Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

The brilliance of TLOU 2 is found in the simple fact that the game is still being discussed and debated a year after it was released. Extraordinary.

 

[Ulysses 31]

The funny thing is that I dont remember years ago the ending on the hospital beeing this controversial or doubious thing, most if not all my friends felt that Joels actions where right for that story, It took the retcon on the second gane to some of them think this ways... its strange but the story manipulation in the prologue done by ND worked for some people like a charm

I must admit, on first playthrough I was in the camp that Joel was a selfish oaf that doomed the world.

It wasn't until I went over the hospital scenes again that I changed my mind. It's thanks to that part 2's retelling of part 1 felt off and the game started off on the wrong foot for me.

 

[DForce]

The funny thing is that I dont remember years ago the ending on the hospital beeing this controversial or doubious thing, most if not all my friends felt that Joels actions where right for that story, It took the retcon on the second gane to some of them think this ways... its strange but the story manipulation in the prologue done by ND worked for some people like a charm

The story at the end of Part I is the same story that was told at the beginning of Part II.

A retcon would mean a plot point changed from one game to the next, but they're the same.

 

[Ulysses 31]

The story at the end of Part I is the same story that was told at the beginning of Part II.

A retcon would mean a plot point changed from one game to the next, but they're the same.

The doctor and operating room change would qualify as retcons.

Retcon doesn't have to mean plot point changes, a subsequent revision of established events is enough.

That reddit posted earlier does a good job of explaining and showing the retcons.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

The story at the end of Part I is the same story that was told at the beginning of Part II.

A retcon would mean a plot point changed from one game to the next, but they're the same.

I think the term "emotional manipulation," refers not to the events changing, but the context in which the audience receives said events. In part I, the hospital was conveyed as a desperate, thrilling, doing the right thing, saving the girl, crowning moment of character development for our jaded protagonist, and the escape as a heart wrenching/warming display of a man's love for his surrogate daughter. The moral quandary is only given voice in the final minutes of the game after Ellie wakes up.

In Part II, the prologue is shot silently, with wide camera angles and dingy lighting, close ups of blood pools, etc. It's painted like a horror scene. The emotions conveyed through the music, dialogue, and cinematography are wholly skewed to one side as "this is violent. This is ugly. This is what one man did for another human at the cost of countless innocent lives. He doesn't care about the price,"

Same events, but framed completely differently. Clearly intentional, but clearly manipulative. Your take on whether this was warranted or not is another discussion.

 

[DForce]

The doctor and operating room change would qualify as retcons.

Retcon doesn't have to mean plot point changes, a subsequent revision of established events is enough.

That reddit posted earlier does a good job of explaining and showing the retcons.

I read that post, and it's dumb.

Only thing that changed is the character's skin, but that's not even an important factor. The entire scene is due to lighting. The entire post is just more tlou2 therapy sessions because they're having a hard time accepting what happened in the game.

 

[DForce]

I think the term "emotional manipulation," refers not to the events changing, but the context in which the audience receives said events. In part I, the hospital was conveyed as a desperate, thrilling, doing the right thing, saving the girl, crowning moment of character development for our jaded protagonist, and the escape as a heart wrenching/warming display of a man's love for his surrogate daughter. The moral quandary is only given voice in the final minutes of the game after Ellie wakes up.

In Part II, the prologue is shot silently, with wide camera angles and dingy lighting, close ups of blood pools, etc. It's painted like a horror scene. The emotions conveyed through the music, dialogue, and cinematography are wholly skewed to one side as "this is violent. This is ugly. This is what one man did for another human at the cost of countless innocent lives. He doesn't care about the price,"

Same events, but framed completely differently. Clearly intentional, but clearly manipulative. Your take on whether this was warranted or not is another discussion.

It's easy to say that the music and tone was something to make the player feel like they were committing a heroic act, but as soon as the scene changed to Joel riding in the car with Ellie, things changed.

Joel was uncomfortable lying to Ellie and the act he committed against Marlenewas portrayed in a pretty dark way.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

It's easy to say that the music and tone was something to make the player feel like they were committing a heroic act, but as soon as the scene changed to Joel riding in the car with Ellie, things changed.

Joel was uncomfortable lying to Ellie and the act he committed against Marlenewas portrayed in a pretty dark way.

Yes, absolutely, and I mentioned that in my post. I take the piss out of this game a lot, just because the hatred has kind of become a meme at this point, but make no mistake, I wasn't claiming one thing or another, just stating that the mood taken from that same scene was portrayed from another angle between parts I and II. Seems like Druckman wanted to paint the entire hospital bit in the same ambience as the conclusion to part I. It was obviously to serve the narrative he wanted to tell in part II. Whether you like that change in perspective is up to the player.

 

[Balducci30]

I definitely agree some of it may be a bit heavy-handed, but in a sort of operatic, post-modern morality play like this... a bit of heavy-handedness is de rigueur. And none of it is without a reason, that stuff is like a direct contrast to the time we've spent with the more innocent, charming Ellie in the previous game. To look at this transformation this person has gone through, look at what this one decision has done to her/what the impact was on her.

I've never been saying the game is perfect. I just find many of these arguments to be weak.
Some of them I outright agree with -- the pacing criticisms are 100% legit IMO.

I think a lot of people just are holding it to a very high standard because the first really nailed effective dramatic storytelling in a videogame like very few games have in the past. In terms of game story telling it’s better than most - I didn’t feel it lived up to the first that way - largely due to the major pacing issues. Abbys section (despite my complaints about heavy handed ness) was just far better to me story wise than Ellies (which I felt dragged on way too long).
But then again I don’t really think that continuing Joel and Ellie’s story was fertile ground narratively anyway.

