Blog Page 13

Where The Last of Us Part II fails and succeeds (SPOILERS)

Warning: the below content will sometimes explore the massive spoiler content of The Last of Us Part II. Only read on if you have finished the game or do not mind being spoiled on certain parts of the game’s story.

The Last of Us Part II has been a very divisive game since elements of its story were leaked to the public. I avoided spoilers and even trailers to go into this game as blind as possible. Ever since those spoilers came out, though, people have been either talking down this game for having a terrible story or praising it as one of the best. I find myself somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Now that I have gone through the entire experience, I want to take a chance to talk where I think the game succeeds and fails—both on a story standpoint and the game overall. Everything mentioned here is my opinion and mine alone, but they are my observations from my time with the game.

Succeeds at: Being more Last of Us

The Last Of Us Part II': everything you need to know, release date ...

In terms of gameplay alone, this is as close to the first game as I think possible. Aside from new weapons and additional upgrades, someone could easily mistake this for being the first game. All of the controls are the same, and the objectives in each area are very similar as well. On the one hand, it would be nice to see Naughty Dog try new ideas with the gameplay, but on the other, it is a formula that had success in the first game and returns here. Yes, it is filled with very basic stealth and action mechanics, but they get the job done enough. The main selling point of this game was always the story anyway.

Fails at: It is not another Joel and Ellie adventure

The Last Of Us 2' Has The Largest Install Size Of Any PlayStation ...

Since the trailer that revealed Joel would have a presence in this game released, I was looking forward to another adventure with both of these beloved characters. Unfortunately, that trailer was a bait-and-switch that swapped Joel out with Ellie’s new friend Jesse. Joel was hunted down and murdered in front of Ellie in the first hour of the game.

After these events, you imagine this to be a tale of revenge for Ellie. While half of the story is that, the other half focuses on Abby, Joel’s killer, and trying to redeem her (we will get more on that in a second). It is disappointing to go into a story expecting to play a full game as Ellie, only to have her locked away from you for somewhere between 8-10 hours. It makes the story feel needlessly lengthy with minimal payoff at any point.

Succeeds at: Another emotional story

Why is The Last of Us Part II getting so much hate online?

As you would expect from Ellie watching Joel die in front of her, this is another emotional tale that, at its best moments, dives deep into their history. Everything from Joel’s surprise museum visit to a museum for Ellie’s birthday, to Ellie learning about the events at the end of the first game, were my favorite moments. Even the final conversation between the two where they decide they will attempt to rebuild their relationship the day before Joel is killed nails home the regret Ellie must be carrying with her.

It is not just Joel that has an impact on Ellie in this game, though. Her love interest Dina is a nice inclusion, although their love can feel rushed during certain moments. You can also tell how Tommy and Ellie have grown closer in the years since the first game and the effect Joel’s death has had on them both. Jesse adds an interesting third wheel dynamic as the recent boyfriend of Dina and is a loyal friend until the end.

Even the half of the game I wasn’t a fan of saw the emotional toil characters like Lev and Yara are dealing with in their unique situation and the tragic sibling love the two of them have for each other, risking their life so Lev can live the life he needs. They go through so much, and their journey, while brief and unresolved, is one of the stronger in the game.

Fails at: About half of the story is unneeded/unwanted

The rest of us: 'The Last of Us 2' trans controversy, explained

As mentioned before, only about half of The Last of Us Part II focuses on Ellie in her quest for revenge on Joel’s killer. Unfathomably to me, the other half focuses on trying to make the player care for his killer Abby.

The very first moment we are introduced to Abby, she is hunting Joel down, as her father was the doctor Joel killed who was going to operate on Ellie at the end of the first game. The way Naughty Dog delivered the story, though, does not reveal that until long after Joel is killed, a character who we have seen progress and become a father figure to Ellie. When the game shifts to her perspective, we see an aggressive person who prides herself on being better than her peers, only wishes to kill anyone in her way, and has a group of friends that are as undeserving of redemption as her. Seeing her group slowly killed off is supposed to make us feel for her loss, but when we know from the very beginning that these are the bad guys, it is hard to feel anything for them.

