A topic of conversation I'd like to have is: If given the opportunity, how would YOU choose to end the sequel/franchise?
Hopefully this discussion isn't frowned upon because it goes into "fan fiction" and the like but, I'm curious. I tried remaining in the dark as best as I could, so I would go in completely "blind" to the experience. I haven't finished "God of War" on PS4, and while the game came out in 2018, I've surprisingly managed to stay "spoiler free" to the experience. I honestly haven't had any plot points or set pieces ruined for me so, I was a little naive thinking I could navigate the internet, when the "Part II" spoilers leaked, and not have to worry.
That being said...I paid for my ignorance when a major plot point was ruined by someone's username on the N4G forums. haha (Which ironically I skimmed past before reading a disgruntled reply by another user telling mods the person should be banned for their username. Curiosity got the better of me and I double backed with my popcorn.)
Regardless though, I chose to remain optimistic. I purchased the game and let the content/story speak for itself and have it be presented in the way it was intended to. Similar to most, I too understood how the game was "divisive". However, I think my take away/enjoyment of the game differs from others. I'm reading a lot of people being uncomfortable with the portrayal/depiction of violence in this game, as well as saying that it's too "bleak" or "depressing". This may sound odd but, typically those are the kind of stories I tend to gravitate towards/enjoy.
Honestly I'm not sure why...I think it's because I'm, for the most part, always happy/optimistic and try to see the "silver lining" in almost everything. Subjecting myself to these kind of stories and feeling these types of "emotions", I feel, is essentially my "ying-yang". When I read a few impressions that this game was "emotionally draining" and that fans couldn't believe the ending...my mind began trying to piece together/guess where Naughty Dog was going to ultimately take the story.
I'll put the rest of my post in a spoiler tag but for the TL;DR, I really want to know what would have been a "satisfying conclusion"/a way for the story to have redeemed itself from its sloppy handling.
How I wish the story would've ended:
As I had said above, my mind was racing with all of the possibilities/branches the story could've gone as I was playing. I tried thinking, what would be the most "depressing" way to end this game. Since the whole game was considered "bleak" and "brutal", I figured Naughty Dog would've "double downed" with the ending and deliver something that would really hit home for the player. I understand that what I have in mind kind of goes against the Part I's ending but, frankly, Naughty Dog already dug themselves a grave/tinkered with the ambiguous ending...I feel like they could've given a "concrete" scenario as to what would've transpired had Joel left Ellie on that operating table.
Personally, I thought that's what the story was building up to. Through out the whole experience of Part II, Ellie resents Joel for "saving her"/not allowing the Fireflies to perform the surgery. As Darthskywalker pointed out, the first games ending was pretty ambiguous in regards of if the operation would work or not. While that was definitely a strong and memorable way of ending the first, and kind of does a disservice to it with the direction I feel Naughty Dog should've taken "Part II", in the grand scheme of things/the story Naughty Dog was trying to tell with "Part II", I feel like it would have been very "A symmetrical" if Naughty Dog chose to answer that question with: The procedure would've been a failure.
I have no doubt a lot of fans would've grabbed their pitchfork and torches and would still have this emotional void but, in my opinion, that would've made for a very powerful conclusion for "Part II". I honestly had believed, during my play through, the whole reason Ellie went to Santa Barbara was for exposition/a plot device for her to learn that the Fireflies have regrouped and that they're strengthening their numbers. In a way, it would've been symbolic (Please don't hate me for saying that...I know a lot of you guys have voiced your dismay over Naughty Dog's choice of symbolism. haha) Ultimately though, it'd be Ellie's second chance. Through out the game she talked about needing her life to "matter". To mean something. She believed she had a purpose that wasn't fulfilled because Joel robbed her of that.
Ambiguity and the "and all that could have been" mentality is so disheartening because it paralyzes us into believing/imagining scenarios that may never come to fruition. Joel's decision to rescue Ellie was the only choice that actually had a definitive outcome. I would've preferred the only reason Ellie doesn't kill Abby is because Abby knew where the Fireflies were located. I thought Abby was going to take Ellie to the Fireflies and all of the research that was put on pause four years earlier would've been understood and realized.