 

[EruditeHobo]

I think the term "emotional manipulation," refers not to the events changing, but the context in which the audience receives said events. In part I, the hospital was conveyed as a desperate, thrilling, doing the right thing, saving the girl, crowning moment of character development for our jaded protagonist, and the escape as a heart wrenching/warming display of a man's love for his surrogate daughter. The moral quandary is only given voice in the final minutes of the game after Ellie wakes up.

Wow. This is mind-blowingly wrong.

Joel runs from the operating room being hunted like a dog. Flashlights follow him through the corridors as a tragically somber string instrument whines on the soundtrack. The encounter in the parking garage then doubles down and reinforces that Joel is clearly acting selfishly; "it's what she'd want! ... and you know it" are the words spoken to Joel to try and reason with him. The doctor takes her weapon off Joel and approaches him very slowly, Joel then kills her which is nothing if not a violent rebuff of her statement which hurts him... because he knows they it's true, at least somewhat.

Cut to the car, Joel is immediately spinning bullshit, lying to Ellie as she wakes up... "there's dozens more immune! they didn't need you" or whatever. And then it ends with the big lie to her direct question.

I'm sorry, but you've made it clear you completely misread the point and tone of this ending.

 

[RCU005]

The doctor and operating room change would qualify as retcons.

Retcon doesn't have to mean plot point changes, a subsequent revision of established events is enough.

That reddit posted earlier does a good job of explaining and showing the retcons.

I am reading the reddit post and it's very insightful, and most likely true in the author's opinion. However, there's a paragraph that reflects my thoughts that made me write this thread:

"I also find it interesting what the prologue omits. This is supposed to be a recap of the original game, intended to introduce new players to this world. But there is no mention of Sarah? No mention of Tess, the one person that motivated Joel to start this journey with Ellie in the first place? And no mention of Riley as well?"

When I said that they focused too much on the characters and forgot the world, I was thinking of this. In the first game, they introduced a dangerous virus that destroyed humanity, and in this game all this came in second or third or just like a backup. Like the characters were saying: Oh yeah zombies, I remember there were zombies in here.

Add to that the mention of the paragraph, which is so true! There's no mention of any of the important characters of the first game outside of very tiny Easter eggs (like Joel and Sarah photograph).

In fact, reading the reddit post, made me think that instead of dividing the game in two, the first half should've probably been about the outcome of everything Joel and Ellie did in the first game. There's a time jump between the first and second game and that gives them a chance to make a game or DLC about that time frame, but it really seems odd that the focus of this game was the drama, instead of everything about the world and characters.

I did like the story by itself but it was a story that could've worked in any setting.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Wow. This is mind-blowingly wrong.

Joel runs from the operating room being hunted like a dog. Flashlights follow him through the corridors as a tragically somber string instrument whines on the soundtrack. The encounter in the parking garage then doubles down and reinforces that Joel is clearly acting selfishly; "it's what she'd want! ... and you know it" are the words spoken to Joel to try and reason with him. The doctor takes her weapon off Joel and approaches him very slowly, Joel then kills her which is nothing if not a violent rebuff of her statement which hurts him... because he knows they it's true, at least somewhat.

Cut to the car, Joel is immediately spinning bullshit, lying to Ellie as she wakes up... "there's dozens more immune! they didn't need you" or whatever. And then it ends with the big lie to her direct question.

I'm sorry, but you've made it clear you completely misread the point and tone of this ending.

Or we just interpreted events differently? Step off of my nutsack. It's not that big of a deal, ROFL.

As I said, it wasn't until the final few moments of the conclusion (the things you just eloquently elaborated on in a calm and rational manner) that the adrenaline of the scene dies down and we're left the sobering reality of Ellie's end of things. I don't think I got anything "mind blowingly," wrong.

 

[EruditeHobo]

I don't think I got anything "mind blowingly," wrong.

Not unless words have common usages!

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Not unless words have common usages!

Okay. Go off, then.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Okay. Go off, then.

The argument speaks for itself already. People can feel however they want, but the argument is what matters.

This series constantly juxtaposes gaming mechanics and tropes which we as gamers are meant to feel are "triumphant"... but they are used to navigate a story with shifting perspectives, which provides points of view which make these gameplay moments very conflicted when it comes to ideas about "winning" or "triumph". The most climactic moments are rife with inner conflict and cognitive dissonance; the "boss battles" are often vicious, ugly, and even tragic. The series is about flawed, selfish characters whose lives are drastically impacted by past mistakes. And that dissonance is transferred to the gamer via the specific juxtaposition of "heroic" gameplay and the brutality of the narrative twists and the shifting point of view.

The ending of TLOU1 is one of the most obvious examples of this in the series... there's nothing narratively triumphant about it, in terms of how it is presented. Joel rescues his friend, sure, but then he shoots an effectively unarmed doctor and lies his ass off to that friend so he can avoid a difficult conversation. This is the opposite of "triumph" and heroism.

 

[DForce]

I am reading the reddit post and it's very insightful, and most likely true in the author's opinion. However, there's a paragraph that reflects my thoughts that made me write this thread:

"I also find it interesting what the prologue omits. This is supposed to be a recap of the original game, intended to introduce new players to this world. But there is no mention of Sarah? No mention of Tess, the one person that motivated Joel to start this journey with Ellie in the first place? And no mention of Riley as well?"

The problem with that reddit post is that it makes a lot of assumptions.

@53:50


Neil said Troy Baker thought there was too much "previously on The Last of Us" and just focused on what happened at the hospital. It wouldn't make any sense for Joel to bring up Tommy because he doesn't really know much about her other than how she died.

Considering that Joel is talking to Tommy, there would be no reason for him to really bring up Sarah or Tess since Tommy well aware of what happened with Sarah and Tess. What Tommy doesn't know is what happened at the hospital, which is the focal point of the conversation.

 

[zkorejo]

Here's what it boils down to for me; Amazing graphics, Good gameplay, cool level design (especially the last level), bad characters, bad story. And no I'm not saying it's bad because Joel died.

