Talk:The Last of Us Part II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Riley MacLeod's evaluation of Metacritic as a useful source of information

Although Riley MacLeod's piece was prompted by the wider reception to The Last of Us 2, his critical evaluation of Metacritic extends beyond this one game.

"There are a lot of problems with Metacritic: the effects ratings have on game developers and the ease with which players can abuse them, to name a few. Basing your sense of a game’s quality on numbered review scores is itself a fool’s errand; Metacritic scores fail to take into account the diverse critical opinions of the game (several user reviews accuse these positive critical scores of being paid for) and the plentiful non-scored reviews (such as Kotaku’s, among others). Someone looking at critical scores alone would believe the game was widely beloved, only to be faced with the onslaught of negative user reviews that might lead even the most skeptical reader to believe something was amiss on the critical end of things. That aside, the sheer amount and noise of the user reviews would make it even more difficult to tell how players actually feel about the game. Metacritic, for all it’s become a supposedly vital metric for assessing a game’s quality, here shows a bunch of meaningless numbers and a lot of rage, very little of which paint any picture of how players are actually finding the game."

MacLeod is questioning the methodology, thoroughness and effects of Metacritic as a whole; The Last of Us Part II serving to illustrate many of his points. Unfortunately our article gets this slightly wrong. His assessment of unscored reviews, metascores, and their usefulness is narrowed to a critique of the review score aggregator as it applies to The Last of Us 2, implying Metacritic uniquely failed to consider unscored critic reviews for this one title alone, when being routine.

Riley MacLeod of Kotaku opined that Metacritic's aggregate score for this title "fail[s] to take into account the diverse critical opinions of the game" by excluding unscored critic reviews.

I am removing the problematic sentence until this is rectified and consensus for a new formulation gained. Secondly, apart from reading like a clumsy attempt to poison the well, shoehorned in a subsection that is intended to flesh out what reviewers thought of a game (not what a journalist thinks of Metacritic's general methodology), we should recognize that there are parts of Riley MacLeod's critique (and others like it) that apply more broadly to any review score aggregate formulated by Metacritic, so if applicable to this page, the same type of criticism can reasonably be added across WP:VG to innumerable video game articles that feature a Metacritic template. Ask yourself how you would feel if similar notes about the rigour of Metacritic start popping up in the opening paragraph on other pages. It's out of step and highly unusual. — Niche-gamer 12:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is spot on. The unscored reviews for this game are largely (if not entirely) from the same outlets that are excluded by Metacritic for myriad other games (e.g., Breath of the Wild). This is inherent in Metacritic (and any other review score aggegator). This and the "petition" issue are not really unique points in any substantial sense and invite a level of editorializing that are rightly avoided in Wikipedia articles. All Metacritic scores (at least for widely reviewed games) exclude numerous unscored reviews. Meanwhile, there is hardly a major game out that does not result in some sort of petition to the developers to change X, Y, or Z about a game. Stacker4414 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm restoring the caveat as it's the result of a lengthy discussion above. If you would like to overturn the consensus there, I would ask that you invite the participants above to weigh in before reverting. For my money, I agree that MC has broad structural problems that inhibit its ability to provide an accurate aggregate of review scores. For one, they have an arbitrary and hidden weighting system in which certain publications' scores are weighed less than others with no transparency for what that is or if it biases the final score (the insinuation being that MC score can be nudged by changing these weights at their discretion). Another problem is the one described by MacLeod above. To the extent that these problems apply to all products that MC scores, then yes, I think it should be caveated everywhere because it doesn't stop being a problem just because it's an extremely widespread problem. Obviously, that's difficult to enforce so I'll limit my scope to just this article. In this case, MacLeod did in fact write an article about MC's problems explicitly motivated by TLOU2's MC score. His article is about general problems, but TLOU2 is central and representative of them. I think that's enough to justify including in this article. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what Axem Titanium's comment regarding its inclusion in this article. In that Kotaku article MacLeod critises Metacritic but Part II is central in demonstrating it. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The consensus was tenuous at best. Three editors have now expressed reservations about including any such caveat. More importantly, myself and second editor have raised valid concern over the structure of this particular sentence. Please address this concern. Metacritic does not assign a weight to unscored game reviews; a rule applied to all releases irrespective of size or importance. The statement in our article gives the misleading impression that Metacritic did something exceptional for this one title by excluding unscored critic reviews. There was no special treatment for this one game. Moreover, this is not the article to discuss Metacritic's "arbitrary and hidden weighting system in which certain publications' scores are weighed less than others with no transparency for what that is or if it biases the final score". For a topic of importance with project wide implications, I do strongly recommend that we broaden this discussion by taking it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games — Niche-gamer 21:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this all strikes me as rather iffy. The same unscored reviews excluded for TLOU2 are excluded for all other games on MC (i.e., TLOU2 is not unique at all). By the logic set out in this Talk page, the same criticism could be included on any other article for a game (or TV show, album, or movie) that mentions a MC score. That that is not (of course) the case shows that the langauge we have now suggests that MC was strategically gaming the numbers for TLOU2. Further, it goes without saying that any MC score is an aggregation and an imperfect approximation of sentiment (we all know 2 digits are not going to reflect the entire critical reality of a given work of art, it's 2 digits!). That MacLeod wrote the Kotaku review for the TLOU2 and then in the later article at issue here critiques MC for not including his very own review in the MC aggregate score, on its face, creates a rather palpable bias issue as well. Lastly, we don't know whether inclusion of these unscored reviews (some are positive; others critical) would actually change the MC aggregate score (which already incorporates 100+ reviews), which seems to be be suggested by the current language here. Stacker4414 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue it doesn't suggest anything other than note that not all types of review are included. Typically this isn't needed because the spread of scored and unscored reviews tends to match but here there's a notable more negative tone in many pieces from sites that are regarded as notable large trusted sources that stands in contrast to the scored ones so to explain why there's a large segment of negative reviews on the wikipedia page it does help clarify for readers why according to an aggregator it was "universally acclaimed" only for major sites to not agree with that. Apache287 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this was part of the conclusion arrived to above---that readers would be surprised to find a length amount of criticism of the game after reading that it got "universal acclaim" according to MC. It's undeniably true that MC has labelled it "universal acclaim" according to its self-consistent policies, so we can't just ignore or remove it, but it's also undeniably true that the game earned criticism, some from negative reviews and also in sections of positive reviews. The first paragraph of the reception section should summarize and preview the entire section---both the MC rating and the actual reception are critical to doing that. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This really doesn't follow at all. Most pertinently, even with 5 or 6 more negative or middling scores (and add in the 5 positive unscored reviews), the MC score would certainly remain "universal acclaim" (which is a 90+). A cursory review of MC would show that there are a great number of games with 90+ scores on MC which include far more numerous critical reviews than TLOU2 (unscored or scored). There are 100+ scores now for the game, the reviews from Kotaku, Vice, etc. would not appreciably move the ball and bring it below "universal acclaim" as you seem to believe would occur. And the wording here certainly suggests that there is something unique afoot yet, per above, MC always excludes a substantial number of unscored reviews (usually around 10 give or take for major releases; I count 11 here so this is run of the mill). In other words, for every game, you'll find that the MC aggregate does not reflect the full range of critical opinion (never mind other flaws in MC such as the lack of non-English language reviews, exclusion of smaller outlets, etc.). Stacker4414 (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the unscored reviews would have pushed the game below MC's threshold for "universal acclaim". Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that the first paragraph of the reception section should adequately summarize the content of the section, including that it earned "universal acclaim" according to MC and also that it earned criticism. The insinuation that MacLeod is somehow "biased" because he's mad that his review isn't included in the MC score is nonsense. Kotaku's review policy has been around for 11 years and it intentionally leaves reviews unscored because they don't want to be included in MC. MacLeod in fact links to this policy in the article. As for whinging about exceptions and how other articles should caveat if this one does, other stuff exists. This is a discussion about this article, not other articles. The language in the article summarizing MacLeod's point has been agreed to be WP:NPOV and WP:DUE and does not imply anything exceptional or out of process is happening by simply reporting on MC. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

