The Last of Us Part 2

[JadedDM]

I haven't played the second game yet, but I sincerely doubt Abby is presented as a hero, either. I would guess, based on what I've heard so far, she is as flawed as Joel is. Or Ellie, for that matter. In fact, there really aren't any truly 'good guys' at all in the series. Everyone is pretty flawed, for the most part. Druckman seems pretty cynical about the human race, as the entire series is basically how we all turned on each other and even 20 years later, when humanity is fading away, we're still killing each other in an endless cycle.

[Rater202]

I haven't played the second game yet, but I sincerely doubt Abby is presented as a hero, either. I would guess, based on what I've heard so far, she is as flawed as Joel is. Or Ellie, for that matter. In fact, there really aren't any truly 'good guys' at all in the series. Everyone is pretty flawed, for the most part. Druckman seems pretty cynical about the human race, as the entire series is basically how we all turned on each other and even 20 years later, when humanity is fading away, we're still killing each other in an endless cycle.

She is. She most definitely is. Ellie is depicted as wrong for doing the exact same thing to Abby that Abby did to Joel even though Abbey is much more deserving of it and Abbey is depicted as having been justified in doing so.

Abby is justified is murdering Joel and inflicting violence on people becuase Joel murdered her child-murdering father but Ellie is not justified in murdering Abby and inflicting violence on Abby's murderous friends even though Abby murdered her father-figure. Ellie's life is ruined by her quest for vengeance and Abby is briefly sad that her friends got killed but otherwise has a happy ending.

That is what the second game presents and it is absolutely disgusting.

Also, as I noted above, Abby's father is specifically the surgeon that the game won't let you not kill, so you're being punished for something that the game forced you to do(like how Spec Op: The Line did things) and, and... In the first game, when he's an enemy, he's black.

In the second game, when we're supposed to think he's an innocent victim, he's white.

Do you understand the ****ed up implications of that retcon?

[JadedDM]

Ellie is depicted as wrong for doing the exact same thing to Abby that Abby did to Joel even though Abbey is much more deserving of it and Abbey is depicted as having been justified in doing so.

Again, I haven't played the second game yet, so I guess I'll see for myself soon enough. But is Ellie depicted as wrong for getting revenge, or does the game suggest that getting revenge itself is wrong, and Ellie realizes that at the end and makes a choice to end the cycle?

Ellie's life is ruined by her quest for vengeance and Abby is briefly sad that her friends got killed but otherwise has a happy ending.

You...you don't consider having your friends being killed as life-ruining? That's a happy ending, in your book?

Also, as I noted above, Abby's father is specifically the surgeon that the game won't let you not kill, so you're being punished for something that the game forced you to do(like how Spec Op: The Line did things)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. That makes sense to me. If there was an option to not kill the surgeon, then...the entire story of the second game doesn't work, correct? They would have to tie Abby to someone you had to have killed, or else that would have led to a lot of confusion for those players who didn't kill him.

In the first game, when he's an enemy, he's black.

In the second game, when we're supposed to think he's an innocent victim, he's white.

What? Granted, he was wearing a surgeon's mask, so I couldn't get a very close look at him, but I just finished the first game and don't remember him being black at all. He looked white to me. Sounded like it, too.

[Rater202]

You...you don't consider having your friends being killed as life-ruining? That's a happy ending, in your book?

Abby and the narrative don't treat it as a big deal. she's upset a little but ultimately the deaths of her friends are of little concern compared to Abby living happily ever after with the little transboy who exists solely to make Abby look like a good person.

[JadedDM]

Well, I finished the second game. And after having done so, I wonder if people like Rater played an entirely different game than I did? Because I honestly don't understand some of the conclusions you reached on what the game says or is trying to say.

Spoiler

Show

The game, in no way, makes the claim that Abby was justified in killing Joel or that Ellie was not justified for wanting to kill Abby. Indeed, the main message of the game, that it hits you on the head with a hammer with, again and again and again--it is NOT subtle--is that revenge is bad. It will destroy your life, it will take everything from you.

Abby's life is ruined by her taking revenge on Joel. Ellie sacrifices everything to get her revenge--her home, her wife and child, even two of her fingers. The WLF and the Seraphites destroy each other because of their endless cycle of revenge against each other. Tommy loses one of his eyes, full use of a leg, and his marriage. Nobody gets a happy ending, nobody is presented as justified for their actions--everyone is presented as being wrong to get revenge.

[Dire_Flumph]

I finally finished the game a week or so ago, and I'm of much the same mind.

