What does it mean when audiences in two different mediums (games and television) are too stupid to appreciate the...

make shitty sequel to a mediocre story

your audience hates it

five years later

retell the same story word for word for a whole new crowd

that new audience hates it even more than the last crowd

At some point you've just got to accept that the fault lies with you.

i literally haven't seen any negative reaction from show watchers (that weren't already made about it happening in the games)

you mean all the reaction channels you're subbed to on YouTube are still watching it

So you’re ignoring the complaints from show watchers if it’s the same as complaints about the game?

this

brilliant

Abby is obviously right and a much better person than Joel and Ellie, that is a very simple fact.

Joel kills her dad and a bunch of her people

Abby rightfully avenges them by killing Joel but spares Ellie and Tommy

Ellie goes on a rampage and kills all of Abby's friends

Abby is such a good person that she spares Ellie AGAIN

not satisfied Ellie tries to kill Abby again and Abby doesn't even wanna fight

Gamers are too stupid to get it but the show's audience will.

i mean the show dropped from like 90s audience score the first season had to now low 60s and the viewership also took a substantial nosedive after the first couple of episodes in season 2 so any pretense that nothing changed is just being ignorant or lying to yourself

Why does it look so cheap and fake compared to the game? This entire show feels like a cheap parody. It literally proves the superiority of video games as a visual and storytelling medium.

Fan of the game here, the show made it worse by having it take place in a brightly lit room, instead of a dark grimy basement under a long staircase, which was important for the nightmare/PTSD aspect.
And by having Abby exposition dump at Joel, which may have happened offscreen in the game, but in the show she sets it up so Joel could have countered, responded and defended his actions, but for some reason he doesn't bother to

Next thread!

you retard saying shit that everyone knows thinking you are smart you fucking moron its not about that its about the

muh revenge is bad take durr so smart look at me subverting expectations durrrrr also the enire time our own game and show contradicts itself in its actions, killing hundrets only to let the one person go that you are after cause revenge baaad you get it yet? baaad ..t..the other hundred innocent people we killed on the way d..dont count they are just npcs.. revenge baaad sooo smurtttt!

also father daughter relationship was one of the few things last of us even had going for it and doing a "subverting expectations" for the sake of it and then replacing that releationship with nothing just means you took away one of the few interesting things for shock value but added nothing in return its just a net minus.

audience score

Even though most critics are politically biased in my experience they're a much better gauge of a show's quality. The general audience is fucking stupid, specially those who take the time to rate something, most of them are buttmad political activists. In the case of the last of us most are mad because lesbians and Joel's death.

for some reason

not really fluent with subtext are we

Your brain is fried

Thanks for proving my point, idiot.

Compelling argument. You've changed my mind.

Yours is for thinking this trash show is good

Gamers are too stupid to get it but the show's audience will

again you have said nothing new you literally just stated the obvious
you are a fucking low iq retard thinking you are smart

Joel never regretted saving Ellie and would have done it all over again. He knows he's gonna die no matter what, but he still shouldn't act like he tacitly agrees with Abby.
Saying something like "they were going to kill someone I loved without giving her any choice in the matter, it wasn't for Marlene to decide" would have enhanced the scene, not detracted from it.

how dare you not let this 14 year old girl decide the fate of the entire species

how dare you act like the matter is entrusted to her actual legal guardian who was entrusted to raise her by her biological mother and has done so for her entire life

no it makes much more sense for a guy who has known her for all of nine months to decide

especially since he has proven the quality of his character by spending the last twenty years as a merciless cold-blooded killer with no remorse

Gamers are dumb and so are football dads and wine moms, simple as. Druckmann's biggest failing is that he completely overestimated his audience

Even though most critics are politically biased in my experience they're a much better gauge of a show's quality. The general audience is fucking stupid

Because they're politically biased

You're retarded. The show is shit, the 2nd game's story was always shounen anime tier garbage and now the general tv audience gets to see that garbage too

Works of art usually are shitty products.

revenge is... le bad

whoa

yes, also Apocalypse Now is about how war sucks

while technically true, it's a bit of an over-simplification

legacy media reviewers rave about every episode

giving the audience redundant information is bad writing. you can just have the actor express the emotion that the line expresses without speaking and its always better (which is what happened).

you are low iq and think you have some insight but spout the most mundane obvious shit that still doesnt address the actual points made

revenge is... le bad

if the game had expressed that really well, it would have gotten a less mixed reception.

I try to stick to arguing at the surface level when I'm replying to an obvious moron

the point is that the game literally contradicts itself and not in a good way

anon you are the obvious moron

also Apocalypse Now is about how war sucks

no it's not lol

The thing is, TLOU2 is not actually about revenge. It's just a jumping off point, the catalyst that gets the story in motion.

The low IQ brainlet take is that Ellie lets Abby go at the end because she "forgave" her and that the point is that revenge is bad. If that's all you got out of it, that says more about your intelligence than the quality of the writing.

Still waiting on you to actually refute any of my points. "You are dumb" doesn't count.

you know that guy you like? He's dead now. He's gone forever

What's wrong? Intimidated by some strong women and homosexuality?

This bothered me. What kind of a fucking brat would do this to a cake? even literal 3 year olds know better than to dig their hands into a cake, maybe they’ll scoop some icing off with a finger, but to dig their paws into it and pull out a chunk? Ellie is supposed to be 16-17 in this scene, what teenager is doing this type of shit? This one 2 second gesture might seem minor but it instantly makes her even more unlikable than she already is. What a disrespectful little freak. Yes it’s her cake, who gives a fuck, where are your manors? Where is your decency? Is this Belles interpretation of how a dyke Tom boy would act? So dyke Tom boys don’t have basic dinner table manors? This seriously made me drop the show. I was trying to push thru this show but this moment made me drop it. She is so fucking unlikable. And who would defend this as “cute” or “funny”? What kind of degernate would you have to be to find Ellie digging her dirty paw nails into a cake le funny and cute? Fuck you

removing one of the only actual good things from last of us for cheap idiotic shock value and a stupid toddler tier message the game itself sabotages every step of the way is just dumb it has nothing to do that joel was killer or not.
Removing one of the few things the game does well (father daughter dynamic) would not be a issue if they had replaced it with something better but as it stands its they just went for shock value and had nothing to replace it with besides again a dumbass toddler message the game itself sabotages all the way.

... and Abby or her crew could have countered back with some of the points on your list and said that's why we're still gonna kill you.
The point is perspective and what you would do for Your People, it's not about what the singular objectively correct trolley problem answer is

Kill yourself shills.

It is if you're being reductive and arguing in bad faith. You can do that with literally any story:

Citizen Kane is about how money can't buy happiness

The Godfather is about taking over the family business

Goodfellas is about how crime doesn't pay

No Country For Old Men is about how getting old sucks

The Shining is about how daddy gets mean when he drinks

Or hell, you could do the same shit with the first one:

TLOU is just about how love conquers all, how boring and lame

These are all bad faith arguments and so is the "revenge is bad" nonsense in reference to TLOU2

Can anyone think of a single time the show has portrayed Ellie as being likeable? I can't think of a single example of her showing a positive trait.

play the game like a violent psychopath and murder everything you see instead of sneaking past or evading the vast majority of the encounters in the game

wonder why your actions don't line up with the story

It's like you've never played a video game before.

Season 2 is probably making people appreciate Part II more. It could've been a lot worse.
He already told Ellie that, plus of he said anything he could be putting Ellie in danger.

I just don't dig sonyslop in general. Some examples being:

TLOU

Amazing Spiderman

Venom

Ghost of tsushima

Death stranding

morbius

She not only makes me mad but my wife who watches the show with me also can’t stand her. She said Belle as an actress comes off as a poser in the role. It is straight up comical how bad her performance is, I can’t even take the show seriously. Nearly everything she does is straight up cringe and laughable.

sorry, I'm not really following the context, but is this all still you not having accepted Joel dying?

they didn't remove the father-daughter dynamic. Ellie is still playing out that dynamic just like Abby was and will in season 2 via flashbacks of her dad. just because their dads are LE DEAD doesn't mean the dynamic is no longer reverberating.

you wife is probably just jealous. that's what happens a lot when a better-looking female actor is in a role.

Joel's story arc was completed by the end of the first game. There were basically three options: kill him, turn him into a villain or have him fill the exact same role as in the first game in order to give you your surrogate dad fix. Killing him propels the story forward into new territory while also being a natural progression of the coming of age story from the first game. The first game is about becoming old enough that you realize your parents are not infallible gods who know everything and are actually flawed people that make mistakes and that while you love them, you can't count on them for everything while the second game is about coping with the inevitability that they will die before you, and the ways (both healthy and unhealthy) that you process and deal with that grief. It's not about revenge, you completely misunderstood the entire point of the game. I'd also argue that having the violence be cathartic and enjoyable in the game isn't a contradiction because it explains why it has an addictive quality for Ellie and why she can't abandon it even after it starts destroying her life.