 

[MrMephistoX]

Joel dying isn’t the issue. The story trying to say that he deserved to die is the problem.

I stopped playing when

Spoiler

you’re playing as Abbey and have to then try kill Ellie

That moment was just too fucked up for me.
Turn off, delete.

I enjoyed it and yes from a certain point of view they both deserved to die. That’s the strength of the writing it’s like they spent the first game building Ellie and Joel up and the 2nd game kind of tearing them down. It’s like the quote attributed to Confucius goes: “When you begin a journey of revenge, start by digging two graves.” yes it’s fucked up but it was also anything but rote.

 

[kanjobazooie]

I feel lonely knowing that I'm the only person on the planet who never gave a shit about Joel and Ellie. Abby isn't the best character ever created, but she was more interesting to me than any other character from TLoU 1&2 (if only because of her hilarious design lmao).

And I have to say, she looked cute when she appeared skinny at the end of the game. If they ever continued her story, I hope she never lift again.

 

[RoyalLaFlame]

I simply can't understand the hate this game has. Well written, clear to understand, good characters. Not as good as the first one but a damn fine game.

 

[RJMacready73]

This is the game that just keeps giving, read that reddit post and i dont see any issues, the first game came out years ago and told the story it needed to tell and was framed as such, the 2nd came out and they wanted to tell a different story so reframed the ending to suit the newer story... big fucking deal, its the same beats, the same outcome just tweaked slightly so that it now fits with bigger story they're telling in the new one.. i mean c'mon guys.. its a fucking videogame, seriously who wastes this much mental energy trying to explain or shoot down made up digital characters, must be a young thing but then again younger me wouldnt have given this much a fuck either tbh

 

[mxbison]

They went a little too crazy with the story at the end and the pacing wasn't always on point, but the combat gameplay is so freaking good.

I'm definitely gonna replay it on PS5 soon, something I don't do often.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

The argument speaks for itself already. People can feel however they want, but the argument is what matters.

This series constantly juxtaposes gaming mechanics and tropes which we as gamers are meant to feel are "triumphant"... but they are used to navigate a story with shifting perspectives, which provides points of view which make these gameplay moments very conflicted when it comes to ideas about "winning" or "triumph". The most climactic moments are rife with inner conflict and cognitive dissonance; the "boss battles" are often vicious, ugly, and even tragic. The series is about flawed, selfish characters whose lives are drastically impacted by past mistakes. And that dissonance is transferred to the gamer via the specific juxtaposition of "heroic" gameplay and the brutality of the narrative twists and the shifting point of view.

The ending of TLOU1 is one of the most obvious examples of this in the series... there's nothing narratively triumphant about it, in terms of how it is presented. Joel rescues his friend, sure, but then he shoots an effectively unarmed doctor and lies his ass off to that friend so he can avoid a difficult conversation. This is the opposite of "triumph" and heroism.

I'd argue that the scene where Joel is told Ellie is going to die, refuses it, and is escorted out of the hospital, only to decide last minute to turn the tables and go on his rescue mission WAS a triumphant moment for HIS character in a vacuum. This is the culmination of his character arc. Where he decides that he won't lose another daughter. The adrenaline runs high in this scene, and the rest of the game until the operating room is nonstop. I don't see how with the way the story is framed and the perspective with which you undertake said story, you didn't, as a player, feel invigoration and pride in this moment. The Fireflies weren't painted as nice guys in Part I. Joel gets escorted off the premises at gunpoint with the "innocent, good person," doing the escorting saying "Give me a fucking reason," in reference to shooting him dead after delivering Ellie across the country. It's all perspective.

 

[Ulysses 31]

This is the game that just keeps giving, read that reddit post and i dont see any issues, the first game came out years ago and told the story it needed to tell and was framed as such, the 2nd came out and they wanted to tell a different story so reframed the ending to suit the newer story...

Well, if you're recapping a story and leave out details or changing appearances of situations it can come across as too biased.

But you're right, it's possible ND wanted to continue the story from a certain point and made a stance on the ambiguity of part 1.

i mean c'mon guys.. its a fucking videogame, seriously who wastes this much mental energy trying to explain or shoot down made up digital characters, must be a young thing but then again younger me wouldnt have given this much a fuck either tbh

Games have become a powerful medium to tell stories, convey themes and concepts. I don't see all the discussions as having to much time on your hands. We're on a games forum after all.

 

[Neff]

I'd agree that most of TLoU2's minor inconsistencies with TLoU1 can be attributed to artistic reframing, but Marlene's revised motives are the only element which strikes me as an outright retcon. In 2 she's the moral voice of reason, pleading with Abby's dad to abandon the surgery. In 1 she gives orders to her soldiers to kill Joel if he interferes, and is willing to shoot him herself when he tries to take Ellie. It's kind of bullshit, but I guess it's what Part II needed to work.

I feel lonely knowing that I'm the only person on the planet who never gave a shit about Joel and Ellie.

I never liked them much either. TLoU1's DLC came close to winning me over with Ellie though.

Not as good as the first one but

That's right, it's better.

 

[MiguelItUp]

OP, don't look into it too much. However you feel with it, is how you feel. Because people adore it or hate it doesn't mean you have to align yourself with those same opinions. Just take it however you naturally accept it. That's basically what I did. When it wrapped I just kind of thought, "Well, alright. That's that." put it aside, and never thought about it again.

Hopefully you enjoyed it though! First impressions can and usually are the rawest reaction. Having to revisit something just to grasp how you feel about it sounds muddy to me IMO.

 

[EruditeHobo]

I'd argue that the scene where Joel is told Ellie is going to die, refuses it, and is escorted out of the hospital, only to decide last minute to turn the tables and go on his rescue mission WAS a triumphant moment for HIS character in a vacuum.

Perhaps! I think this is the exact thing the game is riffing on... but it's not at all presented as triumphant in terms of the story/semiotics.

