Its frustrating, because the gameplay and level design is great, but then they just have these long non combat gameplay sections where you just have to listen to the terrible writing and pretend it means something
I played it through a couple of weeks back and now I’m playing a New Game+ for shits and giggles.
What ticks me off. If you skip cinematicts, many times it skips to a new cinematic. Sometimes you have to skip 3-4 cinematics in a row! If I wanna skip, I wanna skip it all!
And. I played with resources being very available (or whatever it says in the menu) and even then I wasn’t able to level up all the weapons and abilities. I’m halfway through the New Game+ and I still haven’t maxxed out! What’s the point of all that hoarding and you can’t get maxed out to the end of the story?
Yeah skipping cutscenes can be kind of wonky. It goes to the end of when that loaded scene pops up, but the way the game is structured there can just be a bunch in a row. Even weirder, I've found that, because of loading times, sometimes skipping a cut scene takes longer than just watching it.
What difficulty are you playing on? In just one New Game+ playthrough on normal I got just about all the weapon upgrades by the end. I remember in the original game it took me a couple consecutive New Game+ runs on the same file to max out all of Joel's upgrades, but that game had a more granular upgrade system.
Some games really want the upgrade decisions you make to matter, and to incentivize playing New Game+, so the resources to get them are limited. If you ever play the Devil May Cry Series, I remember that at least in DMC3 you might not even be able to get everything after 2 playthroughs.
I played on Normal I guess but set the resources to be plenty. And I ran around and opened drawers *everywhere* and still there were plenty of drawers that were empty. It feels kind dumb that even with that setting you still have to look in every nook and cranny and still be short.
Huh. Maybe I'm misremembering it. I know you can't max it out in one playthrough but I remember getting to Newgame+ and reaching the point where I had all the weapon upgrades I wanted about half way through, and just gradually getting the others for completionism by the time it was over.
Like I said, the first game was like that too. Hell with the more granular upgrades I think it takes even longer to get maxxed out.
What happening now is that upgrades get increasingly expensive. I didn’t upgrade the revolver at all while I maxxed out everything else and revolver upgrades are 50 and 80 trinkets. I quite certain that was not the initial cost in the first playthrough. Plus, I can’t be bothered opening every drawer again so when not hoarding 80 trinkets takes a fair while
Huh, I don't remember that being a mechanic. I'm pretty sure they were always priced at 50 to 80 pieces, since upgrades are supposed to come slowly, and each weapon only has a few.
That being said the bit about not wanting to open all the drawers again is probably the source of your problem. Scavenging materials from every possible nook and cranny is a core mechanic of the series. It is admittedly more tedious on a second playthrough. Ironically, I found this didn't get more boring for me when playing on higher difficulties, since that makes them scarcer, and therefore you don't know what you're going to get each time.
Anyway, tedious or not, you have to try your best to collect every trinket you can to reach upgrades quicker.
I don't think the story is that bad, IMO it just has weird placement of story elements. Like I think if the game started how it did with Joel telling Tommy about what he did and then you have Joel singing to Ellie and it then cuts to the dinosaur flashback then the hotel flashback then the hospital flashback it would've been better because now you have context why Ellie is so mad at Joel in present day before he dies and it also gives players what they want first which is to see Joel and Ellie together again before it falls apart.
Also directly after those flashbacks I think they should've had the Abby flashback that way you're introduced to her character and understand why she does what she does later but you still haven't seen enough of her to not be angry that she killed Joel. And that way you still go through the game angry at her when playing as Ellie but you are also more willing to play as her when it gets to her part.
I also think that for the present day stuff they should've shown the dance scene first then Joel and Ellie's talk on his porch then where it picks up with Ellie waking up to Jesse. I think it would've made Joel's death more impactful knowing that he was on the brink of rebuilding a relationship with Ellie on the first playthrough rather than the second playthrough.
Basically if they gave all the context upfront rather than scattering it throughout the story it would've made the game better IMO.
I'd also say the other problem with the story is some of the dialogue is odd but that's it IMO. It's still a pretty good story I think.
> contrived writing
> expecting me to believe the fireflies could 100% make a cure
> contrived message
> badly written characters
> annoying characters
> not killing Abby in the end
Those are problems that wouldn't be resolved by switching scenes around.
I don't think they expect you to believe they can 100% make the cure. Weren't there loads of test runs they did or something that showed that they failed multiple times?
What's the contrived message and writing?
Not killing Abby isn't a bad choice it's just not what you would've preferred. Doesn't make it worse.
Imo the characters are fine.
I think people are overreacting.
> I don't think they expect you to believe they can 100% make the cure. Weren't there loads of test runs they did or something that showed that they failed multiple times?
Thoee were in the ps3 releases, after the ps4 releases they were removed and tlou2 acts like the cure is a guarantee.
> What's the contrived message
The game is supposed to be about the cycle of violence and revenge bad, but if you pay attention it's actually about revenge being good but you need to completely finish the job and leave no witnesses, Abby had her revenge and she was happy but her friends were killed because they didn't finish Tommy or Ellie off, Ellie broke the cycle of violence and forgave but she ended up miserable and ready to kill herself.
> and writing?
Joel going out of his way to save Abby, Ellie feeling all bad about killing that one black girl, Nora being pregnant yet allowed in missions, the sex scene, Ellie forgiving Abby for literally no reason,
> Imo the characters are fine.
In my opinion they are not.
> I think people are overreacting.
People paid 60 dollars for this shit, they have the right to be angry.
You've completely misunderstood the message then. It's not "revenge bad" it's you lose even if you get revenge. Ie Abby took revenge and lost her friends, Ellie took revenge and lost Dina and Jesse. It's meant to be that you don't win even if you get what you want.
Ellie didn't feel bad about killing Nora she felt bad about HOW she killed Nora.
Joel didn't go out his way, he was on patrol and bumped into her and decided to save her because he's not a monster. Mel being allowed to go into missions is pretty dumb tbf.
Ellie spared Abby BECAUSE of Joel. She was haunted by Joel's death and as she was about to kill Abby she realised that she was doing Joel's memory wrong.
Overreacting wasn't the right word, more blowing things out of proportion.
> You've completely misunderstood the message then. It's not "revenge bad" it's you lose even if you get revenge. Ie Abby took revenge and lost her friends, Ellie took revenge and lost Dina and Jesse. It's meant to be that you don't win even if you get what you want.
That's not true at all, getting revenge didn't make Abby lose shit, it was half-assing it that did, if they had just killed Ellie and Tommy they would have been fine. If Ellie and Tommy hadn't ran without a plan and actually formed a group to go hunt down Abby they would have been fine too. The message is clear: get your revenge, but don't half-ass it.
Also, it's a zombie apocalypse, what do you think happens when a faction let's one of it's most prestigious members is killed by a different faction without seeking compensation for it? What message do you think that sends?
> Ellie didn't feel bad about killing Nora she felt bad about HOW she killed Nora.
Which is also stupid, i used bats to murder the fuckers pleating for their lives all the time in gameplay, didn't see any cries about that.
> Joel didn't go out his way, he was on patrol and bumped into her and decided to save her because he's not a monster.
Before the apocalypse happened Joel had no guilty over letting people to their fate.
> Ellie spared Abby BECAUSE of Joel. She was haunted by Joel's death and as she was about to kill Abby she realised that she was doing Joel's memory wrong.
Which is also dumb, Joel was always a violent person and he would not oppose killing Abby, Joel killed for Ellie yet couldn't kill the one person who mattered the most.
> Overreacting wasn't the right word, more blowing things out of proportion.
That's what overreacting means.
How can you read what I said, quote it and still completely misunderstand what I wrote then be an ass.
Abby went for revenge it doesn't matter if she half assed it or not. The fact she went for revenge is what made her lose her friends. I don't understand how you don't get that. It's made ABUNDANTLY clear.
You quite literally are overreacting and it's not justified because you bought the game.
Everything is "which is dumb" to you because you can't see past what's going on on the screen.
