Board 8 > The Last of Us 2 topic (ongoing spoilers)

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'd disagree entirely that the story is simply about revenge
It's about purpose, and empathy. Hate and connection, community and tribalism.

It's has a lot of themes running thru it


---

i don't think most of what you listed can be disassociated from the main themes, and are mostly used as tools to reinforce ellie's desires. i also don't think the game has anything deep to say. it offers glimpses of humanity and takes it away to show you what the world has lost, but that's a pretty simple story.

also "tribalism" has huge racist connotations as it reduces peoples (mostly indigenous but also black) white states consider primitive into a monolith, and strips all meaning from what a tribe is. it's something you might want to drop from your vocab!

---

I think the TLOU2 backlash was partially politically-motivated.

---

iiicon posted...

i don't think most of what you listed can be disassociated from the main themes, and are mostly used as tools to reinforce ellie's desires.

Okay? What does that have to do with what I said? I think the story is more complex then simply "revenge bad" and has more to say about other things, such as the things I listed. What do you mean by "tools to reinforce Ellie's desires"?

iiicon posted...

also "tribalism" has huge racist connotations as it reduces peoples (mostly indigenous but also black) white states consider primitive into a monolith, and strips all meaning from what a tribe is. it's something you might want to drop from your vocab!

I have never heard this before and sure, it certainly has a colonial bias associated with it. Wasnt how I meant it, I meant it more in an "in group/out group" way. Not sure of another word to use that gets at that basic connotation

---

Never really heard the phrase "tribalism" used in a racial context. Then again the first time I heard the word was Civilization IV.

---

I haven't really either but I understand that it can have racialized and colonial connotations.

Regardless. The entire point of the game, to me, was a criticism of in and out groups. It is why throwing Abby at us all of a sudden works so well. You are expected to react with disgust, just as we react with disgust to people who harbor beliefs that we don't agree with. It's hyperbolic, but it runs the same course. We hate Abby because of what she did, but we have no context at all for it. We hate her based on a single event in the entire timeline of her life. It isn't until we are able to engage with her a bit more that we start to soften to her, and see her as more then just the person who killed Joel.

---

Based on what I've heard about the plot, I assume Neil Druckmann just saw the franchise as a method of telling whatever post-apocalyptic story he wants to tell, without realizing and/or caring about how much people got attached to the characters of the first game. I at least applaud him for doing whatever he wanted, especially considering this was his baby in the first place, but the backlash is definitely understandable if not flat-out deserved.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Based on what I've heard about the plot, I assume Neil Druckmann just saw the franchise as a method of telling whatever post-apocalyptic story he wants to tell, without realizing and/or caring about how much people got attached to the characters of the first game. I at least applaud him for doing whatever he wanted, especially considering this was his baby in the first place, but the backlash is definitely understandable if not flat-out deserved.

I disagree. It's like stopping game of thrones cause ned dies

---

First off, technically a spoiler. Meh though.

More importantly, that's clearly a case of a major character death being built into the story from conception. I don't think the major death in this game is something that's completely out of place, but it's not at all the same thing.
---

its not a perfect comparison, but it most certainly isn't "not at all the same thing"

---

also, we really need to figure out a statute of limitations on spoilers. technically ned has been dead since 1996

thats longer then aerith

---

pezzicle posted...

I haven't really either but I understand that it can have racialized and colonial connotations.

Regardless. The entire point of the game, to me, was a criticism of in and out groups. It is why throwing Abby at us all of a sudden works so well. You are expected to react with disgust, just as we react with disgust to people who harbor beliefs that we don't agree with. It's hyperbolic, but it runs the same course. We hate Abby because of what she did, but we have no context at all for it. We hate her based on a single event in the entire timeline of her life. It isn't until we are able to engage with her a bit more that we start to soften to her, and see her as more then just the person who killed Joel.

Look, Im normally all for not letting a single event define a persons entire life. But there is somewhere a line that exists, that once crossed, makes that fair. Im pretty comfortable with saying that cold blooded torture-murder is on the far side of that line.


---

redrocket posted...