You're just upset that the second game was its own story instead of a retread of the first one like you wanted, and you invented a bunch of nonsense about how the game "contradicts" its story by allowing you freedom in the gameplay sections in order to justify your spilled almonds.

The point is perspective and what you would do for Your People, it's not about what the singular objectively correct trolley problem answer is

I didn't argue otherwise. Anon provided one perspective, I provided the other.

I can’t think of a worse insult than this. Bravo!

These are all bad faith arguments and so is the "revenge is bad" nonsense in reference to TLOU2

Except TLOU2 actually DOES only go that deep. It's not being reductive. That's the main and only theme of the TLOU2. Shounen anime tier ass plot

People die. It happens. Things happen to people that they don't deserve. After all the unceremonious deaths of beloved characters in the first game, you didn't see it coming even a little bit that a guy who is basically a hundred years old in post apocalypse years might not make it to the end of the second game? It's like you idiots had never experienced a story having something bad that you don't want to happen occur in order to instigate drama before, like you did nothing but play Call of Duty and Halo your entire life and then when you tried to play a game about how death sucks you bit off more than you could chew.

Uncharted movie might be sonyslop in its worst, most pure form.

filmmakers who took a stab at it in the past said they couldn't figure out how to do Uncharted without making it a worthless copy of Indiana Jones or National Treasure etc

Sony later hired other filmmakers and decided meh, we're just gonna do that exact thing anyway

see
TLOU2 doesn't lack depth. You lack depth.

Anon... that's just sad. Defending a shitty story by reading themes into it that don't exist? Come on, you're better than that. It's just "revenge bad". There is no greater theme. It's just a shitty melodrama

I mean actually, no, please do go on. Tell me about the philosophy behind TLOU2 in detail and why it's more than just a shitty melodrama game with a shounen anime tier plot about revenge being bad and muh cycles of violence that has been made 100 times before. I'll wait

It's like you idiots had never experienced a story having something bad that you don't want to happen occur in order to instigate drama before

Yeah we call that "bad writing". Writing a dramatic twist for the shock factor is not just bad writing but extremely cliche. Oh no , not a twist the Walking Dead has done 100 times??????? Woah maybe killing is bad???? Like everyone who dies was a person too ... that's deep fr fr

You're typing all these words and I'm not reading them because I can tell from the first part that you're not hearing what I'm saying. Joel is not real. I am not mourning him. He was an enjoyable character, and in his absence there are no worthwhile enjoyable characters. Thus; I do not enjoy. Is that plain enough?

become famous for lucking into being the first westerner to rip off Lone Wolf and Cub

fall for your own unearned hype and write a story about how actually saving a child from getting put in a blender for no reason is LE BAD

The theme of TLoU 2 is perspective, and bonds being formed or broken, more so than revenge. Depending on perspective Joel's and Ellie's and Abby's actions are all correct and justified.
This is summed up in a brief exchange between Abby and Lev which is mostly unconnected to the revenge stuff-

Those were your fucking people!

YOU'RE my people.

I haven't started the second season yet but I knew this happens anyway, have retards really had a complete breakdown and started shitting on the show because he died and they can't handle it?

The first game is about becoming old enough that you realize your parents are not infallible gods who know everything and are actually flawed people that make mistakes and that while you love them, you can't count on them for everything

Holy projection Batman , you think the first game was "about" that? Once again, it's a melodrama meant to entertain people first and foremost and the fact THAT is what you get from it is just hilarious. Nothing about growing older? Alienation? Post Traumatic Stress? Violence being inherent to human nature in times of crisis? All the political messaging? All of those are aspects of different character arcs and the world building of TLOU, and it was a decent story even if it's just a rip off of the Road and the Walking Dead.

The second game was just a more poorly fleshed out version of the 1st that relies too much on cliches hence why the audience score is lower because it's lower quality

A vocal minority give that impression, but also the episode where he dies has a 9.3 IMDb score which is the best of the season, and second-best of the entire series so far

perspective, and bonds being formed or broken, more so than revenge

So basically the same plot as Naruto, yeah I know. That's why I called it shounen anime tier. Ellie might as well have gone on a long speech about needing to break her bonds to village and unlock the hidden powers of the sharingan. The first game was like a mix between the Walking Dead, Children of Men, and the Road that was at least fleshed out with some fun gameplay mechanics , voice acting, and world building but still kind of relying on cliche. The second game was even more cliche because instead of remixing already established works it rested on the laurels of the 1st game , the writer of which was already pretty basic so it just created an even more inferior product. It's just cliche after cliche after cliche, with even more on the nose political messaging. It sucks

Thanks for adding that. I had no idea the Uncharted movie even existed.

Ellie goes after revenge because it's what Joel would do. She literally says as much to Tommy: "If it were you or me, Joel would be halfway to Seattle already." Why do you think she spends half the game wearing his clothes? The scene where she tortures Nora very directly echoes the scene in the first game where Joel tortures the two guys to death.

But she makes one crucial mistake: she's doing what Joel would do instead of what Joel would want HER to do. Joel was a complicated guy but like all fathers he believes that his daughter should be better than he is. He thinks she deserves more than he got, in fact the entire reason he lies to her about the Fireflies is in order to take the burden on himself so that he can provide a normal life for her in which she isn't burdened with the fate of the world. He's willing to be the bad guy and he'll even accept her never talking to him again if it means she'll be safe in Jackson.

Would he murder Abby and kill everyone who stood in his way if anything happened to Ellie? Of course. But he would want her to stop putting herself in danger for his sake. To go home and make a life with Dina. He says as much in their final scene. So in a roundabout way, she's rebelling against his wishes by doing all this in his name and that's because she hasn't fully forgiven him or herself for spending the last few years they had together not speaking. Letting Abby go is actually her way of forgiving HIM. Joel doesn't want Ellie to be like him, he wants her to be better, and by the end she gets that.

I could go on, but notice how almost none of this has anything to do with the morality of revenge? You're deep as a puddle so what you took from the story was a shallow surface-level version of the story without any of the subtext.

Which is fine, really. You don't have to like the game or get behind what it's doing. But stop acting like you're some objective arbiter of what constitutes good or deep storytelling, because you aren't.

See
"Vocal minority" , people had a bad reaction to the bad writing in the video game go around now they're having a bad reaction to the writing in the TV show go around which is saying something because most people in the TV viewing audience watch absolute trash

bad writing is when things happen that I don't want to happen

all twists in which major characters die are the same regardless of context because I say so

What would be even more plain would be to just admit that you're not very bright.

Where are you finding an issue? The writing takes away a thing I liked, and replaces it with things I don't like. Why is it incumbent upon me to continue liking it?

I was too stupid to see the quite clear symbolism in this story and that means it isn't there!

K

why the audience score is lower because it's lower quality

Ah yes, the ad populum fallacy. A classic.

Also the bush called tlou has been beaten so many times that there is no bush left anymore, just empty patch of land waiting for fresh bush to grow.

this guy gets it

So you're literally just admitting that you don't like it when bad things happen in a story even though that's drama 101. Yeah, you should avoid watching apocalypse dramas then. It's a pretty common practice to have bad things happen to your characters in those.

none of that changes the fact that ellie letting abby go in that moment, after everything else she did, is fucking retarded. sorry, fag.

People are just annoyed with Ellie/Bella Ramsey and how she's written and the writing in general is really bad this season. They've basically covered barely anything that actually happens during Ellie's part. Skipped major set pieces to the point it's just devolved into Ellie and Dina running around the city telling jokes and fighting like 5 infected.

I could go on, but notice how almost none of this has anything to do with the morality of revenge

Literally ALL OF IT has to do with the morality of revenge. You have the self awareness of a fucking rock lmao. You're just explaining and psychoanalyzing her motivations for revenge in several paragraphs to the point you're talking about the influences of her dad and trying to find more positive catharsis to her emotional hang ups with her dad vs REVENGE lmao. Dude you cannot be serious

You're deep as a puddle so what you took from the story was a shallow surface-level version of the story without any of the subtext

Not surprising you don't know what subtext is either lmao

But stop acting like you're some objective arbiter of what constitutes good or deep storytelling

Oh sorry I guess I should leave that to you then right?

I don't know what to say besides go read more books? Watch more movies? Try to write or make things yourself? If you think the TLOU2 is "deep" for once again cliches you see in a lot of media already I'm guessing it comes from inexperience on your part

Yeah, actually it does.

No my man, you are still dancing around the point. I don't care that Joel died. If Joel had died at the end of TLOU 1, that would have been fine with me. But Joel dies in TLOU 2, and then TLOU 2 continues, without Joel. Now, had they replaced Joel with an equally likeable character, that also would have been fine with me. The problem isn't so much an absence of Joel, it's an absence of sufficiently likeable characters, a requirement which was previously satisfied by Joel.
Is this one of those things where you feign profound retardation for extended periods, and imagine that one some level you're being the cool guy?

The fact she got that far and didn't go through with it in the exact moment she was about to do it was the worst part of the whole story. She could've killed her, realized it brought her no real peace, then begun the process of emotionally processing Joel's death and his wishes for her but NO , right as she's about to kill Abby after killing who knows how many people just to get there is when she suddenly realizes it's not going to make her any happier to kill Abby.