I know this wouldn't be a happy ending but, as I said, I'm often a sucker for those. It's why I love movies like "Requiem For a Dream" and "The Grey". I like when a story can be so moving/cause emotional turmoil that it sits and resonates in the pit of your stomach for a while, long after it's consumed. I believe an ending like this would've definitely done that for me...the ending we got, not so much. I personally thought it was forgettable but the one I was hoping to predict, I feel like that would've left me staring blankly at my T.V. screen for a little while in disbelief.
I think what I like the most about the operation not being a success would be the fact that it mirrors the first ending's ambiguity. However, the player is once again "in the know" of what transpires...while Ellie goes under the knife in the belief that she's going to make a difference. She dies believing her life is going to mean something and that's the final thought she has: that everything will be rectified and course corrected.
Only will the player watch the events unfold and be answered that the Fireflies research is confirmed to not have been a slam dunk...Ellie dies, they try to make a cure and to no avail. I also like this ending because it really pisses me off further in regards to how Ellie decided to treat Joel in the beginning of the game/not forgiving him for years. There's the unfortunate notion that those actions and how she chose to interact with him didn't have a concrete basis. In reality, Joel made the right call by allowing her to live a few more years. It would sadden me further knowing that Ellie is upset believing she would've made a difference when the reality of the situation is...she wouldn't have. As Joel had lied but turned out to be correct: her immunity meant nothing.
From a pure story telling perspective I don't believe there was anyway to do a satisfactory follow up to the first game. It's not even a case of not wanting a sequel simply because the first is so good. It's a case of the first story not lending itself well to their being a natural follow up. Some stories lend themselves to continuation more than others. I look at something like Inception as a prime example, which ends on a very similar ambiguous note to TLOU. You could answer the question posed at the end of Inception, but there's not an easy way to approach that that doesn't risk undermining the original.
Some people like to think there's always a solution to sequels. Every bad sequel written in their eyes is a failure because the artist/writer simply didn't try hard enough, or words to that affect. The truth is the vast majority of stories fall into a handful of categories and only work if they follow the structures that are known to work. It's not much different to music, certain chord progressions are structurally known to work better than others. Same with painting, some colour combinations are known to be visually more pleasing than others. There are limits with both the number of notes and colours in those two mediums.
The problem is most people don't see writing as have the same type of limitations. The truth is there's really only a certain number of stories that humanity has been able to come up with that kinda work. TLOU2 does what many have tried to do and break that structure. The problem being is when you try and fragment what's known to work you have to actually know what you're doing. It's an old saying but it's a truthful one - In order to break the rules you have to know how they work first. I'm convinced after sitting through this Druckmman didn't actually understand what it was that made the first game great, and subsequently not only didn't know how to break the rules, but didn't know what they were in the first place. He simply broke them because he thought he knew better.
Could this have work? Hard to say. I will say this. The rumour that floated around for the longest time was that Ellie mother would be the focus of the game. I think that could have possibly been a much better direction to take. Ellie and Joel have their falling out, Ellie learns her mother might be alive, she subsequently goes to find her, Joel insists he goes with her, and over the course of that search the two have to try and repair their relationship.
I don't think it matters if Ellie can consent or not. It wasn't really up to her. If we say that there's no chance for a cure, it takes away from the ending. Not only takes away, but simply destroys. It was Joel's choice: to give humanity a chance but sacrifice a loved one or to save a loved one and doom countless people. Regardless what side you're on, this is the conflict. If there's no chance for a cure, then there's no survivor's guilt and no theme of unconditional love. This is the reason why Joel lies to Ellie when she wakes up from narcosis. It has nothing to do with what happens in Part II. It was clear long before we knew anything about the sequel's story.
One, Ellie is a child she can't consent. Second, did you read what I wrote at all?
Ellie actually being able to produce a cure is a second game thing. Ellie's reaction isn't what I am talking about, it is that. They try to make it a binary decision, when it never was. Joel was giving up his daughter for a fool's errand. It's an attempt to justify Abby and her murderous father.
Of course I read what you said, hence the comprehensive reply.
