Support NeoGAF

[sol_bad]

Marleen and the Fireflies started the fight, and they don't compromise. That flashback where she is conflicted is a retcon of the uncompromising zeal the Fireflies have and established in the 1st game.

Marleen in TLOU2 is not a retcon. The scene between Marlene and Joel in the hospital in TLOU1 takes place after she has talked to the surgeon. Even taking the surgeon out of the scenario, you can still see that the decision Marlene makes in TLOU1 is not an easy decision.


Listen to how her voice is nearly breaking when she is talking to Joel.

That was never Joels character. you are making this up to cover for the writers bad narrative. He only fought to defend himself from aggressors. the Fireflies were serial aggressors that only accept submission.

This is Joel defending himself?

 

[Keihart]

these things are mentioned in the second game, another retcon. TLOU2 is full of alterations to characters established in the 1st game. Can't help but feel Niel was trying to erase the legacy of his senior Bruce Straley . some people are that petty.

Rose tinted glasses dude, the whole point of the first game it's Joel getting himself some humanity back and the hard cut at the end it's for the player to question at what cost.

 

[Amiga]

You know why I didn’t address that specific example? Because I don’t have an issue with it. It makes sense, if a little too convenient.


I’m addressing the argument that won’t seem to die, which is:
Joel and Tommy softened while in Jackson. This explains why they were so willing to help a stranger, give their names to her multiple times, and let their guard down in the chalet.

It is never demonstrated that Joel or Tommy have lost a step in their survival instincts. I’m not going to fill in the blanks for the writer/director. It’s their job to convey this to the audience.

When we first join Joel and Tommy and they leave the house, we see the dead they killed on their way in. That’s the only time we get to see them prior to this. It’s never established that they’ve lost any edge whatsoever. They were mildly cautious entering the chalet, I would say they’re relaxed, but some read it as you have. That’s splitting hairs.

The issue I have is that they are outnumbered 8:2, there is a camo-painted Humvee parked in the garage, they are all wearing some sort of tactical garb, some have patches on them that say WLF, an unknown group holed up just outside Jackson, only there a day, the only unholstered weapon is the shotgun held by Owen. Upon entering Tommy puts his back to a wall by the door, smart move and allows him to see everything in the room without having to turn his head. Joel walks dead center into the group. Somehow Owen transfers the shotgun to Abby and she readies it in full view of Tommy without Tommy reacting in any way until Joel has already been shot. If Joel had done the smart thing, he would have parked beside Tommy, but then the whole scene couldn’t play out in the same dramatic fashion. The scene wasn’t well executed and from the information inside the game itself, this was out of character for Joel to be so foolish around strangers.

This could have been easily solved if Abbys and co were staking out the town for days, noticed patrol patterns and decided to set a trap on that day. they are veteran military and can hid their presence. the game would have much less plot holes if there was respect for the set-up.

 

[Keihart]

This could have been easily solved if Abbys and co were staking out the town for days, noticed patrol patterns and decided to set a trap on that day. they are veteran military and can hid their presence. the game would have much less plot holes if there was respect for the set-up.

It's not a fucking ambush dude, Joel dies just like people that had the bad luck to be in his path before.
They are searching for him, but when he enters the house, nobody except Abby knew who he was.

 

[Amiga]

Marleen in TLOU2 is not a retcon. The scene between Marlene and Joel in the hospital in TLOU1 takes place after she has talked to the surgeon. Even taking the surgeon out of the scenario, you can still see that the decision Marlene makes in TLOU1 is not an easy decision.


Listen to how her voice is nearly breaking when she is talking to Joel.



This is Joel defending himself?

that's what warlords do, they say "this hurts me more than it hurts you". in the end she orders him shot if he resists. so she set up the intent to kill him if he tries to save Ellie. and in her own words shut down any other options. from here it was kill or be killed.

 

[bishopcruz]

Marleen and the Fireflies started the fight, and they don't compromise. That flashback where she is conflicted is a retcon of the uncompromising zeal the Fireflies have and established in the 1st game.

Eh, Marleen was conflicted in Part 1, she mentions it in her journal and recorders. I love her writing in the first game, the way that she basically makes it so that the choice isn't in her hands, that there are no other options, that it has to happen, that she would be selfish for denying it, it's all there in a surprisingly small amount of dialog and text.

Joel can see it too: "Yeah, keep telling yourself that bullshit."

I don't believe what the Fireflies are doing is right but I don't believe what Joel is doing is right either. I understand both perspectives and that they both believe they are doing the right thing.
Well, Joel obviously doesn't believe he is doing the right thing, hence the reason he lies to Ellie about what happened.
hmmmm



Just like the first game desperately gets you to sympathise with Joel. They go so far as just glossing over the horrible things he has done in the past.

The problem is, Joel being wrong is predicated on the fireflies being in the right, and the fireflies being wrong makes Joel's actions correct. The two are mutually exclusive.


The morally ambiguity in Joel's actions have to do with the lie. And here is the thing, even taking TLoU2 into account Joel believes he did the right thing. He lies to Ellie to protect her, or at least that is a large part of the equation. He has seen her deal with her survivor's guilt, and while he doesn't know about Riley yet, he saw how Sam affected her, and saw how Tess did too. Joel is no stranger to survivor's guilt either, he says it to her at the end of the game on how she has to find something to live for, something it took him far too long to actually find.

 

[bender]

Good discussion here. Speaking of the lie, I always read the end TLOU as Ellie knowing Joel was telling her a lie. I get the symbolism they were going for with Ellie's/Abbie's hallway walk to the operating room, but Ellie going back to Utah years later felt completely unnecessary as did Joel tracking her down. I wish Druckman and the writers would have used a softer touch in their story telling.

 

[Amiga]

Eh, Marleen was conflicted in Part 1,

the retcon is Marlene didn't want to, it was the doctor who pushed her. and when she asked him if it was Abby he froze. signaling he wasn't sure or will to pay the price. but OK with sacrificing other people.

Spoiler

did any of you play the Yakuza spin-off Judgment, the plot revolves around this issue, about serial murders run by a pharmaceutical company in search for a world changing cure. but turns out the doctor was delusional and in denial about the failure of his work

 

[Explosive Zombie]

The part where she constructs straw men in order to dismiss arguments? I’ll cut her some slack since she’s trying to be funny, but the ”who cares?”, she can cram it up her ass. “Turn off your brain and just enjoy it.” shouldn’t be required.

Batman’s character development was explained and shown in the writing and filming. Dark Knight Rises has plenty of other plot holes. We understood why he was that way because it was either shown or told.

We are left to assume things about Joel’s changes in order to justify what actions he and Tommy took. Again, poor writing/directing. You have to demonstrate these things. Don’t tell me to go read a fucking comic that fills in the story or make assumptions because the writer couldn’t be bothered to include it. Your work must stand on its own.

Oh no, you're among the people who complain about "plot holes" in The Dark Knight Rises? Pressing F, my man.

 

[DForce]

You know why I didn’t address that specific example? Because I don’t have an issue with it. It makes sense, if a little too convenient.

I explained the part in which she was talking about alleged plot holes. You accused her throwing a straw man when she didn't.