We should follow MOS. Pure and simple. We should not be adding special emphasis or adopting new rules this one title. Our job is to summarize what the overwhelming body of critical reviews say, reflecting the amount of praise and criticism proportionally. — Niche-gamer 23:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Unless you have a reliable source that has appraised the scored and unscored reviews and determined that the unscored reviews lean toward a negative reception, and have been unusually neglected compared to every other Metacritic entry, you are simply letting your personal opinion drive what content should be in the article. Even Riley MacLeod does not perform such an analysis. — Niche-gamer 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Except you can't remove opinion entirely from the reception section because we are still judging even now areas with reliable sources as to whether it should be included or not (see the fan petition discussions). It's a fact that sites like Kotaku and Polygon are widely-read and we regard them as trusted voices, however it is likely many people aren't aware of exactly how MC works or operates so having a section that opens with the statement "this received universal acclaim according to a review aggregator" only to have lines such as "I paused the game and asked myself aloud if the developers thought I was stupid" looks bizarre. Yes it is impossible to prove how much MC's score would alter if at all if it accounted for these reviews because no one but MC know how they weight or judge each score to begin with but it's basic common sense to read through MCs summaries of unscored reviews and come away with that description as sounding rather negative. Apache287 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

To add is it not also true that we regard MC as a useful tool to measure critical views on a game when we actually don't know how they judge individual reviews behind closed doors? We don't know if a certain outlet giving a score tanks their MetaScore nor do we know how it deems a site worthy of inclusion. We can't therefore truly validate it as an accurate tool via proven sources but merely accept it because it's widely-used. Apache287 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

At the end of the day, for video game articles on WP, the reception section should be focusd on prose on why a video game was praised and/or disliked by the field's standard critics. The scores should not matter. Ignoring the table and MC nonsense at this time, the current state of the reception section seems to get that - we have the heaps of praise for the technical achievement, arynd then a good para about the disgust some got for how much brutality there was in the game. This is a good setup. I'm sure there's more, but it reflect the conflict in the sources. The problem is that I can tell you from those sources quoted that those are all more about enjoyment of games for their emotion or message, and not for the rush of adrenaline (and that's fine if they have opted to choose that route for how to approach reviews); it's just that they will likely not score games, compared to the people that will score games who are looking for how much fun and enjoyment they get. And that's whre scoring is not always the best metric at the end of the day. Unfortunatly, we're stuck with reporting it because "best rated game (by how MC calculates it regardless of any funny business they use) in 2020" is going to be likely this game's legacy. We just don't need to give that any significant weight. Put it in the table, and and you can leave it out of prose to just say the game was generally well received. and then go into the details of the reception as its there. Nothing requires us to address the MC score in the prose. MacLoed's comments on the MC system should be taken and put to the MC article as it appear (I looked before writing this) that only around 2013 was the last time MC' system was criticized so I'm sure a new system will be coming around again. But basically, if we know this MC score is a point of issue, just don't put it on a pedestal. We can "bury" it in the table without anyone noticing. --Masem (t) 00:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If we're all okay with omitting MC's "universal acclaim" summary statement, I'm in support of that solution as well. As Masem said, the Reception section is best read, not glanced and summarized by a number. Omitting it entirely and forcing readers to actually read the entire section fits with MacLeod's exhortation to actually read reviews as well. P.S. Re-reading WP:VG/REC, I see that including the MC summary is not explicitly required, merely recommended as a convenient go-to, not the end-all be-all. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Also agreed on just not using it but leaving the score in the review box. Like I've probably put in the initial section this comes across as an anomalous case because of how major critics have been divided that there's no easy way to use MC without another article's worth of information to explain the nuance, and at that point I get the argument it should be in the MC article itself. Apache287 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I just read MacLoed's article on the MC scoring, and agree that the added sentence here is problematic because it's not MacLoed's full statement. MacLoed said it failed to account for both user and unscored critic scores, and the end point is "skip the math" and just read the reviews (pointing back to my comment above, let's just not focus too much on it). Or if anything, this goes in the section on the user feedback in the game since the bulk of that article is about that, not the omitted unscored critic reviews. --Masem (t) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who originally put the source in the article and it was under the section regarding Audience Reaction, namely as a source to support the issue that not all negative reactions were simply out of spite or bigoted views. I don't know how it got moved to supporting the lede. Apache287 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not interested in recent stuff like The Last of Us Part II. However, I wonder if the original The Last of Us (which I'm also not interested in anyways) would become review-bombed in the future because some guys are review-bombing this game? Iias!:postb□xI 00:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick browse of the user page for The Last of Us will tell you there has been no review-bombing, and if this did happen it would occur now and not "in the future". If you're able to review-bomb the game being targeted, why choose its predecessor instead? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favour of moving the sentence to a subsection that details the wider reaction to the game, providing the passage more accurately reflects MacLoed's opinion (i.e. take time to read reviews as the aggregate score alone will never give you a full picture). — Niche-gamer 10:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems sensible enough. It avoids what we have know which is stating the MC aggregate score with what amounts to an asterisk (that could arguably be applied to any other game, movie, etc.) and more accurately reflects what MacLeod is getting at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stacker4414 (talk • contribs)

I took a stab at the changes discussed here. What do you think? I noticed that the Reception section as a whole uses too many direct quotes and the positive paragraph is just one giant blob. If anyone more familiar with the game can split that up into sensible sub-paragraphs, that would be helpful. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In this particular game, we’ve got a wide disparity between critic scores and user scores. Wikipedia shouldn’t seek to suppress it. I agreed above that every Wikipedia gaming-related article shoving in an opinion on Metacritic’s scoring would be OR and violate NPOV. But the sources and criticism here is directly as a result of this game, it’s not about every game to go on Metacritic. We don’t need to be consistent across articles, Wikipedia often fails to be consistent. We simply need to accurately portray reality, specifically what the sources say. I agree the current wording is problematic, but removing any mention of these issues isn’t really a solution. The parts of the wording, in certain places, that were agreed to in the above consensus should be retained until there’s a consensus to change them, as this has proven to be a controversial topic. Per your suggestion. I’d say that input from the WikiProject is welcomed, as always. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Accurate source for bans?

The article states with minor reference or citation (a tweet?) that the game is banned in "Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen." It is unclear how this is possible when most of these countries do not have local playstation stores and usually rely on imports of both consoles and games from countries (such as the US) or alternatively buy US game cards to spend in US game store. A more reliable source without the claim more believable, until then the claim should be stated with less certainty. This is a full list of PS4 regions, many of the above are not listed, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.203.182 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Concur that this isn't reliable, and I can't find a reliable source with a cursory search, so I've removed the statement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Plot inaccuracy

Abby never reveals to ellie that she was the daughter of a doctor joel killed and certainly not at the scene where they fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.179.189 (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Altered. Popcornfud (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit war happening rn?

Revert to my last largest edit on the page. Dudes are literally deleting information because quote "we don't like the truth".Mantr33r (talk)

@Mantr33r: Much of what you've written is either unnecessary or poorly backed up by sources/original research. Please familiarise yourself with WP:WEIGHT, WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94 I have provided a citation to all of my claims, and the sources I use have previously been used on hundreds of Wikipedia articles? And you could just as easily argue, "I do not trust VG247, I do not trust blablabla"? Prove to me that these sources, are completely making up their stories because Jeff Bezos has a stake in seeing TLOU2 fail miserably. Please prove this. I can MUCH MORE EASILY prove that it was the other way around, and that maybe it wasn't dishonesty, but good intentions paved with bad results.

