I didn't touch on this in the video, but the criticism that the game continuously attempts to make us feel bad for things we did not choose is one that somewhat misses the mark for me personally, because I don't believe it's trying to do that. The game was never really *our* story. It was Ellie's story. A game does not need to be about the player; we can be the outside participants watching it unfold - and that's okay. Gameplay endeavours to give us a sense of agency and alignment with the characters, but that does not make it our story. Gameplay is not synonymous with making all the decisions in a game, and it severely limits the types of stories we can tell to insist so. When compared to the first game - we never choose for Joel to go save Ellie from the hospital, to kill all those people, but I think the reason that didn't receive so much backlash was that, on some level, the players agreed with Joel emotionally. We wanted him to do it; in that sense, the agency did not matter, but it was still Joel's story more than our own. Even so, players do have a sense of ownership over characters that other mediums do not have, so this line is going to be crossed more often, and I think it's important to understand that for those going after the people who don't like the game. That it comes from a place of love more than hate. ~ Tim
*"The game was never really our story. It was Ellie's story."* Love you, Hello Future Me, but this is really pretentious. Truth is, a lot of us just wanted a great follow up to an excellent fictional entertainment product after 7 years and we didn't get that.
Two things. 1: It may as well be a film, at that point. I didn't feel that the gameplay added to the story in any meaningful way (and in fact, the two elements were often at odds). 2: The story taken by itself was an illogical mess, which made the emotional beats feel manipulative rather than effective.
“The cycle of violence” is a pacifist’s masterbation tool and a sociopaths wet dream. By not seeking justice you tolerate injustice in the apocalypse (there is no criminal justice system). Not foghting for yourself Or diplomatically resolving injustice invites repeated abuses. But that’s too inconvenient. Not saying there is a sunshine and rainbows option to resolve the dispute but that pacifism is not it either.
It’s amazing how people have no grasp on reality. There is no winning or “entirely good guys” in the apocalypse. No criminal justice system in the apocalypse which means to deter future transgressions you must do it yourself. Otherwise your inviting more roaming gangs of sociopaths to visit your time killing one after another of your townsfolk and leaving satisfied in that they get away with it. The game is lazy and straw-mans that inconvenient reality. But don’t bake the messenger blame the stupid wrighters for not thinking about “the cycle of violence” that invites more repeated abuses until something snaps. Should you feel bad for killing attack dogs bread and trained to throw themselves into the enemy without thought or should you blame the trainers? And who are these trainers again that all have names? Oh yeah militant factions who topple villages littler mines all over the place shoot on sight (literally you can’t not shoot them without getting a game over). Perhaps they should of explored diplomatic means of resolving issues if they really knew what they were talking about when discussing violence or maybe something like no lethal capture of Abby and bring her back to Ellie’s town to take her to A improvised court to determine fitting punishment? But no man “I don’t get it”. #fireflysdidnothing wrong!
No one gets to walk in, kill someone, and mock retribution/the victim because they are playing into “the cycle of violence”. Every villain will laugh and use that as an excuse. “Yeah don’t retaliate. Let me abuse you. Won’t want to play into the cycle of violence now would we?”- SCARS
"In a political climate that talks about factions more than it does people, where things are Right or Wrong because of who does them and not about what it is, these are the questions we need to ask..." This statement alone made watching this video worthwhile.
Everyone has bias in multiple ways. It can be bold and shockingly clear, but the worst are subtle, cloaked in logic and rationalism. People may not even recognize their bias and think they're just being practical. But most alarming to me is that most people ARE reasonable, willing to listen and work towards a solution, and we are still experiencing the climate we're in right now. This is what is so insidious about Factionalism run rampant: individually, a person is willing to be at least somewhat objective, but we fall in line with what the loudest voices in our Faction are telling us is Right and True, even if we have reservations, because we believe everyone else in our Faction falls in line because it *IS* Right and True. It's easier to go with the flow of the majority you most agree with than to get bogged down by the minutia of each situation the "General Consensus" doesn't cover.
Last I checked. Last of Us takes place in a post Apocalypse United States with fungi zombies. An armed group of outsiders coming into a town's territory. Torturing one of their men to death and leaving two people severely beaten. In any historical context in the real world this is an unprovoked hostile action on the town. What's stopping the town and its allies from putting together a posse together to hunt down Abby's party? Or sending a delegation to try to establish contact this groups leaders. Asking why their people decided to come into this town's sphere of influence to kill one man. Especially after their patrol saved this group from a pack of fungi zombies. Never mind the convenience of Joel falling into the hands of Abby's party. Which the amount of plot armor Abby and Ellie are wearing for this narrative about factions playing out had me laughing.
