Board 8 > **SPOILER TOPIC** The Last of Us Part 2 **SPOILERS**

(+) Yeah! (+)

pezzicle posted...

Might be way behind but I do not in any way remember the fireflies indicating that they have tried to create a cure with immune people before. I am 95% sure that is not an accurate explanation of what happens in the game

Yeah, now that I think about it, this is the lie Joel tells Ellie to justify taking her away.

---

It's also the ENTIRE plot of the game. The ending isn't "oh man maybe a vaccine can't be made after all."

The entire journey of the game, the entire reason that Joel and Ellie become as close as they do and develop the kind of love and connection that they do is precisely because of the vaccine. It's the entire crux of the game

The game.is about how far Joel will go to keep Ellie in his life. Not only does he murder a bunch of fireflies who were trying to find a cure (which, although she doesn't explicitly state she would have gone thru with, you can infer by multiple conversations and.how she reacts to things that Ellie WOULD have sacrificed herself for that), he then lies to Ellie about it, sacrificing his own relationship with her to keep her in his life. She was what was keeping him alive, that is why he did what he did. She was all he had left.

But Joel is no hero, and to the children of those murdered by him at the hospital, he is vile. He is some dude who murdered their entire medical wing as a group, and their leader. Anyone would be pissed, and it isn't a stretch that someone has sworn revenge

You may not like that that is the direction the story goes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense

---

Saying "last of us 2" is crap because Joel dies at the start and "that's dumb he was the main character in the first game and I liked him and I wanted more Joel and Ellie times" is not a valid argument

It's your own opinion

---

pezzicle posted...

Saying "last of us 2" is crap because Joel dies at the start and "that's dumb he was the main character in the first game and I liked him and I wanted more Joel and Ellie times" is not a valid argument

It's your own opinion

Opinions can't be valid arguments, you heard it here first

(You're also oversimplifying his rationale but whatever)

---

It's not tho. People posting here are trying to convince people that their belief is valid and that last of us part 2 is bad. They are having a debate.

If someone wants to say "I don't like Last of Us part 2" that's fine but to say "Last of Us 2 is bad" you need to actually make an argument to support your belief. "I like Joel and him dieing is dumb" supports "I don't like last of us" not "last of us is bad"


---

Leonhart4 posted...

Opinions can't be valid arguments, you heard it here first

(You're also oversimplifying his rationale but whatever)

not really. his argument boils down to "allie kills joel and thats mean because joel is a good person"

he explicitly states "The ending of the game is crafted in a way to make you feel like Joel is making the right decision to save Ellie and kill the Fireflies, who are billed as very nasty people overall throughout the game. It's only now, before this game is released, that they are trying to convince us that Joel was actually in the wrong for it, to the point of retconing things " which is just factually wrong

---

they also aren't treating joel as a villian this game. they are treating joel as a villian TO ABBY

that is very different

---

Again, you're oversimplifying his argument and kinda misrepresenting it to make it sound invalid. That's not why he's saying it's bad. He has an issue with the way they do it, not that they do it at all.

---

Emeraldegg posted...

So I'm curious. The dilemma here seems to be that Abby acted out irrationally, not even asking Joel why he did what he did and going above and beyond what he seems to have "deserved," and for that she is being labeled as a psychopath. Would Joel have done the same thing if someone had actually killed Ellie? Would he have gone on a rampage against anyone involved, or would he have listened to their reasoning, especially if it was for "the good of the world"?

Basically I'm asking if joel were in abby's shoes, and ellie died in place of abby's father, woudl joel have acted the same way?

HE DOES GO ON A RAMPAGE

he literally murders like 20 Fireflies at the thought of them killing Ellie. Of course if she had died in another context he would have done the same

---

Leonhart4 posted...

Again, you're oversimplifying his argument and kinda misrepresenting it to make it sound invalid. That's not why he's saying it's bad. He has an issue with the way they do it, not that they do it at all.

i dont think i am misrepresenting anything when i am posting direct quotes but okay

---

You posted one direct quote and misrepresented another in the way you paraphrased it to try to link them together so you could just say he's only mad they killed Joel at all, not that there's an issue with how it's done.

---

pezzicle posted...

Might be way behind but I do not in any way remember the fireflies indicating that they have tried to create a cure with immune people before. I am 95% sure that is not an accurate explanation of what happens in the game

i thought that was just something Joel told Ellie afterwards to cover his ass.