Look, Im normally all for not letting a single event define a persons entire life. But there is somewhere a line that exists, that once crossed, makes that fair. Im pretty comfortable with saying that cold blooded torture-murder is on the far side of that line.

sure. and i would agree without any context

but when you learn of the world that these people exist in, the violence of it, it certainly shifts the way I look at it.
and then when you learn of who this person is and why they have engaged with the act, it shifts the way i look at it again.

i might not agree with what abby did, but i can still have a level of understanding of why that is, and that changes how i look at her entire character. thats the point, to me. the shift. not how much of a shift it is, but that there is one. that this person can do something totally heinous, and then when one understands the context of that act, your opinion of them changes and shifts.

its asking us to not be so black and white. its asking us to remember that context exists. its asking us to remember that people live entire lives and have entire existences that shape the context of actions, regardless of how awful those actions might be.

---

Are we talking about spoilers right now?

Because if we're talking about spoilers, they absolutely screwed up with the beginning of the game concerning Abby. They had Joel save Abby's life--if Joel didn't appear, the game makes it clear that Abby would have been dead and the story is over. That's it. Then they have Abby actively fool these nice people who saved her life. And then she shotguns him in the leg ruthlessly without a word and then has his leg put in a tourniquet so she can TORTURE him. And then they have her murder Joel directly in front of his screaming, sobbing surrogate daughter and gets mad that someone tries to get her to stop torturing this person who saved her life.

And then by the time you get to Abby's part of the game, I think they just want you to just... forget about that. This isn't like Abby got revenge. Went over and shot him in the head and left. She went above and beyond and murdered this man. Didn't even talk about it or explain why she's doing it at all. She was taking absolute glee with torturing and killing him. It wasn't like she just went up and shot him in the head. And for a lot of people, it's pretty hard for them to ignore just how ruthless and sadistic she was in killing Joel. I was in the same boat.

There was nothing in Abby's part of the game that redeemed her from that. I thought the storytelling in her part was actively at odds with how she wanted me to feel sympathetic for the character. And all of Abby's friends we're supposed to feel for were all equally awful people, since they were complicit of the torture and brutal murder of an old man who saved the life of one of theirs. So fuck them too.

There is so much they could have done better about that if they didn't want to poison the well with Abby at the start. Don't have Joel save her life. Don't have her torture him and be angry someone tells her to stop torturing him. Have her say anything of meaning to Joel instead of "duhhhh who am I? GUESS" and then nothing else. Have her at least get his opinion on killing her entire family. You don't even need to show that in the scene, you can show it in a flashback to see Joel's reaction and then see how Abby reacted to what he said. I was floored that they didn't show any other dialogue between the two characters. But this game is allergic to actually having the important scenes being fleshed out, or having anyone talk that wasn't mundane conversation.

Abby and Joel talking would have been legitimately interesting. If even for a short time. Wouldn't you be interested in what Joel had to say upon learning he robbed this girl of her father? Wouldn't you be interested in hearing Abby's response to learning he did it to save his little girl? The game just doesn't want to explore it, for some reason. And doing that alone would have shown more humanity or understanding for the character.

It's not "they killed Joel" that's the issue. It's the way it's done that is so poorly handled it's baffling.

---

I don't think we're talking about open spoilers just yet, but thankfully I skipped over your post!

I feel like that's the second time you've done that in this topic already.

---

I don't think I spoiled anything more in my post than was already said, earlier in this page of posts.

---

I didn't read those either!

Of the people who have been participating in an ongoing discussion and not just popping in every so often, it seems like I'm the only one who has yet to finish, but not even 24 hours ago anyone who was reading through would have known that based on my last few posts. Guess you guys just don't care!

It's cool though, I'll just come back when I finish, thankfully I didn't actually read through your post.

---

Actually, judging by where you are in the game, anything I may have spoiled you're already past! But I say keep ignoring it anyway until you beat the game anyway to draw your own opinion on everything.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Wouldn't you be interested in hearing Abby's response to learning he did it to save his little girl?

I'll add a spoiler tag to that to be safe.

Abby definitely already knows he did it to break out "the immune girl". Obviously she can figure he wouldn't have done that for literally no reason, at the very least. She also tells her dad that if it was her she'd still want him to do the surgery in response to overhearing him and Marlene. I'm not saying it's perfect (because it isn't and I agree with a lot of what you said otherwise), but that angle is definitely covered.

---

I thought (ongoing spoilers) in the title meant there would be spoilers. If not, what does that mean?

---

davidponte posted...

I don't think we're talking about open spoilers just yet, but thankfully I skipped over your post!

I feel like that's the second time you've done that in this topic already.

apologies

---

redrocket posted...

