nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Last of Us [SPOILERS]

Otacon

ShaneU wrote: »

Can we move all the spoiler discussion to another thread, it's far too easy to accidentally click on them on the mobile site

Done.

Please note that this thread will contain spoilers from The Last of Us.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LuckyLloyd

The scene where the giraffes pass by is truly amazing. Seems wonderfully poignant and the soundtrack works wonderfully.

I also think it's extremely clever to give you control of Ellie right at the end, puts a nice twist on the concluding scene.

I would be highly sympathetic of Joel at the end. 20 years of hard fought survival and a dreadful year on the road risking his life for Ellie's protection. Impossible to expect him to take the news that she's going to be killed in the correct fashion - particularly without a last goodbye or opportunity to know she was satisfied to sacrifice herself for the greater good. Is a 14 year old capable of making that decision by the way? I'm not sure, and I'd certainly wonder about the noble nature of the FireFlies intent with a vaccine.

Needless to say, the difficult and indesicive conclusion is the icing on the cake of a tremendous plot and dialogue. I think not returning to these characters for a sequel is a mistake.

tok9

Well I finished it there and unsurprisingly, I absolutely loved it.

I did mess up the ending a bit for myself as I finished off the hospital section and turned it off after when there was only 5 minutes left. So when I played it today I was left a little underwhelmed as I assumed there was an hour left or so.

That was only a minor issue though and my own fault. On the ending, I couldn't help but find it really sad. After all they had gone through, that he'd lie to her like that, not even to give a half truth. I actually felt a little hurt playing as Ellie.

I'm not sure if many Breaking Bad fans have finished the game but I couldn't help but feel the same way about Joel as I do about Walter White. There are times where the player is shocked at what they do yet at another time, is rooting them on. I would say that Joel is the lesser evil just due to the times he is living in but anyway it was just a comparison I couldn't help but make.

I'm kind of interested to hear how many docters did people kill? I killed just the one because he had a knife and wouldn't move :P

Mr.Prodston

tok9 wrote: »

I'm kind of interested to hear how many docters did people kill? I killed just the one because he had a knife and wouldn't move :P

I only killed the first doctor, somehow one bullet to his foot with the revolver straight up killed him :pac:

C14N

tok9 wrote: »

I'm not sure if many Breaking Bad fans have finished the game but I couldn't help but feel the same way about Joel as I do about Walter White. There are times where the player is shocked at what they do yet at another time, is rooting them on. I would say that Joel is the lesser evil just due to the times he is living in but anyway it was just a comparison I couldn't help but make.

I'm kind of interested to hear how many docters did people kill? I killed just the one because he had a knife and wouldn't move :P

I drew comparisons to Breaking Bad too, obviously more with the lead characters than with the actual plot. In both cases you have a primary lead character who, by the end of it, seems to be the most evil person in the plot (in my opinion at least) and they manipulate a much more likeable, more naive, younger lead character who is much easier to root for.

Kirby

tok9 wrote: »

Well I finished it there and unsurprisingly, I absolutely loved it.

I did mess up the ending a bit for myself as I finished off the hospital section and turned it off after when there was only 5 minutes left. So when I played it today I was left a little underwhelmed as I assumed there was an hour left or so.

That was only a minor issue though and my own fault. On the ending, I couldn't help but find it really sad. After all they had gone through, that he'd lie to her like that, not even to give a half truth. I actually felt a little hurt playing as Ellie.

I'm not sure if many Breaking Bad fans have finished the game but I couldn't help but feel the same way about Joel as I do about Walter White. There are times where the player is shocked at what they do yet at another time, is rooting them on. I would say that Joel is the lesser evil just due to the times he is living in but anyway it was just a comparison I couldn't help but make.

I'm kind of interested to hear how many docters did people kill? I killed just the one because he had a knife and wouldn't move :P

The thing is, she knows she is being lied to. She's not stupid. The manner in which she says "okay" points to this. She's decided that he's lying to her, but she's okay with it. That's the way her voice actor was told to play it in the studio and I think it came across well.

tok9

Kirby wrote: »

The thing is, she knows she is being lied to. She's not stupid. The manner in which she says "okay" points to this. She's decided that he's lying to her, but she's okay with it. That's the way her voice actor was told to play it in the studio and I think it came across well.