Well, if you're recapping a story and leave out details or changing appearances of situations it can come across as too biased.

It's not a "recap", the intro is a reaction to Joel's story of what happened. His brother is kind of disgusted by what he did and ends the conversation. In a game about perspectives and points of view, this is impactful because it's setting up the gulf between Joel and Ellie -- to Joel, he did the right thing but to others, including Ellie and Tommy, it's not that simple.

 

[Ulysses 31]

It's not a "recap", the intro is a reaction to Joel's story of what happened. His brother is kind of disgusted by what he did and ends the conversation.

It's Joel himself telling the story in very abridged version. You're right, it doesn't qualify as a recap, my bad.

In a game about perspectives and points of view, this is impactful because it's setting up the gulf between Joel and Ellie -- to Joel, he did the right thing but to others, including Ellie and Tommy, it's not that simple.

In a game about multiple side, don't you think it's important to represent the sides fairly? It doesn't make sense Joel would present his side the way he does unless he really wants to appear villainous to those who don't know how part 1 went down.

 

[EruditeHobo]

In a game about multiple side, don't you think it's important to represent the sides fairly? It doesn't make sense Joel would present his side the way he does unless he really wants to appear villainous to those who don't know how part 1 went down.

"Fair" doesn't have much to do with it, that seems like the opposite of what TLOU2 is concerned with honestly; what is fair or justified to one person is a gross injustice/act of aggression to another.

Regardless of that... all anyone needs is the 1st game. His final "rescue" is not heroic, and the note the game finishes on is kind of sad and uncomfortable. They don't go off in the sunset together, because Joel is clearly lying. That's where the 2nd game starts, too, with him admitting that lie to Tommy.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Perhaps! I think this is the exact thing the game is riffing on... but it's not at all presented as triumphant in terms of the story/semiotics.



It's not a "recap", the intro is a reaction to Joel's story of what happened. His brother is kind of disgusted by what he did and ends the conversation. In a game about perspectives and points of view, this is impactful because it's setting up the gulf between Joel and Ellie -- to Joel, he did the right thing but to others, including Ellie and Tommy, it's not that simple.

Yeah, I think we both agree on this point, to a degree. I feel like the first game kind of framed the actions as noble, because the majority of the story was told from Joel's perspective. I think the surgery scene was Joel kills Abby's father all the way to the end credits is ND kind of...inverting that perspective. The way I always saw it was a traditional badass cinema action movie romp, cutting down soldiers and taking cover and a real "man on a mission," vibe, only for the adrenaline of the situation to drain and the reality of the real world consequences to set in. Like how when you injure yourself, it usually doesn't start hurting until several minutes later. I think Tommy's reaction to the story in Part II kind of reinforces this. But if you or anyone else interpreted it differently, that's absolutely fine. Art is malleable, and means different things to different people.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Story was trash. Out of character, awful, trash. Rest of the game is fantastic though from just about every production angle. But the story was trash enough that I can't bring myself to sit through another slog of a playthrough.

 

[Ulysses 31]

"Fair" doesn't have much to do with it, that seems like the opposite of what TLOU2 is concerned with honestly; what is fair or justified to one person is a gross injustice/act of aggression to another.

I wasn't talking about fairness as in actions performed but fairness in presenting both sides of the situation/argument, who's more just is a different topic indeed . Part 2 isn't being fair in that regard IMO.

Regardless of that... all anyone needs is the 1st game. His final "rescue" is not heroic, and the note the game finishes on is kind of sad and uncomfortable. They don't go off in the sunset together, because Joel is clearly lying. That's where the 2nd game starts, too, with him admitting that lie to Tommy.

He puts his in great peril for Ellie, at the very least I can't call him completely selfish.

 

[hyperbertha]

The brilliance of TLOU 2 is found in the simple fact that the game is still being discussed and debated a year after it was released. Extraordinary.

I haven't played the game yet because I heard it was a generic revenge plot where Ellie overcomes revenge in the end. I'd like someone to change my opinion WITHOUT SPOILERS on whether there is more complexity to the story or if there is a bigger purpose to it than just revenge with Abby. Like are there more interesting villains (without spoiling them obviously), more interesting plot points...etc?

 

[Topher]

I haven't played the game yet because I heard it was a generic revenge plot where Ellie overcomes revenge in the end. I'd like someone to change my opinion WITHOUT SPOILERS on whether there is more complexity to the story or if there is a bigger purpose to it than just revenge with Abby. Like are there more interesting villains (without spoiling them obviously), more interesting plot points...etc?

There is more to it than Ellie's revenge. I'm not going to say anything more about the story, but I found it to be really good. Sucks some have spoiled part of it for you, but what you don't know and the game play itself is enough to still play it. There are a different sort of villain in parts that play into the story in a lot of ways. The rest you'll just have to play to find out. I think what you heard does the game a disservice.

 

[Bernardougf]

I must admit, on first playthrough I was in the camp that Joel was a selfish oaf that doomed the world.

It wasn't until I went over the hospital scenes again that I changed my mind. It's thanks to that part 2's retelling of part 1 felt off and the game started off on the wrong foot for me.

Yeah sure! You and anyone can read that scene as "joel is wrong" or "joel is right" ... most people i know and thats not mutch, said they agreed with the decision joel made, BUT, part 2 changes the picture to tell the same story, and the picture is, joel is a monster and did something very wrong to very nice people whoo god knows how would save the world....If people liked this direction or this version ? Okay... thats nice... but some people dont . And some people dont agree with the story they remenber and can replay .. beeing changed or presented this way... even more with a liked character like joel

 

[ProudClod]

The problem with this game (whether or not it was manipulative, or whether it pedaled back on the intent original) is that it's entirely pointless.

The original was a beautiful, bittersweet story of a man coming to grips with the reality of losing his daughter, and being willing to sacrifice the entire world to prevent it from happening again. It is both redeeming and damning. There is growth and catharsis to this story, as dark as it is. Ultimately, there's a point to this journey (whether or not you think it's a "happy" ending).

