Support NeoGAF

[Umbral]

I see it as a hopeful ending, after all the shit before santa barbara Ellie still wasn't able to live normally, if she had killed Abby she wouldn't have gained closure, she would've keep struggling with the real trauma like Abby did after killing Joel. At least with this ending, Ellie learns how to let go finally, she let's Abby go and Joel too. I honestly feel like this was a coming of age story for Ellie, she loses a lot just to grow up.

I pointed out in the OT in my first hours of the game how the bigot sandwich and Joel's comments on Ellie's behavior were characterization of Ellies flaws, i find it fitting that in fact it was all related. If Ellie accepted the bigot sandwiches she probably would of been less stubborn with seeking revenge and not forgiving Joel.

But yes, nihilistic stories usually leave a sour taste.

That’s a really good way of looking at it. Thanks.

It's not nihilistic, like holy crap. Your view of it is pretty nihilistic, heck you think it'd be a happier ending if Ellie killed Abby, like the problem isn't the game's downer tone (which doesn't approach nihilism no matter how downer the ending) it's your view of it and what constitutes a more up ending/more meaningful ending. You want true nihilism? Ellie kills Abby and Lev, then herself, final shot just lingers on the three dead bodies.

You’re right, that would be much more of a downer ending, but somehow it sits better with me. Not sure why. My ideal ending would be that Abby died and everything else went the same. Maybe give the player the choice?

I don’t quite know why I don’t like it as much as the first one. I’ll have to continue to chew on it. I’ve gone through it twice and watched someone else play it fully. I still don’t like it. It’s not bad, but it’s like a 7 for me.

Edit: additional thought.

 

[bishopcruz]

The ending of the game is the best part. but this review is still pretty trash. The themes are obvious, but 90% of the game doesn't even try to touch on them Abby shows zero remorse, Elly and her exchange less than 12 lines the entire game, The Wolves are horrible people, and the entire narrative is a mess. This game is being held up by an endgame scenario that is out of context, legit amazing, but in context disjointed and unfitting with what came before it. I don't think a lot of people understand just how many of the gaps they are filling in themselves. Forgiveness is NOT a theme of the game until literally the final minutes. It is never mentioned or touched upon until then. The cycle of vengeance has been done many times before as well. And here it was not done well. IF we the players are meant to forgive or at least understand Abby she has to show some level of remorse first. She never does.

Also "There is no difficulty code for forgiveness." was a horrible line.

 

[PleaseWaitStation4]

Some think it's "brave" to fart loudly in public, doesn't mean people will appreciate it. The lead took a team with their own hopes and dreams to grow, with families to feed and drove a successful franchise they were working for off a cliff for his own gain. FO

 

[Valentino]

If Ellie killed Abby the ending would have been a little brighter in a weird way. The loss of everything would have been balanced by the choice she made. As it is, she is punished for making the ”good” choice. Abby gets Lev, Ellie gets nothing but shit.

Most people’s response to nihilistic media is “Oh, fuck this shit.” as it provides no hope and nothing matters. We have enough hardship in real life. I’m all for people telling their stories, but don’t get all Pikachu-face when people hate it.

Choices and opinions I guess. Providing balance though - I'd argue against that strongly. I think it's beyond clear killing Abby (or Lev) would not have balanced anything out or made things 'fair'. Ellie would probably only find false peace in killing Abby. Just like Abby found false peace killing Joel, she continuously had nightmares of her dad and the hospital. The parallels between Ellie and Abby indicate the same would happen to the former.
Abby only killed Joel and Jesse (in defence). But Ellie kills the majority of Abby's group and friends - so I think Ellie tips the scale over in 'fairness'. Abby lost more people. So in conclusion, as much as I hate to see it, Ellie getting nothing out of it in the end hits more and works for me. Feels more real to see someone actually work so hard for something but not achieve it (or in Ellie's case, see it through). We've all been there. She ended the cycle of revenge though (perhaps) and learned her lesson. It's tragic. It really sucks, but what a lame ending it may have been: Kill Abby >>>> Does Ellie have satisfaction now? >>>> Is Dina still going to be gone back home?>>>> Did killing Abby stop Ellie's panic attacks?
There is enough hardship in life - your right, very very true. So before picking up the LoU2, I wouldn't hold out for a heart-warming ending set in a bleak, harsh and unfair world. I have gazillion Mario and Final Fantasy type 'happy' games for that comfort. So don't get all Pikachu face if you hate it, bleak game - what was you expecting?
Side note - LoU 1 ending wasn't exactly super satisfactory either.

 

[Terenty]

Its kinda crazy, every time someone's brought up a plot-hole or alleged illogcality, its there. They actually cover it.

But you still didn't answer me if Abby knew the reason why Joel killed her father and firefly soldiers in the hospital. I gave you the reason why i think she should have known, but you didn't answer back

 

[Clear]

But you still didn't answer me if Abby knew the reason why Joel killed her father and firefly soldiers in the hospital. I gave you the reason why i think she should have known, but you didn't answer back

That he did it for a "noble cause" is far less plausible than her dad successfully creating a vaccine that would potentially save millions. Obviousy so, because she knows and loves her dad and Joel is just some smuggler from a QZ on the other side of the country.

So obviously, she doesn't "know" why he did any of it because she never met him and as he murdered everyone in his way out of the hospital who's supposed to be left alive to explain it to her? Not to mention that Joel is not one for monologuing his intentions and inner thoughts!

The real point is though she wouldn't give a shit about why he did any of it, when the end result was her father dead, all hope for a cure lost, and her extended family (The Fireflies) demoralized, disbanded, and scattered to the winds.

In short regardless of whatever his reasons. Joel destroyed her life. She has ample justification for seeking revenge, far more so than Ellie who's motivated less by vengeance than by self loathing over how she treated Joel the past couple of years.

 

[Terenty]

So obviously, she doesn't "know" why he did any of it because she never met him and as he murdered everyone in his way out of the hospital who's supposed to be left alive to explain it to her? Not to mention that Joel is not one for monologuing his intentions and inner thoughts!

