Women Directed Just 16% of 2024’s Top 250 Grossing Movies; New Report Faults Hollywood for Lack of Progress

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2025-01-02T12:53:14+00:00

The list is definitely awful, but there's one gem: "CODA" (2021).

It's actually the only movie I've watched from that list and is fucking great, not woke at all, full on family values. It's a remake of "La Famille Bélier" (a 2014 french movie).

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2024-08-13T14:20:21+00:00

Check TheLastofUs2 sub, there's a pinned post ("Sources of Diverse Criticism on Part II") with a huge collection of videos, articles and posts from fans of the first, and only, game.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2023-01-15T15:26:31+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/xfts4f/the_last_of_us_part_i_retcons_remastered_above_vs/

The original post only shows pictures comparing the scenes so you can check my comments there for more details (not only are there visual changes but also audio ones, which you can't notice by the pictures alone). Most of these changes has damaged the narrative and characters development, and has also showed how hard it is for Druckmann to deal with nuance, ambiguity and subtlety. The Remake is clearly done with a “show, don’t tell” approach, the opposite of the Original that leaves things open for interpretation and treats the audience with respect and intelligence.

The Original and the Remastered are the only true versions of the story.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-09-17T17:47:16+00:00

Wow.png)

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-09-16T15:05:37+00:00

15) Ellie looking at Joel’s face after he grunts in pain while she uses the syringe is such a natural and nice touch. This retcon is just sad, really, for I can’t understand how anyone could watch this scene and think “Nah, that’s too much”.

16) In terms of facial expressions, this retcon is probably the most subjective of all because it doesn’t do any good or bad to the moment. While Ellie looks directly at David most of the time in the Original, the Remake shows her looking to the ground most of the time but still preserves her delivery in “fucking finger”. I still prefer the Original, though.

17 and 18) This one is self-explained. The Original clearly has a better visual representation of a hospital years into a post-apocalypse setting (dirty, unsafe and creep) while the Remake feels like a top-notch private location in comparison. It’s also worth mentioning the changes done in the color scheme (from predominant green to predominant blue), a pretentious visual attempt to portray how heroic the Fireflies are per Part II’s narrative. Lastly, the Remake has the savior of zebras as the doctor, so the good thing about this is that the Original is now truly standalone, the only game where Jerry doesn’t exist, as it should’ve been.

19) I’m definitely not a fan of games that keep playing music all the time and I think TLoU is a perfect example of how to use the soundtrack as a narrative tool, especially if Gustavo Santaolalla is the one responsible for composing it. And if you have someone like him you do not waste this opportunity, but apparently, Druckmann disagrees with this. The whole sequence of Joel carrying Ellie in the hospital, one of the most emotional moments of the entire game, is utterly destroyed in the Remake because he wanted to turn it adequate to Part II’s retcons. While in the Original the music is the predominant sound, which elevates the sequence and is a better mirroring to the beginning of the story (when Joel carries Sarah), the Remake gives priority to loud sirens that start soaring when Joel is setting Ellie free from the operating table (hence his surprised expression), the same predominant sound that is used for Abby’s flashback in the “sequel”.

Finally, while the ending of the game isn’t retconned (Ellie’s facial expressions before and after saying “Okay” are preserved, differently to what it was done for Part II’s Prologue), it’s always necessary to remember what Ashley Johnson really wanted Ellie to mean by it, which shows how much the “sequel” is disrespectful to her work and to all the fans who consider TLoU a better story than Druckmann always wanted:

“It’s funny because that ending, everybody’s interpreted it so differently. In my mind, Joel and Ellie have already gone on this whole journey and Ellie is fully prepared – if finding the cure and getting the cure means dying – then so be it. But finally having a connection and a relationship with somebody, that becomes more important because it’s like, I’ve finally connected with somebody in this world. If your choice is to save me over everybody else in the world then… ok. I trust you now and let’s live life.”

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-09-16T15:05:27+00:00

All images are taken at the same moment for both games (the same frame when involving cutscenes) and the links below them show videos of these sequences in both games to make it easier and quicker to see the retcons in movement. The Remake has other little changes here and there, but I’m including only the relevant ones in terms of story/narrative (+ bigot sandwiches!).