TLOU2 is utterly fucking pointless.

The closest you can get to coming up with a theme is the boring, uninspired, and beaten to death idea that "violence begets violence." The way this game was handled reminds me of the latter half of the Walking Dead show -- with meaningless gore, shock-factor character deaths, and a painfully slow slide into apathy.

I walked away feeling cheated.

The world ending sacrifice at the end of TLOU1 meant nothing, and none of our characters learn anything worthwhile. At best, Ellie returns to the same sense of morality she started the game with (i.e. zero transformation). At worst, she is a weak and pathetic shell of who she was at the beginning of the story -- and there's no redemption.

It's like me telling you a 30-hour story about some guy that has lots of shitty things happen to him over and over again, but instead of learning something or overcoming adversity, he just slowly devolves into a vegetable until there's nothing interesting to tell. Wow. Such art.

Also, the gameplay got incredibly stale after about 10 - 12 hours (the free-roam section of Seattle was best). Humans, infected, stores to loot and safes to crack, humans, infected, stores, etc. No new mechanics (unless you count the stupid simple rope throwing) and deceptively straightforward level design. This would have been way more fun if it was 15 hours long.

HOWEVER:

- Best looking PS4 game, bar none. The art and rendering engine are just phenomenal
- Excellent voice acting and motion capture. They've got it down to a science

 

[Neff]

I haven't played the game yet because I heard it was a generic revenge plot where Ellie overcomes revenge in the end. I'd like someone to change my opinion WITHOUT SPOILERS on whether there is more complexity to the story or if there is a bigger purpose to it than just revenge with Abby.

If you're willing to pay attention and read between the lines, then yes, there is more to it. Context is *everything* in this game, it'll frequently and strategically reveal new beats which throws what you know into a new light.

The story isn't ultimately about revenge. It sure is the mother of all catalysts and a continuing theme throughout, but the game has more to say than a simple mandate of 'revenge bad', which was the summary from most who went in unwilling to look at the story's many nuances.

 

[Ulysses 31]

I haven't played the game yet because I heard it was a generic revenge plot where Ellie overcomes revenge in the end. I'd like someone to change my opinion WITHOUT SPOILERS on whether there is more complexity to the story or if there is a bigger purpose to it than just revenge with Abby. Like are there more interesting villains (without spoiling them obviously), more interesting plot points...etc?

As Neff said, there's also things like each side having their reasons for doing what they're doing and "Every villain is the hero in his/her own story" angle.

 

[DForce]

Yeah sure! You and anyone can read that scene as "joel is wrong" or "joel is right" ... most people i know and thats not mutch, said they agreed with the decision joel made, BUT, part 2 changes the picture to tell the same story, and the picture is, joel is a monster and did something very wrong to very nice people whoo god knows how would save the world....If people liked this direction or this version ? Okay... thats nice... but some people dont . And some people dont agree with the story they remenber and can replay .. beeing changed or presented this way... even more with a liked character like joel

Nothing was changed because the game did not end happily for both characters.

If anyone played The Last of Us should have known at least two of these things were going to happen in The Last of Us Part II:

1. Ellie and Joel were going to have a strained relationship.
2. Someone linked to the Fireflies might come after Joel.

The last two cutscenes were designed to make the player feel sympathy.

Joel - "If somehow the lord gave me a second chance at that moment, I would do it all over again."

I don't see how anyone can say it was presented or changed to make Joel out to be a monster.

 

[Ulysses 31]

I don't see how anyone can say it was presented or changed to make Joel out to be a monster.

Come on, leaving out all the times the Fireflies threatened Joel but adding lingering shots of Fireflies corpses is painting Joel as the sole aggressor.

Part 2 took a stance on Joel's part 1 actions, fine. But those very familiar with part 1's events may have something to say about that.

 

[DForce]

Come on, leaving out all the times the Fireflies threatened Joel but adding lingering shots of Fireflies corpses is painting Joel as the sole aggressor.

Part 2 took a stance on Joel's part 1 actions, fine. But those very familiar with part 1's events may have something to say about that.

Let's say for a second you're right that about how he was portrayed in TLOU 2.


- Joel's birthday gift to Ellie.
- Abby's redemption arc is likely linked to guilt over killing Joel, which she mentions 3 times. Neil also said how can Abby come back from committing such a horrible act.
- Joel steps in to protect Ellie after her dance with Dina. Ellie's expression
- Ellie putting on Joel's jacket to go after Abby
- Dina's son is named Jesse Joel.
- Joel tells Ellie if the Lord gave him a second chance at the moment, he would do it all over again.

The only scenes after Joel's were of Joel telling the lies again and confessing that he lied to Ellie.

Unless you completely ignore everything that happens after, it's clear that Joel wasn't portrayed as a monster.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Let's say for a second you're right that about how he was portrayed in TLOU 2.


- Joel's birthday gift to Ellie.
- Abby's redemption arc is likely linked to guilt over killing Joel, which she mentions 3 times. Neil also said how can Abby come back from committing such a horrible act.
- Joel steps in to protect Ellie after her dance with Dina. Ellie's expression
- Ellie putting on Joel's jacket to go after Abby
- Dina's son is named Jesse Joel.
- Joel tells Ellie if the Lord gave him a second chance at the moment, he would do it all over again.

The only scenes after Joel's were of Joel telling the lies again and confessing that he lied to Ellie.

Unless you completely ignore everything that happens after, it's clear that Joel wasn't portrayed as a monster.

I was only talking about the prologue but sure, in the overall game he's not portrayed as a monster(IMO).

But it's still an important first impression of Joel newcomers of TLOU are getting.

 

[DForce]

I was only talking about the prologue but sure, in the overall game he's not portrayed as a monster(IMO).

But it's still an important first impression of Joel for newcomers of TLOU are getting.

