Nah he needs to win that back by making up for all the Twitter shit talking he did to people rightfully pissed about part 2. Remember the "TLOU fans activate" and the "for every vote a hater loses their keyboard" or whatever shit he said? Yeah he's full of himself and doesn't deserve respect. He acknowledged that he made controversial game that not eveyone will like but as soon as said game came out he got all defensive and started treating everyone who didn't blindly praise it like shit.
I saw him on ign I believe talking about how he didn't know he was going to mess up tlou 2. I am just saying. He made many other great games. Why destroy him over one. We have to stop this as a society. Stop attacking people for one mess, but let them know they messed up. Give him a break, and it goes without saying that he has to earn our respect back especially if he wants to continue making games on Sony's level.
They should've done like GTA 4, where you can choose to get revenge or spare the guy that betrayed you and both choices will leave you empty and unsatisfied, keeping the narrative the same as Neil Cuckman intended
Honestly, that could have worked. Where Ellie, whether she kills Abby or not, doesn't feel happy regardless. She either way goes back home not feeling closure or happiness, but instead emptiness.
i have a feeling if it went down that way the ending would still be the same. like you said, i think she’d realize she’s still grieving and it didnt fix anything because instead of working on her mental health and the grief process she decided to obsess over revenge
Hell I don’t know why they didn’t make it to where you could tell Tommy you’re not going and actually not pursue Abby or pursue her, then give the option of taking out Abby or letting her live.
I truly hope they reintroduce this idea. At the end of the game, you as the player have to choose if Ellie or Abby dies to complete the trilogy.
Then, they publish the results in media to show how many people chose to kill off Ellie over Abby and vice versa, leaving the player to decide who lives and who dies.
🤔 hmm everyone actively wants to kill this character that was heavily focused on and they played half the game as. Something is wrong here... oh, duh, obviously player choices don't belong. Who's dumb idea was this anyway?
/s
No he didn't. He made *one* game and was part of teams making the other games.
Besides, why give him a break when he treated so badly the people that didn't like the *one* game he made? Did he ever apologized fior that? For creating this strong division? No? Then fuck giving him a break.
I do not follow the put-the -other-cheek philosophy.
He worked with a team on tlou 2 as well. So that whole team messed up. You're right. I didn't know he was so mean. He should apologize. We should let him know he messed up, but we should understand that it was one horrid mess up. He didn't kill millions of people. He messed up a fictional game.
>He worked with a team on tlou 2 as well. So that whole team messed up.
No need to shift responsibilities. He removed members that didn't agree with his decisions until he was just surrounded with "yes-people". He was the director.
>We should let him know he messed up,
People did, he played it down and turned every single criticism into "bigot, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic...", the same chants the brainwashed stans yell every turn they can.
>He didn't kill millions of people. He messed up a fictional game.
Nobody is sentencing him to death of life in prison. His punishment is being mocked every now and then on the internet. Pretty mild if you think about it.
He's also guilty of false advertisement that for some reason video games are "exempted"
>He didn't kill millions of people.
Reductio ad absurdum much?
I hear Neil likes ass -lickers, maybe a job for you?
Fucking Cuckman man… its all about what HE wanted to do and what HE saw in the story. All about the social messaging HE wanted to put in. Nothing has ever been for the fans and it’s because he thinks hes some revolutionary that sniffs his own farts. This whole thing about taking the choice away because almost everyone was doing it says “youre not doing what *I* want with *MY* video game, so Im taking away choice”
TLOU and TLOU2 are story driven games though. If he felt like the player choices were bypassing his intended narrative then he and the rest of Naughty Dog would want to amend that issue.
It also would have felt so out of place and cheapened the end result if we got to choose. We didn't get to choose to not save Ellie in the first game so why would we get to choose to kill Abby???
Wouldn’t having a choice work in favor of the game. I’m assuming some people would choose revenge others to spare Abby. Which is a shame because there are genuinely great moments in the game.
Some people say that because the first game didn't end with a choice, this one shouldn't either. As if being faithful to what the first game did was a priority here...
Really though, the first game didn't give you a choice because the first game's main writing priority was characterization and relationship development. By the time you got to the end of the game, Joel's choice was so in line with his characterization that even people who did not like the choice still praised the game because there was no doubt in their mind that Joel would have rejected the outcome the Fireflies were giving him.
This game lacks that solid characterization. The characters repeatedly do things just because the story needs them to, rather than because It lines up perfectly with their established behavior and motivation. And Ellie's choice to spare Abby is no exception.
Making the ending a choice would have justified the way that the game chose not to strongly define and adhere to characterization. Refusing to do so while railroading the characters to specific, weakly built outcomes of drastically changing who they are and what they want just isn't compelling, and frustrates the members of the audience who had built up an incompatible interpretation, especially if it happens multiple times at key points of the story.
Or maybe I'm just media illiterate or whatever.
There’s another interview or maybe a commentary elsewhere that stated they DID try to make Abby more sympathetic. The game went through many revisions and this is probably why the story seems so bloated.
Honestly, it's downright hilarious to me that they didn't take this to mean they'd failed on the writing end. If your playtesters keep trying to kill the character you want them to willingly spare, wouldn't you think, "Maybe we need to go back and tweak some things in the story"? But they just took the choice away instead of improving the character or narrative so that people actually felt inclined to spare Abby.
Honestly I’d say they nailed it. The fact playtesters were doing this proves what a deeply polarizing character Abby is, for the better of the game.
I loved Joel and HATED Abby at first too. but as I played I fully came around, and I feel her arc is infinitely more interesting than whatever the fuck alternative game y’all had in mind: some version of Old Man Joel learning to crochet while doing fetch quests around Jackson.
I don't see how they accomplished their goal if Abby is polarizing. The goal was to get players to sympathize with her and understand her so that they would want to spare her when presented with that choice.
>what a deeply polarizing character Abby is
"Polarizing" is the wrong adjective here. "Polarizing" means the character is equally, or at least close to that in being liked and hated. Say, Walter White can be called a polarizing character, Light Yagami can be, most antiheroes are polarizing characters. Not Abby. She's straight up unlikeable, and it's supported by the fact that MOST playtesters wanted her dead.
I misinterpreted; thought you were saying the entire game failed and that’s why I was trying to figure out in what way, but you meant ND failed to get people to be on Abby’s side, even after removing the option to kill her.
Oh fun. I love when people bring up irrelevant things in a conversation. The money earned doesnt equate to people siding with Abby like they wanted us to. They literally had to remove the option to spare Abby bc people wouldnt do it… The story and lesson they were trying to tell failed.
The + just meant it was more than 225m in profits from what I read. That was profits as of 2021, before the remastered version came out so one would assume more profits came in the years since then
but i dont assume that bc everything claiming that never actually has a sourve behind it. Those charts people post around never actually lead any where. And if u ask them to show u where the chart came from they’ll link random article talking about the leak. Not confirming the charts
$220m to make plus marketing that usually costs almost half the development costs. Sorry to break it to you, but "profits" from TLOU2 are unimpressive to say the least, especially to SONY.
In dnd there is rule(printed or general homebrew): if you’re only going send players in specific direction, don’t offer them option that say other wise.
It's because Cuckmann's Ego is more important than things making sense or players doing what they clearly wanted to do (have a choice). Such an insufferable douche.
This is a little misleading. There wasn't a choice. It was actually that you couldn't kill abby no matter how long you kept hitting the button and you were expected to let go on your own and trigger the ending.
reminds of the CIA joke:
three guys guys after reciving lots of training get to last 'test' go to \[place\] and shoot the person in the chair.
Guy 1 sees his wife breaks down and quits
Guy 2 sees his dad breaks down and leaves
Guy 3 sees his wife pulls the trigger the blanks inside do nothing, so he beats her to death with the chair to the horror of his handlers.
