Support NeoGAF

[Lanrutcon]

Imagine how many awards the game would have won if the writing wasn't shit.

 

[Josemayuste]

He was in league with the Hunters, he had innocent blood on his hands. He got what he deserved.

Also, The Critical Drinker is just a low rent Plinkett parroting consensus.

While I like Joel as a character, that's my point of view too, he crossed too many lines as Troy Baker said one time while reading the initial draft of TLOU, that has to backfire sooner or later.

 

[sol_bad]

Video was good until the 7 minute mark. TLOU2 didn't retcon anything.
And I would argue that TLOU2 was ambiguous, so many comments questioned so many things in that game, so many people didn't understand the ending and were upset they didn't get to kill Abby.

 

[Balducci30]

I also find it puzzling that Joel doesn't get to defend himself and just takes Ellie's condemnation. The Fireflies made it more black and white with how they handled the situation.

Yeah it’s weird.

 

[Balducci30]

Every time someone comes back with this retort I want to ask "How did he doom the human race?"

So here's the things to keep in mind with the "cure":
1. They had no confirmation it would even work or that they could make one, just that scooping her brain out was the only option.

2. If they DID have a cure, what good would it do? At this time it would only be for the rare cases in which people get bit, in which case they're usually beyond saving because by the time of the second game, if you're fighting a clicker you're already fucked. You're not going to "reverse" that for those people.

3. The entire society in the second game minus the spore area is built around there not even being a problem with the zombies. Hell aside from the "didja get bit" and the intro, they literally have pet zombies in some of the facilities.

4. Ellie and her fam are literally on a farm out in the open by the ending of the game with little to no defenses. IF the Zombie plague was hurting the human populace that bad and the humans not the REAL problem as the game implies (the humans were the real monsters, insert plot cliche here) then the game itself doesn't do a good job of raising that tension and/or making it relevant to the arcs the characters are going through.

I'd argue the game ignores entirely the concept of a cure and Ellie NEVER really confronts how society would be different and the writing focuses on the CHARACTER angst versus the world effects of having no cure.


Except the sequel goes far and beyond that to go "The fireflies are good people" minus their forced conflict with a faction no one cares about.

This is exactly correct. I don’t understand how people aren’t seeing this

 

[Banjo64]

Critical Drinker is class. He did a video on Amy Hennig being forced out of ND as well.

 

[DForce]

This guy doesn't even know what a retcon is.

TLOU 2 doesn't change the moral ambiguity ending of the first game. If he admits that Joel recklessly killed Abby's father to save Ellie, then that means he admits Abby had a reason to kill Joel.

TLOU 2 has hurt many people and you guy still can't get over a fictional character dying in a video game.

 

[Yselacrey00]

He did nothing wrong and neither did Abby do anything wrong including cracking Joels skull.

I'm not sure if Abby did though. Her father was definitely in the wrong by trying to kill a little girl. Joel did what he had to do to save her, Abby is avenging a killer so it would be down to if she knew what her father tried to do.

 

[Balducci30]

This guy doesn't even know what a retcon is.

TLOU 2 doesn't change the moral ambiguity ending of the first game. If he admits that Joel recklessly killed Abby's father to save Ellie, then that means he admits Abby had a reason to kill Joel.

TLOU 2 has hurt many people and you guy still can't get over a fictional character dying in a video game.

Are people pissed that Joel died? I thought everybody assumed he would die/get killed - that’s not what upsets people what upsets people is that they handled it terribly with the writing by eliminating the idea that Joel could actually, objectively be justified in what he did just on principle alone.

EDIT: meaning in the second game it makes much clearer that it was a black and white choice between Ellie and the salvation of humanity. In the first that wasn’t the case - you had plenty of reasons to doubt that was what was happening

 

[Jon Neu]

I don't think the point is about Joel being right or wrong about what he did. More like: : "this is a videogame grounded in reality and as such, every action has its consequences, and not even a main character would be safe".

And I honestly think Naughty Dog nailed it.

Yeah, that's why a little girl murders half the USA population for revenge and after being a complete psycho mass murderer she suddenly and conveniently realizes in the last second that revenge bad and spares the actual person she was justified to kill, saving herself from becoming a monster. Because you know, she would only be a monster by killing that person, all the people she killed before (babies included) just don't matter.

But we got the beautiful epiphany of a brutally violent mass murderer having deep morals and empathy for other brutally violent mass murderer.

The game literally shows you that Ellie can't forgive an old white man for calling her a dyke, but she can forgive the person who tortured her surrogate father to death and killed her friend.

It really makes you think.

 

[Bit_Reactor]

This guy doesn't even know what a retcon is.

TLOU 2 doesn't change the moral ambiguity ending of the first game. If he admits that Joel recklessly killed Abby's father to save Ellie, then that means he admits Abby had a reason to kill Joel.

TLOU 2 has hurt many people and you guy still can't get over a fictional character dying in a video game.

I'd argue most people I speak with are fine with him dying. It's the Abby arc and the context of actions and how they proceed that are the problem.

For example one often repeated "fix" for this issue is literally having Abby be a character who has a family Joel wronged in the past and her getting revenge. Not only would it not involve trying to "change" the fireflies to be more sympathetic, but it could create more tension as it would be creating a literal "female joel."

The issue is the game rarely treats the murder as a thing that really means anything to Abby. She just goes back to quipping with her boy version of Ellie about heights. Fear of heights does not character depth make. Nor does just playing fetch with a dog multiple times.

If they'd tied her to a plot that was more coherent and less convuluted in its execution, I think you'd still have people mad that it happened but less mad about how Abby's arc is handled.

I'm not sure if Abby did though. Her father was definitely in the wrong by trying to kill a little girl. Joel did what he had to do to save her, Abby is avenging a killer so it would be down to if she knew what her father tried to do.

The thing is by taking away any meaningful choice or even dialogue in this confrontation at the end, they remove the possibility for ambiguity. The "good act" is what happened.

To be fair though the whole final act is nonsense. We go from "I'm on a farm with a baby" to "Oh shit that guy survived a headshot through the eye last time???" to "Joel and Ellie 2 Electric Boogaloo with genders swapped" to Regular TLOU mission to "MGS final 1v1 fight" to "Just GO" after literally having fingers bitten off by someone she's not said more than 3 sentences to the entire game.

