don't trust this dude any further than I could throw him. I'm assuming most if not all of these channels that see "SJW's" under their bed at night will be making videos detailing how TLoU2 is actually hated by everyone and that anyone who claims to legitemately like is just bending to the will of wokeness.

I can tell you right now that I am VERY familiar with HeelsvsBabyface. This guy was once a World of Warcraft youtuber, but then WOW started to become bad for him because WOW's started to get bad expansions like Warlords of Draenor and BFA. And then he completely stopped covering Blizzard at all since the Diablo Immortal Controversy.

Now his channel pretty much transitioned to that of an sensationalist outrage guy. The best I can compare is that he's pretty much like the political oppposite of Jim Sterling because he's against things that are "Woke" and such. You'll see him criticizing The Last Jedi and such, along with Game Developers/Publishers doing shitty things.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I can tell you right now that I am VERY familiar with HeelsvsBabyface. This guy was once a World of Warcraft youtuber, but then WOW started to become bad for him because WOW's started to get bad expansions like Warlords of Draenor and BFA. And then he completely stopped covering Blizzard at all since the Diablo Immortal Controversy.

Now his channel pretty much transitioned to that of an sensationalist outrage guy. The best I can compare is that he's pretty much like the political oppposite of Jim Sterling because he's against things that are "Woke" and such. You'll see him criticizing The Last Jedi and such, along with Game Developers/Publishers doing shitty things.

These channels are everywhere on youtube like rotting pustules. You type in 'The Last of Us 2 reviews', and you'll see them popping up decrying the overall glowing reviews, calling them paid off, shills, and liars. And why, cuz gays and trans people, I guess. It's fucking pathetic. And I say this as someone who will most likely not like TLoU2 at all.

 

[Schadrach]

And why, cuz gays and trans people, I guess.

I mean, "gays" is seemingly the only reason anyone gave a crap about Gone Home.

TLOU2 I think only has the former as well. Is there a trans character? I know there's an extraordinarily buff woman (who is actually modeled after a cis woman) who is unrealistic as all hell since there's no way she could have the diet to stay that buff in that scenario, regardless of sex.

Personally I've seen more folks jumpy about the whole "reviewers must not mention the second half of the game" thing and the whole bit with the dogs than people upset about Ellie and her GF.

decrying the overall glowing reviews, calling them paid off, shills, and liars.

Frankly, I don't trust gaming media much at all anymore. I'll wait for user reviews. See how far they divulge from critic reviews.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I mean, "gays" is seemingly the only reason anyone gave a crap about Gone Home.

TLOU2 I think only has the former as well. Is there a trans character? I know there's an extraordinarily buff woman (who is actually modeled after a cis woman) who is unrealistic as all hell since there's no way she could have the diet to stay that buff in that scenario, regardless of sex.

Yeah, because the first game was so realistic in how Ellie, a 14-year old girl, nursed Joel back to full health after he got impaled through the stomach. Funny how nobody ever criticizes that little miracle, but instantly cry foul if a woman is buff, which is a hell of a lot more believeable in this setting.

Personally I've seen more folks jumpy about the whole "reviewers must not mention the second half of the game" thing and the whole bit with the dogs than people upset about Ellie and her GF.

First of all, this is an embargo. Secondly, it's a big story twist that most major review sites would refrain from mentioning regardless. Also, the excuse of 'reviewers aren't mentioning "that thing", therefore the reviews are so positive' makes zero sense. Just because they don't mention it doesn't mean it wouldn't affect the overall conclusion if they thought it was bad or ruined the story. If most reviews gave the game a high score, that means that second half of the game is factored into their final score. Unless every reviewer was somehow able to completely detach this supposedly negative aspect from their impression. 'It's a 9 out of 10... well, except for this one part that's completely shit, but I'll just erase that from my brain.'

It also didn't stop Skillup, Vice, and Polygon from completely eviscerating the game, despite not mentioning whatever that hell the second half is. I guess their checks got lost in the mail.

Frankly, I don't trust gaming media much at all anymore. I'll wait for user reviews. See how far they divulge from critic reviews.

Yeah, that's fine. It's just surprising the only time this game media bias or accusations of pay-offs happens is when it regards a game the person(s) in question don't like/hate. Nobody was distrusting of the games media when Final Fantasy 7 Remake or Doom: Eternal got high marks.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I mean, "gays" is seemingly the only reason anyone gave a crap about Gone Home.

