Let's play along and break down some of the vice review then shall we because there is a lot of questionable things here
Your character overcomes one challenge after another through wit and strength… but all you actually do as a player is follow an obvious path to a clearly-marked crack in the wall leading to the next area.
Not true is it as if you've played the game you will get to Seattle day one when it opens up and theres a few different ways to go and things to explore. Also this is like criticising resident evil for doors leading to the next area. Or way points on a map.
The combination of stealth and action gameplay remains largely unchanged. Zombies still shamble around trying to hear your approach, while humans walk regular patrol circuits. Both are easily distracted by lures, and can be choked or stabbed to death from behind. Nor is the world particularly dangerous, despite its devastation and horrors: every surprise attack is telegraphed. Enemies always announce themselves, giving you ample time to come up with a plan of attack. It has all the aesthetics of motifs of a survival horror game, yet none of their pushback.
lol...where to start. So the ability to go prone, hide in grass, craft silencers means the stealth is largely unchanged? And regular combat..the ability to dodge, to use your switchblade on clickers as opposed to crafting shivs, the ability to customise all your weapons so much more means that combat has remained unchanged? Human AI is way better this time round and you can even use the infected and humans against each other frequently to tip things in your favour. even if the core stealth and combat mechanics went unchanged, why is that so bad? Very little changes between sequels, look at the combat between Red Dead 1 and Red Dead 2.
It criticises the game for not being pure horror despite the backdrop, what the..so because it's trying to create a realistic environment for a post apocalyptic world the fact it doesn't do horror like actually horror games is a slight on it..seems unfair but whatever
For instance, The Last of Us 2 suggests post-apocalyptic scarcity but in truth the whole world is a great big ammo magazine, so shootouts aren’t as fraught as they initially appear. While you can’t carry too much ammo for any one weapon, you have a decent selection of weapons and there is always plenty of fresh ammo and crafting equipment to be looted from your surroundings. Anything you need is always close at hand. In fact this might be the least challenging of any of Naughty Dog’s action-adventures, despite the fact that your characters are supposed to be beleaguered survivors on the ragged edge, not the self-assured heroes of a lighthearted blockbuster.
You can literally change all the difficulty options including ammo and item frequency, infact it's one of the most accessible games in that regard. Maybe if you want it to be more suspenseful the writer should of whacked that up to aggressive in the options (unless you know..he didn't see those options because he didn't play the game)
Opinions are opinions but they can be called out if they are flat out wrong..closing quote...
Every facet of the original game has been expanded and enlarged in the sequel, but not actually improved
It's not true. There are improvements, crafting has improved, stealth improved, human AI, skill tree, even basic hand to hand combat improved. Even your companion AI improved. If the story didn't improve or impress then whatever but to say every facet of the game has seen no improvement is just not true, it's a lie.