The real point is though she wouldn't give a shit about why he did any of it, when the end result was her father dead, all hope for a cure lost, and her extended family (The Fireflies) demoralized, disbanded, and scattered to the winds.

First of all the fact that Joel on his own disbanded the whole firefly organisation is fucking ridiculous dont you think? Him killing dozens of fireflies is a by product of the gameplay loop. If we consider him killing an entire organisation as a plot point then we are dealing with a setting more outlandish than Lord of the Rings.

So in reality he could kill max 5 soldiers and her dad. That's it. If one person can wipe out the entire Firefly organisation then how the fuck would they be able to produce the vaccine and help millions of people?

Secondly, there is a cutscene as i've mentioned before, where Marlene tells Abby's father in front if Abby that she is gonna tell Joel, the man who travelled with Ellie the entire country that they are going to kill her, to which Abby's dad is visibly annoyed and asks why would she do it. Then Abby cheers him up and says he's doing the right thing. Can we assume that after everything that happened Abby can come to the conclusion Joel did what he did to save Ellie? I believe we can.

And yes they retconned two other doctors, that you could totally spare, out of existence so that only her dad without any assistance was going to perform an operation and there were no other witnesses

 

[Terenty]

The real point is though she wouldn't give a shit about why he did any of it, when the end result was her father dead, all hope for a cure lost, and her extended family (The Fireflies) demoralized, disbanded, and scattered to the winds.

Maybe her father shoudn't have performed dubious experiments on little girls then?

 

[Clear]

Maybe her father shoudn't have performed dubious experiments on little girls then?

Your judgments don't matter in the context of the fiction, the only thing that matters is whether character motivation is consistent and believable within the boundaries of the text. Which it is.

Abby isn't going to take a charitable, forgiving position on the merits of Joel's actions BECAUSE SHE HAS NO REASON TO WHATSOEVER.

There is no moral equation that justifies what Joel did. Its painfully human, and understandable for us who have been following his perspective since outbreak day, but to pretty everyone within the fictional world he made a unilateral choice to save Ellie and in so doing deny a chance to save millions from cordyceps infection.

Is it a certainty that the vaccine would work? Of course not, but even just as a chance, as a HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, its a heavy choice especially for anyone who's lost a close friend, relative, or lover to the cordyceps.

Remember Joel "the savior" is a secret, virtually noone knows what he did. On the other hand every ex-Firefly knows what that smuggler did in Salt Lake, how he killed the doc, Marlene, so many soldiers. and vanished with the cure they'd been fighting for.

See, its not just Abby who believes Joel has heinous crimes to answer for. They all do, and its all justified. A judgement that's likely to get compounded and intensified because its shared, Abby just has the most pointedly personal justification.

 

[Terenty]

Abby isn't going to take a charitable, forgiving position on the merits of Joel's actions BECAUSE SHE HAS NO REASON TO WHATSOEVER.

Why doesn't she has a reason whatsoever? In all five years it didn't cross her mind that the person that travelled with a girl for a year across the country and risked his life saving her in the hospital did it to save the girl? Why else would he do it? She could have at least asked him some questions before golfing him to death, no?

And you didn't address any of my other points.
How could Joel alone destroy the entire Firefly organisation? Is he immortal or firefly soldiers total morons?

And even if somehow Joel was able to kill 50 people in that hospital, how such a shitty gang of ragtags could ever hope to produce a vaccine and help millions of people?

 

[bishopcruz]

Your judgments don't matter in the context of the fiction, the only thing that matters is whether character motivation is consistent and believable within the boundaries of the text. Which it is.

Abby isn't going to take a charitable, forgiving position on the merits of Joel's actions BECAUSE SHE HAS NO REASON TO WHATSOEVER.

There is no moral equation that justifies what Joel did. Its painfully human, and understandable for us who have been following his perspective since outbreak day, but to pretty everyone within the fictional world he made a unilateral choice to save Ellie and in so doing deny a chance to save millions from cordyceps infection.

Is it a certainty that the vaccine would work? Of course not, but even just as a chance, as a HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, its a heavy choice especially for anyone who's lost a close friend, relative, or lover to the cordyceps.

Remember Joel "the savior" is a secret, virtually noone knows what he did. On the other hand every ex-Firefly knows what that smuggler did in Salt Lake, how he killed the doc, Marlene, so many soldiers. and vanished with the cure they'd been fighting for.

See, its not just Abby who believes Joel has heinous crimes to answer for. They all do, and its all justified. A judgement that's likely to get compounded and intensified because its shared, Abby just has the most pointedly personal justification.

Yeah but I think the narrative fails in that not ONE of them has second thoughts about what they did, and the hints of it after the fact are just that... hints. Owen is haunted by it, but would it have killed them to wonder if they did the right thing, or if it was worth it. Might someone realize that sacrificing a girl without her consent and the Fireflies delusions of grandeur at least played a part in bringing this down on them? Abby can disagree, hell she SHOULD disagree, but the point needed to be brought up.

And no, there is an ABSOLUTE moral equation that justifies what Joel did. The fact that people can't even admit that scares me to be honest. This group of people were going to murder a child. They threatened Joel with death if he didn't allow it to happen. Every person he killed was either actively stopping him from saving her from death, or in the case of our lovable Dr. Jerry he had the equivalent to a gun to the girl's head, then pointed it at Joel. They may have thought they were doing the right thing, but every single death was justified. (MAYBE not the assistants.)

Now again, Abby believes she is in the right, and that is fine for her character, but it doesn't forgive, or really help us empathize with her. It would be like a criminal's son trying to get revenge on the cop that killed his father. I get the anger and desire for revenge, but the death was due to his own choices.

And that is the problem with hinging the revenge plot on the least logically consistent part of the original game. The trolly cart dilemma in the first game was insane, and it only worked at all because you could believe that the FIreflies were just that crazy after seeing the destruction left in their wake throughout the game, and how they were fanatics who were in desperate need for a win. The abject stupidity of killing the ONE person they have ever seen with immunity within HOURS of finding her is a stretch, but it leads to the lie at the end, so you can give it a pass. But it didn't stand up to any form of scrutiny then, and it sure as shit doesn't now.