Fucking lmao , just another "what a twist" moment. Bravo Cuckman

no, it doesn't, retard. by that point ellie is a cold blooded murderer who has killed hundreds just for getting her way. maybe she could think about it and reflect after the fact, but in the moment, she should have killed abby just for biting her fingers off. it's fucking contrived and retarded that she would somehow figure herself out right then and there just to fit cuckmans themes.

Revenge is when you try to hurt somebody because they did something bad to you. The fact that she's doing it for other reasons and it actually has barely anything to do with Abby is called subtext. She doesn't know Abby, they never have a single conversation that lasts more than a few words, they're basically perfect strangers. The game's not about revenge, it's about unsuccessfully coping with the death of a loved one.

Not surprising you don't know what subtext is either lmao

It's a pretty self-explanatory term actually but do continue with your pseudo-intellectual posturing if it makes you feel better.

Oh sorry I guess I should leave that to you then right?

When did I say I was objective? All of this is my subjective opinion and what I got out of the game which is something you asked me to detail for you. You're the one insisting that the layers I found in the story somehow objectively are not there simply because you can't see them.

Symbolism

Another word you don't know the meaning of because nothing you previously described was "symbolism" just aspects of the plot and character arcs which I was just commenting that it's interesting you hyperfocused on the parts about growing away from your parents and not the other aspects of the game clearly meant for older people who played the game to relate with. I'm gonna guess you were really young when you first played the game

Ad populum fallacy

You really need to stop dropping terms you clearly don't know the meaning of. Yes, in a world where people collectively assign meaning to quality, a collective assessment of something being low quality means it's low quality. Ad populum is a LOGICAL fallacy not a qualitative fallacy. It's a logical fallacy to say that 2+2=5 because 90% of the class thinks it's true, it's not a fallacious to call something low quality if 90% of the class thinks it's shit. Does that make sense?

game not have guy I like, therefore I no like game!

why do you keep acting like I'm being stupid?

It's a real mystery.

You keep trying to explain your position as if the problem is that I don't understand it. I do understand it, I just happen to think it's the position of a braindead moron.

No but you don't understand it. I'll repeat again. It's not that the game doesn't have THE GUY that I like after Joel dies. It's that the game doesn't have ANY GUYS that I like after Joel dies.

She only killed hundreds if you played the game like an idiot and murdered every single enemy rather than conserving your ammunition and sneaking around them.

Notice how different her demeanor is when she goes to Seattle versus when she goes to Santa Barbara? She doesn't get it right THEN, you dummy. She understands it well before that but she's so grief stricken and traumatized (as well as guilt tripped by Tommy) that she can't see any other way forward.

the second game is about coping with the inevitability that [parents] will die before you, and the ways (both healthy and unhealthy) that you process and deal with that grief.

It's not about revenge, you completely misunderstood the entire point of the game. I'd also argue that having the violence be cathartic and enjoyable in the game isn't a contradiction because it explains why it has an addictive quality for Ellie and why she can't abandon it even after it starts destroying her life.

holy shit you actually provided an internally consistent explanationarino for the gamerino. well done.

Druckmann still did a shitty job conveying this via the characters and narrative he chose to tell: most obviously, the fact that Part 2 is set off by someone doing a revenge, and revenge is the main character's whole motivation. but if Mazin has the same read he might be able to cobble together something that works from what there is.

hey I'm a jew we have a live action version of my shitty done a thousand time plot a kid could think of and because with tv we have a bigger audience to children why don't we explicitly slow the character getting stabbed in the neck even though the game doesn't show it

You will never be Kojima.

the story doesn't make thematic sense if you play the game in a way that the game freely enables you to play! You played the game wrong (despite the game not preventing you from doing this in any way or even being design in such a way to discourage it!)

Hence: bad writing

It's hilarious how "his" new gay game was trying even so harder to be like a Kojima trailer. What a fucking try hard lmao

she only killed hundreds if abloo abloo

oh well maybe the game should have reflected that if it was important to the story or something
oh it doesn't though, so it's fucking irrelevant, you braindead fuck. shut the fuck up, you retarded mutt

Another word you don't know the meaning of

Are you sure? Are you sure it isn't maybe you that seems to fail to understand what constitutes basic symbolism?

not the other aspects of the game clearly meant for older people who played the game to relate with

I focused on what was relevant. We could certainly have a longer conversation about Joel's character arc and how that also corresponds to the coming of age symbolism but I really think it would be a waste of my time at this point.

Yes, in a world where people collectively assign meaning to quality, a collective assessment of something being low quality means it's low quality.

Yes, also McDonald's sells five star cuisine and this is proven by the fact that they sell a billion hamburgers a day. Successfully appealing to the lowest common denominator is not an indicator of quality. Quality is subjective and only an NPC is unable to like something purely because of the people who don't.

it's a TV show

So they didn't replace Joel with a surrogate Joel and that's why you didn't like it. Yeah, that's real stupid. Are we done now?

Revenge is when you try to hurt somebody because they did something bad to you

The fact that she's doing it for other reasons and it actually has barely anything to do with Abby is called subtext.

Subtext is not just being able to gather aspects of a character's motivations as a reader or viewer that the character cannot, subtext refers to any hidden meanings which contextually change an interpretation or the meaning of a work. What you're analysing are just Ellie's stated and *subconscious* motivations for revenge. It still centers around revenge the entire time.

The game's not about revenge, it's about unsuccessfully coping with the death of a loved one.

... By pursuing revenge as an example as a failed means to find emotional catharsis by trying to hurt the person who caused you emotional distress. Revenge is a poor coping strategy, that's the whole plot. Everything you've described still centers around that.

You're the one insisting that the layers I found in the story somehow objectively are not there simply because you can't see them.

It's more than you don't know what "layers" are since you fundementally can't piece together the fact that your analysis all centers around revenge because that is literally the only plot. Revenge. How it happens, why it happens, the context of how it happens, the psychology of how it happens, the tragedy of it happening. It is the only main theme of the whole work. Everything you've said still revolves around revenge

Why's it stupid? It could have been Ellie, if they'd written her to be a more enjoyable character. But they didn't.

Again, it's like you've never played a video game before.

despite the game not preventing you from doing this in any way or even being design in such a way to discourage it!

... Or maybe you've just never played a survival horror game where ammo conservation is a thing? Or perhaps it's because you played it on a baby difficulty? Besides, if the game denied you agency in order to constrain you further into its themes you would just complain about that instead.

Do I even bother getting into how the vast majority of the violence in the game is in self-defense because Ellie is simply shooting back at people who are literally trying to kill her? Or the fact that at least half of those "hundreds" she murdered were braindead infected who barely count as real people? You're just parroting some retarded argument you heard online perpetuated by people who didn't even play the fucking game.

oh it doesn't though

Yes, bad things happening to Ellie because she does bad things definitely doesn't count as it being reflected in the story, you stupid asshole

Anon Babble, I don't mean to alarm you, but there may be a Druckmann or Druckmenn inside the thread

How does any of this address the established fact that if you play the game that way the core character motivations and expressions of themes are no longer logically consistent?

subconscious motivations don't contextually change an interpretation or meaning of a work

Good lord, you seem to be severely lacking in what the kids these days call media literacy

Everything you've described still centers around that.

Again, only if you're extremely reductive and glib.

Everything you've said still revolves around revenge

Yeah, no it doesn't. Dealing with grief isn't exclusively about revenge simply because revenge is one of the primary ways that a character tries to deal with grief. That's pure nonsense. I'm beginning to think that rather than simply being stupid you may suffer from some form of aspbergers or autism. You have this very clinical and mathematical way of interpreting things which doesn't make a lot of sense when dealing with a purely subjective artistic medium that, while somewhat rooted in things like plot logistics, tends to deal principally in emotion and aesthetic.

So if you watch a movie with your eyes closed that means that it has shit visuals?

Are you sure

Yeah, especially since nothing you related was symbolic in nature and you don't detail anything symbolic.

corresponds to the coming of age symbolism but I really think it would be a waste of my time at this point.

Because you'd get absolutely rekt like you have this entire conversation lmao. There is very little symbolism in TLOU and I'm gonna guess you're a newbie English lit fag since your mode of thought just screams it. There are coming of age themes in the story, much like most shounen anime because it's all cliche as hell storytelling people have seen 100 times before. It exists, it's not the central theme of the first game. Not even close, actually.

Yes, also McDonald's sells five star cuisine and this is proven by the fact that they sell a billion hamburgers a day

What a disingenuous faggot you are lmao. An ad populum is a LOGICAL FALLACY not a qualitative fallacy. Quality is subjective and can be decided by collective judgements of opinion, logic does not operate in the same way. If 90% of people think your story is shit, its shit by the collective measurement of how we assign quality to things. You, being a twat, assume your own opinion is superior.

Successfully appealing to the lowest common denominator is not an indicator of quality

No but it is evidence that you might be wrong lol

Quality is subjective and only an NPC is unable to like something purely because of the people who don't.

