WARNING: Last of Us 2 has leaked
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Settle down. Anyone using "woke" or "sjw" as reasons for not liking something is akin to baby crying about not getting a toy or something. There's plenty of reasons for a game being good or bad, none of them include characters being male or female, white or black, gay or straight, etc. Either the characters are well-written or they're not, that's why they're good or bad characters. Also to say the video game medium was perfectly fine and inclusive holds very little water. When devs have to fight to have a lead female character or have a female on the cover, there's something wrong. I know who Anita is but I don't even care about her in the least and she probably has some rather skewed agenda much like TheQuartering (that was brought up as a source in the article you linked so tons of bias there too) is on the opposite end. They're both jokes and provide nothing of substance. I don't care if Neil (or any artist) is inspired by Anita or an imaginary talking squirrel, the work will be good or bad based on itself regardless.
I wouldn't classify neither Amy nor Neil as great writers by any stretch. Uncharted 3 (Amy) is one of the worst written video games I've ever played. And Uncharted 4 (Neil) is just rather boring with Nate's super uninteresting new brother. Maybe if Sam was short for Samantha, the character would've been better... just kidding. But seriously, you can say the reason Uncharted 4 sucked was because of Nadine or Drake's daughter or because Drake had a brother instead of a sister and both would be equally bad reasons as to why the game wasn't very good.
It's not like video games were in this perfect place and now they're being ruined. Writing and characters have been pretty weak in the medium forever and still are. There isn't some "good ole days" to go back to much like 50s America wasn't the "good ole days" either.
Thier games are movie games that play itself.
basically interactive movies.
If the spoilers I've heard are true they are troubling but the game could be great. Troubling can be interesting.
If Last of Us 2 is about something rather than nothing, all the better.
From what I've heard, a lot of this may feel like the airport scene in COD MW2. You will need to do things you won't like doing to advance the story and game. The message it is trying to send sounds impressive.
Works for me. Uncharted 2 is one of my all time favorite games. I thought it a blast to play while enjoying its cinematic nature.
If Last of Us 2 is about something rather than nothing, all the better.
It seems like the focus testers are the assholes here, not Druckman.
I read the Druckmann stories and it does sound like he wrote TLoU and especially its sequel with an agenda in mind, first and foremost. Furthermore it also sounds like it wasn’t even his own intent to do so, but was rather “influenced” or “inspired” by someone else’s viewpoints. I thought nothing of Ellie or Bill being gay in TLoU, or Nate’s kid being a girl. If anything the latter kinda just sets up an awkward Me-too comparison to Tomb Raider if they ever continue the franchise with her.
As for TLoU2, it’s bound to be divisive and will probably incite some harsh reactions, which already seems to be happening with the leaks. Now Naughty Dog and Sony are in damage control mode before the game’s even seen the light of day. The biggest challenge the game might face is how ND expects fans to have fun playing as the girl that brutally murdered a guy that’s responsible for saving the other fan favorite’s life (who the player is now supposed to hunt down and also kill, because “revenge”), making this sequel possible in the first place.
Somehow I think there’s a good chance Druckmann’s message will be lost in the chaos, and how justified will he be if he implies it’s simply “the fans’ faults” for not liking it because they “hate (insert label)”?
As for TLoU2, it’s bound to be divisive and will probably incite some harsh reactions, which already seems to be happening with the leaks. Now Naughty Dog and Sony are in damage control mode before the game’s even seen the light of day. The biggest challenge the game might face is how ND expects fans to have fun playing as the girl that brutally murdered a guy that’s responsible for saving the other fan favorite’s life (who the player is now supposed to hunt down and also kill, because “revenge”), making this sequel possible in the first place.
Somehow I think there’s a good chance Druckmann’s message will be lost in the chaos, and how justified will he be if he implies it’s simply “the fans’ faults” for not liking it because they “hate (insert label)”?
the game still has every chance to surprise the people that play it. However if it is as bad as it sounds.....people will likely use labels to explain why and blame Neil's agenda for ruining a franchise simply to tell a personal bias driven story rather than trying to tell a good story.
It all depends on how the game actually plays out I suppose.
Pretty much what I said in the rest of the post you quoted me from. Regardless of how you're being pandered to, you're still being pandered too, nor does pandering make something good or bad. "The good ole days" of video gaming were pandering to straight men (and mostly still are), don't get mad because your group is no longer being pandered to. Come up with an actual reason to like or not like something.
That's prettymuch my general forecast.
-They're introducing a new character to a series where basically all the investement is on the two main characters relationship.
-Said new character kills on of the existing beloved characters, and becomes a villain protagonist hunting down the other one.
-Based on the spoilers, with a super-dull generic backstory motivation to do this.