Originally Abby was going to be the daughter of someone that Joel and Tommy killed back in their hunter days, and this would have made the narrative SO MUCH BETTER. That brings real ambiguity. Abby's anger would have actually been righteous, and the question would be, is Joel being a better man now enough to make up for the sins of the past. Not a new scenario either, but a more dramatically interesting one.

 

[bishopcruz]

Why doesn't she has a reason whatsoever? In all five years it didn't cross her mind that the person that travelled with a girl for a year across the country and risked his life saving her in the hospital did it to save the girl? Why else would he do it? She could have at least asked him some questions before golfing him to death, no?

And you didn't address any of my other points.
How could Joel alone destroy the entire Firefly organisation? Is he immortal or firefly soldiers total morons?

And even if somehow Joel was able to kill 50 people in that hospital, how such a shitty gang of ragtags could ever hope to produce a vaccine and help millions of people?

Because the fireflies were jokes in the first game. They did nothing but lose, that was their story. Ellie was their last chance at mattering, and so they were willing to kill her on the chance of the vaccine. It's in all of their journal entries throughout the game. They like Ellie wanted their sacrifices to be for SOMETHING, but their entire group is one giant sunk cost fallacy.

 

[Terenty]

Because the fireflies were jokes in the first game. They did nothing but lose, that was their story. Ellie was their last chance at mattering, and so they were willing to kill her on the chance of the vaccine. It's in all of their journal entries throughout the game. They like Ellie wanted their sacrifices to be for SOMETHING, but their entire group is one giant sunk cost fallacy.

Exactly, the whole premise of the second game is founded on one big retcon that Fireflies were somehow going to save humanity.

And Abby's father knew that Fireflies' days were numbered and even if he magically produced the vaccine it would go nowhere in the end. And he still went on with the operation. He's no better than Nazi doctors with families who were experimenting on people in concentration camps.

Why the fuck should i emphasise with him or his daughter?

 

[bishopcruz]

Exactly, the whole premise of the second game is founded on one big retcon that Fireflies were somehow going to save humanity.

And Abby's father knew that Fireflies' days were numbered and even if he magically produced the vaccine it would go nowhere in the end. And he still went on with the operation. He's no better than Nazi doctors with families who were experimenting on people in concentration camps.

Why the fuck should i emphasise with him or her daughter?

Eh I think that that might be going a bit far. He thought that if he created this vaccine and got it out, then the deaths and all the suffering they endured and caused wouldn't be for nothing. But that is their problem. They are so focused on the greater good they lost sight of a lot of the smaller ones. Ellie has the same issue, she thinks her life is meaningless because she didn't die for the cure. But she is wrong, her life has meaning to everyone in Jackson, her lovers, her surrogate family, everyone. It would have been a very interesting character study to see her try to figure that out, but instead they went for a bog standard revenge is bad story, and couldn't even tell that well.

 

[Terenty]

Eh I think that that might be going a bit far. He thought that if he created this vaccine and got it out, then the deaths and all the suffering they endured and caused wouldn't be for nothing.

But how would they get it out if they dont have any infrastructure and one person could destroy their whole group? What would they do with it exactly?

 

[bishopcruz]

But how would they get it out if they dont have any infrastructure and one person could destroy their whole group? What would they do with it exactly?

Oh they had delusions of grandeur, no doubt about it. The fireflies were revolutionaries with dreams of saving the world. And like far too many groups of that ilk they were willing to do horrible shit to get it done. They had been losing badly for years, but they were still true believers. Joel didn't take them all out, but he did enough damage that after this last failure, they basically disbanded. Their last hope at being important was gone. Joel didn't destroy the organization, they brought it on themselves. FEDRA cleaned their clock, and what FEDRA didn't do hunters and their own riots that went out of control did. Again, I am not saying that Dr. Jerry was RIGHT that he could make and distribute a cure, but he absolutely thought he did. And people believed him.

 

[Clear]

Exactly, the whole premise of the second game is founded on one big retcon that Fireflies were somehow going to save humanity.

No. The premise is the hope that there would be a cure. That hope was the light at the end of the tunnel, and as Ellie discovers on that museum trip....

There is no more light, because Joel snuffed it out in order to save her life.

Now that's one helluva an existential mindfuck.

 

[Terenty]

No. The premise is the hope that there would be a cure. That hope was the light at the end of the tunnel, and as Ellie discovers on that museum trip....

And Joel could have explained to her in five minutes why that hope was false

 

[BluRayHiDef]

Can animals become infected by the Cordicep Fungus? It would have been cool to fight fungified dogs and bears.

 

[Clear]

And Joel could have explained to her in five minutes why that hope was false

No he couldn't. And he wouldn't. And he didn't.

And to whom is he supposed to explain his rationale? His actions impacted far more people than just Ellie and Abby, the unnamed Firefly in the cut-scene for one.

Like Joel as much as you want (I do), but he had it coming for doing what he did. No doubt.

 

[bishopcruz]

No. The premise is the hope that there would be a cure. That hope was the light at the end of the tunnel, and as Ellie discovers on that museum trip....

There is no more light, because Joel snuffed it out in order to save her life.

Now that's one helluva an existential mindfuck.

But that's assuming that the fireflies were the hope for the future, but they never were. None of the military organizations actually help things? The WLF for example is ok, but then your realize how much of Seattle was destroyed in their wars with Fedra and the Seraphites. The fireflies seemed better than FEDRA on paper, but look at he wake of bodies they left behind them inTLoU1. The fireflies were abject failures, the equivalent of what would happen if you set Antifa loose in a zombie apocalypse, a whole lot of belief and a whole lot of dead people with nothing to show for it.

But the real hope, that exists in places like Jackson.

 

[bishopcruz]

No he couldn't. And he wouldn't. And he didn't.

And to whom is he supposed to explain his rationale? His actions impacted far more people than just Ellie and Abby, the unnamed Firefly in the cut-scene for one.

Like Joel as much as you want (I do), but he had it coming for doing what he did. No doubt.