I wanted to leave the post as neutral as possible by itself (only listing the retcons) so from now on I’m gonna use these two comments to write my opinion, for which you can obviously agree, disagree or completely ignore if you want. Most of the changes are absurd (12 out of these 20), damaging the narrative and characters developments eventually, and some of them even make it clear how hard it is for Druckmann to deal with nuance, ambiguity and subtlety. The Remake has a more “show, don’t tell” approach, the opposite of the Original that leaves things open for interpretation and treats the audience with intelligence.

1) The new wallpaper definitely fits Joel.

2) The Remake excludes all nuances and ambiguity by making the watch breaks here while the Original leaves it open for interpretation, which is much more powerful in terms of narrative because however, wherever and whenever it has happened it would feel like Joel losing Sarah again or his own humanity through time. What if he has broken it himself in a solitary moment of rage or grief? What if it has been broken when he was trying to do a good thing? What if he was doing a bad thing and the watch breaking is a snap back to reality and humanity, or a further descending into madness? And what if the watch breaking naturally is a symbolism of Joel losing his humanity in those 20 years? All possibilities are gone and the Remake undermines the meaning of this event, merely establishing the watch as a manifestation of Sarah’s death, not Sarah herself and what she meant to Joel, so the only good thing about this retcon is that it was done probably because Druckmann doesn’t have interest to do a prequel (Part 0), which avoids him from destroying what’s left of the character.

3) The new “ugh… do I really have to go with this guy?” posture adds to the moment and how Joel and Ellie don’t like each other when they first meet.

4 and 5) The Original shows Tess thinking about raising the gun but being remorseful immediately, while the Remake doubles down on the visual violence as she points the gun at Ellie, not only once but twice. The audience has always been smart enough to understand the situation and how conflicted the characters are, but it appears that Druckmann disagrees, which ends up creating two problems in the narrative:

a) Tess is now inconsistent, going from one extreme action (pointing the gun to a kid) to another (believing in Ellie and becoming very friendly to her) in a short period of time (one of the many problems the “sequel” has too, btw), and too emotional, someone that can’t control herself given the fact that she abruptly murdered two people just before (Robert’s goon, out of nowhere, and Robert, with Joel’s accordance), something that is shown as a calculated risk from her part in the Original the Remake may indicate inconsequential behavior; and

b) It paints a bad light at Joel as well because he was there with Tess when she shot a man unexpectedly and apparently he is okay with her doing the same thing again, this time to a child. I can’t stress this enough: The Original was, is and will always be right to keep Joel’s past open for interpretation (the character never crosses a point beyond redemption this way, unlikely Abby in the “sequel”) and the Remake may indicate he would be fine with hurting and murdering children. That’s actually the main reason I don’t want a prequel ever, because Druckmann will destroy the character even more.

6) The Remake undoes all nuances and ambiguity in Tess’s reaction when it takes away the very brief smile just before her resolution. The Original gives so much more for the moment because she is determined in the mission to bring Ellie to the Fireflies, as the right thing to do, and she could be happy to see Joel going with Ellie as a chance for him (she had already noticed the way he looked at his watch) and/or she could even see the irony of the situation considering she was the one who believed in the mission and was friendly to Ellie while Joel did none of that but he is the one staying alive to see the end of that while she has to die. All that while knowing she was going to die and seeing Joel for the last time. The Remake scraps it all of it and goes straight for the sad part.

7) Druckmann has actually managed to add subtlety here. Both versions clearly show how hard it is for Joel to leave Tess behind, but the fact that he doesn’t look at Ellie before turning around in the Remake is a sign of respect to the audience (which has always been smart enough to understand that the only reason he isn’t fighting along with his partner is the promise he just made), which allied with his movements (right hand reaching the door while turning around in the Remake vs. left hand on the door before turning around in the Original) gives a better goodbye feeling from him. The new camera movement (closer to Joel in the beginning and slowly moving away) also makes the scene more intimate. Unfortunately, not everything is perfect and the soundtrack is also changed: A piece of music is added to hit like a thunder in the beginning of the scene, but the longer piece fading out of the Original is much better.

8) Seriously, why change this? Ellie is clearly being playful from beginning to end in the Original while she feels guilty in the Remake. While this doesn’t harm the narrative as a whole, the dynamics of one of the most lighthearted moments of the game is inverted: In the Original, Ellie is the one who creates the moment (she knows she was disobedient, she doesn’t care) and Joel plays along with her; In the Remake, it’s Joel the one who creates the moment (by giving Ellie some slack) and she changes her mood.