Sorry you are offended by my article and feel your contributions may be better, but your sources and lack of citation leave much to be desired. 0/10.Mantr33r (talk)

@Mantr33r: Questionable sources like the right-wing anti-censorship Reclaimthenet.org has been used on hundreds of articles has it? Again, this is where WP:DUE comes in: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". How many reliable third-party sources have commented on the DMCA takedowns for example? Almost none. The facts may exist, but just because a single website may report on a subject, does not mean it should end up in the article. This is not censorship, it's a basic policy of Wikipedia. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The Sausageroll report is based on false information, for starters. Please stop adding it. The trade-in message was a result of Coronavirus and had nothing to do with TLoU2. — Niche-gamer 11:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I honestly really don't care what you guys think. Objective facts speak for themselves....Mantr33r (talk)

Mantr33r please remain civil and also be mindful of 3RR Glen 11:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have a source for a claim that is on these lists [1][2] then in most cases it will be removed. If you can't find a reliable source for your claims there's probably a reason for this. Apache287 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I had reliable sources I don't need to repeat myself. These guys are just literally edit warring out all the good content and quotes that you can literally prove by yourself, if you go out and look for yourself! These guys are just trying to add so much OR to dilute established facts it's just nauseating.Mantr33r (talk)

Unexplained and unjustified edits to the page as it was set this morning, to redact vital new information with citations.

Named all sources, all citations, got 3-times-reverted by the same people ganging up on me for doing my research. Pathetic.Mantr33r (talk)

These reverts have been explained several times. You keep violating Wikipedia policies. You also leave abusive messages on other editors' talk pages. Popcornfud (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The making-of videos

Paragraph of text under dispute:

From May 13 to June 3, Naughty Dog released a series of videos about the six-year development of Part II. The first portion discusses the game's narrative, with Druckmann noting that the game might be divisive but "in an exciting way".

I think we should remove this because:

• This is the Development section. It should contain information about the game's development. The fact that Naughty Dog released videos about the development is not in itself revealing of anything about the development. If we want to take information out of those videos and put it in the section, and cite the videos as a source, then great. But simply saying here that these promotional making-of videos exist is no more useful than saying that the staff gave interviews about the development. This is basically information about marketing, not development.

• The information about how Druckmann believed the game could be divisive is already covered, at length, in the paragraph discussing the team's goals for the story. Popcornfud (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's a fair point about not being about its actual developement, but it should be mentioned that they released a series of videos leading up to its release. I do not mind moving it to the release section since it was a way for them to promote the game before release. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  A sentence saying they released the making-of videos would be fine in a section about marketing or, failing that, release, imo. Popcornfud (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, a sub-heading under release for Marketing seems the best place to put it. There is more marketing coverage that is not included in this article currently. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Actually I decided not to add a marketing subheading as a lot of the infomation in the release like various special edition could also be considered marketing.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of term "appraisal"

@Popcornfud: Hi, the reason why I used the term "appraisal" on the end of the title was to refer to those publications whose sourced articles weren't commenting on the review bombing, but discussed their own opinions or reported on post-release reactions in other areas i.e. Kotaku voicing their concerns towards Metacritic's system, and Polygon reporting on the disapproval of Naughty Dog towards Vice's review and to Schreier's tweets. As such, I didn't think it accurate to label these companies as "audiences" (in contrast to the negative user reactions on Metacritic and elsewhere, that much of the same sub-section talks about) when these are publications/critics. I would suggest these sentences are moved to the above Critical Response, although it would mean we would only have a short paragraph left of content in the Audience response. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94, there is certainly a lot of sorting out to be doing in these sections generally. Right now I don't think "appraisal" is a useful word to include in that header because the critical reception section covers appraisal too - the critics' appraisal of the game. Popcornfud (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of the narrative

What should be done about the mixed response of the games narrative. This aspect is being both praised and criticized. I believe the way it currently is reflects that, but am open to a discussion about it and tweaking it. Bradster51498 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on June 3rd

The "Audience response" section ends talking about Twitter arguments Druckmann and Baker had with journalists. This is completely irrelevant to the section and should be either removed or placed in the "Critical response" section. 109.76.36.190 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"Review-bombing and appraisal" section

This section has problems. Focusing just on this section:

Meanwhile on Twitter a pair of high profile individuals involved with the creation of the game took aim at games journalist Jason Schreier, who had previously reported on the use of crunch and staff unhappiness at Naughty Dog. This saw creative director Neil Druckmann singling out a tweet of his mocking a comparison of The Last of Us Part II to the Holocaust film Schindler's List to express disappointment at critics while after Schreier tweeted "Video games are too long", later stating it was inspired after he played The Last of Us Part II, voice actor Troy Baker responded with a quote from US president Theodore Roosevelt about critics being less valuable than creators.

• This isn't an acceptable quality of prose. It's rambling and overcomplex and uses metaphorical terms such as "took aim". We must use plain English.

• It doesn't fairly reflect the source. The source does not say that Druckmann "singled out" Schreier's tweet because Schreier had criticsed Naughty Dog. That's WP:SYNTH. What's more, we cover Schreier's reporting of the crunch at ND earlier in the article so we don't need to bring it up again here.

• I am not sure that "Holocaust film" is a widely accepted category of film. Schindler's List is a historical drama. The source also doesn't mention anything about it being a Holocaust film so identifying that as the critical thing to mention is more WP:SYNTH. Popcornfud (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To start with Schindler's List is a film about the Holocaust and that is what people were upset by in comparison. Its common understanding as a film is that it's one about the Holocaust so how you can describe it as a "war film" is to be honest absurd as it strips all cultural context from it. It'd be like discussing Hotel Rwanda without ever mentioning the genocide in Rwanda in the article.

The Polygon article is one that is written directly referring to sources embedded into its material so no fair reading of the source is possible without extending the content of the source to the primary sources it links to within the text to make comment on. See the section below on the Schindler's List comparison.

On social media, responses from The Last of Us Part 2’s creative team have gotten a bit more personal — and public. Co-director Neil Druckmann has been hopping into discussion about the game to wag his finger at journalists who were making fun of a tasteless post that had compared The Last of Us Part 2 to Schindler’s List. Other developers, like God of War’s Cory Barlog, closed ranks around Druckmann, going so far as to unfairly position dissenting opinion as an attempt to tear developers down.

The section highlighted in bold links to the following tweet, which is where Druckmann is "wagging his finger" as described at a comment made by Jason Schreier where in a twitter chain of people making comments comparing games to films about the Holocaust makes a mocking comment comparing Bioshock to Sophie's Choice, which informs you in the Polygon article that the issue people had was specifically with comparing a video game to a film whose content and imagery is the Holocaust. The following bolded section from Cory Barlog about closing ranks around Druckmann again is a direct response to Jason Schreier. Both of these developers are singling out Jason Schreier and both of the Polygon article's links reveal this. So it's not WP:SYNTH.

The source does directly bring up Schreier's own reporting on work practices in the following sections with no break in topic regarding reaction by ND, so it's not WP:SYNTH to include a line stating that Schreier had previously reported on NDs work environment prior to Druckmann singling out a tweet he made about the game and then Troy Baker doing the same, as the source has previously described the reaction as "a bit more personal" prior to this. Apache287 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apache287, you're partly right, I had misread your text. I interpreted "this saw Neil Druckmann singing out a tweet" as applying to Shreier reporting on crunch, but that's not what the text is actually trying to do and therefore it isn't WP:SYNTH. I disagree that mentioning the Holocaust connection to the Schindler's List think is not WP:SYNTH - it's not a WP:SKYISBLUE given that everyone knows Schindler's List is - but this should be easy to source in another article about the Twitter spat.