Oh, now it's only the prologue and not in the overall game?

I have nothing else to say then. lol

 

[Ulysses 31]

Oh, now it's only the prologue and not in the overall game?

I have nothing else to say then. lol

Nah, I also have some issues with some of the flashbacks but those are in the same vain as the prologue's.

How the story of a heavily story driven game starts isn't important? Ok, bro.

 

[EDMIX]

Yeah, I think we both agree on this point, to a degree

I think EruditeHobo has you dead to rights on this one man, he literally posted several factual things that occurred that directly go against that entire point.

I feel like the first game kind of framed the actions as noble,

Nah, not even remotely.

He is asked to leave, he is not shot on sight.

He kills several doctors, nurses etc that are unarmed

He kills Marlene that is unarmed.

He lies to Ellie about the entire event.

Sir....even if we fucking just talk about WHY he did it or PERSPECTIVES, we can't ignore the facts of the event and say some shit like "framed the actions as nobl-" nah bud, nothing here even remotely suggest that, even a slightly. You are taking your VIEW of what he did and forcing this idea that the game "Framed" something this way or that way.

Lets say they did want to frame it as noble.

Why allow him to freely leave their area, why not have them try to kill him on sight and he is fighting back?
Why not have a fire fight with Marlene and she saying shit like "give me the fucking PAWN so we can get that vaccine, she better off DEAD?"
Why not have Ellie then hear this whole event and have her like "oh I almost died? You SAVED ME JOEL, fuck Fireflies"

How come NONE OF THAT SHIT occurred if the goal was to um "frame" this as a noble act? The fuck? You can believe what he did was that, you can't argue THE GAME shows that 100%. You are forcing your view of the character, as a solid fact of the events of the game and most of what you are saying don't even get supported in the actual game itself.

if you or anyone else interpreted it differently

We factually see that isn't the case, I don't know how someone killing unarmed people and then lying about it was suppose to be "interpreted" as noble lol

My fucking god, even his character not being honest about it shows he is not proud of this event, he knows what he did was wrong, thus lies, nothing here shows this is something just, noble etc, as to why he lies in BOTH games in the first place.

So you can feel the killing of the people is just, the lie is just, but you really can't argue THE GAME ITSELF is telling you its a justified thing or something, waaay too much happens to show otherwise. Its why many of us who played lots of the first game knew Joel would die in part 2. I personally always thought it would be Marlene's family or something the way she dies at the end lol

I think Tommy's reaction to the story in Part II kind of reinforces this

Not really. He states

"Jesus Christ, Joel. What’d you do?" NOT "CONGRATULATIONS"

and

"Goddamn. That’s... That’s a lot. What does Ellie know?" NOT "She must be so proud of you for saving her"

and

"About what we were talkin’ about earlier... I can’t say I’d’ve done different. I’ll take it to the grave, if I have to." taking it to the grave is a positive thing? Oh we fucking say that for great accomplishments or?

He saying he would do the same doesn't mean anything is noble. You can fucking say you'd kill someone too, you'd rape someone too, you'd burn someone to death and be like "can’t say I’d’ve done different" lol that just means you are like that perosn, NOT that what that person did was noble. My god, even Tommy reacting this way shows a shock, to keep it secret even to say some shit like "to the grave" doesn't even remotely imply a positive thing occurred and or "noble". The setting being in this old house with them by themselves doesn't help either, it shows its a secret, they needed to fucking LEAVE Jackson to even have that talk implying its not a positive thing.

Like I stated before, you are free to believe anything you feel like it with that character, but please apply the facts of the events to the game vs "I agree with character", you can do that, that doesn't mean lying implies good, speaking in dark houses is cause the topic is a good one, killing unarmed people is noble lol Regardless of how you feel, I just don't see anyway around how those events are shown and done that even shows anything noble, its clear the game isn't show anything like that.

As to why you don't fucking have a massive fire fight with Marlene telling you to give her da pawn to be killed lol If we wanted to make a "noble" ending, I'm 100% positive we can, we can't with the current Last Of Us 1 or 2, nothing like that shows those events in that light man. No difference of opinion either, that is just ignoring facts at this point.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

I think EruditeHobo has you dead to rights on this one man, he literally posted several factual things that occurred that directly go against that entire point.

Nah, not even remotely.

He is asked to leave, he is not shot on sight.

He kills several doctors, nurses etc that are unarmed

He kills Marlene that is unarmed.

He lies to Ellie about the entire event.

Sir....even if we fucking just talk about WHY he did it or PERSPECTIVES, we can't ignore the facts of the event and say some shit like "framed the actions as nobl-" nah bud, nothing here even remotely suggest that, even a slightly. You are taking your VIEW of what he did and forcing this idea that the game "Framed" something this way or that way.

Lets say they did want to frame it as noble.

Why allow him to freely leave their area, why not have them try to kill him on sight and he is fighting back?
Why not have a fire fight with Marlene and she saying shit like "give me the fucking PAWN so we can get that vaccine, she better off DEAD?"
Why not have Ellie then hear this whole event and have her like "oh I almost died? You SAVED ME JOEL, fuck Fireflies"

How come NONE OF THAT SHIT occurred if the goal was to um "frame" this as a noble act? The fuck? You can believe what he did was that, you can't argue THE GAME shows that 100%. You are forcing your view of the character, as a solid fact of the events of the game and most of what you are saying don't even get supported in the actual game itself.


We factually see that isn't the case, I don't know how someone killing unarmed people and then lying about it was suppose to be "interpreted" as noble lol

My fucking god, even his character not being honest about it shows he is not proud of this event, he knows what he did was wrong, thus lies, nothing here shows this is something just, noble etc, as to why he lies in BOTH games in the first place.

