Hacker News Reader

As a newcomer to the story (and i believe most redditors are as well) i absolutely love that they keep the zombies on the down low and more something that is something in the background.

I'm tired of zombie slasher movies/shows. I want a good drama show with great story telling set in a post apocalyptic world, and i dont want it to be like "the walking dead".

Station Eleven might be up your alley

And The Leftovers before it

both of these are fantastic

The walking dead is everything but about zombies. I'd actually prefer it to be about zombies and the outbreak etc, not who's pregnant and who's with whom etc.

Agreed. Zombies are the best monsters, Walking Dead killed the hype because it started dragging its feet (heh) but there is never enough zombie media.

And I like that this time it's fungi. Pretty neat and scarier.

Yeah, Zombies are played out as fuck. They were played out when The Last of Us was released as a game, which is one of many reasons I didn't play it.

I did watch a let's play though and it was clear that it was the character drama that was the best part of the game, so it makes sense that's what they'd focus on for the show too.

That sounds like the early seasons of The Walking Dead. It was more a thought-exercise about what your moral lines would be if put in that situation, and exploring inter-personal conflict. Then it became... who f'ing knows what to call that.

I played the games, and I also think it makes for much better television the way they're doing it. It makes the infected much scarier if pretty much any time they're encountered, somebody dies. If the characters could just mow them down like in the game and then slap on a health kit and be fit as a fiddle, then the infected would basically be gnats.

> hard brigading and moderation to squash bad opinions about the show on Reddit

Could it be as simple as the majority enjoying the show, without it being anything more nefarious going on? And if I enjoy something, I want to hang out with others who enjoy it, not someone coming in just to shit on it. That goes for most things.

Of course, it should be allowed to criticize things, and not enjoy all parts of it. But if you know the tlou2 story, it got hard brigaded by homophobes, transphobes etc. So the aversion to criticism should be seen in light of this. You never really know if it's a valid concern, or just concern trolling by someone with an anti-woke agenda.

This seems like the primary explanation IMHO. I have never played the games but I'm really enjoying the show. And regardless of the nature of the discourse surrounding TLoU, I would say Reddit strongly tends to come down hard on negativity in general, at least on most subreddits I've seen.

One could be annoyed that the show went way overboard on the "Gay Bill" story considering how far it veered off from the actual game where it was merely (and barely) implied. Anybody who brings this up then gets branded as someone who wants all the gays sent concentration camps. There is no nuance on social media.

LGBT people get very defensive about anything that doesn't support more more more representation on TV despite what is already a statistical overrepresentation in media. And even though what I have said is 100% fact, I expect it to get downvoted and flagged because that is what happens in these cases, truth be damned.

It might've been in the spirit of the game, though. Keep in mind that the release was 10 years ago. Nowadays, Naughty Dog might have been more explicit with that story line. Also, I remember some kind of backlash from TLOU 2, were some people weren't happy with the depiction of Abby.

Not sure if it’s a relevant comment, but I know personally 5 people who worked on the show in Calgary, and 4 of them are gay. It’s similar to people bashing White Lotus for having too many non-straight characters, when in fact, the showrunner is gay.

Not everything is about representation, sometimes stories, designs and sets come off as “LGBT-esque” since that’s how they depict aspects of life.

>There is no nuance on social media.

Below is a perfect example of a social media comment that is completely lacking in nuance:

>Anybody who brings this up then gets branded as someone who wants all the gays sent concentration camps.

It is quite clear from your comment here that nuance isn't really your thing. Don't be intellectually dishonest.

I can't count how many times any push back at all on the over-representation of LGBT in media is met with "you're threatening their right to exist", which is not only absurd but how would that even be accomplished if not as I said above?

I looked at a couple different subreddits and their threads for the latest episode.

/r/television has a few dozen hits for “boring”. It really was a slow episode, and combined with the previous episode it’s starting to become a slow series overall.

The one on the official subreddit? Zero. It’s eerie just how _positive_ everyone is which is hard to believe considering reactions elsewhere.

By the nature of reddit, the most popular opinion becomes the only opinion, as contrary takes get hidden or deleted. It's one of the reasons it absolutely sucks for any discussion.

Lots of feeling and few examples of manipulation. Using Occam’s razor, I think it’s more likely people are actually reacting positive to the show, rather than HBO paying some entity to brigade. The risk of being caught is high and it would cause an enormous scandal.

I personally like the show, and I’m glad it’s not just another zombie show, I’m pretty fed up with those.

Actually, the great thing about this show is that it doesn't focus so much on the actual zombies, that just gets boring fast. This show is story driven and I really like that.

Agreed. Zombies usually require a lot of suspension of disbelief and the humans to make frustrating mistakes for the zombies to do anything meaningful.

Also my wife would absolutely not watch the show if there were zombie suspense scattered through every episode.

I haven’t played the games though so maybe my expectations would have been different.

If you thought Gantz:O was good, this show isn’t for you.

What makes a movie like Jaws or Alien good is you don’t really see the monster very much. A zombie show ought not to be judged by zombie volume.

You didn’t like Gantz:O?

One thing not mentioned by other replies is that the discussion around the story of Last of Us got very polarized when the second game dropped. There was a very loud opposition from part of the fanbase to certain plot points, themes and other decisions made in the story. This made the people who still liked it get very defensive about it.

I see that same controversy continue with the discussion around the show which, typical to reddit, manifests as downvotes, reports and name calling (woke or bigots, depending on side)

I read an interview with the directors saying they wanted to make a good show inspired by the game rather than a straightforward adaptation. I can’t judge what they changed since I haven’t played the game, but I found this show really well done.

It’s quite well done. Especially considering the track record of game to show conversions.[1] Vignettes from the apocalypse along with the story.