That's true everything is subjective in terms of how we individually assign quality to things, but it's extremely narcissist and naive to assume that the way you qualify things is superior or unaffected by the opinions of others

Kinda nuts that there are people that twist themselves into knots to convince themselves that this franchise isn't slop.

this explanation is probably what Neil thinks he did, but there are all kinds of huge problems with it. its not surprising that the revenge themes overwhelmed everything else, given how little the game does to actually take us step-by-step through a process where Ellie recognizes her own fallacies.

most obviously it doesn't really address WHY Ellie and Joel fell out (he an hero'd the human race for her sake) or why trying to kill Abby is her route to forgiving him (explanation not found).

Ellie living a life with Dina is all well and good but she's still stuck in the zombie hellworld that Joel helped create by not letting her brain be used to make a cure. is going along with his wish that she live a "normal" life a real decision if her important choice was taken away by him and the Fireflies? its a case of the context being broken, or, left to Part 3 to make sense of.

I don't need characters to be likeable as long as they're interesting. Try watching a gangster movie sometime, I guarantee the characters in that will be nowhere near as likeable as Ellie is in TLOU2.

How does a vaccine that makes you immune to bites/spores do anything when they have too few resources to wipe out the infected to begin with

Apologize.

that's a good question but Druckmann has specifically come out and said that the Fireflies WOULD have been able to make "a cure" (more details not found) so we have to assume it would have been useful to at least some extent (he doesn't say vaccine).
it's vague and shitty because that's what the storytelling in the first and second games is like (I persoanlly like the show more so far).

subconscious motivations don't contextually change an interpretation or meaning of a work

Not in a subtextual way, no. That's character analysis than any reader or viewer can examine that doesn't come from the greater context of the piece. Psychoanalysis of Ellie's motivations just expands her emotional depth, it does nothing to the overall narrative of the work.

Again, only if you're extremely reductive and glib

Bull. Shit. Its the entire message of the work, there's barely anything else on finding emotional catharsis after trauma and death at all. All of those are clearly secondary lmao

Dealing with grief isn't exclusively about revenge simply because revenge is one of the primary ways that a character tries to deal with grief

Grief is the motivation of revenge , revenge is what drives the plot forward. It's also not the only motivation for revenge, there's something to be said about concepts of honor and sadism in there too. All of it centers around revenge.

You have this very clinical and mathematical way of interpreting things which doesn't make a lot of sense

Yeah because I'm better than you in both logical creative thinking so its just harder for you to track.

when dealing with a purely subjective artistic medium that

Writing and art is not just a purely subjective medium, there is great skill and logic that goes into creating art. You'd know that if you ever bothered to make it

tends to deal principally in emotion and aesthetic.

There is also logic to emotion and aesthetic btw

Yeah, especially since nothing you related was symbolic in nature and you don't detail anything symbolic.

You just don't understand what symbolism is or how it works and you're one of those aggressively and confidently ignorant types.

Because you'd get absolutely rekt like you have this entire conversation lmao.

So you really are like a teenager playing pretend intellectual. I'll give you some grownup advice: if you have to announce to the room that you're winning an argument, chances are that you aren't.

An ad populum is a LOGICAL FALLACY not a qualitative fallacy

What the fuck are you talking about, you idiot? The two things are not mutually exclusive.

If 90% of people think your story is shit, its shit by the collective measurement of how we assign quality to things.

That is not even remotely how subjectivity works.

You, being a twat, assume your own opinion is superior.

No, I just don't think my opinion should be dictated by the masses because I'm not a walking advertisement for better contraception.

No but it is evidence that you might be wrong lol

No, it's not. In fact it's frequently the opposite.

it's extremely narcissist and naive to assume that the way you qualify things is superior or unaffected by the opinions of others

If you don't understand how narcissism works either, sure. The way subjective opinion works is that you get to have yours and I get to have mine. If I think your opinion is idiotic and misinformed, that is still at the end of the day just my opinion. The only way I'd be behaving like a narcissist is if I insisted that the rest of the world must adhere to my opinions, which I do not. In fact you are the one asserting that your opinion is superior to mine because it is supposedly backed by the majority, and that's likely because you don't have the faculties to defend your point of view without relying on the ad populum fallacy.

given how little the game does to actually take us step-by-step through a process where Ellie recognizes her own fallacies

AKA you were too stupid to see that was happening because it was done subtly rather than by having the characters constantly tell you what they're thinking and feeling.

Kinda nuts that there are people that twist themselves in knots to convince complete strangers that no one is allowed to like the things that they don't like.

Dealing with grief isn't exclusively about revenge simply because revenge is one of the primary ways that a character tries to deal with grief.

the story has to *dramatize* how Ellie IS dealing with grief in order to convey that process to the audience.

but all the game shows us is: Ellie killing infected and humans, Ellie having PTSD about it, Ellie going and killing more infected and humans in Santa Barbara, Ellie deciding she's done enough killing at literally the last possible moment (though not before she's threatened to cut unconscious Lev's throat lmao).

going "muh subtext, muh subconscious motives" is fine. but to be meaningful as storytelling it can't be left mostly to audience conjecture. if most people don't understand why Ellie is still trying to kill Abby and why she then suddenly spares Abby, the character arc hasn't been communicated effectively enough.

ok druckieboy

the thing is that it is slop with potential to tell some kind of story about something. just probably not whatever Neil thought he was trying to do, at least not without substantial changes.

The chopped of us

analyzing the motivations of the principal characters doesn't add to the overall narrative

Yeah, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Its the entire message of the work

No it's not. TLOU2 is not about how revenge is bad any more than every gangster movie ever is about how crime is bad. That is now how storytelling works.

Grief is the motivation of revenge , revenge is what drives the plot forward

So basically you make no distinction between plot device and theme and have somehow gotten it in your head that they are the same thing

Yeah because I'm better than you in both logical creative thinking so its just harder for you to track

You're actually really, really, really bad at it.

Writing and art is not just a purely subjective medium

Yes it is.

There is also logic to emotion and aesthetic btw

Not really, no. Emotions are often not logical in the slightest, and understanding that is essential to writing and understanding believable characters.

TV shows used to be good for atleast four seasons before the quality started dipping.
This is also shite but still had good first few seasons.

the other issue is that a story about wanting to kill people who tortured your loved ones to death doesn't require a complex backstory where you were the cure to a worldwide zombie apocalypse but your Dad killed someone else's Dad and then they killed your Dad and now everyone is still stuck with the zombies.
but that backdrop OUGHT to be key to the idea of "forgiving" Joel and deciding whether to follow his "wishes".

a more logical alternative would be for Ellie to decide that Saint Joel was really a selfish asshole for killing the Fireflies and that she should stop trying to revenge him for that reason, but I don't hear anyone arguing for that.

the story has to *dramatize* how Ellie IS dealing with grief in order to convey that process to the audience.

That's a statement that is more in support of my argument than it is of yours.

but all the game shows us is: Ellie killing infected and humans, Ellie having PTSD about it, Ellie going and killing more infected and humans in Santa Barbara

Again, reductive and glib. How is PTSD not a measurable consequence of engaging in violent and destructive behavior that exacerbates your problems?

but to be meaningful as storytelling it can't be left mostly to audience conjecture

If it's stated outright, it isn't subtext. If you need it stated outright to get it, you aren't very smart.

if most people don't understand why Ellie is still trying to kill Abby and why she then suddenly spares Abby, the character arc hasn't been communicated effectively enough.

Plenty of people do, is the thing. It's just that you don't.

doesn't require a complex backstory

So your argument is that the story wasn't simple enough for you?

a more logical alternative would be for Ellie to decide that Saint Joel was really a selfish asshole for killing the Fireflies and that she should stop trying to revenge him for that reason, but I don't hear anyone arguing for that.

That's because it isn't a very good idea and it wouldn't make a particularly interesting story.

Last of Us 2 is a depressing slog and a chore to play. Druckmann is a hack. Normalfags are 100% correct on this one.

what I don't get is how people can stand this fugly face

This show would be like, lets say modestly, 450 times better if they would've casted a normal looking person here instead of a retard

You just don't understand what symbolism is or how it works and you're one of those aggressively and confidently ignorant types.

The fact you can't define it as a term or bring up a single example tells me you might be talking about yourself without realizing it.

playing pretend intellectual

Unlike you, the real intellectual Anon Babble autist? Lmao

What the fuck are you talking about, you idiot? The two things are not mutually exclusive.

What a logical fallacy is. What an ad populum actually is. How a logical fallacy is not the same thing as how we assess quality so things like votes and poles are indicators of quality and has nothing to do with what an ad populum is lmao. I even have you an example but dumbass-sama over here still can't figure it out.

That is not even remotely how subjectivity works

It's how we assign meaning collectively on a subjective basis, yes that's how it works.

No, I just don't think my opinion should be dictated by the masses because I'm not a walking advertisement for better contraception

You're a narcissist who thinks his opinions are better and arent influenced by others , you're the front page example of why people need to pull out more often. That's is crazy you even think that's a normal thing to say out loud.

