The Last of Us 2 - SPOILERS!!!

gimli2112

gimli2112 wrote: »

I really enjoyed the first playthrough (the Ellie bits anyway and ending notwithstanding) but I've struggled with the second. Partly I reckon as I changed the visuals so collectibles stand out, which breaks the immersion.

Put on slow mo aiming, total immersion

gimli2112

that too

J. Marston

Also, This seems to be a repurposing of an abandoned plot that was deemed too unrealistic for the first game. This is about Tess, who was originally the bad guy in the first game...

Her original role as antagonist was explained in further detail at Neil Druckmann's keynote at 2013 IGDA in Toronto.

This version of Tess was to have a brother who was killed in crossfire with the military while she and Joel were smuggling Ellie out of the Quarantine Zone, and consequently, she would've blamed Joel for his death.

For the remainder of the game, Tess was to pursue Joel and Ellie across America with a crew of henchmen. After the events of the Salt Lake City chapter, Joel was to have been captured by Tess and tortured. However, he would be saved by Ellie, who would've killed Tess and her henchmen. This version of the plot was abandoned after Naughty Dog decided that her pursuit of Joel for a year across the entire country felt too unrealistic.

https://thelastofus.fandom.com/wiki/Tess

Joel at fault for a death. Cross-country with a crew for revenge. Joel captured and tortured (although that time he would've been saved by Ellie). Sound familiar?

It was deemed too unrealistic because Tess tracked Joel across the country but in TLOU2 Abby crosses the country to find Joel. Then Ellie crosses the country to find Abby and then does it to find her for a second time?

Penn

J. Marston wrote: »

Also, This seems to be a repurposing of an abandoned plot that was deemed too unrealistic for the first game. This is about Tess, who was originally the bad guy in the first game...



Joel at fault for a death. Cross-country with a crew for revenge. Joel captured and tortured (although that time he would've been saved by Ellie). Sound familiar?

It was deemed too unrealistic because Tess tracked Joel across the country but in TLOU2 Abby crosses the country to find Joel. Then Ellie crosses the country to find Abby and then does it to find her for a second time?

I think the difference comes between Tess blaming Joel for being indirectly responsible for her brother's death (him dying in a shootout when they're trying to escape) and Joel being directly responsible for Abby's father's death (as well her whole way of life due to the disbanding of the Fireflies after, and a reasonable chance to start developing some kind of vaccine for the infection). Likewise then Abby being directly responsible for Joel's death leading to Ellie hunting down Abby.

The initial plan for Tess and her motivations does seem pretty flimsy in comparison.

johnny_ultimate

Also: Joel was really, really easy to find after four years in the same place as his brother

Zero-Cool

Unless Joel shooting her brother himself, that plot is flaky as **** and nothing like why Abby pursued Joel. TLOU started life with Abby being part of a caravan of survivors who gets attacked by Hunters who Joel and Tommy were with at the time and she sees Joel kill her dad before escaping but they preferred the surgeon dad better. I kind of like the original idea though as it reminds everyone Joel was the bad guy for some time.

Got all the collectibles and doing NG+ for upgrades now. Man, wasn't any easier watching that Joel scene and then visiting his house

J. Marston

Do they do a TLOU3? I can't imagine they'll go back to Ellie for a third game. Her story is told.

They could go with Abby and Lev but that might be a hard sell.

New protagonist? New location/country?

leggo

BruteStock wrote: »

If a man thinks he can single handily revert humanity from apocalyptic wasteland back to its original state , best think this man might have a screw lose.
The question if Joel was right or wrong can ultimately be discerned from the actions of other characters as the story continued.

The fact the continuation of the story doesn't care nor even mention that a cure can be made from Ellies head proves that Joel absolutely did the right thing.If humanity depended on it , Jerry would not have been the only doctor looking to extract a cure from Ellie's head.
If the argument that no other medical professionals exist , then that means it would have been impossible for Jerry to manufacture and distribute a vaccine.
But the Fireflies having a vaccine would have only made them a bigger target to rival factions , so they would have just kept it for themselves anyway.

"condemned all of humanity" haha!!

Furthermore , Joel may have done bad things in the context of civilised society , but in that world he was a survivor and a guardian of an innocent child.