The tension between Joel and Ellie is because eventually they BOTH had to come to terms with the decisions made in the last game and the problems with it (even if Ellie saying "You shoulda let me die" is arguable), without any dialogue or real confrontation beyond "bullet bullet gun pew pew bite your fingers off engarde" you never really get that kind of catharsis here.

It's as if they left off the first game as Joel walks out the door to the hospital instead of having the final scene with them discussing it and Ellie clearly not believing him fully in the scene. It doesn't work because we have no reason to believe that confrontation should have gone how it did between our two "main" characters, but the game insists this is how it "has to" go.

Yeah, that's why a little girl murders half the USA population for revenge and after being a complete psycho mass murderer she suddenly and conveniently realizes in the last second that revenge bad and spares the actual person she was justified to kill, saving herself from becoming a monster. Because you know, she would only be a monster by killing that person, all the people she killed before (babies included) just don't matter.

But we got the beautiful epiphany of a brutally violent mass murderer having deep morals and empathy for other brutally violent mass murderer.

The game literally shows you that Ellie can't forgive an old white man for calling her a dyke, but she can forgive the person who tortured her surrogate father to death and killed his friend.

It really makes you think.

Lol I don't ask for much. I just want consistency. Ellie really was done dirty in this game.

 

[DForce]

Every time someone comes back with this retort I want to ask "How did he doom the human race?"

So here's the things to keep in mind with the "cure":
1. They had no confirmation it would even work or that they could make one, just that scooping her brain out was the only option.

2. If they DID have a cure, what good would it do? At this time it would only be for the rare cases in which people get bit, in which case they're usually beyond saving because by the time of the second game, if you're fighting a clicker you're already fucked. You're not going to "reverse" that for those people.

3. The entire society in the second game minus the spore area is built around there not even being a problem with the zombies. Hell aside from the "didja get bit" and the intro, they literally have pet zombies in some of the facilities.

4. Ellie and her fam are literally on a farm out in the open by the ending of the game with little to no defenses. IF the Zombie plague was hurting the human populace that bad and the humans not the REAL problem as the game implies (the humans were the real monsters, insert plot cliche here) then the game itself doesn't do a good job of raising that tension and/or making it relevant to the arcs the characters are going through.

I'd argue the game ignores entirely the concept of a cure and Ellie NEVER really confronts how society would be different and the writing focuses on the CHARACTER angst versus the world effects of having no cure.

The game tell us they were going to make a cure. The story told gave us no doubt that the cure wouldn't work and it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the cure might not work because 1) The writers didn't imply that it wouldn't work and 2) the cure would mean nothing to the story going forward. The society will likely be cured as soon as the story comes to a close. Tons of movies have "vaccines" to cure mankind. People love to give "what good would it do?" because they cannot accept Joel chose to save Ellie over mankind. That's the way they write the story and there's nothing to suggest differently.

 

[EDMIX]

The stuff about TLOUII is so fucking wrong I actually feel bad for him.

I generally like CD but its sadly evident he's had his perspective warped by his relationship with HeelVsBabyface, a dimwit who might be qualified to critique Ginster's pasties but is way, way too invested in the whole GamerGate "industry is the devil" bollocks to ever be taken seriously on the subject.

The big errors:

For a start are his apparent ignorance of the existence of Left Behind, which established Ellie's backstory (and-preferences) back in 2014. Back when the culture war wasn't in full swing so her sexuality wasn't considered such an imposition.

Then there's the assertion that the sequel changes Joel, when it simply does not. He is completely unchanged and just as fiercely loyal to Ellie as he was in the first.

The character that actually changes is Ellie. Which is unsurprising given how spiky she is as an adolescent in the original, and now as a young adult is lashing out as people of that age do at her parental figure.

The internal motivation for her anger are justified and understandable to a degree given what we learn about her motivations in the first game and its add-on scenario. She is the one driving them both to rendezvous with the Fireflies in order that she can play her part in finding a cure. In his narration CD implies that the twist is not just that providing the cure will cost her life, but that she is the cure.

This specifically is a big deal because the conflict for her is far bigger than for Joel, and not because of the fatal consequences, its because she is still young and altruistic, whereas Joel is bitter and cynical about the state of the world. Joel never truly believes in the "cause", but Ellie does, and for very personal and deep-seated reasons as laid out in Left Behind.

So, as over time, and painstakingly laid out in the flashbacks with her and Joel in TLOUII, we see her dawning realization of what Joel's actions meant for that "cause". She uncovers the dissolution of the Fireflies before she has any understanding of what Joel did and why. The reality is that by the time she realizes the why, it no longer seems so important.

The bottom line is that the character trajectories are consistent and there is no retconning or revision. Everyone who finished the first game killed the doctor because the game you no choice other than to do that. More importantly nobody bitched about it at the time because whatever your feelings about Joel, the one thing you cannot argue with is that he's capable of being cold-blooded bastard.

So the "world", the tragedy of losing his daughter and the atrocities he had to do in the name of survival, made him into that, but he is what he is,

Well said and completely agreed.

Completely agreed I never understand this mindset that tries to argue something what's changed with the character when I originally played the last of us one at release my belief was for years that the doctor or Marlene's family was going to come to kill Joel because it was very obvious it was something out of the players control so it felt like it was part of some larger story so for a long time I simply thought one of Marlene's kids or something would come to kill him lol

Is he negative or positive about tlou2 ?
I don't want to watch another video shitting on tlou2. I think the game was amazing aside from weed scene and slow pacing in first half. But that's it.
The story absolutely won me over. Ofc Joel ldid nothing wrong - that is according to him and options that were presented to him

I'd argue you see more positive about Joel then negative. The game starts with his perspective on the events of the first game and Tommy agreeing with him, continues with flash backs of him swimming with Ellie, giving her a birthday gift at that space museum, defends her in the bar, singing on the porch and apologizing and wanting to make things right with Ellie etc.

The idea that the game is mostly negative about Joel is such horseshit its not even funny, folks like this literally go out of their way to try to ignore all reality to reach for this shit basically making it sound like the game made him look like Hitler, as if in a film about how negative he is would show his ass painting, laughing and having a jolly time or something. Those who reach for that don't even have a real legit argument.