No, it's not. In fact it's frequently the opposite

You don't think your opinions should be dictated to by the masses AND you dont understand how narcissism relates to you while holding this opinion? Imagine my shock.

The only way I'd be behaving like a narcissist is if I insisted that the rest of the world must adhere to my opinions

Which you're doing without realizing. Like a narcissist. Oh and then you go on to say

and that's likely because you don't have the faculties to defend your point of view without relying on the ad populum fallacy.

After once again refusing to comprehend what an ad populum fallacy is. Somebody call Elliot Rogers from hell I think I found his reincarnation

More "no one can possibly exist who has a different opinion than me" copium

Don't listen to either of the anons arguing.
The truth is that Ellie's story in the game is a chore compared with Abby's section, which not only has the best moments of the whole game, but also the best story.
t.played the videogame.

That's a statement that is more in support of my argument than it is of yours.

I'm arguing it didn't dramatize any intended subtext well enough so everyone just assumed that the surtext (revenge bad) was the point.

How is PTSD not a measurable consequence of engaging in violent and destructive behavior that exacerbates your problems?

if you've seen The Sopranos you know that PTSD doesn't automatically lead to people stopping doing the violence. it can have the opposite effect, you just pile more bodies on top of the PTSD. that really does seem like its how Ellie copes with her PTSD before the last part of the game.

the complicated backstory muddles and confuses any intended narrative about coping with the death of a parent, and prevents it from having as much universalty. most people who lose parents don't lose them to revenge-motivated torture, or over potential cures that could have saved humanity.

Joel being a mass murderer is bad, him destroying the potential for humanity to have a future is worse. how much worse? I don't know and the game basically avoids the issue. how does Ellie feel about this? she is Sad. that's about the level of analysis the game achieves and I would argue that EVEN IF ALL OF YOUR POINTS ABOUT THE THEMES WERE CORRECT these are big enough failures that it doesn't deserve that much analysis.

That's because it isn't a very good idea and it wouldn't make a particularly interesting story.

unfortunately its also the most accurate read of what actually happened. you could also argue its the most emotionally healthy thing for Ellie to do.

Ellie: oh well fuck Joel. I guess he saved me and that's great but I may as well move on. and it's also what he would have wanted or whatever.

A NAUGHTY DOG GAME

Yeah, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about

I do, actually, and the fact you're can't even give a rebuttal is telling.

No it's not. TLOU2 is not about how revenge is bad any more than every gangster movie ever is about how crime is bad. That is now how storytelling works.

Yes. Anon. It is revenge bad the video game. Your analysis of grief being the principle motivator of Ellie's revenge quest doesnt negate the fact that revenge is the principal motivator of the plot. It's also not even the only motivation for the revenge plot.

So basically you make no distinction between plot device and theme and have somehow gotten it in your head that they are the same thing

A main theme that moves the plot is not a plot device and I never said that. Revenge is the main theme of the work, everything else is secondary or barely exists outside said main theme. You still can't argue otherwise except psychoanalyse the etc motivations that go into the revenge plot lmao

You're actually really, really, really bad at it.

No I think you're really really really mad about it.

Yes it is.

No it's not. Art has a logic and a skill to it which is not purely based in subjective but also the objective.

Emotions are often not logical in the slightest

Yeah you're definitely a narcissist. If you can't understand that there's a logic to emotions then I don't know what to tell you except maybe keep trying to mimic emotions and one day you might gain the intelligence to understand them

and understanding that is essential to writing and understanding believable characters.

You're never going to write a believable character if you can't understand the logic behind their emotions. If you're can't, you're not writing a believable character but your own projection of a believable character. I bet if I read anything you wrote, it would be very clear you do not understand emotions.

The fact you can't define it as a term

What, you want me to copy and paste the dictionary definition of the word symbolism for you?

Unlike you, the real intellectual Anon Babble autist? Lmao

So basically NO U. Glad to see you're getting desperate.

What a logical fallacy is. What an ad populum actually is. How a logical fallacy is not the same thing as how we assess quality so things like votes and poles are indicators of quality and has nothing to do with what an ad populum is lmao

Acting like popular opinion dictates quality *is* the logical fallacy that is defined by ad populum. Again, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

It's how we assign meaning collectively on a subjective basis, yes that's how it works.

We don't assign meaning collectively. We assign it subjectively.

You're a narcissist who thinks his opinions are better and arent influenced by others

I didn't say better. It's not remotely narcissistic to disagree with popular consensus and to argue that it is might be the dumbest, most bad faith argument I've ever encountered. It makes sense that you don't see the ocean of nuance between being a narcissist who thinks no one matters but themselves and a feckless automaton with no identity who automatically shifts his opinion to whatever the heard things. You seem to fail to understand nuance in general.

You don't think your opinions should be dictated to by the masses AND you dont understand how narcissism relates to you while holding this opinion?

Good art is challenging, morally or otherwise and it takes you to places you don't want to go. This means that not everyone is going to like it. Good works of art are often divisive for this reason. This doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is better than anyone else unless you bring your own weird self-esteem issues into it because you think the media you enjoy is some kind of means of personal validation.

Which you're doing without realizing. Like a narcissist

No, I'm not. I do not insist that the rest of the world adhere to my opinions. I insist that my opinions must not adhere to the rest of the world and the two things are not remotely the same thing. It's funny that you keep talking about logical fallacies because basically every argument you make is a logical fallacy, a practice of equating two things that are not equatable.

After once again refusing to comprehend what an ad populum fallacy is

I have had and continue to have no issue comprehending what an ad populum fallacy is.

I'm arguing it didn't dramatize any intended subtext well enough so everyone just assumed that the surtext (revenge bad) was the point

I don't think the fact that "everyone" assumed that is a fair indicator of whether it was communicated effectively.

if you've seen The Sopranos you know that PTSD doesn't automatically lead to people stopping doing the violence

Which, again, is entirely my point.

it can have the opposite effect, you just pile more bodies on top of the PTSD

Which is why she goes to Santa Barbara in the first place. This isn't because she doesn't realize it's a mistake. As far as what changes for her in that moment, well yeah, that is known as character nuance and it being somewhat open to interpretation is not remotely a sign of weak writing. Except on opposite day.

the complicated backstory muddles and confuses any intended narrative about coping with the death of a parent

Only if you're easily confused.

prevents it from having as much universalty

I'd argue universality isn't the goal of any good piece of art.

most people who lose parents don't lose them to revenge-motivated torture, or over potential cures that could have saved humanity

First of all, most people don't live in a post-apocalypse. Second, the idea that a person can't relate to any situation that doesn't directly mirror theirs is just infantile. Practically the whole of science fiction deals in having a world drastically different from our own for the express purpose of making a point about the world in which we live.

Joel being a mass murderer is bad, him destroying the potential for humanity to have a future is worse. how much worse? I don't know and the game basically avoids the issue. how does Ellie feel about this? she is Sad. that's about the level of analysis the game achieves

It's the level of analysis you achieved. Nothing more.

unfortunately its also the most accurate read of what actually happened

It's not even close.

you could also argue its the most emotionally healthy thing for Ellie to do

The most emotionally healthy thing to do is to think your surrogate father was an irredeemable monster? Uh, no. The emotionally healthy thing to do would be to come to terms with both the good and the bad aspects of him as a person, not just the bad ones.

>PTSD doesn't automatically lead to people stopping doing the violence

Which, again, is entirely my point.

yeah but it isn't. because you have to take responsibllity for not just that Ellie is violent but that she stops being violent, and exactly when and why and after what other decisions. what's in the game just feels like deus ex machina to convey a revenge-bad theme.

What, you want me to copy and paste the dictionary definition of the word symbolism for you?

Or at least bring up a single example of it in TLOU to discuss, and yes I don't think could define symbolism without looking it up first I think we both agree on that.

So basically NO U

Lmao no I was more commenting on your narcissism again. You think yourself a superior intellectual , you do. It's just funny you think that while being absolutely retarded on posting on Anon Babble. That's all

Acting like popular opinion dictates quality *is* the logical fallacy that is defined by ad populum.

No it's not lmaooooo

Ad populum is a logical fallacy it doesn't even exist within the domain of thought we're talking about. We are talking about subjective measurements of quality NOT logic. You do not know what an ad populum is. One measure of quality is just your own subjective opinion, another is the collective measure of quality by popular consensus. They're different methods of measuring "quality", not analyzing logic, "quality". It has nothing to do with an ad populum dude you need to stop im laughing my ass off trying to explain this to you

We don't assign meaning collectively. We assign it subjectively

Oh so you're going to argue pure solipsism now? Of course you are. Yes there are collective assessments of subjective reality , there is also an objective reality. But go ahead queen, argue on solipsism

It's not remotely narcissistic to disagree with popular consensus and to argue that it is might be the dumbest

Automatically downplaying your previous statements. Not a good sign. Or maybe you just genuinely lack self awareness to such an extent? Here, just to remind you, you post stuff like this

We could certainly have a longer conversation about Joel's character arc and how that also corresponds to the coming of age symbolism but I really think it would be a waste of my time at this point

Yes, that does make it seem like you place yourself above others

fundamentally Ellie wasn't responsible for Joel's decisions so she isn't responsible for developing a balanced view of who he was.
"my Dad saved me but doomed the human race because he was selfish" is succinct and not the same as viewing him as "irredeemable", partly because redemption for dead people isn't a real thing outside of the Bible.