Well yes, I got the impression that She/I knew however that still didn't make it any easier. This is the person I look up to and he looked her straight in the eye and swore. I see where he was coming from, I was just disappointed in him.

kearneybobs

sheehy83 wrote: »

One thing I was annoyed about was Ellies jokes thing? I never heard her reference a joke book and she never stopped to tell a joke. I would always check on her for convo options but no jokes. I will definitely have to play through it again with a collectibles guide.

Playthrough was 15 hours 30 minutes and collected 101 of 141 items.

She found a book of puns. Was pretty bad, in a funny way. She got through about three of the puns and stopped telling them as I walked away from her.

mutley18

tok9 wrote: »

I'm kind of interested to hear how many docters did people kill? I killed just the one because he had a knife and wouldn't move :P

I shot the first one in the face, casually walked over to the second one and slammed his head against the wall, I then shot the third one in the kneecap and she fell to the floor writhing around in pain, so I put her out of her misery with a shot to the back of the head. Yes I have issues.

johnny_ultimate

Finished it last night. I thought it ended on the perfect note - a worthwhile, intriguing character beat. Unlike most storytellers, they're aware of the power of a cut to black, the simple emotional capabilities of a close-up. It achieved a satisfying mix between uncertainty and conclusiveness, ending on a quiet moment rather than some hyperactive one - most important, one that is endearingly self-contained. I had several issues with the game, but the ending wasn't one. I don't think it leaves a hell of a lot of room for interpretation, but I don't consider that a particularly bad thing given its emotional effectiveness. Also ****ing delighted they didn't go down the 'Joel dies' route - a cliche I was fearing throughout. What we got was smarter, darker than that.

That said, I also wouldn't have begrudged it cutting to black at the giraffe bit

. That was really beautiful - the kind of emotional spectacle most filmmakers have forgotten about, let alone game makers. I also loved the way the game allowed you to stand there for an extended period, allowing you to move only when you felt it was necessary. A simple way of deepening your connection with the game.

Now, I did have issues with the game overall. Although it was a significant improvement over Uncharted, I still felt somewhat of a disconnect between story and game at times. Particularly Joel's injury - while I appreciated ND shifting focus to Elly in his stead, I do think there was gameplay potential there unrealised - basically two short play sequences (one barely interactive) where he was weak before he was back and fully athletic despite the cutscenes showing him on the brink of death.

Also wish they hadn't fallen back on combat scenes so much, it did grow increasingly tiresome. Again, they do a damn good job convincing us of the characters' violent sides than Uncharted ever did. But the point was well made early on, and they fell back on 'roomful of grunts' far too often (happy with how sparingly they used infected, though). I can buy a large body count without necessitating a full on genocide. Most of the game's 'puzzles ' (a strong word) and tricks are introduced early on and simply remixed later - some more gameplay surprises would have been welcome.

Back to the good: the world building was remarkable. The detail in the environments sold them. Such a believable place to explore, with the possible exception of a few too many lanes blocked by buses

All the locations felt like real, once functional ones, loaded with history and stories. Amazing to just explore. I do wish there were fewer meaningless collectibles scattered around, but for the most part the way the memos and letters were scattered around felt more natural than most games manage (coughbioshockcough), even if they conveniently survived the elemental assault when other items didn't! I can forgive that one leap o' logic.

Also, and finally, the character development. Naughty Dog are peerless in that regard - the interactions fully believable, each one strongly defined. From the banter to the grander dramatic beats, it rarely rings hollow. Also kudos for a game that doesn't fall back on stereotypes (particularly gender-based ones). It's all aided by strong storytelling ability - the way some events occur off-screen, the lack of raw, lazy sentimentality, the fact the developers know when to cut to black and when to linger for a moment longer (although the gaps between seasons sometimes felt like hours as opposed to months!). I wouldn't say it's a subtle game in terms of story and character, but it is a deeply considered one.

So definitely some minor problems, ones Id love to see refined in future Naughty Dog games. But mostly a success. What ND do is they take the basically linear action game (some semi-open exploration notwithstanding) and shame the vast majority of other developers with the delivery. It's a welcome departure from the mere rollercoaster of Uncharted, a work of more depth and value. I still don't think they've quite nailed the relationship between gameplay and narrative, but this is a significant leap in the right direction.

PS for the love of god no sequel. The story is done. There are completely new avenues to explore. Trust this to stand alone.

johnpatrick81

I'd be hugely shocked if there wasn't some sort of sequel after the success of this. Sure maybe not a direct one, but something set in the same world.