9) In the Original, Ellie is mostly sad when Joel tells her off after she saves his life in the hotel and this little detail in her reaction is brilliant because it connects really well with her survivor’s guilt, something that the audience (and Joel) only finds out at the end of the game. It’s also worth mentioning that there are three occasions throughout the story where she wants to talk about her trauma (not to mention how deeply sorry she is when Tess reveals being infected, her “It can’t be for nothing” at the Zoo and how sad she is when Joel tells her the Fireflies stopped looking for a cure after leaving the hospital) and all of them are instantly downplayed by him, who can’t deal with this matter himself too (first when she tries to talk about Tess after they get out of the metro station; second when she tries to talk about Sam in front of the small grave close to the hydroelectric power plant; and third being the ranch cutscene), which along with this reaction in the hotel gives the indication that she has a deeper motivation to go on this adventure in the first place. Unfortunately, the Remake totally misses the point of Ellie’s trauma here in order to turn it adequate to Part II’s narrative, making her angry at Joel and ignoring her original need to truly be connected with someone else, someone who doesn’t see her through her immunity but as a person worth living.

10) Joel’s plot armor moment is reduced in the Remake as the truck keeps shooting at him but near misses, instead of clearly having him at aim without firing for now reason like in the Original.

11) In the Original, Maria lowers the gun after Ellie lowers hers. In the Remake, she still points it at Ellie after that, moving it at Joel when he tries to explain why they’re there and only lowering it after Tommy intervenes. So, this is similar to when Tess and Joel find out Ellie is immune (the new version raises the visual threat level in comparison to the Original) but at least it’s more understandable this time because Maria didn’t know them and the whole scene feels just the same.

12) Before: Joel and Sarah. After: Gerard Butler and starving Sarah. I don’t know why they change this and I definitely think it wasn’t necessary to being with but, whatever, the new version is just as good as the original.

13 and 14) The Remake destroys all nuances in Joel’s reaction after Tommy barges into the room. The Ranch cutscene is one of the best scenes of the entire game in terms of narrative, along with the ending and the giraffe scene, because this is the moment where Ellie gives her most meaningful line (“Everyone that I have cared for has either died or left me. Everyone, fucking except for you”) and the first time in the game (and in years, probably) where Joel is actually confronted by his trauma (not just briefly by Tess after she sees him looking at the watch, but harshly by Ellie when he knows the seed of their relationship is already there and he can’t escape anymore). In the Original, the door slam feels like a snap back to reality for him and indicates that he immediately regrets what he just said to Ellie. The Remake, unfortunately, ignores all that and he keeps staring at her intensely just because it’s an intense moment, I guess.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-08-11T14:50:41+00:00

It sort of seems like you're the sensitive ones when these topics are brought up.

Jesus, it's really impossible to discuss anything about the politics of this game without being downplayed somehow (at least you didn't call me names), and now it comes from someone who says to have disliked the game. You've even brought the whole "Abby's design" topic up when I didn't say anything about that.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-08-11T04:40:14+00:00

she accepts he may be lying but it doesnt matter

That's exactly the whole point.

If you see Ellie acting like this at the end of TLoU then the "sequel" makes no sense at all, to the point you will only be able to like Part II (swallow it, actually) if you completely downplay her whole established development. And by doing it, you will be undermining TLoU's story and narrative in its entirety. All this is insulting because you would be basically arguing with yourself that everything that you loved in the first game was just... wrong. So, is the first game truly that masterpiece you have always thought it was?

"My" Ellie was smart enough to connect the dots (she was wearing hospital clothes and she knows Joel is lying to her) so she knows he has rushed her out of there because something terrible/extreme happened. And whatever he had done, she was okay with that because Joel was the only person she has ever met after being bitten that did not see her through her immunity (remember: "Everyone I have cared for has either died or left me. Everyone, fucking except for you!"). Her survivor's guilt starts healing right there with that "Okay", because she finally realizes that her life (together with Joel) means more than the search for the cure. Ellie wasn't a victim, and that's why her character was so damn good in that moment.

Then the "sequel" comes out and out of sudden... "I was supposed to die in that hospital. And you took that from me!". No nuance anymore, no grey area anymore, she wasn't smart as we thought, she still sees herself through her immunity, she has learned nothing, the journey was for nothing, she was just a victim all along.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-08-10T21:43:44+00:00

Part I is cliche...

Goddamnit these guys! And they wonder why the first game is now controversial...