I’m addressing the argument that won’t seem to die, which is:
Joel and Tommy softened while in Jackson. This explains why they were so willing to help a stranger, give their names to her multiple times, and let their guard down in the chalet.

It is never demonstrated that Joel or Tommy have lost a step in their survival instincts. I’m not going to fill in the blanks for the writer/director. It’s their job to convey this to the audience.

Because they're no longer fighting for survival. Things don't need to be explained when it's obvious. If Tommy and Maria are willing to bring in new members into their community, then we know they have opened up compared to 4 years ago when they were ready to shoot Joel and Ellie for trying to pass through. The fact that people are telling others to stop by the community shows they are not the same people as they were years ago.

This really doesn't matter because Joel didn't walk into that situation without being cautious of his surroundings. People say Tommy was acting too friendly and "changed" but that's something anybody would do if they felt they might be in danger. The fact that Tommy mentioned that they should go back to their down to stock up shows he wanted to lead them to a safer environment.

When we first join Joel and Tommy and they leave the house, we see the dead they killed on their way in. That’s the only time we get to see them prior to this. It’s never established that they’ve lost any edge whatsoever. They were mildly cautious entering the chalet, I would say they’re relaxed, but some read it as you have. That’s splitting hairs.

You don't know why or how those people died. It was also shortly after Joel stopped Ellie from dying.

 

[DForce]

that's what warlords do, they say "this hurts me more than it hurts you". in the end she orders him shot if he resists. so she set up the intent to kill him if he tries to save Ellie. and in her own words shut down any other options. from here it was kill or be killed.

It will kill, be killed or walk away.


Neither Joel or Marlene asked Ellie for her consent. Both were wrong in this case, but Joel had the chance to ask her for her consent and he didn't. Joel's decision was selfish because that's what he wanted. Marlene's decision was a sacrifice to save millions of people.

In the end, Ellie knew Joel lied to her.

 

[bishopcruz]

the retcon is Marlene didn't want to, it was the doctor who pushed her. and when she asked him if it was Abby he froze. signaling he wasn't sure or will to pay the price. but OK with sacrificing other people.

Spoiler

did any of you play the Yakuza spin-off Judgment, the plot revolves around this issue, about serial murders run by a pharmaceutical company in search for a world changing cure. but turns out the doctor was delusional and in denial about the failure of his work

No, for all of its flaws, that scene is pretty spot on with Marlene. Again, her dialog and journal entries in part 1 show someone who didn't want to do it, but had convinced themselves that there was no other choice. And that is what we see. She complains about it, but at the end of the day her cause is more important than Ellie, and she signs off. Her journal even goes into more detail as to why she wakes up Joel and doesn't have him killed, he's the only one left who would understand about Ellie. And this is implication and not directly in the text, but I think the dialog supports it: He was the only one who could absolve her of the act too. It's why she wants him to give her the OK, just like Jerry wanted Marlene to give him the OK.

It will kill, be killed or walk away.


Neither Joel or Marlene asked Ellie for her consent. Both were wrong in this case, but Joel had the chance to ask her for her consent, but he didn't. Joel's decision was selfish because that's what he wanted. Marlene's decision was a sacrifice to save millions of people.

In the end, Ellie knew Joel lied to her.

That is LITERALLY the opposite of what happened.

He never had the chance to talk to her about it, did you even play the first game? This is the very basics of the scenario. The only people who had the option to ask Ellie and didn't were the Fireflies. They are the ones who escalated the situation the entire damn time. This whole "Joel was selfish and stole Elllie's choice" narrative is simply not supported in the story. You can't even stretch the events to make that the case by implication.

 

[Amiga]

It will kill, be killed or walk away.


Neither Joel or Marlene asked Ellie for her consent. Both were wrong in this case, but Joel had the chance to ask her for her consent, but he didn't. Joel's decision was selfish because that's what he wanted. Marlene's decision was a sacrifice to save millions of people.

In the end, Ellie knew Joel lied to her.

Ellie wasn't going to be given the choice, Marlen made that clear. Joel didn't take anything away from Ellie.
and this drama over the lie is itself a retcon. what makes TLOU2 fail is that it repeatedly tries to alter the story told by the same creators. it is simultaneously telling us to ignore what ND established themselves in the 1st game and at the same time trust their narration in the 2nd game.

..someone who didn't want to do it, but had convinced themselves that there was no other choice.

that's the change here, that she didn't convince herself. it was the doctor who pushed her

 

[DForce]

That is LITERALLY the opposite of what happened.

He never had the chance to talk to her about it, did you even play the first game? This is the very basics of the scenario. The only people who had the option to ask Ellie and didn't were the Fireflies. They are the ones who escalated the situation the entire damn time. This whole "Joel was selfish and stole Elllie's choice" narrative is simply not supported in the story. You can't even stretch the events to make that the case by implication.

Never had a chance?

Marlene "You can still do the right thing here."

Did you miss that part?

Or what about Joel lying to her when she regained consciousness.

Yes, he had options, he chose not to. It IS supported because Joel did not want Ellie to make the decision, he lied to her to stop her from making it. He stopped Marlene from coming after HER.


Did YOU even play the game?

 

[DForce]

Ellie wasn't going to be given the choice, Marlen made that clear. Joel didn't take anything away from Ellie.
and this drama over the lie is itself a retcon. what makes TLOU2 fail is that it repeatedly tries to alter the story told by the same creators. it is simultaneously telling us to ignore what ND established themselves in the 1st game and at the same time trust their narration in the 2nd game.

No, they COULD have given her the chance to make the choice, but they didn't. Joel had the opportunity, but it's clear that he didn't want to.

There's a reason why he lied to her and that cannot be ignored.

 

[Amiga]

No, they COULD have given her the chance to make the choice, but they didn't. Joel had the opportunity, but it's clear that he didn't want to.

There's a reason why he lied to her and that cannot be ignored.

when did he have that opportunity?

 

[bishopcruz]

that's the change here, that she didn't convince herself. it was the doctor who pushed her

It's 5:30PM on... April 28th. I just finished speaking... More like yelling at our head surgeon. Apparently there's no way to extricate the parasite without eliminating the host. Fancy way of saying we gotta kill the fucking kid. And now they're asking for my go ahead. The tests just keep getting harder and harder, don't they? I'm so tired. I'm exhausted and I just want this to end... So be it.

That's from part 1, if you want to say anything was a retcon it would be the timing makes it seem as if she hadn't made the decision when she recorded it, but it came down to Doctor told her, doctor asked for her go ahead, she agreed after a bit of soul searching. Don't see any change really. Jerry was the lead surgeon, he would have been the one to ask her. Another journal called her being asked "a formality" which this appeared to be as well. So sorry, just don't see any recon at all with Marlene's actions.

 

[DForce]

when did he have that opportunity?

You think Joel didn't have the opportunity to tell Ellie when she woke up?

Did he have to choose Marlene?
Could he have waited for Ellie and ask her?

Those two are possibilities, but we know Joel wasn't going to consider it because he didn't want Ellie to die.

I' repeat; He lied to her for a reason.

 

[bishopcruz]

No, they COULD have given her the chance to make the choice, but they didn't. Joel had the opportunity, but it's clear that he didn't want to.