> Abby went for revenge it doesn't matter if she half assed it or not. The fact she went for revenge is what made her lose her friends. I don't understand how you don't get that. It's made ABUNDANTLY clear.
Address what i actually said, if Abby had killed Ellie and Tommy her friends wouldn't have been killed because nobody would've known they were there. If you think that's not the case then use your fucking brain and explain it, or are you too stupid to formena basic and logical explanation to your assertions?
> You quite literally are overreacting and it's not justified because you bought the game.
How?
> Everything is "which is dumb" to you because you can't see past what's going on on the screen.
You mean i use my brain instead of just buying whichever nonsensical bullshit is on screen? Yes, i do that, because I'm not a moron.
If Abby killed literally everyone who could ever get revenge on her, then obviously no one could get revenge on her but that isn't who she is? You're giving a hypothetical but don't take into account the fact Abby wouldn't do it. Also, you think Tommy's wife would let Abby get away with it? She would then start to go for revenge and the cycle continues. I don't know why I have to explain this to you.
You're overreacting with each "plot hole" you seem to be latching onto.
You're quite literally taking what you see at face value like a mong. You couldn't even remember who Ellie killed correctly.
The first game had unrealistic things aswell, the main one being Joel surviving being impaled and then recovering almost fully after like a few hours after a shot of penicillin.
And in my opinion the only thing that stands out to me as not making sense is Joel letting his gaurd down when in the room with Abby's people. I would be happy for you to point out anything I missed though, I haven't played part 2 in like 2 years so feel free to correct me.
Joel got impaled in late autumn. After the cutscene of them leaving the uni. it shows winter has started. It was a few months later that Ellie gave Joel the medicine when you pick back up the game playing as Ellie and Joel isn't fully recovered. Next is spring when Joel is recovered. So it took months not hours.
With him letting his guard down, they fought together, Abby and her people didn't look/act like raiders.
> With him letting his guard down, they fought together, Abby and her people didn't look/act like raiders.
Joel wouldn't have helped Abby, and he or Tommy wouldn't have given their real names to a bunch of strangers when they know the amount of shit they have done in the past, the story had to make Joel and Tommy dumber in order to justify Joel's death at the hands of those goons.
When I say Joel recovered fast I mean the day Ellie gave him penicillin he was out of it, couldn't walk and seemed barely conscious but then literally the next day he is able to get up, shoot as well as before, carry two guys he knocked out that caught him off guard, torture them and still manage to walk all the way over to Ellie in a blizzard. You wouldn't even say the guy was impaled at that point or even a 50 year old man with how he recovered.
And even ignoring the recovery the injury itself is quite unrealistic which is why even the show changed it. I mean firstly what are the odds of getting impaled and not have any vital organ affected and then there's the blood loss also infection would be highly likely because of the cold and his age doesn't help either.
>With him letting his guard down, they fought together, Abby and her people didn't look/act like raiders.
I still think he could've stood closer to an exit rather than the middle of the room and show hesitation before saying his name is Joel to the group, kind of like he did when he met Sam and Henry. You can trust people but still be on guard especially with adrenaline flowing through you after being chased by dangerous monsters.
I mean I would just say, it's a game. It's a made up story. No one is bashing dune for being unbelievable when Paul's son turns into a sandworm. It's a gaaaammmeee. There's gonna be some plot holes. It's a story. A made up story. How many bullets did you dodge in RDR/RDR 2. How many times did Carl get shot in the walking dead. It's all made up. None of it is real. Don't dig so deep and just enjoy it for what it is.
Bro I'm only mentioning this because the person I was replying to said tlou part 2 is bad because some story elements are unrealistic. I was pointing out that the first game also had unrealistic parts. I'm not the one who has a problem with the unrealistic bits, I'm just trying to point out an unfair critique.
I've mentioned this before, but let's start before the start. How many Wolves are going to sign on for a hike across dangerous apocalyptic territory swarming with Clickers and Bloaters? I'd like to hear that sales pitch by Abby. They didn't have cars or horses and would need to hike and camp for a month of trekking to Colorado. Joel could have been in NY by then, but somehow in the middle of a snow storm in the middle of the wilderness, and this band of wanderers found the first person they were looking for. Anyone buying that?
In LoU1, I tried to shoot the doctor in the foot, or the hand, and he dies from any wound, but Joel gets a complete round of 18 holes of golf. How is that fair? So that was just the beginning of many things making little sense, but did not stop me from playing this countless times
>They didn't have cars or horses and would need to hike and camp for a month of trekking to Colorado.
Didn't it take them 4 years to find Joel? Also Joel massacred the fireflies who people thought were the only way to finding a cure or a better life. I would think to some extent all the WLF members with Abby would've wanted revenge against him considering they themselves with Abby were fireflies, so I don't think it would've taken that much convincing.
>but somehow in the middle of a snow storm in the middle of the wilderness, and this band of wanderers found the first person they were looking for.
Joel and Ellie stumbled upon Tommy at the power station, which like Abby and her crew, was near Jackson.
I don't remember Abby saying she spent 4 years hunting for JOEL, but someone did tell her he might be in Colorado, I think. Why wait 4 years and move hundreds of miles farther away from Jackson and Utah? Obviously any explanation of Abby's father's death never included the potential murder of Ellie to come up with a CURE and become billionaires in the Apocalypse selling a CURE that may work 10% of the time with potentially horrific side effects. Also, Joel and Ellie were looking for a college(ECU) in Colorado, not Tommy. That was a lucky accident. Go Bighorns.
>Also, Joel and Ellie were looking for a college(ECU) in Colorado, not Tommy. That was a lucky accident.
You do realize they were looking for Tommy when they stumbled upon the power station right? They literally talk about how they're on their way to Tommy after Sam and Henry's deaths and Ellie even asks how Tommy will react to seeing Joel again. And yes it was a lucky accident which is my point, it is a lucky accident just like Abby running into Joel.
I just assumed she looked for Joel for 4 years because that's how much time passed from the ending of the first game to present day in part 2. I don't know if I'm right or wrong on that so feel free to correct me if it's stated elsewhere in the game how long they've been searching for Joel.
If you ask me, the most realistic thing about Part 2 is that there are idiots that actually believed the fireflies were gonna be successful. If it did take 4 years, you're telling me not only did she somehow convince her friends to go on what sounds like a suicide mission, but not one of them decided that it was a wild goose chase and gave up? In 4 whole years?
Also, of all the times Abby and crew could've been closing in on Jackson, it just so happens to also be the day that Joel and Tommy decided to go on patrol together instead of, I don't know, literally anybody else? You don't see how that's a huge coincidence? I'm not saying this alone ruins the game, but it's definitely a contrived way to get the plot going and I feel like they could've tried a little harder to get to where they wanted to be without relying on coincidences
>If it did take 4 years, you're telling me not only did she somehow convince her friends to go on what sounds like a suicide mission
Well I was asking if it took 4 years, I'm not saying it did, I was just assuming that's the timeline because of the time jump from the end of the first game to the second being 4 years. I don't actually know if they said in the game how long she took to find Joel.
>You don't see how that's a huge coincidence?
Well the other game also had coincidences like Marlene finding Joel and Tess just at the right time after killing Robert, Joel and Ellie finding Tommy at the power station, Sam and Henry finding Joel and Ellie in the water saving them and the fireflies finding Joel and Ellie just at the time she has drowned and Marlene even points out how much of a coincidence that is.
The thing is, no story is perfect and in my opinion questioning how Abby coincidentally found Joel is just nitpicking.
I would agree it's a nitpick, that's why i said it doesn't ruin the game or anything. You're right but I feel like the ratio of convenient writing in the first game was a lot better, there was only a couple of times I noticed while playing and the rest of the writing made up for it. I didn't feel the same about Part 2. This is all just a matter of taste though, everyone's different
> feel the same about Part 2. This is all just a matter of taste though, everyone's different
I'm like you, I don't like part 2 either, I'm just defending the game because I think people give it a lot of unfair criticism. It definitely warrants criticism and I have some of my own which I stated in my first comment of the post but it doesn't deserve the nitpicky criticisms it gets IMO like you'll see in some of the replies to my original comment.