... But the text I quoted is unreadably long and verbose, and I think the whole drama is pretty succinctly summarised in the article already. Popcornfud (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I do think it’s important to specify it’s the Holocaust nature of the film. The source does reveal that’s what the issue was about so it does accurately reflect that if we mention it. Apache287 (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apache287, the source provided doesn't mention the holocaust. Popcornfud (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The source likewise doesn’t label it a “war film” yet that’s what you’ve changed it to.

the source itself comments about the upset at a “tasteless comparison” made between the game and Schindler’s List before linking a primary source to show the upset was about the Holocaust nature of the film it was compared to, with multiple users including Schreier making other tasteless comparisons of games to films whose subject matter is the Holocaust to point out the absurdity.

It is therefore accurate to label that the dispute was over Schindler’s List being a film about the Holocaust. Apache287 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apache287, I originally changed it to "war film" because I don't think "Holocaust film" is a widely used genre term. But I've removed it now because "war film" is basically wrong anyway, and it's irrelevant.

OK, so now I'm checking the source for the 10th time. It mentions: journalists who were making fun of a tasteless post that had compared The Last of Us Part 2 to Schindler’s List. That's the only mention of the film in the source. It doesn't explain anything about the film's subject matter and the author doesn't mention why they feel the comparison was tasteless. Closing that gap ourselves, by concluding that this all happened because the film is about the holocaust, would therefore be WP:SYNTH. Popcornfud (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the primary source for “Druckmann’s finger wagging” that it is commenting on. That is the primary source it is summing up with “tasteless comparison” from. In that source all of the tweets are making comparisons to Holocaust films. The subject matter they are upset by is the comparison of TLOU2 to a film whose subject matter is about the Holocaust. That is not WP:SYNTH, it’s directly in the source embedded. Apache287 (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it is "not directly in the source embedded". The source is a Polygon article and it doesn't mention any tweets that mention the holocaust. It only links to Twitter discussions. And then what? Wikipedia readers looking to verify this claim are supposed to start reading through the Twitter debate until someone mentions the holocaust? We can't exactly use that as a source. Popcornfud (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean the directly linked source where you have deliberately absurd mocking comparisons using Sophie’s Choice (A Holocaust film), Elie Wiesel’s Night (an autobiography about the Holocaust), and Diary of Anne Frank (the most famous of all Holocaust victims and works by them) with Druckmann wagging his finger about the use of “sensitive subject matter” i.e the Holocaust. The primary source is very plain in being about the Holocaust, it doesn’t have to say the word for the subject to be clear Apache287 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"The primary source is very plain in being about the Holocaust". How can it be "very plain" when this when it doesn't say anything about the holocaust whatsoever? A reader unfamiliar with the film Schindler's List would have no idea.

If you can find a RS that covers this Twitter dispute and mentions the holocaust implication then this entire debate goes away. I'll see if I can find one later on. Popcornfud (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

To not understand it was an issue with comparison to the Holocaust you’d have to be so ignorant that you don’t know who Anne Frank was. There is a certain point at which arguments are self-evident because of how core to the culture they are that it’s practically impossible to not immediately understand the context. This is not the Simple English version of the site, here some level of understanding is assumed.

To accurately depict the primary source we don’t need it or another source to say it was about the Holocaust because the primary source itself is an entire discussion made up of a series of comments regarding subjects whose only link is the Holocaust. Apache287 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apache287, perhaps I'm being overcautious about synthesising sources. If other people chime in and feel it doesn't need to be sourced then cool. Popcornfud (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I almost wasn't going to comment, and granted I've not read much of this section, but I do think too much fuss has been made over elaborating what kind of film Schindler's List is, particularly the use of "Holocaust film", which isn't a genre. The vast majority of people who hear the words Schindler's List will recognise it as being an intense, bleak, WWII-based drama, and so having it be compared to a story-focused video game will generally be self-explanatory in terms of how powerful the game's story is seen to be; the only difference is that further context would be needed for the game's setting as it is not as well-known as the film. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Although it's since been renamed, that entire section is still littered with issues and requires a full rewrite, not a rework. It contains weasel words, irrelevant information and doesn't actually talk about the general audience response like the section name would imply. It's embarrassing something of this quality is in an otherwise well-written article. 109.76.36.190 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

correct, it needs major work. Popcornfud (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Spoilers outside of the Plot section

Is it right to divulge spoilers in the Reception section when we are quoting publications who are talking about the story? I feel like some who come here will be interested in reading about the reactions etc. but will avoid the Plot section if they are playing the game, and end up being inevitably spoiled in areas they weren't expecting to be. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94, in my view, if a critic has said something worth including in an encyclopaedic account of a narrative work, then we should include that, spoilers be damned. We shouldn't leave good content out of Wikipedia because someone might not want to know about it. Popcornfud (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, but WP:SPOILER. If people want non-spoiler reviews, they should Google carefully for the underlying non-spoiler sources. We can't really tailor for a spoiler and non-spoiler audience. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV Policy Violation

Many of the positive reviews referenced with high scores were released days before the game was even released. It is extremely clear that the scores being advertised here on wikipedia were purchased by the publisher. There is an article about the game in FORBES regarding the polarized reception if the game, and that needs to be added to this article here on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not allowing me to edit the page or add a link to the talk page... and this wiki article goes against Wikipedia policy by failing to remain neutral, since the game's reception is false and is currently unable to be edited. I never played the first or second game, but it is clear that the game does not have a near "perfect rating" like the wiki article would have you believe, and Wikipedia is not about representing false information. -Rob^talk 07:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert M Johnson, hej. you should make an edit request! The page has been protected due to vandalism, so if you have a change to propose make sure you mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source! it will get added if you have a reliable source that backs up your proposed addition to the article. Edit: you should be able to edit the article though, it is only semi-proteced. Mvbaron (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert_M_Johnson. I think you are misunderstanding WP:NPOV. Have you read the policy in detail? You have made various assertions that you have not supported with evidence: scores being purchased by the publisher and the game's positive reception is false. The vast majority of critics gave the game a high rating. Their's is an expert opinion. They also receive review copies of the game prior to general release so your point in the first sentence is nonsensical or you don't understand about the expert review process (which also applies to films, books etc). The poor ratings you are alluding to are audience scores. These are inherently unreliable WP:UGC because of various factors including review bombing. Forbes is not generally a reliable source WP:VG/S. So please make specific suggestions as to what you want changed in the article supported by WP:RS. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Review bombing is a thing, but putting an opinion such as "do you like this game" (which belongs in a binary system of like/dislike) into a score out of 10 will reflect this always. The bottom line is that 50% of the players who voiced their opinions on the game are unhappy with it. The game's reception section should include a section about it being one of the most controversial games of all time. Controversial in terms of fans simply being angry about how the game went, or adamantly defending it. In 100,000 reviews being completely 50/50% polarized is simply too big of a deal to ignore. -Rob^talk 01:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert_M_Johnson Have you read WP:UGC? Here's the pertinent sentence 'Review aggregator (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable, their audience ratings based on the reviews of their users are not.' The audience response section in the article is already substantial covering the range of complaints. There is no need to quantify it nor to have any actual audience comments. Such things are for blogs, fansites and if people want to read audience responses from Metacritic they can go there via the link. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a place for fan angst.