Trying to think what it could be, maybe if it picked up directly after Joel fleed the hospital with Ellie. You are now one of the main fireflies, and you are now hunting down Joel and Ellie. Either that or soon after, again as a firefly, this time heading perhaps for the west coast where news of another immune survivor exists.

Burning Eclipse

Otacon wrote: »

As I mentioned in the other thread, I would have done exactly what Joel did. Perhaps it was selfishness, but the callous nature of the Fireflies and the experiences the characters went through up to that point, made it easy for me to go through the hospital.

Same as here... I can understand how some people are condemning Joel, but I empathised more with him that I have with most (any) characters in recent memory.

I don't know if anyone else in this thread is a father, but by the end of that game, he very much looks at Ellie like his daughter. If someone does something like that, or threatens to do something like that to your child, then something flips in your brain. I remember being in the park one day with my little girl (who is my step-daughter) and 3 knacker children (all girls) started picking on her. Before I knew anything had happened, my daughter came up to me with ice-cream on her face. I have never been so angry in all my life, and furiously threatened 3 kids that could be no older than 8/9 years old. This is a small and imperfect analogy.

The point I'm trying to make (poorly) is that it doesn't matter if sacrificing your child results in saving mankind. You're not going to sacrifice them, full-stop. And if you say now that you would, I can say with certainty that you don't have children, and don't know what Joel was going through.

bad2dabone

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

it doesn't matter if sacrificing your child results in saving mankind. You're not going to sacrifice them, full-stop. And if you say now that you would, I can say with certainty that you don't have children, and don't know what Joel was going through.

Absolutely, I had no problem with Joel wiping out the fireflies. I was glad he did it, I was also glad he prevented any prospect of Marlene following them. I’ve a daughter myself and if it was put to me that a paramilitary group were going to kill her and experiment on her brain in order for tests to be carried out which could lead to a vaccine, not a cure, for a disease that had decimated humanity then I would do whatever it took to prevent them from doing so. And I saw Joel lying to her was to protect her from the reality that the group she had seen as saviors were going to kill her. The cost, to Joel and in my mind to myself as a father, to potentially create a vaccine would be too high. Also I’d question whether humanity, or at least the humanity on display in the game was worth saving, with those living in the q-zones basically living under a tyrannical regime and those living outside the zones as either bandits or predatory cannibals. The incidents with both the group led by David and with the giraffes reminded me what a savage and destructive force mankind is.
I’m sure that both Joel and Ellie would be better off and happier living in the community that Tommy and his wife belonged to.

LuckyFinigan

A sequel would be nice but I think I'd be just as happy if they left it alone, as a stand alone game it's perfect and I think a sequel might just feel unnecessary, I don't think they need to expand on Joel and Ellie's story, there's no need to milk it after all they went through. I'm sure sony will be pushing naughty dog to make another one after how well this one did.

mystic86

http://kotaku.com/the-last-of-us-hidden-phone-sex-numbers-a-mistake-w-586902643

mystic86

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/06/27/naughty-dog-the-last-of-us-sequel-this-journey-joel-and-ellie-is-complete-not-continuing-that/

Otacon

I wouldn't mind another story in the world but I hope they leave Joel and Ellie out of it completely.

Perhaps a story based in Europe this time? Or from sooner after the outbreak?

mystic86

This guy criticises the exact thing that edge recently was strongly praising the game for, portrayol of women:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/arts/video-games/in-the-video-game-the-last-of-us-survival-favors-the-man.html

Parawind

I liked the character of Joel and I think this might be the first time when I played this type of game that I didn't start yelling at the game, "your being an idiot, nobody would do that!". He took the pragmatic approach of survival above all else, which I always like to see.

I think that his choice at the end however was the completely selfish one. Given what had happened to Sarah I knew their was no way he would let Ellie die. Especially after she stole the photo and gave it to him.

Really liked the final scene, the way you see it from Ellie's perspective and Joel is being too sweet saying how Sarah really would have liked her. Set it up really well for the final question and they did a great job hinting that she didn't believe the lie, but was ok with it.

Can't actually believe they put in the falling part inside the bus towards the end. Did we really need the reminder that this was the uncharted engine

J. Marston

mystic86 wrote: »

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/06/27/naughty-dog-the-last-of-us-sequel-this-journey-joel-and-ellie-is-complete-not-continuing-that/

I think the world is ripe for more stories, but as far as the journey Joel and Ellie goes on it ends with this game. We were very conscious that we didn’t want to leave this story dangling. If we never do a sequel, we’re okay with it, because we told the story we needed to tell.