So first you say that Joel is right because no-one 'asked Ellie', and now that I've demonstrated the first game showing that Joel and Marlene both know that Ellie would consent, you say 'no actually she's too young to consent?' ha. If this is the hill you want to die on, I'll remind you that if Ellie is too young to consent herself, the decision falls to Marlene. She's known Ellie the longest, and was given the responsibility of guardian by Ellie's mother. In writing. Joel is only involved at all because Marlene was shot. He's a post-apocalyptic babysitter by comparison.
Ellie being able to produce a cure is not a second game invention. That's just nonsense. It was never a sure thing. It wasn't then, and it isn't now. Part 2 doesn't act like the cure was 100% certain, you're projecting that onto the game because it doesn't fit your reading. The only thing that is 100% certain, is that Ellie feels it was her 'purpose' and Joel took that from her. When Ellie says her life should have mattered, she's not saying that because it was a certain success, she's lamenting not getting the chance to take that bet.
As said eloquently above, the point of the ending of TLOU is that it is a messed up decision. If your takeaway is ultimately just: "no, Joel was right", then I'm afraid you've missed the point. It is supposed to be somewhere in the middle, you're supposed to cross some lines, that's why the ending is so memorable.
So first you say that Joel is right because no-one 'asked Ellie', and now that I've demonstrated the first game showing that Joel and Marlene both know that Ellie would consent, you say 'no actually she's too young to consent?' ha. If this is the hill you want to die on, I'll remind you that if Ellie is too young to consent herself, the decision falls to Marlene. She's known Ellie the longest, and was given the responsibility of guardian by Ellie's mother. In writing. Joel is only involved at all because Marlene was shot. He's a post-apocalyptic babysitter by comparison.
I am pointing out multiple reasons why their isn't really a choice at the end of the first game.
But if your argument is that a legal guardian can sign off on the death of a child for non-terminal reasons, I would love to see where that is. Ellie's mother could have handed her over, and it would still be wrong, and also theoretically illegal. Ellie being fatalistic due to the trauma she has faced is exactly why you don't ask a 13 year old to "save the world". Ellie is a traumatized child, who even if she wasn't traumatized would be in no right mind to make such a decision. Marlene's intention to split the child proves her unworthy of the child.
The end of the first game is literally a bunch of people trying to kill a kid that they don't ask permission to kill, while her father tries to save her. Even if they asked permission, it would be wrong. But that is the extra cherry on the sundae. There is no moral grey area, especially when you take into account the notes they leave scattered all over the Fireflies base and the fact that they just happen to want to avoid Ellie waking up (made clear in Part 2). The moral "grey area" for Joel is he knows what a child thinks they want, but he knows it isn't good for her. He knows if she finds out, she is will not be happy with him. That doesn't make his decision grey or wrong. It just means he has to live with the fallout of the correct decision, like all parents do with their kids. So it is simply being a parent.
This is of course made clear by the very exist of the Last of Us 2. Where the kid who wanted her life to matter, begins to realize it is her existence, her relationships that mean her life matters. Not dying.
As said eloquently above, the point of the ending of TLOU is that it is a messed up decision. If your takeaway is ultimately just: "no, Joel was right", then I'm afraid you've missed the point. It is supposed to be somewhere in the middle, you're supposed to cross some lines, that's why the ending is so memorable.
The ending of The Last of Us isn't "messed up". It has never been "messed up". The end of The Last of Us is written in the first hour of the game, and is the only one that makes sense for the character of Joel or really any morally competent character. Because unless they are pro killing kids for any reason, it's not a moral question.
The moral choice argument has always been based on a false decision, that does not exist in the game,. It is once the classic internet philosophers started trying to turn it into the trolley question, which of course it isn't. That is why I find the discussion of it eye rollingly hilarious, as we have so many people who are apparently so willing to give up their imaginary children to death.
It is also why the second game introduces the idea that Ellie would have 100% created a cure, to try and muddy the water that was never actually muddy. It is why The BvS comparison works. It is attempting to take an idea from the last movie, and trying to address it in a way that presents it as the BS binary question people turned the last movie (game) into.
I will say though, I do find it kind of funny that after brutally murdering Joel, Part 2 makes it clear he was right, especially when you consider murder doc can't even commit to murdering his murderous daughter Abby, who has to assure him that she'd want to die if it was her. Making Joel the only one willing to admit what everyone else doesn't have to.