I agree that he couldn't have explained it to her satisfaction, that wouldn't have fit Ellie's character.

But he had it coming? No the Fireflies had it coming, which unarmed firefly did he kill? Dr. Jerry? The man was about to murder Ellie, and would have if Joel didn't stop him. He also had a deadly weapon in his hand, and would have by the game itself tried to kill Joel if he didn't shoot him. If Joel stood at a standstill, the fireflies come and kill him. You can try to paint the situation as grey all you want, but the fireflies were CLEARLY and consistently in the wrong by any moral standard that is worth a good goddamn. Ellie was given no choice, she was shunted immediately away to be killed for a vaccine, Joel was threatened with death if he didn't agree. He wasn't allowed to see her, he wasn't given the chance to talk it through with her. He was surrounded by a group of fanatics known for killing military and civilian targets. What EXACTLY should he have done differently? How could he save Ellie's life and keep her safe and not fraq a bunch of fireflies? Answer, he couldn't.

 

[Clear]

But that's assuming that the fireflies were the hope for the future, but they never were. None of the military organizations actually help things? The WLF for example is ok, but then your realize how much of Seattle was destroyed in their wars with Fedra and the Seraphites. The fireflies seemed better than FEDRA on paper, but look at he wake of bodies they left behind them inTLoU1. The fireflies were abject failures, the equivalent of what would happen if you set Antifa loose in a zombie apocalypse, a whole lot of belief and a whole lot of dead people with nothing to show for it.

But the real hope, that exists in places like Jackson.

No. What I'm saying is that's what a lot of the Fireflies believed. It doesn't have to be all of them (some grew disillusioned earlier like Tommy) but you simply cannot deny that there wouldn't be a lot of true believers in the cause up to the point that Joel basically decapitated them as an organization.

Hell, Owen and subsequently Abby are still looking for holdouts in Santa Barbara. Because what the Fireflies stood for matters to them.

As I keep pointing out. The whole of the story is about what beliefs keep people going. It doesn't matter of its real or fantasy, true or false, everyone needs something (or someone) to hold on to.

 

[bishopcruz]

No. What I'm saying is that's what a lot of the Fireflies believed. It doesn't have to be all of them (some grew disillusioned earlier like Tommy) but you simply cannot deny that there wouldn't be a lot of true believers in the cause up to the point that Joel basically decapitated them as an organization.

Hell, Owen and subsequently Abby are still looking for holdouts in Santa Barbara. Because what the Fireflies stood for matters to them.

As I keep pointing out. The whole of the story is about what beliefs keep people going. It doesn't matter of its real or fantasy, true or false, everyone needs something (or someone) to hold on to.

We're saying the same thing, then. I do not disagree that the fireflies believed. That is clear in part 1 as well. They are delusional. Nor do I disagree that Owen and Abby and them would want Joel dead.

I don't quite agree on the theme being belief keeping people going. Owen is grasping for any sort of meaning in his life. Manny does just fine without belief as does Nora. Ellie doesn't believe in anything, and Dina isn't a believer either. When belief does come up it is shown to justify doing horrible acts. The Fireflies murdering Ellie, the scars and their Messiah, the Wolves and their victory for the greater good at any cost. All of those systems are shown as horribly flawed.

 

[Terenty]

Like Joel as much as you want (I do), but he had it coming for doing what he did. No doubt

He had it coming for what he did before meeting Ellie, but certainly not for what he did to Fireflies and an amoral doctor.

As I keep pointing out. The whole of the story is about what beliefs keep people going. It doesn't matter of its real or fantasy, true or false, everyone needs something (or someone) to hold on to.

And Nazis believed they were doing the right thing throwing people into gas chambers, should i start empathising them now?

 

[Clear]

We're saying the same thing, then. I do not disagree that the fireflies believed. That is clear in part 1 as well. They are delusional. Nor do I disagree that Owen and Abby and them would want Joel dead.

I don't quite agree on the theme being belief keeping people going. Owen is grasping for any sort of meaning in his life. Manny does just fine without belief as does Nora. Ellie doesn't believe in anything, and Dina isn't a believer either. When belief does come up it is shown to justify doing horrible acts. The Fireflies murdering Ellie, the scars and their Messiah, the Wolves and their victory for the greater good at any cost. All of those systems are shown as horribly flawed.

Yeah, but everyone is flawed in this harsh, dog-eat-dog world.

Consider the history and timeline, Jackson may seem like an oasis of civilization but its not been around for long at all. We were there in the first game when they finally restored electric power, a mere 5 years in the past. Back then they were still on a highly defensive footing, fighting off marauders who threatened them

The point I'm getting at is if you scratch the surface there's blood and dead-bodies right underneath. Dina's pretty nonchalant about her backstory, but its still quite a history of violence and mayhem. You can assume that most people above a certain age will have similar tales to tell.

As to the matter of belief:

Ellie's long held belief that her immunity has to mean something is crushed when she discovers what Joel did. Which is why she lashes out at him for 2 long years, until on the cusp of them healing, Abby's vengeance takes that hope of reconciliation away.

Joel for his part puts up for it. because all he believes in is his role as Ellie's protector and father-figure. He goes to his death upholding this, so absolute is his conviction.

At this point Ellie starts out on her path of vengeance, but its less about justice for Joel than her managing her own guilt as to how she rejected him and never got chance to truly resolve their conflict. Getting revenge on Abby is important as it gives her a focus, but as Tommy and Dina and Jesse get pulled into the fray her resolve wavers, especially so after she finds herself doing things she finds hard to reconcile with her moral self-image,

Ellie is very conscious of the corrosiveness of her chosen course, but there's an element of self-punishment derived from her guilt over the state of her and Joel's relationship.

By contrast, following her father's death Abby commits absolutely to her path of vengeance. She shapes her body as a weapon, hardens her heart, sacrifices her relationship with Owen and literally lives to exact her retribution on the man who wronged her.

After killing Joel however she discovers that her nightmares don't go away. Completing her "mission" hasn't given her peace, even though she can finally move on in her life.