Addition: having checked audience reviews at Metacritic it reveals why audience responses are not reliable for an encyclopaedia. On both sides of the good/bad argument there are serious problems with the reviews: inability to write more than a sentence; lack of ability to comment beyond I don't like it (or do like it) - so not giving reasons why; failure to critically appraise each element of the game separately (e.g. story, gameplay, voice acting, visuals etc); the giving of an incoherent rating either based on a non-review or on a review which says one thing but the rating says another - I could go on. The other problem is that audience reviews are often knee jerk reactions rather than reflective consideration. It is really easy to see why audience responses should not be seen as reliable for an encyclopaedia. Great for fansites, blogs, on social media but definitely NOT for an encyclopaedia. Robynthehode (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Robynthehode (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If wikipedia ignores the fanbase's reception, and only displays the overly positive critic reviews, not only is it not actually displaying factual information, but it is lying by omission. By the way... the polarization has once again made headlines since a voice actor from the game has begun receiving death threats. Is the negativity still not worth noting in the article? -Rob^talk 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert_M_Johnson There is an audience response section with sourced information. Have you read this article?? Wikipedia isn't lying at all by omission or otherwise. Wikipedia is based on rules and policies. Editors try to follow these to the best of their ability. It is only your opinion that the lack of an audience response section containing your preferred content is POV. You have ignored all my points and not come up with any relevant argument to counter them. You have failed to offer alternative specific alternative content that follows Wikipedia rules. So unless you come up with reasons and sourced material then I'm done with this discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

As has been said, Wikipedia uses reliable sources (such as those found on WP:VG/S) while taking into account due and undue weight. As a result, only those articles discussing the player reactions that meet this criteria should be cited. 9 times out of 10, these have made note of the game's review-bombing on Metacritic by users (summarising the reasons that these reviews were left). There have also been a few articles that have mentioned the negativity towards the character of Abby, which has resulted in harassment of those who worked on the game; the death threats you mention have been noted in the article. I'm not sure exactly what you're hoping to have included that would dive further into the audience reactions, but it's clear you have little regard for this site's policies that are in place to prevent such unreliable information. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No... the article has been drastically improved upon since my original complaints. I am more than familiar with policy, hence this discussion. The article is in a much better place right now, and I'm happy with it. -Rob^talk 01:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

Under "Plot", change "Realizing Joel's identity, Abby tortures and beats Joel to death with a golf club." The level of anger required for something like that is very, very different than just shooting Joel. Clockwork Mobius (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, someone appears to have already changed that section. Rummskartoffel (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

Under the "Critical Response" section, a note should be added that mentions how non-USA based Critics gave mixed reviews; in contrast to critics in the United States, who gave mostly positive reviews.

For example, IGN Japan (who published their article on the same day as IGN US) gave 7/10, while IGN US gave 10/10. IGN Japan main issue with the game was "Structural defects in storytelling" (Translated from ストーリーテリングの構造的な欠陥")

PewDiePie (the most-subscribed YouTuber that focuses on Video Games playthroughs and reviews) from Sweden and now based in the United Kingdom, gave the game a 6/10 due to disjointed plot elements, and illogical character motivation; however, he liked the pro-LGTBQ stance of the game saying "...having a gay couple in a game that's going to be played everyehwere across the world, is good thing... I just wish there was more chemistry".

Lead section of this articles should take more of neutral point of view(NPOV) and change the sentence "It was released on June 19, 2020 to critical acclaim." to "It was released on June 19, 2020 to primarily critical-acclaim in North America, and mixed reviews from major critics in Europe and Asia. 73.222.18.127 (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting point to bring up that there might be a the difference between NA critics and the rest of the world but I would say that two examples, one of them being PDP who is not a professional critic, isn't enough to convince me yet that there's a meaningful difference. Can you point to any other examples, especially ones tracked by Metacritic or Opencritic? I see IGN Spain and IGN Italy gave it a 9.5 and 9.0 respectively. Also Gamer.NL (Netherlands) gave it a 10. Jeuxvideo (France) gave it a 19/20 (95%). Axem Titanium (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Will consider the non-US points. If you have more sources of non-US critics giving it lower reviews, they'd be welcomed. You've currently given one. For "mixed reviews" we'd need to see far more than that. PewDiePie isn't a critic, and we don't currently publish opinions stated in a YouTube/Twitch video by streamers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How many do you need? I can give you as many as you want, they are easy to find:

https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2020/07/02/i-loved-the-last-of-us-2-except-for-all-the-parts-i-deeply-hated

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/gaming/the-last-of-us-part-2-review-a4466801.html

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-last-of-us-part-two

I am not sure why Americans can't find all the bad reviews... probably Google filters its results and just give folks the local websites.

According to Forbes, this particular video game had extra strict Review Embargo:

"...the review embargo itself is quite strict. While most video game embargoes contain some kind of restrictions on what you can talk about or use in video footage, this one forbids any discussion of the second half of the game and limits video footage to just three scenes.

The final 12 hours or so are completely off-limits, so the things that reviewers liked or disliked about that portion of the game can only be discussed vaguely. I understand wanting to keep spoilers out of reviews as much as possible, but this strikes me as more than a little over-the-top."

I think folks in countries outside the USA were more willing to say what they actually thought, because of the "embargo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.18.127 (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The embargo only applied before the game was released. It ended upon release. It's no longer in effect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that when I wrote my statement... the first article I mentioned (from IGN Japan) was from before the game was released and was still under the embargo.

Here is another article: https://www.spieltimes.com/news/the-last-of-us-part-ii-sales-dropped-85-week-on-week-japan/ they used the data that Famitsu (a video game magazine) regularly collects about video game sales in Japan. An 85% drop in the 2nd week is huge for a blockbuster video game. People in Japan didn't just stop buying it for no reason, they are seeing the bad reviews of the game from both critics and regular gamers. I don't have the time to translate all the bad reviews from Japanese for this Wikipedia article. That's why I think the lead section should be changed to "primarily critical-acclaim in North America, and mixed reviews in Europe and Asia."; the note be added to the "Critical Response" section; and the IGN Japan score be listed... at the very least this should be added for completeness and to show more viewpoints than just those of the United States (Currently the scores are exclusivity from companies based in the United States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.18.127 (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Where should this paragraph belong?

As I've been conflicted on this for a while now, I'd like to ask for a consensus over where the Polygon article (and by extension the US Gamer article) detailing the discourse surrounding the game should be placed in the Reception section. The issue is I feel that the article's content allows for it to be included either under the Critical response or the Audience responses. To summarise the article, Polygon starts by talking about the leaks and subsequent audience backlash, affirming why the source should come under Audience responses, however they also detail the review embargo and exchanges between Naughty Dog and journalists, which indicates this belongs in the Critical response since it concerns the opinions of critics. I did contemplate removing all mention of the audience reactions as this was just one aspect of the discourse and there is not as much focus on it, but ultimately this is probably unwise due to the article broadly covering the air of hostility surrounding the game and so all sides should be mentioned. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you not separate the relevant excerpts into their respective sections? You don't have to lump them together, I feel the 'Audience reception section already has too much unrelated content. 78.152.235.167 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Good job on the Reception section

I just wanted to thank the people maintaining the Reception section these days. I stepped away because I found that it was eating into time I wanted for improving elsewhere on the encyclopedia. As of this writing, I think it looks extremely good, it represents basically all the aspects I think it should cover, and I'm very happy with the way it turned out. If you've been on the team patrolling the page, making improvements, and reverting POV-pushing/vandalism/angry nerd rants, a hearty cheers to you! Good job! Axem Titanium (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Being one of those editors (predominantly on the Audience section), I appreciate the kind words Axem Titanium. I wouldn't say some parts flowed perfectly (like the Abby paragraph), but it's a lot more comprehensive than what it was. I would however suggest the actual Critical response is subject to an extensive re-write and is sorted into the opinions in terms of story, gameplay, graphics, themes etc.; currently the praise and criticism is split about 50/50, which doesn't represent the overall acclaim the game received. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Wikibenboy94. The section does not reflect critical acclaim yet. nyxærös 09:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

All the same, I think it's looking as good as it can be for the time being while the article is still volatile and new. I'm sure it'll settle down in a few months as people lose interest. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Persistent removal