I don't think it matters if Ellie can consent or not. It wasn't really up to her. If we say that there's no chance for a cure, it takes away from the ending. Not only takes away, but simply destroys. It was Joel's choice: to give humanity a chance but sacrifice a loved one or to save a loved one and doom countless people. Regardless what side you're on, this is the conflict. If there's no chance for a cure, then there's no survivor's guilt and no theme of unconditional love. This is the reason why Joel lies to Ellie when she wakes up from narcosis. It has nothing to do with what happens in Part II. It was clear long before we knew anything about the sequel's story.
The revisionist history aspect is specifically about:
The cure being a 100% concept. That is what I am talking about. It is a theory pushed with Part 2, when this was not a thing at the end of the first one. They try to make it binary when it never was. The chance for a cure at the end of the first game was minimal at best. But to play up the moral dilemma, it suddenly becomes a sure thing.
I am not talking about the themes of the ending of the first game, where if we take it from Joel's perspective, which the game is in, there is no choice. Which is why their is no choice presented at the end of the game. You don't get to decide. Joel does what Joel is always going to do. Joel doesn't doom humanity, he is the only one who shows humanity at the end of the first game. Because once you start offering up kids for sacrifice, this is no longer humanity. Joel is the last of humanity in this situation.
Why Joel lies to Ellie is also clear imo. It doesn't make his decision wrong. Not wanting a kid to live with that weight, doesn't make him wrong, especially one who has lived a life of trauma. I have never had an issue with Ellie's reaction, because it is clear what Ellie's reaction would be. She would take the idea of the cure as a sure thing, because that is the mindset she has to be in to sacrifice herself. Part 2 makes it clear Joel not only made the right decision imo, but that Ellie's teenage angst was subsiding, and that a child being upset with their parent for doing the right thing for them, always passes. No matter how ridiculous the question is. Every moment with Dina? Worth it. JJ? Worth it. Movie night with Joel? Worth it. Learning to play guitar? Worth it. Ellie's sadness comes from the question presented to her, when it never should have. Because you don't ask a child to die to save humanity.
This is why my big problem with Part 2 is trying to play up the "other side" argument. Beyond it being laid out poorly from a narrative and character concept, it rings false because there is no truth to it. I don't even buy that the people at Naughty Dog think there is "another side". Imo the games play like they want a moral dilemma when it comes to Joel's decision because they want a moral dilemma in general, while dropping in just enough to make it clear there is none.
The revisionist history aspect is specifically about:
The cure being a 100% concept. That is what I am talking about. It is a theory pushed with Part 2, when this was not a thing at the end of the first one. They try to make it binary when it never was. The chance for a cure at the end of the first game was minimal at best. But to play up the moral dilemma, it suddenly becomes a sure thing.
I am not talking about the themes of the ending of the first game, where if we take it from Joel's perspective, which the game is in, there is no choice. Which is why their is no choice presented at the end of the game. You don't get to decide. Joel does what Joel is always going to do. Joel doesn't doom humanity, he is the only one who shows humanity at the end of the first game. Because once you start offering up kids for sacrifice, this is no longer humanity. Joel is the last of humanity in this situation.
Why Joel lies to Ellie is also clear imo. It doesn't make his decision wrong. Not wanting a kid to live with that weight, doesn't make him wrong, especially one who has lived a life of trauma. I have never had an issue with Ellie's reaction, because it is clear what Ellie's reaction would be. She would take the idea of the cure as a sure thing, because that is the mindset she has to be in to sacrifice herself. Part 2 makes it clear Joel not only made the right decision imo, but that Ellie's teenage angst was subsiding, and that a child being upset with their parent for doing the right thing for them, always passes. No matter how ridiculous the question is. Every moment with Dina? Worth it. JJ? Worth it. Movie night with Joel? Worth it. Learning to play guitar? Worth it. Ellie's sadness comes from the question presented to her, when it never should have. Because you don't ask a child to die to save humanity.
This is why my big problem with Part 2 is trying to play up the "other side" argument. Beyond it being laid out poorly from a narrative and character concept, it rings false because there is no truth to it. I don't even buy that the people at Naughty Dog think there is "another side". Imo the games play like they want a moral dilemma when it comes to Joel's decision because they want a moral dilemma in general, while dropping in just enough to make it clear there is none.