No, I'm not. I do not insist that the rest of the world adhere to my opinions

Ah and you lack the understanding of what a narcissists is. How typical of a narcissist. A narcissist is someone who needs validation and a sense of superiority partially due to an inflated sense of self , a lack of emotional comprehension or empathy, or emotional insecurity. Usually a mix of all of them. When you say things like

It's funny that you keep talking about logical fallacies because basically every argument you make is a logical fallacy, a practice of equating two things that are not equatable.

Yes. It's kind of narcissistic. Very even.

I have had and continue to have no issue comprehending what an ad populum fallacy is.

You do not know what an ad populum is and refuse to admit you're wrong. Probably too much of a blow to the ol who there eh bud?

Yes. Anon. It is revenge bad the video game.

See, you really are in no position to be lecturing anyone about not providing rebuttals.

Your analysis of grief being the principle motivator of Ellie's revenge quest doesnt negate the fact that revenge is the principal motivator of the plot

It doesn't negate it, I didn't say it did, but it does completely recontextualize it in a way that makes it a lot more interesting than "revenge bad." Revenge is the catalyst, the themes are deeper and more interesting than that.

Revenge is the main theme of the work, everything else is secondary or barely exists outside said main theme

Revenge is the plot, not the theme.

You still can't argue otherwise except psychoanalyse the etc motivations that go into the revenge plot lmao

Yes, the themes and motivations that inform the plot are not the same as the plot, and they're not purely defined by the plot. Psychoanalysis of the principle characters is a very valid and legitimate way of understanding themes and motivations, by the way.

No it's not. Art has a logic and a skill to it which is not purely based in subjective but also the objective.

You're one of those people who thinks all abstract and outsider art is garbage, don't you?
Well I hate to tell you this but the fact that people exist that disagree with you about that basically proves by your own ad populum logic that it is false.

Yeah you're definitely a narcissist. If you can't understand that there's a logic to emotions

I didn't say there wasn't, I said they weren't purely logical, because they aren't.

maybe keep trying to mimic emotions and one day you might gain the intelligence to understand them

This just seems like projection to me. I'll also note the glaring contradiction in accusing me of being "really really mad" while two sentences later saying I'm incapable of experiencing emotions (which is not the definition of a narcissist, by the way, it's the definition of a sociopath)

I bet if I read anything you wrote, it would be very clear you do not understand emotions.

On the contrary. If you read anything I wrote you would not understand it because it's very clear you don't understand emotions, or writing, or art in any meaningful sense.

Couldn't they just have killed Ellie and had her brain transported in a fridge? It sounds a lot safer than carrying a 14 year old girl across country just to kill her later.

they needed the cordyceps in her brain to survive, I don't think fungus freezes very well.

Or at least bring up a single example of it in TLOU to discuss

I did and you made a bunch of bizarre nonsensical arguments as to why it didn't count. Forgive me if I'm not eager to repeat that pointless experience.

Lmao no I was more commenting on your narcissism again.

Your armchair psychoanalysis of complete strangers on the internet reveals a lot more about your issues than mine, newfriend.

You think yourself a superior intellectual

To everyone? No. To you? Absolutely. But that's not a big point of pride for me as a damp sponge with googly eyes would be an intellectual superior to you.

Ad populum is a logical fallacy it doesn't even exist within the domain of thought we're talking about

Logical fallacies are arguments that are illogical. "You can't like X because lots of other people didn't like it" is the textbook definition of the ad populum fallacy.

One measure of quality is just your own subjective opinion, another is the collective measure of quality by popular consensus.

Both are measures of subjective opinion, and the notion that a larger number of them defeats a smaller number is not how subjectivity works. And it's not narcissistic because it goes both ways. You can like something I think is shit even if all my friends agree with me, because art is a subjective medium. This is basic stuff.

dude you need to stop im laughing my ass off trying to explain this to you

That is very sad and you have my sympathies.

Oh so you're going to argue pure solipsism now?

That's not what solipsism is. Solipsism is the viewpoint that nothing exists outside of yourself, which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Of course you are. Yes there are collective assessments of subjective reality , there is also an objective reality.

Not really, no. Reality can not be measured objectively, because any method of measurement is filtered through our subjectivity. Maybe look into Heisenberg, and no I'm not talking about the guy from Breaking Bad.

Automatically downplaying your previous statements.

I did no such thing.

Yes, that does make it seem like you place yourself above others

I place myself above you based on my impression of your intelligence and your personality, but I do not automatically do it with anyone (although even that wouldn't necessarily be narcissistic, just presumptuous) and it is still a purely subjective opinion on my part.

this thread was better before you two started having the forum equivalent of rough ass sex. just fyi.

Ah and you lack the understanding of what a narcissists is. How typical of a narcissist. A narcissist is someone who needs validation and a sense of superiority partially due to an inflated sense of self

I provided the textbook definition of a narcissist and you are psychoanalyzing the plausible motivations behind narcissistic behavior, once again affirming that you seem to not be able to discern the difference between the two things. If I needed validation, don't you think I'd need it from you?

Yes. It's kind of narcissistic. Very even.

That statement in no way has anything to do with narcissism. And you've made very similar statements repeatedly throughout the thread, so maybe what you're trying to tell me is that you're a narcissist.

You do not know what an ad populum is and refuse to admit you're wrong

Yeah. Because I'm not.

No it wasn't. It was shit then and it's shit now.

It doesn't negate it, I didn't say it did, but it does completely recontextualize

No it doesn't "recontextualize" it it only provides more of the previously established context. It doesn't change the motivation it just explores the more complicated emotional background that goes into the motivation. The themes are not deeper than just an insight into revenge.

Revenge is the plot, not the theme

It is both the plot and the main theme, yes.

Yes, the themes and motivations that inform the plot are not the same as the plot

No they're literally part of the plot. It's the story. It's part of the plot.

Psychoanalysis of the principle characters is a very valid and legitimate way of understanding themes and motivations, by the way.

Yeah it is a valid method of analysis but using psychoanalysis as a lense to understand a work doesn't necessarily change the themes of the work. Which in TLOU2 is principally about exploring revenge, it's just a revenge plot with a lot of conventional writing cliches you are placing way too much value in this story lmao

You're one of those people who thinks all abstract and outsider art is garbage, don't

Dude, I MAKE abstract art. There is a logic and method of analysis for abstract and outsider art and in fact all art. When Picasso and Dali were playing around with surrealism and cubism they were exploring/ experimenting with various modes of the way we logically comprehend and create art. The way the way the eye is drawn automatically to certain parts of a piece, the deeper meanings behind shapes, the uncanny etc. There was a logic to what they created and how. When you make art it's not just "placing feelings onto canvas" it's a real skill that takes focus and comprehension.

didn't say there wasn't, I said they weren't purely logical, because they aren't

Yes emotions have a kind of logic, there are reasons for emotions than can be understood logically. There's literally a term called "logical empathy" you should look up

well, *I* was making some very cogent points at least :3

. If you read anything I wrote you would not understand it because it's very clear you don't understand emotions, or writing, or art in any meaningful sense.

Lmao more narcissism. Sure bud I don't understand writing or art or emotions says the guy who doesn't understand the logic behind emotions

No it doesn't "recontextualize"

It absolutely does. Ellie going after revenge is completely recontextualized when you realize that her motivations are completely unrelated to the traditional motivations for revenge, i.e. wanting to hurt someone back because they hurt you.

The themes are not deeper than just an insight into revenge.

On the contrary, an insight into revenge makes the themes deeper. That's what insight is.

No they're literally part of the plot. It's the story. It's part of the plot.

Revenge is part of the plot. The themes and motivations that inform it are not.

Which in TLOU2 is principally about exploring revenge, it's just a revenge plot

Like I said, you got a surface level impression of the story because of your surface level mind and it has nothing to do with the caliber of storytelling on display.

There is a logic and method of analysis for abstract and outsider art and in fact all art.

Not really, no. There *can* be but it is not in any way required, and to say otherwise is quite limiting.

When you make art it's not just "placing feelings onto canvas" it's a real skill that takes focus and comprehension.

Actually it completely varies depending on the artist. Logic is not intrinsic in art. Not in making it, enjoying it or comprehending it.

Yes emotions have a kind of logic, there are reasons for emotions than can be understood logically. There's literally a term called "logical empathy" you should look up

I'm trying to make a nuanced point to someone who doesn't have any grip on nuance. I didn't say emotions were completely devoid of logic 100% of the time regardless of context, I said they were not purely logical. Because they aren't.