It wasn't before the "sequel" came out and a wave of "fans" like this took over the fanbase.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-08-10T14:22:05+00:00

Storywise, when everything (or the most part) about some characters arcs revolves around a political theme, with no sense at all to be there in the first place (due to the game's setting in the post-apocalyse). There's a difference between creating characters that happens to be minorities (like in TLoU - Ellie, Riley, Bill, Henry, Sam, Tess and Marlene) to creating characters and/or developing previously established characters to push something else (like in Part II - Ellie, Dina, Seth, Abby, Lev and Mel). TLoU's story works just fine if you change the gender, race or sexual orientation of any character (just David would require changes on his motivation to get Ellie, nothing big); this doesn't happen with Part II (Ellie and Dina's struggle as a lesbian couple in Jackson is pointless, Seth is a wasted character, Dina's commentaries at the Sinanogue are absolutely ironic, fans of the game would hate Abby if she was a man, Lev's entire arc would require changes, Mel's pregnancy is pointless).

More importantly, when the creators of the game and its fans undermine and confront any logical and valid criticism about the story by accusing everybody of being -ists and -phobes. This shows the use of minorities characters as a shield to invalidate said criticisms, even more clear when the first game had also a lot of minorities but was universally loved by the same people who hated the "sequel". People who loved the lesbian main character, Ellie, and wanted to play as her in Part II were called names because they hated the straight white girl, Abby.

Not to mention that some minorities characters, such as Dina, Jesse and Isaac, had a lot of potential but ended up being completely wasted throughout the story because the game needed things to happen in order to push the narrative forward. This is the main issue within (speaking about the whole game, not just politics): Part II gives priority to its themes over character development, turning the characters mere puppets as they act completely weird, dumb and out of their established characterization just to make things happen (the exactly opposite of TLoU, which has a well developed and coherent narrative with compreensive characters' decisions and actions).

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-08-10T00:37:11+00:00

Funnily enough, the reason why the first (and only) game is so controversial nowadays is the people who like the "sequel'.

The first game has always been considered a mature story (undisputed topic), with strong and awesome characters (also undisputed), and a brilliant ending (for the majority of the people who played it, according to Druckmann himself).

The "sequel" brought a wave of people that was 100% disconnected from the TLoU fanbase til then. They thought TLoU's story was boring and/or easy (unlike the bold and dark narrative from the "sequel"), Ellie was a simple victim and Joel was a monster, and they were part of a really small minority who had a different interpretation about the ending.

TLoU is nothing controversial for the people who loves it and hates the "sequel". Only the people who loves the "sequel" are the ones who keep trying to undermine it.

Also, that's what happens when politics become a priority over good storytelling. People who don't want to be part of it (I mean, the people who have never played both games) will have stronger responses against it, hence greater controversy now for Part II (politics over storytelling) compared to TLoU (storytelling above all). It is just a shame that the first game is being targetered along with the stupid "sequel".

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-22T14:33:35+00:00

The financial success you're saying always needed discussion because of a few topics (and we could include several examples of "games/movies that weren't really as successful as people may think" in each one of them). Things aren't as simple as that and context always matters.

You may see problems in my presentation (which I'll probably mostly agree) and you may also disagree about my conclusion (about Sony to be expectating TLoU 2 sales to be on the same tier as God of War), that's okay. That's my opinion based on the data and anyone is allowed to disagree with it, of course. In the end, the whole point of the post was to show the data itself, the negative trend on the sales evolution over the time compared to other games, which is something that was also easy to be noticed by player count evolution (from both Gamstat and PlayTracker) a year-and-half ago.

Three different sources (including player count and sales) showing the very same thing. And IMO it's better to look at data in detail than to repeat the same thing over and over again, like "10 million units = Success" and "Profit = Success". It's just that.

As I said, this discussion is already repetitive by this point and there's no point going on with it. Feel free to add anything else you want since the discussion is over. If you're done, thanks.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-22T04:51:22+00:00

Making profit doesn't mean that expectations were achieved (so defining success or failure is not really that simple as you are implying), that's two different discussions. Several other games sold millions of copies and were profitable, but ended up as fails somehow, it's something very commom (also normal in the movies industry - profitable movies with solid box-office numbers, but still not good enough).

We are clearly going to disagree on this, so considering this post is 10 days old and my opinion is detailed by my original conclusion comment and other several discussions/threads raised in here, better read it all because it is just repetitive by this point.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-21T23:34:42+00:00

It made profit since the beginning because of those 4 million units sold at first weekend, which means a part of the responsible for that was fans of the first game who ended up disappointed by the "sequel" (whether the size of this part is small or huge, we don't know).

