PC & Video Games

The Last of Us Part 2 - (June 19, 2020)

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 3rd, 2020 4:58 pm
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
8002 posts
2925 upvotes
Grimsby
You'll have those opinions in 7 days. In the meantime people are talking about the reviews because that's we have to discuss. No one is "spreading gospel". And the critical side of the gaming industry rarely loves a game unabashedly that the public hates so I'm not expecting the reception there to be much different. Most reviewers are gamers too after all and its just a cross section of society. But hey if they get it wrong and it sucks I'll be happy to say why. I was pretty critical of the clunky parts of the first game and to me there is no such thing as the perfect game, I can always find something to complain about.
Deal Addict
May 9, 2007
1396 posts
450 upvotes
Redmask wrote: There's too many good publishers and independent reviewers mixed in with the high scores for it to be some sort of conspiracy. Reviewers have already commented on the quality of the story and generally speaking they're praising it. I'm not sure why you're so invested in a negative reception for this game but you've been pretty much sour grapes from day one. I like videogames and the fact that this is turning out to be an excellent one is just a good thing in my books. Like all games it won't be for everyone and that's OK too.
Come on you can't be serious!? This whole industry is plagued by shady practices to the point we need the government to step in and set regulations against predatory practices of these developers and publishers. A poster ready to go filled with 10/10 reviews merely hours after the review embargo was lifted and you think this is credible? Reviewers who are scared to criticize a game because it would put them at risk of losing access to early review copies which would mean the literal death of their news outlet and livelihood. Have you ever heard the saying,"Don't bite the hand that feeds you!" ?

Even the user scores on metacritic can no longer be trusted because they are being manipulated. Like ReeGee said we come here to hear the opinions of other games that have shelled out their hard earned money to play the game. That's way more credible than any shill media. I can post many reviews of people that did not like this game. Are they less credible because they didn't give the game a 10/10 and doesn't line up with your narrative?

Extremely credible reviewer, Skill Up says he does not like the game and couldn't wait for the game to be over after only a couple of hours.


IGN Japan - 7/10
https://jp.ign.com/the-last-of-us-2/443 ... us-part-ii

Polygon and Vice both hated the game as well:

https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2020/6/ ... l-violence

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/wxqn ... t-2-review
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
8002 posts
2925 upvotes
Grimsby
Come on you can't be serious!? This whole industry is plagued by shady practices to the point we need the government to step in and set regulations against predatory practices of these developers and publishers.
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not but embargoes are not something that we need the government to regulate. Reviewers can and do give negative opinions on embargoed games all the time, you even cited three examples in this thread. In terms of other industry issues they aren't really relevant to this discussion so I'm not going to engage on that.
Even the user scores on metacritic can no longer be trusted because they are being manipulated. Like ReeGee said we come here to hear the opinions of other games that have shelled out their hard earned money to play the game. That's way more credible than any shill media. I can post many reviews of people that did not like this game. Are they less credible because they didn't give the game a 10/10 and doesn't line up with your narrative?

Extremely credible reviewer, Skill Up says he does not like the game and couldn't wait for the game to be over after only a couple of hours.
I don't have a narrative, I only care about "Should I buy this game or not?". I looked at the negative reviews first for the record as they always have the most useful info and then looked at my favorite reviewers then at the averages. I'm comfortable enough to order the game based on what I've seen and will form my own opinion afterward. No game is going to garner universal praise so that's an odd expectation as well. Also from Skill Up by the way:
I really want to stress that I'm pretty much the ONLY person who didn't like #TLOU2. Remember to seek out other opinions etc. The critical consensus is that this is on the same level as God of War or Red Dead. Don't miss out on a potential GOTY because of my take.
I don't really know him as a reviewer but I will check out some of his older ones to see how his taste lines up with mine.
Deal Addict
May 9, 2007
1396 posts
450 upvotes
Redmask wrote: Most reviewers are gamers too after all
And many reviewers are just journalists trying to pass as gamers. This one couldn't even grasp the simple concept of jumping in the tutorial level of Cuphead.