There's a reason why he lied to her and that cannot be ignored.

When? Tell me EXACTLY WHEN in the series of events that played out from Joel being woken up after being knocked out to him being marched out the door at gunpoint that Joel could have asked Ellie did Joel have the opportunity to choose.

This isn't a matter of interpretation there is a very strict series of events and in none of them was Joel asking Ellie ever an option.

 

[DForce]

When? Tell me EXACTLY WHEN in the series of events that played out from Joel being woken up after being knocked out to him being marched out the door at gunpoint that Joel could have asked Ellie did Joel have the opportunity to choose.

This isn't a matter of interpretation there is a very strict series of events and in none of them was Joel asking Ellie ever an option.

You're moving the goalpost now.

Here is what you said.

He never had the chance to talk to her about it

Never = in no point in time. Now you want to close the gap from waking up to being marched out.

He had the chance to ask Ellie when she asked him what happened.
Marlene gave him a chance and he was no longer forced by any guard to give up Ellie. Marlene lowered her gun and let Joel make the decision.

If you don't think Joel didn't have a chance during these two events, then you're lying to yourself.

 

[Amiga]

That's from part 1, if you want to say anything was a retcon it would be the timing makes it seem as if she hadn't made the decision when she recorded it, but it came down to Doctor told her, doctor asked for her go ahead, she agreed after a bit of soul searching. Don't see any change really. Jerry was the lead surgeon, he would have been the one to ask her. Another journal called her being asked "a formality" which this appeared to be as well. So sorry, just don't see any recon at all with Marlene's actions.

since she was the boss you would think the argument was about the validity of the diagnoses, TLOU2 changes that to the doctor telling her to ignore the cost. it's a deterrent premise.

 

[bishopcruz]

You think Joel didn't have the opportunity to tell Ellie when she woke up?

Did he have to choose Marlene?
Could he have waited for Ellie and ask her?

Those two are possibilities, but we know Joel wasn't going to consider it because he didn't want Ellie to die.

I' repeat; He lied to her for a reason.

Did he have to kill marlene? No, but it was the rational decision. She still had a gun in her hands after all when he shot her first, and she was the only one there who had a direct link to him and Tommy.

Could he have waited for Ellie?
No. Not at all. That was never an option. He was held at gunpoint. If he even WANTED to ask Ellie he had to shoot his way to her. And she was unconscious, not waking up until hours later. Asking her after the fact was pointless because in canon he just shot up the fireflies and killed the murderous doctor who was about to kill her, that ship had sailed.

And there was a reason he told the lie, and the reason at least, unlike the events leading up to it can be debated. Knowing Ellie's survival guilt if she knew what happened back there, she would blame herself, as well as Joel. And we know that's what she would have done, because that is what she did in part 2. She blames herself for the deaths of the fireflies, not Joel. So I think at least part of that lie was sparing her the guilt. He is lying to her for her own good, or at least that is how he sees it. You can disagree, and there is a good debate there, but that has nothing to do with her consent to be sacrificed.

You're moving the goalpost now.

Here is what you said.



Never = in no point in time. Now you want to close the gap from waking up to being marched out.

He had the chance to ask Ellie when she asked him what happened.
Marlene gave him a chance and he was no longer forced by any guard to give up Ellie. Marlene lowered her gun and let Joel make the decision.

If you don't think Joel didn't have a chance during these two events, then you're lying to yourself.

It's called context. The context of never having a chance was in regards to the firefly hospital. And why is that context important, because once the die was cast, it was over. Joel killed the shit out of that whole crew out of necessity and the cure was off the table. Her consent after the fact didn't actually matter because the people who could have done anything about it were dead, because they were idiots.

And if you think Marlene "gave him a chance" while still holding her gun in one hand and trying to talk him out of it then that's one hell of a stretch. He has Fireflies OUT FOR HIS BLOOD trying to get up an elevator behind him, what reason in high holy FUCK would he have to believe she was being sincere in that moment, and why would that be worth the risk. Beyond that, why would he believe that she would actually abide by Ellie's wishes were the girl to say no? None, because she already showed that she gave less than three runny shits about Ellie's consent when they NEVER ASKED HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Now Joel COULD have told Ellie what happened after, no one is debating that because that is the entire point of the ending, the ambiguity of the lie, but even if he HAD told her, the cure was off the table, the fireflies were shattered, the doctor was dead, and Joel was shoot on sight. From the second that first bullet was fired in the hospital there was no going back.

 

[bishopcruz]

since she was the boss you would think the argument was about the validity of the diagnoses, TLOU2 changes that to the doctor telling her to ignore the cost. it's a deterrent premise.

Marlene was losing power. The fireflies were on their last legs and people blamed her for it. Recall that is the context of the fireflies ins the entire game, they are losing constantly and badly, most of them are dead, and it seems like Salt Lake is their last bastion. She was the head of the organization but not the head of the cell. That was Jerry it seems.

From her other recorder in Part 1:
"Hey Anna... It's been awhile since we spoke. I uh... I just gave the go ahead to proceed with the surgery. I really doubt I had much of a choice, asking me was more of a formality "

And the conversation in Part 2 mirrors this pretty well. Jerry isn't asking her permission, he is asking her approval. He is asking her to "buy in" which is probably to soothe his own shriveled conscience.

 

[Keihart]

There is an obvious scapegoat here, if we argue that everyone should have acted rational and that Joel had Ellie's best interests in mind, then he could have convinced Marlene of letting ther wake up before doing the surgery, with his knowledge of Ellie most probably going through with the operation, Marlene was already conflicted about it.

This obviously makes no drama, it would've of been way too cold minded for the tone, but characters have lots of opportunities to solve things better, thing is, that's not how things go with humans most of the time, and Joel was not taking shit from anyone, he doesn't flinch about killing or torturing, less so when he got so attached to Ellie.
Joel didn't even entertained the idea of Ellie going through with it and Marlene give him the perfect excuse to force himself into the situation.

 

[DForce]

Did he have to kill marlene? No, but it was the rational decision. She still had a gun in her hands after all when he shot her first, and she was the only one there who had a direct link to him and Tommy.

Could he have waited for Ellie?
No. Not at all. That was never an option. He was held at gunpoint. If he even WANTED to ask Ellie he had to shoot his way to her. And she was unconscious, not waking up until hours later. Asking her after the fact was pointless because in canon he just shot up the fireflies and killed the murderous doctor who was about to kill her, that ship had sailed.

And there was a reason he told the lie, and the reason at least, unlike the events leading up to it can be debated. Knowing Ellie's survival guilt if she knew what happened back there, she would blame herself, as well as Joel. And we know that's what she would have done, because that is what she did in part 2. She blames herself for the deaths of the fireflies, not Joel. So I think at least part of that lie was sparing her the guilt. He is lying to her for her own good, or at least that is how he sees it. You can disagree, and there is a good debate there, but that has nothing to do with her consent to be sacrificed.

This is so bad.

He had the option.

Marlene lowered her guard and allowed Joel to give up Ellie. Asking Ellie what she thought was never going to be considered since he didn't want her to make that decision. Joel didn't have a gun pointed at his head when he was talking to Marlene.