Abby does turn a corner and wants to help Lev and Yara, but that only made me care for them, not her. Abby is still an unlikeable character in my mind that never sees her justice. She just happens to get away with whatever she does every time. We wanted to follow Ellie’s journey hunting down Joel’s killers. We got half a game that does that without resolving anything (and goes against Ellie as a character doing what needs to be done), and the other half dedicated to a throwaway redemption arc that is not deserved.

Succeeds at: Gorgeous, creepy environments

Naughty Dog: Who cares what a character's sexual identity is ...

The Last of Us Part II is a beautiful game in about every way you can see. The character models are incredibly detailed, the close-up of weapons show their details, and oh my gosh, the environments are a sight to behold. The overgrown buildings, the infected dark rooms, and the overall rainy city of Seattle are all great looking and perfectly convey the apocalyptic state the world is in.

My favorite thing with the world’s design that Naughty Dog pulled off is the storytelling in small areas. Finding notes scattered everywhere and seeing the decomposed bodies of people who lost the fight for survival is harrowing and fits the tone. The only time I have seen it done better is in the Fallout series. Each environment has its own story to tell, and everyone feels worthwhile to seek out and explore.

Fails at: Lackluster side characters (Abby’s story)

The Last of Us 2 Director Responds to Self-Insert Accusations

Outside of Lev and Yara, most of the side characters are throwaway characters in Abby’s story. Owen can be argued as a deep, interesting character, but virtually anyone affiliated with the wolves are annoying typical military stereotypes. The leader Isaac is the usual general who wants to solve everything with war, Manny is the usual grunt who lives for killing, and Mel is just the girl inserted in the story to give Abby jealousy issues. They never show anything beyond that. They are cardboard-thin characters that never amount to more than when they are introduced.

At least with the characters on Ellie’s side of the story, you see them show varying emotions and interactions with each other. They are much more profound than their counterparts and, for that reason, earn their spot in the story. They argue they joke, they care for each other, and reminisce. All of Abby’s peers have one shtick and never go beyond that.

Succeeds at: Explaining the consequences of the end of the first game

The Last Of Us Ending - YouTube

Joel’s actions at the end of the first Last of Us directly impacts almost everything in this story. Seven years ago, we knew Joel wiping out the Fireflies was a big deal outside of him saving Ellie. The sequel shows us the effect that had on Abby, driving her to be obsessed with hunting down Joel, as well as lying to Ellie led to her pushing him away. There were consequences for his actions, and while we did not see them right away in the first game, they lived on into this story.

Fails at: Setting up the future well

The Last of Us Part 2 Ending Explained

While this might not be that big of an issue, we are left with so many questions at the end of The Last of Us Part II. Ellie lets Abby escape for the third time in the game, presumably to find the Fireflies, and Ellie walks into the woods to maybe be on her own and leave her former life behind. Those are guesses because there is no indication of what the plans for either person are going forward and frankly does not make me excited for what a third game in the series could bring. Again, not that big of a deal when looking at Part II on its own, but it leaves the potential for the sequel to focus on Abby, which is not ideal.

Succeeds at: Telling a contained story (for the most part)

The Last of Us 2 Seattle Day 1 collectibles guide (Ellie) - Polygon

Piggybacking on the last “issue,” I am glad to see this game tell a contained story. Ellie’s search for revenge and Abby’s redemption had varying effects on me, but they never stray from those ideas with unneeded filler in the Seattle chapters. Both characters have unique arcs that do not include needless ideas that fail to add to building up the world around them. Even with disappointing side characters, the paths the main characters go on are direct and to the point.

Fails at: Leaving the player satisfied or wanting more

The Last of Us Part 2 Chapter 9: Santa Barbara Walkthrough ...

By the time I finished The Last of Us Part II, I was ready to be done with the game for hours. As stated above, I believe Abby’s story was unneeded and a chore to get through. I feel the same way about the final chapter in Santa Barbara. In the last few hours of the game, you will witness multiple places where the story could end, and it just does not. The additional scenes do not add anything that could not have been addressed before in Seattle. The final group you fight through to get to Abby grow the world, but what reason do we have to fight them besides that it keeps Abby in the area for Ellie to find her? It is unneeded padding that makes the game feel more of a slog than anything else at the end.