You were not.
My opinion that you wouldn't appreciate my work has nothing to do with narcissism. It seems to me that your definition of narcissism is "anything that is mean or hurts my feelings". Or perhaps you take issue with the fact that I don't say "in my opinion" before or after every sentence? Which would be weird, because you have been stating your opinions on various subjects just as definitively as I have if not more so. You are just as narcissistic as I am according to your definition of what a narcissist is.

I did and you made a bunch of bizarre nonsensical arguments as to why it didn't count

Nope. Not even once. If you think you I'd it's because you understand symbolism.

Your armchair psychoanalysis of complete strangers on the internet reveals a lot more about your issues than mine, newfriend.

Demeaning language, another point not in your favor.

To everyone? No. To you? Absolutely

Lmao, there you go again.

Logical fallacies are arguments that are illogical

I would bet good money you have no idea what anything you just said actually means

You can't like X because lots of other people didn't like it" is the textbook definition of the ad populum fallacy.

Oh so you were basing this logic off of a strawman you hadn't named? Interesting. In that context it would be an ad populum. But that's not what I'm arguing now is it lol. I wasn't saying you can't like X, I'm saying that X is shit because most people collectively measure it to be shit. Your opinion doesn't override their opinion, you just have to admit you like something that is shit. Then again , I'm gonna guess admitting you're wrong and you can just agree to be wrong is anathema to you. Maybe you'll go off on how X isn't shit and the stupid masses just don't know any better or something lmao

Both are measures of subjective opinion, and the notion that a larger number of them defeats a smaller number is not how subjectivity works

It is in collective measurements of quality which is sourced from subjectivity.

When you say

We don't assign meaning collectively. We assign it subjectively

Yes that is solipsism since it implies we don't assign meaning collectively, only subjectively.

Reality can not be measured objectively, because any method of measurement is filtered through our subjectivity

Yes it can

Look into Heisenberg

Maybe look into Poppers response to the Uncertainty Principle? No I don't agree with Heisenberg

I did no such thing

You did, you're just not aware of it. Narcissism! Ain't it fun?

I place myself above you based on my impression of your intelligence and your personality

No it's because you're a narcissist. You do this to everyone and to everyone you don't dehumanize you want to outshine as some kind of obstacle. I know your types very well.

. If I needed validation, don't you think I'd need it from you?

Somewhat actually. It's more like you're seeking validation from yourself in a more meta context but that is way beyond your self conception.

Yeah. Because I'm not.

You are

. Ellie going after revenge is completely recontextualized when you realize that her motivations are completely unrelated to the traditional motivations for revenge, i.e. wanting to hurt someone back because they hurt you.

The fact you think that's the traditional motivation for revenge says a lot lmao but whatever , I know your type

nooooooooo why didn't muh heckin protag ride off into the sunset on a white horse

Normies are cattle and anything other than a fairy tale ending will be poorly received

Nope. Not even once. If you think you I'd it's because you understand symbolism.

TLOU being a coming of age story is in some ways literal but it is also symbolic and the two things are, once again, not mutually exclusive. This is very basic rudimentary stuff and if you don't get it it's because you don't understand symbolism.

Demeaning language, another point not in your favor.

Attacking the way in which I made a statement rather than the statement itself doesn't put points in your column either.

Lmao, there you go again.

Dude. You're not automatically a narcissist the moment you call someone else an idiot. I'm beginning to think you may be clinically insane.

I would bet good money you have no idea what anything you just said actually means

I made an extremely obvious, common sense statement.

Oh so you were basing this logic off of a strawman you hadn't named? Interesting

That's not what a strawman is. You argued that consensus is a measure of quality, which means that if I go against consensus I am wrong. That is an ad populum fallacy and a textbook one at that.

Your opinion doesn't override their opinion

No, of course it doesn't. But their opinion doesn't override mine either. That is how subjectivity works.

you just have to admit you like something that is shit

Uh, no. I don't. It's very ironic that you would call me a narcissist for "asserting my viewpoint on the rest of the world" while simultaneously insisting on the infallible and purely objective nature of your own personal definitions for basically everything that exists from art to emotion to psychology.

Maybe you'll go off on how X isn't shit and the stupid masses just don't know any better or something lmao

If I say that people's opinions about a thing I like are wrong, that is still just my opinion and they are free to continue disagreeing and there is nothing I could, or would, do about it. It seems like you just fundamentally do not grasp subjectivity. My opinion is not superior to another person's opinion and theirs is not superior to mine, and a larger number of opinions does not outweigh a smaller number of opinions by the same principle. Each is subjective, so it is not cumulative and can't be measured quantitatively.

It is in collective measurements of quality which is sourced from subjectivity.

Yes. Which means it's subjective.

Yes that is solipsism since it implies we don't assign meaning collectively, only subjectively.

Nope. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists outside of yourself, i.e. that the entire world and everyone in it is a product of your own mind. I can argue that objective reality doesn't exist without that automatically meaning that the rest of the species doesn't exist either, as that would be a statement regarding objective reality, not subjective reality.

Yes it can

How? Your senses are not infallible and your senses are the only way you can take in information measured by any measuring device you could possibly use.

No I don't agree with Heisenberg

Well there are a lot of great minds in the world who do, so I guess by your own logic their opinions collectively outweigh yours and you are objectively wrong.

brilliant story?

You wouldn't know what good writing is even if it dragged its dick across your face.

someone kills your father

you try to kill them

this is not a story about revenge BTW

whew, 2deep4me I guess.

I'm aware that I did no such thing. I didn't downplay any previous statements, I clarified previous statements without contradicting myself at any point. You misunderstood what I said, stop insisting that what you thought I meant must be what I meant and that if I say otherwise I'm lying because THAT actually would would be downright narcissistic.

No it's because you're a narcissist.

I am not.

You do this to everyone and to everyone you don't dehumanize you want to outshine as some kind of obstacle.

I'm very curious how it is that you think you know that. I didn't dehumanize you any more than you did to me, captain hypocrite.

that's not shock value at all, Joel being retributively killed makes perfect sense and is a logical step narratively, (You) are just a child that gets emotionally attached to pixels or hopped on the cattle hate wagon

It's more like you're seeking validation from yourself in a more meta context but that is way beyond your self conception.

Your feeble presumptuous psychoanalysis of me is far more reeking of delusional narcissism than anything else in this thread. You literally think you understand me better than I understand myself after talking to me for a matter of hours, you absolute maniac.

What is it with you and not understanding the basic dictionary definitions of things?

re·venge
/rəˈvenj/
noun
noun: revenge

the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.

Like I said, you can be reductive of any story if you try hard enough.

Dude Citizen Kane is just about how being rich kinda sucks

you can also overanalyze any story if you try hard enough.
in fact you can apply way more effort than it takes to be reductive.
the "mystery box" writing strategy even consciously relies on overanalysis.

The traditional motivation for revenge was honor my guy

Point out the obvious

Again and again

Use reaction image to really let people know you're 'really cool'

Kill yourself you fucking faggot.

You're not automatically a narcissist the moment you call someone else an idiot

Everybody has narcissistic traits including myself , I'm just saying you're a higher than average. Not full blown NPD but it's up there for sure

You argued that consensus is a measure of quality, which means that if I go against consensus I am wrong

Not what I was arguing at all lol

I made an extremely obvious, common sense statement

Yeah but it's clear you dont know what logic is

while simultaneously insisting on the infallible and purely objective nature of your own personal definitions for basically everything that exists from art to emotion to psychology.

Projection

... which also has absolutely nothing to do with Ellie's motivations.

You literally think you understand me better than I understand myself after talking to me for a matter of hours, you absolute maniac.

I can recognize narcissistic traits in myself, I really doubt you can

Pointlessly arguing with some 3rd world fucking nobody to prove some autistic point.

Get called a nigger anyway.

Shut up you cocksucking fuck go back to Tumblr.

I hate wokeshit as much as the next non-faggot but I genuinely don’t understand why man babies were upset about this? The first game ended with an ominous feeling that Joel is going to pay for what he did and he unironically got what he deserved.

Also the nigga was in one game. It’s not like he had a beloved history like Master Chief or Mario.

I'm just saying you're a higher than average.

And you are basing that statement on the ring of encrusted fecal matter around your asshole

Projection

Anyone can go read the thread and see what you wrote, dude. You started all this by saying that my opinion is invalidated because of popular consensus, you then went on to tell me that my definition of art is objectively wrong and that I don't understand emotions or logic as well as you do. All of this is, by your own definition of what a narcissist does, extremely narcissistic.

Honor? When she was talking about what would Joel do or what would Joel's brother would do? Yeah I do think honor and a sense of obligation plays a role in her motivations , so does sadism not just grief. While I don't think the writing in TLOU 2 is great Ellie is not such a two dimensional character and there is a very real understanding of the complicated motivations for revenge written into the story. It's just also the same kind of plot that's been done before a lot and I think a better story could've been written.

If you can, you should probably start. You have provided a definition of narcissism that fits you every bit as well as it does me if not more so.

For the record, I don't think either of us are narcissists. I think you may be severely autistic or somesuch but even that I would never state with the kind of blinding certainty that you make bizarre assumptions about my character.