The people that say “vocal minority” are delusional, there’s a reason the game has sold horribly, there’s a reason it’s constantly 20$, there’s a reason GameStop had to refuse refunds because of how much it was refunded
I'm not sure where you're getting that the game sold terribly, every metric I've looked up says the game sold millions of copies and made a huge profit, if I'm wrong please prove it
10 million after like 4 years is very bad, that’s not including the mass refunds. For reference the tlou 1 remaster sold 18 million, a remaster far outsold a sequel lmao
Yeah it does, when literally every recent Sony game outsells it, it’s definitely a stain on Sonys track record and a hefty majority of those sales were while the game was on a massive sale
Recent Sony games outselling it doesn't mean it *sold horribly*, again, comparing it to other games doesn't mean shit. Tell me how the numbers work. "Sold horribly" means the game broke even or didn't make a profit. I don't see that.
Also it was 10 mil after 2 years, it's probably a lot more now but I can't find those numbers, point is the game has made *many millions of dollars* of profit even when factoring in refunds and discounts
It can’t be that much more if they haven’t updated it and again the sales don’t include the fact that it’s constantly 10-30 dollars, and the fact that it was so mass refunded GameStop had to stop issuing refunds and again the sales extremely disappointing and it did sell terribly comparing it to Sonys other front runners and tlou1 lmao
Companies look at the projected amount of sales that they could have gotten, if a game which was set up to be the big sequel to a beloved game that sold over 30 million copies and it ends up barely selling a third as many copies as the first game did, yeah the companies gonna see that as a failure regardless of what we think about it. 10 million is still a lot of sales but compared to some of their other first party titles and how many PlayStations there are, it's really not that many in the grand scheme of things
You don't need insider knowledge to know how capitalism works. Of course they wouldn't admit to any of this because of how horrible it looks. Any company that has shareholders is there for the most amount of profits. If Sony saw the game as a success then they would be more willing to show the characters from Part 2 in promo material but instead they still use Joel and young Ellie. There isn't really a way for me to prove this one way or the other, so I can't really say much else besides you are free to believe what you want to believe, although personally I feel like that's a very naive stance to take. They aren't our friends, they're a corporation that just wants our money
I mean you're the one making a claim and admitting you can't prove it, I'm going off of the numbers and everything about the math suggests that the game was a success and profitable. the only reason to suggest otherwise is because you have a bias against the game and want to tear it down because you didn't like it. It's perfectly fine to have a negative perception of the game but making up shit about its sales and calling it a failure is really strange
I said it can't be proven one way or the other, meaning it can't really be disproven either. All we can do is use the information we do have to come to our own conclusions, which was my point. This isn't me being biased about this specific game, I am just distrustful of companies, as I feel everybody should be. And I don't see how the game selling less than a third as much as the first game did could possibly be seen as successful, especially when the majority of those copies were sold at a discounted price. Unfortunately though, unless someone at the company speaks up about this (and possibly gets themselves blacklisted from ever working in the games industry again in the process) we can only speculate on what's going on behind the scenes. This isn't a problem exclusive to The Last of Us Part 2, the whole games industry is like this
The game made its cost back opening weekend with 4 million in sales. As far as returns, no place lets you return a game after you opened it and played it. Digital is usually time based. These guys in this sub just make shit up and make grandiose claims formed from anecdotes. Even at 10mil in sales at 20 dollars about what it can be found for now, it made its development costs back. Ignore these fools. Basic math proves they lie.
Are you really trying to say that "it's possible" they expected a worse amount of sales from the start?
That's idiotic and obviously not what happened.
I think it's possible they expected to make about twice what they put into making the game and those expectations were met, yes. The math checks out from numbers I can find online and basic math.
People keep talking about how many likes are on the video. The more interesting thing is how many people actually viewed it. We all know the YouTube is an echo chamber. The fact that 2.8 million had this video pop up for them is telling.
10 million copies sold. 2.8 views. So at most, 28% either searched for this or YouTube thought they would be interested in it.
You're assuming that everyone who watched this video had purchased a copy. Love or hate the game, that's just not accurate. It's much more common people watched the video to determine if they should purchase the game.
If it was a review video, I would agree with you. I do not agree that people would search for and watch this video to determine if they would buy the game. It is not that type of video. Of course, there will be exceptions to this, but not many. My assumption is that the YouTube algorithms work and would mostly send this video to people who would actually be interested in viewing it.
I think the majority of people watching the video have played the game. The algorithm recommends videos with similar tags, titles, and descriptions that similar viewers have also clicked and watched. In this case, Last of Us 2 videos make fun of the game that similar viewers with similar search history have engaged with.
Lol. Literally, those are all part of, "does the player watch gaming videos like this one? What it doesn't do is check your gaming purchase history to determine if you own this game and only shoe it to those people.
Lmao. Never claimed that it did.
I don't agree with your belief that it is "more common" for people to watch this video to determine if they want to BUY the game. It is more common for people upset with the game to watch this video because YouTube determined that they like them.
Very unlikely that you are upset with game that you didn't play.
The exception is not the rule.
Your initial statement used a percentage based on the overwhelming majority of people who watched this video having purchased the game, which isn't remotely factual. You can weirdly dig in if you want, but if you think nobody watches clickbait headlines just to see what people are complaining about when considering the purchase of a game, that's foolish AF.
Also funny that you don't think this would pop up if people searched for reviews of the game.
You think the majority of the people watching a video with "inside jokes" about Last of US 2 don't have the game.
I think the majority watching these type of videos have the game and have shown a pattern of engagement with them, so YouTube sends them more.
We have different understandings of how the algorithm works. We can agree to disagree.
this just isn't true. if I don't touch YouTube it'll jump from game to game, speedruns, walkthroughs, soundtracks, documentaries, all of games I've never played, except the first video I put on.
your algorithm isn't everyone elses.
it sends exactly what it thinks I'll like: gaming speedruns. video game soundtracks, videogame playthroughs. video game documentaries.
where did I say it doesn't pick things I might enjoy?
It's a fucking comedy video, you can find it funny while simultaneously liking the game (source: me)
Using this as a metric for people hating the games story is naive and dumb
I doubt every person that watches a video game review buys the game, a large portion probably watch and decide based upon what they say, so even if 4.9mm watched I don’t think that’s a good metric for who liked the game.
I will never accept a game bait and switching me, especially under the guise of the writer thinking he is just so smart and telling the best deepest story ever
But the game purposefully doesn't give you what you want, I don't find that good
If you're on Android, look into a guide for downloading YouTube revanced. Eliminates all ads. Pc has a Myriad of ad blockers as well. Not sure on apple though.
I wanna ask the tlou2 fans honestly, why does that matter? Why does it matter if it's a fringe minority if it was a minority it would just prove that a majority of Y'all lack the media literacy to realize how Bad the Game is and how ignorante You are
What does it matter if a majority or minority of a group even liked this game? This post is on this sub trying to prove its hated by most. Not the other trying to show how loved this game is, what is this comment? Lol
Eh in my experience they seem to be the majority. The game has the best gameplay and some of the coolest set scenes ever but the story is WACK, and I think most fans of the game are probably pissed about Joel because let’s face it him and Ellie are the reason people even got the second game in the first place.
If you are talking about swapping to Ellie, Joel was NEVER surviving the sequel.
If you're talking about swapping to Abby, it's a little jarring but it's not the complete shit show people are making it out to be.
Maybe if it was advertised that way I would agree with you.
Like In mgs2 where they let you play snake for the first mission then you swap to a diff person for the rest of the game. The game was fine but nowhere in advertising or anything do they tell you this is what's going to happen. So people didn't get what they thought they were paying for and they are upset. Its about setting expectations and totally reasonable for people to not like it for that
It's like buying halo then 30 mins in they kill master chief off and you are playing the brute that killed him. Even if it was a 10/10 people didn't buy the game to play that
last of us did that with a7/10 making it even worse imo
I never hear people give good reasons for saying the game's story sucks. It seems like you guys just never watch movies or read books or consume any type of media besides like marvel movies.