He baited her to in an attempt to grab Ellie and shot her.

He still had a chance to tell the truth to Ellie when she woke up, ANOTHER opportunity. If he told the truth, she would've gone back.

And there was a reason he told the lie, and the reason at least, unlike the events leading up to it can be debated. Knowing Ellie's survival guilt if she knew what happened back there, she would blame herself, as well as Joel. And we know that's what she would have done, because that is what she did in part 2. She blames herself for the deaths of the fireflies, not Joel. So I think at least part of that lie was sparing her the guilt. He is lying to her for her own good, or at least that is how he sees it. You can disagree, and there is a good debate there, but that has nothing to do with her consent to be sacrificed.

No, he lied to her because she took that choice away from him.

This was said by Neil himself.

40:00

And we come to that ending and that lie and that okay and what is that okay mean? Well, it's definitely not a complicit "yeah I'll go along with you" in fact it's the opposite. It's Ellie for the first time waking up and realizing that she can't rely on him anymore. While she loves him for what he's done for her, she hates him for robbing her of that choice.

He's not lying to her for her own good, he lied to her because he didn't want to see her die.

She blames herself for the deaths of the fireflies, not Joel. So I think at least part of that lie was sparing her the guilt.

This makes zero sense. lol


I really don't think you know the story. The ending is ambiguous because we asked ourselves, "What would we do in that situation?"

The obvious choice for most people would be to save Ellie.

What made that decision hard is because of Ellie's expression after she asked Joel that question. It wasn't about guilt. She knew Joel lied to her.

 

[sol_bad]

The morally ambiguity in Joel's actions have to do with the lie. And here is the thing, even taking TLoU2 into account Joel believes he did the right thing. He lies to Ellie to protect her, or at least that is a large part of the equation. He has seen her deal with her survivor's guilt, and while he doesn't know about Riley yet, he saw how Sam affected her, and saw how Tess did too. Joel is no stranger to survivor's guilt either, he says it to her at the end of the game on how she has to find something to live for, something it took him far too long to actually find.

Why would he need to lie if he did the right thing?
He lied because he was worried that Ellie would tell him to drive her back. Selfish reasons.

 

[Umbral]

Oh no, you're among the people who complain about "plot holes" in The Dark Knight Rises? Pressing F, my man.

It’s got quite a few, but I still like the movie quite a bit. Bane is great.

I explained the part in which she was talking about alleged plot holes. You accused her throwing a straw man when she didn't.

Their channel appears to be interested more in comedy than analysis, which is fine, maybe I’m taking it too seriously. I don’t like the snarky mischaracterizations of people’s issues with the game. What she singled out is the easiest ones she could take down, barring maybe the one I have a hang up with. She chose 3 whole plot holes? There are more of them and more egregious ones, but trying to fight those in the video might not make them look so smart. Her end comment was “Who the hell cares?” Then stop talking about them because they apparently don’t bug you. Move along, knock out another 10 min video.

”...and speaking of how unrealistic Abby’s gains are in a video game about cannibalistic mushrooms.”

That doesn’t excuse anything. I mean, it’s a game about cannibalistic mushrooms, right, so anything goes. Have Ellie blast the Rattlers with her shoulder laser. It’s fiction, man. Who cares?

She/he compared the Joel/Tommy chalet scene to Batman being crippled and reclusive in The Dark Knight Rises. The Dark Knight Rises explains why that’s the case. The Last of Us Part II doesn’t do this at all in my opinion, though your reading says it does, just not as well. You’re just supposed to assume that Joel and Tommy would do something idiotic because “they’ve gotten soft” when this isn’t shown in the game. Also Tommy ignored Abby readying the shotgun while he had full view of the room. It just doesn’t work. I’d have to hit myself in the head with a golf club for it to pass muster. The scene could have been executed better and this whole conversation wouldn’t be happening. I have a feeling it was partially the result of editing, they had a very long game built and I know some stuff didn’t make it in.

Because they're no longer fighting for survival. Things don't need to be explained when it's obvious. If Tommy and Maria are willing to bring in new members into their community, then we know they have opened up compared to 4 years ago when they were ready to shoot Joel and Ellie for trying to pass through. The fact that people are telling others to stop by the community shows they are not the same people as they were years ago.

This really doesn't matter because Joel didn't walk into that situation without being cautious of his surroundings. People say Tommy was acting too friendly and "changed" but that's something anybody would do if they felt they might be in danger. The fact that Tommy mentioned that they should go back to their down to stock up shows he wanted to lead them to a safer environment.

None of that is shown well enough in the 2 hours leading up to the inciting incident.

Joel did walk in without being cautious. He walked into the center of the room allowing himself to be surround by 8 strangers. If Joel were being cautious he would have parked next to Tommy, had a round in the chamber, and his hand on his pistol. They could have had their dramatic shock scene without having Joel and Tommy look like incompetent morons. There was a better way to write it.

You don't know why or how those people died. It was also shortly after Joel stopped Ellie from dying.

I’m pretty confident those fresh bodies outside the garage are Joel and Tommy’s doing. Maybe you thought I was referring to a different scene? Sorry if I wasn’t clear. My brain’s running on low at this point in the day.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

It’s got quite a few, but I still like the movie quite a bit. Bane is great.

Does it? Do any of them matter?

 

[Umbral]

Does it? Do any of them matter?

Maybe plot holes is the wrong term, I’m not up on my critic terminology. They bug me enough to notice them, but I overlook them because I like the movie overall. If I want to look at it critically, they matter, if I want to just watch it, they don’t as much. They both do and don’t matter, I guess.

I like plenty of things that other people don’t and some that could be described as objectively bad.

 

[DForce]

Their channel appears to be interested more in comedy than analysis, which is fine, maybe I’m taking it too seriously. I don’t like the snarky mischaracterizations of people’s issues with the game. What she singled out is the easiest ones she could take down, barring maybe the one I have a hang up with. She chose 3 whole plot holes? There are more of them and more egregious ones, but trying to fight those in the video might not make them look so smart. Her end comment was “Who the hell cares?” Then stop talking about them because they apparently don’t bug you. Move along, knock out another 10 min video.

”...and speaking of how unrealistic Abby’s gains are in a video game about cannibalistic mushrooms.”

That doesn’t excuse anything. I mean, it’s a game about cannibalistic mushrooms, right, so anything goes. Have Ellie blast the Rattlers with her shoulder laser. It’s fiction, man. Who cares?

She/he compared the Joel/Tommy chalet scene to Batman being crippled and reclusive in The Dark Knight Rises. The Dark Knight Rises explains why that’s the case. The Last of Us Part II doesn’t do this at all in my opinion, though your reading says it does, just not as well. You’re just supposed to assume that Joel and Tommy would do something idiotic because “they’ve gotten soft” when this isn’t shown in the game. Also Tommy ignored Abby readying the shotgun while he had full view of the room. It just doesn’t work. I’d have to hit myself in the head with a golf club for it to pass muster. The scene could have been executed better and this whole conversation wouldn’t be happening. I have a feeling it was partially the result of editing, they had a very long game built and I know some stuff didn’t make it in.