How do they reward the player with their time spent? With letting Abby go, Ellie not being able to play the song to remind her of Joel anymore, and Dina leaving. Not everything has to have a happy ending, but at least with the first game they presented us with a situation that made us think. Was Joel right to save Ellie? They further push home why he had no regrets for his actions, but there is no situation close to that in this game. Ellie will still go on with her PTSD illusions of Joel dying, and she got no payback, no lessons learned, and no family to return to.

Succeeds at: Not putting too big an emphasis on deaths (outside of Joel and Abby’s dad)

The Last of Us Part 2 leaks contain massive story spoilers ...

Of course, Joel’s death in the beginning hours of the game is the motivation for Ellie to have this journey, as is Abby’s father’s death to hunt down Joel. Outside of those two, the game does not dwell on the deaths of side characters. Abby hardly mentions her friend’s deaths in the grand scheme of things to the point that it does not affect her outside of the moment. The same thing is true with Ellie and Dina. Jesse is gunned down in front of Ellie, and the only ever mention of Dina’s child’s father is through a journal entry later in the game. They keep the story moving, but at some point, it does help hammer home how throwaway some of these characters are.

Fails at: Building up Abby’s fear

Who is Abby in The Last Of Us Part 2? New character made their ...

Abby has a genuine fear of heights that is continuously beaten over your head as you play her. Admittedly, this led me to consistently having her fall to her death in multiple parts of the story for my enjoyment. With such an emphasis on her fear, you would think it would pay off for something down the line, but this is only used to let you know she is very scared when crossing a high bridge across buildings. No judgment here for that, I would also be deathly terrified, but the multiple times her fear is brought up is only for that one scene. It is never mentioned again once throughout the game. For as much emphasis, the story puts on Abby being afraid of heights; they throw that idea away when it is not needed anymore.

Succeeds at: A heartbreaking ending

Review: The Last of Us 2 is Naughty Dog's greatest game | VGC

While I am not a fan of the ending, you can feel Ellie’s broken heart as she comes to grips with not being able to play Joel’s song anymore and remembering their final conversation. They had probably been distant from each other for about a year before Ellie was willing to start building up their relationship again. They had just agreed to work on Ellie forgiving Joel for him to be taken from her. That is the most heartbreaking part of the ending to me personally. Yes, Dina has left Ellie, but as Ellie tells her before leaving for Santa Barbara, that is her choice.

Fails at: That ending being fulfilling

The Last of Us Part II: First hands-on impressions of gameplay ...

This ending does not justify Ellie letting Abby go free. In my opinion, that event goes very much against her character overall and does not pay off the previous 20 hours of cut-scenes and gameplay. Since Abby and Lev are still together, that leaves Naughty Dog room to have a story focused on those two if they want it, but I would have instead had them decide a way for either side story to end. In all fairness, Ellie had no chance against Abby in a straight-up fight between the two, but her giving up when she has won and finally put her motivation for the entire game to the side feels like a slap in the face. There was nothing to fuel this decision; she only imagined Joel for a split second and backs off. That vision should have given her more fuel to finish off Abby, and that’s why I find the ending of The Last of Us Part II disappointing.

The charade of sports reporting uncovered by COVID-19

If COVID-19 has done nothing else positive in terms of how it has essentially shut down sports, it has truly shown how sports reporters are not really reporters in the classic sense but gossips who rely on whispers from insiders before writing what they’ve “learned.”

This is not a hit piece against individuals, but a rebuke of the supposed journalists who are covering sports. Specifically Major League Baseball amid its ongoing dispute regarding the proposed parameters of a 2020 season.

How many more stories will be released regarding player pay, number of games, structure of playoffs, where the games will be played, rules of play, protections in case there is an industry-wide breakout of coronavirus and anything else related to attempts to start the season? And how many have proven to be accurate in the fluctuating reality currently in place?

Journalism has changed substantively from what it once was when pitching expansive stories to editors, working the phones, running from one place to another, digging through records, and cultivating – even coercing – sources was critical to unearthing the necessary information to learn the truth. Its changes are not for the better. It’s easier to use; easier to access; it comes out quicker, but that does not necessarily make it good.