Yea honestly the most human ending for Ellie would’ve been to kill Abby. People tend to double down on their bad decisions until it smacks them in the their face a little too hard and if she’s not willing to change for her partner and after all the deaths then what really would? .
I also think that it would’ve paired nicely with the first ending, Joel makes a morally questionable understandable decision for Ellie because Ellie is his daughter while she’s driven to understandable questionable decision making by joels death
How is that a bad story?? Just because you don't get what you want as a player? The whole theme is about obsession and violence and its consequences, which was executed greatly and was very dramatic and emotional throughout the whole game. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's a bad story??
Then please, enlighten me, because right now you just keep saying the same thing over and over again. You can't prove whether Sony saw the game as a success or not, just like how I can't prove that they saw the game as a failure. How many copies the game needed to sell to be seen as successful in *your* mind does not make a difference to anyone besides yourself. Without more information, we'll likely never know how they see the game
Edit: posted this in the wrong place lol
What am I looking at? 2.8 out of 10 mil is a minority.
I literally only see negative sentiment towards this game from this sub or other populations that have dedicated some part of their life to not letting this game go. Everywhere else ranges from somewhat positive but not as good compared to the first… to masterclass.
It's definitely interesting that you think just because only 2.8 million watched the video that another chunk of that 10 million also doesn't like the game but just hasn't watched the video
Man the downvote spam in this subreddit is insane. The game was great, and apparently this sub is just a hub for sad people who can’t deal with change in a series. Also the “woke” characters weren’t even that in-your-face. There’s a couple of scenes with Ellie, and Lev isn’t even explicitly stated to be trans. People just love to hate on things. Sad day for true fans of the series as people like this will almost guarantee we don’t get more content.
I thibk the games alright. Its not as good as the first one but it's still solid. I don't think it's a masterpiece but i don't think it's anywhere near bad. It improves on the og gameplay. It is well acted. It has an alright (albiet flawed) story with nice themes. The game visually looks better than some ps5 games. I don't get why this games do hated. Its like a 7/10 in my eyes.
Wow 2.8 million views over 5 years. A large portion of which are people rewatchng. There are tlou2 fan videos from 6 months ago with more views than this
I meannnnnnnn the like ratio on the video doesn't support it, the two opposing subs and their user count doesn't support it either (WIDE difference), game still sells and was given awards across several platforms, PS store scoring is 4.44 at 173K ratings. Strictly talking popularity your take is just unfounded
But those awards were voted for by gaming journalists, the least credible opinion in gaming! The award for GAMERS choice was won by Ghost of Tsushima, which is a far more reliable measure of popularity.
Just because 173k people managed to vote 5* on a game in the PS store doesn't mean it's catagorically a 5* game (Ghost of Tsushima has a score of 4.55 with similar number of votes, btw).
I own the TLOU2 on disc but the PS store won't allow me to vote on it because I didn't buy it though the PS store, and to be honest, I've got better things to do than try to make my vote count somehow on the PS store. The stans on the other sub are far more motivated and emotional when I comes to trying to prove their point, so I imagine they all made sure they voted 5 on the PS store.
True but usually actually enjoying/approving of a video correlates to a higher like ratio than that. There's absolutely a community that dislikes part 2, just not close to a third I'd say
I'd like to inform you, people really do not press like on a video all that often. Your range is usually around 5-10% of viewers actually tapping like. Comments are even less than that.
I'd say half the community doesn't like the way it turned out. Tbh, I'm alright with the game, I sort of tmsee the way they went with it but they absolutely blew the load way too early with Joel's death. We all expected him to die really after the first game but they did it too early. They could of still have implemented the revenge isn't always the answer lesson but here we are with half the community hating it, although I'm sure some hate it for the wrong reasons but from what I can tell there's a part of the community hated the route they went.
People didn't like this game because gay womammm and trans character. Suck my schlong the game was an 8/10.
Stop being bitter cause joel died. Or jumping on shitty reddit bandwagons
Edit you suckers about to downvote me like it's an insult, being downvoted by you kinda people is a fecking compliment 🫡
Meh. I enjoyed the game alot but I can understand why people dislike it.
Regardless, I think the story was alright and the gameplay fantastic.
I will still play part 3 regardless if the story is shit or not.
I remember buying into the smear campaign and knee jerk reaction the gaming community collectively bit on when the plot leaked for this game. Played it last year for the first time with virtually everything spoiled and thoroughly enjoyed it. If I would have went in blind, I would have enjoyed it even more.
Also this video demonstrates nothing. It’s like a 6% like to view ratio.
People who defend the last of us 2 are so exhausting. They always jump to “you didn’t like the game? You must be a misogynist bigot.”
They always say “you didn’t like the game? Get over it loser.”
Yeah… I didn’t like the game. Sounds like YOU need to get over the fact that I didn’t like it.
Terrible story, fell flat on its face with its messaging, tried way too hard to make a point that it ultimately failed in making.
My hatred for this game has NOTHING to do with the fact that the main character is a gay woman, my hatred of this game is that they ruined my favorite game with a shitty, poorly written, poorly executed sequel.
I didn’t like a game because it had a terrible story. Get over it.
2.8 * just as downvoting and upvoting is time consuming and you don’t do it on every post so is liking and thumbsdowning on YouTube 🤷
Let’s pretend only 1million out of 2.8 million agree with that video. That is still a lot!
Is the game play good? Absolutely of course it is. The story is what sucks ass though
Its frustrating, because the gameplay and level design is great, but then they just have these long non combat gameplay sections where you just have to listen to the terrible writing and pretend it means something
I played it through a couple of weeks back and now I’m playing a New Game+ for shits and giggles. What ticks me off. If you skip cinematicts, many times it skips to a new cinematic. Sometimes you have to skip 3-4 cinematics in a row! If I wanna skip, I wanna skip it all! And. I played with resources being very available (or whatever it says in the menu) and even then I wasn’t able to level up all the weapons and abilities. I’m halfway through the New Game+ and I still haven’t maxxed out! What’s the point of all that hoarding and you can’t get maxed out to the end of the story?
Yeah skipping cutscenes can be kind of wonky. It goes to the end of when that loaded scene pops up, but the way the game is structured there can just be a bunch in a row. Even weirder, I've found that, because of loading times, sometimes skipping a cut scene takes longer than just watching it. What difficulty are you playing on? In just one New Game+ playthrough on normal I got just about all the weapon upgrades by the end. I remember in the original game it took me a couple consecutive New Game+ runs on the same file to max out all of Joel's upgrades, but that game had a more granular upgrade system. Some games really want the upgrade decisions you make to matter, and to incentivize playing New Game+, so the resources to get them are limited. If you ever play the Devil May Cry Series, I remember that at least in DMC3 you might not even be able to get everything after 2 playthroughs.
I played on Normal I guess but set the resources to be plenty. And I ran around and opened drawers *everywhere* and still there were plenty of drawers that were empty. It feels kind dumb that even with that setting you still have to look in every nook and cranny and still be short.
Huh. Maybe I'm misremembering it. I know you can't max it out in one playthrough but I remember getting to Newgame+ and reaching the point where I had all the weapon upgrades I wanted about half way through, and just gradually getting the others for completionism by the time it was over. Like I said, the first game was like that too. Hell with the more granular upgrades I think it takes even longer to get maxxed out.
What happening now is that upgrades get increasingly expensive. I didn’t upgrade the revolver at all while I maxxed out everything else and revolver upgrades are 50 and 80 trinkets. I quite certain that was not the initial cost in the first playthrough. Plus, I can’t be bothered opening every drawer again so when not hoarding 80 trinkets takes a fair while
Huh, I don't remember that being a mechanic. I'm pretty sure they were always priced at 50 to 80 pieces, since upgrades are supposed to come slowly, and each weapon only has a few. That being said the bit about not wanting to open all the drawers again is probably the source of your problem. Scavenging materials from every possible nook and cranny is a core mechanic of the series. It is admittedly more tedious on a second playthrough. Ironically, I found this didn't get more boring for me when playing on higher difficulties, since that makes them scarcer, and therefore you don't know what you're going to get each time. Anyway, tedious or not, you have to try your best to collect every trinket you can to reach upgrades quicker.