Its hilarious how people like to vilify Joel for saving a life while at the same time try to make a hero out of a guy that wanted to take a life.

Ask yourself if Batman would have allowed Jerry to operate on Ellie.. Like hell he would. Jerry's irrational decision was an experiment , not a solution and anybody would have dealt with him the same way. Although his death could have been avoided had he not pulled a knife on the father-figure of the girl he was about to murder.

I would also argue that Joel was not a sympathetic character , but a relatable one. Joel was a beloved character to a generation of gamers from every gender and background as people related to his cause and motivations.

Like...it’s not real. The apocalyptic wasteland you speak of doesn’t exist, so the rules and philosophical question we’re asked to consider is based around what the creators tell us the reality is. And they’re very clear that Ellie was a legitimate cure to the virus. That’s the dramatic punch that underscores the entire ending of the first game. If she’s not a cure then the entire game doesn’t matter.

So all of the above is just rationalising the behaviour of a fictional character you like so you don’t have to deal with the moral quandary presented by his actions. You’re inventing scenarios and motives that just don’t exist and aren’t suggested in the script. That’s interesting, don’t get me wrong, but there’s no substance to your argument. It’s like being asked about the trolley problem and taking the stance “Well nobody would do that anyway, because in real life this is what would happen...” It’s not real life, it’s a dilemma with specific criteria created to force us to ask ourselves specific moral questions. And in this dilemma Ellie was the cure to this fictional virus and the fictional doctor Joel killed was the only one who could mine the cure to save humanity.

Jordan 199

J. Marston wrote: »

Do they do a TLOU3? New protagonist? New location/country?

I think there will be a TLOU3. New location will be Skibbereen.

Leroy42

J. Marston wrote: »

Do they do a TLOU3? I can't imagine they'll go back to Ellie for a third game. Her story is told.

They could go with Abby and Lev but that might be a hard sell.

New protagonist? New location/country?

I certainly think that they set it up so with the plan for TLOU3, but it will depend on the longer term reaction to this game.

Would Ellie be in the game? I think there is a further story to tell, you could have some sort of reconciliation between Ellie and Abby who then fight to stave off the revenge of the combined Rattlers and WLF.

Abby is also now being hunted by what remains of the WLF, and that forces Abby and Ellie into closer proximity util such time as they are both trapped and forced to help each other to get away.

Lev then plays the role of peacemaker to bring them closer together as they build a relationship based on the same concepts that brought Ellie and Joel together. They both suffered loss, they both are being hunted.

They end up returning to Jackson to get some defence, where both Abby and Ellie are initially scorned and Abby sees how much Ellie has suffered. Jackson is under threat from the combined forces of WLF and Rattlers, not to mention and increased infected, and when Dina reveals that Ellie is immune Maria uses that to bargain for the safety of the town by agreeing to give Ellie up.

This finally shows Abby that Ellie is as much a victim in all this as anyone else and she takes on the task of freeing Ellie, along with Lev, with Tommy helping out by getting her horses and ammunition and helping her 'escape' Jackson. Tomy is killed during the escape as he is found stealing the horses.

There is certainly another game in there, but I'm not sure that Neil has the ability to tell the story.

Leroy42

Jordan 199 wrote: »

I think there will be a TLOU3. New location will be Skibbereen.

The only place even the infected won't go into!

The Raging Bile Duct

BruteStock wrote: »

Ask yourself if Batman would have allowed Jerry to operate on Ellie.. Like hell he would. Jerry's irrational decision was an experiment , not a solution and anybody would have dealt with him the same way. Although his death could have been avoided had he not pulled a knife on the father-figure of the girl he was about to murder.

We asked Batman, Harry Potter, Captain Kirk, Gandalf and Luke Skywalker what they would do in Joel's shoes and their answers will astound you!!!

gimli2112

I was interested to see people were conflicted with Joel's choice in the first one. I genuinely didn't give it a second thought. Bang, bang, bang pick up Ellie and kill the leader of the fireflys.
It may be why I can't connect with the story ND are trying to tell this time round.

Zero-Cool

gimli2112 wrote: »

I was interested to see people were conflicted with Joel's choice in the first one. I genuinely didn't give it a second thought. Bang, bang, bang pick up Ellie and kill the leader of the fireflys.
It may be why I can't connect with the story ND are trying to tell this time round.