You guys need to give up. You guys are just trying way to hard to criticize a game when it defies all logic.

There's no such thing as radio active spiders.

No one from the justice league or DC universe stepped in to save Gotham from being destroyed by Bane.

But it doesn't make sense!


It does excuse things. Just stop trying to cling on to one aspect of the game while trying to ignore others. You balance things in a world you're writing and everything isn't is not meant to be perfect.

She/he compared the Joel/Tommy chalet scene to Batman being crippled and reclusive in The Dark Knight Rises. The Dark Knight Rises explains why that’s the case.

No. She said why does Joel cautiously agree to follow Abby to her friends location while being chased by a horde of infected.



Do you realize that she just explained part of the reason why she follow them right? She just told you why, they're being chased by infected. In the game, Tommy says their horses cannot make it back to Jackson. Yeah, horses cannot travel a long distance without stopping and Tommy said it's a few hours away.

None of that is shown well enough in the 2 hours leading up to the inciting incident.

Joel did walk in without being cautious. He walked into the center of the room allowing himself to be surround by 8 strangers. If Joel were being cautious he would have parked next to Tommy, had a round in the chamber, and his hand on his pistol. They could have had their dramatic shock scene without having Joel and Tommy look like incompetent morons. There was a better way to write it.

He was being cautious. The way he questions and looks at people shows that. But yeah, have them run out and look suspicious when they're around a group of people with guns.

But lets look at the scene in which people compare it to. People bring up the fact that Joel didn't trust a stranger on the road and was always suspicious during the first game. People don't bring p the fact that he drove right through a trap, even though he has seen people pull that trick on them before.

They would look like complete morons if the horde stopped chasing them right before the gate closed. It wouldn't make sense to have them go straight out and ride off, but we know Abby wouldn't let that happen, even if Tommy didn't give them their names.

When I first played the game, I knew Tommy suggested they should go back with them to Jackson because they would be surrounded by their people.


Pretend there was a small family and Joel was killed by the wife or husband. People would still consider it "Bad writing" because they believe Joel wouldn't lower his guard, but we know from the game many people within the town were bringing back people to look at the city to have them join the community. It was open to many people, and to do this, Joel wouldn't be always suspicious of people he encounters.

I’m pretty confident those fresh bodies outside the garage are Joel and Tommy’s doing. Maybe you thought I was referring to a different scene? Sorry if I wasn’t clear. My brain’s running on low at this point in the day.

I've noticed several times you missed a lot about the story of the Last of Us Part II. You even missed many points in her video.

 

[Amiga]

You guys need to give up. You guys are just trying way to hard to criticize a game when it defies all logic.

There's no such thing as radio active spiders.

No one from the justice league or DC universe stepped in to save Gotham from being destroyed by Bane.

But it doesn't make sense!


It does excuse things. Just stop trying to cling on to one aspect of the game while trying to ignore others. You balance things in a world you're writing and everything isn't is not meant to be perfect.



No. She said why does Joel cautiously agree to follow Abby to her friends location while being chased by a horde of infected.



Do you realize that she just explained part of the reason why she follow them right? She just told you why, they're being chased by infected. In the game, Tommy says their horses cannot make it back to Jackson. Yeah, horses cannot travel a long distance without stopping and Tommy said it's a few hours away.



He was being cautious. The way he questions and looks at people shows that. But yeah, have them run out and look suspicious when they're around a group of people with guns.

But lets look at the scene in which people compare it to. People bring up the fact that Joel didn't trust a stranger on the road and was always suspicious during the first game. People don't bring p the fact that he drove right through a trap, even though he has seen people pull that trick on them before.

They would look like complete morons if the horde stopped chasing them right before the gate closed. It wouldn't make sense to have them go straight out and ride off, but we know Abby wouldn't let that happen, even if Tommy didn't give them their names.

When I first played the game, I knew Tommy suggested they should go back with them to Jackson because they would be surrounded by their people.


Pretend there was a small family and Joel was killed by the wife or husband. People would still consider it "Bad writing" because they believe Joel wouldn't lower his guard, but we know from the game many people within the town were bringing back people to look at the city to have them join the community. It was open to many people, and to do this, Joel wouldn't be always suspicious of people he encounters.



I've noticed several times you missed a lot about the story of the Last of Us Part II. You even missed many points in her video.

the cabin was just one example of bade set-ups, if it was just the one or even just 3 then we could give it pass. but it happens over and over and over. It reeks of pre-set event control. like after the cabin Tommy was talking Ellie out of it. then suddenly leaves alone. this was obviously to set-up Ellie and Dina bounding. the convenient overused notes of people pointing you to the next event but the game insists you to torture a girl to force the Ellie corruption narrative . Jesse surviving hordes of zombies and gunmen just to get one-shot in the face bursting into an obvious trap. the unskipable long walking instances that try to force you to emphasis with Abby..etc there is plenty more of this cheep plotting that keeps snapping you out of the game.

 

[tassletine]

Still can't see what the agenda being pushed is, and why exactly its bad.

I mean what lifestyle choices are being promoted? None of the characters are especially virtuous, they act selfishly and impulsively, constantly falling into (self-)destructive patterns of behavior.

But that's the underlying point: Its not a feel-good story!

I don't actually think they succeeded in pushing an agenda, which is probably why you can't see it -- as the game isn't well written enough to deal with those topics head on -- but Druckman has said that he put his politics into the game.

I have a hard time finding why this is entertaining myself, but I have seen others getting excited at the fact they put a couple of 'strong women' into the game, so I have to assume that some people get a real kick out of this. To me it very much feels like Druckman trying to be edgy, without realising that most of the world doesn't care.

 

[DForce]

the cabin was just one example of bade set-ups, if it was just the one or even just 3 then we could give it pass. but it happens over and over and over. It reeks of pre-set event control. like after the cabin Tommy was talking Ellie out of it. then suddenly leaves alone. this was obviously to set-up Ellie and Dina bounding. the convenient overused notes of people pointing you to the next event but the game insists you to torture a girl to force the Ellie corruption narrative . Jesse surviving hordes of zombies and gunmen just to get one-shot in the face bursting into an obvious trap. the unskipable long walking instances that try to force you to emphasis with Abby..etc there is plenty more of this cheep plotting that keeps snapping you out of the game.

It happens over and over in movies and video games.

That's what people fail to realize.

People talked about The Dark Knight Rises being a good movie, so I'll use this as an example.

-Robin and Bane are one of the few people who know who Batman really is, but it's clueless to most people.
- Bane lets Batman live and "waits" to kill him.
- Catwoman shoots a window and there happens to be some suspended scaffold right outside of the window.
- Talia Ghul doesn't kill batman when she reveals herself.
- Talia Ghul tries detonates and the conveniently run out of time before the remote is disabled.
- An office is killed right in front of Robin\Blake, but decide to throw him down in some lower passage just to kill him, but wait, Batman makes it in time to save the day.
- Batman makes it at the right time to save Gordon from falling into the icy water.


You see how silly it is to point out all the convenient circumstances? I can do this all day with a lot of action movies.

 

[Kadayi]

Oh no, you're among the people who complain about "plot holes" in The Dark Knight Rises? Pressing F, my man.