So you can feel the killing of the people is just, the lie is just, but you really can't argue THE GAME ITSELF is telling you its a justified thing or something, waaay too much happens to show otherwise. Its why many of us who played lots of the first game knew Joel would die in part 2. I personally always thought it would be Marlene's family or something the way she dies at the end lol



Not really. He states

"Jesus Christ, Joel. What’d you do?" NOT "CONGRATULATIONS"

and

"Goddamn. That’s... That’s a lot. What does Ellie know?" NOT "She must be so proud of you for saving her"

and

"About what we were talkin’ about earlier... I can’t say I’d’ve done different. I’ll take it to the grave, if I have to." taking it to the grave is a positive thing? Oh we fucking say that for great accomplishments or?

He saying he would do the same doesn't mean anything is noble. You can fucking say you'd kill someone too, you'd rape someone too, you'd burn someone to death and be like "can’t say I’d’ve done different" lol that just means you are like that perosn, NOT that what that person did was noble. My god, even Tommy reacting this way shows a shock, to keep it secret even to say some shit like "to the grave" doesn't even remotely imply a positive thing occurred and or "noble". The setting being in this old house with them by themselves doesn't help either, it shows its a secret, they needed to fucking LEAVE Jackson to even have that talk implying its not a positive thing.

Like I stated before, you are free to believe anything you feel like it with that character, but please apply the facts of the events to the game vs "I agree with character", you can do that, that doesn't mean lying implies good, speaking in dark houses is cause the topic is a good one, killing unarmed people is noble lol Regardless of how you feel, I just don't see anyway around how those events are shown and done that even shows anything noble, its clear the game isn't show anything like that.

As to why you don't fucking have a massive fire fight with Marlene telling you to give her da pawn to be killed lol If we wanted to make a "noble" ending, I'm 100% positive we can, we can't with the current Last Of Us 1 or 2, nothing like that shows those events in that light man. No difference of opinion either, that is just ignoring facts at this point.

You misread what I was saying with the last quoted part. I meant Tommy's reaction to the story reinforces the change of perspective in the two games from Joel's "save the girl at all costs," to an outside perspective. Like I said, everything from Ellie waking up in the car and on points to this change in perspective, even down to the fact that the last playable sequence features Ellie and not Joel. I don't see how anyone plays the last area of TLOU and doesn't feel like an action hero. I feel like that was the entire point of the segment. For a big damned rescue that you're pumped up for, only to reach the end and be like "Damn, was this really a good thing we did?" I don't think I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND LOL, I just think people are reading my post wrong and, in your case, cherry picking specific parts of my post (not even complete statements in some cases) I mean, it is what it is.

 

[EDMIX]

I meant Tommy's reaction to the story reinforces the change of perspective in the two games from Joel's "save the girl at all costs,"

There is not change of perspective...

He kills Marlene unarmed in the first game.

He lies to Ellie about the entire thing.

The Fireflies allow him to leave.

I don't see how anyone plays the last area of TLOU and doesn't feel like an action hero.

Never said shit about that bud, he isn't even put as a "hero" based on the lying and killing Marlene while she is unarmed. It isn't some huge "hero" fire fight with her, its murdering her and lying about the whole thing, that isn't something you'd have much if any "heros" actually doing, especially if the point is to make them even SEEM like the hero, they wouldn't be fucking lying about the events afterwards bud. You keep trying to avoid that one part as if magically just screaming "hero" fixes all that shit and we must ignore him hiding this shit lol

I feel like that was the entire point of the segment.

You also feel like ignoring the point of him lying, murdering unarmed people etc.

Not sure where the fuck one would define a hero based on that. Your view of the person is irrelevant, their actions don't support a narrative of "hero" lol

For a big damned rescue that you're pumped up for, only to reach the end and be like "Damn, was this really a good thing we did?" I

Yea...then ignore killing Marlene unarmed, ignore him lying about the other people he killed and the whole event in general to Ellie, yup, "hero" LOL! FOH

You are trying so fucking hard to ignore that...



See the reactions, hear what they say, someone even fucking states "did he just lie to her" and then "what the fuck Joel"

Read even the fucking comments.

Sir....I don't know where you got that he was a "hero" or anything noble about such acts, I beat the fucking game 14 plus times and never was it even remotely hinted at him being a good guy, hero, noble or anything like that, like nothing.

All you have to fucking cling on to is "rescue" and then ignore all context of those events like murdering Marlene despite her surrendering, lying about it moments later to Ellie, even going as far as to say others like her exist.

Here is literally what folks are saying in the comments 6 plus years ago.

"at no point in the game - regardless of whether you're playing Ellie or Joel - are you the hero. You're survivors, that's all."

"The world took something from Joel. So Joel took something from the world."

"I love how twisted this ending is, neither good nor bad "

"What makes this game great is that Joel isn't a cookie cutter good guy. Him and Ellie are simply survivors. It's kill or be killed. "

 

[Dynasty8]

What I find odd is that fans of Game of Thrones (of which I am) loved it when popular characters were being brutally killed, however, when it happened in a game, gamers went nuts. All that says to me is that some gamers need to grow the fuck up.

Game of Thrones had more than enough interesting characters to compensate for that. LoU does not.

I didn't go "nuts", there were a lot of other things I didn't like about the game too.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

There is not change of perspective...

He kills Marlene unarmed in the first game.

He lies to Ellie about the entire thing.

The Fireflies allow him to leave.




Never said shit about that bud, he isn't even put as a "hero" based on the lying and killing Marlene while she is unarmed. It isn't some huge "hero" fire fight with her, its murdering her and lying about the whole thing, that isn't something you'd have much if any "heros" actually doing, especially if the point is to make them even SEEM like the hero, they wouldn't be fucking lying about the events afterwards bud. You keep trying to avoid that one part as if magically just screaming "hero" fixes all that shit and we must ignore him hiding this shit lol



You also feel like ignoring the point of him lying, murdering unarmed people etc.