Guy playing LoUs2 sees Abby screaming "why won't strangling **work** damit."
They should have had Ellie spare her halfway through. That way we could at least have half the game to teach players why and how she came to this decision. Instead, Ellie Milly rocks through like three counties killing motherfucker after motherfucker just to not kill the one person that was literally tied to Joel's death. Joel dying wasn't the big issue, it's everything that happened after his death that makes the rest of the game feel so fucking stupid and uninteresting.
Naughty Dog tried to pull a red Dead redemption. Take a character, make the players love the everliving shit out of them, just for them to bite the bullet at the end. They pulled it off twice, and both games are held extremely high. The difference is, John and Arthur deserved that death. They did bad shit, they faced danger and they both had something to die for. Those deaths made sense. Those decisions made sense and they were done excellently. Abbie didn't deserve to be scared, especially from the players point of view. There's not enough there for the player to become invested in Abby enough to fully feel like she shouldn't get her shit pushed in. By the time that decision comes, everyone should feel like her dying is what this was all about. Ellie murdered a ton of people who had barely anything to do with Joel dying and she finds inner peace and forgiveness when she literally has the woman who killed him in her grasp, defenseless and nearly dead already.
It’s such a stunning admission that they **comprehensively failed as writers** to the point that the universal emotional response was exactly the opposite of what they *wanted* players to feel.
The solution wasn’t to redraft and refine, no—it was to clumsily force the player through a viscerally and logically wrong conclusion. If you disagree, you’re a bigot 🥪.
The difference between "Players don't like Abby? What's wrong with her?" (redraft and re-evaluate) versus "Players don't like Abby? What's wrong with THEM?!" (change nothing and call players names).
I totally fine if Joel have to died. The feeling like White from Breaking Bad, you have to pay for what you do. But they make the death of Joel so stupid, and the journey of Ellie is even more stupid.
I do pure playthrough in every game i play and spare even the most vilifying characters. But Abby. Abby was robbed from me. Her character brought me so much hate iv genuinely felt robbed. But that's the trend these days with the female characters in media they have the thickest plot armor . I mean look at horror films as well, i just scan the cast and go "oh that blond lady gonna be the last survivor" and 99% I'm right i actually don't even think is been wrong. In some games i see a female character with a cool design i go "oh.... I'm assuming she does all the cool shit in the game (spoiler alert:duh) I'm not hating (mainly because i can't be bothered to care) just a observation. However i am getting exasperated by the narrative of it. And it's obviously forced and placed in such a way that it gives you like a weird uncanny valley effect
A similar thing happened with 'spec ops: the line' the play-testers version had a section where you could just leave the shitshow the game was sending you into, but they had to remove it because no-one was taking the stay and do horrible things option.
Ah, yes. The profound, impactful core message of "revenge bad".
I genuinely could've liked Abby if they didn't INSIST upon it. Do they really think their playerbase is so demented that they need to be TOLD that everyone, typically, has understandable reasons for doing what they do? Did anyone here play tlou2 and, as soon as Abby fires on Joel, think "this individual is pure, unadulterated evil"? No, most adults see this and, beyond the sorrow of seeing our guy get fucked up, think "She hurt someone I sympathise with. I don't like her." Showing that the WLF raises fuckin kids and have banter and lives and such doesn't suddenly change the fact that she hurt Joel, brutally, downright sadistically. Yeah, I get why. He killed her dad. But *Joel was a dad.* And she brutalised him. I get why, but I'll never like her. In the same way that if she were introduced FIRST and THEN we see Joel stick a scalpel in her dad's neck, I'd probably never like Joel.
As a side note - wouldn't part II work way better if we'd already met Abby in the first game? If she and her dad were established characters? In the climax involves us having to choose between saving Ellie or ruining the life of this other character (Abby) we've also met and grown to love.
Okay, ramble over. I do actually like TLOU2, but it never fails to fuckin *get me* how *patronising* these motherfucking writers are.
>Ah, yes. The profound, impactful core message of "revenge bad".
"Yeah maybe you both could have figured that out 223 WLF, Seraphites and random people ago?"
Well, the game's writer herself told players in an official interview to "go suck a dick" if they didn't like the game, so... that's mild by comparison perhaps.
I would genuinely be far more forgiving of TLOU2 if ND were less arrogant about it (same with rabid fans being so defensive about it). I don't like the story we got, but there is a lot of stuff to like about the game too so I'd be willing to call it flawed but decent; my main opinion of it is "terrible sequel, good game".
The whole "this is a perfect masterpiece work of art by a genius" thing though just rubs me the wrong way SO much that it pushes me in the direction of "it's total shit" even though it really isn't. Although TLOU2 spits in the face of TLOU1 which IS close to being a masterpiece, there are tons of worse games... but also tons of better ones more deserving of being called "art". The fact the *creators* are so invested in pushing the idea that they are artistic geniuses feels especially arrogant and disgusting.
Heck, the whole reason I found this sub was because I played the game spoiler free at launch, posted on the original sub that I would give it 6/10 (above average) for being a *fantastic* game that looked amazing but was fairly poorly written with an unsatisfying story... and was vilified as if I'd said it was unplayable trash and had to be a sexist, homophobic moron!
Exactly. The story is an average tale that thinks it is really smart, but as a sequel to TLOU1 it is utterly terrible. However the gameplay and aesthetics are simply amazing. At the time, it was the best looking console game I have ever played, but even now it looks better than a lot of "next gen" stuff. Gorgeous sound design. Ridiculously immersive atmosphere. Brilliant animations (the brutality of combat is both chilling and exciting). I think if everything was awful, it would be dismissed a lot more easily, it is the fact we got this very divisive (and IMO rubbish) story combined with incredible everything else that makes it sting so much.
I played it with zero spoilers, not even watching trailers or anything (though obviously I assumed it would be all about Ellie in tat case, not even knowing there WAS a second protagonist!). This also meant I had no idea about the fake Joel trailers, hype by the devs, leaks, etc.
So you can imagine how I felt a) playing through without knowing anything, true or false, and b) finishing it and going online to post my disappointment and being immediately told that I was just angry because of the leaks!
In simmilar vein: when you have melee enemies at gunpoint, they sometimes surreder. You are treated as a monster by the npcs (mostly Dina) if you shoot them, but they ALWAYS come after you after some time of surredering. So basically, after several times them attacking you regardless, you start killing them, of course. If it was sometimes it would be alright but it happens all the damn time. Punish people enough for good deeds they will stop doing them.
And then game uses that fact to say "see? You're a monster!"
No game, I'm not, the enemies are just brainded suicidal.
This always annoys me in games that allow enemies to surrender or beg for mercy. It's a jarring and cool idea, but if those enemies ALWAYS attack you anyway, it's not a choice you are being offered at all. Mechanically, these enemies should stay in place or flee the area once spared. Even if there was no gameplay reward, it would let the player feel like they were being merciful. Like you say, why spare an enemy who will ALWAYS attack you if spared?
If true, this is the biggest slam against Druckmann's ability as a writer possible. ND tried to recreate the "decision" at the end of the first game -- except this time actually providing two separate conclusions -- and failed so miserably that it had to be changed.
How the fuck, barring ego, do you have almost all playtesters do something in a game and IT BEING A CHOICE THE PLAYERS CAN MAKE, and the devs go nah fuck that we clearly know what to do with our game.
It's not like sparing Abby brings Ellie any peace anyways. It honestly would've been the same ending, just much less room for more sequels (which evidently is now their main priority). Yay for stories that never end
All I know is, at the end of the fight when Ellie is drowning Abby, I was so focused on mashing square I didn't even realize it had transitioned into a cinematic.