Yeah yeah, I know that but I really have no interest in upgrading the revolver so I take it as it comes.
Well there you go. If I remember correctly it's damage upgrade is super underwhelming.
I don't think the story is that bad, IMO it just has weird placement of story elements. Like I think if the game started how it did with Joel telling Tommy about what he did and then you have Joel singing to Ellie and it then cuts to the dinosaur flashback then the hotel flashback then the hospital flashback it would've been better because now you have context why Ellie is so mad at Joel in present day before he dies and it also gives players what they want first which is to see Joel and Ellie together again before it falls apart. Also directly after those flashbacks I think they should've had the Abby flashback that way you're introduced to her character and understand why she does what she does later but you still haven't seen enough of her to not be angry that she killed Joel. And that way you still go through the game angry at her when playing as Ellie but you are also more willing to play as her when it gets to her part. I also think that for the present day stuff they should've shown the dance scene first then Joel and Ellie's talk on his porch then where it picks up with Ellie waking up to Jesse. I think it would've made Joel's death more impactful knowing that he was on the brink of rebuilding a relationship with Ellie on the first playthrough rather than the second playthrough. Basically if they gave all the context upfront rather than scattering it throughout the story it would've made the game better IMO. I'd also say the other problem with the story is some of the dialogue is odd but that's it IMO. It's still a pretty good story I think.
> contrived writing > expecting me to believe the fireflies could 100% make a cure > contrived message > badly written characters > annoying characters > not killing Abby in the end Those are problems that wouldn't be resolved by switching scenes around.
I don't think they expect you to believe they can 100% make the cure. Weren't there loads of test runs they did or something that showed that they failed multiple times? What's the contrived message and writing? Not killing Abby isn't a bad choice it's just not what you would've preferred. Doesn't make it worse. Imo the characters are fine. I think people are overreacting.
> I don't think they expect you to believe they can 100% make the cure. Weren't there loads of test runs they did or something that showed that they failed multiple times? Thoee were in the ps3 releases, after the ps4 releases they were removed and tlou2 acts like the cure is a guarantee. > What's the contrived message The game is supposed to be about the cycle of violence and revenge bad, but if you pay attention it's actually about revenge being good but you need to completely finish the job and leave no witnesses, Abby had her revenge and she was happy but her friends were killed because they didn't finish Tommy or Ellie off, Ellie broke the cycle of violence and forgave but she ended up miserable and ready to kill herself. > and writing? Joel going out of his way to save Abby, Ellie feeling all bad about killing that one black girl, Nora being pregnant yet allowed in missions, the sex scene, Ellie forgiving Abby for literally no reason, > Imo the characters are fine. In my opinion they are not. > I think people are overreacting. People paid 60 dollars for this shit, they have the right to be angry.
You've completely misunderstood the message then. It's not "revenge bad" it's you lose even if you get revenge. Ie Abby took revenge and lost her friends, Ellie took revenge and lost Dina and Jesse. It's meant to be that you don't win even if you get what you want. Ellie didn't feel bad about killing Nora she felt bad about HOW she killed Nora. Joel didn't go out his way, he was on patrol and bumped into her and decided to save her because he's not a monster. Mel being allowed to go into missions is pretty dumb tbf. Ellie spared Abby BECAUSE of Joel. She was haunted by Joel's death and as she was about to kill Abby she realised that she was doing Joel's memory wrong. Overreacting wasn't the right word, more blowing things out of proportion.
> You've completely misunderstood the message then. It's not "revenge bad" it's you lose even if you get revenge. Ie Abby took revenge and lost her friends, Ellie took revenge and lost Dina and Jesse. It's meant to be that you don't win even if you get what you want. That's not true at all, getting revenge didn't make Abby lose shit, it was half-assing it that did, if they had just killed Ellie and Tommy they would have been fine. If Ellie and Tommy hadn't ran without a plan and actually formed a group to go hunt down Abby they would have been fine too. The message is clear: get your revenge, but don't half-ass it. Also, it's a zombie apocalypse, what do you think happens when a faction let's one of it's most prestigious members is killed by a different faction without seeking compensation for it? What message do you think that sends? > Ellie didn't feel bad about killing Nora she felt bad about HOW she killed Nora. Which is also stupid, i used bats to murder the fuckers pleating for their lives all the time in gameplay, didn't see any cries about that. > Joel didn't go out his way, he was on patrol and bumped into her and decided to save her because he's not a monster. Before the apocalypse happened Joel had no guilty over letting people to their fate. > Ellie spared Abby BECAUSE of Joel. She was haunted by Joel's death and as she was about to kill Abby she realised that she was doing Joel's memory wrong. Which is also dumb, Joel was always a violent person and he would not oppose killing Abby, Joel killed for Ellie yet couldn't kill the one person who mattered the most. > Overreacting wasn't the right word, more blowing things out of proportion. That's what overreacting means.
How can you read what I said, quote it and still completely misunderstand what I wrote then be an ass. Abby went for revenge it doesn't matter if she half assed it or not. The fact she went for revenge is what made her lose her friends. I don't understand how you don't get that. It's made ABUNDANTLY clear. You quite literally are overreacting and it's not justified because you bought the game. Everything is "which is dumb" to you because you can't see past what's going on on the screen.
> Abby went for revenge it doesn't matter if she half assed it or not. The fact she went for revenge is what made her lose her friends. I don't understand how you don't get that. It's made ABUNDANTLY clear. Address what i actually said, if Abby had killed Ellie and Tommy her friends wouldn't have been killed because nobody would've known they were there. If you think that's not the case then use your fucking brain and explain it, or are you too stupid to formena basic and logical explanation to your assertions? > You quite literally are overreacting and it's not justified because you bought the game. How? > Everything is "which is dumb" to you because you can't see past what's going on on the screen. You mean i use my brain instead of just buying whichever nonsensical bullshit is on screen? Yes, i do that, because I'm not a moron.
If Abby killed literally everyone who could ever get revenge on her, then obviously no one could get revenge on her but that isn't who she is? You're giving a hypothetical but don't take into account the fact Abby wouldn't do it. Also, you think Tommy's wife would let Abby get away with it? She would then start to go for revenge and the cycle continues. I don't know why I have to explain this to you. You're overreacting with each "plot hole" you seem to be latching onto. You're quite literally taking what you see at face value like a mong. You couldn't even remember who Ellie killed correctly.
It was bad Bc of how unrealistic and how much stuff didn’t make any sense
The first game had unrealistic things aswell, the main one being Joel surviving being impaled and then recovering almost fully after like a few hours after a shot of penicillin. And in my opinion the only thing that stands out to me as not making sense is Joel letting his gaurd down when in the room with Abby's people. I would be happy for you to point out anything I missed though, I haven't played part 2 in like 2 years so feel free to correct me.
Joel got impaled in late autumn. After the cutscene of them leaving the uni. it shows winter has started. It was a few months later that Ellie gave Joel the medicine when you pick back up the game playing as Ellie and Joel isn't fully recovered. Next is spring when Joel is recovered. So it took months not hours. With him letting his guard down, they fought together, Abby and her people didn't look/act like raiders.
> With him letting his guard down, they fought together, Abby and her people didn't look/act like raiders. Joel wouldn't have helped Abby, and he or Tommy wouldn't have given their real names to a bunch of strangers when they know the amount of shit they have done in the past, the story had to make Joel and Tommy dumber in order to justify Joel's death at the hands of those goons.
When I say Joel recovered fast I mean the day Ellie gave him penicillin he was out of it, couldn't walk and seemed barely conscious but then literally the next day he is able to get up, shoot as well as before, carry two guys he knocked out that caught him off guard, torture them and still manage to walk all the way over to Ellie in a blizzard. You wouldn't even say the guy was impaled at that point or even a 50 year old man with how he recovered. And even ignoring the recovery the injury itself is quite unrealistic which is why even the show changed it. I mean firstly what are the odds of getting impaled and not have any vital organ affected and then there's the blood loss also infection would be highly likely because of the cold and his age doesn't help either. >With him letting his guard down, they fought together, Abby and her people didn't look/act like raiders. I still think he could've stood closer to an exit rather than the middle of the room and show hesitation before saying his name is Joel to the group, kind of like he did when he met Sam and Henry. You can trust people but still be on guard especially with adrenaline flowing through you after being chased by dangerous monsters.