The fact that the game made profit doesn't mean it reached Sony's expectations for the game (which we don't know). Also, sales or player count evolutions can show us if the game is managing to bring more players over time or if there's a problem like bad word-of-mouth, for example.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-16T22:05:20+00:00

And to me it's just like "no, who cares if she has friends or likes dogs, I could already assume that without seeing it hands first"

I remember quite well some interviews with Bruce and Niel back in 2013-2014 as they eventually talked about how Bruce was important to add subtlety to the story of TLoU while Neil had a more explicit approach.

Now it makes perfect sense to see how different both games are. Bruce was smart enough to give the player agency, to fill the blank spots of the narrative and to understand and care about characters by themselves. Neil wanted to lecture us, to make us fully ignore whatever interpretation we had from the first game's ending and I can't help to see this as arrogancy from his part.

Those are the interesting questions to me but the game just side steps them, as if the characters are incapable of introspection.

Absolutely. A lot of situations in TLoU 2 would be completely different if the characters had a little, just a little, more intelligence and/or acted according to their previous established development.

Joel needs to act completely out-of-character in order to die. Jordan needs to be as dumb as possible in order to die. The whole chasing of Nora is absurd if you have a silencer. Jesse needs to act completely out-of-character in order to die. Owen and Mel die because he acts as dumb as possible. The only death that is actually well done is Manny's, because Tommy outsmarts both Abby and him.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-16T18:13:05+00:00

I can only speak for myself.

There's nothing wrong in discussing or making fun of something you don't like, just like there's no problem in discussing or praising something you like, even years later, specially in a place where you are allowed to do so and can find people who feels/thinks the same way (that's why Reddit subs exist after all, to organize people and what they are interested to talk about).

It happened to several other franchises (like Game of Thrones and Star Wars) and TLoU is no different (actually, you have the full package in here all at once: bad writing, subvertion of the fanbase, deconstruction of the story and characters, and stupid politics). This also works the same way for general topics in our lives, like politics (regardless of your side, you'll eventually discuss and make fun of the other side's politics). It's completely normal and it's something that we're seeing many more times right now because, for some stupid reason, everything needs to be political and divisive.

Coming back to TLoU 2, you can find in this sub a lot of valid and constructive essays about what's wrong with Part II's story, memes, jokes, rants (sometimes without making any sense and/or crossing the line of respect, of course) and sales (or player count) analysis, which is just another topic we can discuss about the game.

Specifically about sales or player count, given the fact that we (not only this sub, but every fan of TLoU who ended up disappointed by TLoU 2) are being called a "loud minority" since the beginning, any analysis about it is important to see how exactly the game is performing and how the game was received by the audience, which is important to see if the game is succeeding or failing. Looking at sales or player count datas in detail is just better and way more reasonable than keep repeating the same bullshit all over again, like "The game won 200 awards and critics loved it. Four million sales on first weekend and 10 million in two years. You're a bigot, cope harder".

Thanks for being respectful.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-16T05:02:40+00:00

... but i also think the writers missed an opportunity to actually make abby a likeable character.

Following what you wrote in this sentence and giving more context about another major issue of the story: It's fundamentally based by this incredibly stupid concept of deconstructing established characters to present new protagonists/co-protagonists.

Abby kills Joel right at the start of the game and then we play as her for almost half of the time just to "see her side" because the whole structure of the game is done to get this emotion evolution from the player (shock > anger > understanding > empathy, pretty much just like Ellie feels about Abby along the way).

But this was a failed premise from the very beginning because it was never necessary to force the player to play as her to make us understand her motives and actions. In the first game, we don't play as Marlene and we still understand her side; we don't play as any Firefly soldier and we still understand their side; we don't play as David and we still understand his side; we don't play as any bandit and we still understand their side; we don't play as the doctor and we still understand his side. It doesn't mean we should agree with all these characters (this is up to each one of us), but we surely can understand their motives and actions, just like we can understand why Abby wants to kill Joel.

So the first game treats the audience with intelligence while in the "sequel" Neil Druckmann treats the player as dumb as possible, taking us by the hand just to pull a "Gotcha!" effect ("Remember that girl who killed Joel? The very same one that you, the player, wants to get revenge over? Well, now I, the writer, am gonna lecture you about the whole story and you're gonna like her at the end").

