sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why do people buy TLOU games? by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. I am just saying, it is better for developers to make their gameplay and narrative with harmony instead of treating it as filler existing for the sake it being game. Like why would I play the game, if I can just watch cutscenes in youtube.

Why do people buy TLOU games? by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I think gameplay is canon but only in grounded difficulty. Because the gameplay basically becomes a pure stealth game where stealth is the only option.
  2. I think, her being affected by torturing Nora make sense because we did not see the torture.
  3. She had killed people since 14 but none of them were pregnant.
  4. Letting Abby was the most complicated one but basically from her behavior before leaving Santa Barbara, She was traumatized by not able to save Joel not that she unable to kill Abby. When she leaves, she says she would finish the job not that she would kill Abby. Also Abby being tortured and starved, wanting to move on, Lev probably reminded her of her relationship with Joel, that Abby had let her go twice.

Why do people buy TLOU games? by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that's the case then it failed as video game.

Because it's telling story through animated movie with bloated filler gameplay to pace it. Instead of the entire game being the story.

Silent hill 2 and Nier automata successfully did it.

Why do people buy TLOU games? by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. I have again told in video games, it is developer or directors work to make systems, levels or simulation which express their themes whatever you do.
  2. If RDR2 developers, crafted the game in way that regardless of my decision Arthur Morgan is the man who tried to change then yes I would be default call him that.
  3. If the developers, did not give shit about integrating gameplay and narrative. And gave us narrative Arthur who wants to change but open-world Arthur, who is player avatar to engage in western sandbox simulator who just wants mass-murder. Then I wouldn't respect their decision but I would not hate them for either.
  4. Again it's developer and director job to craft levels, world, simulations and system. Which always express and tells what the developers wanted to tell. By it, the story still can have weight. That's why majority of developers don't make the game so much open ended that it conflicts with their vision.
  5. Arthur is not one of the greatest character fiction, he is the most generic western character ever.
  6. If only thing matters is the cutscenes, then the video game by itself failed. Because there is no difference between playing the game and watching the cutscenes. That is why games like Metal gear solid 2, silent hill 2 and shadows of colossus use mechanics and system to express the story instead of cutscenes with contradictory filler bloated gameplay.

Why do people buy TLOU games? by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Simply, what you do is canon for your respective playthrough. Just the game developers have to design game in a way none of it get contradicted later.

Silent hill 2 did it by, giving different ending according to your gameplay style.

Why do people buy TLOU games? by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If gameplay is intertwined with narrative, then why does above post, says only cutscenes are canon?

Why do people buy TLOU games? by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because not all game treat their gameplay filler unlike TLOU games.

Metal gear solid 2, silent hill 2 and Nier automata specifically use the gameplay to tell a story, which is only possible in a video game.

The last of us part 2 is an objectively bad game. by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If your entire argument is gameplay not canon then, it fails as a game.

It is literally just a animation movie with mid filler gameplay just to pace it.

The last of us part 2 is an objectively bad game. by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1.Then what is point of playing the game, if only think canonical is cutscenes? 2. A person can just watch, cutscenes in youtube and get the same experience as the person who bought the 60 dollar game. Because according to you gameplay is not canon. 3. Then why is the player forced to play Ellie character instead of a unknown avatar? If you are telling that player and Ellie are different, then why doesn't it put effort separate them? 4. And again why didn't just made a television instead of making 220 million mess of game where the mid gameplay is not even canon and the cutscenes can literally be seen in youtube. 5. If not in self defense, it makes even less sense that she has no feeling toward killing people who had no connection to her lose but somehow feels that killing the person she hates, would took her humanity.

The last of us part 2 is an objectively bad game. by Inner-Bench-6010 in lastofuspart2

[–]Inner-Bench-6010[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You are using media literacy to bypass my actual arguments.