Spoiler: tLoU Part 2 spoilers, obviously

Show

I didn't have much sympathy for *anyone* in this game. Abby, Ellie, Tommy, Dina, Lev, Jessie, the Wolves, the Scars, no-one. No one was justified, everyone acted like a murderous psychopath, it was pretty obvious where the story was going 30 minutes in, and if Ellie had ended up killed I wouldn't have cared at all and that is quite an accomplishment considering how much I loved the character in the first game. A cross-country murder spree was handled like it was a fun 2nd date with the cute girl you have a crush on, and both Ellie and Abby have no plans other than waltz into a settlement you know nothing about and shoot down any bystanders you come across because guilt by association or something. I should be able to tell the difference between a plan concocted by Ellie vs one thought up by Duke Nukem. I am honestly insulted that Naughty Dog thought I had to be told that the characters had crossed a moral line and that it was some sort of major revelation that a wanton revenge spree is actually a bad thing.

On the other hand, the gameplay was still great, the stealth/action was a lot of fun, the environments were beautiful, when I was fighting the infected I could forget a lot of the story problems and I loved the hospital basement boss fight in particular. I did like a few corners of the story, the flashback to the museum being probably the highest point for me, but I could only play the game in short bursts because I found the characters so odious. I might revisit the game again sometime, but it will be a long way down the road from here.

If there is a Last of Us 3, I sincerely hope it features a new protagonist, because I am done with everyone from this game.

Sorry to come off so negative, and I don't mean disrespect to those who found more in the sequel than I did, but even given the advance negative reviews I was not prepared for how much I disliked it.

[Azuresun]

I know this is a minor tangent to the rest of the argument. But while Rater is correct about his statement on fungus and Vaccines in the real world. I have to ask how it’s presented within the story. Because it’s quite possible that the writers are just dumber than you, or attempting to use shorthand that the “common folk” can understand to get the story across without getting bogged down in explaining the minutia of what is essentially plot magic.

It sounds like if they'd have just done a find-and-replace in the script, replacing "vaccine" with "cure", most of the problems just go away.

And if the characters at the end didn't at least honestly believe a cure was viable at the expense of Ellie's life, then the story becomes far weaker, with unambiguous heroes and villains and no dilemma or moral grey areas about what either the doctors or Joel are doing. That doesn't seem very likely, given the tone of everything else in the story, so I'm going to go with "they slipped up and got a medical term wrong".

[Rater202]

No, replacing vaccines with cure wouldn't solve the problem.

1: They're not trying to cure people who are already infected. They're trying to make people who aren't infected immune. Everyone already infected is still screwed and it doesn't do crap to the zombies that already exist.

2: Even if they were trying for a cure, they're still doing bad science. The Fireflies medical experts are all surgeons. Not pathologists. Not fungal infection specialists, not anyone who would actually know how to take a benign parasite and use it to make medicine to treat the infected form, let alone the preventative treatment they were actually going for.

Not to mention that they jumped to removing Ellie's brain hella quick considering that we know for a fact that there are fungal spores in Ellie's blood.

Proper science would be to take samples of her blood, cultivate the spores, and inject them into rats or other small animals that can function as a human analog to see what happens, then dissect and study the rats until you have a means of giving the rats immunity that is reliable enough to start testing on human volunteers, all the while keeping Ellie happy and healthy so she'll stay with you and keep giving you samples of her own free will.

The Fire Flies were not going to give Ellie a choice about what they did with her body. They were going to kill her while she was unconscious and were going to murder Joel, only stopping becuase their leader was a lunatic who thought Joel would see things her way. Per the audio recordings, the surgeons had no idea what the hell they were doing and were going to sacrifice their one shot at cure--and the life of a teenage girl who trusted them--on a billion to zero odds gamble and they knew it.

And in the process, the surgeons were going to violate every pricnibpla of scientific and medical ethics that they would have sworn to uphold and abide by.

There's only moral ambiguity in this scene if you buy into the Fireflies delusions. Joel was 100% in the right to get Ellie out of there and 100% right to kill them since they were not only willing to kill Eliie but willing to use letal force to prevent Joel from stopping a pointless homicide by people who by all means should know better.

The surgeon himself was one of the people who tries to kill Joel. The game makes you kill him in response.

[JadedDM]

Spoiler: tLoU Part 2 spoilers, obviously

Show

I didn't have much sympathy for *anyone* in this game. Abby, Ellie, Tommy, Dina, Lev, Jessie, the Wolves, the Scars, no-one. No one was justified, everyone acted like a murderous psychopath, it was pretty obvious where the story was going 30 minutes in, and if Ellie had ended up killed I wouldn't have cared at all...