As I explained, it has nothing to do with honor and everything to do with trying to be closer to the person who is gone. If Joel's dead, becoming a mini-Joel is the next best thing for Ellie in terms of feeling like he's still in the world. That's grief, not principle.

And you are basing that statement on the ring of encrusted fecal matter around your asshole

Aww are we offended? Is that a little character flaw im talking about?

You started all this by saying that my opinion is invalidated because of popular consensus

No I was just pointing out most people think it's shit, then you started inserting things about "oh so I'm wrong because most people don't like it????" Like you're doing now.

you then went on to tell me that my definition of art is objectively wrong

No, you didn't even give a definition of art so... No? I don't even think I've asked. Are you referring to me saying that there is a logic to art? Because yeah I don't think art is purely subjective , emotional, and aesthetic and not "logical" because there is a logic to everything listed and a logic to production of art. You then implied I didn't like abstract art despite the fact I literally make abstract art and am a huge art history as a matter of fact.

and that I don't understand emotions or logic as well as you do

Yeah to a degree, I think you get in your own way a lot.

All of this is, by your own definition of what a narcissist does, extremely narcissistic.

Somewhat, yeah. Like I said everyone has a degree of narcissism to them. I don't deny it, but I feel like with you - you do.

Suck the biggest nigger dick you can find

For the record, I don't think either of us are narcissists. I think you may be severely autistic

Quite the opposite, I actually score pretty high in empathy and social awareness. Both of us are narcissistic to a degree and everyone can be a narcissist in given circumstances. When you refer to a narcissist you probably refer to NPD, no I don't think you're that severe but you for sure are being narcissistic.

bizarre assumptions about my characte

Just observations

Aww are we offended? Is that a little character flaw im talking about?
Swing and a miss. I'm not offended in the slightest, I just thought it was a fun and colorful way of making the point I was trying to make.

No I was just pointing out most people think it's shit

Now who's downplaying previous statements? Wasn't it you who said:

you just have to admit you like something that is shit

I'm pretty sure that was you, but I suppose you could play the "No actually I'm actually a different person now" card. That's popular on Anon Babble.

No, you didn't even give a definition of art so... No? I don't even think I've asked.

So you suffer from short term memory loss?

because there is a logic to everything listed and a logic to production of art

If you utilize logic in producing art, that is legitimate, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to. Some artists do, some don't. Some great artists do precisely do what you said wasn't allowed, they put their feelings on the canvas without any regard for logic or technicality. Sentimental versus naive and all that. You can be purely logical or purely emotional with art, and everything in between. There are no rules.

Yeah to a degree, I think you get in your own way a lot.

I think I have a better idea than you do of what my strengths and weaknesses are as a person, and I highly doubt you could deduce anything about me in a few hours that I haven't deduced in a lifetime of being me. If you ask me you should get down off your high horse on occasion.

Somewhat, yeah. Like I said everyone has a degree of narcissism to them. I don't deny it, but I feel like with you - you do.

I have my problems. Narcissism isn't one of them. But I came to that conclusion with rigorous personal and moral inventory, not presumption. Perhaps in the future you should consider minding your own business.

"you killed an unarmed man and took away a father away from someone!!!!"

does the exact thing to Ellie

I'm supposed to sympathize with Abby

Yeah no thanks she's a fucking hypocrite and deserves to have every single person she knows die.

As I explained, it has nothing to do with honor and everything to do with trying to be closer to the person who is gone

Everything? Weren't you just complaining about being reductionist? There is a degree of obligation/honor to her motivations as well as sadism through finding a small amount of catharsis through rage and violence. Not only is her trying to mimic her father figure literally how honor based systems repeat themselves culturally but social obligation is a very real mechanism to put social psychology, it's not just that she's exploring her grief she feels a real obligation to Joel to exact revenge because of the innate sense we have of "owing" something to someone, which like you said she somewhat misunderstood because if she honored Joel she would honor Joel's wishes to be happy and not be like him. Then there's the rage and desire to inflict pain itself which is another innate character istic of people where we enjoy inflicting pain on others for various reasons, emotionally or sexually.

The degree of trying to be like Joel to feel closer to him is only partially true imo. Don't get me wrong while I think TLOU is just a revenge plot story I don't think it's a bad revenge plot story, I just find it kind of uncreative.

this test I took said otherwise

Yes, I get the sense you are the sort of person who would think that data was infallible and unquestionable.

Just observations

Based on what? All I've stated this entire thread are my opinions, you're the only one who asserted anything more than that.

I don't think there is honor or sadism in her motivations hardly at all, really. And I happen to think that's part of what makes it interesting. But sure, you are entitled to your opinion. I guess I thought that went without saying.

They're both hypocrites. Violence, revenge and retribution tend to be very cyclical and hypocritical. I don't see how Ellie is worthy of your sympathy but Abby isn't, that seems like bias based on preconceived notions to me.

It could be argued that it was karmic justice for Joel to have the exact same thing happen to him that he did to someone else's family.

The obvious is only pointed out since faggots still try to deny this fact

my opinions are facts

This problem is
1: The retarded circumstances that led to Joels death
2: You play as his killer for half the game while the it try's (and for the most part fails) to have you sympathize with her
3: The ending where Ellie doesn't actually kill her but muh cycle of violence

I'm pretty sure that was you,

It was, and yeah I do think you have to admit you like something that's shit. I like Bioshock Infinite which is a very flawed game shit on by most Anon Babble I can at least admit I like something that is collectively assessed to be low quality, hell I even like some things which are low quality.

Some artists do, some don't

I think you're maybe arguing more over intentionality rather than logic? Like I said there is a logic or reason within emotions , subjectivity and aesthetics. When I make art sometimes it's more intentional and planned, and other times it's "placing my feelings onto canvas" which is not as planned but which there is a logic to the emotions I feel in the moment which can then be analyzed later. Everything intersects in the end

and I highly doubt you could deduce anything about me in a few hours that I haven't deduced in a lifetime of being me

Sometimes you need an outside perspective to really understand yourself. I can say that from experience. You're not going to be aware of yourself fully unless you've somehow ascended beyond this plane and obtained true nirvana

Narcissism isn't one of them.

It is. It's a problem for literally all of humanity. Some people more, some people less, but it's never none.

Yeh. Hell, show somehow made the story even worse

don't think there is honor or sadism in her motivations hardly at all, really

Well I think that's a limited perspective. Ellie has a sense of obligation and honor which might ultimately stem from trying to mimic Joel but which I also think is just an innate part of human nature, and she does enjoy inflicting violence on other out or a sense of rage and a need for catharsis. Not so much sadism in the sexually motivated serial killer way though

Ellie isn't preaching about some sort of justice. She simply wants revenge and doesn't try to skew it as some sort of retribution.

Ellie is so poorly cast I unironically can't watch it. Not that there's much to watch because if you've played the games, the show mimics it very closely.

There were basically three options: kill him, turn him into a villain or have him fill the exact same role as in the first game in order to give you your surrogate dad fix.

Option 3 wouldn't be terrible, but not making a sequel would be fine too

that data was infallible and unquestionable

There are ways to measure and observe reality even reality is essentially infinite and we can only comprehend a fraction of it, yes. But it's also what most people around me think and what I think of myself. I'm a really emotional and social person, and I do well in both.

Observations based on what

The way you talk, your logic , your opinion of yourself etc

This is Truth
Also we had this discussion several times in /v already this entire thread is just regurtitation of that with the same "hurr you dont get why its smart you are just angery that joel dead" type of personalities who dont realize the actual point flies over their head

This video explains the issue with last of us 2 completely and after the video came out basically the discussion on /v died as well because everything was said.
No need to reinvent the wheel again so I suggest you guys watch it

youtube.com/watch?v=QCYMH-lp4oM

I'd also argue that having the violence be cathartic and enjoyable in the game isn't a contradiction because it explains why it has an addictive quality for Ellie and why she can't abandon it even after it starts destroying her life

This isn't Farcry 3 buddy. The problem with TLOU2 is that Ellie doesn't commit to this. She literally let's abby go despite killing numerous people along the way, because she suddenly got some flashback about Joel. There's also retarded shit like how she was able to get back to the farm despite her condition and her surviving the stab from the tree before, but whatever

After watching the last episode, I'm left realizing that Joel should have died to infected. I feel it would have made a better story because now Ellie has to live with the fact that she is immune and he is not.
Instead the story is, he is taken away for an action he made to keep her alive.

But that's just me.

Removing one of the few things the game does well (father daughter dynamic) would not be a issue if they had replaced it with something better

You're telling me you didn't like the dyke romance scenes where they smoked weed and Ellie complained about bigot sandwiches?

Yeah but what about the fact that people will like who they like regardless of whether or not they are objectively good people? That’s never mattered much really in the grand scheme of human relationships.

filters you

reddit screenshot

Joel kind of realized at that point humanity wasn't worth it, and even if the cure worked, what's to say the Fireflies wouldn't use it to control people and gain more power? It would lead more violence and conflict