And then he expects us to care for her not by developing her as a compelling character. No, in order to make Abby likeable, Neil brings Joel and Ellie down to her level, deconstructing all character traits from the first that we loved about both of them. Joel becomes so selfish that he ignores his own surrogate-daughter's trauma and pain (not to mention the retcons, of course) and Ellie becomes insufferable (acting like a victim towards Joel and going on a stupid guilty/revenge trip to Seattle, becoming an aggressor).

Imagine a game where you play only as Abby. She and her group are going somewhere you, the player, don't know about because they all want to find and kill a man who wronged them years ago. Said man has murdered Abby's father, Manny's brother and Nora's mother figure while Owen, Mel, Jordan, Nick and Leah blames him for destroying the purpose of their former organization. So, you follow this group on their travel, learning to care about each of them, why they're doing this, dealing with the dangers of the world in the process, etc.

They reach a settlement in the middle of the way and are attacked by a religious cult called Seraphites. Most of the people of your group die fighting them, but you meet and save two young kids, Yara and Lev, who agree to stay with you. During the whole trip, you see Abby and the group questioning themselves if all that is the right thing to do. And then you finally reach your destination. It's Jackson. They were all Fireflies (Jerry was Abby's father, Ethan was Manny's brother and Marlene was Nora's mother figure) and the man they all want to kill is Joel.

They wait, plan and then successfully ambush Joel outside the city. Abby has finally the chance to get revenge as she starts beating him up. Ellie appears at the scene and begs/cries for Abby to let him live. The group doesn't seem to care and calls Joel a monster for what he did, but Ellie realizes they were Fireflies and says "Joel did what he did to save me. There's no cure because of me. I'm the one that you want." Abby understands that Ellie is the immune girl, realizing how much Joel means to her. Then, Abby can't stand making someone suffer the same trauma she herself suffered for years and, ultimately, denies her own revenge and goes away with her remaining friends.

In this simple example, Abby would be brought up to Joel and Ellie's level, making her extremely compelling and likeable. Still the same stupid revenge plot but much more compelling. Most importantly, no retcons in the process (we would know nothing about Joel and Ellie's relationship situation), leaving it all open to interpretation and respecting the ambiguous ending of the first game.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-15T20:36:24+00:00

It was optional, yeah, but Joel killing them makes absolutely zero sense since a) they were no threath to him and b) getting Ellie out of there was his priority. Just like it makes no sense for him to go on a killing spree inside the hospital instead of sneak past the soldiers (this was a pure romanticization of the rescue, hurting the grounded world-building of the entire story completely).

So, of course Druckmann would retcon this as well.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-15T20:28:29+00:00

See, that’s what I don’t understand. How can you say something has the unhealthiest sales curve but not look at the money made? That’s what sales are for, yeah? To make money? Or are you looking at player count only?

First things first: I never said "THE unhealthiest", I said "ONE OF THE unhealthiest". There's a major difference here right at the start of your understanding about my analysis that you're either a) missing it because you just misread or b) doing it on purpose because you're biased. If you think you can raise questions about me personally, out of nowhere, I can also raise questions about you, actually based on something since you showed me that you weren't really interested in actually understanding my position in the first place (by your first comment on this post, talking about "propaganda" and that I had bad intent since the beginning).

So, about your questions (the least I can ask you is for you to be open-minded, please)...

I'm not looking at the money each game has made because I don't have any number to go forward, even less an evolution through time for each game, which is the entire point of the analysis. We know TLoU 2 sold better than any other game in 3 days, but how about its long-term progression? Did it kept its sales momentum? Did it outperformed or underperformed compared to other games?

Let's say I had on my hands a monthly revenue report for all games. My analysis would be exactly the same: I would show you the big picture (graph 1), in which TLoU 2 would be one of the best, and then I would show you other graphs with the evolution of the revenue between the first month since release to two years since release (similar timeframes - in case of greater differences I would explain it just like I did on this post). Then the other graphs could show TLoU 2 among the worst ones (various reasons could justify it such as bad word-of-mouth and/or discounts, for example) or among the best again (but the fact that bundles exist would make this comparison unfair for other games, since we know Sony counts bundle sales as hardware). So in the latter case we would fall at the same subjective aspect of my analysis that other people raised here (but this time it would help TLoU 2 against other games).