What weight is there then, if there's no cure? Joel lies to her because he destroyed even the slightest chance for it. Out of love for her. If there's no cure, it's just rescuing Ellie from another bunch of scavengers/cannibals/lunatics. There's no sacrifice, no moral dilemma and, again, no unconditional love. Because there's no condition. That's what I took out of the first game. At that time it wasn't clear if the sequel will happen and what it will be about.
Part II makes a stand regarding "OK" phrase of Ellie from the first game. But otherwise it treats the finale with consistency and respect, imo.
What weight is there then, if there's no cure? Joel lies to her because he destroyed even the slightest chance for it. Out of love for her. If there's no cure, it's just rescuing Ellie from another bunch of scavengers/cannibals/lunatics. There's no sacrifice, no moral dilemma and, again, no unconditional love. Because there's no condition.
Part II makes a stand regarding "OK" phrase of Ellie from the first game. But otherwise it treats the finale with consistency and respect, imo.
The weight is Joel loses Ellie no matter what. He either lets her die for the smallest chance she might cure humanity, or he loses her knowing she will always blame herself thinking she could save humanity. But Joel being a parent, knows he can live with his daughter never speaking to him again. It will cut him to the bone, but it's a risk he can live with. If she dies in that hospital, that's it. There is no time left. No time for her to eventually come around, like she does in the game.
Joel tries to hide the truth from Ellie, of course he does. As much for her as himself. But he knows how smart she is, he knows someday she will question him. He lives with that. It's not easy, and you can feel the inherent strain during the final scene of the first game. But Joel also knows that in the end it is worth it. When he sees Ellie in that rocket ship or watches her dance with Dina. If she died in that hospital none of that would be possible.
For all my issues with Part 2, I like how they show Joel is at peace with himself. Is he worried about his relationship with Ellie? Of course he is. He loves his little girl and he wants to have a relationship with his daughter. He also wants to protect her. He knows he made the right decision and would never make another. He says as much, and when Ellie hears it she gets it. Even after being mad at him for as long as she was, she gets it. It's why she travels across the US trying to avenge his murder. Because she gets it. Because she loves him every bit as much as he loves her.
The weight is Joel loses Ellie no matter what. He either lets her die for the smallest chance she might cure humanity, or he loses her knowing she will always blame herself thinking she could save humanity. But Joel being a parent, knows he can live with his daughter never speaking to him again. It will cut him to the bone, but it's a risk he can live with. If she dies in that hospital, that's it. There is no time left. No time for her to eventually come around, like she does in the game.
Joel tries to hide the truth from Ellie, of course he does. As much for her as himself. But he knows how smart she is, he knows someday she will question him. He lives with that. It's not easy, and you can feel the inherent strain during the final scene of the first game. But Joel also knows that in the end it is worth it. When he sees Ellie in that rocket ship or watches her dance with Dina. If she died in that hospital none of that would be possible.
For all my issues with Part 2, I like how they show Joel is at peace with himself. Is he worried about his relationship with Ellie? Of course he is. He loves his little girl and he wants to have a relationship with his daughter. He also wants to protect her. He knows he made the right decision and would never make another. He says as much, and when Ellie hears it she gets it. Even after being mad at him for as long as she was, she gets it. It's why she travels across the US trying to avenge his murder. Because she gets it. Because she loves him every bit as much as he loves her.
Afaik, the first game never mentions how big or small the chance is. If I remember correctly, logs and records point out how Fireflies experimented with animals and infected, but all that stuff failed. Ellie's condition is absolutely new thing. They never say what kind of a chance there is. They just claim they can make a cure out of Ellie's brain tissue. We can argue how scientific it is, but story-wise we just need to accept the concept to understand motivations and decisions of characters. Maybe I missed some logs that said otherwise. If so, can you give me a link to a video or text?
I understand why Joel saved her and why it was more important for him than countless other lives. It's basically THE theme of the story. I just noticed a number of people claiming that there was no moral dilemma in the choice that Joel made because there was no cure. And this is my issue with it. I'm not judging Joel if what he did was right or wrong. Marlene was always sympathetic to me, because I understood the weight on her shoulders when it comes to their cause and the sacrifices she had to make. And this is why I always felt conflicted about what Joel did, even though I completely understood him. This is the beauty and complexity of the story.