---

Leonhart4 posted...

You posted one direct quote and misrepresented another in the way you paraphrased it to try to link them together so you could just say he's only mad they killed Joel at all, not that there's an issue with how it's done.

sure. i'll admit to that.

it still doesn't change the fact that he is biting into a chocolate bar, expecting a hamburger, and then getting mad that its a chocolate bar

he is playing and critiquing the game based on his own terms instead of the games terms

im certainly not saying last of us 2 is good. ive not played it. im certainly not saying im going to like the way that they do things, personally. but im also not making topics about how its "a bad game" because it doesn't have story beats that I want it to have

---

pezzicle posted...

Might be way behind but I do not in any way remember the fireflies indicating that they have tried to create a cure with immune people before. I am 95% sure that is not an accurate explanation of what happens in the game

It's in one of the in-game journals or whatever where one of the scientists write that they've failed a ton of times before this.

I'm not responding to the rest of your posts because they're absolute trash though.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

It's in one of the in-game journals or whatever where one of the scientists write that they've failed a ton of times before this.

I'm not responding to the rest of your posts because they're absolute trash though.

lol all i needed to know

peace board 8

---

Nobody is mad that Joel dies in itself, it has constantly been about how its handled.

That the game was promoted to be about Ellie and Joel and he's barely in there at all.

That Joel saves Abby's life to which she repays with brutally killing him without thinking twice. All while you're playing her despite disliking. Not everyone is stoked about playing a character that they immediately made unlikable.

Then there's the whole trans representation.

---

I wish I could find the screenshot of that journal entry because it was floating around months ago when people were debunking Neil Druckmann's stupid comment about Ellie 100% would have given them the cure if she was sacrificed. It would take me hours though, likely. But I absolutely remember seeing it and it explicitly stating they have failed with every single procedure and haven't gotten closer to a cure yet.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I wish I could find the screenshot of that journal entry because it was floating around months ago when people were debunking Neil Druckmann's stupid comment about Ellie 100% would have given them the cure if she was sacrificed. It would take me hours though, likely. But I absolutely remember seeing it and it explicitly stating they have failed with every single procedure and haven't gotten closer to a cure yet.

im currently looking at the text of the 4 documents that are found in that chapter

https://thelastofus.fandom.com/wiki/Surgeon%27s_Recorder
https://thelastofus.fandom.com/wiki/Marlene%27s_Journal
https://thelastofus.fandom.com/wiki/Marlene%27s_Recorder_1
https://thelastofus.fandom.com/wiki/Marlene%27s_Recorder_2

i havent finished yet tho

---

From surgeon's Recorder:

"It states that Ellie's immunity is an anomaly that has never been seen before and that the Fireflies have experimented on other infected subjects, albeit ones without immunity to the virus."

---

Oh hey another misleading topic good times
---

pezzicle posted...

HE DOES GO ON A RAMPAGE

he literally murders like 20 Fireflies at the thought of them killing Ellie. Of course if she had died in another context he would have done the same

You must have joined late but I put out in the open earlier in the topic that I've never played tlou, merely that I was invested. Please don't get so ill with me.
---

Game sounds great. Can't wait to play it.

---

As someone who wasn't a huge fan of the ending of the first game exactly because of not agreeing with Joel's actions, saying he goes on a rampage and kills that many is a bit misleading although true. I think he kills the first one, then one of the doctors, and then Marlene. The rest is for you to decide basically, or rather, they attempt to kill you as well.

I also always thought it was a misplay of the fireflies to not talk to Joel about it. The way they handled him made it seem like they were in the wrong despite that not feeling like the case to me.

---

pezzicle posted...

lol all i needed to know

peace board 8

don't break your promises

---

Emeraldegg posted...

You must have joined late but I put out in the open earlier in the topic that I've never played tlou, merely that I was invested. Please don't get so ill with me.

I wasn't but I get why it could come across like that

---

NFUN posted...

don't break your promises

Grow up come the **** on

---

I'm literally pointing out how an argument is flawed and I'm getting flack because it doesn't go with the narrative

---

Wait. Are these only spoilers from the first few hours not the whole game?

---

Sorozone posted...

Wait. Are these only spoilers from the first few hours not the whole game?