We've seen some pretty impressive villains in gaming history, to argue that Joel is portrayed like that in The Last Of Us 2 is complete BS. Think of another villain in gaming. We saw them teaching folks how to swim? Giving out birthday gifts by taking kids to a museum? Singing in a rocking chair drinking coffee and apologizing for their actions about something? Does that sound like any fucking villain we've ever seen in a video game? So The Last Of Us 2 shows many, many perspectives from many sides as the game literally is about the concept of tribalism, ie us vs them mentality and I'd argue Neil did a fucking great job getting people to come out of the wood work to show just that behavior on how they judged this game and proceeded to pick sides.

I don't believe that was on accident.

It's simple really. Parents shape the future through their treatment of their children.

Joel's just selfish/a father. I wonder how many of you faced with the same decision would sacrifice one of their own. I know I wouldn't either.

TLOU2 just reframes Joel's actions by forcing you to look at them in a different context. He reaped what he sowed.

The genius of the two games how you can make a case for both characters. Both of them are justified in their own context which is why this game is so divisive. You wanted it to be an all American hero with an all American happy ending? Well wake up, there's two sides to every story.


Part 3 is gonna see Ellie join up with Abby and finally sacrifice herself for the cause. It fits right?

Agreed.

Abbie killing Joel is not the game-deciding he was right or wrong. It's the game saying eventually your actions will catch up to you

Some literally foreshadowed in the first game, which is why for years I thought it was going to be Marlene's family or something that came to kill him lol

 

[Bit_Reactor]

The game tell us they were going to make a cure. The story told gave us no doubt that the cure wouldn't work and it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the cure might not work because 1) The writers didn't imply that it wouldn't work and 2) the cure would mean nothing to the story going forward. The society will likely be cured as soon as the story comes to a close. Tons of movies have "vaccines" to cure mankind. People love to give "what good would it do?" because they cannot accept Joel chose to save Ellie over mankind. That's the way they write the story and there's nothing to suggest differently.

The writers only implied there was a possibility for a cure, not that there was 100% a definitive cure as soon as they cut out her brain. If you can provide citation as to where the Fireflies "had it all figured out" then by all means provide it here.

1. I've yet to find a definitive answer to this and every paper/analysis/post about the subject boils down to:
"The Fireflies hoped their scientists could use Ellie’s anomalistic biology to discover a cure to the Cordyceps Brain Infection. In The Last of Us’ climax, we learn that the only possible way to develop a cure is to dissect Ellie's brain. So she'd have to die, and there isn't even a guarantee that it would work."

It would require the Fireflies to not only be able to reverse engineer it in the literal apocalypse (ignoring the obvious problems of killing a girl without her consent) but you'd also have to trust the FIREFLIES of all people to be kind enough to share that cure with the general public.

2. I love how you started to counter my points but then kinda just rambled at the end lol. "The cure means nothing to the plot of TLOU2" is the best thing you could say because it literally doesn't effect any of the plot of TLOU2. You'd still have Abby, you'd still have murder, you'd still have revenge. There is literally negative difference between TLOU2 with the cure and without, and that's what I argued. That the cure and its weight never has any actual meaning to the world in its sequel and it's as if the world is fine without it.

The reason people ask "What good would it do" is because people say "Joel doomed the entire human race" when large swathes of the human race seem to be doing so fine and dandy they are literally chilling in a cabin in the middle of an open field. I'm sorry but you need more (in-game, not conjecture) evidence than "they could have cured the world" and more emphasis on how they could have cured those who already made the change (spoilers that would be hilariously dumb) to hold that against Joel.

Not saying what Joel did was right, but the "cure argument" never goes well because the way the game sequel never really actually addresses the need for one in the first place.

 

[Banjo64]

The game tell us they were going to make a cure. The story told gave us no doubt that the cure wouldn't work and it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the cure might not work because 1) The writers didn't imply that it wouldn't work and 2) the cure would mean nothing to the story going forward. The society will likely be cured as soon as the story comes to a close. Tons of movies have "vaccines" to cure mankind. People love to give "what good would it do?" because they cannot accept Joel chose to save Ellie over mankind. That's the way they write the story and there's nothing to suggest differently.

Some people really will swallow any shit they are spoon fed.

 

[DForce]

I'd argue most people I speak with are fine with him dying. It's the Abby arc and the context of actions and how they proceed that are the problem.

For example one often repeated "fix" for this issue is literally having Abby be a character who has a family Joel wronged in the past and her getting revenge. Not only would it not involve trying to "change" the fireflies to be more sympathetic, but it could create more tension as it would be creating a literal "female joel."

The issue is the game rarely treats the murder as a thing that really means anything to Abby. She just goes back to quipping with her boy version of Ellie about heights. Fear of heights does not character depth make. Nor does just playing fetch with a dog multiple times.

If they'd tied her to a plot that was more coherent and less convuluted in its execution, I think you'd still have people mad that it happened but less mad about how Abby's arc is handled.

No, it's because he died. That's why there's tons of people making excuses about how the ending was retconned.

Having Abby being someone from Joel's past wouldn't make sense because the person has no connection to Ellie or the Fireflies. Ellie partially blames herself for Abby's father dying, and you wouldn't get that if it was someone from the past and Ellie knows absolutely nothing about them. To make a character that has a backstory in which his or her actions were justified, you need to have a character that has a connection to both Ellie and Joel.

 

[Ten_Fold]

He didn’t, but you gotta understand a few real life things.
1. He is white.
2. The studio is in California
3. He is a man.
We all about diversity in gaming bro, so we had to take Joel out.

 

[Bit_Reactor]

No, it's because he died. That's why there's tons of people making excuses about how the ending was retconned.

Having Abby being someone from Joel's past wouldn't make sense because the person has no connection to Ellie or the Fireflies. Ellie partially blames herself for Abby's father dying, and you wouldn't get that if it was someone from the past and Ellie knows absolutely nothing about them. To make a character that has a backstory in which his or her actions were justified, you need to have a character that has a connection to both Ellie and Joel.

I've yet to see a majority of people point to "because he died" and rather the framing of Abby and her actions juxtaposed against Joel's. The issue is Abby and therefore the player is told full stop "Joel did a bad. He is now punished."