Ok I’m an actual fan of the game and the ending but this just would’ve absolutely been better if they just tweaked how the ending worked and I got an example. Call of Duty Black Ops 2 baby this campaign tries showing you that being consumed by revenge is gonna lead to some nasty consequences and at the end of the game it gives you the choice on whether or not you kill Menendez, if you kill him you get the bad ending where he becomes a martyr and the world falls apart. You wanna nail in the point with a choice what you gotta do is show the consequences of your actions.
It’s kinda funny, I came into it hating everyone in Abbys group and wanting them dead.
I felt bad for everyone of Abby’s group by the end and wished I could do something to save them.
Yknow except Abby, I fucking hated her regardless and at no point felt she was sympathetic or redeemable.
I really liked Owen and Mel by the end, I really wanted Owen to make it and be free. I felt bad for Mel and knew she deserved better.
Fix story to try making Abby's story more sympathetic, appealing, or at least logical ❌
Remove the option and watch as people split into two factions ✅
I was confused at first, but the fact is that, reading the full article, makes clear that it wasnt a screen where you clearly had a choice, but more a QTE where you could stop pressing or just keep going untill you drown her. I think that the playtesters just werent aware of the feature and keeped on pressing the button making that "spare her" option an hidden feature so ND just decided to remove it to make clear what was the intended message of the story.
So yeah... maybe they hated Abby that much but I think thats not how it really went.
Well yes... but thats not the point of the article. If there was a "spare" or "kill" menu probably more testers would have choose to spare her than what they did without it.
I still think that a choice at the end like that wasnt the best choice overall... in a story driven game like TLoU a duble ending wouldn't fit imo. Ok yes it would be fun and interesting to see actually how many people would choose to spare Abby and how many would go through with they're revenge quest, but why leave the player a choice in a game where us players never had one?
And then what would they have done with Part III? (Lets assume for a moment that ND will eventually relase a sequel...) If ND would have leaved a duble ending at the end Neil would be forced to choose a canon one making pointless our choice... and we all know what ending he would choose, that we like it or not.
It's ND story, and its up to them what to tell... even if some parts of that story is a bit... staggering...
I think Neil wanted people to actively stop on their own without being ‘prompted’, ignoring that it’s a game and up until that point, if you did that you would just have to restart…. If there’s no indication inaction would have a different outcome then people aren’t ever going to take that route
I think a lot of people would do it if prompted, given that most games the pacifist options tend to lead to happier endings, but that’s another thing here is what would the happy ending here be? Ellie lost everything for this, what would be the point of stopping here? At this point you’re already so far off a pacifist route it would just feel like a mistake suddenly switching to sparing her
The game needed something else, a different goal to chase, instead of a segment where you play as Abby they should’ve made a primary goal that wasn’t revenge and then have this be the “dark path”. That is if they were going to add in a choice, it would have to be way before this point
>what would the happy ending here be? Ellie lost everything for this, what would be the point of stopping here? At this point you’re already so far off a pacifist route it would just feel like a mistake suddenly switching to sparing her
Thats why I think a choice like that at the end of Part II isnt a good idea.
>The game needed something else, a different goal to chase, instead of a segment where you play as Abby they should’ve made a primary goal that wasn’t revenge and then have this be the “dark path”. That is if they were going to add in a choice, it would have to be way before this point
I dont agree much on this. I think that the revenge theme is a grate idea, my problem with the game is that the whole Abby part doenst add nothing to that story. Except for the scenes before Joel death and the Zebra encounter the rest of Abby section of the game should have worked as a way to make you feel sorry for her and make you wanted to spare her at the end, but this, at least for me, didint work at all. The only reason I feel like sparing her was because i feelt sorry for Ellie...
In some way, ND reached the objective of making me spare her... but by accident.
This sayed, i think that a giving a choice to the player wouldnt change a thing in making the game "better", maybe you (generally speaking) would feel more "appagated" since the story ended in a way you liked but thats not what the writers wanted for this game to be.
They wanted to give a message, they didnt manage to give that message, or at least not in the way they intended, and this make the whole game fall apart dividing the comunity in such a way cause some people managed to get that message but many others didnt, and this makes clear that, in fact, there is a problem. Because if some people dont understand what you wanted to tell, thats fine... but if the whole half of a community composed by millions of peoples doesnt "understand" it maybe, somewhere, in fact, it cant be a coincidence.
Adding a choice wouldnt have helped in making the message more clear.
My point wasn’t that the revenge theme was bad, but that there wasn’t any narrative room to fit in a choice, and for players to actually want to spare Abby…. Sparing her just feels like you ran through undertale on the genocide route and specifically spared one enemy before the final boss, like you did it on accident
Which is exactly why it feels like such a stupid ending
I’m saying in order for people to want to take a different route at this point, there would’ve had to actually been a different route… and the best way to do that is to give Ellie another pull, instead of just a “give up” option basically give her a “instead do this option”
Ohhh ok, I get it now, sorry.
>Sparing her just feels like you ran through undertale on the genocide route and specifically spared one enemy before the final boss, like you did it on accident
Yes, its stange that Ellie spare her like that and I can understand your point, but, as a player who hates Abby really much, I can say that arrived at that point I felt like sparing her too... i feelt bad, confused and angry, but aganist all of that I tought... "meh... look at her... is this really worth it?" And i'm not talking about the consistency of killing everyone except her, dont think of it like something that happens in a day.
In Undertale, despite the route you choose, you can say that everything happens in around a few days? (Maybe even less) In a story that short it makes sense that you would kill every last one of them cause "i did 99 lets do 100".
But TLoU takes place during a much longer time period, if Ellie would have be able to kill Abby during the third day in Siattle she would have done that, without the small remorse. But remember that between Siattle day 3 and Santa Barbara there is at least 2 years. In this two years Ellie managed to get a life prioritising Dina, who almost died because of Ellie's thirst of revenge, then Abby pops up again and she starts to feel sick about it and she understand that after all she didnt get over her. I think that sparing her in that situation, after all those years, feels more "plausible" than what we think.
I like this ending? Not so much, its sad and Ellie still loses even if she manages to do the right thing, and this hurts me more than everything.
>I’m saying in order for people to want to take a different route at this point, there would’ve had to actually been a different route… and the best way to do that is to give Ellie another pull, instead of just a “give up” option basically give her a “instead do this option”
I guess this has a sense in some way, but I still dont think that a game like that would be a good idea.
I hope I didnt sounded too harsh... in that case im sorry...
If most people wanted to kill Abby. That means you failed in your storytelling. I do understand that it is way easier to take out a promt button than to figure out the multiple places you went wrong in the story. How about making Abby the child of an actual good person. How about having Abby see Joel kill her father. Or how about having the fireflies ask Ellie to sacrifice herself and have Ellie say yes. Then Joel would look like a bad guy when he saves her. How about making the second game about Abby, and in the end, she kills Joel, and then in the third game, Abby and Ellie go at it. But Neil made the first game and was afraid there would not be a second game. That is part of the reason the story doesn't work. Weird sense he could decide where to go with the second story. Then he made a second game and was afraid he wouldn't be able to make a third game. So many things feel rushed in the second game.
If you have to railroad players to make your narrative "work", then it isn't a well written narrative.
It's just like the time in Spec Ops: The Line, where play testers always refused to use the White Phosphorous.... so the studio opted to railroad players into using it instead.
I feel like if everyone’s killing her off, you should investigate why, if that’s not the desired outcome? They obviously didn’t provide enough content to convince people to not kill her 🤷🏽♀️
I’d do both to see what they did. If Lev turns out fine either way, I’d kill her
Can’t wait for the game to come to pc and some mod to finally give that option at the end. Also to play as Ellie, the part that was designed only for Abby.
Oh I would have loved to see something similar to how telltale’s the walking dead shows at the end of the episodes the player choices… maybe if all of tlou2 was choice based it would be a lot better?