Yeah, first three hours

---

pezzicle posted...

I'm literally pointing out how an argument is flawed and in getting flack because it doesn't go with the narrative

i have zero stake in this game at all. I'm only here because I'm finding people's reaction interesting. You're acting like a child

---

Sorozone posted...

Wait. Are these only spoilers from the first few hours not the whole game?

The opening posts only deal with the first few hours but we've discussed ending spoilers as well at various points.

---

Sorozone posted...

Wait. Are these only spoilers from the first few hours not the whole game?

Yes.

Joel dies at the 2 hour mark. Not halfway like everyone thought.

---

NFUN posted...

i have zero stake in this game at all. I'm only here because I'm finding people's reaction interesting. You're acting like a child

I've been told that I'm misconstruing someone's argument without actually been told how.

I've been told that my comments about how someone is making claims about the first game that are infactual are "trash"

And I'm the childish one

Mmmk bud

---

I'm pretty sure I told you how. You were talking like the issue was that he was upset they killed Joel because he's a good person when his issue has been how they actually do the deed, which he elaborated on very thoroughly.

---

ctesjbuvf posted...

Yeah, first three hours

People are upset with the handling of Joel, based on the first 3 hours of the game, with no additional context of a 25-30 hour game? Outside of some bits that have to do with the ending.

Who knows maybe she is a psychopath who just wants blood. Maybe there is no additional context to her character or Joel's death in the...I dunno other 80 percent of the game.


---

Sorozone posted...

People are upset with the handling of Joel, based on the first 3 hours of the game, with no additional context of a 25-30 hour game? Outside of some bits that have to do with the ending.

Who knows maybe she is a psychopath who just wants blood. Maybe there is no additional context to her character or Joel's death in the...I dunno other 80 percent of the game.

Leonhart4 posted...

but we've discussed ending spoilers as well at various points.

---

NFUN posted...

but we've discussed ending spoilers as well at various points.

NFUN posted...

Outside of some bits that have to do with the ending.

---

Alright, I'll elaborate: and other bits in the middle of the game and having to with contextualizing Joel and Abby's actions

---

Still think they could have played it better by advertising Abby in the first place. Hype it up as a new group so we could better connect with them and then throw the curve ball of her finding / killing Joel halfway through and then shifting to Ellie or something.

---

Leonhart4 posted...

I'm pretty sure I told you how. You were talking like the issue was that he was upset they killed Joel because he's a good person when his issue has been how they actually do the deed, which he elaborated on very thoroughly.

My point was that numerous points he was making were not accurate at all

The entire crux of his argument rests on the belief that:
1. The fireflies had been experimenting in other immune people to no avail
2. They were going to kill Ellie regardless of that fact
3. Joel was doing the noble thing by saving Ellie from the "evil" fireflies
4. Joel was always the hero and they have now retconned that to fit the narrative of this game

None of which is true

And when I pointed out actual text from the game to support what I am saying, I get zero response at all to that

---

You're arguing about how he presented the original game's ending, sure. You can argue that he's not looking at it right, but it still really doesn't change the issues he has with what they do with Joel in this game since I don't agree with his interpretation of the ending and I still think it's bad.

---

Sorozone posted...

People are upset with the handling of Joel, based on the first 3 hours of the game, with no additional context of a 25-30 hour game? Outside of some bits that have to do with the ending.

Who knows maybe she is a psychopath who just wants blood. Maybe there is no additional context to her character or Joel's death in the...I dunno other 80 percent of the game.

I mean, there's not much else to handle with Joel when he's dead. Because he ceases to be.

What we know now is that halfway through the game, we get to see Abby killing Joel from her point of view, and we get a further flashback of Abby sobbing over his whitewashed father's dead body as a child. So it makes it clear this is her entire motivation here.

The problem is when they present his death here, 2 hours in, with no nuance at all. Just straight up Abby is saved by him, Abby tricks him into coming to her group, she shoots him in the knee with a shotgun, and then Abby tortures and kills him in front of Ellie.

This is all presented with the only break between being Abby torturing him, which isn't seen but only heard by Ellie. So we see every moment of this where she's actively fooling a good-natured person who saved her life with the intent to murder him in cold blood.