That character is essentially ****ed from the initial concept point as fan reactions going to by, even if it was a white male so straight you could use to square drywall with.
Given that having your trans-character be a mentally unstable villain isn't exactly providing a golden example, I wouldn't say its even working well as an allegeldy progressive nod. I'd almost guess it was something tacked on to shield from the reaction to a weak concept.
-Said new character kills on of the existing beloved characters, and becomes a villain protagonist hunting down the other one.
-Based on the spoilers, with a super-dull generic backstory motivation to do this.
That character is essentially ****ed from the initial concept point as fan reactions going to by, even if it was a white male so straight you could use to square drywall with.
Given that having your trans-character be a mentally unstable villain isn't exactly providing a golden example, I wouldn't say its even working well as an allegeldy progressive nod. I'd almost guess it was something tacked on to shield from the reaction to a weak concept.
I would think that "being pandered to" is a legitimate reason to like or dislike something. If I'm in the mood for a power fantasy that lets me feel like I'm causing a silly amount of destruction, I want media that "panders" to that. "It's not for me" is a legitimate reason not to like something.
But I suppose you would have no complaints about every protagonist being a grizzled, bald, white guy because a game can be good or bad and it doesn't need to pander to minorities to be enjoyable, right? And those who aren't being pandered to should never be mad or speak up about it because it's not an "actual reason not to like it", is that what you're saying?
It's like this meme, that I totally didn't recreate just now because I couldn't find the original:
Last edited:
You're kinda describing the exact problem gaming had and still has for the most part. The people that started speaking up got yelled at for being "SJWs" and "ruining" gaming. Ubisoft: The Game isn't a bad game, it's actually a pretty good game but when that's all you make, it gets tiring and repetitive. Same thing with the games having the exact same type of protagonist and that was literally last-gen, not like 50 years ago or something. Or now, the whole thing of "keep politics out of my games". Why do you not want Thing_X in your games? Saying "Not in my game" is what causes the problems.
I'm trying to understand. You merely object to the simple way in which the argument is presented, as opposed to the deeper, "true" argument behind it? Like someone saying "not in my game" is bad, but if they were able to flesh out why they don't want "it" in "my game", you wouldn't have an objection?
The real reason one likes or dislikes something almost certainly has nothing to do with "it". When TLOU2 was announced, the initial backlash was TLOU doesn't need a sequel, now the sequel has ruined the "franchise". Why don't you just wait to play the fucking game (if you want) then explain why you did or didn't like it? Or not play the fucking game because TLOU1 is just fine standalone and any sequel will ruin it so then why do you even care about the sequel and wasting your time talking about it when you can be talking about or playing something you do care about?
Not sure what point you're trying to make with this quote, but that tester seemed like a rather unstable person if a female game character defeating a male game character upset them to the point of verbally cursing, same goes for Nathan having a daughter instead of a son.
If those trivial things in a video game affect you that much, then you have some serious issues to work out and I can understand a company not wanting to deal with that kind of instability in one of their employees.
As for arbitrarily changing arbitrarily chosen sexes of written characters, what would be the problem there? Isn't that part of what makes fiction fun; asking what if x?
What if Eldorado were real, but it wasn't the city of gold but actually a magical McGuffin that makes people go crazy?
What if Shambhala were real, but it held a cursed item that made people go crazy?
What if Iram of the Pillars were real, but... whatever twist happened at the end of Uncharted 3.
Anita Sarkeesian, her crusade and the witch hunt against her are not things that I keep up with, so if you want me to understand what point you're trying to make you'll have to do some more explaining other than just pointing at her name.
*le sighs*
So this is the latest ground upon which the loud minority of "culture wars(tm)" acolytes are planting their battle flag? Regardless, I'm interested in seeing a non-sexualised/male-gazed lesbian romance in a game narrative for once. Not sure why a person's choice of muse is so import though. Writers use serial killers for that shit too. It's just not a factor to judge end quality from.
So this is the latest ground upon which the loud minority of "culture wars(tm)" acolytes are planting their battle flag? Regardless, I'm interested in seeing a non-sexualised/male-gazed lesbian romance in a game narrative for once. Not sure why a person's choice of muse is so import though. Writers use serial killers for that shit too. It's just not a factor to judge end quality from.
As for her, I don't know why certain people in the gaming industry still feel the need to protect her. Even her own followers don't give a crap about her by this point. That's what happens when you screw over other people with their money and don't do shit with it, but waste it. She never deserve the death and rape threats, but that woman is not "innocent" or a paragon certain people make her out to be. Last time she was ever relevant was around 2016. After that she became nothing more than yesterday's news.