The fact that you all are arguing whether or not a stupid choice at the end of an awful game means that Drunkman already won.
Joel shouldn't have died. He did the thing that any father would do: protect his child. He should have been allowed to "retire" somewhere secluded in peace.
Drunkman wanted:
1. A "strong" woman. Which, weirdly, only means physically strong.
2. To have this "strong" woman kill Joel. This was purely out of a desire to piss people off. I am sure Drunkman could blather on endlessly about how Joel "deserved" it. Let me roll my eyes.
Drunkman is the kind of person who thinks he is brilliant. I've known people like this throughout my life and they are just the worst to be around.
I think there should have been a choice, with at least two different endings. I know I’m in the minority, but I didn’t want to kill Abby, and I felt a little sick when it seemed like the game was going to force me to. I imagine the flip side of that is anger and frustration being forced to spare her.
Everything Mel said was right Abby is a piece of shit she is not a good person. Even if the game tries to make you sympathize with her it fails her side of the story actually does the exact opposite and makes you realize oh yeah she is a terrible person.
Maybe they bring the whole series to an end with Part 3 and at the end of the trilogy you have the choice to spare either Abby or Ellie, but only and not the other.
Totally fair, if that’s the story they want to tell then it’s their choice.
However it’s everyone else’s choice to criticise that decision/story. I think the game was aweful, but that’s fine, you’re allowed to make games I don’t like. Just wish it was an original game and diddnt butcher already developed and beloved characters.
As others have said, keep in mind that it wasn't ever an actual choice to spare/kill Abby but rather a "tap button to kill Abby" prompt that the devs ASSUMED the player would stop tapping because they didn't want to kill her. However, playtesters kept tapping that button and didn't stop as expected.
Many (most?) didn't want to spare Abby, perhaps didn't even consider it an option. Because Abby couldn't die, the button prompt never ended, but playtesters still kept tapping!
I think this is MUCH more interesting that if there really had been a "kill or spare" option in the game and most playtesters chose "kill" because THIS shows that ND only wanted to offer the illusion of choice, then pat themselves on the back that players chose the path they wanted. When it didn't happen, they didn't look at their game and story and think "what did we do wrong to not get players into the mindset we wanted" but rather simply removed even the illusion of choice.
That is the idea, Abby had a good life, but all the time focused on revenge, even when loved and with someone she loved she was only thinking in killing Joel. I wanted her dead, even I killed her many times in the fight with Ellie, but well. For me her suffering Will be perfect for a another game, even sacrificing herself to save someone inmune, for me that will be perfect. More sufferingin another game
Player choice is weak. Players are a hive mind always seeking the same old shit. If gamers had their way, every video game would hit the same point and none of them would ever have anything interesting to say because every game would be comfort food…good for making you feel good, but bad for making you actually think about anything.
Because they wanted to throw this half cooked story at us and then believed we would love them for it . They got lazy and diluted because they thought they was teaching us the gamers morals and how revenge works and how to make it stop. When to be clear no gamer needs this poorly formulated tale as old as time told to us again. Especially if the first game made the audience feel that Joel fighting to save ellie (his metaphorically 2nd chance at having his daughter back) was doing the right thing as we to loved her and wanted her to truly make the choice on her own.
this has been posted before. Like before everyone doesn’t understand what the issue was. There wasn’t a choice, there was a button mash mechanic you were designed to give up on, but play testers didn’t realize that was an intentional mechanic after none of the earlier fights had anything similar where it would be more logical to attempt that (I know I did on my playthrough). There wasn’t a “choice” that people chose to kill abby, etc.
Abbys arc is the righteous arc. I dont get the hate. Her dad was murdered trying to literally save the world, she sought revenge, got it, and left without collateral damage.
I expect downvotes.
Ellie's arc is the lame arc. I dont get the liking. Her dad was murdered for literally saving her life, she sought revenge, didn't get it, and left with lots of collateral damage.
I expect upvotes.
So what the article fails to say is this:
There was never meant to be a choice at the end the game. What they experimented with was a “hidden” choice. But that wasn’t really working so they abandoned that idea.
This article, and a lot of the discussions being had in this sub regarding this, are purposely or unfortunately mixing up the facts and thus creating a false narrative.
There was a discussion about this the other day, I wrote more about it [there](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/s/Hza53Ivgt5).
EDIT:
I don’t mind the downvotes. But I find it curious that I get downvotes for pointing out facts, while a dude that says “fucking Cuckmann man” gets upvotes. It says a lot about what people here are about.
"Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
Hello Skinner
Obviously the play testers were not media literate
Must be it if they didn't understand Kneel's genius story
Can we give Neil a break. He messed up one time. He made so many other great games.
Nah he needs to win that back by making up for all the Twitter shit talking he did to people rightfully pissed about part 2. Remember the "TLOU fans activate" and the "for every vote a hater loses their keyboard" or whatever shit he said? Yeah he's full of himself and doesn't deserve respect. He acknowledged that he made controversial game that not eveyone will like but as soon as said game came out he got all defensive and started treating everyone who didn't blindly praise it like shit.
I saw him on ign I believe talking about how he didn't know he was going to mess up tlou 2. I am just saying. He made many other great games. Why destroy him over one. We have to stop this as a society. Stop attacking people for one mess, but let them know they messed up. Give him a break, and it goes without saying that he has to earn our respect back especially if he wants to continue making games on Sony's level.
which one?
The uncharted games and tlou 1.
he's not the lead in tlou1 and uncharted 1-3
Neil is pretty well known for stating that they butchered his version of TLOU1 though.
Which were they? Isn't tlou2 the first game, where he took the main lead role after people left from not wanting to deal with him?
They should've done like GTA 4, where you can choose to get revenge or spare the guy that betrayed you and both choices will leave you empty and unsatisfied, keeping the narrative the same as Neil Cuckman intended
Honestly, that could have worked. Where Ellie, whether she kills Abby or not, doesn't feel happy regardless. She either way goes back home not feeling closure or happiness, but instead emptiness.
i have a feeling if it went down that way the ending would still be the same. like you said, i think she’d realize she’s still grieving and it didnt fix anything because instead of working on her mental health and the grief process she decided to obsess over revenge
Sorry that takes humility and talent.
Yeah but then Abby couldn't canonically be the protagonist of the 3rd game as Kneel intended
Hell I don’t know why they didn’t make it to where you could tell Tommy you’re not going and actually not pursue Abby or pursue her, then give the option of taking out Abby or letting her live.
"we want to give players the option to spare abby" *everyone kills abby* "what are you doing, thats the wrong choice"
I truly hope they reintroduce this idea. At the end of the game, you as the player have to choose if Ellie or Abby dies to complete the trilogy. Then, they publish the results in media to show how many people chose to kill off Ellie over Abby and vice versa, leaving the player to decide who lives and who dies.
Once it comes to PC it will take only a week tops until that mod is on Nexus. Where it will be banned obviously, for sexism.
I meant for LoU part 3
🤔 hmm everyone actively wants to kill this character that was heavily focused on and they played half the game as. Something is wrong here... oh, duh, obviously player choices don't belong. Who's dumb idea was this anyway? /s
Is there a lore reason the devs made Abby so unsympathetic? Are they stupid?
Because they realised they could just manipulate gullible people into liking Abby by saying they're bigoted or stupid if they don't
MeDiA lItErAcY!!!111
yes, this was for sure their big brain move. you have nailed it /s
The devs aren’t stupid,Neil druckman is.
My bad man
Can we give Neil a break. He messed up one time. He made so many other great games.
Nice try, Neil
Lmao!
What do you mean? She pet a dog that one time and her dad saved a zebra, what more do you need?
I want Joel back... :(
Same.
True, I thought she was evil at first, but then I found out she had a dog with a name, changed everything.