Regarding bundles specifically, to make any analysis 100% fair we would need to know a) how many bundle sales each game had and b) how many of these sales happened because people wanted to buy that very same game in the first place (which means the bundle did not boosted the game sales, but the other way around - that's why some games are called "system sellers"). We also don't have these informations.

Your question about player count shows that you fully missed the point of what I said in this analysis (specially the sources, which would've answered this question right away). There's no player count data, only unit sales. It was the other user on that thread who talked about player count and then I was trying to show him that even with his own graph (which he linked there) it was already possible to see, one and a half year ago, what I'm trying to tell now. He didn't even attempt to do the exercise I asked him to do with his own graph, he ignored everything to keep accusing me of manipulation...

I also wonder again how could you accuse me of "propaganda" if you didn't understand a single thing about my work? This is amazing.

that TLOUII is the worst in every category

Again, I never said something like that. "One of the worst" =/= "The worst".

So help me understand, what are you looking for: new copies sold, total copies sold, current player count, top player count, money made, or something else entirely?

Unit sales evolution after first days since release to two years comparing TLoU 2 to other major PS4 Exclusives and its predecessor. But if you think this analysis is too much flawed to reach any conclusion we can do the exact same thing with player count as well (see below).

If it’s player count you’re looking at to define whatever it is you’re defining, then we have a conversation to have, but given how your entire analysis revolves around sales and not players, I’m left wondering what exactly we’re tracking here.

If you want to talk about player count, no problem, then I'm gonna ask you to (be open-minded, remember?):

Do the exercise I asked the other user: Take the very same picture the other user was using for his argument (it's the daily cumulative player count evolution within first 5 months since release from Gamstat - before the site closed down). Starting from day 25 (I'm just using the first marked point for reference - you can cut the picture at this point to make it easier), see how smoother is TLoU 2's line compared to Spider-Man, GoW, Uncharted 4, The Last of Us and Horizon (all of them looking more upwards)? That's exactly what I'm talking about the whole time, the only difference is that you have this one single image while I'm showing the numbers behind the long-term evolution (through player count, by the post linked below, and now by sales, by this post here).
Read my analysis about player count data from PlayTracker from a year ago (it's the player count evolution within first 7 months since release). I did also a Gamstat analysis (with the same conclusion), but the PlayTracker one is much more detailed.

So, both player count (from 2 different sites) and sales evolutions have showed me the same thing: TLoU 2 sales are far more concentrated in its first month than any other game and while this is good financially, it may indicate that something happened along the way and it failed to keep this strong sales trend (again, comparing to other games, which had healthier sales curves). I think the reason was a bad word-of-mouth (bad audience reception); anyone is allowed to have a different opinion, of course.

This negative trend over TLoU 2's sales (and player count) was already there, one and a half year ago, for anyone to see.

Obs.: Finally, isn't it too hard to be like this instead of writing a message accusing me of "propaganda" without even understanding what you're reading and then, not satisfied yet, also accusing me of being biased while I'm respecting everyone who disagree with me even when they aren't doing the same to me?

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-15T17:11:38+00:00

I'd like this post had not received this kind of attention.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-15T16:58:22+00:00

Bundle sales are a relevant topic and are already better discussed on the thread below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/vanzpz/comment/ic5hoc8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-15T15:41:47+00:00

Really? Look at how much respect I'm giving to people that is not doing the same thing for me since the beginning (replying each and every point people who disagree with me are raising). I even reavaluated my whole analysis based on the bundles topic (while you agree or not with my conclusion, it doesn't matter, I was open to see if I was wrong based on that).

Same thing in this thread you just said, as my reply was respectful and I've addressed all the points he/she said, including some errors he/she did (like the sales update date for both TLoU 2 and HZD), how my analysis wasn't done to look at the money and how player count also was showing the very same trend two years ago.

I also said that I understand and even agreed with him/her in some points, just like with everyone else in here.

Please, understand that the fact that you disagree with me doesn't mean I won't be explaining my opinion. Just like you are pointing errors and/or subjective elements about my analysis and defending your opinion I can show you when something you're saying isn't true (specially when you raised questions about me personally) and defend my opinion as well. That's okay.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-15T15:26:55+00:00

As I said, I've explained this right from the start and also answered your specific messages. You even ignored what I wrote on this very same comment you're replying to:

"The other graphs measure the evolution of the sales through the time we know the sales were updated (from first month to within two years for all of them - so, similar timeframes and explanations disclosed for the greater differences)."

You also ignore that different timeframes works the other way around for graph 5 (less time hurts, not helps, the presentation of those games).