LOL. Are you saying that there aren't plot holes in Dark Knight Rises? What next? Prometheus is a flawless masterpiece? Please, people have the right to critique a book, a film, a TV show or game anyway they see fit, and if there are things they find nonsensical or egregious they have the right to bring them up, never more so on what is ostensibly a gaming discussion forum of all place. In the case of TLOU2 a creative endeavour that is seemingly aiming for some degree of fidelity based off of its look and feel then its invariably going to be held up to certain level of scrutiny. The problem with giving this sort of stuff a pass is it sends out a message of 'why try harder?' to the development community. Personally from a storytelling perspective I'd say gaming is an exciting medium to operate in, but aside from the odd exception (Disco Elysium springs to mind) for the most part narratives in games tend to leave a lot to be desired versus other more established mediums like TV and film and in that respect the gaming press (especially the pro sites) often come up short in recognising and acknowledging these shortcomings (We've been here before in the past with Mass Effect 3 for instance).

Albeit I'm aware that there is an HBO TLOU adaptation in the works. If the story as told in TLOU2 was a straight up TV series beat for beat, do you think the TV critics like Alan Sepinwall would be giving it '10/10 Masterpiece' scores, or do you think you'd be taking it to task? By what metric does simply being a game make it ok to hold it up to a lesser standard?

That doesn’t excuse anything. I mean, it’s a game about cannibalistic mushrooms, right, so anything goes. Have Ellie blast the Rattlers with her shoulder laser. It’s fiction, man. Who cares?

Seems to me that they've adopted the RPS 'handwave' approach of overpraising a game but then when being taken to task by people who disagree in the comments, not only misrepresenting the views expressed by people, but also denying that they're reviewers (hilarious given their channel name). Sad tbh.

 

[Amiga]

It happens over and over in movies and video games.

That's what people fail to realize.

People talked about The Dark Knight Rises being a good movie, so I'll use this as an example.

-Robin and Bane are one of the few people who know who Batman really is, but it's clueless to most people.
- Bane lets Batman live and "waits" to kill him.
- Catwoman shoots a window and there happens to be some suspended scaffold right outside of the window.
- Talia Ghul doesn't kill batman when she reveals herself.
- Talia Ghul tries detonates and the conveniently run out of time before the remote is disabled.
- An office is killed right in front of Robin\Blake, but decide to throw him down in some lower passage just to kill him, but wait, Batman makes it in time to save the day.
- Batman makes it at the right time to save Gordon from falling into the icy water.


You see how silly it is to point out all the convenient circumstances? I can do this all day with a lot of action movies.

Yah, that's why it's the worst in the trilogy. also, Spider-Man 3 is made by the same guy who made 1&2. the guy who did Dances with Wolves also did Waterworld. creativity is not a constant set standard.

 

[DForce]

Yah, that's why it's the worst in the trilogy. also, Spider-Man 3 is made by the same guy who made 1&2. the guy who did Dances with Wolves also did Waterworld. creativity is not a constant set standard.

So now it's the worst. I can do the same thing about the other two movies. lol

 

[Explosive Zombie]

LOL. Are you saying that there aren't plot holes in Dark Knight Rises? What next? Prometheus is a flawless masterpiece? Please, people have the right to critique a book, a film, a TV show or game anyway they see fit, and if there are things they find nonsensical or egregious they have the right to bring them up, never more so on what is ostensibly a gaming discussion forum of all place. In the case of TLOU2 a creative endeavour that is seemingly aiming for some degree of fidelity based off of its look and feel then its invariably going to be held up to certain level of scrutiny. The problem with giving this sort of stuff a pass is it sends out a message of 'why try harder?' to the development community. Personally from a storytelling perspective I'd say gaming is an exciting medium to operate in, but aside from the odd exception (Disco Elysium springs to mind) for the most part narratives in games tend to leave a lot to be desired versus other more established mediums like TV and film and in that respect the gaming press (especially the pro sites) often come up short in recognising and acknowledging these shortcomings (We've been here before in the past with Mass Effect 3 for instance).

Albeit I'm aware that there is an HBO TLOU adaptation in the works. If the story as told in TLOU2 was a straight up TV series beat for beat, do you think the TV critics like Alan Sepinwall would be giving it '10/10 Masterpiece' scores, or do you think you'd be taking it to task? By what metric does simply being a game make it ok to hold it up to a lesser standard?

If your critiques are nonsensical/egregious I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING THAT UP. I'm not sure what anyone is "giving it a pass on" like there's some absurd flaws we should all acknowledge? Why does the gaming press need to compare game narratives to other mediums? Do movie critics compare movies to books or TV shows to talk down their narratives?

If it was beat for beat it'd be more action than narrative, few shows can get away with that, especially due to budget concerns.

 

[Kadayi]

If your critiques are nonsensical/egregious I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING THAT UP.

You're not very good at this whole discussion forum thing are you? You either have reasoned counterpoints, or you don't, and if it's the latter if you're smart you have the good sense to bow out when the going is good. Though as evinced by this and a few other TLOU2 threads, some people are more than happy to debase themselves with all manner of convoluted half-arguments, because they harbour the delusion that digging deeper will somehow miraculously get them out of the pit they've in. I've yet to witness that ever happen.

I'm not sure what anyone is "giving it a pass on" like there's some absurd flaws we should all acknowledge? Why does the gaming press need to compare game narratives to other mediums? Do movie critics compare movies to books or TV shows to talk down their narratives?

Don't be obtuse. I'm talking about standards, not direct comparisons. Clearly you're in the Naughty Dog can do no wrong camp and that's your prerogative (though I think it's foolhardy to anthropomorphise companies as a rule, because over time their staff change), but the notion that story in games is somehow a lesser thing so it's OK to hold it to a lower standard, least of all when it's driving the experience is an absolute nonstarter.

If it was beat for beat it'd be more action than narrative, few shows can get away with that, especially due to budget concerns.

LOL. Let's just presume that the show would follow the main plot points and structure, but without half an hour every episode of Ellie or Abby crawling around a bunch of ruins ending Clickers, fools and Dogs and rifling through drawers for ammunition. Do you think from a narrative perspective Alan Sepinwall would be heaping praise on it? Would he be holding it up against the likes of Breaking Bad or The Sopranos as Top Tier Drama?

 

[Keihart]

the cabin was just one example of bade set-ups, if it was just the one or even just 3 then we could give it pass. but it happens over and over and over. It reeks of pre-set event control. like after the cabin Tommy was talking Ellie out of it. then suddenly leaves alone. this was obviously to set-up Ellie and Dina bounding. the convenient overused notes of people pointing you to the next event but the game insists you to torture a girl to force the Ellie corruption narrative . Jesse surviving hordes of zombies and gunmen just to get one-shot in the face bursting into an obvious trap. the unskipable long walking instances that try to force you to emphasis with Abby..etc there is plenty more of this cheep plotting that keeps snapping you out of the game.

Did you really miss this one? and people dare to say that the writing it's too in your face ...yet you have people completely missing this type of stuff.
Ellie guilts Tommy into doing it, when you have context and hear the note he left it all makes sense. Then, at the end, in case there is doubt about it, things get reversed, now Tommy guilts Ellie into doing it.