@@IdleDrifter I mean the main characters of these games have always had hella plot armor. Joel took out MULTIPLE armed groups in his trek across the country. This isnt a story of politics and operations of governing bodies, though. It was a story about people. And how people are irrational, make bad decisions, and are emotional.
@@OoXLR8oO It's not really a plot hole. It is explained, albeit much later in the game; they had a lead that Tommy Miller was somewhere in the area around Jackson. With that knowledge, when Abby is saved by two strangers around the general area they know Tommy is supposed to be, named "Joel" and "Tommy" (if I remember correctly, Joel even specifies to Abby that Tommy is his brother when they save her from the runners), she can be fairly certain that he's the Joel they're looking for. edit: Sorry, I replied to your comment not realising at first that we're basically saying the same thing. I suppose my reply should be directed at Wee Pop.
@@OoXLR8oO nah, it's the classic response of "too bleak, stopped caring". I had it in Season 5 of the walking dead so I quit. I should have quit after I got that feeling in Game of Thrones. And I got it from God of War 3. Although 4 made me care again and appreciate 3, so who knows. Maybe Last of us Part 3 will make me appreciate Part 2 but I won't know until it comes out.
I got what the game tried to do, I see the techniques used, and could spend hours telling why it didn't work for me. Instead, I want to leave a quote by Terry Pratchett: "Let there be goblin hordes, let there be terrible environmental threats, let there be giant mutated slugs if you really must, but let there also be Hope. It may be a grim, thin hope, an Arthurian sword at sunset, but let us know that we do not live in vain." And that's my biggest turn-off in this story. By severing her last connection to Joel (losing her ability to play the guitar) Ellie lost everything. There's nothing left, and no hope to be found. And thus the question you brought up in the beginning, the one I found most interesting - "How do we we heal from that?" - is answered with: "We don't". It's hollow, and all I'm left with are hours upon hours of brutal violence that made me sick.
Even if I do like the game, I understand what you mean. I haven't seen that and I thank you for bringing it up. It is a really good reason to dislike the game.
Well, I mean, if you were an objectively evil person, wouldn't you see hope in the bad guy getting away and never learning a lesson or even recognizing what they've done is wrong?
@@Urcutelove-s9z still doesn’t justify what she did I don’t care what Ellie Did if your reaction to finding out your about to kill an pregnant girl and her baby is sadistic yes than you pure evil
@@ninjawarrior4217 think he is trying to say Joel knew what he did was a death sentence. He knew someone would come looking to kill him and it was Abby. He had 5 years to be with her
Did anyone notice the constant references to parents and the death of parents in this game? Joel and Ellie, Jessie/Dina and JJ, Lev, and Lev's Mum. Abbie and Abbies Dad or Abbie and Issac. Mel being pregnant. even the Martyr of the Seraphites was referenced too as "the Mother" I believe. I really feel like I've struggled to work out why this theme of parental death is so prevalent in TLOUP2. Fantastic video would love to talk more about this with anyone.
It's the same reason The Walking Dead has that new mini-series coming up. Most media in the past is about people adjusting to the brutal new world of a post-apocalypse. Now, we've moved into, "But... what about the children raised in that nightmare? And how will they grow up? How will they handle the world without their parents?" tbh it started with Lee from Telltale's The Walking Dead, one of the most powerful parental loss stories ever.
I don't think it's just in TLOU2. The whole thing in the original is Joel and Ellie. What's her name in charge of the fireflies feels responsible for Ellie like an aunt. But where as that game focused on the establishment of the relationship between father/daughter, this game focuses on the fallout of losing a paternal figure. The mother is deified, Jesse dies suddenly (before his child is even born) and Ellie (in Dina' eyes) chooses to not be part of that family. I would say the Last of Us's relationships have always been familial. Even Abby and the boy have a sister/brother dynamic.
@@nachgeben I made a comment referencing that but deleted it cause I rambled to much so I'm actually glad you brought up Lee and The Walking Dead Game.