After being saved by Lev and Yara she finally finds a reason in saving them and escaping the Seattle war zone. The key shift here is that she finally recognizes her error in obsessing for years on revenge. This is spelled out when she finally confronts Ellie at the theatre, she bitterly tells Ellie that she wasted the opportunity afforded by her being spared back in Jackson.

Wasted is a very specific thing to describe it as, implying disappointment more than anger over how things have turned out.

Anyway after the fight, and her heeding Lev's appeal not to kill Dina (who lets not forget Abby has never set eyes on before she gets jumped by her during their fight) she finally breaks her cycle of vengeance, liberating her to go back and try and be the person she was before her father's death. She and Lev go looking for Fireflies, an unrealistically optimistic errand...

Meanwhile, Ellie survives but her spirit is broken. She remains left behind not because her immunity means something to humanity, but because this beast-woman who killed Joel has spared her twice. This is the route of her PTSD, Abby has basically taken her power.

When Tommy turns up with info, she has to go and face her one last time, because she knows if she doesn't she's going to be forever haunted by her failure, her inability to protect herself and those she loves from harm.

This is absolutely crucial. Ellie has no choice, to say no is literally slow death to her soul.

So... (nearly there now lol) When she finally catches up with Abby, and discovers the monster she's been chasing to be a shadow of her former self she can't just kill her in cold blood. She needs to face her fear, as only by conquering that can she finally move on.

During the fight we get two flashes of Joel, one showing him in death, the other in life. These signify the choice she has to make: Killing Abby at this point isn't what matters at all. Beating her is enough, the real question is what happens next. Where is she supposed to go after here: death or life?

Ellie at the last, chooses life and saves herself.

She does this by accepting Joel's love, the thing she spitefully rejected to punish him for stealing her destiny, and finally forgiving him. The tears she sheds in the water are for him, not for herself.

The epilogue, far from being a nihilistic dirge, shows Ellie finally able to peacefully reconcile with her and Joel's past. She may be battered, missing fingers, but she is no longer left behind.

She is still here, and that in itself is a triumph.

 

[Umbral]

Choices and opinions I guess. Providing balance though - I'd argue against that strongly. I think it's beyond clear killing Abby (or Lev) would not have balanced anything out or made things 'fair'. Ellie would probably only find false peace in killing Abby. Just like Abby found false peace killing Joel, she continuously had nightmares of her dad and the hospital. The parallels between Ellie and Abby indicate the same would happen to the former.
Abby only killed Joel and Jesse (in defence). But Ellie kills the majority of Abby's group and friends - so I think Ellie tips the scale over in 'fairness'. Abby lost more people. So in conclusion, as much as I hate to see it, Ellie getting nothing out of it in the end hits more and works for me. Feels more real to see someone actually work so hard for something but not achieve it (or in Ellie's case, see it through). We've all been there. She ended the cycle of revenge though (perhaps) and learned her lesson. It's tragic. It really sucks, but what a lame ending it may have been: Kill Abby >>>> Does Ellie have satisfaction now? >>>> Is Dina still going to be gone back home?>>>> Did killing Abby stop Ellie's panic attacks?
There is enough hardship in life - your right, very very true. So before picking up the LoU2, I wouldn't hold out for a heart-warming ending set in a bleak, harsh and unfair world. I have gazillion Mario and Final Fantasy type 'happy' games for that comfort. So don't get all Pikachu face if you hate it, bleak game - what was you expecting?
Side note - LoU 1 ending wasn't exactly super satisfactory either.

That’s a fair way of looking at things.

Just a side bit, I will disagree with the Ellie murders though:

Nick is killed by Tommy.

Jordan was pretty savage with Ellie saying “Got you, mother fucker.” but one could argue she was defending Dina. It’s not a perfect argument because he was restraining her and not an immediate threat to her life, though he was certainly going to be. Ellie should have stabbed the floor since that shit almost killed her.

Leah is killed by Seraphites.

Whitney is killed in self-defense when she tries to stab Ellie.

Nora is tortured and killed by Ellie.

Owen is killed by Ellie in self-defense because he went for her gun. She even tells him and Mel that they can survive this, she just wants Abby.

Mel is killed in self-defense when she tries to stab Ellie after she killed Owen. This is made dumber by Mel being pregnant and attacking her. She should have ran to Owen‘s side and begged Ellie for her life and gave up where Abby was. She was willing to anyway. That would throw off the rest of the story, but would make more sense.

Manny is killed by Tommy.

Abby is spared.

Ellie’s murders: Jordan (arguable) and Nora. Nora being the egregious one. That’s it. Everything else was self-defense.

Abby’s murders: Joel, Jesse, attempted murder on Tommy. Nearly killing Dina was self-defense.

I think we need to recognize Fat Geralt as the only true hero here.

 

[sol_bad]

And her redemption arc happens literally within 3 days, is it believable to you?

One thing I'll say is that it's not a redemption arc, she isn't on a quest to redeem herself. It's just who Abby is, you are getting a glimpse into what her daily life is like and how she interacts with the people in her life. It's up to the player to decide if they like her personality or not.

 

[bishopcruz]

One thing I'll say is that it's not a redemption arc, she isn't on a quest to redeem herself. It's just who Abby is, you are getting a glimpse into what her daily life is like and how she interacts with the people in her life. It's up to the player to decide if they like her personality or not.

The problem is if you can't stand her, that makes the entire last half of the game an absolute slog. It might have helped if her campaign actually interacted with Ellie's campaign but it doesn't. Abby barely has an arc at all, but it was at least something, Ellie could have been removed from Seattle and practically nothing would have changed, Tommy pretty much had the entire thing handled.

 

[Umbral]

I’d love to hear from any testers if anyone ever criticized the pacing or narrative structure?

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Maybe you should go write a video game. Let me know when it comes out.

No thanks. I like making more money than video game developers.

 

[Terenty]

One thing I'll say is that it's not a redemption arc, she isn't on a quest to redeem herself. It's just who Abby is, you are getting a glimpse into what her daily life is like and how she interacts with the people in her life. It's up to the player to decide if they like her personality or not.

The problem is, Druckmann himself said its her redemption arc.