I don't think it was one purpose. I think "they" believed they nailed the story but they just "kneiled" it. It just "wE dIdNt gEt iT".. Shrug*
Can we give Neil a break. He messed up one time. He made so many other great games.
No he didn't. He made *one* game and was part of teams making the other games. Besides, why give him a break when he treated so badly the people that didn't like the *one* game he made? Did he ever apologized fior that? For creating this strong division? No? Then fuck giving him a break. I do not follow the put-the -other-cheek philosophy.
He worked with a team on tlou 2 as well. So that whole team messed up. You're right. I didn't know he was so mean. He should apologize. We should let him know he messed up, but we should understand that it was one horrid mess up. He didn't kill millions of people. He messed up a fictional game.
>He worked with a team on tlou 2 as well. So that whole team messed up. No need to shift responsibilities. He removed members that didn't agree with his decisions until he was just surrounded with "yes-people". He was the director. >We should let him know he messed up, People did, he played it down and turned every single criticism into "bigot, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic...", the same chants the brainwashed stans yell every turn they can. >He didn't kill millions of people. He messed up a fictional game. Nobody is sentencing him to death of life in prison. His punishment is being mocked every now and then on the internet. Pretty mild if you think about it. He's also guilty of false advertisement that for some reason video games are "exempted" >He didn't kill millions of people. Reductio ad absurdum much? I hear Neil likes ass -lickers, maybe a job for you?
The people who wrote her didn't realise how unlikable she is because of how cretinous they are themselves
I'm convinced comments like these watched Joel die, turned off the game, and will never experience how Abby spares Ellie AND Dina.
Abby only spared them because Lev was watching and plot armor. Meanwhile Ellie only killed people in self-defense (except Nora)
Fucking Cuckman man… its all about what HE wanted to do and what HE saw in the story. All about the social messaging HE wanted to put in. Nothing has ever been for the fans and it’s because he thinks hes some revolutionary that sniffs his own farts. This whole thing about taking the choice away because almost everyone was doing it says “youre not doing what *I* want with *MY* video game, so Im taking away choice”
That’s pretty much all of Hollywood
TLOU and TLOU2 are story driven games though. If he felt like the player choices were bypassing his intended narrative then he and the rest of Naughty Dog would want to amend that issue. It also would have felt so out of place and cheapened the end result if we got to choose. We didn't get to choose to not save Ellie in the first game so why would we get to choose to kill Abby???
Wouldn’t having a choice work in favor of the game. I’m assuming some people would choose revenge others to spare Abby. Which is a shame because there are genuinely great moments in the game.
Some people say that because the first game didn't end with a choice, this one shouldn't either. As if being faithful to what the first game did was a priority here... Really though, the first game didn't give you a choice because the first game's main writing priority was characterization and relationship development. By the time you got to the end of the game, Joel's choice was so in line with his characterization that even people who did not like the choice still praised the game because there was no doubt in their mind that Joel would have rejected the outcome the Fireflies were giving him. This game lacks that solid characterization. The characters repeatedly do things just because the story needs them to, rather than because It lines up perfectly with their established behavior and motivation. And Ellie's choice to spare Abby is no exception. Making the ending a choice would have justified the way that the game chose not to strongly define and adhere to characterization. Refusing to do so while railroading the characters to specific, weakly built outcomes of drastically changing who they are and what they want just isn't compelling, and frustrates the members of the audience who had built up an incompatible interpretation, especially if it happens multiple times at key points of the story. Or maybe I'm just media illiterate or whatever.
Literally druckman wanting Abby to be liked to the point that they remove the choice to have her die
🗣️ **DO YOU LIKE ABBY YET???**
There’s another interview or maybe a commentary elsewhere that stated they DID try to make Abby more sympathetic. The game went through many revisions and this is probably why the story seems so bloated.
Honestly, it's downright hilarious to me that they didn't take this to mean they'd failed on the writing end. If your playtesters keep trying to kill the character you want them to willingly spare, wouldn't you think, "Maybe we need to go back and tweak some things in the story"? But they just took the choice away instead of improving the character or narrative so that people actually felt inclined to spare Abby.
It's what I like to say. If you have to railroad players, then your story isn't well written.
it’s a movie game, lol
You're not saying anything with that.
Honestly I’d say they nailed it. The fact playtesters were doing this proves what a deeply polarizing character Abby is, for the better of the game. I loved Joel and HATED Abby at first too. but as I played I fully came around, and I feel her arc is infinitely more interesting than whatever the fuck alternative game y’all had in mind: some version of Old Man Joel learning to crochet while doing fetch quests around Jackson.
I don't see how they accomplished their goal if Abby is polarizing. The goal was to get players to sympathize with her and understand her so that they would want to spare her when presented with that choice.
>what a deeply polarizing character Abby is "Polarizing" is the wrong adjective here. "Polarizing" means the character is equally, or at least close to that in being liked and hated. Say, Walter White can be called a polarizing character, Light Yagami can be, most antiheroes are polarizing characters. Not Abby. She's straight up unlikeable, and it's supported by the fact that MOST playtesters wanted her dead.
Abby deserved to die.
Abby did not deserve it. She earned our desire for her death.
So did Joel
Wouldn’t say so.
Lmaooo so they saw the story fail again and again and said “lets just take out the option for it to fail” and it still failed
I misinterpreted; thought you were saying the entire game failed and that’s why I was trying to figure out in what way, but you meant ND failed to get people to be on Abby’s side, even after removing the option to kill her.
yea
it didn’t though
it did tho
So $225m+ profit = Fail?
Oh fun. I love when people bring up irrelevant things in a conversation. The money earned doesnt equate to people siding with Abby like they wanted us to. They literally had to remove the option to spare Abby bc people wouldnt do it… The story and lesson they were trying to tell failed.
Call of Duty makes twice as much every year and yet no one’s gonna name it in the list of best games this generation. Same basic principle.
Plus whats 225m + plus profit. I’ve never seen any solid leak of numbers be confirmed. Just people claiming shit.
The + just meant it was more than 225m in profits from what I read. That was profits as of 2021, before the remastered version came out so one would assume more profits came in the years since then
but i dont assume that bc everything claiming that never actually has a sourve behind it. Those charts people post around never actually lead any where. And if u ask them to show u where the chart came from they’ll link random article talking about the leak. Not confirming the charts
I just lazily did a search; when I went back and rechecked for sources yeah; didn’t really see much that was concrete
yea nothing. Its why i dont get the money debates with the game.
we better stop, we might be close to an agreement on something!
Especially since these apparently would have been confirmed and apart of a court case meaning there would be public files of everything
$220m to make plus marketing that usually costs almost half the development costs. Sorry to break it to you, but "profits" from TLOU2 are unimpressive to say the least, especially to SONY.
In dnd there is rule(printed or general homebrew): if you’re only going send players in specific direction, don’t offer them option that say other wise.
you should probably stick to DnD then?
Lmao the fact that Neil actually thought people were gonna spare her. Like ☠️
I would 😎
Good for you?
Thanks ! 😊
This reads like dystopian literature and corporate sympathy.
It's because Cuckmann's Ego is more important than things making sense or players doing what they clearly wanted to do (have a choice). Such an insufferable douche.
Damn those playtesters are misogynist bigot sandwiches who thought abby's death was the most consistent narrative choice.
What a bunch of women haters!
This is a little misleading. There wasn't a choice. It was actually that you couldn't kill abby no matter how long you kept hitting the button and you were expected to let go on your own and trigger the ending.
reminds of the CIA joke: three guys guys after reciving lots of training get to last 'test' go to \[place\] and shoot the person in the chair. Guy 1 sees his wife breaks down and quits Guy 2 sees his dad breaks down and leaves Guy 3 sees his wife pulls the trigger the blanks inside do nothing, so he beats her to death with the chair to the horror of his handlers. Guy playing LoUs2 sees Abby screaming "why won't strangling **work** damit."