"When it comes to trauma, sometimes you know that the way you're going isn't the way out. But you still don't know what the right way forward is. And that's ok." You don't have any idea how badly I needed to hear those words. Thank you. And thank you for this review. It was phenomenal and perfectly articulated how I felt about the game, and even made me consider and realize things I hadn't before.
Your an even brave person than I am. You thanked the OP while I just saw it as him pitying me when the real truth is that his words ranged too true since in order to deal with my past traumas was to harden my emotions and put every single one of them into the abyss. I must say for the first time in many years, I feel sorrow again and I thank you both for this even though my mind still feels clouded.
@@isdrakon9802 I see, even though I feel what you say is true, I have my doubts about others and the world around me. If let my emotions loose I am open to harm and abuse but if I silence them, I become more safe and secured. Besides, why should I free my emotions when they aren't important to others and the universe as a whole? Nonetheless, I thank you for your concern however humanity will always stick with their evil schemes, this is something that neither you nor I can change.
After watching this I think the big problem I had personally was the cliff hanger we are left on for most of Abby’s story. If they had completed that scene and otherwise kept the game the same I think I would have been infinitely more receptive to playing Abby. The entire Abby portion felt like a long grind before a boss fight, because I didn’t care, I wanted to get back to the cliffhanger. But if that cliffhanger wasn’t there I could have actually enjoyed that portion of the game instead of feeling like a pointless grind I didn’t want to play.
That was probably intentional, remember that at the point we are supposed to hate Abby as much as Ellie does and if they didn’t give us incentive to continue playing most would have leave at the moment they switch and incidentally many did despite the cliffhanger by what I heard
@Samuel Pérez Quirós Well, Abby also chose to stop what she was doing and to also no longer agreed to the actions her faction justified. Although, the story isn't about the good guy and the bad guy, it is between two people that get blinded by their emotions, how they experience a type of bias that we also experience while playing. It is to show how one gets to that point, and how it is such an easy loop to fall into. In a sense, both of them are cautionary tales rather than justice hero stories. The mind is quick to see the side it wants to be on as the better, the way we see Ellie's side as better than Abby who is an intruder in the story, but neither of them were the perfect character, and saying that one did something over the other, is exactly what keeps the loop going.
Yeah, this actually made me so disinterested in Abby that I basically sped thru her entire section of the game...if that was their intention, it was certainly an odd one.
Actually, _Ellie_ was right. Abby _did_ drag Lev into it. She tracked Ellie and everyone else back to their hideout, and instead of being reasonable or responsible, she dragged Lev along with her, so she could take revenge YET AGAIN. Remember, Lev shot Dina and saved Abby's life. If not for Lev, Abby might've died then and there. Abby dragged _all_ of her friends into it. That entire group of people circling around Joel, holding Tommy down, beating Ellie -- they were all involved _because_ of Abby. Ellie's guilty of this, too. She did drag Dina and Jesse along, but we can't overlook Abby's actions. Lev wasn't a part of it and it could've stayed that way, but she chose to drag him in.
Ellie didnt drag Dina, Tommy or Jesse into it. They all went to Seattle because they wanted to. Ellie originally planned to go alone, but Tommy ended up leaving before her, and Dina said herself that she wouldnt let Ellie go by herself. Jesse shouldnt have been there but thats another story
In the first game, I shot the doctor with an arrow to the foot and spared the other two surgeons. So I think it's absolutely hilarious that a doctor that was shot in the foot canonically died despite two doctors being right there and tons of medical supplies to help him.
@@seanbennett3452That’s great and all, but last of us is not a narratively flexible game. Its not mass effect or Detroit become human. Plenty of games can be broken or sidesteps its events via player action that the story or cutscenes contradict but at the end of the day the cutscenes are the story, through and through. If you did a pacifist run of last of us 2, Ellie will still kill in the cutscenes and will be held to that, even if you argue “but but but I didn’t kill anyone!”