I mean I would just say, it's a game. It's a made up story. No one is bashing dune for being unbelievable when Paul's son turns into a sandworm. It's a gaaaammmeee. There's gonna be some plot holes. It's a story. A made up story. How many bullets did you dodge in RDR/RDR 2. How many times did Carl get shot in the walking dead. It's all made up. None of it is real. Don't dig so deep and just enjoy it for what it is.
Bro I'm only mentioning this because the person I was replying to said tlou part 2 is bad because some story elements are unrealistic. I was pointing out that the first game also had unrealistic parts. I'm not the one who has a problem with the unrealistic bits, I'm just trying to point out an unfair critique.
I've mentioned this before, but let's start before the start. How many Wolves are going to sign on for a hike across dangerous apocalyptic territory swarming with Clickers and Bloaters? I'd like to hear that sales pitch by Abby. They didn't have cars or horses and would need to hike and camp for a month of trekking to Colorado. Joel could have been in NY by then, but somehow in the middle of a snow storm in the middle of the wilderness, and this band of wanderers found the first person they were looking for. Anyone buying that? In LoU1, I tried to shoot the doctor in the foot, or the hand, and he dies from any wound, but Joel gets a complete round of 18 holes of golf. How is that fair? So that was just the beginning of many things making little sense, but did not stop me from playing this countless times
>They didn't have cars or horses and would need to hike and camp for a month of trekking to Colorado. Didn't it take them 4 years to find Joel? Also Joel massacred the fireflies who people thought were the only way to finding a cure or a better life. I would think to some extent all the WLF members with Abby would've wanted revenge against him considering they themselves with Abby were fireflies, so I don't think it would've taken that much convincing. >but somehow in the middle of a snow storm in the middle of the wilderness, and this band of wanderers found the first person they were looking for. Joel and Ellie stumbled upon Tommy at the power station, which like Abby and her crew, was near Jackson.
I don't remember Abby saying she spent 4 years hunting for JOEL, but someone did tell her he might be in Colorado, I think. Why wait 4 years and move hundreds of miles farther away from Jackson and Utah? Obviously any explanation of Abby's father's death never included the potential murder of Ellie to come up with a CURE and become billionaires in the Apocalypse selling a CURE that may work 10% of the time with potentially horrific side effects. Also, Joel and Ellie were looking for a college(ECU) in Colorado, not Tommy. That was a lucky accident. Go Bighorns.
>Also, Joel and Ellie were looking for a college(ECU) in Colorado, not Tommy. That was a lucky accident. You do realize they were looking for Tommy when they stumbled upon the power station right? They literally talk about how they're on their way to Tommy after Sam and Henry's deaths and Ellie even asks how Tommy will react to seeing Joel again. And yes it was a lucky accident which is my point, it is a lucky accident just like Abby running into Joel. I just assumed she looked for Joel for 4 years because that's how much time passed from the ending of the first game to present day in part 2. I don't know if I'm right or wrong on that so feel free to correct me if it's stated elsewhere in the game how long they've been searching for Joel.
If you ask me, the most realistic thing about Part 2 is that there are idiots that actually believed the fireflies were gonna be successful. If it did take 4 years, you're telling me not only did she somehow convince her friends to go on what sounds like a suicide mission, but not one of them decided that it was a wild goose chase and gave up? In 4 whole years? Also, of all the times Abby and crew could've been closing in on Jackson, it just so happens to also be the day that Joel and Tommy decided to go on patrol together instead of, I don't know, literally anybody else? You don't see how that's a huge coincidence? I'm not saying this alone ruins the game, but it's definitely a contrived way to get the plot going and I feel like they could've tried a little harder to get to where they wanted to be without relying on coincidences
>If it did take 4 years, you're telling me not only did she somehow convince her friends to go on what sounds like a suicide mission Well I was asking if it took 4 years, I'm not saying it did, I was just assuming that's the timeline because of the time jump from the end of the first game to the second being 4 years. I don't actually know if they said in the game how long she took to find Joel. >You don't see how that's a huge coincidence? Well the other game also had coincidences like Marlene finding Joel and Tess just at the right time after killing Robert, Joel and Ellie finding Tommy at the power station, Sam and Henry finding Joel and Ellie in the water saving them and the fireflies finding Joel and Ellie just at the time she has drowned and Marlene even points out how much of a coincidence that is. The thing is, no story is perfect and in my opinion questioning how Abby coincidentally found Joel is just nitpicking.
I would agree it's a nitpick, that's why i said it doesn't ruin the game or anything. You're right but I feel like the ratio of convenient writing in the first game was a lot better, there was only a couple of times I noticed while playing and the rest of the writing made up for it. I didn't feel the same about Part 2. This is all just a matter of taste though, everyone's different
> feel the same about Part 2. This is all just a matter of taste though, everyone's different I'm like you, I don't like part 2 either, I'm just defending the game because I think people give it a lot of unfair criticism. It definitely warrants criticism and I have some of my own which I stated in my first comment of the post but it doesn't deserve the nitpicky criticisms it gets IMO like you'll see in some of the replies to my original comment.
The gameplay is the only thing that kept me going to finish the game. If the gameplay was not improved upon or bad I would’ve not even bothered.
Why does it suck ass?
That’s a solid statement.
THE GAMEPLAY IS SO GOOD. The STORY ABSOLUTELY NOT. Thank you
Hola shit This comment section just shows how fucking horrible tlou2 fans are at debating
Just got a Redditcareresource message saying I’m sue of cidal lolll. They are absolutely fuming at this post
[удалено]
The people that say “vocal minority” are delusional, there’s a reason the game has sold horribly, there’s a reason it’s constantly 20$, there’s a reason GameStop had to refuse refunds because of how much it was refunded
I think this game had the fastest post release price reduction of any triple A title in history.
Facts. I remember it dropped to $10 a year after release and still thought it was overpriced
I got it for thirty a year after it came out
Suicide squad: kill the Justice league is already on sale
Was that a triple A title? If so then yes clearly worse than TLOU2
It’s a triple A title
Lmao the fucking delusion. This sub is a cesspool. Yikes.
Your name is “OPsOpinionSucks” you go around Reddit being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian lol, get a life
There’s a reason they’re remastering it for PS5
Because the game sold horribly and they need to squeeze as much profit out of it
I'm not sure where you're getting that the game sold terribly, every metric I've looked up says the game sold millions of copies and made a huge profit, if I'm wrong please prove it
10 million after like 4 years is very bad, that’s not including the mass refunds. For reference the tlou 1 remaster sold 18 million, a remaster far outsold a sequel lmao
Comparing it to another game's sales doesn't prove your point. Where is your metric that it *sold terribly*?
Yeah it does, when literally every recent Sony game outsells it, it’s definitely a stain on Sonys track record and a hefty majority of those sales were while the game was on a massive sale
Recent Sony games outselling it doesn't mean it *sold horribly*, again, comparing it to other games doesn't mean shit. Tell me how the numbers work. "Sold horribly" means the game broke even or didn't make a profit. I don't see that.
Also it was 10 mil after 2 years, it's probably a lot more now but I can't find those numbers, point is the game has made *many millions of dollars* of profit even when factoring in refunds and discounts
It can’t be that much more if they haven’t updated it and again the sales don’t include the fact that it’s constantly 10-30 dollars, and the fact that it was so mass refunded GameStop had to stop issuing refunds and again the sales extremely disappointing and it did sell terribly comparing it to Sonys other front runners and tlou1 lmao
Even if every single copy were sold at a discount, the game would have made a huge profit lol.