Fair enough really. It was a fantastic story and we got a proper ending even though it was very sad. They have each other but Joel is a broken man and Ellie probably won't ever really trust him.

Not sure where they could've gone with a sequel anyway. Maybe Ellie finds out the truth and leaves Joel to go off on her own to find the Fireflies, but Joel killed their doctor and Marlene is dead so the Fireflies are probably screwed anyway.

Just realised...(Spoilers for The Walking Dead and Bioshock Infinite)

3 of the more recent games I've loved have been The Walking Dead and Bioshock Infinite along with Last Of Us. All three have you as the male protagonist protecting a girl until the end where each game proceeds to kick the living SHÍT out of my feelings and leave me feeling crap.

Long story short, I need a game with a happy ending. There's only so much videogame heartbreak a man can stand!

Retr0gamer

WARNING! There's some major Spec Ops and MGS3 spoilers ahead.

Been thinking about this a lot today and just want to get it off my chest. The more I think about the surgery scene the more I think it was kind of terrible.

My two main problems is that it was a rip off of a similar scene from Spec Ops but the execution in this case was dire and whoever wrote it didn't understand why it was so effective in Spec Ops.

The scene from Spec Ops I'm referring to is the one where you are surrounded by the crowd. When I played it I thought this was one of those scenes where I'm being forced to to do something bad. I thought this because with the white phosphor scene before I realised what was going to happen and found there was no way to avoid it. I shot into the crowd.

It was only later when talking to a friend about the game that I found out that the game actually has lots of ways to approach various scenes in the game it's just that you never think that the these would be possible.

This is what makes Spec Ops so effective. You come to expect that you have no choice over how events will play out. It plays on it's own previous conventions and also MGS3 with it's brilliant ending where it forces the player to shoot the Boss. Because of this you don't realise the choice is there. However it is there and the game berates at the end for the actions you take.

When you put a player in a new virtual environment most often the player will test the boundaries of this new space. Where Spec Ops succeeds is that not only does it fool most players into thinking they have no choice but if a player decides to test the boundaries of the environment the developers have added scenarios for this eventuality. If I thought I was being clever in the above scenario in Spec Ops and shot into the air I would have been surprised to realise that the developers had taken into account this action.

And this is where the Last of Us fails. It tries to do what Spec Ops did so well without understanding why Spec Ops worked. You are put in a similar situation with full control over the character but since, as the I heard the writer say, they wanted to tell their own story, you have no choice in how it goes down.

After my experience with Spec Ops I decided to take a non-violent approach to this scenario. I shot over the doctor holding the scalpel. He didn't flinch. I walked up to him looking for a prompt or expecting him to swing at me, he just glitched and ended up pointing in the wrong direction. Then I shot him in the toe and he went down like he's been hit with a sniper rifle in the chest. My suspension of disbelief was well and truly shattered.

What Naughty Dog did was lie to the player. They put you in a position where you thought you had a choice but there was only one way to complete it, the way Naughty Dog wanted you to. They forgot the cardinal rule of game design that a player will test their environment and ultimately this scene came off far less effective than if it was a cutscene.

tok9

Retr0gamer wrote: »

WARNING! There's some major Spec Ops and MGS3 spoilers ahead.

I actually disagree with this and I think the main reason is

in Spec Ops I knew something bad was going to happen and I didn't want to do it but I had no choice, eventually I would have to fire.

While in the Last of Us the first thing I thought was get away from her. I was so compelled by these characters that there wasn't a choice anyway.

Just to confirm in MGS3 and Spec Ops you are just saying

there is the illusion of the choice as opposed to an actual choice? As I played both.. and there is no choice. I can see your point there if it regards the illusion, not that i checked but they could have made that better by just getting the surgeon to start stabbing you

Retr0gamer

You're missing the point,

I'm talking about all the times in Spec Ops were you actually did have a choice. Or perhaps I've just made my point because you didn't notice that you had a choice in Spec Ops which goes to show why I thought it was effective. As I said with many of the decisions in Spec Ops there is actually a choice which is what makes it so effective. Whereas in Spec Ops if I decided to test the game and see if I could break it the game would surprise you because there was an actually choice where you thought there was none. I'm not bemoaning the lack of choice you had in the Last of Us, sure it worked in MGS3. The problem with the Last of Us is that if the player decided to test the scenario like I did the developer had not accounted for this and the whole scene just breaks apart. It was a terrible storytelling decision by Naughty Dog in that regard and would have played out better as a cutscene like for instance when he kills the firefly head honcho.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

What Naughty Dog did was lie to the player. They put you in a position where you thought you had a choice but there was only one way to complete it, the way Naughty Dog wanted you to. They forgot the cardinal rule of game design that a player will test their environment and ultimately this scene came off far less effective than if it was a cutscene.