Having Abby be someone from Joel's past makes less sense than retconning an entire faction and changing the scenery, skin color, and character model of a pre-existing character we killed and going "no they were all good guys all along and he had a daughter"?

Joel has wronged SO MANY people in the past that it could not only provide a mirror to Joel's actions as bad in the game to provide more context for her actions, but would provide an argument over if the ends justify the means in situations like Joel and Ellies. If you have a family that he betrayed in his Hunter days or something and they join the wolves to get revenge, it provides more easily digestible content then having the player faced with "But that doctor saved a zebra once you should feel bad about it." Which further frames the action of the first game "Joel did bad thing because look how nice and pure the doctor dad was"

I'd argue Abby's connection to Ellie is borderline irrelevant due to Joel's connection to both. Abby only needs Joel to therefore be connected to Ellie, becuase the sequel does next to nothing to link Abby and Ellie together aside from the murder of Joel, and there is no dialogue that changes with the plot being changed in such a way. -shrug-

 

[DForce]

The writers only implied there was a possibility for a cure, not that there was 100% a definitive cure as soon as they cut out her brain. If you can provide citation as to where the Fireflies "had it all figured out" then by all means provide it here.

1. I've yet to find a definitive answer to this and every paper/analysis/post about the subject boils down to:
"The Fireflies hoped their scientists could use Ellie’s anomalistic biology to discover a cure to the Cordyceps Brain Infection. In The Last of Us’ climax, we learn that the only possible way to develop a cure is to dissect Ellie's brain. So she'd have to die, and there isn't even a guarantee that it would work."

It would require the Fireflies to not only be able to reverse engineer it in the literal apocalypse (ignoring the obvious problems of killing a girl without her consent) but you'd also have to trust the FIREFLIES of all people to be kind enough to share that cure with the general public.

2. I love how you started to counter my points but then kinda just rambled at the end lol. "The cure means nothing to the plot of TLOU2" is the best thing you could say because it literally doesn't effect any of the plot of TLOU2. You'd still have Abby, you'd still have murder, you'd still have revenge. There is literally negative difference between TLOU2 with the cure and without, and that's what I argued. That the cure and its weight never has any actual meaning to the world in its sequel and it's as if the world is fine without it.

The reason people ask "What good would it do" is because people say "Joel doomed the entire human race" when large swathes of the human race seem to be doing so fine and dandy they are literally chilling in a cabin in the middle of an open field. I'm sorry but you need more (in-game, not conjecture) evidence than "they could have cured the world" and more emphasis on how they could have cured those who already made the change (spoilers that would be hilariously dumb) to hold that against Joel.

Not saying what Joel did was right, but the "cure argument" never goes well because the way the game sequel never really actually addresses the need for one in the first place.

No, they said they were going to make a cure.

This carried over into the next game as Joel says, "Making a vaccine would've killed you. So I stopped them." Writers always imply at the cure was garneted and didn't suggest otherwise. You can bring up theories that has nothing to do with the actual story of the game all you want, but it's not going to change what was written. The reason why you can't bring up anything as proof from the game is because it's not there. You're only bringing up alternate theories, which doesn't hold weight in this conversation. If you want to prove anything, then start showing documents from the game that proves your theory, not "what if" scenarios that are not from the writers.

 

[Bit_Reactor]

No, they said they were going to make a cure.

This carried over into the next game as Joel says, "Making a vaccine would've killed you. So I stopped them." Writers always imply at the cure was garneted and didn't suggest otherwise. You can bring up theories that has nothing to do with the actual story of the game all you want, but it's not going to change what was written. The reason why you can't bring up anything as proof from the game is because it's not there. You're only bringing up alternate theories, which doesn't hold weight in this conversation. If you want to prove anything, then start showing documents from the game that proves your theory, not "what if" scenarios that are not from the writers.

Where (in the game) did they say that they could, without a doubt, make a cure? If you can point that out, I'd be more than happy to concede this point.

The issue is the "Theories" carry as much weight as the "they said they were going to" when all it says is "the only way we COULD make a cure is doing this"

To further this point at what time do we believe the Fireflies will be more "responsible" with a cure than any other faction in the game?

 

[Josemayuste]

Yeah, that's why a little girl murders half the USA population for revenge and after being a complete psycho mass murderer she suddenly and conveniently realizes in the last second that revenge bad and spares the actual person she was justified to kill, saving herself from becoming a monster. Because you know, she would only be a monster by killing that person, all the people she killed before (babies included) just don't matter.

But we got the beautiful epiphany of a brutally violent mass murderer having deep morals and empathy for other brutally violent mass murderer.

The game literally shows you that Ellie can't forgive an old white man for calling her a dyke, but she can forgive the person who tortured her surrogate father to death and killed his friend.

It really makes you think.

Sure, I laughed a lot, every story can be dwarfed to the point of turning it into a joke. Opinions, that's how they work.

 

[Alebrije]

Yes he did, he saved Abby.

 

[MarlboroRed]

I felt the game, at its core, was asking for purpose in a world gone wrong. Joels purpose was to survive, no matter the cost. This was also a topic of conversation between him and Tommy. Over the course of the game, Ellie became Joels purpose.

So when at the end of the game he was forced to make a choice between (potentially) saving a world that, to him, meant nothing - or a young girl that meant everything, he made a selfish choice. The choice that meant most to him.

 

[dDoc]

Even Ellie was mad at him, ungrateful psycho bitch.

This.

If someone saved my life I would be forever grateful not pissed off lol.

 

[DForce]

I've yet to see a majority of people point to "because he died" and rather the framing of Abby and her actions juxtaposed against Joel's. The issue is Abby and therefore the player is told full stop "Joel did a bad. He is now punished."

Having Abby be someone from Joel's past makes less sense than retconning an entire faction and changing the scenery, skin color, and character model of a pre-existing character we killed and going "no they were all good guys all along and he had a daughter"?

Joel has wronged SO MANY people in the past that it could not only provide a mirror to Joel's actions as bad in the game to provide more context for her actions, but would provide an argument over if the ends justify the means in situations like Joel and Ellies. If you have a family that he betrayed in his Hunter days or something and they join the wolves to get revenge, it provides more easily digestible content then having the player faced with "But that doctor saved a zebra once you should feel bad about it." Which further frames the action of the first game "Joel did bad thing because look how nice and pure the doctor dad was"

I'd argue Abby's connection to Ellie is borderline irrelevant due to Joel's connection to both. Abby only needs Joel to therefore be connected to Ellie, becuase the sequel does next to nothing to link Abby and Ellie together aside from the murder of Joel, and there is no dialogue that changes with the plot being changed in such a way. -shrug-

Wrong again.