Shill reviews are just a part of marketing should always be taken with a grain of salt. Review copies should not be allowed anyways. It's the only way to know if the source is being objective or not.



Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
2651 posts
2829 upvotes
GTA
ReeGee wrote: When have you ever seen a big movie or TV studio release a marketing image plastered with 50 perfect review scores before the audience even has access to the content? This extent of transparent media hype marketing is unique to gaming and its only gamers who are gullible enough to fall for this. It's a similar phenomena to how it's only gamers who use sales data as a measure of quality

I'm not saying there's any conspiracy as much an obvious "greasing of palms" system in gaming journalism. The very concept of giving selected media privileged early access to content in exchange for an "honest" review is a conflict of interest and we've seen how this plays out countless times. I'm not sour or negative about anything rather amused this still happens in gaming and people still fall for it
Pretty sure movies and TV and even music does the same. I mean when Cannes or TIFF has a limited screening of a movie, critics get to see it and review it before it goes out to the greater general public, and that's often months in advance. Sure a few regular people might see it then too, but here's a secret: a majority of them are in the business. And I disagree with your statement on marketing. The same problems plague cars, stereos, TVs, pantyhose, you name it. Gamers aren't a "special dumb" when it comes to marketing or sales numbers, that's just hyperbole.

I can agree some publishers grease palms, and have been caught. There are also game journalists who stood up to their parent company forcing them to put in positive reviews for crap games. So all things being equal, we need to be a discerning thinker, not blame the restaurant for the poor meal they served us that we didn't even order. And I shudder to think of the alternative in reviews. We'll have influencers and annoying shills with no morals and their 'up and coming YouTube channel pleasecommentlikeandsubscribe' doing all the reviews. That would definitely benefit publishers then.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
2651 posts
2829 upvotes
GTA
Image

This image bothers some of you because it came out hours after the embargo lifted? Why is this hard to swallow?

-Digitally editing the review site name and score would take a few seconds for each. Sites were probably pre-determined weeks ago, names and a placeholder for the score done weeks ago also. If one scores low, you replace with a higher scoring one
-Asking the review site to share their overall score can be done via email as long as they are willing to submit. Anyway they reviewed it at least a few days prior to image release. And submitting a score could be voluntary or built into the NDA
-Posting this online would take a second. If ALL the reviews suck, your contingency is to completely scrap the idea and send out a cat video or something

If you don't like the marketing tactic, sure, I get that. Not sure how credibility is at stake here. This is digital editing, not poster printing. Nothing more nefarious here than an eager marketing division.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Fanatic
Feb 11, 2007
8715 posts
3081 upvotes
Easy Allies gave it a 9.5 out of 10


96 review average on Opencritic:
https://opencritic.com/game/8351/the-last-of-us-part-ii

96 review average on Metacritic:
https://www.metacritic.com/game/playsta ... -ii?ref=hp


Naughty Dog took a risk because Joel was the main character for most of the first game, and Neil Druckman is really pushing the
lesbian angle with Ellie and her bisexual love interest (also a woman).

It will be interesting to see if the change to a female-only lead playable character will affect sales.
The Last of Us 1 has over 20 million units sold (12 million on PS4, 8 million on PS3).
https://www.resetera.com/threads/playst ... on.203697/

The best selling games with female-only playable characters in the video games industry:
https://www.thegamer.com/best-video-gam ... tagonists/

Alloy:
Horizon Zero Dawn (PS4) sold over 10 million units.

Lara Croft (peak):
Tomb Raider reboot is the best selling game in the Tomb Raider series history, selling over 11 million units combined cross-generation on (PS3, XBox 360, PS4, XB1, PC).
Its sequel, Rise of the Tomb Raider sold worse at approximately 7 million units combined across (PS4, XB1, PC)
The third game in this reboot trilogy, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, sold a combined approx. 5 million units across (PS4, XB1, PC).
Declining sales with each sequel.