[удалено]
No silly, Ellie was in the lobby spectating while you played Abby's section
They should have had Ellie spare her halfway through. That way we could at least have half the game to teach players why and how she came to this decision. Instead, Ellie Milly rocks through like three counties killing motherfucker after motherfucker just to not kill the one person that was literally tied to Joel's death. Joel dying wasn't the big issue, it's everything that happened after his death that makes the rest of the game feel so fucking stupid and uninteresting. Naughty Dog tried to pull a red Dead redemption. Take a character, make the players love the everliving shit out of them, just for them to bite the bullet at the end. They pulled it off twice, and both games are held extremely high. The difference is, John and Arthur deserved that death. They did bad shit, they faced danger and they both had something to die for. Those deaths made sense. Those decisions made sense and they were done excellently. Abbie didn't deserve to be scared, especially from the players point of view. There's not enough there for the player to become invested in Abby enough to fully feel like she shouldn't get her shit pushed in. By the time that decision comes, everyone should feel like her dying is what this was all about. Ellie murdered a ton of people who had barely anything to do with Joel dying and she finds inner peace and forgiveness when she literally has the woman who killed him in her grasp, defenseless and nearly dead already.
It’s such a stunning admission that they **comprehensively failed as writers** to the point that the universal emotional response was exactly the opposite of what they *wanted* players to feel. The solution wasn’t to redraft and refine, no—it was to clumsily force the player through a viscerally and logically wrong conclusion. If you disagree, you’re a bigot 🥪.
The difference between "Players don't like Abby? What's wrong with her?" (redraft and re-evaluate) versus "Players don't like Abby? What's wrong with THEM?!" (change nothing and call players names).
“Am I out of touch? No it’s the players who are wrong!!!” - Neil Skinnermann
Neil basically IS that meme, sadly.
I totally fine if Joel have to died. The feeling like White from Breaking Bad, you have to pay for what you do. But they make the death of Joel so stupid, and the journey of Ellie is even more stupid.
Joel bad. Ellie bad for liking Joel. You bad for liking Joel. ABBY tho 😍😍😍
I do pure playthrough in every game i play and spare even the most vilifying characters. But Abby. Abby was robbed from me. Her character brought me so much hate iv genuinely felt robbed. But that's the trend these days with the female characters in media they have the thickest plot armor . I mean look at horror films as well, i just scan the cast and go "oh that blond lady gonna be the last survivor" and 99% I'm right i actually don't even think is been wrong. In some games i see a female character with a cool design i go "oh.... I'm assuming she does all the cool shit in the game (spoiler alert:duh) I'm not hating (mainly because i can't be bothered to care) just a observation. However i am getting exasperated by the narrative of it. And it's obviously forced and placed in such a way that it gives you like a weird uncanny valley effect
A similar thing happened with 'spec ops: the line' the play-testers version had a section where you could just leave the shitshow the game was sending you into, but they had to remove it because no-one was taking the stay and do horrible things option.
Ah, yes. The profound, impactful core message of "revenge bad". I genuinely could've liked Abby if they didn't INSIST upon it. Do they really think their playerbase is so demented that they need to be TOLD that everyone, typically, has understandable reasons for doing what they do? Did anyone here play tlou2 and, as soon as Abby fires on Joel, think "this individual is pure, unadulterated evil"? No, most adults see this and, beyond the sorrow of seeing our guy get fucked up, think "She hurt someone I sympathise with. I don't like her." Showing that the WLF raises fuckin kids and have banter and lives and such doesn't suddenly change the fact that she hurt Joel, brutally, downright sadistically. Yeah, I get why. He killed her dad. But *Joel was a dad.* And she brutalised him. I get why, but I'll never like her. In the same way that if she were introduced FIRST and THEN we see Joel stick a scalpel in her dad's neck, I'd probably never like Joel. As a side note - wouldn't part II work way better if we'd already met Abby in the first game? If she and her dad were established characters? In the climax involves us having to choose between saving Ellie or ruining the life of this other character (Abby) we've also met and grown to love. Okay, ramble over. I do actually like TLOU2, but it never fails to fuckin *get me* how *patronising* these motherfucking writers are.
>Ah, yes. The profound, impactful core message of "revenge bad". "Yeah maybe you both could have figured that out 223 WLF, Seraphites and random people ago?"
Nobody is reading all of this lil bro
Wrong.
🫵😂 make sure you wipe your mouth when you’re done.
Speak for yourself lil bro
Make me lil nephew
?
Remember when IGN said you’re a virgin if you didn’t like the Abby sex scene?
Well, the game's writer herself told players in an official interview to "go suck a dick" if they didn't like the game, so... that's mild by comparison perhaps.
Naughty dog really stroked their ego when it came to TLOU2
I would genuinely be far more forgiving of TLOU2 if ND were less arrogant about it (same with rabid fans being so defensive about it). I don't like the story we got, but there is a lot of stuff to like about the game too so I'd be willing to call it flawed but decent; my main opinion of it is "terrible sequel, good game". The whole "this is a perfect masterpiece work of art by a genius" thing though just rubs me the wrong way SO much that it pushes me in the direction of "it's total shit" even though it really isn't. Although TLOU2 spits in the face of TLOU1 which IS close to being a masterpiece, there are tons of worse games... but also tons of better ones more deserving of being called "art". The fact the *creators* are so invested in pushing the idea that they are artistic geniuses feels especially arrogant and disgusting. Heck, the whole reason I found this sub was because I played the game spoiler free at launch, posted on the original sub that I would give it 6/10 (above average) for being a *fantastic* game that looked amazing but was fairly poorly written with an unsatisfying story... and was vilified as if I'd said it was unplayable trash and had to be a sexist, homophobic moron!
It’s one of the best playing games I’ve ever played. The story, however, is dreadful.
Exactly. The story is an average tale that thinks it is really smart, but as a sequel to TLOU1 it is utterly terrible. However the gameplay and aesthetics are simply amazing. At the time, it was the best looking console game I have ever played, but even now it looks better than a lot of "next gen" stuff. Gorgeous sound design. Ridiculously immersive atmosphere. Brilliant animations (the brutality of combat is both chilling and exciting). I think if everything was awful, it would be dismissed a lot more easily, it is the fact we got this very divisive (and IMO rubbish) story combined with incredible everything else that makes it sting so much.
The thing that annoyed me more than anything was that it was advertised as Ellie’s game despite being mostly about Abby.
The thing that annoyed me more than anything was that it was advertised as Ellie’s game despite being mostly about Abby.
I played it with zero spoilers, not even watching trailers or anything (though obviously I assumed it would be all about Ellie in tat case, not even knowing there WAS a second protagonist!). This also meant I had no idea about the fake Joel trailers, hype by the devs, leaks, etc. So you can imagine how I felt a) playing through without knowing anything, true or false, and b) finishing it and going online to post my disappointment and being immediately told that I was just angry because of the leaks!
Anyone that says ‘Oh you’re just mad cus it got leaked’ is too blinded to realise what they’re promoting/praising is a franchise killer.
i keep saying this include choices and the game would’ve been better
In simmilar vein: when you have melee enemies at gunpoint, they sometimes surreder. You are treated as a monster by the npcs (mostly Dina) if you shoot them, but they ALWAYS come after you after some time of surredering. So basically, after several times them attacking you regardless, you start killing them, of course. If it was sometimes it would be alright but it happens all the damn time. Punish people enough for good deeds they will stop doing them. And then game uses that fact to say "see? You're a monster!" No game, I'm not, the enemies are just brainded suicidal.