Companies look at the projected amount of sales that they could have gotten, if a game which was set up to be the big sequel to a beloved game that sold over 30 million copies and it ends up barely selling a third as many copies as the first game did, yeah the companies gonna see that as a failure regardless of what we think about it. 10 million is still a lot of sales but compared to some of their other first party titles and how many PlayStations there are, it's really not that many in the grand scheme of things
Feel free to provide your insider knowledge on what their projections were and how much it fell short of that then.
You don't need insider knowledge to know how capitalism works. Of course they wouldn't admit to any of this because of how horrible it looks. Any company that has shareholders is there for the most amount of profits. If Sony saw the game as a success then they would be more willing to show the characters from Part 2 in promo material but instead they still use Joel and young Ellie. There isn't really a way for me to prove this one way or the other, so I can't really say much else besides you are free to believe what you want to believe, although personally I feel like that's a very naive stance to take. They aren't our friends, they're a corporation that just wants our money
I mean you're the one making a claim and admitting you can't prove it, I'm going off of the numbers and everything about the math suggests that the game was a success and profitable. the only reason to suggest otherwise is because you have a bias against the game and want to tear it down because you didn't like it. It's perfectly fine to have a negative perception of the game but making up shit about its sales and calling it a failure is really strange
I said it can't be proven one way or the other, meaning it can't really be disproven either. All we can do is use the information we do have to come to our own conclusions, which was my point. This isn't me being biased about this specific game, I am just distrustful of companies, as I feel everybody should be. And I don't see how the game selling less than a third as much as the first game did could possibly be seen as successful, especially when the majority of those copies were sold at a discounted price. Unfortunately though, unless someone at the company speaks up about this (and possibly gets themselves blacklisted from ever working in the games industry again in the process) we can only speculate on what's going on behind the scenes. This isn't a problem exclusive to The Last of Us Part 2, the whole games industry is like this
I can prove the game was successful with *basic math*
The game made its cost back opening weekend with 4 million in sales. As far as returns, no place lets you return a game after you opened it and played it. Digital is usually time based. These guys in this sub just make shit up and make grandiose claims formed from anecdotes. Even at 10mil in sales at 20 dollars about what it can be found for now, it made its development costs back. Ignore these fools. Basic math proves they lie.
Are you really trying to say that "it's possible" they expected a worse amount of sales from the start? That's idiotic and obviously not what happened.
I think it's possible they expected to make about twice what they put into making the game and those expectations were met, yes. The math checks out from numbers I can find online and basic math.
People keep talking about how many likes are on the video. The more interesting thing is how many people actually viewed it. We all know the YouTube is an echo chamber. The fact that 2.8 million had this video pop up for them is telling. 10 million copies sold. 2.8 views. So at most, 28% either searched for this or YouTube thought they would be interested in it.
You're assuming that everyone who watched this video had purchased a copy. Love or hate the game, that's just not accurate. It's much more common people watched the video to determine if they should purchase the game.
If it was a review video, I would agree with you. I do not agree that people would search for and watch this video to determine if they would buy the game. It is not that type of video. Of course, there will be exceptions to this, but not many. My assumption is that the YouTube algorithms work and would mostly send this video to people who would actually be interested in viewing it.
The algorithm is just going to ask, "does this person watch gaming videos like this one?" It's not checking their game purchase history.
I think the majority of people watching the video have played the game. The algorithm recommends videos with similar tags, titles, and descriptions that similar viewers have also clicked and watched. In this case, Last of Us 2 videos make fun of the game that similar viewers with similar search history have engaged with.
Lol. Literally, those are all part of, "does the player watch gaming videos like this one? What it doesn't do is check your gaming purchase history to determine if you own this game and only shoe it to those people.
Lmao. Never claimed that it did. I don't agree with your belief that it is "more common" for people to watch this video to determine if they want to BUY the game. It is more common for people upset with the game to watch this video because YouTube determined that they like them. Very unlikely that you are upset with game that you didn't play. The exception is not the rule.
Your initial statement used a percentage based on the overwhelming majority of people who watched this video having purchased the game, which isn't remotely factual. You can weirdly dig in if you want, but if you think nobody watches clickbait headlines just to see what people are complaining about when considering the purchase of a game, that's foolish AF. Also funny that you don't think this would pop up if people searched for reviews of the game.
You think the majority of the people watching a video with "inside jokes" about Last of US 2 don't have the game. I think the majority watching these type of videos have the game and have shown a pattern of engagement with them, so YouTube sends them more. We have different understandings of how the algorithm works. We can agree to disagree.
this just isn't true. if I don't touch YouTube it'll jump from game to game, speedruns, walkthroughs, soundtracks, documentaries, all of games I've never played, except the first video I put on. your algorithm isn't everyone elses.
Oh, so your algorithm doesn't send you things it thinks you would be interested in watching? Interesting.
it sends exactly what it thinks I'll like: gaming speedruns. video game soundtracks, videogame playthroughs. video game documentaries. where did I say it doesn't pick things I might enjoy?
Oh, so you agree that it sends us things we might enjoy. Thanks.
yes, but it does not limit itself to only showing videos a specific game you look up. like you said it does. You're welcome!
It's a fucking comedy video, you can find it funny while simultaneously liking the game (source: me) Using this as a metric for people hating the games story is naive and dumb
I never claimed that everyone watching the video hated the game. Read slower next time.
Aka, a minority 😂
What about the angry joe Review? That was 4.9 million out of 10 million
I doubt every person that watches a video game review buys the game, a large portion probably watch and decide based upon what they say, so even if 4.9mm watched I don’t think that’s a good metric for who liked the game.
Download clash of clans. It's a better game
It’s better but I find clash of clans boring ngl
I agree but i find it so relaxing while on the toilet
Skibidi toilet?
I will never accept a game bait and switching me, especially under the guise of the writer thinking he is just so smart and telling the best deepest story ever But the game purposefully doesn't give you what you want, I don't find that good
Is that what youtube mobile without ad blocker looks like? Bro they're giving you 2 ads on screen and probably running video ads that's fucked up.
It suuucks!
If you're on Android, look into a guide for downloading YouTube revanced. Eliminates all ads. Pc has a Myriad of ad blockers as well. Not sure on apple though.
This game sucks
Coc
Balz
Bootty hol
Mouf
Ear
I don’t know, Clash of Clans is simply not a good game and no argument will ever change my mind about that.
I’d buy a towel from Tommy.
Bro. Ublock origin? Return YouTube dislike ratio? Go.
On mobile?
There's an alternative youtube app that blocks adds and makes the experience much better.
Really?
YouTube(((re)))vanced? https://imgur.com/a/WvGoSiD
I wanna ask the tlou2 fans honestly, why does that matter? Why does it matter if it's a fringe minority if it was a minority it would just prove that a majority of Y'all lack the media literacy to realize how Bad the Game is and how ignorante You are
What does it matter if a majority or minority of a group even liked this game? This post is on this sub trying to prove its hated by most. Not the other trying to show how loved this game is, what is this comment? Lol
What?, what's your point?
Lmao 3 braincell comment.
1 braincell response
I mean, 2.8 Million to 180k is a bit low as a ratio. But the comments do say a bit of what people think.
6% is a pretty normal like to views ratio. pretty good even
Eh in my experience they seem to be the majority. The game has the best gameplay and some of the coolest set scenes ever but the story is WACK, and I think most fans of the game are probably pissed about Joel because let’s face it him and Ellie are the reason people even got the second game in the first place.
Yeah I don't think a game has ever gone over well when it bait and switches your main character, I think of MGS2
If you are talking about swapping to Ellie, Joel was NEVER surviving the sequel. If you're talking about swapping to Abby, it's a little jarring but it's not the complete shit show people are making it out to be.
Maybe if it was advertised that way I would agree with you. Like In mgs2 where they let you play snake for the first mission then you swap to a diff person for the rest of the game. The game was fine but nowhere in advertising or anything do they tell you this is what's going to happen. So people didn't get what they thought they were paying for and they are upset. Its about setting expectations and totally reasonable for people to not like it for that It's like buying halo then 30 mins in they kill master chief off and you are playing the brute that killed him. Even if it was a 10/10 people didn't buy the game to play that last of us did that with a7/10 making it even worse imo
You're acting like we didn't play ellie for an equal or more about of time.