I don't understand why Spy-cicle‎ is removing "story" in the lead, and ignoring the fact that most of the critics liked the story. They have changed "Praise was directed towards the improved gameplay mechanics, story, visual fidelity, and the performances of its cast, though the characterization and presentation of its themes received criticism." to "Praise was directed towards the improved gameplay mechanics, visual fidelity, and the performances of its cast, though the narrative and presentation of its themes received criticism." because they said it was "explained previously". When they finally replied, they showed four critic reviews that criticize the aspects of the story (which is one of the reasons the narrative was changed to the characterization). nyxærös 19:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Because saying its praise was improved story as the summary sentence in the lead without noting its critism violate WP:NPOV. (Going to copy this part from my talk page) Moreover, saying that the characterization was criticised as opposed to the story is misleading. As shown, in those above reviews a lot of the story was criticised not just the characters. Moreover, "characterization" is a part of the narrative component so saying the story was praised whilst characterization was criticised makes it seem as if they are two separate things which they are not. Perhaps the lead sentence was should say the narrative/story was polarizing as that seems to meet WP:NPOV more than what it was before. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 10:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"...which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Do four critics who criticized the story overpower the rest? If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. However, you seem to not agree with this and the other editors. (Also, there should be sources that report "the story was polarizing among critics.") nyxærös 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is we're referencing only those sources that are included in the article. These four may be in the minority, but until we source more reviews to balance out the overall reception the lede will need to stay at it is. Not being the most experienced editor, I'll admit sometimes I get confused whether or not certain statements should be classified as being WP:SYNTH, and this instance does seem to fit the bill, however no admin seems to have an issue with this, and likewise I have read so many ledes in video game articles that say for example an aspect was mixed/polarising due it sourcing 50% of critics that liked it and 50% who disliked it. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I've yet to do any heavy lifting on the Reception section, but WP:RECEPTION might be helpful. Popcornfud (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

LOU2 Death threats

Voice actors and directors have been receiving death threats from the negative end of the polarized reception of the game. Its been making headlines for a week now. I feel it should be included in the article, but it is locked. -Rob^talk 05:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mention of the death threats and harassment is included in the Audience response section. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Reception Section and Undue Emphasis

I know many editors have worked hard on this article and the reception section has received a lot of attention. However checking the section and Metacritic's critics' reviews I think the response section falls foul of WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION. A straightforward point is that Metacritic's critic's review section totals are 105 positive, 8 mixed and 0 negative. Considering the reception section in this article has the same coverage for both positive and more critical views that would seem undue to me. Of course I may have missed a discussion that has gone before but I think the section needs some significant editing to accord with the stated principles. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It does unfortunately, there are some editors still supporting the idea that the game (especially some features of the game) polarized critics. nyxærös 10:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

One editor (not naming names) did argue that reception towards the narrative was polarized/criticized (whichever it was) and should be marked as such, however there's not really been any debating lately. Other than that, yes the Response does need balancing out, no one has any qualms with that. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94. Can't see how it's WP:OR as the figures are on the Metacritic website. I could as easily put 'Out of 113 reviews 105 were positive and 8 were mixed'. Would that be better? Or can just add the source of Metacritic with my original changes and let the reader do the maths. What were the reasons for excluding such information. The response section is clearly WP:UNDUE so figures such as the ones on the aggregator Metacritic are surely acceptable (they have their own info box anyway) Robynthehode (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode The phrase of "overwhelmingly positive" you included is what is original research as no source mentions this. Detailing how the reviews were categorised is too long-winded and not recommended per WP:VG/REC. There is a note next to the Metacritic score that says how many reviews were scored, which indicates they did not contribute to the ranking (as it is, these were some of the more negative reviews). If you feel the Critical response is WP:UNDUE, the only thing that needs to happen is that more positive reviews are sourced to balance it (I have reached out to an admin recently who said he would be looking over it soon). Also per WP:VG/REC, these reviews should be split into paragraphs that focus on each notable aspect of the game. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode, Metacritic isn't the be-all-end-all of critical response. They're a review aggregator, and we often defer to aggregators like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes (for films/shows), but not always. We've got a discussion on Metacritic in particular above in this talk. We've got 4 paragraphs in critical response: 2 are praise, one is criticism, the last is discussion on the trans aspect (which I class as neither positive, nor negative, for the purpose of UNDUE. The game decided to make trans a big theme, so critical response regarding that should have its own section, as large critics have decided to make comments about it).

Really, we only have one paragraph on the negative response, and many of these are top critics, and their criticisms aren't really tautologies. I don't think we have a weight issue here. We don't need to add even more positive reviews on the same topics just to pretend like we're addressing "a weight issue". That's just bloat and makes the section longer to read without adding any value. By all means, add reviews which aren't tautologies, but if it's just filler content I don't see the need for it.ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