Now, you're agreed that there was a chance for a cure and Joel destroyed it. Of course he lies to Ellie because he's afraid to lose her, just like he wasn't going to let her go even if there's world's fate at stake. And the world was at stake. And of course he understands what it would do to her if she learned she had the keys to stopping suffering around her and it was taken away. If we take away this choice from Joel, nothing in the ending makes sense. There's no reason for him to lie, there's no reason for Ellie to go through survivor's guilt. Of course, she still can feel bad about being lucky to have immunity and other people dying around her. It still doesn't endanger her relationship with Joel. And it's incomparable to what actually happens in the story. Because her immunity is meaningless for humanity and in this case there's no reason to blame Joel for what he did.
While the vast majority of reviews have lavished The Last of Us Part 2 with all sorts of praise, a handful of outlets have been slightly more critical of the blockbuster game. According to Zacny, Vice’s review prompted a Sony representative to reach out on behalf of Naughty Dog.
“They felt some of the conclusions I reached in my review were unfair and dismissed some meaningful changes or improvements,” Zacny told Polygon over Twitter messages.
When the crazy nutters believe that critics are in bed with these studios it’s this type of nonsense that causes that belief. Sony, and frankly anyone involved with the production, need to suck it up with regards to the reception this got. It would behoove them to refrain from looking as if they are trying to influence critics.
Sony/Naughty Dog were way too precious in the game's roll-out. I get preserving spoilers, I get wanting the best stories, but they were way too heavy handed. It's not a good look. Game journalism mostly sucks, this only contributes.
I am pointing out multiple reasons why their isn't really a choice at the end of the first game.
But if your argument is that a legal guardian can sign off on the death of a child for non-terminal reasons, I would love to see where that is. Ellie's mother could have handed her over, and it would still be wrong, and also theoretically illegal. Ellie being fatalistic due to the trauma she has faced is exactly why you don't ask a 13 year old to "save the world". Ellie is a traumatized child, who even if she wasn't traumatized would be in no right mind to make such a decision. Marlene's intention to split the child proves her unworthy of the child.
The end of the first game is literally a bunch of people trying to kill a kid that they don't ask permission to kill, while her father tries to save her. Even if they asked permission, it would be wrong. But that is the extra cherry on the sundae. There is no moral grey area, especially when you take into account the notes they leave scattered all over the Fireflies base and the fact that they just happen to want to avoid Ellie waking up (made clear in Part 2). The moral "grey area" for Joel is he knows what a child thinks they want, but he knows it isn't good for her. He knows if she finds out, she is will not be happy with him. That doesn't make his decision grey or wrong. It just means he has to live with the fallout of the correct decision, like all parents do with their kids. So it is simply being a parent.
This is of course made clear by the very exist of the Last of Us 2. Where the kid who wanted her life to matter, begins to realize it is her existence, her relationships that mean her life matters. Not dying.
'The end of the first game is literally a petty smuggler murdering a band of humans trying to save humanity because he grew attached to his cargo.'
Funny how boiling down a deliberately complicated event can make it seem so simple. It's useful in this case, because only one person here is arguing that the ending of The Last of Us was a cut and dry thing. As said before, willfully ignoring the potential good that Joel snuffed out is reducing the weight of the decisions made, and completely missing the point. It's not just my thoughts, it's the explicit intent of that ending; evidenced by countless commentaries, the words of the creators, and even the characters in the story themselves.
The ending of The Last of Us isn't "messed up". It has never been "messed up". The end of The Last of Us is written in the first hour of the game, and is the only one that makes sense for the character of Joel or really any morally competent character. Because unless they are pro killing kids for any reason, it's not a moral question.
The moral choice argument has always been based on a false decision, that does not exist in the game,. It is once the classic internet philosophers started trying to turn it into the trolley question, which of course it isn't. That is why I find the discussion of it eye rollingly hilarious, as we have so many people who are apparently so willing to give up their imaginary children to death.