Narratively, what you're asking people to do now is wait around as you continue to play as Abby who comes across as entirely unlikable and vile, because they may further justify her actions later. It's extremely hard to think of some reason they can give her to justify the way they went about it here. Maybe if Abby had talked with Joel, or tried to get answers, or they had some kind of dialogue, maybe it's reasonable to say "Hey, maybe she has a good reason."

But as presented, it's a gigantic ask of the player to continue playing someone they actively know did a really horrible, unfair thing on the off chance she might have a good excuse for having killed him in such a way later.

---

Also, Abby being absolutely terrible is also supported by her sadistic nature in pounding a pregnant girl's face into shattered glass and putting a knife to her throat, and when told she's pregnant says "Good."

Presumably this is also before the reveal of why she killed Joel. And we're asked to go through that and see the horrible things she's done and go... Okay, I guess that's fair/that makes sense.

Huge, huge ask of the player and doing this in the way she did is extremely unjustifiable, frankly.

---

I can share this now I guess.

https://youtu.be/4P5GAvkcXKo

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

But as presented, it's a gigantic ask of the player to continue playing someone they actively know did a really horrible, unfair thing on the off chance she might have a good excuse for having killed him in such a way later.

No I agree, but as you said "as presented" we don't know if there is additional context. Like the first game had with documents, recordings, character banter, it doesn't always have to come from cut scenes.

Killing Joel off is a big blow to the fans of the game, and of him, and yes the game gets darker from there as already stated by Neil.

Of course if nothing happens in terms of character growth(for any of the characters) in the next 20 hours of the game. Then yeah I agree this is a hard misstep, and is just a fantasy revenge torture porn game, but as far as I am aware we don't have that information and if we do it's coming from second hand information, unless there is full blown full play-through leaks out.

I also agree that bias can inherently exist in reviews causing more 'glowing reviews'(whether or not it's for advertising or exchanging positive or transaction feedback in other ways) at the same time though, you don't get this many 9's and 10's, and even the 'bad reviews are still in the 7 range making it still and enjoyable ride.

Not really here to argue anything, it just blows my mind how people are going nuts. Maybe I just don't care about Joel all that much.

---

Leonhart4 posted...

You're arguing about how he presented the original game's ending, sure. You can argue that he's not looking at it right, but it still really doesn't change the issues he has with what they do with Joel in this game since I don't agree with his interpretation of the ending and I still think it's bad.

I disagree because the way people are looking at this game is based on the first game. If you have not played the first game you won't have any sort of issue with the beats of the story because they mean nothing to you.

---

pezzicle posted...

I disagree because the way people are looking at this game is based on the first game. If you have not played the first game you won't have any sort of issue with the beats of the story because they mean nothing to you.

You actually can have issues because it's more than just emotional attachments to the characters from the first game.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

This is Metal Gear Solid 2, where instead of Raiden just being playable for the majority of the game, Raiden gets saved by Solid Snake and then murders him in front of Otacon, who wants revenge for 23 hours.

This is honestly not the worst comparison.

My issue is how they promoted this and that I'm playing as someone doing things like that. Before anyone brings it up I did not enjoy playing as Joel in the ending either.

---

Leonhart4 posted...

You actually can have issues because it's more than just emotional attachments to the characters from the first game.

Sure, but I haven't seen anyone in this topic having a conversation about different aspects of the game that they have issue with

---

Sorozone posted...

Of course if nothing happens in terms of character growth(for any of the characters) in the next 20 hours of the game. Then yeah I agree this is a hard misstep, and is just a fantasy revenge torture porn game, but as far as I am aware we don't have that information and if we do it's coming from second hand information, unless there is full blown full play-through leaks out.

Currently the first three hours have been leaked, and it was on Youtube for a surprisingly long amount of time.

The scenes of Joel dying from Abby's POV and her flashback are also leaked.

The scene of Abby gleefully beating a pregnant teenager and getting ready to murder her was leaked.

The ending of the game where Abby chokes Ellie near to death, breaks the bones in her leg and arm, and "lets her live" (read: leaves her to die) was leaked.

Among that, other gameplay stuff was leaked. But my overall point is the way that they set this up makes it extremely hard that even if Abby had the best reasons in the world to kill Joel, it still comes across as very, very evil. And her actions throughout the game don't make her seem much better. Additional context doesn't mean a lot if you've already solidified to the player "Hey, what she did was absolutely fucking shitty and I don't like her."

---