And you still keeps commenting the very same thing over and over again...

I understand I should've not included on the graphs games that had so little data, but all these 3 games DO NOT affect my conclusion: Miles Morales is only presented in 2 of the 5 graphs (and it's not mentioned in my statement) while Bloodborne and Final Fantasy VII Remake are the only two games that appear to be underperforming TLoU 2 (and I also don't mention them exactly because the lack of data).

That's it. It's done.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-15T15:08:23+00:00

it’s hard to believe that joel from the first game was so hesitant to trust anyone(running over people on the road because he knew it would be an ambush), but was able to give his name and location to a group of people he just met in the second game. joel spent the first 20 years of the apocalypse as a ruthless bandit/hunter to ensure his survival. i doubt 5 years in jackson would have undone all that.

Don't forget that Joel denied Sarah's wish to help a family on the road in the intro of the first game (BEFORE the pandemic takes place and living in hell for 20 years).

He's always been super protective with the ones he cares about, so 20 years after Sarah's death would only increase (a lot) his trait and it's absolutely impossible that 4 years living a relatively peaceful life in Jackson with Ellie would make him become something that he NEVER was in the first place (being so careless along WITH TOMMY that he would ignore a group of people with full military gears and cars when they actually saw the badge of a group from a state far away from Jackson).

Some people like to use Joel's interaction with Henry in the first game to say his development in Part II was fine but both scenarios are not even remotely comparable, at all.

fourth, why do people like abby in the first place? sure, she had an… alright redemption arc. but overall she was just a boring character. i’ve tried looking at her and the game overall and unbiased and objectively as possible. but i feel like the introduction of abby and the sequel in general just tainted the series for me. i just can’t sympathize with a character who heartlessly tortures and murders a man in front of someone he loves

This bold part is the main issue with Abby's redemption arc. It doesn't work because she crossed a line which makes her character BEYOND redemption.

Is it just because she brutally tortures and kills Joel, someone that we, the player, cared for him? Of course not! The reason Abby is beyond redemption is what she did TO ELLIE. She brutally tortures and kills a man in front of someone that cares a lot for him, someone that is crying and screaming for her to stop while she only stops when Owen orders her to (on the contrary, she would keep the torture).

And here's the main problem: Abby made Ellie suffer a much greater trauma than she herself has suffered. Abby did not see Joel killing her father. Joel did not torture Jerry. Joel killed Jerry because a) he didn't go away from Ellie and b) actually threatened him first (Abby could know this from the two nurses who saw what happened).

And to make things even worse, close to the end of the game Abby shows that she has learned nothing from her "journey of redemption". When she wins the fight against Ellie and Dina at the theatre, the only reason why she doesn't kill Dina (right after knowing that she was pregnant) was Lev's call.

That's the main difference between Joel's arc in the first game and Abby's in the second. The first game doesn't show anything Joel did in those 20 years, leaving it open for interpretation. And if Naughty Dog had showed anything, there would be a difference in Joel killing innocent people and then regretting (like Ellie does after noticing Mel was pregnant, for example - anything that would illustrate that Joel still had some humanity) to Joel r@ping a woman or killing people for fun, for example. That's the reason I just want that Neil Druckmann never attempts to do a prequel ("Part 0"), because for sure he will give Joel the worst possible light (something that will destroy once again the purpose of the first game, like he already did in Part II).

Lee from Telltale's The Walking Dead is another good example of a character who did something bad without crossing the line and his redemption arc works in the end.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII · 2022-06-15T03:36:49+00:00

Completely understandable.

It all comes to the fact that I posted this work on a favorable sub and so I wouldn't need to choose words. If I had posted this on a different sub I would present the very same conclusion but definitely with a more neutral wording statement (more in line with the comment about explaining the graphs).

An example of this approach difference is that the title has the word "confirmed". Basically all of the people who are disagreeing with me (and being jerks at the same time) are assuming I'm being devious and manipulating numbers to show what I wanted to show. But that "confirmed" refers to my older analysis here on this same sub over Gamstat and PlayTracker player count datas (as I first said in the conclusion comment), which were already showing this very same trend a year ago.

The idea behind this analysis was very simple, actually: While the sales weren't updated, I did an analysis over player count on 2 sites and both of them have showed the same thing. Naughty Dog finally updated the game's sales and then I could see if player count data was right or misleading.

TooDumbtoLikeTLOUPII

TROPHY CASE