I watched someone play the game and this feels a little darker. Maybe because you aren’t playing through, just trying to survive. It has had a few moments of grace but gerenally is pretty dark. I wonder what the people that worked on think of their character and cut scenes ending up on HBO.

[1. on the media podcast about game adaptations, with transcript] https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-med...

[can video games make great tv. New yorker] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/can-the-last-o...

There have been some changes from the game that have been quite "large," notably around the cordyceps virus and how it sort of behaves. But I think they've all been very very good changes that I wish were actually in the game.

They've expanded the story of several characters, notably Bill and Frank. Their story in the game is similar, but not told really, since the game follows Joel and Ellie from their perspective, which means we don't get to see the story from Bill or Frank's perspective. So, the show has really allowed more of the story to be told because they can switch perspectives.

As a huge fan of the game, the show has been absolutely amazing to watch and I've been excited for every single episode so far. It's just all around great. I wish there was more of the show, it's just something I want more of.

If you like this type of thing, check out the podcast for the show, there's an HBO podcast hosted by Troy Baker (voice of Joel in the game, and a character in the next episode). It goes into a lot of the decision making they had to make to change the way they tell the story. Fascinating listen.

> It sounds genius actually, if you produce content which success heavily relies on public opinion, why not hire a few PR companies to alternate the reality in reddit, youtube, etc.

I assume Reddit sells (or at least enables) a ton of marketing via boosting certain topics. Especially popular culture items that can be discussed, such as sports/tv shows/movies.

Just because a lot of people disagree with you, doesn't mean it's organized "brigading".

I like that it doesn’t have many zombies. We’ve all seen loads of them and their rarity means it’s a genuine scare when they appear.

(I’ve not played the game though but I’m going to get it now)

Warning, there are a lot more zombies in the game than the show (still not like an insane number, just more). It's different in a way really. The stakes in the game are lower, you can heal yourself and all that, so having a bunch of zombies isn't really death. You can also start at a checkpoint if you die. But in the show the characters can't just heal, and the stakes are low if they can just fight them off easily and or evade them. So by making the zombies scarcer in some ways in the show, but they make those encounters extremely deadly in the show to advance the story. They play a role to telling the story, but are not the point of the story.

Also, the game is an action game, so, naturally, zombies are more plentiful or it wouldn't really be an action game so much.

Why would they make the show about zombies if the game wasn't really about zombies?

What you describe on reddit is more about its tyrannical moderator problem.

Each sub is essentially its own website, its own forum, on a unified UI and userbase.

And it is extraordinarily hard to create and advertise an alternative sub to an established one. If I think /r/apples is terrible, for example, it is uncommon for a breakaway /r/realapples can get traction.

So yeah, the TLoS subs are probably a bunch of fans mostly, and are wary of trolls. Legitimate criticism is just blown away because the power users of that sub don't care for it. It sucks but that's how it is on that site.

As for your opinion, I think the show is good, I like the world-building and how people cope with the details of the life.

How can one recognize brigading? Or heavy moderation? What if it's as simple as unpopular opinions catch downvote?

Haven't played the game in ages. But wasn't the biggest threat always other humans instead of zombies? I feel the show seems to be portraying that pretty well.

I think it's a good show. Is there brigading? There could be, but that itself wouldn't be enough if the show itself was not good enough.

Is it 9/10? Mmm, not really.

Anecdotally, I've found that generally HBO needs to pass a lower bar in order to get a higher rating than Netflix has to. So, same quality, Netflix could get a 7-8/10, whereas HBO gets 9.*/10 on IMDB.

In the same way Elden Ring "revolutionized open world games" and is a "must play game", when it doesn't really have any internal motivation to begin with.

Elden Ring hype was based on reviewers playing the first 8-10 hours and (justifiably) being very impressed with it, completely missing how repetitive, frustrating and overly hard it gets later, not to mention the terrible ending.

Reviewers I read finished the game.

It’s one of the greatest games imo.

Elden Ring repetitive, too long, and the only Soulsborne I will never finish, but it is ground breaking and has disrupted the stale genre of open world games, and the larger world of games that want to hold your hand and designed with a focus group.

Many gamers just want to get lost. Many gamers are fine with challenge. We do not need a thousand markers on the screen because nan might get lost. Nan would rather get lost in a fantasy world and fight a boss a dozen times than having an easy mode.

Elden Ring is an absolute masterpiece and deserving all of its praise.

That said, the open world is Elden Ring's biggest flaw, and I hope to return to the less accessible design of the previous games. Victory has to be earned to truly mean anything.

Elden Ring is an incredible game that takes the wonder of discovery and puts it in a fantasy open world setting in a way that makes exploration a joy.

It has been years since I felt the way I do playing it. I cannot recommend it enough.

I felt that way at the start, but it started to get silly difficult from the city onwards. And as a story-focused gamer the very abstract nature of the lore and the literally 5 second long ending was a disappointment. Agree though the feeling for the first two areas was amazing and I'm glad I played it.

This isn't really fair to ER: while it drops off a little in the last third of the main path, the endgame side area (yes that one) blew me away and is the most fun I've had in years.

The infected are the substrate for human stories, which are the parts that make the games (and show) remarkable. What is fun in a game is likely less so in a show, so I can understand why they've minimised the infected.

I assume the other hope is that it takes a great story and makes it more accessible to a less-zombie-keen audience.

My gripe with this strategy is that in minimising the infected presence, the dream of a vaccine from Ellie's situation feels less important. What's the point if the world is rife with dangerous raiders anyway, etc.

On the other point, I seriously doubt PR companies are working to the extent you suggest. It's defensive behaviour from some fans who take issue with opinions of other fans. Usual culture-war battleground stuff.