TLOU2 I think only has the former as well. Is there a trans character? I know there's an extraordinarily buff woman (who is actually modeled after a cis woman) who is unrealistic as all hell since there's no way she could have the diet to stay that buff in that scenario, regardless of sex.

Personally I've seen more folks jumpy about the whole "reviewers must not mention the second half of the game" thing and the whole bit with the dogs than people upset about Ellie and her GF.



Frankly, I don't trust gaming media much at all anymore. I'll wait for user reviews. See how far they divulge from critic reviews.

How much can we really trust user reviews though either, when there have been several examples in the past of mass downvoting something when one particular thing didn’t “sit” right with them? Like a certain character meeting a less than desirable fate could set more than a reasonable number of people off.

Human beings have a herd mentality trait, which is ironically linked to a survival mechanism. It’s how movements can be started, that lead to things like boycotts or petitions to rewrite endings ala Mass Effect 3. From the sounds of it, at least it seems from most feedback TLoU2’s ending doesn’t veer into that kind of territory, so chances are the leaks weren’t giving the full picture anyways.

The buff female character in question was given to Halley Gross, who wrote most of Westworld’s first season, to flesh out (no pun). For perspective, she worked on that show about thirteen months, but has been working on this game the last three and a half years. I really hope with all that time and effort we get more than an odd instance of gender pandering for the sake of itself.

 

[BrawlMan]

At this point, both sides are two sides of the same coin, and I don't trust either of them. The YouTubers I do trust don't involve themselves with the SJW/Anti-SJW nonsense. ACG has not reviewed it yet, because for some reason, Sony decided not to give him a review code. Which is weird, because he's been fair to Sony's output, regardless if the games were good or bad. The only professionals I trust are Easy Allies, and the Escapists.

 

[SilentPony]

At this point, both sides are two sides of the same coin, and I don't trust either of them. The YouTubers I do trust don't involve themselves with the SJW/Anti-SJW nonsense. ACG has not reviewed it yet, because for some reason, Sony decided not to give him a review code. Which is weird, because he's been fair to Sony's output, regardless if the games were good or bad. The only professionals I trust are Easy Allies, and the Escapists.

To agree with, but go a little further - its always suspicious when there's a review embargo, and then only a select few get review copies. It looks a lot like Sony is picking and choosing who they want to give a review, which at this point before-launch is only going to be used as marketing.
So anyone who has given a review is seen as Sony as good for their sales, and everyone who is denied is seen as bad of their sales.

 

[MrCalavera]

It does raise an interesting question theoretically - if a work presents a theme that you disagree with, how fair is it to criticize the work based on that theme, and if so, how far will it colour your judgement? Because I can certainly name works of fiction whose theme I fundamentally disagree with, and generally, that would decrease my appraisal of them.

Well, there's disagreement with the theme you try to present, and there's questioning if you actually *did* deliver on that theme.

From what i've read, Polygon's criticism comes in two flavors.
1. TLOU2 is extremely violent, AND shows that violence is bad - the reviewer argues that game fails to deliver on the latter
2. TLOU2's story shows that under extreme circumstance people turn into violent, bloodthirsty savages that only care about revenge - here's where author disagrees with the theme.

Anyone who makes the “*insert movie title* of gaming” statement is shortsightedly anxious for gaming to get its mainstream cred at best, and flat out irresponsible at worst. Especially regarding a movie like Schindler’s List of all things. Like everyone I’ll have to wait til I play it to really know why of course, but I get so tired of this whole comparison of games to movies. It’s obvious why it happens, but we should be celebrating what games can do beyond the capabilities of other mediums, which it seems this sequel could be an example of.

I wholly agree with the sentiment, but i'm not optimistic in that manner about TLOU2 - the sequel to a game that's been praised for being "cinematic" by almost every outlet out there.

 

[Samtemdo8]

So has anyone here played the game first hand?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

How much can we really trust user reviews though either, when there have been several examples in the past of mass downvoting something when one particular thing didn’t “sit” right with them? Like a certain character meeting a less than desirable fate could set more than reasonable number of people off.