It is also why the second game introduces the idea that Ellie would have 100% created a cure, to try and muddy the water that was never actually muddy. It is why The BvS comparison works. It is attempting to take an idea from the last movie, and trying to address it in a way that presents it as the BS binary question people turned the last movie (game) into.
I will say though, I do find it kind of funny that after brutally murdering Joel, Part 2 makes it clear he was right, especially when you consider murder doc can't even commit to murdering his murderous daughter Abby, who has to assure him that she'd want to die if it was her. Making Joel the only one willing to admit what everyone else doesn't have to.
Was the phrasing of "messed up" too vague? I think this is the only time I've ever seen someone reject the notion that the ending of The Last of Us was "messed up". I mean, really.
Curious? Why do you think it’s right to tell someone they’re wrong for liking a piece of entertainment. It’s put out there for people to find. If they like it why not let them enjoy it?
Story wise it made perfect sense to me. There had to be consequences for what Joel did, keeping a possible cure from the world. The Fireflies were a huge group, coast to coast, and Marline had to have kept some people in loop with what was going on with Ellie. And after what Joel did, word had to have gotten out. So it made sense to me that a group of Fireflies would want to get revenge.
I guess my main issue is with how they advertised the game. It was advertised as Ellie’s game, her journey and Abby ends up being half the game. I get not wanting to spoil what Abby does to Joel at the beginning but I think keeping everything about her, even her name, secret was a bit much. Im sure there could of been a way to advertise her. Playing as Ellie in the Winter chapter of the first game was a nice surprise but it was only one chapter, again Abby is half the game, the co lead with Ellie.
To me the only way I can see Ellie’s journey end after Part 2 is if she gives herself up for the cure. She is such a tortured soul at the end I just can’t see it any other way. She’s tortured by Joel lying to her and by witnessing what Abby did, she can’t get over any of it. I like to think the last shot is of her accepting her decision to either go back to Jackson or find the Fireflies in California and tell them what she wants to do.
Visually it’s amazing, hardly any loading screens like Uncharted 4 which is always great. Did I like it as much as the first? No. Abby as half the game was an interesting choice, which I’ll admit I wasn’t to fond of. But I’m not about to trash the whole game and act like the annoying entitled Game of Thrones fans from last year.
My thoughts on Naughty Dog's marketing and release strategy:
Now having played the game in full and knowing what it will offer, I think this game's rollout was a bit crap. The leaks must have been gutting, but their attempts to maintain secrecy went too far and kind of hurt them in the long run.
Abby should have been unveiled as a player character before launch. She is too substantial a factor in this game to be kept under wraps. I think they should have introduced her as a dual protagonist, as a character on a parallel journey to Ellie. Explain that she will show the perspective of someone who has been consumed by revenge, a potential outcome of Ellie's path. She's a warrior, an *******, and she will be on a journey to rediscover some humanity.
Show us some gameplay and a character/flashback sequence to make it clear that Abby is here and will get plenty of time in the spotlight. Show Ellie's encounters with the WLF. Show Abby's with the Scars. Obscure all the connective tissue between the two, which is pretty easy as these characters go on very different adventures.
I think if this was done ND would have mitigated some of the backlash. It would have been a more accurate representation of the final game, while still preserving all the major secrets. I don't know if it would have made those who hated the character feel differently, but they would have had better context and expectations going in.
Outrage is mostly because Joel was killed in a gruesome and "not heroic" way and you're forced to play as his killer for half a game. Not to mention, you have to brutalize Ellie as this new protagonist. Now after people played/watched it, they have more problems with the story, but it varies.
I finished it over the weekend. RDR2 was spoiled for me, but I was fortunate enough to avoid that here.
It’s going to be divisive, but was well worth the sixty bucks. The editing of the story structure would be my only complaint, but not the story itself if you take a step back from it to see the overarching narrative. I see a lot of YouTube reviewers that seems like their mind was already made up before the game finished and a lot of bad faith arguments.
I want to start a New Game Plus soon, but feel like I need more time to digest it.
The game emotionally hurt to play and it made me reflect on closure and forgiveness more than revenge.
My thoughts on Naughty Dog's marketing and release strategy:
Now having played the game in full and knowing what it will offer, I think this game's rollout was a bit crap. The leaks must have been gutting, but their attempts to maintain secrecy went too far and kind of hurt them in the long run.