Social media and the rush to get a story “first” whether the information within that story is accurate or not has not only watered down journalism, but degraded it. Pointing out every example of reporting that has been retrospectively wrong would take 10,000 words. Just this week, however, Jon Heyman essentially said that the agreement between players and owners was imminent with the following tweet:

That was met with other supposed insiders saying no deal was imminent and that owners and players were not on the same page, again.

Was this intentional? It’s not a conspiracy theory to say it might have been. Or it might be ineptitude and clinging to the objective of angering no one and maintaining a level of communication to make it easier to put forth the charade of breaking stories when the stories “broken” are crafted as the sources want it to be crafted.

There’s a difference between researching a story and getting it wrong and being told information that is clearly premature or likely to be wrong and running with it anyway to adhere to the mutual interests of the reporter and source.

Nick Francona, who has been out front with consternation at owner behavior and media complicity, tweeted the following:

The incompetence is astounding.

Given the current political climate, such previous scandals as Watergate are referenced in nostalgic terms not because it led to the downfall of a corrupt president and his henchmen, but because people with legitimate knowledge commented on it with a foundation for their perspective. This is true if they supported President Richard M. Nixon or not. There wasn’t an endless stream of propaganda and ignorant support from either side based on nothing more than partisanship. That’s what has happened with social media and it has infected true journalists from doing their jobs even if they want to because their corporate heads focus on profit over truth. If that means blatant sleight of hand, it’s the price of doing business. That it’s costing news entities their integrity and depriving readers of an accurate and aboveboard report as to what’s happening is irrelevant.

Sports reporting and reporting in general is too often based on how much web traffic the links will get. The titles reflect attempts to accrue clicks independent of the person clicking on the link intending to read or having the ability to comprehend the story itself. The reaction is the key. If it goes viral and people discuss it even if they scoff – without knowing what it says – it’s serving the purposes of the entity.

When was the last time there were objective, journalistic stories about sports? It has happened with Lance Armstrong, BALCO, the myriad improprieties of the New England Patriots, and FIFA corruption. Still, the daily routine is one of whispers, leaks, rumors, explanations, vacillations, self-interest and filling one another’s needs.

Often, the breaking of scandals only happens after years of speculation, a whistleblower or evidence so clear that there’s no choice but to investigate it.

The stories listed above surfaced after years and years of enabling when members of the media knew that athletes were using performance-enhancing drugs and, rather than publish what they knew or search for evidence for what they suspected, preferred to create preposterous “feel good” stories about Armstrong’s recovery from cancer and rise to the pinnacle of his profession; to join fans in “oohing” and “ahhing” at the exploits of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds; to laud the genius of the Patriots without considering that they might be bending or outright breaking the rules; to give the public what it wanted in validating the performance instead of uncovering how they were capable of achieving what no one had previously achieved.

Think about the concept of leaks to begin with. Today, there is no “Deep Throat” and an insider giving information to reporters that should not be given and is doing so under the cover of secrecy and anonymity. The job has evolved (or declined) into agenda-based quid pro quo from both sides. Any reporter who betrays the understanding between source and endgame will no longer get such easy information leaving him or her out and making it impossible to fulfill the job description as it currently stands.

The relationship is supposed to be adversarial. Unfortunately, it’s not and it harms independence, accountability and oversight.

This is evident in the “reporting” about the negotiations between MLB itself and the MLB Players Association.

The term “MLB Insider” should now be taken literally. It speaks to the utter clumsiness of the likes of Joel Sherman that he gets inside information from people who whisper it to him because they want it out there and he still manages to get it wrong. He’d have a better win-loss record in his stories if he simply guessed and hoped he was right. As bad as Sherman is at times, he’s not alone.

Writing stories based on search engines, trending topics on Twitter and what is more likely to be shared on Facebook is not journalism in the truest sense of the word. It’s selling a product. With MLB reporting, it is increasingly an empty product churned out in factories using labor that adheres to its operating procedure without deviating from it to repeat the same thing, over and over. That may be a positive to suit their ends, but it’s a negative to the fans who are pawns in the game that will continue to be played regardless of whether the actual game of baseball is not.