You can't trust user reviews when they're mainly just 0s and 10s. Just looking at the last 100 TLOU Remastered reviews on Metacritic, only 3 user reviewers aren't 0s,1s, 9s, and 10s.

---

This isn't hard people, you find a couple reviewers you can trust, along with a few friends (both real and online) just like you do with anything else. It's not like you just take their word for how good something is, you weigh the reasoning behind their conclusions. Like Skillup didn't like the gameplay from the 1st game so I'm not going to think the gameplay is as bad as he does because I like TLOU's gameplay well enough, it's not top-tier shooter/stealth gameplay but it's well-done and heavily polished for what it is. Same thing with regard to story, you basically cross-reference their story/character critiques from past games that you've both played and weigh each statement they make with how well you see eye-to-eye with certain things and how well overall you think of them as a critic and then decide trust or not trust their analysis in certain areas. Just because Yahtzee doesn't care for JRPGs doesn't mean you can't get anything out of his review of one, which is different from playing or not playing the game because he said so. You have to do the same things with regard to basically any reporting. I hope nobody takes the news at face value.

ACG has not reviewed it yet, because for some reason, Sony decided not to give him a review code. Which is weird, because he's been fair to Sony's output, regardless if the games were good or bad.

I'm actually not that much of a fan of ACG because he spends the least of amount of time on things that I care about while spending way too much time on stuff I don't care about. I feel like half of his reviews are about graphics and sound, which are pretty low-tier when I'm considering to play or not play a game. Also, I feel like he puts little actual opinion into his reviews and they feel "cold" to me.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm actually not that much of a fan of ACG because he spends the least of amount of time on things that I care about while spending way too much time on stuff I don't care about.

That's you. I love the fact that he is so thorough without going overboard like Total Biscuit. Sorry TB fans, like guy, but I dropped him because his videos got repetitive for me after a while. Especially when kept constantly complaining about a game running at 30fps/not running at 60fps or higher on PC. There are times he's had a point, but other times he was just being pedantic and nagging.

Back to ACG, he's one of the best and my personal favorite. His reviews never felt "cold" to me. Just a guy giving his honest opinions. I love the fact he would go in to sounds quality, speces, and headphone quality (if you are playing the game with a head set). Or graphical settings for PC games and certain consoles. Something most reviewers do not even bother with it. It's detail I don't dwell too much either, but I like the fact he puts in extra effort, when most won't. I love the fact he sticks to his principles and refuses to do review scores. He's has a tally of pros & cons, with a rating at the end that says: Buy, Wait for a Sale, Rent, or Never Touch Again. Similar to Double Toasted's film ratings. Sometimes he'll have an in-bwetween depending on the game's quality: like say a game gets a rating of "Deep Sale" (a game that is 60 goes on sale for $25-30 is worth to buy & play at that price) .

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's you. I love the fact that he is so thorough without going overboard like Total Biscuit. Sorry TB fans, like guy, but I dropped him because his videos got repetitive for me after a while. Especially when kept constantly complaining about a game running at 30fps/not running at 60fps or higher on PC. There are times he's had a point, but other times he was just being pedantic and nagging.

Back to ACG, he's one of the best and my personal favorite. His reviews never felt "cold" to me. Just a guy giving his honest opinions. I love the fact he would go in to sounds quality, speces, and headphone quality (if you are playing the game with a head set). Or graphical settings for PC games and certain consoles. Something most reviewers do not even bother with it. It's detail I don't dwell too much either, but I like the fact he puts in extra effort, when most won't. I love the fact he sticks to his principles and refuses to do review scores. He's has a tally of pros & cons, with a rating at the end that says: Buy, Wait for a Sale, Rent, or Never Touch Again. Similar to Double Toasted's film ratings. Sometimes he'll have an in-bwetween depending on the game's quality: like say a game gets a rating of "Deep Sale" (a game that is 60 goes on sale for $25-30 is worth to buy & play at that price) .