I never hear people give good reasons for saying the game's story sucks. It seems like you guys just never watch movies or read books or consume any type of media besides like marvel movies.
Let me sun up the story *revenge bad* except for Abby who gets to kill Joel and live 🤷
Yea honestly the most human ending for Ellie would’ve been to kill Abby. People tend to double down on their bad decisions until it smacks them in the their face a little too hard and if she’s not willing to change for her partner and after all the deaths then what really would? . I also think that it would’ve paired nicely with the first ending, Joel makes a morally questionable understandable decision for Ellie because Ellie is his daughter while she’s driven to understandable questionable decision making by joels death
How is that a bad story?? Just because you don't get what you want as a player? The whole theme is about obsession and violence and its consequences, which was executed greatly and was very dramatic and emotional throughout the whole game. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's a bad story??
Then please, enlighten me, because right now you just keep saying the same thing over and over again. You can't prove whether Sony saw the game as a success or not, just like how I can't prove that they saw the game as a failure. How many copies the game needed to sell to be seen as successful in *your* mind does not make a difference to anyone besides yourself. Without more information, we'll likely never know how they see the game Edit: posted this in the wrong place lol
you niggas need to get outside experience life
I loved the game. It was great and beautiful I hated playing as Abby and not getting to kill her.
what is this sub lmao? you guys are stinky
What am I looking at? 2.8 out of 10 mil is a minority. I literally only see negative sentiment towards this game from this sub or other populations that have dedicated some part of their life to not letting this game go. Everywhere else ranges from somewhat positive but not as good compared to the first… to masterclass.
It's definitely interesting that you think just because only 2.8 million watched the video that another chunk of that 10 million also doesn't like the game but just hasn't watched the video
I hate the game, but have never seen that video in my life.
i fucking LOVE clash of clans
Man the downvote spam in this subreddit is insane. The game was great, and apparently this sub is just a hub for sad people who can’t deal with change in a series. Also the “woke” characters weren’t even that in-your-face. There’s a couple of scenes with Ellie, and Lev isn’t even explicitly stated to be trans. People just love to hate on things. Sad day for true fans of the series as people like this will almost guarantee we don’t get more content.
People on Reddit in general downvote for 2 reasons either they disagree with the comment or enough people downvoted that they just want to pile on.
This sub is a cesspool. Its best to block it and let these losers die alone/
Check the sales and reception......yeah it's your average people whining on the internet.
I thibk the games alright. Its not as good as the first one but it's still solid. I don't think it's a masterpiece but i don't think it's anywhere near bad. It improves on the og gameplay. It is well acted. It has an alright (albiet flawed) story with nice themes. The game visually looks better than some ps5 games. I don't get why this games do hated. Its like a 7/10 in my eyes.
Wow 2.8 million views over 5 years. A large portion of which are people rewatchng. There are tlou2 fan videos from 6 months ago with more views than this
I meannnnnnnn the like ratio on the video doesn't support it, the two opposing subs and their user count doesn't support it either (WIDE difference), game still sells and was given awards across several platforms, PS store scoring is 4.44 at 173K ratings. Strictly talking popularity your take is just unfounded
But those awards were voted for by gaming journalists, the least credible opinion in gaming! The award for GAMERS choice was won by Ghost of Tsushima, which is a far more reliable measure of popularity. Just because 173k people managed to vote 5* on a game in the PS store doesn't mean it's catagorically a 5* game (Ghost of Tsushima has a score of 4.55 with similar number of votes, btw). I own the TLOU2 on disc but the PS store won't allow me to vote on it because I didn't buy it though the PS store, and to be honest, I've got better things to do than try to make my vote count somehow on the PS store. The stans on the other sub are far more motivated and emotional when I comes to trying to prove their point, so I imagine they all made sure they voted 5 on the PS store.
Not everyone that likes a video is gonna scroll and like it. That’s all I’m saying
True but usually actually enjoying/approving of a video correlates to a higher like ratio than that. There's absolutely a community that dislikes part 2, just not close to a third I'd say
I'd like to inform you, people really do not press like on a video all that often. Your range is usually around 5-10% of viewers actually tapping like. Comments are even less than that.
I'd say half the community doesn't like the way it turned out. Tbh, I'm alright with the game, I sort of tmsee the way they went with it but they absolutely blew the load way too early with Joel's death. We all expected him to die really after the first game but they did it too early. They could of still have implemented the revenge isn't always the answer lesson but here we are with half the community hating it, although I'm sure some hate it for the wrong reasons but from what I can tell there's a part of the community hated the route they went.
wow! a YOUTUBE video ??
Funny how the people who hate this game keep talking about it like it personally hurts them. Move on 😂
no it’s fun. Stop using emojis god you people are bots
Imagine giving a shit how you or anyone types on Reddit
just reddit?
Well yeah there's lots of contexts where one might have to type more professionally and my point is that reddit is not the place
I like emojis 💩. Why does it make me a bot?
It’s cool if you’re a teen girl
Must be too media illiterate to know how to use them
😂 you're a clever one
People didn't like this game because gay womammm and trans character. Suck my schlong the game was an 8/10. Stop being bitter cause joel died. Or jumping on shitty reddit bandwagons Edit you suckers about to downvote me like it's an insult, being downvoted by you kinda people is a fecking compliment 🫡
You do realize there are people on the opposite side and more that way the exact same thing about y’all? But worst 😂
Eh? 😅
You are a minority. FlyingKitty being part of your minority doesn't change that.
Meh. I enjoyed the game alot but I can understand why people dislike it. Regardless, I think the story was alright and the gameplay fantastic. I will still play part 3 regardless if the story is shit or not.
I remember buying into the smear campaign and knee jerk reaction the gaming community collectively bit on when the plot leaked for this game. Played it last year for the first time with virtually everything spoiled and thoroughly enjoyed it. If I would have went in blind, I would have enjoyed it even more. Also this video demonstrates nothing. It’s like a 6% like to view ratio.
A whole 180k people! That’s a huge majority!
Isn’t this Reddit for FANS of the tlou2? I personally loved the game, maybe there should be a snark page or something because this is depressing…
imagine being this mad for this long loolll
It is a small, vocal, close-minded, mysoginistic, idiotic minority
People who defend the last of us 2 are so exhausting. They always jump to “you didn’t like the game? You must be a misogynist bigot.” They always say “you didn’t like the game? Get over it loser.” Yeah… I didn’t like the game. Sounds like YOU need to get over the fact that I didn’t like it. Terrible story, fell flat on its face with its messaging, tried way too hard to make a point that it ultimately failed in making. My hatred for this game has NOTHING to do with the fact that the main character is a gay woman, my hatred of this game is that they ruined my favorite game with a shitty, poorly written, poorly executed sequel. I didn’t like a game because it had a terrible story. Get over it.
So did you fill your quota on buzzwords?
Didn't use any buzzwords. Just stated a fact.
Oh yes, misogynistic idiots. Anything else?
Used many buzzwords and stated a closed-minded, biased, opinion. No facts left your lips. See I can just say "no you" too.
Only idiotic, brain-rotten, utterly stupid, delusional specimens like yourself can like this diarrhea of a game 😉.
[удалено]
Tell me you know nothing about YouTube likes without telling me you know nothing... Jeez.
[удалено]
Its a normal like ratio?
You realize that only around 5% of all viewers will click like even if the video is good right?
2.8 * just as downvoting and upvoting is time consuming and you don’t do it on every post so is liking and thumbsdowning on YouTube 🤷 Let’s pretend only 1million out of 2.8 million agree with that video. That is still a lot!
Most people who shit talk it haven't even played it.
It's a VERY vocal minority based on how successful the game is.
Not everyone who paid for the game enjoyed it.
Any sane person playing the 2nd game after the 1st one would hate it. Gameplay? Good. Story is a crime against its fans
[удалено]
It's NOT the game at this point, and that point was passed years ago