I wouldn't go that far, but yeah, the game is--at its core--a tragedy. So many problems could be solved if people just sat down and reasonably discussed things. Nobody is presented as being right, though. I appreciate the game doesn't try and paint anyone as heroic or justified. They're all just heavily flawed people.

Spoiler: tLoU Part 2 spoilers, obviously

Show

On the other hand, the gameplay was still great, the stealth/action was a lot of fun, the environments were beautiful, when I was fighting the infected I could forget a lot of the story problems and I loved the hospital basement boss fight in particular. I did like a few corners of the story, the flashback to the museum being probably the highest point for me...

Spoiler: Museum and Hospital Basement

Show

Yes, I loved the entire museum sequence. Ellie putting her hat on everything. Joel's commentary on the Jurassic Park films. The launch sequence. The faces in the mirror. "I'm climbing a ****ing dinosaur!" It was just perfect, really. And that rat king boss? Freaked me out. Is it even possible to kill it when its chasing you? I didn't even try, I just ran at full sprint! Once I did start fighting it, I chucked all four of my pipe bombs at it, one at a time, and when that didn't kill it, I really started to worry. Surprised I didn't die even once in that fight.

Spoiler: tLoU Part 2 spoilers, obviously

Show

If there is a Last of Us 3, I sincerely hope it features a new protagonist, because I am done with everyone from this game.

Spoiler: TLoU3?

Show

If there is a third game, I'd agree. I think Ellie's story is pretty much done. Although I don't know who might take the reins in the third game. My money would probably be on Abby, to be honest. I could see them coming up a story of her and Lev trying to rebuild the Fireflies. Or who knows, maybe they'll do another 20 year time skip and we'll play as grown up J.J. Anything's possible.

The Fireflies medical experts are all surgeons. Not pathologists. Not fungal infection specialists, not anyone who would actually know how to take a benign parasite and use it to make medicine to treat the infected form, let alone the preventative treatment they were actually going for.

You've made that claim before; that the Fireflies only have surgeons and nothing else. What are you basing that on? I don't remember anyone saying such in the games. Granted, the surgeons are the only ones we see on screen, but that doesn't mean they are all that exist.

The Fire Flies were not going to give Ellie a choice about what they did with her body. They were going to kill her while she was unconscious and were going to murder Joel, only stopping becuase their leader was a lunatic who thought Joel would see things her way.

You're right, the Fireflies never gave Ellie a choice. But neither did Joel. And it was pretty clear that if Ellie had been given a choice, she would have chosen to die. This is outright confirmed in the second game, but it was heavily implied in the first game,

Per the audio recordings, the surgeons had no idea what the hell they were doing and were going to sacrifice their one shot at cure--and the life of a teenage girl who trusted them--on a billion to zero odds gamble and they knew it.

Again, nowhere in the game does it suggest that the odds are low or non-existent of creating a vaccine by cutting out her brain. Everyone in the game--everyone--acts as if this is pretty much a sure thing. Maybe they are wrong, but the game does not suggest or imply that.

Joel was 100% in the right to get Ellie out of there and 100% right to kill them since they were not only willing to kill Eliie but willing to use letal force to prevent Joel from stopping a pointless homicide by people who by all means should know better.

The surgeon himself was one of the people who tries to kill Joel. The game makes you kill him in response.

Regardless of whether you think that Joel made the right call or not, his decision was not in any way based on morality. He wasn't rescuing an innocent, he was rescuing someone he cared about personally. This is obvious in his dialogue with Marlene. When she tells him Ellie has to die to create a vaccine, he does not balk at the morality of her statement. He says, and I quote, "Find someone else." In other words, Joel is perfectly fine with them cutting up the brain of some other 14 year old girl. Just not that one, specifically.

The head surgeon so strongly believes that killing Ellie will save the entire human race that he is willing to kill Joel to go through with it. The game isn't trying to make a statement in that scene that the surgeon is evil and must be killed. (Also 'the game makes you' is a weird take. The player does not 'make' any narrative choices whatsoever in either game. Joel makes decisions in the first game, and Ellie and Abby make them in the second. But the player is never given a choice in anything that involves the narrative.)