I don't have anything against the graphics and sound part. For like graphical settings (and other settings), you can just screenshot them and the viewer can pause and look them over for keys settings to them. ACG could quickly go over any important missing settings or important ones that most games don't have. I just feel like, especially on the graphics, I can tell 90+% of the graphics from just watching the footage that goes along with the video review and just highlighting what is done well and poorly is more than enough. I watched his Desperados 3 review because it's like one of the few reviews out there and the review finally gets into the gameplay just before the halfway point. It almost feels like he should lead off with that because that's where he starts talking about the type of game it actually is and the game it's actually a prequel to and whatnot. I'm also not a fan of his rating scale because to me, a game with worth playing if it's worth your time. Playing a 50 hour game that's average that was $20 is not worth playing IMO. I get the gist of it though, I don't really care too much over whether a game is scored or not scored (I do think scored is better overall) as what a reviewer concluded and the reasoning behind such conclusions is far more important than the rating.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm also not a fan of his rating scale because to me, a game with worth playing if it's worth your time. Playing a 50 hour game that's average that was $20 is not worth playing IMO. I get the gist of it though, I don't really care too much over whether a game is scored or not scored (I do think scored is better overall) as what a reviewer concluded and the reasoning behind such conclusions is far more important than the rating.

I can see what you mean, but I'll take the DT/ACG style of rating over numbers. Numbers don't equal total enjoyment of a game. Especially in today;s review climate. I don't expect everyone to review the exact same way, and all the more happy for it, but I got sick and tired of numbered reviews in my early 20s. Influence from Yahtzee defintely helped as he showed meaningless numbers can be at times. If you're looking for something quick or in a rush to get a game, yeah, numbered reviews can help. But most of the time, from professional game reviews anyway, they are more a detriment.

 

[SilentPony]

So has anyone here played the game first hand?

Doesn't release to next week I think, so I doubt it, and even if anyone on the forums had there's an embargo

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Yeah, because the first game was so realistic in how Ellie, a 14-year old girl, nursed Joel back to full health after he got impaled through the stomach. Funny how nobody ever criticizes that little miracle, but instantly cry foul if a woman is buff, which is a hell of a lot more believeable in this setting.

First of all, this is an embargo. Secondly, it's a big story twist that most major review sites would refrain from mentioning regardless. Also, the excuse of 'reviewers aren't mentioning "that thing", therefore the reviews are so positive' makes zero sense. Just because they don't mention it doesn't mean it wouldn't affect the overall conclusion if they thought it was bad or ruined the story. If most reviews gave the game a high score, that means that second half of the game is factored into their final score. Unless every reviewer was somehow able to completely detach this supposedly negative aspect from their impression. 'It's a 9 out of 10... well, except for this one part that's completely shit, but I'll just erase that from my brain.'

It also didn't stop Skillup, Vice, and Polygon from completely eviscerating the game, despite not mentioning whatever that hell the second half is. I guess their checks got lost in the mail.

Yeah, that's fine. It's just surprising the only time this game media bias or accusations of pay-offs happens is when it regards a game the person(s) in question don't like/hate. Nobody was distrusting of the games media when Final Fantasy 7 Remake or Doom: Eternal got high marks.

It’s because there wasn’t intense controversy surrounding those two games. Bring that into the equation and it stirs up some people’s brains to the point they might not be able to form a rational opinion on the subject. People should be able to dissociate from something when they hear or see things “through the grapevine” so to speak, until they’re able to judge for themselves.

I had a science teacher in junior high that told us, “Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.”

I thought it sounded kinda batshit at the time as a 14yr old, but its relevance has revealed itself quite often later in life.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Something to ponder when thinking about the violence surrounding the game and how it paints humanity in such a bad light. Its theme is basically the pointlessness of revenge, so it makes sense for the violence and brutality to be heavy-handed to the point where it’s uncomfortable and even difficult to watch in some cases. If it wasn’t, or if the bright side of human nature was allowed to work its way in there, people would be inclined to say, “*Phew* See? It’s/we’re not so bad!” and the theme would lose its impact and relevancy. It pretty much has to be relentless, and the player has to of course accept this through to the end, and trust that there will be some type of thematic payoff through staying true to it.

This doesn’t mean that everything needs to be “realistic” in a true-to-life sort of way; we are still talking about a game with mushroom head zombies walking around as a looming threat after all. It’s more that the writers wanted to make sure they “honour that violence” in respect to the theme.