I think it's just different for everyone. I was the same bang bang bang, **** humanity, grabbing Ellie and getting out of there but I completely connected with Abby and her journey. I didn't think Joel deserved to die, especially in that manner, but he did in Abby's eyes and with TLOU2, all I can do is observe the journey each character is on.

gimli2112

Yeah I get that. I really wanted to kill Abby from the getgo. In the end I didn't (I thought I had a choice) but honestly not to let Abby live but so that Ellie wouldn't have to kill her, if that makes sense. So I guess ND got that bit across to me albeit in my own convoluted way.

I'd happily kill her in TLOU3

Retr0gamer

I found it a Sophie's Choice for him. Was your daughter(figures)'s life worth a chance at salvation for mankind and was it right to let anyone decide what her life is worth. how much of your humanity would you have to give up to make that decision.

Also not a sociopath so thought killing more people that didn't need to die was the wrong option but guess the game didn't let me make that choice despite giving me the illusion I had one. But, lets not go down that rabbit hole!

Penn

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I think it's just different for everyone. I was the same bang bang bang, **** humanity, grabbing Ellie and getting out of there but I completely connected with Abby and her journey. I didn't think Joel deserved to die, especially in that manner, but he did in Abby's eyes and with TLOU2, all I can do is observe the journey each character is on.

Same here. Multiple playthroughs of TLOU1, never failed to kill the docs (maybe once just to see what they did/said). But no real hesitation in doing so. Had to save Ellie.

But it's also easy to see why Abby wanted to kill Joel because of it. It's the nature of revenge. Joel kills Abby's father, so Abby kills Joel, so Ellie wants to kill Abby. If Ellie killed Abby at the end, would Lev have then tried to kill Ellie? Would Dina have then tried to kill Lev?...

You can agree with Joel's decision while also recognising it as a decision with consequences. Joel was saving Ellie. But in doing so he killed Abby's father, destroyed her way of life (the Fireflies disbanding) and stole the world of a potential path to a vaccine (killing the top doctor of the largest group in the country researching a vaccine leading to that group disbanding). We can ponder if it would have worked or not, or the morality of sacrificing Ellie to do it, but in making the decision Joel made he took that decision out of everyone's hands as much for selfish reasons as well as saving Ellie.

gimli2112

Well it's not everyday I discover I'm a sociopath. Can I do any cool things like in Rainman?

Penn

gimli2112 wrote: »

Well it's not everyday I discover I'm a sociopath. Can I do any cool things like in Rainman?

Just don't count how many people and dogs you kill on your way to being made to feel bad for killing one pregnant person and one dog.

Joshua J

gimli2112 wrote: »

I was interested to see people were conflicted with Joel's choice in the first one. I genuinely didn't give it a second thought. Bang, bang, bang pick up Ellie and kill the leader of the fireflys.
It may be why I can't connect with the story ND are trying to tell this time round.

Well carrying over from TLOU1, I loved Joel, Ellie and really liked Tommy.

TLOU2. Killed Joel early, made me dislike Ellie and turned Tommy into a ghoul. And no matter how hard ND tried, and boy did they try, I couldn't give a stuff about Abby or Manny or Owen or any of the rest of them. That's why I couldn't connect with the story.

J. Marston

Penn wrote: »

Just don't count how many people and dogs you kill on your way to being made to feel bad for killing one pregnant person and one dog.

It's about 100 or so before it and 50 or so after it, all while whispering "Eat shít" or "Motherfúcker" into their ears after you puncture their neck with a pocket knife.

The Raging Bile Duct

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I found it a Sophie's Choice for him. Was your daughter(figures)'s life worth a chance at salvation for mankind and was it right to let anyone decide what her life is worth. how much of your humanity would you have to give up to make that decision.

Also not a sociopath so thought killing more people that didn't need to die was the wrong option but guess the game didn't let me make that choice despite giving me the illusion I had one. But, lets not go down that rabbit hole!

Calling someone a sociopath for following the agency of the protagonist in a game is ridiculous, especially as the game itself reveals you can't do anything to change the outcome.

I went in all guns blazing and shot the shít out of those doctors, just like I stabbed the fook out of those annoying bastard dogs in the sequel. It's a game where I clearly know it's fantasy with no impact on how I deal with the outer world and not an indicator of supposed sociopathy.