California Mayor Rants Against Mask Wearing on Social Media

California mayor of Nevada City, Reinette Senum, turned to Facebook to post her thoughts on the usage of masks in daily life. She states that “THERE IS NO LAW THAT STATES YOU MUST WEAR A MASK” and advises that the police can not cite or take action against you if you are not wearing one. Nevada City’s police chief, Chad Ellis, responded shortly thereafter. He confirmed that they can not cite for not wearing a mask, but he urges “the community and visitors continue to social distance and to wear masks pursuant to the governor’s recommendation.” Vice Mayor Erin Minett also responded, clarifying that the Mayor’s post was Senum’s own personal opinion and not the views of Nevada City.

Read her whole social media post here

Vice Mayor Erin Minett shared her own opinion on masks as well

California Gov. Newsome to reduce cutback plan

Former governors of California made a PSA to promote mask usage

The latest update on the Coronado bridge suicide prevention plan has been updated

Susan Rice Calls Trump Administration “Racist to the Core”

0

Susan Rice, former national security advisor to Barack Obama’s administration, stated in an interview that the upcoming election is about “getting Joe Biden in the White House,” that is has to be someone who will “remove Donald Trump and consign those who supported him in the Senate to the trash heap of history.” She was asked why she thinks this and said that the administration has “basically made plain that they prefer to stand by a Confederate legacy than a modern America.” Rice is currently in the running as Joe Biden’s Vice President pick and said in May that if he offered she would accept the position.

Read more on the story here

Susan Rice’s son is a supporter of President Trump

Joe Biden has narrowed his list of potential VP candidates

There is support for Rice as a potential VP candidate

Trump denies all allegations in Bolton’s new book

AMC Reverses Decision to Not Require Masks at Their Theaters

Last week, CEO of AMC, Adam Aron, stated that they would not be requiring patrons to wear masks in their theaters in order to avoid “political controversy.” This was met with instant backlash and outcry as people took to the internet to voice their displeasure. “It’s a public health crisis, not a political opinion,” said one twitter user. AMC will now be requiring masks and will sell them on site for $1 if patrons forget to bring one. Regal and Cinemark were originally encouraging but not requiring guests to wear masks. Regal has since reversed that policy and now masks are required. Cinemark will only require masks if the local government mandates it.

Read more on the story here

New medical masks from Japan contain antibiotic indigo

Here are the states requiring you to wear a mask in public

Scientists are debunking “dangerous mask” claims

Thinner, ventilated masks on the way for summer

Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Smuggling Pregnant Women into the US, Charged Couples to Adopt the Babies

0

Paul Petersen pled guilty to the charge of Human Smuggling in the state of Utah and is expected to be charged in his home state of Arizona as well. He brought pregnant women from the Marshall Islands into the US, charging couples $35,000 to adopt a child while paying the mothers $10,000. Petersen was an adoption lawyer and former elected official in Arizona until an anonymous tipster alerted the authorities in October of 2017. Petersen is being charged with human smuggling and communications fraud, together these charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years. Petersen is set to be sentenced in Utah on November 13th.

Read more on the story here

Many of the women from the Marshall Islands came from a “prostitution camp”

Petersen has pled guilty in Arizona

Lawyer to pleas guilty in Arkanas as well

The Marshall Islands and US have a ban on adoption between the two countries without a visa

 

 

 

The best memes and reactions from the PlayStation 5 reveal event

The PlayStation 5 has finally been revealed alongside a massive load of games coming in the next year or two. While everyone is obviously very excited for the future of gaming, the reactions and memes made online have been top tier. Here is the best we could find.

The memes

Here are a batch of memes from a variety of people across Twitter.

Reactions

The following is a collection of reactions stemming from industry personnel and fans alike.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reward for Missing Soldier Vanessa Guillen Increases to $50,000

20 year old Army Private First Class Vanessa Guillen went missing from the Fort Hood base in Texas on April 22nd. The Army CID posted a $25,000 reward for information about her disappearance. Chris Grey, the spokesman for Army CID said “We are completely committed to finding Vanessa and aggressively going after every single piece of credible information and every lead in this investigation. We will not stop until we find Vanessa.” The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) matched the $25,000 reward for information. The case has also garnered support from Selma Hayek who is posting pictures of Vanessa on her Instagram story every day.