In any case though, another point to ponder would be how there are still small windows into the nastier side of human nature as we live and breath today. Every once in a while we see these types of stories and think wtf is wrong with people. Or read about the effects that a mere month(s)-long quarantine in a still functional society has had on many people. This is nowhere near a full blown post apocalyptic event where things have digressed into decades of literal hopelessness or despair either. Under the right conditions in an all out fight or flight environment, it’s not hard to imagine some of our worst traits reaching a zenith, not that far removed from what a game like this represents.

The most important point of that second link though would be the last paragraph,

Don’t get too down – these findings say nothing of the success that some of us have had in overcoming our baser instincts. In fact, it is arguably by acknowledging and understanding our shortcomings that we can more successfully overcome them, and so cultivate the better angels of our nature.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I can see what you mean, but I'll take the DT/ACG style of rating over numbers. Numbers don't equal total enjoyment of a game. Especially in today;s review climate. I don't expect everyone to review the exact same way, and all the more happy for it, but I got sick and tired of numbered reviews in my early 20s. Influence from Yahtzee defintely helped as he showed meaningless numbers can be at times. If you're looking for something quick or in a rush to get a game, yeah, numbered reviews can help. But most of the time, from professional game reviews anyway, they are more a detriment.

Numbers are a tool to be used properly or improperly like anything else. The 2 reviews I posted to start the thread don't have numbers even though I'm for using numbers. Though I guess for Youtube video review guys that don't have their own website or don't get their reviews posted on an aggregate site, numbers are kinda pointless. Stuff like getting legitimately mad because a game you haven't played yet dropped a point on an aggregate site because of a 7/10 review (Jim Sterling - Breath of the Wild) is beyond asinine. Is the game going to be any more enjoyable when you play it because it got a 98 vs a 97? Dunkey's vids are always good, I totally don't get why review sites are a thing because who attributed Roger Ebert's movie reviews to being the voice of the Chicago Sun-Times and not Roger Ebert. Why are video games so backwards vs other mediums in so many things? Bad movie reviews don't stop people from seeing some movie they wanted to see. It's kinda sad that last dude is giving a critic score and a personal score, do people not realize functionality =/= enjoyment or even quality?

 

[BrawlMan]

Stuff like getting legitimately mad because a game you haven't played yet dropped a point on an aggregate site because of a 7/10 review (Jim Sterling - Breath of the Wild) is beyond asinine. Is the game going to be any more enjoyable when you play it because it got a 98 vs a 97?

Exactly why I stopped giving a shit. Especially when the number and what is written or spoken in a video does not line up.

It's kinda sad that last dude is giving a critic score and a personal score, do people not realize functionality =/= enjoyment or even quality?

I get where Simmons is coming from and I'm used to his mind set, as this is not the first times he,or Max for that matter, had done scores like this before. It's one type of a score system that can work if you're trying to gain multiple or double perspective. For example, I like Killer Is Dead, but can see it's flaws in plain level design, QTEitis, and some boring mini games with the gigolo missions. For me personally, the game would be an 8, while critically, the game would most likely be a 6 or 7 for most people. Though most "professional" critics hate it (It was 2013. The year where reviewers were going overboard or overcompensating trying act more mature in front of their peers. Or in a ham-fisted, desperate attempt to show that not all gamers were sexists. See Adam Sessler's review on God of War Ascension for the biggest example of this). Most fans liked it fine, and on the Steam page, most gamers liked it and converted them or got them interested in to Grasshoppers others works. To the extent that Suda's older titles are now on Steam too: Silver Case and Killer 7.

This example sorta destroys Simmons arguements, but can be used with a light touch I guess.

 

[Casual Shinji]

To agree with, but go a little further - its always suspicious when there's a review embargo, and then only a select few get review copies. It looks a lot like Sony is picking and choosing who they want to give a review, which at this point before-launch is only going to be used as marketing.
So anyone who has given a review is seen as Sony as good for their sales, and everyone who is denied is seen as bad of their sales.

You'd maybe have a point if Sony only gave review codes to the large review sites, the ones prone to give Sony exlussives a lot more leniency. But there are dozens of smaller channels with subscriptions "only" in the triple digits that got review codes as well. Sony would have no idea what their track record is, if they were even aware of their existence at all before sending a review code.

And again, this didn't stop Skillup, Polygon, and Vice. Three relatively well know sites.

 

[Kwak]

Also, I feel like he puts little actual opinion into his reviews and they feel "cold" to me.

The opinions are given in his over the top similes.