Why is he such a bad writer? Were the actual people responsible for The Last of Us just some uncredited other guys?

>hear from a source=dude trust me that Joel has a brother Tommy somewhere in Jackson
>grab your rag tag group of friends just to go on a futile revenge quest
>get cornered by infected and almost lose your life
>not only get deus ex machina saved by a random passersby that just happened to patrol that area, but that random passersby and his brother, out of hundreds of people in Jackson, are the people you were looking for all along
>Tommy, the absolute retard introduces himself and Joel for no reason while being chased by a horde of infected
>for some reason get them to come back their lodge with a group of multiple well armed strangers
There are worse plots out there, sure, but Jesus fuck is it contrived

Ludonarrative dissonance

It's the same old shit that you expect nowadays; box-ticking gays and trannies and womyn, awkwardly subverting expectations, shock value deaths and plot points, intentionally shitting on previous story... Video game writing truly is on the same level as Hollywood now, because it's all trash.

>4 million sales
>6 years development time with a team of 450

Lol no. They haven't even turned a profit yet.

good writing requires an accurate perception of yourself, people and the world around you
arrogance and narcissism cloud that perception
there are no good writers who write from a place of personal bias and self-obsession

>Why is he such a bad writer?

Bad influences.

Attached: 543.png (2234x794, 1.19M)

This.
Ideology isn't art. Every time people try to push some political agenda in art is just comes off as dishonest propaganda.

Bruce Straley is literally why tlou was tlou. As soon as he quit the studio was fucked

I'll bite.
Lack of structure, constant search for moments of impact without respite for the characters, clichés that do not provide any interesting point of view except to repeat current ideas of popular culture, zero thematic unity and the most superficial of messages. If it were a film or a book, any professional would have laughed at the absolute naivety and desire to draw attention to a similar work.

The first game has plotholes and feels manipulative in many ways, like the famous prologue, but the characters are interesting enough to want to spend time with them whatever they do and worry about what they do, as well as selling the father-daughter bond in a pretty good way. I prefer Telltale's "The Walking Dead", which told this story much better, but I didn't think it was bad at all.

He fell for the Hollywood Oscar Bait methidology. Making reviewers feel like shit makes them give the media a high score, as a subconscious way of apologizing to the writers.

It's been a long time since anything that aims to be uplifting was rated highly.

The first game sold 1.3 million in seven days, and it got a sequel. Part II sold 4 million in three days.

Honestly, the worst part is how people, specially the press, keep forgetting that there's nothing new here.

Killing the MC and shifiting to another character? Lots of games have done that. Revenge is bad? Lots of games have done that. Indentifying mechanics like

Is a gimmick and a old one. But somehow, because it's a AAA studio with lots of hype, it gets praised for being "innovative".

People who stick to "diversity bad" are falling into the trap: they don't point to the objective reasons why the game is not as good or as interesting or innovative, but they take a bait that is there to serve as a shield "Don't you like having a trans flag in the game? That's because you're a fascist and your opinion doesn't count". Unlike many, I have zero problem with diversity in games but I have every reason to think that this game just seeks to create outrage and false respectability rather than being a good game.

It's the same with movies that are designed to appeal to the Oscars or "prestige" television: they don't try to be good movies or good TV shows, they try to make you think "This transcends genre" because they're ashamed of the medium in the first place and desperately seek to be treated as a great art form instead of doing their job properly (which, of course, requires much more effort and talent).

Because TLOU 1 is basically a verbatim copy of Children of Men.
Replace sterilization of humanity with Zombies for gameplay factor and they are almost indistinguishable.
I'm pretty sure they wanted to have the same ending (which would have been way better btw) but walking dead had done basically that the year before.

Watch it because it's one of the best movies. Ever made and it outs druckman as a copycat.

Attached: Children-of-Men2.jpg (1000x652, 100.68K)

>TLoU comes out with zero initial fans
>a million people pick it up, find out it's good and spread the word, popular youtubers post LPs genuinely enjoying game
>sales become steady and turn a solid profit over time
>TLoU2 comes out with a fuckton of fans that have waited 7 years for a sequel
>a lot of those fans buy a copy either in spite of spoilers or intentionally avoiding spoilers with all their might
>so far, reviews and media response seem to have a Rise of Skywalker trend, any content creators playing the game have mixed feelings about it at best and vocally despise major parts at worst
Seeing the difference in the trends, it's not hard to imagine that TLoU2 can take a nosedive in the coming weeks, or maybe I'm retarded and people will buy it anyways because CONSUME PRODUCT.

>ellies greatest fear was ended up alone
>loses everything in the end and gets alone
he absolutly hates his characters why as a fan should i care?

Attached: Captura.png (765x378, 288.29K)

>take Les Miserables
>start cutting out characters and plotlines until you're left with Valjean and Cosette
>water down Valjean's nuanced character to a standard angry man who lost his family
>water down Cosette's nuanced character to a standard spunky girl from Disney movies
>plop them into standard zombie apocalypse
Why was TLoU story considered great again?

I should thank this moron from gave me the will of finally give up on Playstation cinematic bullshit, getting back to Nintendont, playing more arcade vibin' games.

You can boil most stories down to copies of an older story if you really want to. What makes them good is how well they're told.
And TLoU was a derivative plot told very well, that's why it's considered great.

he fired everyone who tried to reign him in, just research it, like 70% of ND was gone by the time it shipped
not that complicated

TLOU and Children of men are the same almost blow for blow.
Practically plagiarism. See below.
>In the midst of an apocalyptic event both Joel and Theo lose their child. They become jaded and cold to adapt to the conditions of their new world.
>both are approached by resistance leaders to transport a girl under initially mysterious motives. They soon discover that the girls has an immunity to the disease plaguing humanity. This revelation causes him to start retracting from the deal.
>Partial love interest is killed off suddenly. Leaving him alone with the girl he is trying to remain distant and uncaring for.
>Resistance movement shows themselves to be sinister in nature and become antagonistic.

Ending is notably different, but desu weaker in TLOU.
HIGHLY recommend this movie. There are long unbroken action scenes, long cuts that last 8 minutes that are crazy good. It is a tense film.
I would also be remiss to not at least mention that, outside of story, stylistically TLOU clearly took a lot of inspiration.

>What makes them good is how well they're told
No it isn't. What makes a story good is how unique it is and how complex it is. Delivering polished mediocrity is still mediocre.

There's nothing new under the sun. Almost every story you can tell, a similar one was told elsewhere by someone else. The basic plot beats are not what's important, what's important is how well you can tell them. How authentic the world is, how believable the characters are.
How 'unique' or 'complex' something is does not at all determine its quality, that's fucking retarded.

This post is too long. I will simply ignore it and ask the same question again when this topic is brought up.

>The first game has plotholes

Not the person you're replying to, but what ones?

No, the complexity is the only objective criteria of quality. When you were a newborn you were entertained by jingling keys, when you were 5 you required something more complex like a Lego to be entertained. The more you grow the more complexity you require to engage your brain. Execution is a cutoff requirement, but beyond a point of functioning product execution doesn't increase quality, only complexity does.

Alright, let me take you on that. writing now