Read more on the story here

Vanessa’s mother made a tearful plea on her daughter’s behalf

Family says Vanessa made sexual harassment claim before vanishing

Sexual harassment investigation has been started

Restaurant releases footage of Vanessa Guillen before she vanished

Taco Bell’s Claims of Support for Black Lives Matter Called Into Question #RIPTacoBell

Corporations, food companies, and so many others have mostly all sworn and pledged their support for the Black Lives Matter movement. From CocaCola and PepsiCo to McDonald’s, Gushers, Taco Bell, and Wendy’s. Yet, there’s one thing that’s unusually consistent with every single one of them.

Sure, they’re all using mostly the same language to “build a better future”, “join together”, “support this movement”, “it’s important that our words match our actions”, and on and on. Every. Single. One.

But that’s not the ‘unusual’ part about all of this. We have come to expect major brands and corporations to, usually reactively, throw their support behind a movement or social issue if it’s deemed profitable enough to do so. What is unusual, if we even want to pretend it is anymore, is that food brands across the board seem to operate by the same set of internal rules for how they back their words and statements of support up.

They don’t.

They don’t actually commit to doing anything.

Or, when they do it’s generally a very vague and empty gesture.

If they were truly serious and truly cared they would take a good long look at their own internal systems and policies to make heads or tails of whether they are actually helping the communities they serve and the people they employ. The people they employ, by the way, are largely the underserved, at risk of no real opportunity for upward mobility, and part of a minority group. These are also the same people many of these food brands employ on the cheap, do little to invest in their future with or outside the brand, and treat as easily replaceable parts.

The CEO of Taco Bell, Mark King, penned a letter to “Team Members” and spoke about how much he and Taco Bell support equality, understand that black lives matter, and being committed to being “part of the long-term solution”.

On top of that, King says “Taco Bell will continue to lead and drive positive change amongst our communities and beyond.”

This letter was published on the company website on June 2, 2020.

Yet, Taco Bell, in all its bagged meat glory, highlighted a critical disconnect between saying you support something and actually supporting it when one of their restaurant managers fired an employee, Denzel Skinner, for wearing a face mask with the words ‘Black Lives Matter’ on it.

Now people online across the country have gotten the hashtag “RIPTacoBell” trending on Twitter and have shared the video above and used #RIPTacoBell tens-of-thousands of times in just a few short hours today.

Taco Bell released a statement on Wednesday, saying:

“We are disappointed to learn what took place in Youngstown. We are working with our franchisee that operates this location to understand what happened. We are committed to fighting racial injustice and hosting open forums to give restaurant teams an opportunity to discuss racism in America. Our priority is to be an inclusive brand while keeping team members and customers safe.”

The statement also highlighted the fact that due to supply shortages of masks, employees are allowed to bring their own mask or face cover to work. However, they finished their statement with, “As this is a fluid situation, we’re in the process of considering the need to revise mask and uniform requirements to address recent concerns.”

Why is it so difficult for companies to say what they mean and do what they say? Why must nearly every situation and PR crisis they find themselves in be one in which they created for themselves?

And by the way, Taco Bell is owned by Yum! Brands. The same corporation that owns KFC, Pizza Hut, WingStreet, and The Habit Burger Grill.

North Korea Blows Up South Korean Liaison Office

Three years ago, multiple summits took place between North and South Korea that seemed to ease tensions and spell out peace between the two. Now, North Korea has destroyed the building in which the meetings were held. Pyongyang demolished the empty building, located in a city on the border of North and South Korea, in a television broadcast. North Korea has been threatening the peace over the last month, threatening to send in troops to the demilitarized zone, and criticizing South Korean leadership. Strain between the US and North Korea may be feeding this more recent hostility against South Korea, as it has done in the past.

Read more on the story here

North Korea responds to propaganda with leaflet balloons of their own

What is the current relationship between the US and North Korea?

South Korea tells Kim Jong Un’s sister to stop with the provocative rhetoric

South Korean President “eager” for talks