Abby should have been unveiled as a player character before launch. She is too substantial a factor in this game to be kept under wraps. I think they should have introduced her as a dual protagonist, as a character on a parallel journey to Ellie. Explain that she will show the perspective of someone who has been consumed by revenge, a potential outcome of Ellie's path. She's a warrior, an *******, and she will be on a journey to rediscover some humanity.
Show us some gameplay and a character/flashback sequence to make it clear that Abby is here and will get plenty of time in the spotlight. Show Ellie's encounters with the WLF. Show Abby's with the Scars. Obscure all the connective tissue between the two, which is pretty easy as these characters go on very different adventures.
I think if this was done ND would have mitigated some of the backlash. It would have been a more accurate representation of the final game, while still preserving all the major secrets. I don't know if it would have made those who hated the character feel differently, but they would have had better context and expectations going in.
Going back to the end of the first game for a moment:
The idea that Joel has a choice between Ellie and humanity is overtly flawed, even if you take out what the story tells us:
1. Killing Ellie is impractical. Ellie's immunity would not be based on Ellie, but the mutation on her brain. Whether that was do to Ellie or who bit her, we wouldn't know but killing Ellie means the sample dies with her.
2. The chances of replicating that would be highly improbable. As we live through an actual pandemic, searching for a vaccine that is put into starker light. They don't have our tech or facilities.
3. A cure isn't possible. Whatever they would create would be the equivalent of a vaccine.
4. Say they pulled all that off anyways. They'd have to produce the cure. Not a little, but a lot. How they'd do that is anyone's guess, but considering this game shows these people can't even reproduce coffee that seems like a stretch.
5. They'd have to distribute the cure. How?
6. These is before we get into the very nature of the the people shown in the Last of Us. The idea that there wouldn't a fight over control of a cure is just inaccurate.
But of course in an attempt to give Abby's side of the story some sort of "moral weight" logic this thrown out the window. Note I am not talking about Ellie or Joel's reaction. That all makes perfect sense to me, and I enjoy it in the second game. Ellie's reaction is what it should be based on the first game imo, but that doesn't make her reasoning anymore logical. It's irrational, like trying to paint Joel as some sort of villain at the end of the first game. It is the moral play that the game tries to play with Abby and her crew, to try and frame them as the "same" as the Jackson crew. It is why I fundamentally disagree with how the approach the concept of the "cure" in the second game.
Outrage is mostly because Joel was killed in a gruesome and "not heroic" way and you're forced to play as his killer for half a game. Not to mention, you have to brutalize Ellie as this new protagonist. Now after people played/watched it, they have more problems with the story, but it varies.
Going back to the end of the first game for a moment:
The idea that Joel has a choice between Ellie and humanity is overtly flawed, even if you take out what the story tells us:
1. Killing Ellie is impractical. Ellie's immunity would not be based on Ellie, but the mutation on her brain. Whether that was do to Ellie or who bit her, we wouldn't know but killing Ellie means the sample dies with her.
2. The chances of replicating that would be highly improbable. As we live through an actual pandemic, searching for a vaccine that is put into starker light. They don't have our tech or facilities.
3. A cure isn't possible. Whatever they would create would be the equivalent of a vaccine.
4. Say they pulled all that off anyways. They'd have to produce the cure. Not a little, but a lot. How they'd do that is anyone's guess, but considering this game shows these people can't even reproduce coffee that seems like a stretch.
5. They'd have to distribute the cure. How?
6. These is before we get into the very nature of the the people shown in the Last of Us. The idea that there wouldn't a fight over control of a cure is just inaccurate.
But of course in an attempt to give Abby's side of the story some sort of "moral weight" logic this thrown out the window. Note I am not talking about Ellie or Joel's reaction. That all makes perfect sense to me, and I enjoy it in the second game. Ellie's reaction is what it should be based on the first game imo, but that doesn't make her reasoning anymore logical. It's irrational, like trying to paint Joel as some sort of villain at the end of the first game. It is the moral play that the game tries to play with Abby and her crew, to try and frame them as the "same" as the Jackson crew. It is why I fundamentally disagree with how the approach the concept of the "cure" in the second game.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
