Eh, Mauler doesn't really go out of his way to point out nitpicks like Cinema Wins/Sins IMO and they do it for comedic effect. If it's things he thinks makes the characters appear dumb or the story make less sense then he likes to talk about it. I did not present the video as evidence, merely as someone's take who likes to dive into the narrative structures.
Yes, he does, his whole demeanor while playing and talking about it is jovial and lackadaisical. And you most certainly provided the video as evidence of literary grievances such as plot holes which there weren't' as presented in the video. Something is not a plot hole just because you say it is.
One can make reasonable inferences what it takes to survive in a world without law and order and swarms of infected people and thugs out to kill you. Part 1 gave a good glimpse of it.
No, you can't because human history has showed that in times of terrible turmoil, we can show incredible kindness. There are people and thugs out to kill you right now, yet we still carry on, we had a whole pandemic and people still carried on and showed kindness to one another in various ways. You are making up rules that does not exist.
This changes when inside a community like Jackson of course but once outside again is a strong reminder what Jackson could turn into without adequate protection and precautions.
So, your argument does not hold. We form communities and come together as we are inherently social animals.
According to the outpost logs IIRC the Jackson patrols also helped people but it's a safe bet that's after it's certain there's no credibly threat.
So, you can infer that without the story explicitly writing it? I thought anything that isn't explicitly written and explained later on is a plot hole.
Joel basically got black mailed into doing that dumb thing so yeah, there's that in his favor. If he did it entirely out of his own volition then you'd have a stronger point.
He was not blackmailed. He was asked to do it, he tried to pawn it off on his brother and changed his mind because Ellie became a surrogate daughter to him.
Nitpicks don't have to be so negative as you seem to perceive them. But things that steer the plot aren't nitpicks.
But what you are pointing out as bad writing are not.
Abby and Jerry share the same warped moral compass(fine to kill without informed consent) so that could explain her lack of gratitude and curiosity after Joel helped her.
Yes, our moral compass changes, rules for thee not for me.
You seem to agree with me that leaving witnesses behind was a dumb thing to do.
I've always said humans make dumb choices, they are not bad writing, in that regard i disagree with you. The story is well written, dumb choices made by the characters and all is not bad writing.
I say that to people who defend the Fireflies but since you weren't then it seems we're in agreement about the Joel vs Firefly issue.
That we can agree.
She doesn't know the full context so yes it's questionable if she'd have the same answer if she did and we don't know how the years of bitterness affected her judgement either. Joel lying about it didn't help either. Her being OK with dying then and there without saying good bye to Joel after she was so clingy to him the whole game, making him see as a daughter is a stain on her character. Especially when she knows of Sarah who's death deeply affected Joel.
She learned the full context and that is what made her even more upset with Joel. She still loved Joel, but such is the duality of man. She did not make Joel see her as a daughter, Joel did that on his own after having spent a long time with her.
Like I said, I can let all that slide for the sake of jump starting the story.
The story is better than the first, the motivations were even more believable to me than the first game.
Joel and Tommy were hunters in the past, they used people's kindness/compassion to rob/kill them. They should've been more cautious since the world certainly didn't get friendlier after they quit being hunters. They are guards protecting a nearby town, it's their duty to err on the side of caution till they know what that group really was there for.
They weren't given a choice, whether they liked it or not they were surrounded by Abby's group and the outcome was out of their hands. I saw Joel attempt at playing nice as trying to disarm them to seem less threatening.
I have no issues with Abby's group appearing friendly to Joel and Tommy, it's that Joel and Tommy puts themselves in a position where they are even more at a disadvantage.
As soon as they were surrounded, they were disadvantaged. Nothing they would have done could change the outcome.