Actually, there's no lie in that scene at all. In fact, it might just be the most honest moment in the whole game (note: I haven't played Spec Ops, so I'm just basing this on the Last of Us itself).

This is not your story. Its Joel's. The game never, ever denies this. We control Joel as he moves around, but he's a fully formed character and his free will is out of bounds for the player. This is Naughty Dog's story, and while they give us some basic control, they never give us agency. This is the type of story they have chosen to tell, and in their defense they never (or at least, very, very rarely) deviate from it. They have very distinctly stated their decision to avoid player choice, instead settling on the story they wanted to tell. Sure, it would be nice if game stories offered the player more agency, but the decision was made very distinctly, and at least in this case it pays many dividends.

This does boil down to the 'would you kindly' / golf club conundrums posed by Bioshock. Yes, perhaps it would be better if we had some choice to control the story's outcome, but in reality that barely ever happens (after all, so many games apparently built on 'choice' just inadvertently draw attention to the inherent practical issues and contradictions of that approach). So we're stuck, 9 or more times out of ten, with this linear progression model. What Naughty Dog have done here is realised that in a much clearer, consistent way than they ever did in Uncharted. This is Joel's journey, and we're just along for the ride.

And that scene in the surgery explicitly draws attention to that most fundamental of design philosophies. It reminds us, in no uncertain terms, that we're not in control. In a way, that's what makes it so devastating. When we shoot that surgeon, it's the final realisation, not a cheat, that there's no choice here - Joel has gone down this darkest of avenues, and there's no turning back. It's internally consistent - Joel has killed and maimed his way to where he is now without remorse, and there's not a hope in hell he's going to stop now. It makes perfect sense in terms of character. The fact that the surgeon is perceived as more helpless, 'innocent' actually makes us realise the gravity of all those other kills throughout the game. Why should a scalpel and a pair of scrubs make any difference after we've so willingly strangled and shot our way through the rest of it? The gravity of the scene is emphasised by our complete lack of free will, and would have been completely lost in a cutscene. We're a passenger and observer, whether we like it or not.

So when we pull that trigger, as we eventually must, we're being shown the darkest recesses of Joel's journey and psyche, a final manifestation of this troubled, painful world he's living in. Far from lying to us, the game is rather very purposefully drawing attention to its internal logic and rules more explicitly than it has done before. If Uncharted regularly showed a disconnect between the Drake avatar we 'controlled' and the character in the cutscenes, The Last of Us avoids that completely, and achieves a credible link by ensuring Joel is never out of character, even by forcing us to play helpless participant in his actions. If it gave us the option to walk away peacefully, well than that would actually be more dishonest because, honestly, I don't believe Joel would have done that.

Retr0gamer

I really don't mind if the story they wanted to tell was one where the player has no choice in the matter. I'm totally fine with that.

My problem is presenting that scene in the way it was presented. The player is in control, it seems the player has a choice but if they make a choice the choice other than the one choice that Naughty Dog want the player to make the scene utterly breaks down and destroys the suspension of disbelief just like it did for me.

It would be much better handled the way MGS3 did it. You don't want to pull that trigger but ultimately it's the only choice, there's no way for the player to mess if up and the player isn't given the illusion of choice that when they make another choice the game breaks down and in my case even glitches a bit. Why give the player that illusion of choice if the game is going to glitch or do something silly just like the last of us did? It would have been better handled if joel pointed the gun at the surgeon and let the player pull the trigger ala MGS3 rather than present something that had the potential to ruin the atmosphere and suspension of disbelief especially considering how well it had immersed me as a player up to that point.

I know what Naughty Dog were going for as you say 'we're being shown the darkest recesses of Joel's journey and psyche, a final manifestation of this troubled, painful world he's living in'. What I got was glitchy animation and a laughable death animation for someone getting shot in the toe.