Not sure where the fuck one would define a hero based on that. Your view of the person is irrelevant, their actions don't support a narrative of "hero" lol



Yea...then ignore killing Marlene unarmed, ignore him lying about the other people he killed and the whole event in general to Ellie, yup, "hero" LOL! FOH

You are trying so fucking hard to ignore that...



See the reactions, hear what they say, someone even fucking states "did he just lie to her" and then "what the fuck Joel"

Read even the fucking comments.

Sir....I don't know where you got that he was a "hero" or anything noble about such acts, I beat the fucking game 14 plus times and never was it even remotely hinted at him being a good guy, hero, noble or anything like that, like nothing.

All you have to fucking cling on to is "rescue" and then ignore all context of those events like murdering Marlene despite her surrendering, lying about it moments later to Ellie, even going as far as to say others like her exist.

Here is literally what folks are saying in the comments 6 plus years ago.

"at no point in the game - regardless of whether you're playing Ellie or Joel - are you the hero. You're survivors, that's all."

"The world took something from Joel. So Joel took something from the world."

"I love how twisted this ending is, neither good nor bad "

"What makes this game great is that Joel isn't a cookie cutter good guy. Him and Ellie are simply survivors. It's kill or be killed. "

I'm not trying hard to do anything, especially not ignore that. But it falls very firmly into the testosterone filled actiony tropes of 80's and 90's character action/thriller movies. The scene even ends witha 1-2 conversation point before the headshot.

"Let me go,"

"You'd just come after her,"

*gunshot*

If you can't see Stallone or Schwarzenegger saying something like that when facing their final opponent in a movie, I don't know. Watch more movies. I'm sure this will all be quoted out of context, too, but I'm not as severely engaged in proving a point as some people seem to be.

I'd say perspective does count for more than nothing. Everything, I'd go as far as to say. You keep going HE KEEPS SCREAMING HERO AND IGNORING MY POINTS #Triggered, assuming that my wording implies MY point of view on the character. It doesn't.

The first TLOU game very much is told from Joel's, wait for it, PERSPECTIVE. You play as him for a good 75% of the runtime, DLC included. The story begins with his life pre-outbreak. The decisions he makes all reflect and are based on what happened to Sarah. He is the protagonist. Not the hero, but the protagonist - the person that the events of the narrative primarily focus on and who's thoughts, feelings, and perspective the audience is most closely shown.

You're trying to tell me that the way the Fireflies were framed didn't change drastically from Part I to Part II? Take whatever knowledge or feelings Druckman made you feel in your big feely-organ and forget them. In Part I, you didn't hear that they were going to kill Ellie without even waking her up to get her consent, and didn't sympathize with Joel's feelings and perspective? You heard that soldier look at Joel, the man who just crossed the country to deliver them their organization's entire goal and say "Give me a reason [to shoot you] and said to yourself "What a great group of people!" You didn't rush out of the hospital room with all the gunshots and flashing lights toward the elevator with the dramatic strings in the background and feel the desperation and urgency in it all? An "us against the world," vibe? You were probably looking for the button on the controller to put Ellie down and surrender, right?

There's a *reason* we weren't told about the backgrounds of the Firefly members in Part I. There's a reason we didn't see Abby's father saving zebras, there's a reason we didn't see Abby. These pieces of narrative would conflict with the established tone of the story. I'll even give you that the momentum and perspective change occurred a scene earlier in the parking garage. But this is *classically* a hero's journey narrative. Where an unremarkable man grows, finds love, finds purpose and eventually does something thought beyond his capability for another. It's just that the outro paints it in a more realistic, "other people's points of view," way.

But that's what I feel these two games, these two companion pieces, were doing. Riffing off of each other. One piece about love, one about hate. One establishing a heroic (I know you hate that word, so I'm using it a bunch) archetype, and one deconstructing that archetype through other lenses. Think Return of the Jedi and The Last Jedi. It's a clever narrative choice.

But then again, I'm a foaming at the mouth, violence addicted, adrenaline junkie with a disturbing pattern of toxic masculinity who doesn't understand story telling after I gave up on it because The Hungry Caterpillar was too hard for my tiny brain to understand. So take what you will out of that, though I'm mostly assured it will just be fragments of sentences followed by "AMG HE SAID HERO," and completely misunderstanding the point of my posts.

 

[EDMIX]

I don't see how anyone plays the last area of TLOU and doesn't feel like an action hero.

Also you....

He is the protagonist. Not the hero, but the protagonist

HE SAID HERO," and completely misunderstanding the point of my posts.

Sir....when you are saying he um "feels like an action hero" only to then be like "not the hero, but"

Yeaaaaaaa ok pal. Not this but, oh he is this, but lol

The first TLOU game very much is told from Joel's, wait for it, PERSPECTIVE

He kills Marlene surrendering from his perspective and he lies from his perspective too bud... None of that changes objective facts....

One establishing a heroic

lol I can't man.

You fucking can't make this shit up, in the very post you are saying "not hero but" and then go on to say "establishing a heroic"

At the end of the day, we see him asked to leave, not killed on sight, we see him kill several people unarmed, we see him kill Marlene while she is surrendering, we see him lie to Ellie.

That fucking has NOTHING to do with perspective, those things factually fucking happened sir.

Even to make some "hero" ending, we'd need Joel being attacked as soon as he gets there with the girl and they like "its was a trap THE WHOLE TIME JOEL" lol (evil lolz laugh)

We'd need him to fight off all the armed people, fight Marlene at the end in a fire fight and have her like "I surrender Joel" and Joel being the "good guy" and or "hero" would say some shit like "oh Marlene, we funa head out cuh...OH SHIT" and she tires to kill him and he HAS to kill her back ala Goku fighting Freeza in the classic hero trope bullshit lol

None of that shit is happening sir, like zero.

You should have gotten that hint when he killed an unarmed person begging to live and then LYING about the entire thing to Ellie, none of that sounds like a "hero" type idea