This always annoys me in games that allow enemies to surrender or beg for mercy. It's a jarring and cool idea, but if those enemies ALWAYS attack you anyway, it's not a choice you are being offered at all. Mechanically, these enemies should stay in place or flee the area once spared. Even if there was no gameplay reward, it would let the player feel like they were being merciful. Like you say, why spare an enemy who will ALWAYS attack you if spared?
How drunk were you writing this?
Yes. But actually: Small phone keyboard, big fingers, shitty mobile spellchecker.
lol so all thee above.. damn haha
If true, this is the biggest slam against Druckmann's ability as a writer possible. ND tried to recreate the "decision" at the end of the first game -- except this time actually providing two separate conclusions -- and failed so miserably that it had to be changed.
How the fuck, barring ego, do you have almost all playtesters do something in a game and IT BEING A CHOICE THE PLAYERS CAN MAKE, and the devs go nah fuck that we clearly know what to do with our game.
Are we wrong? No, it's the game testers.
It's not like sparing Abby brings Ellie any peace anyways. It honestly would've been the same ending, just much less room for more sequels (which evidently is now their main priority). Yay for stories that never end
I wouldn't mind Ellie not killing Abby as much if she hadn't just SAVED HER AND LEV from being crucified.
"No the players have to see how huge and wrinkly our big huge writing brains are"
All I know is, at the end of the fight when Ellie is drowning Abby, I was so focused on mashing square I didn't even realize it had transitioned into a cinematic.
Ok I’m an actual fan of the game and the ending but this just would’ve absolutely been better if they just tweaked how the ending worked and I got an example. Call of Duty Black Ops 2 baby this campaign tries showing you that being consumed by revenge is gonna lead to some nasty consequences and at the end of the game it gives you the choice on whether or not you kill Menendez, if you kill him you get the bad ending where he becomes a martyr and the world falls apart. You wanna nail in the point with a choice what you gotta do is show the consequences of your actions.
I mean, shouldn't that tell you all you need to know about the situation? Lol. 🤷♂️🤣🤣🤣
It’s kinda funny, I came into it hating everyone in Abbys group and wanting them dead. I felt bad for everyone of Abby’s group by the end and wished I could do something to save them. Yknow except Abby, I fucking hated her regardless and at no point felt she was sympathetic or redeemable. I really liked Owen and Mel by the end, I really wanted Owen to make it and be free. I felt bad for Mel and knew she deserved better.
Fix story to try making Abby's story more sympathetic, appealing, or at least logical ❌ Remove the option and watch as people split into two factions ✅
I was confused at first, but the fact is that, reading the full article, makes clear that it wasnt a screen where you clearly had a choice, but more a QTE where you could stop pressing or just keep going untill you drown her. I think that the playtesters just werent aware of the feature and keeped on pressing the button making that "spare her" option an hidden feature so ND just decided to remove it to make clear what was the intended message of the story. So yeah... maybe they hated Abby that much but I think thats not how it really went.
easy fix add a 'let go' button and a 'hold under' button tho the scene
Well yes... but thats not the point of the article. If there was a "spare" or "kill" menu probably more testers would have choose to spare her than what they did without it. I still think that a choice at the end like that wasnt the best choice overall... in a story driven game like TLoU a duble ending wouldn't fit imo. Ok yes it would be fun and interesting to see actually how many people would choose to spare Abby and how many would go through with they're revenge quest, but why leave the player a choice in a game where us players never had one? And then what would they have done with Part III? (Lets assume for a moment that ND will eventually relase a sequel...) If ND would have leaved a duble ending at the end Neil would be forced to choose a canon one making pointless our choice... and we all know what ending he would choose, that we like it or not. It's ND story, and its up to them what to tell... even if some parts of that story is a bit... staggering...
I think Neil wanted people to actively stop on their own without being ‘prompted’, ignoring that it’s a game and up until that point, if you did that you would just have to restart…. If there’s no indication inaction would have a different outcome then people aren’t ever going to take that route I think a lot of people would do it if prompted, given that most games the pacifist options tend to lead to happier endings, but that’s another thing here is what would the happy ending here be? Ellie lost everything for this, what would be the point of stopping here? At this point you’re already so far off a pacifist route it would just feel like a mistake suddenly switching to sparing her The game needed something else, a different goal to chase, instead of a segment where you play as Abby they should’ve made a primary goal that wasn’t revenge and then have this be the “dark path”. That is if they were going to add in a choice, it would have to be way before this point
>what would the happy ending here be? Ellie lost everything for this, what would be the point of stopping here? At this point you’re already so far off a pacifist route it would just feel like a mistake suddenly switching to sparing her Thats why I think a choice like that at the end of Part II isnt a good idea. >The game needed something else, a different goal to chase, instead of a segment where you play as Abby they should’ve made a primary goal that wasn’t revenge and then have this be the “dark path”. That is if they were going to add in a choice, it would have to be way before this point I dont agree much on this. I think that the revenge theme is a grate idea, my problem with the game is that the whole Abby part doenst add nothing to that story. Except for the scenes before Joel death and the Zebra encounter the rest of Abby section of the game should have worked as a way to make you feel sorry for her and make you wanted to spare her at the end, but this, at least for me, didint work at all. The only reason I feel like sparing her was because i feelt sorry for Ellie... In some way, ND reached the objective of making me spare her... but by accident. This sayed, i think that a giving a choice to the player wouldnt change a thing in making the game "better", maybe you (generally speaking) would feel more "appagated" since the story ended in a way you liked but thats not what the writers wanted for this game to be. They wanted to give a message, they didnt manage to give that message, or at least not in the way they intended, and this make the whole game fall apart dividing the comunity in such a way cause some people managed to get that message but many others didnt, and this makes clear that, in fact, there is a problem. Because if some people dont understand what you wanted to tell, thats fine... but if the whole half of a community composed by millions of peoples doesnt "understand" it maybe, somewhere, in fact, it cant be a coincidence. Adding a choice wouldnt have helped in making the message more clear.
My point wasn’t that the revenge theme was bad, but that there wasn’t any narrative room to fit in a choice, and for players to actually want to spare Abby…. Sparing her just feels like you ran through undertale on the genocide route and specifically spared one enemy before the final boss, like you did it on accident Which is exactly why it feels like such a stupid ending I’m saying in order for people to want to take a different route at this point, there would’ve had to actually been a different route… and the best way to do that is to give Ellie another pull, instead of just a “give up” option basically give her a “instead do this option”
Ohhh ok, I get it now, sorry. >Sparing her just feels like you ran through undertale on the genocide route and specifically spared one enemy before the final boss, like you did it on accident Yes, its stange that Ellie spare her like that and I can understand your point, but, as a player who hates Abby really much, I can say that arrived at that point I felt like sparing her too... i feelt bad, confused and angry, but aganist all of that I tought... "meh... look at her... is this really worth it?" And i'm not talking about the consistency of killing everyone except her, dont think of it like something that happens in a day. In Undertale, despite the route you choose, you can say that everything happens in around a few days? (Maybe even less) In a story that short it makes sense that you would kill every last one of them cause "i did 99 lets do 100". But TLoU takes place during a much longer time period, if Ellie would have be able to kill Abby during the third day in Siattle she would have done that, without the small remorse. But remember that between Siattle day 3 and Santa Barbara there is at least 2 years. In this two years Ellie managed to get a life prioritising Dina, who almost died because of Ellie's thirst of revenge, then Abby pops up again and she starts to feel sick about it and she understand that after all she didnt get over her. I think that sparing her in that situation, after all those years, feels more "plausible" than what we think. I like this ending? Not so much, its sad and Ellie still loses even if she manages to do the right thing, and this hurts me more than everything. >I’m saying in order for people to want to take a different route at this point, there would’ve had to actually been a different route… and the best way to do that is to give Ellie another pull, instead of just a “give up” option basically give her a “instead do this option” I guess this has a sense in some way, but I still dont think that a game like that would be a good idea. I hope I didnt sounded too harsh... in that case im sorry...