[Rynjin]

You're right, the Fireflies never gave Ellie a choice. But neither did Joel. And it was pretty clear that if Ellie had been given a choice, she would have chosen to die. This is outright confirmed in the second game, but it was heavily implied in the first game,

Yeah, I don't think the opinion of an idealistic child really matters in this situation. Given that, the choice being made for her that keeps her alive, rather than committing suicide by surgeon (for dubious reasoning and likely little if any utilitarian value) is the more morally correct one. That said:

Regardless of whether you think that Joel made the right call or not, his decision was not in any way based on morality. He wasn't rescuing an innocent, he was rescuing someone he cared about personally. This is obvious in his dialogue with Marlene. When she tells him Ellie has to die to create a vaccine, he does not balk at the morality of her statement. He says, and I quote, "Find someone else." In other words, Joel is perfectly fine with them cutting up the brain of some other 14 year old girl. Just not that one, specifically.

This I agree with. Joel does the right thing by coincidence rather than choice, and for purely selfish reasons of his own. Which is where the moral grey comes in.

Really, all this thread has convinced me of is that the first game's writing kind of sucked too, at least plot-wise. At least I liked the characters in that one though.

[JadedDM]

Yeah, I don't think the opinion of an idealistic child really matters in this situation. Given that, the choice being made for her that keeps her alive, rather than committing suicide by surgeon (for dubious reasoning and likely little if any utilitarian value) is the more morally correct one.

I think Ellie's choice was less based on idealism than it was on survivor's guilt. As she said herself, she was still 'waiting on her turn.' In the second game, she (as an adult), stated it would have 'given her life meaning.'

Regardless, if we're judging the choice strictly from a moral perspective, well, if a single person's death can save thousands or even millions of lives, and that person is willing to make that sacrifice, then it seems the moral choice would be to sacrifice her. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or even the one," to quote a certain Vulcan.

The situation only becomes immoral if you accept the premise that the Fireflies had zero chance of actually succeeding--something several people here keep asserting as undeniably true, but something the game itself does not state or even imply.

[Rynjin]

I think Ellie's choice was less based on idealism than it was on survivor's guilt. As she said herself, she was still 'waiting on her turn.' In the second game, she (as an adult), stated it would have 'given her life meaning.'

Regardless, if we're judging the choice strictly from a moral perspective, well, if a single person's death can save thousands or even millions of lives, and that person is willing to make that sacrifice, then it seems the moral choice would be to sacrifice her. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or even the one," to quote a certain Vulcan.

The situation only becomes immoral if you accept the premise that the Fireflies had zero chance of actually succeeding--something several people here keep asserting as undeniably true, but something the game itself does not state or even imply.

You have essentially advocated the position that human sacrifice is moral. Cutting Ellie open is only marginally different than throwing the virgin into a volcano to appease the mountain spirit. Whether it works/the mountain spirit is real, or not, this was not a moral choice, at least in my view. It may have been a necessity, but what is necessary is not always what is moral.

But I'm not a philosopher; maybe I'm confusing morality and ethics or some such fumble of terminology.

[JadedDM]

You have essentially advocated the position that human sacrifice is moral.

Perhaps so, but so have you. However, I advocate that sacrificing one (willing) life to save millions is more moral than what you are advocating--sacrificing whatever remains of humanity to save the life of one person.

[Dire_Flumph]

Spoiler: Hospital Basement

Show

Is it even possible to kill it when its chasing you? I didn't even try, I just ran at full sprint! Once I did start fighting it, I chucked all four of my pipe bombs at it, one at a time, and when that didn't kill it, I really started to worry. Surprised I didn't die even once in that fight.

Spoiler: Hospital Basement

Show

I don't think you can do anything to harm it until you get to the arena-ish area. I messed up myself and died a lot. I'd used up all of my pipe bombs and other special ammo a little earlier in the hospital when I hit a group of infected and panicked. So by the time I got to the fight with whatever that was, I had no bombs and no incendiary ammo. There's enough stuff in the basement to craft enough explosives and incendiaries to kill it, but you have to run through the dark with that thing crashing through walls, grab enough stuff to craft one bomb then throw it and do the whole thing over again because just one won't cut it.

It was a tough fight on hard difficulty, and I got stuck badly enough that I considered replaying the entire hospital sequence. When I thought I killed it the first time and it literally just split in two I seriously freaked out and had to step away from the game for a bit. But I finally took it down in the end and it was a very satisfying victory. A real high point in the game.

[JadedDM]

I can't even imagine playing that scene on Hard. I was on Normal the whole time, so that's probably what saved me.

By the way, any speculation on what Naughty Dog might do next? I heard there will be no DLC for this game and I know they're working on a TV show for the series. It feels like the Uncharted series is pretty much done. Maybe a brand new IP?