Honestly, this made me rethink the game. Perhaps the writers of the game tapped into factionalism TOO well and didn’t give us enough to counterbalance those emotions. Yes Ellie did more heinous actions, but nothing that knocked us out of our bloodlust. Perhaps they should have made abby more tortured over the fact her revenge got her friends killed?
i think just giving Abbie this single trait/charecteristic would have garnered lotta critique in favor of tlou2 now that i think of it, the game did abbie dirty. just giving this self reflection to abbie would have utilized the death of a beloved character like Joel and implented his brutal death to contribute to the game's core theme instead of what we got where his death just feels pointless plot convenience. even tho delayed, abbies self reflection on her vengeance would make his death narratively way more satisfying instead of "well joel is ded now lmao"
Honestly I cared little about Abby’s group. And I think wedging the Yara and Lev storyline in there makes it more difficult to care about the other people there. It’s a big yikes when you have people rooting for Tommy instead of having sympathy for the other side. I think the devs underestimated the audience’s attachment to familiar characters.
The big thing about Abby is that her caring relationship with Lev feels incredibly forced. She's otherwise very emotionally closed off from anyone except Owen, and arguably is more closed off from Owen than she is from Lev. It's a huge problem when Ellie ends up essentially forgiving her - it feels completely unearned, because even after seeing Abby's perspective we never see her as showing any kind of regret for even the collateral damage of her crusade. It isn't NEEDED - but without it, seeing her side feels completely fucking pointless, and the responsibility of getting to the point of Ellie forgiving her then falls solely on the shoulders of Ellie's campaign. And THAT doesn't build it up, either. Especially when Ellie saves Abby's life, then spares her, only to lose the ability to play the guitar even though she ultimately didn't just show mercy but was Abby's savior. It doesn't feel organic at all. It feels incredibly railroaded and frankly unbelievable, showcasing next to none of the writing skill and style that made the first game so engaging.
I think that the writers of this game definitely overestimated how much they could humanize Abby. We see Joel at the start of this game in the same way we do throughout the first, risking his life to save others. Joel was a flawed person, I'd even say a bad person, but the first game did a wonderful job of showing Joel as a person over the actions Joel took. The first we see of Abby in this game, Joel risks his life multiple times to save a stranger. This didn't even give Abby a pause, at least not one we see, before she brutally tortures and murders a fan favorite character. The game then spends half of it's time trying to retroactively humanize her, and it simply falls flat at doing so. It's difficult to build a connection to her and her faction when we see the vile actions they take before we get to really know them as people. The first game built up a hefty amount of emotional connection to Joel in the first scene of the first game. It gave him a kind of emotional capital he could use to get us to forget the bad he did. Abby doesn't get that.
The game would’ve been a lot better if we played Abby first without the knowledge that Joel and Ellie would be a part of the story. Then when it’s revealed that Ellie is gonna kill Abby, we play her part of the story. We get to see Abby and her friends go from heroes to villains (instead of the awkward reverse) and are rewarded by playing as Ellie again. We empathize with both characters that way.
I disagree, I liked Abby pretty much towards the end of the game. Abby goes from a sullen person towards a more caring person. This game is about questioning tribalism and breaking through the biases that it creates in that. Abby realizes that by making friends with her sworn enemy. That's a fact that the anti-Abby crowd doesn't seem to realize and they pretty much no different from the characters they piss on about ironically enough. They judge everything based on a fidelity towards a certain character, ie Joel. For them, Joel is the Last of Us and Last of Us is Joel. The standards that Joel set into motions and the world in The Last of Us must confirm to those standards. We keep acting like everyone in the Last of Us knows and cares about Joel's relationship with Ellie. They know that Joel is a caring father figure. But, they don't. From their point of view, they just know that Joel killed the doctor who could found a vaccine. They don't know that Joel had a loving relationship with that immune girl. For they all know, Joel stole her to use her and sell to another group because she is immune. Just as like detractors of the game have a predisposition to hating Abby and her friends for killing Joel even though he could have been right to save Ellie. Abby and her friends have a predisposition to hating Joel for killing Abby's father. Just like haters of Abby have a predisposition towards her, Abby and her friends' fidelity to Mr. Anderson clouded their vision and let their hate guide them.
@@ash9280 I don't think you've been listening to the majority of people that dislike Abby. We understand the messages the story is trying to convey. What you're not understanding is that half the fanbase (I don't know the percentages but we'll go with half) didn't make that connection with Abby. We were fine with (and even expecting) Joel dying but the way his death was brought about was rushed, unbelievable, and disrespectful (meaning no respect for Joel's character). Not just his death but even scenes with him and Ellie felt artificial. I'd even go as far to say that LOU Part 2 Joel is a completely different character from LOU Joel. If you wrote a story and your story is trying to convey a message, and only half your audience connects with the message even though everyone knows what you intended, it's not the audience's fault. It's that your story is not as well-written as you think it is. You can't just chalk it up to "Oh they just didn't understand the deeper meaning of it, but I understand it; everyone else are just haters." No, we understood it; it's just poorly written. You want a story that deals with all of these messages and even more, and does it exponentially better, try Berserk or Attack on Titan.