Resident Evil games don't really count because most are 2 different main playable characters.

Samus Aran:
Metroid games get critical acclaim but its best game only sold a few million units at the series peak popularity.

Bayonetta - a critically acclaimed series.
Bayonetta 1 sold approximately 1.5 million combined across (XBox 360, PS3, PC)
Bayonetta 2 has not yet reached 1 million sales on Nintendo Switch according to Nintendo's best sellers list in their most recent financial report.
It was previously reported that Bayonetta 2 on Wii U only sold ~ 300,000 units.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
9786 posts
1863 upvotes
Victoria
I'm still bummed I never got to play Bayonetta 2. I hope one day it's able to leave the Nintendo platform and port someplace else.
Deal Addict
May 9, 2007
1396 posts
450 upvotes
Look at this shit! Alanah Pearce basically admitting that reviewers were not allowed to talk about certain parts and most of the second half of the game in exchange for an early review copy! And then you wonder why me and ReeGee are out here calling the media a bunch of shills? This might very well be a good game but that doesn't change the fact that what Sony and Naughy Dog are doing is shady as **** and need to be called out on it! Many reviewers are saying they will come out with a follow up review once the game comes out, but then WHAT"S THE POINT OF EVEN WRITING A REVIEW NOW? So that they can put a few extra million into Sony's poskets? It's hard to get excited when all of this shady shit is happening behind the scenes and TLOU2 is the only reason I even bought a PS4 Pro, although in hindsight given how late into the console's life cycle this game released I think I would have been better off waiting and just playing the remaster on PS5 since it's coming out soon.

I know about the leaks because I've read them from comments but other than that I've stayed away from all of the leaks and gameplay footage. I can't even stand Alanah Pearce but this is the first review of TLOU2 that I've actually watched because she's the first person I've seen that actually seemed sincere and straight to the point. Ever wonder why all the reviews all sound the same? Because they are just regurgitating the marketing material that Sony provided for them. ACG is the only reviewer I trust unequivocally and Sony ghosted him like a bad tinder date. Gee I wonder why!

Deal Fanatic
Feb 11, 2007
8715 posts
3081 upvotes
There is a character change as part of the 2nd half which involves major story spoilers and it is not Joel you play as.

Digital Foundry says they can show video or images of it after the game officially reaches it sale street date (June 19th).
Before street date, they cannot show anything involving the other character's playable segments. Digital Foundry says they will upload a video featuring the
technical analysis of the other sections of the game with the other character when the embargo is over.

Bryson wrote: Look at this shit! Alanah Pearce basically admitting that reviewers were not allowed to talk about certain parts and most of the second half of the game in exchange for an early review copy! And then you wonder why me and ReeGee are out here calling the media a bunch of shills? This might very well be a good game but that doesn't change the fact that what Sony and Naughy Dog are doing is shady as **** and need to be called out on it! Many reviewers are saying they will come out with a follow up review once the game comes out, but then WHAT"S THE POINT OF EVEN WRITING A REVIEW NOW? So that they can put a few extra million into Sony's poskets? It's hard to get excited when all of this shady shit is happening behind the scenes and TLOU2 is the only reason I even bought a PS4 Pro, although in hindsight given how late into the console's life cycle this game released I think I would have been better off waiting and just playing the remaster on PS5 since it's coming out soon.

I know about the leaks because I've read them from comments but other than that I've stayed away from all of the leaks and gameplay footage. I can't even stand Alanah Pearce but this is the first review of TLOU2 that I've actually watched because she's the first person I've seen that actually seemed sincere and straight to the point. Ever wonder why all the reviews all sound the same? Because they are just regurgitating the marketing material that Sony provided for them. ACG is the only reviewer I trust unequivocally and Sony ghosted him like a bad tinder date. Gee I wonder why!