I’d love to hear from any testers if anyone ever criticized the pacing or narrative structure?

If im not mistaken, before the game came out he said testers didn't like new characters so they had to add more and more stuff to the game to make them more likeable. I guess that's why its so bloated

 

[Balducci30]

One thing I'll say is that it's not a redemption arc, she isn't on a quest to redeem herself. It's just who Abby is, you are getting a glimpse into what her daily life is like and how she interacts with the people in her life. It's up to the player to decide if they like her personality or not.

What? Yes it is a redemption arc what do you mean? People around her freaking out at her about how shitty of a person she is, but then she randomly starts helping Lev as a result and grows attached in almost the same exact way Ellie and Joel did? I guess if you're arguing Joel isn't a redemption arc (which I'd say it was) because he was still imperfect by the end?

 

[Umbral]

The problem is, Druckmann himself said its her redemption arc.



If im not mistaken, before the game came out he said testers didn't like new characters so they had to add more and more stuff to the game to make them more likeable. I guess that's why its so bloated

I haven’t seen it myself, but I’ve heard there was supposed to be much more Abby at the start but they wanted to get to Joel’s death quicker so they shuffled things around.

If true, I think that hurt the ability of the player to bond with her.

 

[Terenty]

she randomly starts helping Lev as a result and grows attached in almost the same exact way Ellie and Joel did? I

A murdorous top killer who just tortured and killed a man who saved her, grows attached to a random enemy kid within 3 days. It took Joel a whole year to become a father figure to Ellie.

Oh well, we are talking about saint Abby afterall

 

[Balducci30]

A murdorous top killer who just tortured and killed a man who saved her, grows attached to a random enemy kid within 3 days. It took Joel a whole year to become a father figure to Ellie.

Oh well, we are talking about saint Abby afterall

I didn't say it was done nearly as well. I just said it's a redemption arc and clearly trying to do a version of the first game in a shorter timespan.

 

[rofif]

Thanks to resetera I was finally able to join neogaf year ago. I could never join before, because of that fucking private email requirement I never understood.

 

[Umbral]

Dina sucks.

With that out of the way, I’ve been watching some criticism of the game and totally missed another plot hole. Jesse left after Ellie and Dina yet somehow ends up ahead of them in-game in Hillcrest when Ellie runs into him.

So many things in the game seem to be written to provide a “gasp* moment, instead of just being written well and letting the chips fall where they may.

Additional plot holes: Dina has a gun and has used it the entire game, so why, during the confrontation, does she try to take on Abby with a knife? Because the fight would have been over.

Also, how in the hell did Dina get by Lev to attack Abby with the knife when only a moment later Lev shoots her with an arrow?

 

[Martinski43]

I understood the plot and themes perfectly but I still didn’t like it.

Because it was a pretty boring and meandering story with shit pacing.

Yongyea in his review explains what I also didn’t enjoy about it.

So yeah you can understand things and still think it’s pretty bad lol.

 

[rofif]

I understood the plot and themes perfectly but I still didn’t like it.

Because it was a pretty boring and meandering story with shit pacing.

Yongyea in his review explains what I also didn’t enjoy about it.

So yeah you can understand things and still think it’s pretty bad lol.

It was meandering some in days 1-3 of Ellie, sure. Before that and after that, the pace was better

 

[Steve.1981]

Dina sucks.

With that out of the way, I’ve been watching some criticism of the game and totally missed another plot hole. Jesse left after Ellie and Dina yet somehow ends up ahead of them in-game in Hillcrest when Ellie runs into him.

So many things in the game seem to be written to provide a “gasp* moment, instead of just being written well and letting the chips fall where they may.

Additional plot holes: Dina has a gun and has used it the entire game, so why, during the confrontation, does she try to take on Abby with a knife? Because the fight would have been over.

Also, how in the hell did Dina get by Lev to attack Abby with the knife when only a moment later Lev shoots her with an arrow?

I'm not sure that I'd call them plot "holes", but man there sure are a fair few plot "convenient" scenarios that play out over the course of the game.

Play a drinking game with it. Take a shot every time you say "Well that was lucky!"

 

[pLow7]

I'm not sure that I'd call them plot "holes", but man there sure are a fair few plot "convenient" scenarios that play out over the course of the game.

Play a drinking game with it. Take a shot every time you say "Well that was lucky!"

I mean that's every game and every media possible. How many times did someone escape just a second before someone came? Just look at the first game.

"Yeah sure, of course Tommy comes right the second the guy wanted to shoot Joel and just a second too late to save the daughter"
"Yeah sure, of course, the only immune person in the world is a girl that has the same age as Joel's death daugher, what a coincidence"

 

[Steve.1981]

I mean that's every game and every media possible. How many times did someone escape just a second before someone came? Just look at the first game.

"Yeah sure, of course Tommy comes right the second the guy wanted to shoot Joel and just a second too late to save the daughter"
"Yeah sure, of course, the only immune person in the world is a girl that has the same age as Joel's death daugher, what a coincidence"

You're taking my joke & running it to the extreme end, in order to come up with examples from part 1. Which kind of says it all.

There's no need to go to those extremes with part 2's writing. The entire plot falls apart without some very lucky coincidence. More than once.

 

[pLow7]

You're taking my joke & running it to the extreme end, in order to come up with examples from part 1. Which kind of says it all.

There's no need to go to those extremes with part 2's writing. The entire plot falls apart without some very lucky coincidence. More than once.

And it does not in Part 1 is what you are telling me, or in any media? These were the first two that came in to my mind.

 

[Steve.1981]

And it does not in Part 1 is what you are telling me, or in any media? These were the first two that came in to my mind.

No, I'm not telling you that.

This is what I meant about taking it to the extreme. Yes, you're right. Almost every plot in every story ever written in human history could fall apart if, for example, the main character arrived at the "important event" just 5 or 10 minutes late.

The best storytelling happens when the writer (like Neil Druckman in part 1, I'd say) at least tries to hide their plot contrivances and at least tries not to rely on coincidence to move things forward. Because that makes things a lot more believable for the audience.