 

[Clear]

I don't actually think they succeeded in pushing an agenda, which is probably why you can't see it -- as the game isn't well written enough to deal with those topics head on -- but Druckman has said that he put his politics into the game.

I have a hard time finding why this is entertaining myself, but I have seen others getting excited at the fact they put a couple of 'strong women' into the game, so I have to assume that some people get a real kick out of this. To me it very much feels like Druckman trying to be edgy, without realising that most of the world doesn't care.

I'm sorry but I just don't see it. To me, it seems like people are reacting more to casting choices than actual story events. If you mentally gender-swap the game, nothing changes. In fact it all seems rather traditional and basic.

That the protagonists are female literally adds nothing, all it actually does -and ultimately why its neccessary- is that it fits the continuity established in the first game. Ellie, her sexuality, her fractured relationship with Joel are all holdovers, not innovations.

So she's got a girlfriend not a boyfriend, the only way it comes into play is her pregnancy adding to the stakes a little. Lev's trans status again is just background flavor, and its handled in a pretty restrained and unpreachy manner. I'm sorry, but I really question why anyone would legitimately have an issue with it as an element, especially when its function is a motivation for them being hunted as apostates, not as sexual deviants.

I think its a good game, and I appreciate the effort to try something a bit different and adventurous, rather than a pointless rehash sequel.

 

[DForce]

I remember when Joel's death scene leaked and people called it stupid and agenda driven because Abby was able to take out Joel by herself. People said Joel was able to take out a group of Fireflies, but he cannot take out a woman by himself?

I think people just want to find fault with everything. It's really no different than people complaining about a lack of diversity in games and movies.

 

[Woggleman]

The people outraged about the agenda in this game and the people outraged because GOT somehow appropriates Japanese culture are two sides to the same coin. Can just like or dislike a game based on whether or not they enjoy playing it?

 

[Amiga]

Did you really miss this one? and people dare to say that the writing it's too in your face ...yet you have people completely missing this type of stuff.
Ellie guilts Tommy into doing it, when you have context and hear the note he left it all makes sense. Then, at the end, in case there is doubt about it, things get reversed, now Tommy guilts Ellie into doing it.

more evidence the characters don't make sense. thank you

 

[Umbral]

You guys need to give up. You guys are just trying way to hard to criticize a game when it defies all logic.

There is no “you guys” here, it’s just me arguing what I think. I like the game alright overall, if I had to score it, 7/10.

There's no such thing as radio active spiders.

No one from the justice league or DC universe stepped in to save Gotham from being destroyed by Bane.

But it doesn't make sense!

Spiderman establishes that there are in its universe. There’s so much that comes along with the medium of comics as well. You can have serious, realistic comics. They establish that early on so you know what you’re in for. If you’re watching American Beauty and suddenly there’s a T-Rex that appears and chases Kevin Spacey’s character you’re gonna say “That’s fucking stupid and makes no sense.” This isn’t difficult to understand. Fiction has rules, despite being fiction.

It does excuse things. Just stop trying to cling on to one aspect of the game while trying to ignore others. You balance things in a world you're writing and everything isn't is not meant to be perfect.

No clinging here, I think that scene could have been done better and it bugs me. That’s all. A writer should try to cover all bases and try to make their story airtight, that way there is no disruption in the suspension of disbelief in the audience. They’re not always going to hit perfection, but they should try as hard as they can to hit the mark. Pointing to imperfections is fine, it helps things become better in the future.

No. She said why does Joel cautiously agree to follow Abby to her friends location while being chased by a horde of infected.

Yes, I know. I watched the video multiple times.

Do you realize that she just explained part of the reason why she follow them right? She just told you why, they're being chased by infected. In the game, Tommy says their horses cannot make it back to Jackson. Yeah, horses cannot travel a long distance without stopping and Tommy said it's a few hours away.

He was being cautious. The way he questions and looks at people shows that. But yeah, have them run out and look suspicious when they're around a group of people with guns.

But lets look at the scene in which people compare it to. People bring up the fact that Joel didn't trust a stranger on the road and was always suspicious during the first game. People don't bring p the fact that he drove right through a trap, even though he has seen people pull that trick on them before.

They would look like complete morons if the horde stopped chasing them right before the gate closed. It wouldn't make sense to have them go straight out and ride off, but we know Abby wouldn't let that happen, even if Tommy didn't give them their names.

When I first played the game, I knew Tommy suggested they should go back with them to Jackson because they would be surrounded by their people.


Pretend there was a small family and Joel was killed by the wife or husband. People would still consider it "Bad writing" because they believe Joel wouldn't lower his guard, but we know from the game many people within the town were bringing back people to look at the city to have them join the community. It was open to many people, and to do this, Joel wouldn't be always suspicious of people he encounters.

I have no issues with Joel being killed. I think that‘s why we’re talking past each other. I think the scene was executed poorly because they really wanted a “shocker” scene and wrote their way around that. There’s so many ways they could have killed Joel but they wouldn’t have their “...because they have.” OMG *shotgun blast* moment. So, they sacrificed good writing to get their scene. It’s like it was built for streamers. I can still enjoy the game, but when that scene happens I just shake my head. Joel acts like an idiot and so does Tommy so they can have their *gasp* moment. If it doesn’t bug you, fine.

I've noticed several times you missed a lot about the story of the Last of Us Part II. You even missed many points in her video.

Spare me the condescension. I’ve played the game nearly 3 times and watched many YouTubers play it to try and make sure I didn’t overlook anything. It’s been miserable to play it more than once, but that’s a different criticism.

It happens over and over in movies and video games.

That's what people fail to realize.

People talked about The Dark Knight Rises being a good movie, so I'll use this as an example.

-Robin and Bane are one of the few people who know who Batman really is, but it's clueless to most people.
- Bane lets Batman live and "waits" to kill him.
- Catwoman shoots a window and there happens to be some suspended scaffold right outside of the window.
- Talia Ghul doesn't kill batman when she reveals herself.
- Talia Ghul tries detonates and the conveniently run out of time before the remote is disabled.
- An office is killed right in front of Robin\Blake, but decide to throw him down in some lower passage just to kill him, but wait, Batman makes it in time to save the day.
- Batman makes it at the right time to save Gordon from falling into the icy water.


You see how silly it is to point out all the convenient circumstances? I can do this all day with a lot of action movies.

It’s not silly to me. It’s valid. Those are stupid writing mistakes. I still like The Dark Knight Rises, but those are bad.

 

[DForce]

There is no “you guys” here, it’s just me arguing what I think. I like the game alright overall, if I had to score it, 7/10.

There is, since I'm talking about the individuals that I'm debating with.

Spiderman establishes that there are in its universe. There’s so much that comes along with the medium of comics as well. You can have serious, realistic comics. They establish that early on so you know what you’re in for. If you’re watching American Beauty and suddenly there’s a T-Rex that appears and chases Kevin Spacey’s character you’re gonna say “That’s fucking stupid and makes no sense.” This isn’t difficult to understand. Fiction has rules, despite being fiction.

And it's established in TLOU that infected humans exist. It's also established it's a fictional world where one woman can take on hundreds of men by herself.