@@brandonkoranda9781 I have trouble understanding the idea that Joel's character deserved more respect vis-à-vis the way he died. From Abby's perspective and frankly mine as well what he did at the end of the 1st makes him a horrible person. To have him die a more honorable death would undercut one of the game's central themes.
i cannot express enough how much this game made me appreciate my grumpy old dad, my endlessly supportive girlfriend and all the younger kids i've taken under my wing in my adult years. it reminded me of what i have to lose and that it should never be taken for granted.
For me, I feel like Druckmann miscalculated on how callous he made Abby and her friends with Ellie during Joel's death. Just a bit of mixed feelings or reservations would have probably have made me give her more of a chance. As it is, seeing her perspective didn't do anything to endear her or her friends to me. Abby's friends watched as she beat Joel to death in front of his daughter as she begged for his life, and didn't blink an eye. The fact that I feel Joel and Ellie would have hesitated in their position didn't help. Add to this Ellie's uncharacteristic show of mercy at the end, and I was left feeling immensely unsatisfied with the story as a whole. If this is the feeling they intended to leave me with I just don't agree with the experiment as a whole. No matter how skillfully told I need a story to be satisfying as well. Not happy. Satisfying.
I'm a sucker for redemption arcs, but Abby crossing the line so much from the start meant it would have taken a lot to redeem her in the audience's eyes. She gets a positive character arc, not fully facing the consequences for her actions. While Ellie gets a negative character arc, suffering for things that are no fault of her own until the end.
@@sanfransiscon Druckmann tried so hard to get players to reflect on humanity's faults, but he did it in a way that would have worked way better on a dispassionate, unbiased audience. Problem is he chose to do it with a franchise and characters that people are VERY passionate and biased about.
are you ignoring the fact that Owen tries to talk her out of it, multiple times? are you also ignoring the fact that a traumatized Mel now hates Abby afterwards? like quite literally the first, non-professional conversation Abby and Owen have is how Owen thinks Abbys gone too far. Not to mention that just about every one of her flashbacks features some element of how her obsession with finding Joel drives a stake between her relationship with Owen.
@@quinnmarchese6313 I'm not saying that some of them didn't show discomfort or guilt, I'm saying that the way the story and their actions were presented didn't leave me conflicted on Ellie's actions for the most part. After what they did to Joel, and the way they treated her afterward, Ellie's actions felt very human, and justified from an emotional perspective. I'm saying the story didn't satisfy me partially because it failed to put me in a state of mind where Ellie sparing Abby felt right. Part of it is that I'm biased in that Last of Us made me love Joel and Ellie, but that's why the story failed for me: Druckmann either didn't consider how that bias would effect a lot of people playing this game... or he did, in which case well done, but I don't like it.
@@1894db thats the literal point. your not supposed to be conflicted about ellies actions until Abby meets Lev and Yara. even then, i think the point where we were /supposed/ to be conflicted only comes around the hotel sequence.
For me my problem with the game is how they treated Abby. I think of her as more of a protagonist than Ellie. It's Abby that started the cycle, Ellie is more just a force of nature due to the consequence of killing Joel. But why is all the weight of forgiveness and revenge on Ellie? Why does Abby get to go and get her Joel revenge, pet the dog, go and overpower Ellie in every situation, and never stop and think about how everything is her fault? She even, ironically, jeopardized the WLF assault mission and indirectly got Issac shot to save a kid (which parallel's Joel's actions). Does she learn anything about this? Does she grow as a character? Or did she find a new distraction in the form of Lev that let her escape her past life ignore everything she did. It seems like Ellie wasn't ever even a threat; Abby killed Joel and moved on in her life, good for her in getting her revenge. She didn't even choose to spare Ellie herself, Lev told her to stop. Abby's growth as a character was stunted in order to put all the pressure on Ellie.