I thought (ongoing spoilers) in the title meant there would be spoilers. If not, what does that mean?

It means none in the first post but there'll be some later, and since people may use it to play through you may want to add spoiler tags as a courtesy but it's not necessary

---

(No plot spoilers but vague scenario spoilers, don't watch if you're not confident you're at least about halfway into the game.)

https://youtu.be/dkiwlGnb4_4?t=124

I'm shocked that this is a thing you can do. (The whole video is worth watching, but I never even would have thought of this.)

---

kevwaffles posted...

I'll add a spoiler tag to that to be safe.

Abby definitely already knows he did it to break out "the immune girl". Obviously she can figure he wouldn't have done that for literally no reason, at the very least. She also tells her dad that if it was her she'd still want him to do the surgery in response to overhearing him and Marlene. I'm not saying it's perfect (because it isn't and I agree with a lot of what you said otherwise), but that angle is definitely covered.

I'll keep using spoiler tags too.

You're right that they know it's the immune girl. But it's a lot different when an old man explains to you why he did it and what that little girl meant to him than just not hearing it from his own mouth.

I also have a huge issue with the fourteen(?) year old girl going "Yeah dad, you should definitely murder this random little girl for the cure! I'd definitely be alright with you killing me! Totally! Do it!" Because first of all, it's super messed up that Abby is apparently fine with another girl just being straight up murdered without consent, even if she is an idiot fourteen year old. Because it's one thing to say that she'd be all about being killed for it without being in that position herself. It just makes me think she's been a heartless person from age fourteen. And while yes, the story is that she shows some amount of empathy with the whole Yara and Lev thing (which frankly feels so disjointed and so poorly done I don't entirely buy into her actually being empathetic towards them considering by the end of that arc the best she has to say is "I don't know why I'm protecting them. Because it's the right thing?"). If you want me to feel bad for her, just have her be like "Dad, I support your choice here. I'd definitely be okay if you killed me!" But have her be even a little bit conflicted about it in private because holy shit you are way too okay with child murder Abby.

That's why I think the game would really benefit from Abby and Joel having a conversation. Or literally any nuance. The issue with Abby is that there is nothing in the game that makes me think there's anything really legitimately good about her, let alone something that absolves her of torturing a man who just saved her life without a second thought. Hell, she doesn't even seem to have an issue or conflict like "Maybe he's not too bad." Having THAT would at least mean something. Why not have Joel go "I saved your life. Doesn't that mean anything to you?" And have Abby at least second guess murdering him, but feeling like she needs to go through with it, or that her friends egg her on, or anything. Just anything that tells me "This is not a sadistic, selfish person." But I never got that. And I know they tried, but the smaller things I see Abby do and the overall story seem to be at odds with each other.

Also, I'll probably not be able to reply to anything for the next two days as I'll be super busy. But I'll be happy to discuss it further later! Despite how poorly I think the game is written, I think there's a lot to dissect and discuss.

---

I dunno, 5 years of anger and resentment can make you do some pretty wacky things

---

Like run for president.

---

Finished the game earlier.

Been giving myself a headache reading people complain without knowing practically any details.

It's fine. It's good. I don't think it's tremendous, but the first game wasn't either. Doesn't quite have the hit that the end of the first game had, but definitely has me thinking a lot more than the one-note nature of the first game did.

The parallels between Abby and Ellie were deliciously explored. The pacing wasn't great at points. Laura Bailey is a master at her craft and never ceases to amaze me.


---

Abby and Ellie being really similar, just at different points in the cycle of revenge, was really good

---

Just beat the game.

Won't delve into spoilers but my biggest complaint is the pacing. I was ready for the game to end halfway through. But there were some really great parts in the second half and the epilogue was fun.

Don't have any major complaints about how they handled the things everyone is complaining about.

---

I said that in the other topic - I think the biggest issue was the Abby section just going a bit too long. I knew how it ended and there were times when getting there dragged a little bit.

---

The whole After Seattle section had too much. Too many scenes. And then you were jarred out of what seemed to be the endgame sequence by being thrown in Santa Barbara.

---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

The whole After Seattle section had too much. Too many scenes. And then you were jarred out of what seemed to be the endgame sequence by being thrown in Santa Barbara.

Like I said I expected it to cut to credits at any moment. But I liked that Santa Barbara was like "for christ's sake, Ellie, what are you doing". It did feel a bit off at first but I very quickly bought back into it.