The ending of the game tells us that Joel would do it all over again to save Ellie. That scene was put there for a reason, and it was to show us the love Joel had for Ellie. If they wanted to tell us "Joel did bad. he is now punished." then that scene wouldn't exist. They would give us the impression that he is just this bad guy.

The entire faction wasn't changed. The only thing you have is that they made an actual character from a doctor who appeared to be black. It still doesn't change much about the story other than making him an actual character.

If it was Joel's past, then it would be a simple revenge story and has nothing to push the story of the cure forward. We know Abby is going to look for the fireflies, which will eventually lead back to Ellie. Abby's story is not irrelevant as she is going to look for the Fireflies. Anyone who knows the story knows that's going to lead by to Ellie. You really think Abby meeting with the Fireflies isn't going to lead back to Ellie? This is what I'm talking about. People whine about bad writing and don't even get the most basic story elements of both games.

 

[Jon Neu]

Sure, I laughed a lot, every story can be dwarfed to the point of turning it into a joke. Opinions, that's how they work.

I laughed too when I played the game.

That shit was hilarious.

 

[Alebrije]

another stupid video

This guy is spot on as usual.

 

[Bit_Reactor]

Wrong again.

The ending of the game tells us that Joel would do it all over again to save Ellie. That scene was put there for a reason, and it was to show us the love Joel had for Ellie. If they wanted to tell us "Joel did bad. he is now punished." then that scene wouldn't exist. They would give us the impression that he is just this bad guy.

The entire faction wasn't changed. The only thing you have is that they made an actual character from a doctor who appeared to be black. It still doesn't change much about the story other than making him an actual character.

If it was Joel's past, then it would be a simple revenge story and has nothing to push the story of the cure forward. We know Abby is going to look for the fireflies, which will eventually lead back to Ellie. Abby's story is not irrelevant as she is going to look for the Fireflies. Anyone who knows the story knows that's going to lead by to Ellie. You really think Abby meeting with the Fireflies isn't going to lead back to Ellie? This is what I'm talking about. People whine about bad writing and don't even get the most basic story elements of both games.

You saying I'm wrong and me actually being wrong aren't the same thing haha. But this has been fun.

The ending of the game says he'd do it again, sure, but unless you have negative brain cells that one line doesn't change the actions of the rest of the plot. The rest of the plot very clearly (by letting Abby off with zero consequences for her own actions, therefore proving that if you're abby you can get away with murder but not if you're Joel) dictates that no matter how Joel "justifies" the act, it is a bad act.

Fireflies were changed from dickish assholes who were going to send Joel without weapons and supplies back into the world and a bunch of hacks who were dying out to a group that were altruistic and buddy buddy just like you! That is indeed a retcon, and one they don't even really stick to as they then shove in the wolves and scars to replace the failure of the Fireflies entirely.

The story of the cure is not pushed forward in TLOU2. At all. The cure is irrelevant to the plot of TLOU2 happening. The MURDER of Abby's dad is the incident that spurs the issue but the cure itself would not change the outcome of TLOU2's (very human driven) plotlines.

As for the Fireflies involvement I honestly don't know how/why I care about the fireflies even with the plot as it happened in this game? I have no vested interest inthe fireflies "coming back" or "being alive." The only connection to them is Abby and it's a connection that I have no sympathy for because the fireflies are kinda...douchebags who I have no reason to care about. So this still doesn't effect the outcome of TLOU2's plot. And them coming back only to get "Revenge" on Ellie defeats once again the purpose of Ellie letting Abby go, which can only end in a cliche way of Abby being the one to save Ellie from the Fireflies in a potential sequel which is about as uninspired as the plot to TLOU2 was.

You're making a lot of statements but not really like...backing them up with coherent retorts other than "NUH UH YOU WRONG" so I think I'll bow out. Good talk though.

 

[Clear]

Wrong again.

The ending of the game tells us that Joel would do it all over again to save Ellie. That scene was put there for a reason, and it was to show us the love Joel had for Ellie. If they wanted to tell us "Joel did bad. he is now punished." then that scene wouldn't exist. They would give us the impression that he is just this bad guy.

Exactly this.

Its just dumb how people jump from this to "white cis male must die" lunacy.

As if ANYONE in the cast of TLOU2 comes out of the story events unscathed. Everyone loses. Be it their lives, their friends, or their sense of moral self-worth.

If anything the events of the game back-up Joel's cynicism, it really is a bleak, harsh dog-eat-dog world. Altruism/sentiment risks death, and surviving is a triumph in itself.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

Critical Drinker and Worth a buy is the only real reason I personally use Youtube.

 

[Neff]

Yeah, that's why a little girl murders half the USA population for revenge and after being a complete psycho mass murderer she suddenly and conveniently realizes in the last second that revenge bad and spares the actual person she was justified to kill, saving herself from becoming a monster. Because you know, she would only be a monster by killing that person, all the people she killed before (babies included) just don't matter.

She was already a monster. She already knows revenge is bad. She's using the justification of revenge to cover up the fact that she just plain feels guilty about the way she treated Joel before he died, in addition to the fact that his death is attributable to her very existence. She's consumed by guilt, pure and simple, and it's guilt which costs her everything, not revenge. The moment she sees Joel in Abby is the moment she recognises and rejects her guilt, and revenge is no longer a necessary lie.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I defended Joels decision, mostly. I felt he could have saved Elle without murdering all the doctors. Anyone who listened to the journal entries knows that Elle being able to save everyone was not remotely close to a sure thing.

While TLou2 was mostly a disappointment story wise, I actually defend Druck and Gross for what they were trying to do in showing both sides. I thought it made sense that Joel should have to pay for his actions. As for how it went down, I didn't like it.

My real issue is that the game created a world where everyone was nothing but a bloodthirsty psychopaths, where every encounter turns into a gunfight when I'd like to believe that in some instances cooler heads could have prevailed.