No clinging here, I think that scene could have been done better and it bugs me. That’s all. A writer should try to cover all bases and try to make their story airtight, that way there is no disruption in the suspension of disbelief in the audience. They’re not always going to hit perfection, but they should try as hard as they can to hit the mark. Pointing to imperfections is fine, it helps things become better in the future.

Your logic is that since cannibalistic mushrooms exist, anything goes! People can say how it's so unrealistic for a masculine to get buff in an post-apocalyptic world, but just look over everything else that is unrealistic. Since you have a problem with Abby's physique, you want to talk about something being "unrealistic". It's ridiculous.

Yes, I know. I watched the video multiple times.

And you still misquoted her.

I have no issues with Joel being killed. I think that‘s why we’re talking past each other. I think the scene was executed poorly because they really wanted a “shocker” scene and wrote their way around that. There’s so many ways they could have killed Joel but they wouldn’t have their “...because they have.” OMG *shotgun blast* moment. So, they sacrificed good writing to get their scene. It’s like it was built for streamers. I can still enjoy the game, but when that scene happens I just shake my head. Joel acts like an idiot and so does Tommy so they can have their *gasp* moment. If it doesn’t bug you, fine.

Because I look at things in great detail.

Before Joel and Tommy agreed to go there, he didn't know how many friends were at her location. When he made it there, those gates were locked and he was trapped. Giving any indication that they didn't trust them would put them in danger, so the only thing for Tommy to do was to act friendly. Joel appeared to be suspicious whenever he stepped foot in that house. There's also the fact that he helped Abby and Abby helped him escape and fight off some infected, which could very well be the reason why he didn't see her as a threat in that exact moment.

Spare me the condescension. I’ve played the game nearly 3 times and watched many YouTubers play it to try and make sure I didn’t overlook anything. It’s been miserable to play it more than once, but that’s a different criticism.

It’s not silly to me. It’s valid. Those are stupid writing mistakes. I still like The Dark Knight Rises, but those are bad.

They're not writing mistakes. Mistakes are something that's unintentional. Scenes are created for tension\suspense. That's how you engage your audience. The audience doesn't want the character to die, so they play with that emotion by keeping them in that moment.

In the Dark Knight, Joker holds Rachel near the window threatening to kill her. We know Joker likes to toy with his victims, so he just decides to throw her out of the window instead of shooting her.

During this time, the audience doesn't see that the building has a slope behind joker, they think it goes straight down. Within those few seconds, the audience thinks Rachel is about to die, but then they realize she not, but now she's sliding down and batman has a chance to save her.

She was conveniently on that side of the building and she didn't drop to her death.

In the Dark Knight Rises, Catwoman is caught by guards and we're left wondering how she's going to escape. If that scaffold was seen in plain sight, then we would know before hand how she escapes.


Things make appear too convenient or make the villains look stupid, but it creates suspense.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

This is so bad.

He had the option.

Marlene lowered her guard and allowed Joel to give up Ellie. Asking Ellie what she thought was never going to be considered since he didn't want her to make that decision. Joel didn't have a gun pointed at his head when he was talking to Marlene.

He baited her to in an attempt to grab Ellie and shot her.

He still had a chance to tell the truth to Ellie when she woke up, ANOTHER opportunity. If he told the truth, she would've gone back.

Are you seriously arguing that after getting attacked on all sides by the Fireflies, Joel could have dropped Ellie on the garage floor, wait until she regains consciousness and asked her if she wants to die for the cure? While Marlene and armed guards are pointing guns at them?

Or even worse...in the car after killing the doctors and Marlene? "Yo Ellie, I just killed them all. Do you want to go back for the vaccine?"

You would fit right in at ND with these mental gymnastics.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

You're not very good at this whole discussion forum thing are you? You either have reasoned counterpoints, or you don't, and if it's the latter if you're smart you have the good sense to bow out when the going is good. Though as evinced by this and a few other TLOU2 threads, some people are more than happy to debase themselves with all manner of convoluted half-arguments, because they harbour the delusion that digging deeper will somehow miraculously get them out of the pit they've in. I've yet to witness that ever happen.

What is it you're actually arguing against here. if you want to see a well-reasoned argument from me you need to actually make a point worth arguing with.

 

[bishopcruz]

Are you seriously arguing that after getting attacked on all sides by the Fireflies, Joel could have dropped Ellie on the garage floor, wait until she regains consciousness and asked her if she wants to die for the cure? While Marlene and armed guards are pointing guns at them?

Or even worse...in the car after killing the doctors and Marlene? "Yo Ellie, I just killed them all. Do you want to go back for the vaccine?"

You would fit right in at ND with these mental gymnastics.

Yeah people just ignore the complete situation at the hospital and just create a magical time where Joel could have asked Ellie what she wanted. By the time it was possible it was pointless. And the ENTIRE blame for that scenario falls on the fireflies. Because in order to even GIVE Ellie a chance at life a whole lotta killing terrorists was needed. By the time he got to Dr. Jerry what was he going to do? Wait for hours with a group of armed soldiers just outside the door for Ellie to wake up, ask her what she wants, and then hope that the people who already DIDN'T give a flying fuck about her consent would let her go if she said no? It's insane.

 

[DForce]

Are you seriously arguing that after getting attacked on all sides by the Fireflies, Joel could have dropped Ellie on the garage floor, wait until she regains consciousness and asked her if she wants to die for the cure? While Marlene and armed guards are pointing guns at them?

Or even worse...in the car after killing the doctors and Marlene? "Yo Ellie, I just killed them all. Do you want to go back for the vaccine?"

You would fit right in at ND with these mental gymnastics.

Why drop her on the floor?

Think guards will risk shooting her if she kept him in his arms?

Did Marlene tell Joel she could still do the right thing after he killed those guards? Do know there's ways to go back without being killed, right? But you think that's impossible.

Right...


Wait, you missed the point. The claim people on here tried to make is that Joel was never given a chance, but he had them. If Ellie was able to find medicine to save Joel, do you think she was capable of going back on her own if Joel told her the truth while she was riding in the back seat of the car? But would Joel let her out or will his selfish desires stop him from doing that?

Only mental gymnastics here are people who are trying to prove "bad writing".

 

[DForce]

Yeah people just ignore the complete situation at the hospital and just create a magical time where Joel could have asked Ellie what she wanted. By the time it was possible it was pointless. And the ENTIRE blame for that scenario falls on the fireflies. Because in order to even GIVE Ellie a chance at life a whole lotta killing terrorists was needed. By the time he got to Dr. Jerry what was he going to do? Wait for hours with a group of armed soldiers just outside the door for Ellie to wake up, ask her what she wants, and then hope that the people who already DIDN'T give a flying fuck about her consent would let her go if she said no? It's insane.

You ignore the fact that Marlene tried to take Ellie from Joel because she thought he was going to make the "right choice" by giving back Ellie, but Joel killed her.

There's nothing magical about it. Joel had the upper-hand because he had Ellie. You guys are free to say what would happened if Joel turned the truck back to give up Ellie, but somehow it's impossible for Joel to wait and take people hostage.

Right. lol.