Joel moves on from his past, riddled with brutal actions and decisions, by finding a new companion in Ellie. Abby moves on from her past, riddled with brutal actions and decisions, by finding a new companion in Lev. Ellie fails to do that, even after finding a loving family. For Ellie, forgiveness is not a burden, but her only solace. Pursuing revenge ruined every aspect of her life. "Does [Abby] learn anything about this? Does she grow as a character? Or did she find a new distraction in the form of Lev that let her escape her past life ignore everything she did." We can ask the same question about Joel and what he did in the hospital. The answer would be that the mere fact that this man came to care for someone other than himself, not related to him on any level other than a personal and emotional one - IS his growth. In his time in Jackson we see that he tries to change his cold and jaded nature he adapted over the years, and start a new life with his new-found daughter. Even then - he's still flawd by lying to Ellie and stating that he'd do everything all over again. But we LOVE him still. I think of Abby's growth as a similar one. She's done an unspeakable thing. Joel has done some as well. But we never question it. When he interrogates David's people while torturing and killing them, we cheer for him because they've wronged Ellie. When Abby excecutes a similar act of revenge on the person who's wronged her father, we don't like it becuse it is unfamiliar to us. It doen't give us a positive emotional reaction. But it's the same action. Take time to think of the parallels and hypocricy the game crafts
@@rrainx Exactly my point, Abby mirrors Joel and Ellie so well, yet the game treats what Joel and Ellie did as something monstrous (which yes, they were) while Abby gets humanized doing exactly the same thing. Joel gets hunted down, Ellie loses everything, and Abby beats up Ellie for the trouble, sabotages the WLF (her new family) and runs away for a kid. She gets to get her revenge and move on without learning anything. If Ellie was able to track Abby down and find her *coincidentally* outside the WLF and beat her up and killed her just like what Abby did to Joel, would Ellie still be in pain? It seems like Abby was only able to move on with her father's death after her revenge, and her father's death wasn't even as brutal nor did she witness her father slowly dying in front of her. I get what they were aiming for, I'm just saying the execution was bad and gave Abby too much lenience. If they really wanted to end the cycle of revenge, Abby and Lev while adventuring should have been captured by some WLF forces that split to track her down for revenge because their leader Issac died from the gunshot wound (which Abby indirectly caused due to her selfishness). Then Issac's son/daughter crowbars her slowly in front of Lev (to portray the game's parallels), and Lev now needs to decide to end the cycle of revenge once and for all.
I think the point with having Abby kill Joel was to show the aftermath of revenge. Abby’s life didn’t get better after killing Joel. She didn’t get the closure she thought she would. It’s through meeting Lev and Yara and learning that the cycle of violence won’t make things better (this time by seeing how the conflict between the wlf and scars will only end in everyone losing and more and more death because no one is willing to stop the fighting) that she realizes that revenge and violence aren’t the way. That dehumanizing the people she has fought and killed was perpetuating these cycles. She dehumanized Joel which drove her to go to all the lengths she did to kill him and refuse mercy. She dehumanized the scars which allowed her to blindly follow Isaac and fight for the wlf. Her meeting and coming to care for Lev and Yara that makes her come to learn to humanize her enemies and show mercy and move beyond the violence. Abby is both a warning and a lesson. Abby is there to show that Joel’s actions in the first game don’t exist in a vacuum. I love Joel but he did kill a lot of people and while I 100% agree that the fireflies are incompetent Joel still took any chance there was at making a serum when he killed the doctors and took Ellie. They may not have been able to make a serum but he removed any possibility that it could happen at all. That’s what I thought the game was arguing. Now all of this is my interpretation and you are free to have your own opinion :)
@@battlekidx2599 I can see that, yet Abby never showed regret for her decision to get revenge, nor did her friends. Nora even said she wouldn't hesitate to kill Joel again in front of Ellie, of all people. The game tries to show that Abby learns the cycle of revenge is bad in theory, but in practice they just showed Abby sacrificing her WLF family for two kids, and then seconds away from slitting Dina's neck (after finding out she was pregnant) before Lev tells her to stop. She never tells Ellie that she's sorry, or that she understands, or tell Ellie her side, she never has a conversation with Lev about revenge or talks about it at all. Abby shows no introspection at all, yet paints Abby in a much better light than Ellie or Tommy. The game wants to say that Abby is a lesson and a warning, but in action the game shows Abby getting her revenge, then finding something new to live for and being able to move on. Revenge, in the game, is good. Look what they did to Ellie, without her revenge even if she found something new to live for with Dina, Joel's murder left a scar in her that couldn't heal. Maybe if Ellie copied Abby by *coincidentally* ambushing Abby outside of Seattle and bashing her head in with a crowbar, then finding something new to live for with Dina, she would be able to move on too, just like Abby did. I understand the game's motives but for me they had really poor execution.