 

[Self]

The writers only implied there was a possibility for a cure, not that there was 100% a definitive cure as soon as they cut out her brain. If you can provide citation as to where the Fireflies "had it all figured out" then by all means provide it here.

That's the whole point of the game. Would you risk the life of a loved one for a % chance of a cure. It was a desperation move by the fireflys from the very beginning.

 

[DForce]

You saying I'm wrong and me actually being wrong aren't the same thing haha. But this has been fun.

The ending of the game says he'd do it again, sure, but unless you have negative brain cells that one line doesn't change the actions of the rest of the plot. The rest of the plot very clearly (by letting Abby off with zero consequences for her own actions, therefore proving that if you're abby you can get away with murder but not if you're Joel) dictates that no matter how Joel "justifies" the act, it is a bad act.

Fireflies were changed from dickish assholes who were going to send Joel without weapons and supplies back into the world and a bunch of hacks who were dying out to a group that were altruistic and buddy buddy just like you! That is indeed a retcon, and one they don't even really stick to as they then shove in the wolves and scars to replace the failure of the Fireflies entirely.

The story of the cure is not pushed forward in TLOU2. At all. The cure is irrelevant to the plot of TLOU2 happening. The MURDER of Abby's dad is the incident that spurs the issue but the cure itself would not change the outcome of TLOU2's (very human driven) plotlines.

As for the Fireflies involvement I honestly don't know how/why I care about the fireflies even with the plot as it happened in this game? I have no vested interest inthe fireflies "coming back" or "being alive." The only connection to them is Abby and it's a connection that I have no sympathy for because the fireflies are kinda...douchebags who I have no reason to care about. So this still doesn't effect the outcome of TLOU2's plot.

You're making a lot of statements but not really like...backing them up with coherent retorts other than "NUH UH YOU WRONG" so I think I'll bow out. Good talk though.

I asked you to provide proof to your claims with documents found in the game and what have you provided so far?

Nothing.

This means your arguments are based on fanfic theories and not actually based on the story of the game.

Fireflies were changed from dickish assholes who were going to send Joel without weapons and supplies back into the world and a bunch of hacks who were dying out to a group that were altruistic and buddy buddy just like you! That is indeed a retcon, and one they don't even really stick to as they then shove in the wolves and scars to replace the failure of the Fireflies entirely.

I think it's clear you don't know what a retcon means. A retcon in this situation would mean they rewrote how Joel was able to get to the Ellie... Example being that Joel did not shoot the guard that was escorting him out, but they gave him his bad and he just decided to turn on him. THAT would be a retcon. Not giving Joel supplies and sending him out alone isn't a dickish move since they know there would be a high chance of people getting killed if they gave him his guns back. So again, your arguments make no sense.

The story of the cure is not pushed forward in TLOU2. At all. The cure is irrelevant to the plot of TLOU2 happening. The MURDER of Abby's dad is the incident that spurs the issue but the cure itself would not change the outcome of TLOU2's (very human driven) plotlines.

It is. Abby knows Ellie and Abby is going to look for the Fireflies. The Fireflies are relevant still because they're still connected to Ellie and the cure.

So if Ellie and Abby are both in TLOU 3, what's going to make them meet up again? The cure. There would be no other reason for them to reconnect again, unless the ran into each other while going after the Fireflies...But do you know why Ellie would go back? You guess it! Because of the cure.

Right now it's a big waste of time because you're not giving me anything other than fanfic theories.

If you want to keep this conversation going, start quoting documents from the game to back up your argument. other than that, I'm not going to waste my time. Nothing you have shown me thus far proves the cure wouldn't be possible other than some "what if" scenario that the writers did not intent or bother writing because it was painfully obvious that the cure was guaranteed.

 

[jakdex]

Spot on as always.

 

[EDMIX]

TLOU2 very clearly defines what Joel did as "bad" in every scene we get it

Teaches her how to play and gives her his guitar is "bad" everyone...

Gives epic birthday gift , as evil as they come folks, fucking disgusting, how this was not censored is beyond me /s

Defends her publicly....just like something a scum would do, out here trying to help and defend people /s

Apologizes and looks to make things right over a cup of coffee, how this didn't get the AO rating right here is baffling /s

The writers only implied there was a possibility for a cure, not that there was 100% a definitive cure

Well yes, its to keep it in the air and ambiguous in the first place. Going to agree with DForce on this as its clear they want you to live with that "what if" to show he took some of that hope away. So in that respect yes, Joel very much choose Ellie over mankind. That isn't a fucking argument about if it was going to work or not, its saying he took away a feasible hope at that time of them finding out more about the virus that could have lead to a cure.... thats it. So he is choosing Ellie over the progress to get to the cure that can save mankind. You can spin that shit anyway you feel like it, but that very much is whats happening.

when large swathes of the human race seem to be doing so fine

Nah bud. WLF at war with FEDRA and Scars and people turning and dying, that is anything but "doing so fine". Thats the biggest load of BS I've heard a in while about this game. That is some massive denial. Image trying to really argue that in a post apocalyptic universe, folks are doing fine considering the actual events that happen in that world. Its reallllllly hard to take anyone seriously trying to really reach for such a wild stretch.

the "cure argument" never goes well because the way the game sequel never really actually addresses the need for one in the first place.

I disagree. The violence and chaos and death very much shows such a thing is needed. They don't need scream about it every 5 seconds in order to understand those people would not say no to a cure lol.

The MURDER of Abby's dad is the incident that spurs the issue but the cure itself would not change the outcome of TLOU2's (very human driven) plotlines.

Nah, thats the incident that gets ABBY to go to Joel, but many of the characters in WLF who hate Joel that used to be Fireflies, clearly hate him because he halted that progress and clearly murdered people they love. So when Nora is saying "how many people are dead because of him", its clear they are not talking about a fixed number based on dead Fireflies, but the unknown number of people that are dying because of the virus. Abby isn't the only one with skin in this game to kill Joel man. SO that outcome very much plays into so many wanting Joel dead. Dead because of people he killed himself and dead because of the people they believe he indirectly killed by halting that program by saving Ellie and killing those doctors.



So the way I see it, Abby just gets to Joel first, anyone could have been hunting for his ass with great reason to kill him.

 

[Danjin44]

dooming the entire human race

I personally find this total BS, do you really think small group of fireflies can create a cure and distribute it to entire world to “save human race” which it would lots of resources even for government?

