I kind of agree with you... However, I will sound like an elitist prick but you can't compare the judgement of a layman person and a "connoisseur" or a critic. And honestly, I will give much more weight to the opinion and critics of the latter two than the former.

That's absolutely fine, I don't think It's all that elitist. I'm not, taking a stance on whether that's bad or good though, just that these "connoisseurs" or critics who are reviewing - or more precisely criticizing - art are doing so from a position of academic literacy and less so as enthusiasts of the art in order to judge it as objectively as they can - whereas most people reading those reviews usually care about the emotional experience instead.

To put this into context, consider Michiko Kakutani's time at the Times as the chief book critic. Over the course of her tenure, she was often regarded as a fierce and ruthless literary critic who placed her sights on even the most acclaimed authors from the likes of Margaret Atwood and Haruki Murakami to David Foster Wallace and Jonathan Franzen.

Her criticisms were merciless and uncompromising - I don't think she ever used a single "I" in her reviews - yet It didn't ruin their careers, but In fact propelled some of them - notably the latter two. In fact most people don't think of these writers as less than extraordinary because of what she said about their work - precisely because if people are emotionally impacted by the work then the criticism doesn't matter all that much.

So, when It comes to video game journalism, these individuals are acting more as reviewers rather than critics - the difference in my mind being that they are giving their opinion based on their preference and informed experiences as a reviewer rather than critics trying to judge a game on sheer argument. I don't think they are untrustworthy - I think people expect criticism when that's not what they are trying to give.

With that said, you can't either trust the opinion of most game "jounralists" these days (like the clown that have put TLoU2 on the same level as Schindler's list... like... bro... What's next? Comparing the Burj Khalifa with Notre-Dame and putting them on the same level?)

So a lot of people compare games like Ocarina of Time, A Link to the Past and even Half Life as being the "Citizen Kane of games" as a prelude to the maturity of the stories that would arise In their wake. It's less of a direct or literal comparison to what the movie is about and more of a superficial comparison to how It influenced Its medium. So In many ways, Jeff could have selected any other movie to use as analogy, but as I understand It his comparison to Schindler List was in his words the mark of a piece of media that was "not fun to watch, but also essential".

While, I agree It is a poorly chosen analogy - he would also seem to side with that opinion - my overall point with this Is that everyone starts out as a clean slate - so who's to say which collection of experiences qualify people to best decide what is objectively good or bad art when we all start out the same way?

I am totally fine with a game "resonating" with some people on a personal level, that's cool. That's what art is supposed to do. But it does not make it necessarily good or worth of praises. I am sure Crazy Frog did resonate with some people at a personal level, it doesn't make it good music

If we entertain the idea that art is objectively supposed to connect with people on a personal level, doesn't that mean that the art Is good when It succeeds at doing that? But even without using objective reasoning, what you said ultimately begs the following question - If resonating with a game on a personal level doesn't make It good, then doesn't that mean not resonating with It doesn't make It bad - so how can you ever be objectively sure what the game is doing is good or bad?

Critics may have more academic knowledge on the philosophy and history of literature or the use of language more than the average person, but their opinions of media are often in flux too. They reread books like most people, and either double down on their preexisting opinions, remain unchanged in their perspective or glean something much different - this is why I disagree with using terminology like good and bad - mostly because It assumes that minds can't be changed.

See, I have been watching AoT recently and some of these ploys have been used in season 4 to some extend (making one of the main character "the bad guy" to some extent and making the viewer more sympathetic towards some former antagonists)... except there it makes sense.

Well that's because Isayama wants the audience to be sympathetic to that character which I will not name, while Halley Gross, Neil Druckmann and the rest of the team of writers expressed that they wanted to tell a story that wasn't prescriptive in how they player should feel. You aren't being asked to empathize/sympathize with Abby, Joel, Ellie or anyone, but hopefully the game makes you curious enough to want to understand them.

I personally enjoy Isayama's of storytelling more - just because I have to think less about stuff - but their are stark differences between how Attack on Titan and The Last of Us Part II approach their themes of revenge.

Ellie pretty much rescinds her revenge by day 3, - if not earlier, but that's best left for another discussion - so TLOU2 is focusing more on what It means to experience CPTSD, losing a father figure and how to heal from It - you get that from Reiner of course, but It isn't nearly as in-depth as It is in TLOU2 given his limited screen time - less than anything about revenge - in fact neither Abby or Ellie actually stop specifically because of revenge.

AoT S4 in turn makes the show more into a political thriller and takes the approach of being more subversive to Shonen tropes by illustrating how indulging in revenge is corrupting and misguided to one's character - two different approaches to storytelling that lead to two different experiences.

This is getting a bit long on my part - bad at summarizing and all that - but I can discuss the specific criticisms you have of the story in another comment if you would like.