Part 2 fails in this regard, I think. It falls apart in it's opening act, the very beginning of the story, because things are just far too coincidental, for me. It's not the only time that happens either.

 

[Knot3D]

Bah....people understand the point of the game - don't act as if critics are too dumb to 'get it'.

I am all about plausible cause & effect, in any story - be it in a movie, book or videogame.
Anything which breaks internal logic irks me, such as absurd plot-armor and character decisions which go out-of-character to absurd levels without any reasonable lead up.

Hence, Joel's fateful decision in TLOU1 gave me a big WTF!?
You had ONE job, my dear man; which was to simply deliver Ellie.

I know there are many detractors saying how the odds to produce a viable cure would be nil or how it would be abused anyway - I call all of this BS.

Progress always has to start somewhere, even if it means putting your faith in a camp of people you do not really trust.

Both Joel and the "good" doctor should have suggested to honor the principles of democracy and freedom of choice (both men were still from that generation) - ergo; They should have simply awoken Ellie and inquire her actual choice. Forcing the doctor at gunpoint to wake her up without killing him would have worked just as well.

Actually, Joel's odds to escape the firefly compound would have been higher/easier than his canon course of action.

Aspiring character animators are often put to the test by having them lip-sync a character rig to the sound-byte "What we've got here, is failure to communicate!".

Ironically, this is one of the overarching themes here. All parties involved, failed to truly communicate.

So the script writers try to make us believe that is the case here - that even second guessing themselves for the slightest of a split second was out of the question; This is where the story crosses the line imho. Sure the people in this story world are on-edge, but both characters fall prone the improbable scenario that neither of them even entertained the idea to ask Ellie.

This is the reason I dislike Joel by the end of TLOU1 and I knew that would bite his ass eventually. Wait...let me rephrase that. Joel was/is a very likeable character, but it felt his decision was so incredibly hamfisted. Yeah I know, they try to sell it upon the loss of his own daughter - but this ultimately is the setup for an even more massive tsunami of cringe writing. An explosion of inauthenticity. (and don't even get me started on the messy narrative structure...).


I take no issue with his demise, but with thats said, Joel did not torture the doctor to death - so the final outcome is not level ground. Some people say Abby simply got even. No...she got MORE than even. She got psycho. And maybe that's ok to script her this way...but then the attempt to sell her to the audience is just another forced attempt of hamfisted writing. It's as if the script is saying "Hey you guys now need to see what justifies Abby's levels of psycho" ...but it's just like a display of crocodile tears in front of a jury.

I also take issue with all of the implausible decisions from the moment on where Joel and Tommy stumble upon Abby. As several critics mentioned, they were off-guard way to easily, way too obvious as a plot twist set up.

Eventually you wind up with characters you are supposed to play as, through hours and hours of gameplay, only to arrive to even more out of bounds decisions - only to result into their persona's being diminished to vessels of hate and revenge.

Now, I realize that is amongst probable outcomes in such an apocalyptic world scenario.
But anyone should ask themselves if this makes for proper incentive to even complete the game, let alone re-play it.

Metal Gear Solid 2 was about just as quirky and the effeminate Raiden was basically the inversed persona design of Abby.
Sure, he did not literally kill Snake but him being the only playable character did subvert player expectations and player demands.
However, MGS2 eventually resulted into a plausible & satisfying resolve (well, as plausible as it gets within MGS2's semi magical realism). President Johnson is basically MGS2's plot device counterpart to Ellie, but Johnson eventually gets to exercise his freedom of choice to fulfill his purpose goal (even though Ocelot offloads the burden off Raiden in the chosen process of ending Johnson's life).
This is why MGS2 doesn't lack incentive to complete and re-play the game - whereas TLOU2 leaves you with empty broken persona's of characters with nothing more than regressive character arcs; Not a good selling point gameplay-wise, despite the gameplay loop itself being sound and the graphics impressive.

In a twist of irony, the fact that many are reselling their TLOU2 copies is a very plausible result of its nature.

 

[bishopcruz]

Bah....people understand the point of the game - don't act as if critics are too dumb to 'get it'.

I am all about plausible cause & effect, in any story - be it in a movie, book or videogame.
Anything which breaks internal logic irks me, such as absurd plot-armor and character decisions which go out-of-character to absurd levels without any reasonable lead up.

Hence, Joel's fateful decision in TLOU1 gave me a big WTF!?
You had ONE job, my dear man; which was to simply deliver Ellie.

I know there are many detractors saying how the odds to produce a viable cure would be nil or how it would be abused anyway - I call all of this BS.

Progress always has to start somewhere, even if it means putting your faith in a camp of people you do not really trust.

Both Joel and the "good" doctor should have suggested to honor the principles of democracy and freedom of choice (both men were still from that generation) - ergo; They should have simply awoken Ellie and inquire her actual choice. Forcing the doctor at gunpoint to wake her up without killing him would have worked just as well.

Actually, Joel's odds to escape the firefly compound would have been higher/easier than his canon course of action.

Aspiring character animators are often put to the test by having them lip-sync a character rig to the sound-byte "What we've got here, is failure to communicate!".

Ironically, this is one of the overarching themes here. All parties involved, failed to truly communicate.

So the script writers try to make us believe that is the case here - that even second guessing themselves for the slightest of a split second was out of the question; This is where the story crosses the line imho. Sure the people in this story world are on-edge, but both characters fall prone the improbable scenario that neither of them even entertained the idea to ask Ellie.

This is the reason I dislike Joel by the end of TLOU1 and I knew that would bite his ass eventually. Wait...let me rephrase that. Joel was/is a very likeable character, but it felt his decision was so incredibly hamfisted. Yeah I know, they try to sell it upon the loss of his own daughter - but this ultimately is the setup for an even more massive tsunami of cringe writing. An explosion of inauthenticity. (and don't even get me started on the messy narrative structure...).


I take no issue with his demise, but with thats said, Joel did not torture the doctor to death - so the final outcome is not level ground. Some people say Abby simply got even. No...she got MORE than even. She got psycho. And maybe that's ok to script her this way...but then the attempt to sell her to the audience is just another forced attempt of hamfisted writing. It's as if the script is saying "Hey you guys now need to see what justifies Abby's levels of psycho" ...but it's just like a display of crocodile tears in front of a jury.