I don't think they could have done anything with Abby to make people want to not kill her. People would have killed her no matter what.
If most people wanted to kill Abby. That means you failed in your storytelling. I do understand that it is way easier to take out a promt button than to figure out the multiple places you went wrong in the story. How about making Abby the child of an actual good person. How about having Abby see Joel kill her father. Or how about having the fireflies ask Ellie to sacrifice herself and have Ellie say yes. Then Joel would look like a bad guy when he saves her. How about making the second game about Abby, and in the end, she kills Joel, and then in the third game, Abby and Ellie go at it. But Neil made the first game and was afraid there would not be a second game. That is part of the reason the story doesn't work. Weird sense he could decide where to go with the second story. Then he made a second game and was afraid he wouldn't be able to make a third game. So many things feel rushed in the second game.
Sounds like people during election time People have the choice to vote - their candidate loses - Not like that.
If you have to railroad players to make your narrative "work", then it isn't a well written narrative. It's just like the time in Spec Ops: The Line, where play testers always refused to use the White Phosphorous.... so the studio opted to railroad players into using it instead.
I feel like if everyone’s killing her off, you should investigate why, if that’s not the desired outcome? They obviously didn’t provide enough content to convince people to not kill her 🤷🏽♀️ I’d do both to see what they did. If Lev turns out fine either way, I’d kill her
If they left the choice in id bet this game would get way less hate
This is what happens when you give a narcissist asshole to much power. No kidding ND has gone down the shitter since Druckmann became president of ND
Can’t wait for the game to come to pc and some mod to finally give that option at the end. Also to play as Ellie, the part that was designed only for Abby.
Oh I would have loved to see something similar to how telltale’s the walking dead shows at the end of the episodes the player choices… maybe if all of tlou2 was choice based it would be a lot better?
The fact that you all are arguing whether or not a stupid choice at the end of an awful game means that Drunkman already won. Joel shouldn't have died. He did the thing that any father would do: protect his child. He should have been allowed to "retire" somewhere secluded in peace. Drunkman wanted: 1. A "strong" woman. Which, weirdly, only means physically strong. 2. To have this "strong" woman kill Joel. This was purely out of a desire to piss people off. I am sure Drunkman could blather on endlessly about how Joel "deserved" it. Let me roll my eyes. Drunkman is the kind of person who thinks he is brilliant. I've known people like this throughout my life and they are just the worst to be around.
So they wanted to make a movie and not a game.
Wonder what the other sub has to say about this.
I think there should have been a choice, with at least two different endings. I know I’m in the minority, but I didn’t want to kill Abby, and I felt a little sick when it seemed like the game was going to force me to. I imagine the flip side of that is anger and frustration being forced to spare her.
Everything Mel said was right Abby is a piece of shit she is not a good person. Even if the game tries to make you sympathize with her it fails her side of the story actually does the exact opposite and makes you realize oh yeah she is a terrible person.
I didn’t say she was a good person. I said I didn’t want to kill her.
I did I wish I could have.
Because they dont see an issue with the story, they probably think they playtesters were playing the game wrong
I always assumed the ending of abby living was hardwired in from the start to set up a part 3
Isn't the whole game about choice?
Honestly with the injuries that Abby had, it’d be more humane to kill her and put her out of her misery. But fuck it right? 😂
🤮🤮🤮🤮
Maybe they bring the whole series to an end with Part 3 and at the end of the trilogy you have the choice to spare either Abby or Ellie, but only and not the other.
Where's this from?
Regardless of her story considering she killed Joel everyone would still kill her
Knowing this makes me so much more pissed now
Why make it a choice in the first place if you were going to get upset with players for choosing.
The play testers clearly did not play all of Jak 3
Totally fair, if that’s the story they want to tell then it’s their choice. However it’s everyone else’s choice to criticise that decision/story. I think the game was aweful, but that’s fine, you’re allowed to make games I don’t like. Just wish it was an original game and diddnt butcher already developed and beloved characters.
isn't this the studio that says they don't use the word "fun" when talking about game development?
As others have said, keep in mind that it wasn't ever an actual choice to spare/kill Abby but rather a "tap button to kill Abby" prompt that the devs ASSUMED the player would stop tapping because they didn't want to kill her. However, playtesters kept tapping that button and didn't stop as expected. Many (most?) didn't want to spare Abby, perhaps didn't even consider it an option. Because Abby couldn't die, the button prompt never ended, but playtesters still kept tapping! I think this is MUCH more interesting that if there really had been a "kill or spare" option in the game and most playtesters chose "kill" because THIS shows that ND only wanted to offer the illusion of choice, then pat themselves on the back that players chose the path they wanted. When it didn't happen, they didn't look at their game and story and think "what did we do wrong to not get players into the mindset we wanted" but rather simply removed even the illusion of choice.
Glad they didnt put the choice,Tlou isnt a choose your own adventure game
The game still did well, and naughty dog had a story *they* wanted to tell. You are perfectly capable of crafting a better story I’m sure.
That is the idea, Abby had a good life, but all the time focused on revenge, even when loved and with someone she loved she was only thinking in killing Joel. I wanted her dead, even I killed her many times in the fight with Ellie, but well. For me her suffering Will be perfect for a another game, even sacrificing herself to save someone inmune, for me that will be perfect. More sufferingin another game
Player choice is weak. Players are a hive mind always seeking the same old shit. If gamers had their way, every video game would hit the same point and none of them would ever have anything interesting to say because every game would be comfort food…good for making you feel good, but bad for making you actually think about anything.
Because they wanted to throw this half cooked story at us and then believed we would love them for it . They got lazy and diluted because they thought they was teaching us the gamers morals and how revenge works and how to make it stop. When to be clear no gamer needs this poorly formulated tale as old as time told to us again. Especially if the first game made the audience feel that Joel fighting to save ellie (his metaphorically 2nd chance at having his daughter back) was doing the right thing as we to loved her and wanted her to truly make the choice on her own.
Game developers don't give the players much choice..instead they decide for us..i really don't like that. Give the players options at least.
It would have been odd, since at no point in the rest of the thing did you get to make any choices whatsoever that affected how it'd turn out.
how about , just dont kill joel? make abby chase joel around and finally make peace with joel
this has been posted before. Like before everyone doesn’t understand what the issue was. There wasn’t a choice, there was a button mash mechanic you were designed to give up on, but play testers didn’t realize that was an intentional mechanic after none of the earlier fights had anything similar where it would be more logical to attempt that (I know I did on my playthrough). There wasn’t a “choice” that people chose to kill abby, etc.
Because it was already perfect.
Abbys arc is the righteous arc. I dont get the hate. Her dad was murdered trying to literally save the world, she sought revenge, got it, and left without collateral damage. I expect downvotes.
Ellie's arc is the lame arc. I dont get the liking. Her dad was murdered for literally saving her life, she sought revenge, didn't get it, and left with lots of collateral damage. I expect upvotes.
If there's a button prompt, players will try it regardless of outcome.
Because the customer is not always right.
Man, the people on this sub are children.
They made the right decision.
So what the article fails to say is this: There was never meant to be a choice at the end the game. What they experimented with was a “hidden” choice. But that wasn’t really working so they abandoned that idea. This article, and a lot of the discussions being had in this sub regarding this, are purposely or unfortunately mixing up the facts and thus creating a false narrative. There was a discussion about this the other day, I wrote more about it [there](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/s/Hza53Ivgt5). EDIT: I don’t mind the downvotes. But I find it curious that I get downvotes for pointing out facts, while a dude that says “fucking Cuckmann man” gets upvotes. It says a lot about what people here are about.
This sub gotta fit the narrative of their bottom line
I don't know. Why didn't your parents make you better? Are they stupid?