I think the house and that "domestic bliss" deliberately recalled Uncharted 4, to trick you into expecting an ending - like when her and the baby are on the harvester thing, for example. I thought it might end then, with them looking off into the sunset. And then it just kept going, and going, and then she got the PTSD flashback, etc, to tell you that she's not getting over this so easy.

---

Yeah. I don't think that was bad, but it would've been better if they cut a section or two from preceding areas. Like, one less block for Ellie Day 2, a little less from Abby Day 1, stuff like that.

Was just a little too much.

---

There was one thing that really bothered me.

During a fight with infected in a junkyard i was jumping between containers to get away from them and have enough time to shoot. And this was a big jump where you had to run and then climb up because Abby couldn't clear it easily. I turn around and a CLICKER jumps the gap no problem, I jump right back and it follows and kills me. Was it ever established they could jump? To me it just seemed like lazy programming.

---

I don't know why they wouldn't be able to jump better than humans. They're otherwise above normal human strength as it is, not sure why that wouldn't include leg muscles.

---

kevwaffles posted...

I don't know why they wouldn't be able to jump better than humans. They're otherwise above normal human strength as it is, not sure why that wouldn't include leg muscles.

I think the idea of "Why can they jump?" comes from the average portrayal of zombies/the undead/etc. basically being that they're mindless, unthinking monsters driven purely by an instinct to feed/kill/whatever. Logically, such things become stronger because their brain is no longer holding them back from damaging their own bodies. But by that same token, they lose mobility by not having the thought/planning to jump, climb, and so on. Something with no brain/ability to think shouldn't really be able to jump a gap because it's not natural movement.

That said, it's been so long since I played TLoU1, and I haven't played 2 yet, so I can't recall how the infected in these games compare to other mediums when it comes to brain activity and so on. I just understand where Menji's question comes from overall.

---

Here's what bothered me. At the Abby boss fight with big amalgam guy, the game glitched and Abby didn't have a mask on. I didn't realize this was a glitch, and I thought it was cool that they were suddenly going to reveal Abby realizing that she had been immune the whole time. How does that change things? How does she feel when, telling her father she'd be okay being operated on if she was immune, realizes if she knew she would've prevented his death and provided a cure?

I was really excited to see how they dealt with that and what it meant for how she viewed Ellie, but then LOL IT'S JUST A GLITCH and then I was bothered.

---

I guess more in the sense that the clickers are blind and still able to make this jump.

---

I had an interesting glitch when I played too.

When Tommy is shooting at Abby and Manny, while continually running away, at one point Tommy stopped running and shooting. I walked right up to him and tried shooting him just because and nothing happened. I think this was even before it was shown that Tommy is the one shooting at you.

---

Menji posted...

I guess more in the sense that the clickers are blind and still able to make this jump.

Going to go with they can hear you jump.

Also we're at the stage these days where the survivors, both human and infected, are "evolving" where the ones left are all going to likely be stronger than those from before due to simple natural selection.

Also it is said they use some form of echo location, so maybe that alerts them to a lack of surface or something.

---

Yeah, they're basically blind like Daredevil is blind, in that they basically still "see" just fine. They're just too dumb to tell that a relatively silent obstacle in front of them is human unless it either gets close or they do their full "click" to get a clearer visual. (Which is really nice that they added that as a mechanic since the first game basically claims that's why they click but it didn't really work that way.)

---

So I'm not very far into the game but dogs just showed up and seem to be a recurring thing.

I'm not sure I can handle this.

I thought maybe stealth killing the master they would run away or something but they just sit there whimpering.

They are in the way of exploring but...bleh.

I was not prepared for this.

---

Yeah the dogs were one of my least favourite parts of this game.

---

I thought the dogs made the combat more exciting. Definitely made it harder to be stealthy though.

---

Having the dogs whimper when you kill their human and having the human scream when the dog dies hits me right in the feels.

---

Did they say Joel's last name was Miller in the first game? I feel like I would have remembered that, since my name is extremely close to his!

Interestingly enough, I also have a daughter named Eliza, that we started calling "Ellie" when she was about six months old.

---

One of the YouTubers I follow hates TLOU2 and he avoided the plot leaks.

Then again his favorite game is the original so whatever?

---

I played TLOU1 again right before this came out and I'm pretty sure no one ever got a last name.

---

For people who have finished the game:

What do you think Joel traded for that coffee?

---