Their initial analysis:
1440p native resolution on PS4 Pro,
1080p native resolution PS4 regular. Both at 30 frames per second.

They say the game is open-world-like, as in you are only given a map and can choose any direction to explore and get to your destination with no clear marker telling you how to get there.
You will have to explore and take any path you choose to get to where you need to go to progress the story.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
2651 posts
2829 upvotes
GTA
Bryson wrote: Look at this shit! Alanah Pearce basically admitting that reviewers were not allowed to talk about certain parts and most of the second half of the game in exchange for an early review copy! And then you wonder why me and ReeGee are out here calling the media a bunch of shills? This might very well be a good game but that doesn't change the fact that what Sony and Naughy Dog are doing is shady as **** and need to be called out on it! Many reviewers are saying they will come out with a follow up review once the game comes out, but then WHAT"S THE POINT OF EVEN WRITING A REVIEW NOW? So that they can put a few extra million into Sony's poskets?
Great outrage point, it's not like the reasons why hasn't been touched upon in at least 3-4 posts by now... Face Without Mouth.

The point of writing a review NOW is that EVERYONE wants that review out by launch day at the latest. Everyone meaning us, the consumer. It's such a common practice to see a Day 1 review I don't get how you JUST noticed. So, publishers offer media outlets the game early so they can review and have it out on time, as long as they follow the NDA which can stipulate all sorts of things. It is a legal contract and if its not followed the journalist can get their ass sued off or find it hard to get work ever again. There are cases where it has happened, look it up.
You angle seems to be that ND is some manipulative game dev that is coercing the media to release good reviews early on, but all they did was offer review copies, then crank their marketing dial to 11. In contrast I find it more disturbing when Activision runs a COD commercial during the Superbowl, that's over $4 million dollars for 30 seconds!!! So where is the evidence of manipulation, beside a few YouTube reviews which are outliers to everyone else's score? In the past, REAL cases of manipulation have been called out publicly and the parties involved shamed. Don't take my word, again, look it up if you really care.

You're calling out institutions for something they have literally been doing for decades, and which stretches outside video games. The NDA is an old and powerful thing. Because of it you got your COD or GTAV or NHL review early and you were fine with that. But being this angry about this specific game does comes off as transparent and pushing a narrative most of us don't care for. That's why I'm not all standing next to you, pitchfork out. And I'm not even sure I'm going to buy this game ever.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Addict
May 9, 2007
1396 posts
450 upvotes
BernardRyder wrote: Great outrage point, it's not like the reasons why hasn't been touched upon in at least 3-4 posts by now... Face Without Mouth.

The point of writing a review NOW is that EVERYONE wants that review out by launch day at the latest. Everyone meaning us, the consumer. It's such a common practice to see a Day 1 review I don't get how you JUST noticed. So, publishers offer media outlets the game early so they can review and have it out on time, as long as they follow the NDA which can stipulate all sorts of things. It is a legal contract and if its not followed the journalist can get their ass sued off or find it hard to get work ever again. There are cases where it has happened, look it up.
You angle seems to be that ND is some manipulative game dev that is coercing the media to release good reviews early on, but all they did was offer review copies, then crank their marketing dial to 11. In contrast I find it more disturbing when Activision runs a COD commercial during the Superbowl, that's over $4 million dollars for 30 seconds!!! So where is the evidence of manipulation, beside a few YouTube reviews which are outliers to everyone else's score? In the past, REAL cases of manipulation have been called out publicly and the parties involved shamed. Don't take my word, again, look it up if you really care.

You're calling out institutions for something they have literally been doing for decades, and which stretches outside video games. The NDA is an old and powerful thing. Because of it you got your COD or GTAV or NHL review early and you were fine with that. But being this angry about this specific game does comes off as transparent and pushing a narrative most of us don't care for. That's why I'm not all standing next to you, pitchfork out. And I'm not even sure I'm going to buy this game ever.
I just want to know if the game is good. Coming out with a half-assed review based on half a game does literally nothing to help the consumer. Trying to use precedence as a defense of bad practices is the equivalent of saying what happened to George Floyd has been happening for 400 years so it must be ok right?