To address the various points: It is not WP:OR original research. That part of policy states 'To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented' So the reliable source would be Metacritic and the support for the material presented would be the summary figures for the number of reviews that are positive and mixed. The policy does not say that the exact words used in an article have to be in a source. Second I have just started this process so no I don't think Metacritic is the be-all-end-all of critical response. This is the source I was using for a specific point. Third: The one paragraph positive and the one paragraph negative is exactly the point that I brought up. It is WP:UNDUE. As the overwhelming majority of reviews were positive it is giving equivalence to the negative/mixed reviews by having a paragraph that looks equal in length, detail etc. There is specific mention of this in the policy. I won't make this response overlong by quoting here but I suggest all editors that don't see this as undue read the linked policy again. Having said all this I can see that just adding more positive reviews that don't add to the section by having a different point of view about aspects of the game from a critic will be bloat so there must be a solution that gives due weight to the positive response from critics. At the moment it reads as though critics as a totality share the mixed reaction that is detailed in the audience response. And we know the problems there. Robynthehode (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode, The one paragraph positive and the one paragraph negative is exactly the point that I brought up. There isn't one paragraph positive: 2 are praise, one is criticism ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me on that. Mis-wrote in my haste to make my point. My point still stands that the section reads as though there isn't an overwhelming positive response from critics to the game - 93% of reviews positive and 7% mixed with 0% negative. So no intro sentence for either the positive two paragraphs or the one negative paragraph still gives a false equivalence of the good and bad reviews. I don't believe a casual reader is informed well by excluding this somewhere in the response section. Most readers don't dive into references or footnotes. Stating the overwhelming positive response in an explicit sentence would be helpful I believe to all readers. Robynthehode (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode It is bloat if we include more opinions of the aspects that are already sourced i.e. the narrative/characters, and as I see it the only obvious way we're going to overcome this is as I mentioned earlier by adhering to what WP:VG/REC instructs: "Organize sections thematically to juxtapose similar comments from reviewers into a coherent narrative. For example, group reviewer comments on gameplay, technical audiovisuals, narrative, and other common themes of the reviews." Meaning, in this case there need to be more reviews sourced in this section that can be used to outline critic's opinions on the gameplay, story/characters, graphics, themes etc. Once this is done, it will be more obvious what the overall reception of the game is, but until then there shouldn't be a sentence to summarise this. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94 Specifically acknowledged bloat issue in previous post and didn't suggest adding extra reviews so I don't know why you mention this. My suggestion was to include a summary sentence to acknowledge overwhelming positive nature of reviews (when I attempted this you reverted). I have addressed your issue re original research - which has not been countered by any editor including yourself. So what's the problem with including my first edit in the text? Robynthehode (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode I know, I wasn't refuting you hadn't seen it, I was just echoing what had been said and then giving my suggestion for a solution to resolve the issue of WP:UNDUE, which I think will be to add more reviews and get this section up to the level of where it should be. The page on original research states that the source must "directly support the material being presented" and I don't believe referring to the amount of positive scores is reason for this to apply. This hadn't crossed my mind either but I would argue this is also WP:SYNTH, being "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." I don't know if ProcrastinatingReader contests this or not because he has not addressed this, and no other editor has contributed to this discussion. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's synthesis. Summaries of sources are permitted, and the exact words used on Wikipedia don't need to be in the source, yes. Summary of primary sources must be done more carefully, because it's easy to end up doing an analysis on the source without realising it (see WP:PSTS). We already include in the lead that the game received critical acclaim. In my view, "received an overwhelmingly positive response" is a bit of a mouthful. This is a bit of a controversial game, amongst fans and some top critics, so I think it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to something which could reasonably be inferred as analysis or POV writing. Metacritic states "universal acclaim", so that phrasing is acceptable, as long as it's attributed to Metacritic. For example, The Last of Us says: The Last of Us received "universal acclaim", according to review aggregator Metacritic, based on 98 reviews. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the reason why the article doesn't currently give Metacritic's consensus in the Reception section is because it had been removed following the lengthy discussion a lot of editors had on the talk page about how Metacritic aggregated the game's scores and if it's consensus was accurate based on the more critical unscored reviews. If this is the case, then surely it should remain omitted from the section? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Simply not original research or synthesis. Nor is it using a primary source. The actual reviews are primary sources if anything. It is not POV nor analysis to simply state the reliable source facts. It is not a controversial game when looked at from a critics point of view as the overwhelming majority - 93% - score it highly. Just because a few critics gave it mixed reviews does not make it controversial. The only controversy is from some (about half if Metacritic is to be believed) gamers. And my comments are not about the audience response section so that is irrelevant to this discussion. I really don't see the reluctance to add my first edit (or variation thereof) - that was reverted - back in unless editors are POV pushing themselves. And of course what is in the lede is a summary of what is in the article so some mention of the overwhelming proportion of critical reviews being positive should be in the response section to accord with this usual norm. Robynthehode (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Robyn, it has been said already. Metacritic is not the be all end all of authorities on reception, and in this case you are saying you agree with the praise it is given, but feel that it needs even more praise. There are numerous negative reviews out there. See this article and this, first. Prinsgezinde (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all the editors who have commented. Prinsgezinde you have not understood my point or evidence provided. I have not said Metacritic is the only source of reviews but it is the main one as the aggregator that is used widely for video games and the only one in the reliable sources list. The reviews you have linked to are not from reliable sources according to WP:VG/S so are irrelevant to this discussion. So again please provide a reason why a summary sentence can't be included based on the Metacritic summary score of reviews? No-one has presented a substantive argument why this should not be included. Robynthehode (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to draw myself back into this discussion too heavily so I'll just present my stance and let it help form the consensus. First, I stand by the results of the lengthy discussion above with respect to omitting the Metacritic "universal acclaim" descriptor. I won't rehash it here but I encourage anyone to read it and this semi-related discussion for why it's not necessarily useful to always include the MC descriptor in general and might not make sense for this game in particular. Second, I contend that this game is controversial despite appearing to have 93% positive reviews on Metacritic. Polygon and Kotaku have written about how controversial it is among critics. 93% agreement does not invalidate the existence of a controversy ("controversy" broadly construed; I would use "diversity of opinion"). Critics have even written about feeling pressured to give high scores to so-called prestige games in order to avoid getting harassed by fans. Third, don't forget the other side of WP:UNDUE, which is WP:DUE. The goal of these policies is not to create formulaic articles that follow exact proportions (e.g. 93% of the reception section must be devoted to positive criticism and 7% devoted to mixed criticism). It's to write an article that represents the breadth of the sources in a well-written and well-presented way. That may entail devoting more than 7% of the prose of the section to negative criticism in an effort to explain it in a clear and informative way and we have to be ok with that. I'll be the first to acknowledge that the current section is a little unbalanced but I don't think it's egregiously so. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode, it looks like you simply don't want to discuss this when you use technicalities to wave away dissenting sources. Forbes contributions "may not be reliable" according to WP:VG/S, but Erik Kain is a senior contributor to the website who was awarded a Shorty Award for Best Journalist. I think he's fine. Screen Rant is set as "inconclusive", not "unreliable". Besides, the page itself explains it "provides a few general rules of thumb" and "None of the following directions apply in every single instance so always use reason and common sense when citing sources." Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I acknowledge your further information on the sources but two extra dissenting reviews does not add up to a counter to an acknowledgement that the overwhelming majority of reviewers gave it a positive review. Secondly, you can contend it is controversial but not from the point of view of critics. You're just redefining the word 'controversy' to suit your own view. A minority dissent to the majority view is not a controversy - next you'll be telling me evolution is controversial because some bonkers fundamentalist Christians think its controversial. No controversy has to have substantial support on both sides of a debate to entail a controversy. I think you are allowing your personal view of this game or the views of negative review gamers to influence your opinion. Thirdly, the comment re the reviewers that have stated the games is controversial that is their personal view and that view cannot be extrapolated to a general view of 'controversy'. That is fallacious reasoning. Fourthly, your comment about critics feeling pressured to give a certain score by fans is not relevant - it is a claim, the veracity of which would have to be supported and again could only be attributed to a specific reviewer and not extrapolated to a general point about all critics being pressured. Fifthly and most importantly - Wikipedia policy: you can't just reinterpret policy to fit your personal view. Here's the text from the weight/due/undue section - 'Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.' That is a very clear statement that does not fit with your view 'That may entail devoting more than 7% of the prose of the section to negative criticism in an effort to explain it in a clear and informative way and we have to be ok with that.' So no its not okay to go against one of the core policies of Wikipedia and reinterpret this to fit your preferred stance in this article (or any other). Having said all this I am always happy to be corrected if I have made factual errors but the critic response section at the moment is undue without at least a summary of the overwhelming majority of critical opinion being positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs)