I also take issue with all of the implausible decisions from the moment on where Joel and Tommy stumble upon Abby. As several critics mentioned, they were off-guard way to easily, way too obvious as a plot twist set up.

Eventually you wind up with characters you are supposed to play as, through hours and hours of gameplay, only to arrive to even more out of bounds decisions - only to result into their persona's being diminished to vessels of hate and revenge.

Now, I realize that is amongst probable outcomes in such an apocalyptic world scenario.
But anyone should ask themselves if this makes for proper incentive to even complete the game, let alone re-play it.

Metal Gear Solid 2 was about just as quirky and the effeminate Raiden was basically the inversed persona design of Abby.
Sure, he did not literally kill Snake but him being the only playable character did subvert player expectations and player demands.
However, MGS2 eventually resulted into a plausible & satisfying resolve (well, as plausible as it gets within MGS2's semi magical realism). President Johnson is basically MGS2's plot device counterpart to Ellie, but Johnson eventually gets to exercise his freedom of choice to fulfill his purpose goal (even though Ocelot offloads the burden off Raiden in the chosen process of ending Johnson's life).
This is why MGS2 doesn't lack incentive to complete and re-play the game - whereas TLOU2 leaves you with empty broken persona's of characters with nothing more than regressive character arcs; Not a good selling point gameplay-wise, despite the gameplay loop itself being sound and the graphics impressive.

In a twist of irony, the fact that many are reselling their TLOU2 copies is a very plausible result of its nature.

Joel never got the option to see her or wake her up. You can say he should have threatened the Doctor at gunpoint to wake her up, but well he DID threaten the doctor and the doctor pulled a knife on him. Joel was also threatened with DEATH if he didn't leave right then and there, and he didn't even get paid. They stole his shit, and threw him out with the only thing they said to him being do the right thing. It was not Joel's responsibility to get Ellie's consent in not being sacrificed against her will. That was on the Fireflies, all of it.

Now had they gotten Ellie's consent, and Joel didn't agree, then you get into a real moral grey area. Is Ellie old enough to choose death, is her survivor;s guilt being manipulated? Can the Fireflies actually do what they said they can? All great questions, but all useless in the situation the first game puts us in. She was never asked, and every single line that Marlene says is a rationalization to murder. Every, single one.

So I guess in some ways I agree, I need plausibility in a scenario and the ending of TLoU1 was always the most implausible part of the game. It made very little sense, and thus hinging the entirety of the plot of the second game on that ending was a bad move.

 

[Knot3D]

Joel never got the option to see her or wake her up.

True - the animosity he instantly receives, looks both illogical and unsubstantiated.

I call it bad writing.
But even with that scenario, as a starting point of the scene, they could have still made Joel appeal to Marlene's conscience. She pulls the "parent/guardian" card on Joel as if she's done it longer and as if she's keeping her vow to Ellie's mother by way of doing so, but in fact she aligns with the doctor to get the procedure done asap without anyone else getting a say in the matter. Any real person would deduce this from such a scenario and THAT is why I feel they should have written Joel to ask this question which any real world logical person would ask in this case.

doctor pulled a knife on him.

lol, he held up his little scalpel. If Joel was able to stealth, combat and manoeuvre all the way there, he sure as hell would have been able to make the doctor wake Ellie up.

I mean come on, no one can make me believe she was entirely oblivious to the risk of such a procedure - especially since she was already aware how deep the infection into the nerve and brain system goes. She was very prepared for sacrifice for the sake of mankind already - it's just that the writers simply forced the scenario in such a way which brushes off any potential negotiation / plea. That is pure BS. So that's why I say, had they written Joel in a way to at least appeal to the Firefly's conscience, even if they wouldn't budge, then at least the Joel character would have had the moral high ground.

Of course. Druckmann didn't allow for that because his agenda was set out on trying to make the audience believe how Abby's revenge is oh-so-justified in every way possible.

 

[Clear]

I mean come on, no one can make me believe she was entirely oblivious to the risk of such a procedure - especially since she was already aware how deep the infection into the nerve and brain system goes. She was very prepared for sacrifice for the sake of mankind already - it's just that the writers simply forced the scenario in such a way which brushes off any potential negotiation / plea. That is pure BS. So that's why I say, had they written Joel in a way to at least appeal to the Firefly's conscience, even if they wouldn't budge, then at least the Joel character would have had the moral high ground.

Of course. Druckmann didn't allow for that because his agenda was set out on trying to make the audience believe how Abby's revenge is oh-so-justified in every way possible.

Way to miss the point. Of course Ellie would have accepted her own death if it meant the chance of millions being saved. Its a rational proposition for anyone, but for a young girl wracked with survivor's guilt already... its a no brainer which way she'd choose.

Which is why Joel makes the hard decision for her, and by killing everyone -including the doctor- he ensures the rubicon is well and truly passed.

The writing is fine, and solidly considered. Its amazing to me how hung up some people are on Joel as character and yet seemingly have no understanding of who and what he is.

 

[bishopcruz]

I mean come on, no one can make me believe she was entirely oblivious to the risk of such a procedure - especially since she was already aware how deep the infection into the nerve and brain system goes. She was very prepared for sacrifice for the sake of mankind already - it's just that the writers simply forced the scenario in such a way which brushes off any potential negotiation / plea. That is pure BS. So that's why I say, had they written Joel in a way to at least appeal to the Firefly's conscience, even if they wouldn't budge, then at least the Joel character would have had the moral high ground.

Wher does it say Ellie knows there is a risk of death to be studied> Nowhere that I can remember. In fact she is never actually conscious from the moment she is found until she wakes up in the car. She knew she might be there being studied for a while, but she had every expectation of leaving with Joel and going to Jackson.

As for the good Dr. Jerry, yeah, sorry I realize Joel was in full action-hero mode but a Knife, even a small one can fuck a dude up, even untrained, and at that range, it;s even more dangerous.