FIND A FLAW

abbys section is too long for the point its trying to make. (the bad guys are people too and have their own problems also general humanizing) and abbys relationship with leiv and the other chick comes out of nowhere and isnt fleshed out enough to matter much in the context of the greater story.

thats literally it. everything else is great.

>does having relatively long cutscenes make something an interactive movie?
It does when what interrupts it is flimsy gameplay. And I'm not trying to assert as though my opinion of it is unassailable, I'm well aware that I personally think that these types of games are just lackluster. Some people really do enjoy them, otherwise there wouldn't have been an attempt at a sequel. To each their own.

why does a 'good' game have to be defined by open-world-rpg qualities of exploration and divergent player choice? I get that there are elements of the medium the game doesn't employ, but does that really make a game bad? Is a movie bad if it doesn't use music? That has little to no dialogue? Literally every game takes control from the player to some degree, isn't it arbitrary to say that at a certain point that makes it 'bad'? It sounds to me like you are using personal tastes to call a game bad that is actually just different from what you prefer. I have my issues with the game but I don't see how this whole 'taking control away from the player' meme holds water with this game or any other. Like, there are people (and you might be one of them) who find the very concept of cutscenes to be antithesis to a good game. That just seems to autistically particular to me. Like not being able to understand how others could like a flavor you don't like and getting angry about it.

Terrible writing which produced terrible unlikable characters. Fungbis plot takes a back seat to generic revenge is bad. Bigot sandwich.

I get that, the description of 'interactive movie' just doesn't make any sense. There's surely a better term to suit your intentions. Whatever your feelings about the gameplay mechanics, most of my experience playing the game was comprised of what would strictly be defined as 'gameplay' and not at all some kind of interactive cut scene , any more than literally any game is a series of visual outputs that you do technically interact with

I... I can't...

I actually think for us to really feel connected to abby that it would inherently need a good amount of time to form a connection. I still felt the powerful ending so I guess it worked to some degree, but the new characters and their relationships don't come anywhere close to the level of nuance and personality that you saw even in joel and tess's relationship in the first one, so I think it ends up feeling longer than it needed to be because of this, and in fact is really just another side effect of the character's not being as interesting. In an ideal world, the section would have been just as long but more interesting.

Gameplay is generic cover shooter with some stealth/melee. Whole plot makes no sense as you brutally kill anyone in your path without ever flinching then decide literally at the last second "violence bad".

>why does a 'good' game have to be defined by open-world-rpg qualities of exploration and divergent player choice?
Not that guy, but that's probably more applying to the rockstar games end of the comment. And a good game does not need those qualities, no, but it sure doesn't hurt them if they're doing it right. After all, what's the point of an open world if the world is mostly just an empty map? To continue the analogy, some movies are designed from the ground up to be good without music, without dialogue. Those that aren't designed so will do much better with music and dialogue. Unless of course they're shit, but that's a given. I guess the best way to look at it is that you personally rate media on what it gives you. A silent movie that makes it known that having no music/dialogue is its intent prepares you to discount that in your own rating. Otherwise, you just think to yourself that it's missing or severely lacking in those regards.

Character actions are irrelevant to the story they are trying to portray. There's a huge disconnection on the basics of themes. Kojima for example would comment in a cutscene the kind of homicidal bastard you are, this game doesn't stick together at all.

No multiplayer

Forced jewish preaching.

Attached: 1592640689568.jpg (750x523, 128.41K)

Trying so hard when the ship has already sailed... it's sad.

Attached: Playing_that.jpg (600x284, 49.3K)

Sure, I don't disagree with any with that. But if I watched a movie like "All is Lost" and didn't think it was done very well, I don't think it would make any sense to say "One of the reasons this movie was bad was because the only dialogue was in the beginning"

Why?

Well, even in your example you alluded to there being multiple reasons you thought the movie was bad/not done well. And, the purpose of the thread was to point out a flaw in the game. I do think that was a little vague as it lacked specific details regarding TLOU2.

>why does a 'good' game have to be defined by open-world-rpg qualities of exploration and divergent player choice?

Wtf? I never said that.
Just for an example: DMC, ninja gaiden (1 and 2), Mario platform games, doom eternal, hitman 2016, Ori and the will of the whisp and MGS2. All of them I consider a masterpiece, even if they are completely distinct from each other. I never said that to a game be good he need to be an open world or anything like that.
A movie who don't use music or dialogue isn't necessarily bad, because the strength of the medium that movies can provide isnt necessary linked to music or dialogue, so even without music's or dialogue they still can be good movies (like Charles Chaplin movies).
I don't have problem with cutscenes (if you can skip), and the way that the last of us remove the control for the player go beyond cutscenes

Ending is a terrible rip off Blade Runner 2049's last fight, they didn't even bother to animate the bubbles resulting from all the struggling or even the one that should be coming out from Abby's mouth, Abby just stares at Ellie like a fucking retard.

its a known garbage ass game

so the shills for this gane gave up? most of the threads now are just: i like it so is good or you don't like because you are a bigot/incel/poltard/etc

but threads were always like that.

>drowning someone in water
>IT'S A RIP OFF OF BLADE RUNNER 2049
how does your brain function? the most recent thing you've seen is the original? if this was released before br2049 would you be saying that the fight was ripped off from tlou2?

Sure. I'm just saying that there are criticisms you can give that sound like problems, and criticisms that sound like "I want a particular type of game and this wasn't it." And criticizing the game for lacking more open elements is the latter. But calling a game because it wasn't the kind of game you wanted seems weird. Surely no one would disagree if I were to say that tlou2 was not marketed as an open-world, choice-driven experience.

The AI is still fucking braindead.

right. we would need to see growth in abby to feel more of a connection to her. but in my opinion we don't see that. from her day one to day three, she is a person who has done bad things but tries to do good things. a typical archetype. but thats it. no real story arc. no growth as a person.
it really all seems to be for the sake of getting the player to see her as a good person. which is honestly a pretty easy thing to do, and didn't require 10 hours of gameplay to get across. but they just kept piling on the good deeds she did. and it was a waste. they should of spent more time on her revenge on joel and how that effected her relationship with owen. that would of been relevant and an appropriate mirror to abbie and dina.

You literally counted lacking exploration as a negative against the game. Isn't that the same as saying 'this game is bad because it doesn't have exploration'? Same for saying 'he walking talking parts are extremely bad, they remove the controls of the player to give the experience that the creators want you to feel'. Isn't that the point of a cutscene? If not, what do you mean by this? In what way do walking/talking parts or cutscenes in tlou2 take away player control and try to direct how the player feels that a similar game does not? Isn't that the point?

Abby's story was rushed, her gameplay segments after the trainyard were good, Issac was built up to be the shit, but he turned out to be shit.