Here's the reality of the matter: other editors don't appear to be convinced by this argument, not in this section or the lengthy discussion above, even if you're sure you're right. This issue resulted in the page being put on full protection last time. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for, at this point. Moving forward, I think two suitable proposals have been made: either a more detailed response section per WP:VG/REC, or find some positive reviews that aren't tautologies. I don't support removing useful, non-tautological content in the criticism paragraph just to appease the fact that we "only" have 2 praise paragraphs. You can add a third one, if you can find praise that hasn't already been mentioned. If all you're asking for is a sentence on the critical status on Metacritic, I wouldn't personally be against inclusion of a sentence similar to the original The Last of Us (which is a featured article), and many other games, which states Metacritic's position on the game (exact wording from the first part's article is above). (edit) Although, TLOU1 was a different bag than TLOU2. VG/REC says: Metacritic's qualitative summary often provides a satisfactory summary of a game's overall reception. As in the image to the right, The game received "mixed or average reviews", according to review aggregator Metacritic. Avoid summative claims that cannot be explicitly verified in reliable, secondary sources which suggests weighing the reception where necessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Thanks for your response. It is clear what I have asked for in a number of posts above - at least a summary sentence acknowledging the overwhelming positive response from critics. Thanks for your provisional support for this view. However I have been nothing but civil in my discussion and tried to express my view clearly with arguments that I have felt were convincing. Editors including yourself have chosen to fully or partly ignore them and my responses to their/your objections. If you check my posts I have always acknowledged my errors and willingness to listen to alternative viewpoints but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a majority. I don't appreciate the veiled threat of article lockdown when Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on reasoned argument. Maybe the way forward is to start an RfC but to be honest most fan based articles are tiresome after a while (having edited Star Wars articles) and I'm only spending this much time on this one because I love the game and its predecessor. If we can come to a consensus on my minimal change that would be great, if not so be it. Robynthehode (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not threatening a lockdown, I'm letting you know the history behind what you're proposing: the last time we had a dispute on this it resulted in edit warring between multiple parties, full protection, and the lengthy discussion above to achieve the fine balance we have currently. I hope you can now understand why people are cautious about making adjustments to the arrangements reached regarding Metacritic. I'm not ignoring your views, but the point of this discussion is to move ahead of the current gridlock we find ourselves in. You've made your points, even if they're correct, other editors don't appear to be convinced. At this point, it isn't about being right any more than it is moving forward from the current gridlock. So, I've posed 3 solutions in my above reply, which one best represents what you're looking for? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Thanks for your clarification and sorry I misunderstood your lockdown comment. I still think that editors have ignored my arguments/points when they don't fit in with their POV. But in the spirit of moving forward I would like as I have said previously to include a summary sentence in the response section acknowledging the overwhelming proportion of critics giving the game positive reviews. I attempted to do this but was reverted by Wikibenboy94. I have clearly made supporting arguments for its inclusion regarding reliable sources, due weight and the fact that the lede should reflect what is in the article body (re the lede comment about universal acclaim). I have not seen any cogent counter arguments to the inclusion of a summary sentence. Although I could be wrong. So if we can come to a consensus on including a summary sentence that introduces the response section giving due weight to all the views then that would seem both helpful for a general reader and fulfil Wikipedia policy on due weight without getting into putting in extra positive reviews that are reptitive and contribute to bloat. So what do you think? Can a consensus be built around this? Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's possible. To summarise part of the previous discussion, the difficulty we had last time was figuring out how to mention Metacritic whilst noting that many top critics had issues with the game, and many also left unscored reviews. RS (according to WP:VG/RS), like Kotaku, had issues with the Metacritic scoring system for this game. WP:VG/REC suggests avoiding summative claims which cannot be verified in reliable sources. When Metacritic was included, other editors felt the need to mention issues with Metacritic's scoring system directly afterwards, which descended into arguments over undue weight and original research. The preliminary solution was to omit this altogether and focus on the largest reviews, whilst still stating the Metacritic score and stating how many were unscored. The current article is a result of this, a rough implementation of this general consensus. So your challenge would be to figure out how exactly to neutrally word Metacritic's score, whilst covering the issues with the scoring, and without doing original research when trying to achieve the latter, so that you can convince everyone else, something the last discussion failed to do. A tricky problem, right?

It's not me you need to convince, it's interested editors collectively. My suggestion last time, and I'll echo the same this time, is to just wait, and revisit this at the end of the month. It hasn't even been a month since release yet. I suspect with time we'll get more reliable sources which analyse the critical reception of the game, and hence we can avoid falling into the original research trap, and we can make other editors happy, who feel Metacritic isn't properly summarising the critical reception for the game. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Owing to Rhain's extensive re-write of this section today, I'm sure we're in full agreement that the inclusion of a sentence to summarise the praise will no longer be necessary. I will apologise to Robynthehode if he felt my reverting of his initial edit was unjustified; I did actually later question my understanding of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based on this discussion and previous edits I've made elsewhere. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The section looks excellent. Far better to categorize by the game's aspects than by criticism or praise. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94 Thanks for your honesty. Update by Rhain has made improvements. I think we can all learn something from the exchanges between myself and other editors. Robynthehode (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This one looks like a strong case of WP:SOFIXIT. Great work Rhain! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good work Rhain! Axem Titanium (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ditto, the rewrite has certainly improved the article. Though, I do not think [...] and members of the cast and development team became the target of online death threats is worth including in the lead, especially considering it only mentioned once in the main body. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur Spy-cicle. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed it. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

I would like to add a edit at the very end of the plot. This edit can be confirmed via playing the game and/or watching cutscenes of the game. It will be an additional line about the final Ellie and Joel flashback scene. McKz06 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi McKz06, thanks for your suggestion. The final flashback is already mentioned in the Plot section: “Ellie eventually overpowers her but lets her live when she recalls a more hopeful memory of her last conversation with Joel, in which she promised to try to forgive him.” – Rhain ☔ 01:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Still Nothing about the death threats?

The death threats that made headlines ...and the reception section is, once again, not representing all the factual information.

This is easily THE most controversial game reception in history. (In terms of polarization) In 10k reviews, the results were split almost completely 50/50.

To omit the death threats, and the polarization is essentially lying by omission. -Rob^talk 13:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robert M Johnson: The Last of Us Part II#Audience response. – Rhain ☔ 14:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Robert M Johnson: You've complained about this on three occasions now, when users (including myself) have confirmed each time that the article does acknowledge the death threats. In future, please can you read the article carefully or otherwise search for key words to determine that what you're looking for is mentioned. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020

Hello!

The sales for the last of us part two were mainly retail stores buying the game to resell it making the sales drop down 80% because of a surplus of stock stores are unable to sell and the massive amount of second-hand copies flooding the market. making the original sale number of 4 million just completely inflated. I would like to edit the "sales" part of the article and maybe the "audience reception" part since the review bombing happened on both sides (perfect 10 and perfect 0) while the article makes it sound like only bad reviews flooded the market.

I would also like to add the controversy surrounding the fake cutscenes shown in the game trailers where naughty dog purposely removed or changed certain aspect of the trailers (character models, lines of dialogue) to trick people into buying the game thinking it was about the main character of the first game (Joel and Ellie)

and finally, I would also like to add a whole new segment to the article talking about the internet's reaction to the leaks (since it seems to be lacking in the article) were a lot of people decided not to buy the game because of the nature of the leak which was created to make as much damage as possible (also maybe add the rumors of how a disgruntled employee leaked the game and the later statement of sony saying it was hackers who ultimately leaked the cutscenes) and the later illegal use of DMCA takedown on people on twitter and youtube who almost lost their youtube channel trough copyright strikes and the people on twitter who almost lost their account too

thank you for your time.

SOURCE: EDIT: (Forgot to add the source for the review bombing sorry its my first time trying to edit Wikipedia) https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/hk7eft/i_sorted_all_57418_reviews_of_tlou2_on_metacritic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koupip (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC) sales drop : https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/gaming/the-last-of-us-2-sales-drop-80-percent.html dmca take down : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG14HlUlrqQ https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2020/04/social-media-accounts-getting-dmcad-for-sharing-the-last-of-us-2-leaks/108235/ Koupip (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Koupip. None of those sources are considered reliable, so the information won't be added to the article. Also, the source discussing the 80% sales drop—which, it should be noted, is actually fairly standard for video games with such high first-week sales—has no mention of the "surplus of stock" or "second-hand copies", so I'm not sure where that information came from. – Rhain ☔ 22:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of reliable sources I did find a lot of people discussing the flood of Japanese second-hand websites with copies of the last of us 2 but I didn't save any of it before going to bed yesterday. i could try to look into it more but I don't know if that will be a reliable source or not. I would also like to add that now the website meta critic doesn't allow you to make a review of a video game on launch day you need to wait for 1 day or 2 if I remember correctly and that was caused by the last of us' review bombing. maybe that could be added to the article? thank you for your help! Koupip (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You would need a source to confirm that the intention of the altered footage in the trailers was to "trick" players into buying the game; otherwise, such an allegation is mere speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNimon (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

Add user score to the critics page Anterokeil (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2020

The Last of Us Part II is more of a survival-horror game than an action-adventure game. Wikipedia defines survival horror as "a subgenre of action-adventure and horror video games that focuses on survival of the character as the game tries to frighten players with either horror graphics or scary ambience." The game presents a tense atmosphere with jump-scares, and the gameplay focuses directly on the survival of the player. "Survival horror" should at least be listed under genres. Wolfmanbearpig (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change (which would probably need sourcing) before making such an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sales

The game topped the download charts in both Europe and the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.201.75 (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Rhain ☔ 01:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References