You are on point with @CriticalGaming. I may not like Uncharted 4's story, and I couldn't care less for the writer on that story. I have no idea why he's freaking out like that. Especially when a male character has a daughter freaks him out that much. Because I sure as hell ain't on the side of the tester who gets flustered that easily over nothing.
Last edited:
The point of bring up Neil's "agenda" is the fundamental flaw when you start creating content to pander versus creating content to entertain.
I've always said that diversity comes automatically from good writing, and does not need to be included to fill some sort of checklist which is sadly what a lot of the industry seems to do instead.
Marvel just released a bunch of super heroes that are basically every part of the spectrum, and they are selling like shit. Because they are trying to pander, rather than entertain and crate organically diverse, good, original characters. Even their target audience isn't buying the stuff, because the character isn't automatically good or relatable just because they are trans, gay, whatever, there has to be writing in order to give that character backbone and substance.
Video games often work the same way. I'm all for inclusion, the more the merrier, but only if that inclusion is organic. For example giving the player their own options to have a LBGTQ+ character, like in old Bioware games. Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, etc, where you could form a romance with males, females, robots, creatures, whatever floated your boat. Choice is good right?
Now again The Last of Us 2 could totally surprise us and Abby could end up being a good character. However the way these leaks imply her arch goes, I really don't see how Naughty Dog can turn this around to make the player care or even like this person. And her backstory and personality sounds like it just doesn't make sense for the world they've built.
I've always said that diversity comes automatically from good writing, and does not need to be included to fill some sort of checklist which is sadly what a lot of the industry seems to do instead.
Marvel just released a bunch of super heroes that are basically every part of the spectrum, and they are selling like shit. Because they are trying to pander, rather than entertain and crate organically diverse, good, original characters. Even their target audience isn't buying the stuff, because the character isn't automatically good or relatable just because they are trans, gay, whatever, there has to be writing in order to give that character backbone and substance.
Video games often work the same way. I'm all for inclusion, the more the merrier, but only if that inclusion is organic. For example giving the player their own options to have a LBGTQ+ character, like in old Bioware games. Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, etc, where you could form a romance with males, females, robots, creatures, whatever floated your boat. Choice is good right?
Now again The Last of Us 2 could totally surprise us and Abby could end up being a good character. However the way these leaks imply her arch goes, I really don't see how Naughty Dog can turn this around to make the player care or even like this person. And her backstory and personality sounds like it just doesn't make sense for the world they've built.
Maybe he doesn't include gay and trans characters to pander, but because he himself feels that they could use more representation in entertainment?
Wouldn't having non-gay and non-trans characters be pandering to the ""anti-sjw"" crowd at this point? If Joel were the main protagonist of TLoU2 then he'd be pandering to those people, and pandering is a no-no, correct?
As opposed to the safe "straight white" protagonist? Why is straight white the default setting in your head? What makes a gay or non-white character "diverse"? Do you also rave on games having straight and white protagonists as being lazy and safe writing?
Could you run the definition of "pander" by me real quick? Is it "creating a product for a certain audience", or did it at some time morph into "creating a badly written product for a certain audience"?
Because you say that the products are selling badly because they are trying to pander, so am I to assume that they are badly written and therefor selling badly, or is it that people are offended by the main protagonists being too different than what they are used to?
What is so bad about the writing and characters in these new Marvel comics? Is a character being gay rather than straight bad writing? Does a gay character need justification for their gayness?
How is a main character being straight by default more organic than a main character being gay? Why does the gay character need organic justification whereas the straight character apparently doesn't?
I'm not sure if you agree with the tester's frustrations, but sticking with the quote from that unstable tester; why would Nathan Drake having a son be more organic than him having a daughter?
Pretty much everything created is meant to pander to someone. Big publishers greenlight games that they think will sell, which means they're pandering to what they believe is the biggest customer demographic.
With Marvel and comics in general is a much different problem. You have all these iconic characters that people have followed for decades and all those characters were created in a rather different time than today and as thus, most of the characters are mainly "this" with very little of "that". So either you create new characters that are "that", which is really hard to make new characters that sell comic books. Or you change the classic characters with "what ifs" in alternate realities or have them pass the baton to a new character that still keeps the same iconic name. Whereas video games, you don't really have that, you can make new IPs like Uncharted or TLOU without much problem in being able to sell them, and you don't have characters with 50+ years of history that were created in like the 50s. And the video game characters with a lot of history (like Mario) have very little actual character history to them as opposed to say Spiderman.
Can the game release and people play it before declaring it sucks or it's awesome? It's much like some reviewer giving a game a 7/10 and the Internet DDOSing his shit because the game they haven't played is obviously a 10/10.
And as I was writing this post @bluegate pretty much said exactly what I was typing...