 

[sn0man]

I disagree, the ambiguity of Joel's decision depending of your POV it's reinforced in the sequel by the mere fact that Ellie learns to appreciate it too. The game misleads you at the start in how Ellie feels so your view of what happens changes with context towards the end. If anything, TLoU2 doubles downs on the style of the first game by picking up a theme as revenge and forgiveness and not giving you any easy answers.

The confusion between being good at a story and being a happy store that provides closure is the tale of TLOU2 for me personally. I hated it in the moment but grew to appreciate that it could make me hate and hurt. Doesn’t mean I chose those stories and media but I can still appreciate it once in a while.

 

[EDMIX]

I personally find this total BS, do you really think small group of fireflies can create a cure and distribute it to entire world to “save human race” which it would lots of resources even for government?

Doesn't really matter, he halted the progress of what very well could have been the cure years later. That one group may have not done it, but a group after the could have used that knowledge to get to a cure.

Its not arguing it was 100%, it saying what could have been the START of them getting the cure and learning more about the virus was lost and years of progress is now pushed back. Regardless if you feel they would have done it or not, we have to at least concede that what ever they would have learned, they didn't because of him.

 

[sol_bad]

I like how people in here like the video because it's about how the ending of TLOU is ambiguous.
But the people who agree with the video also agree that Joel 100% did the right thing, so to them, the ending is not ambiguous.

 

[Fake]

Joel is neither the good guy or the bad guy, he's just a guy.

He is human. Humans are assholes, but hey people love to live in their bubble aka Twitter and forget about the real world. IMO the best part of TLOUS2 was the especulation behind those clips. 90% of the fanbase are correct about Joel dying on this game, but none of them expected to be too soon and I guess is where come the dissapointment.

What I found super embarrassing is the Director of his own game bashing their own fanbase.

 

[SLB1904]

This.

If someone saved my life I would be forever grateful not pissed off lol.

Did you you miss this ?

 

[Danjin44]

Doesn't really matter, he halted the progress of what very well could have been the cure years later. That one group may have not done it, but a group after the could have used that knowledge to get to a cure.

Its not arguing it was 100%, it saying what could have been the START of them getting the cure and learning more about the virus was lost and years of progress is now pushed back. Regardless if you feel they would have done it or not, we have to at least concede that what ever they would have learned, they didn't because of him.

I'm a human being, if were it me I would also choose to save the life of someone I love over the "cure" that will not even work or even make a difference. Even without the cure human race is not lost and they are thriving in TLOU world...... they just have to stop killing each other.

 

[A Rifter in Space]

In recent years, meta-narrative analysis has been really popular. And while it isn't appropriate for everything (not everything has a meta context, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar), but for The Last of Us 2, it absolutely is. Its almost more of a meta narrative than an actual narrative. It hates you, wants you dead, wants to recognize its smart. So to understand, we have to get down to: What exactly IS The Last of Us 2? For that, we have to see what its doing in a meta context.

Spoiler: TLOU2 Effortpost

1) Audience Hatred - Abby

Fundamentally, 'The Last of Us 2' hates you. It doesn't matter if you're new to the game or a returning fan. It does not like you. It does not want to engage you. It insults your intelligence. It insults your sense of morality and decency. This is because Abby is portrayed as righteous even though she isn't. It is blatantly disregarding your perception because it doesn't value you. That's why even brain damaged video game reviewers feel its insulting them. Because it is.

Abby's clear evil vs. her portrayal creates an obvious cognitive dissonance that is purposeful. Druckman is telling you, flat out, to like her regardless of your own perceptions. He's not even trying to manipulate you, because Abby's evil is so ominous and overwhelming, he's hitting you in the face with a hammer, laughing as he forces you to 'enjoy' her presence.

She's not even a compelling villain. She's not a compelling protagonist. She is basically created to be an unlikeable avatar by Druckman himself to infuriate the audience. Abby exists only for Druckman. She is his character, you will like her, point blank. It isn't asking you to have an opinion, because it simply doesn't care about it.

So, for new audiences, Abby's obviously insane quest is portrayed as fine, somehow still searching for revenge, even though it is utterly impossible for audiences to identify with this character. Making Joel a prop is basically going to have no emotional resonance for anyone coming into this. With no scenes between Ellie and Joel, any new player is going to be alienated and fail to relate to Ellie in any real way. It will be primarily superficial, followed by sheer misery.

You will not even be attracted to her, as she's modeled intentionally as ugly as possible. She is unpleasant to look at, her personality is that of a serial killer and you have to play as her. There's no better proof: Neil Druckman hates you.

2) Audience Hatred - Joel

It hates you even more if you're a former player. Joel's destruction in the game physically is Druckman's meta comment to the old audience. Simply put, its: Fuck you. There's no other message here. He's telling you straight up to go fuck yourself. Even Abby's utterly insane quest to kill 'Joel' reveals something about Druckman's state of mind: He's INCREDIBLY insecure about Joel as a character. He didn't write him, he didn't create him. So he has to destroy him. Not only that, but utterly annihilate him in a fashion that will insult everyone who liked him. Because fuck them too.

Druckman makes Joel save Abby, because Abby is the character he likes. In addition to this, he makes Joel save her to twist the knife further for people. In a way, its even worse than re-writing him to have done some bad things. He's completely redeemed, but Druckman will destroy that and make him pointless. Another piece of evidence is that Joel is killed in a sea of other men named Joel, rendering him not special. It takes away from Joel and belittles him.

His grudge against Joel I would say is pathological. His death is torturous and pointless, one of many who came before him. He's never really with Ellie for any amount of time. He's never avenged and Ellie hates him at the end of the game. His annihilation in favor of Abby speaks to a deep seated inferiority complex for anything he didn't create.

It goes beyond Joel being a 'white guy'. This is clearly punishment for Joel not being written by Druckman and liked better than Abby, as he knew he would be. He even inserts himself spitting on Joel. Druckman's mental insecurities are on full display in response to Joel.

3) Audience Hatred - Ellie

Perhaps most egregiously, Ellie is completely destroyed. What was supposed to be her game was stolen from her by a character nobody asked for, and Druckman demands you like her in the place of Ellie. Its probably most discussed about in this thread at how Ellie was switched out with Abby, and of course this was on purpose.