It just didn't work for me.

It's a very poorly done scene imo and I'm pretty sure they were trying for what spec ops did but did it badly.

It's a blemish on something I thought was otherwise well done.

BTW you really should play Spec Ops. I'd love to hear your opinion on it.

Kirby

I also disagree here. This isn't about choice. It's a story you partake in. Control is an illusion. Joel kills the doctor because that's the way it was written. Just like Joel grabbing a ledge or Joel running from the Humvee or petting a giraffe. We might press the button to make the character do it .......but he's going to do those things because this isn't tetris, it's a story based game.

The choice the player has is whether or not to slaughter the other two doctors. Some do, some don't. But like all choices that the player makes in video games, it has no bearing on the story ultimately and is fairly meaningless.

I do agree that killing him by shooting him in the toe is an oversight. I killed my guy with the knife. It worked well in the context of my game because it would've been the knife he used on Ellie. Perhaps limiting the use of the gun in the room would have worked better. No opportunity to "disable" him and something silly happening.

NotorietyH

Retr0gamer wrote: »

WARNING! There's some major Spec Ops and MGS3 spoilers ahead.
Been thinking about this a lot today and just want to get it off my chest. The more I think about the surgery scene the more I think it was kind of terrible.

My two main problems is that it was a rip off of a similar scene from Spec Ops but the execution in this case was dire and whoever wrote it didn't understand why it was so effective in Spec Ops.

Sounds like your game glitched. You don't have to shoot the doctors. I thought I had to, and killed them all, not realising that even if you kill the first doctor you don't have to kill the other two. It was only after I found out I didn't have to kill them that I realised just how effectively the game had put me in Joel's shoes.

The Naughty Dog guys talk about it in this article. Pity it didn't work for you, as it really adds to the ending I think.

Retr0gamer

As I said I've no problem that there was no choice to be made in the story and I'm perfectly fine that Naughty Dog wanted to tell their story. It's presenting that scene the way they did is what I'm not happy with. It's exactly those oversights that you mention that make the scene seem utterly ridiculous at a time when it really shouldn't within the story. Doing it in this way was the cause of this and I think it was a bad choice by Naughty Dog.

This is the reason why I think Spec Ops did it mostly right. When you are presented with a scene like the one in Last of Us there were no 'oversights'. If you wanted to approach the scene differently you could and Yager had taken this into account so the game reacted appropriately and never seemed silly in the way Last of Us did. It worked in Spec Ops because there were no oversights and really if you want to present a scene like this to the player you can't have any over sights. It's pretty much akin to a level designed not bothering to put collision detection on a wall because 'sure who's going to try to jump through that'. As every good game designer should know someone will always try it and you either need to make sure there are no oversights or approach the game differently.

Another thing I have to commend Yager on was that during my playthrough of the game I felt that I had no choice when in fact I did. In the Last of Us I felt like I had a choice when I actually didn't. The developers lied to the player and and as a result suspension of disbelief was broken.

Retr0gamer

NotorietyH wrote: »

Sounds like your game glitched. You don't have to shoot the doctors. I thought I had to, and killed them all, not realising that even if you kill the first doctor you don't have to kill the other two. It was only after I found out I didn't have to kill them that I realised just how effectively the game had put me in Joel's shoes.

The Naughty Dog guys talk about it in this article. Pity it didn't work for you, as it really adds to the ending I think.

The game didn't glitch, other than when I approached the doctor too close he started pointing the scalpel the wrong way. I'm talking about the killing the first doctor. The scene worked perfectly.

In fact having the choice of not killing the other two is something that did work. It's the whole first doctor thing I have problems with.

kearneybobs

That scene plays out the exact way that Joel would have done it. I walked into that room expecting, almost wanting to remove anything that got in my way. In that moment Joel had no choice but to remove the Doc from the equation to protect Ellie. The player had no choice. Flaws that appear in the scene only happen as a result of the player not doing what you would expect Joel to do.

The fact that you felt you had a choice might indicate that you hadn't properly 'assumed' the roll of Joel.

Retr0gamer

It's because the game presented a scene which had possible scenarios Naughty Dog failed to cover, which is poor design. My point is because of this it's a bad choice for the linear storytelling approach Naughty Dog were going for and therefore handled poorly compared to say Spec Ops which handled similar situations a lot better at times.