Retr0gamer

I was being hyperbolic.

The Raging Bile Duct

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I was being hyperbolic.

A spoonful of Andrew's usually sorts that out.

Grumpypants

I didn't even realise there was a conundrum at the end. I shot that doc without blinking. "Daughter" versus strangers (no matter how many) is not even a question worth considering.

BruteStock

leggo wrote: »

Like...it’s not real. The apocalyptic wasteland you speak of doesn’t exist, so the rules and philosophical question we’re asked to consider is based around what the creators tell us the reality is. And they’re very clear that Ellie was a legitimate cure to the virus. That’s the dramatic punch that underscores the entire ending of the first game. If she’s not a cure then the entire game doesn’t matter.

So all of the above is just rationalising the behaviour of a fictional character you like so you don’t have to deal with the moral quandary presented by his actions. You’re inventing scenarios and motives that just don’t exist and aren’t suggested in the script. That’s interesting, don’t get me wrong, but there’s no substance to your argument. It’s like being asked about the trolley problem and taking the stance “Well nobody would do that anyway, because in real life this is what would happen...” It’s not real life, it’s a dilemma with specific criteria created to force us to ask ourselves specific moral questions. And in this dilemma Ellie was the cure to this fictional virus and the fictional doctor Joel killed was the only one who could mine the cure to save humanity.

Is not real life , says the guy comparing it to the real life trolley issue. LoL.

Sure the apocalyptic wasteland exists , its only the backdrop to the entire game!!

No , the only thing the creators make clear is that Ellie will die. Audio logs detailing past failures suggest the operation is just another experiment that has the potential to fail again.
The morals of his decision and whether or not they were justified is left entirely up to the player. That was the beauty of the ending , it made people think , it stimulated debate. The game asked the questions , the answers were up you to decide for yourself.

As far as rationalising his behaviour because I agree with his actions , well the same can be said about you who opposed his actions , or anybody. Its best to stick the topic.

The topic in question is about a desperate man who was willing to resort to desperate measures for cure he hoped would make a difference. He had not even the confidence in his own convictions to sit both Ellie and Joel down in a room and talk them trough it.
He held Joel at gun-point and drugged Ellie to have his way.

To go one step further , Mel was a qualified and resourceful doctor. She could have picked up Jerry's work but the game tells us it never really mattered.

In the end , Joel gave Ellie a life and a family in a world that will adapt and overcome the infected.

J. Marston

Another thing that probably eliminates Ellie from being playable in any future game is having 8 fingers. Climbing ledges and firing arrows is probably tricky when minus two fingers.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOdNSgJEra0

Ellie: "Swear to me that everything you said about the Fireflies is true"
Joel: "I swear"

That's the key for me. That's the moment when the storytellers really hammer home the ending of TLOU (not that brutally murdering two characters who get in the way is an ambiguous note). Whatever about the rights and wrongs of what he did, in this moment he introduces a ticking timebomb into the most important relationship he has. It doesn't matter whether the lie is 'justified' or not - it's a lie of profound consequence for them both.

That's why I didn't finish the Last of Us feeling sympathy or understanding for Joel. I ended up thinking he was a selfish, untrusting liar who didn't even have the basic decency of telling the girl who saved his life the truth, difficult though it is. And Ellie's uncertain reaction is what we leave in - that doubt in her face, the sense that Joel knows more than he's letting on... it's something that is clearly going to gnaw away at her. That said gnawing is a key narrative focus of this game is the perfectly natural continuation of the story.

Saving Ellie or letting her be killed was an impossible choice - each choice has profound consequences for both Joel and the world. But it's what happens after, that lie that underscored in no uncertain terms that Joel was a selfish asshole (allowing for a natural urge to protect a child), and any 'happily ever after' would at best be an illusion. That the consequences of both the killings and the lie would come back to haunt Joel and Ellie seems to be exactly what a TLOU2 sequel should be about... and that it is.

gimli2112

that's one way of looking at it, the other is the act itself and the lie were all about protecting Ellie, he'd prefer to see the world burn than allow any harm come to her
that's my take

J. Marston

He was wrong and the relationship was doomed from that point but I did have sympathy with him.