Game companies don't care about you. They only care about making money. Activision for example waited for glowing reviews of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled before adding microtransactions into the game a month after launch because they know reviewers rarely ever revisit games to update their reviews. Activision's post-launch microtransactions are the new peak of anti-consumer practices.

Nobody calling out for pitchforks. Just don't be a sheep.
Deal Addict
Nov 29, 2011
1913 posts
598 upvotes
Toronto
Bryson wrote: Look at this shit! Alanah Pearce basically admitting that reviewers were not allowed to talk about certain parts and most of the second half of the game in exchange for an early review copy! And then you wonder why me and ReeGee are out here calling the media a bunch of shills? This might very well be a good game but that doesn't change the fact that what Sony and Naughy Dog are doing is shady as **** and need to be called out on it! Many reviewers are saying they will come out with a follow up review once the game comes out, but then WHAT"S THE POINT OF EVEN WRITING A REVIEW NOW? So that they can put a few extra million into Sony's poskets? It's hard to get excited when all of this shady shit is happening behind the scenes and TLOU2 is the only reason I even bought a PS4 Pro, although in hindsight given how late into the console's life cycle this game released I think I would have been better off waiting and just playing the remaster on PS5 since it's coming out soon.

I know about the leaks because I've read them from comments but other than that I've stayed away from all of the leaks and gameplay footage. I can't even stand Alanah Pearce but this is the first review of TLOU2 that I've actually watched because she's the first person I've seen that actually seemed sincere and straight to the point. Ever wonder why all the reviews all sound the same? Because they are just regurgitating the marketing material that Sony provided for them. ACG is the only reviewer I trust unequivocally and Sony ghosted him like a bad tinder date. Gee I wonder why!

This isn't an issue specific to The Last of Us Part 2.

I think there is a lot of groupthink in the games media. Collectively, they prefer story driven action adventure games more than say racing games, multiplayer shooters, sports games or even JRPGs. These folks will naturally prefer The Last of Us or God of War to Gran Turismo, Call of Duty or FIFA.

A lot of these game journalists also rush through games to meet deadlines (playing easy mode, missing side quests etc). This is reflected in reviews and may not serve the audience well.

Many game journalists are also way too chummy with game developers, writers and creators...especially ones based in North America.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
2651 posts
2829 upvotes
GTA
Bryson wrote: I just want to know if the game is good. Coming out with a half-assed review based on half a game does literally nothing to help the consumer. Trying to use precedence as a defense of bad practices is the equivalent of saying what happened to George Floyd has been happening for 400 years so it must be ok right?

Game companies don't care about you. They only care about making money. Activision for example waited for glowing reviews of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled before adding microtransactions into the game a month after launch because they know reviewers rarely ever revisit games to update their reviews. Activision's post-launch microtransactions are the new peak of anti-consumer practices.

Nobody calling out for pitchforks. Just don't be a sheep.
No, don't equate George Floyd to this - that's not even in the same logistical ballpark.
So its a precedence of bad practice, interesting. Thankfully you got Woke at a crucial time in the industry, when a game with so many diverse groups are pushing their liberal agenda down our throats. PTL, you'll save the industry...
You seem impatient, so just ignore the plentitude of early good reviews and wait for Very Truthful ones. You equate the reviews to being half-assed because it doesn't let you know the game's whole story before it is released. You don't need to buy it I guess.
I'm not here to convince you to buy it. I'm not going to fall for thinly-veiled deep thinking arguments and churlish equations of being a sheep. I'm intelligent enough to see the rabbit hole you're trying to pull people down, and its not very impressive.
Buy or don't buy but just don't pretend this is about something it is not, your lofty standards in purchasing a video game of all things. That noise is just a disservice to people here who are genuinely interested in the game.
c'mon get happy!

Top