None of this was for subverting expectations, artistic license or any of that fact. It was because: Fuck you. Neil Druckman does not like you. He hates you. And by proxy, Ellie as well. It doesn't matter her history or background. Even her motivations are just simple revenge. And for that, you are forced to commit horrible shit because you need to be 'just as bad' as Abby. Except the game forces you to do so, which basically ignores the consequences of what you're supposed to be doing. If a dog is going to tear my throat out, I'm not really going to care if I'm forced into a flashback with that dog.

Again, by proxy, anyone following Abby is complicit in her serial murder, so there is this clear disconnect with what Ellie is doing and what the game is telling you. Druckman does not care about this. Because fuck you.

Ellie is unable to kill Abby solely because Druckman does not want her to. There is literally no reason to take her down off of that cross when she tried to kill your pregnant girlfriend and knocked your teeth out. You should probably just gut her. But Ellie does not. She takes her down, then tries to drown her, gets her fingers bitten off and then puts her on a boat.

This is not some great artistic statement. It makes no sense from any narrative standpoint. It is only to make you hate Ellie and Druckman's visceral disgust for his audience. How is it possible that Ellie, after having mounds of bodies stacked up by her hand, fails to kill a helpless person on a cross, after all the lines she's crossed? It simply isn't possible. It is only by his design that Abby does not die. The game has no narrative. It has no story. It is what Druckman wants to happen, when it happens and it doesn't care about logic or reason. Because it does not care about its audience or the audience's view on events that happen.

And its because Abby is better than Ellie in Druckman's mind. Simple as that.

4) Diversity as Shield

The diversity in this game only exists to shield it from criticism. There's no reason it is here. It plays no role in the plot, it has no notable effect on characters or their actions and is barely relevant. If you look closely, these labels simply are irrelevant. They mean nothing, effect nothing and are only inserted so Druckman can have a convenient defense.

What does Ellie's homosexuality amount to, really? Her girlfriend gets pregnant, but Druckman has no problem beating her to death possibly and is only saved because she is pregnant. It could have been a friend or a companion. It doesn't matter all that much. If you're buying into the diversity narrative, you're just getting played.

These things exist in this game for Druckman to point to as a reason to why people hate it. They should be ignored. They're utterly irrelevant and positioned only to shield the creator from what he wrote.

5) The Player is Neil Druckman

There's only one person this game is made for. That's Neil Druckman himself. In the end, this is what it comes down to. This is a game by Neil Druckman, for Neil Druckman. Its not for anyone else. I asked in the beginning: What is 'The Last of Us 2'? The answer is it is a 100 million dollar vanity project. That's all this game is. It is to revel in the greatness of Neil Druckman. His characters are better, his story is better, everything is better. It is designed for him. He is the one to play this game at the end. Its the one he wanted to play.

Its why the studio left, its why he had to outsource. This was not a collaborative effort. This was a vanity project built on somebody else's dime. There is no audience for this game besides one person. Its not for you, its not for me, its not for fans, its not for people who play games, its not for progressives. It is only for Neil Druckman and you will pay for that privilege.

In short, the game hates you. No matter who you are. It is a 100 million dollar title telling you to go fuck yourself. It is singularly, the worst written, most pathetic excuse for a piece of art I've ever seen for this budget. Its the definition of a vanity project.

So that basically sums up my tear down of TLOU 2. Barring any further developments, I think I've broken it down pretty consciously

 

[Fake]

I personally find this total BS, do you really think small group of fireflies can create a cure and distribute it to entire world to “save human race” which it would lots of resources even for government?

Only a silly person could believe such a stupid ideia. Human race are trying to survive, with what they can with limited resource, they're killing each other to survive... Chirst... even human are eating another human... but somehow fireflies are the Gods and they will save all.
I like the ideia of the adult Ellie be 'such a silly adult girl' and admit she don't care if is a tiny possibility of her 'cure' could save humanity, but hey she wanted to give a try. 'You deny my death'. Dude, this script is so disconnected with the reality.


edit: I tone down my post.

 

[SLB1904]

Doesn't really matter, he halted the progress of what very well could have been the cure years later. That one group may have not done it, but a group after the could have used that knowledge to get to a cure.

Its not arguing it was 100%, it saying what could have been the START of them getting the cure and learning more about the virus was lost and years of progress is now pushed back. Regardless if you feel they would have done it or not, we have to at least concede that what ever they would have learned, they didn't because of him.

This. Ellie was supposed to be a package. Just a job that him and tess done countless time. You clearly can see who missed the point of the first game.
The problem was Joel got attached to ellie

 

[Fake]

The problem was Joel got attached to ellie

The problem was Ellie got attached to Joel. At least if you played the first game.

 

[SLB1904]

Only a dumbass could believe such a stupid ideia. Human race are trying to survive, with what they can with limited resource, they're killing each other to survive... Chirst... even human are eating another human... but somehow fireflies are the Gods and they will save all.
I like the ideia of the adult Ellie be 'such a silly adult girl' and admit she don't care if is a tiny possibility of her 'cure' could save humanity, but hey she wanted to give a try. 'You deny my death'. Dude, this script is so disconnected with the reality.

You are just talking nonsense.

 

[EDMIX]

that will not even work or even make a difference.

Except you don't know that so.....yea.

they are thriving in TLOU world.....

Yea people dying from a deadly virus is not thriving...

I would also choose to save the life of someone one I love

Thats nice and if I lost a loved one to this virus or any family members and found out someone halted, hurt or pushed back a project that was seeking the cure, I'd very much look to end you too. I'm sorry but I see a benefit to seek less information, gain less knowledge, don't progress the program by studying Ellie's Brain etc. I don't see how the lack of that was suppose to help anyone other then Joel as shit even Ellie was out here looking to make her life "matter" lol.

Imagine people all over world is dying from some zombie virus and Danjin the president like "won't even work bro, won't make a difference" and like "we out here thriving folks" and like "I choose to save the life of someone I love...fuck the rest of ya'll cuh" (President Elect Danjin's own words mind you) lol I'm not saying you can't believe this, but shit....you have to understand someone would want you dead, someone would be looking for you and hunting you down.

 

[Fake]

You are just talking nonsense.

?

I can assume you're fan of sequel at this point.