@@christianalfonso5065 Again I think a lot of this game is up to your interpretation. If you want to interpret it the way you said in this comment that’s fine. But from my takeaway from the game Abby did learn that revenge wasn’t the answer. Even after killing Joel she still has nightmares about the night in the hospital when her father died and she even gets to see that, as I said in the previous post, she got her friends all killed because she killed Joel and set Ellie on this path. Yes she only spared Ellie and Dina because Lev asked her to. In that moment she had just learned that Owen, the person she was closest to and who was about to get away from his life of killing, had been killed by Ellie and was running off her rage. In the end on the beach she shows no desire to kill Ellie at all. She just immediately grabs Lev and even guides Ellie to the boats. This scene, at least from my reading, is meant to show you that Abby has learned that revenge is wrong. She doesn’t want to kill Ellie and she knows that killing her won’t bring her the closure she wants, so instead she guides Ellie to a way off the island. She doesn’t fight Ellie willingly. She has just as much of a reason to want revenge on Ellie as Ellie does to want revenge on her right then. But she wants to get Lev to safety because she knows now that moving on and learning to live with people you care about can ease the ache, the hole left from the loss of her father and friends in this case, while revenge can’t. She learned this lesson too late to fix things with Owen but it’s not too late now. (again this is my reading of the scene. If you don’t read it this way then this probably won’t change your mind) This isn’t to say I think that Ellie is the villain either. I actually found Ellie’s quest for revenge understandable. I was able to relate to her decision because there are some things that you can't just leave alone, especially when it comes to trauma. When you have trauma to that extent and you have to deal with the after effects, it's really hard, and the longer it goes on the more desperate you can get for any type of closure. So when she saw a chance at closure she took it. It's a very hard thing to relate to if you've never gone through something like that and that's very understandable, but when you have it's one of those things that makes you feel understood. At least it did for me. Because, while I knew it was the wrong choice for Ellie, I also understood that desperation for closure, closure that may ease that ache deep in your chest that feels like it will consume you. Where it doesn't feel like a choice because you feel stuck in time until you get that closure or something, anything, to ease the ache. I found this game to be steeped in shades of grey. Neither Abby or Ellie are completely irredeemable and the end of the game shows that. Both come to realize that revenge doesn’t fill the hole. Neither of them apologize to the other because, while they realize killing each other isn’t the answer, they can’t forgive each other (or also in Abby’s case Joel) and that’s okay. Forgiveness isn’t what the game is about. Some things can’t be forgiven. Abby killing Joel, Joel killing Abby’s father, and Ellie killing Abby’s friends are all things that aren’t forgivable from each person’s point of view. So I was happy that no one said sorry or that they understood why the other killed their loved ones. I don’t think that would have made sense for either character. Ellie’s final moments in the game are actually really interesting because it can be interpreted happier than I think some people believe. If you look at the house it has clearly been a long time since Ellie has been there. And the only things left in the house are Joel’s things, not Ellie’s. I like thinking that Ellie went back as one final goodbye to Joel before finally getting on with her life back with Dina (she’s wearing Dina’s bracelet in this scene, which she didn’t have when she went to have her final confrontation with Abby, meaning she must have seen Dina after the confrontation at some point). So there is the possibility that Ellie got her happy ending too. (You can choose to ignore this. I just really like the idea and I’ve seen a lot of people talking about it too)
I understand and respect the message the writers were trying to tell, but it was definitely undermined by execution and a few key details from the previous game. One thing that really broke the story for me was how everyone assumes that Joel was in the wrong for saving Ellie. In the first game, if you search around for logs and pay attention to small details, it’s definitely implied that the fireflies aren’t actually that confident in their ability to pull a cure from Ellie. The entire operation was more of an act of desperation by people who would latch onto anything as hope. There are definitely a lot of moral arguments that put Joel firmly in the right (in the act of saving Ellie specifically) yet that decision is treated like a kind of original sin for the entire game. What’s especially cruel is how Abbey kills Joel after he’s shown that he’s changed quite a bit, and resolved a lot of his past flaws. Abbey murders Joel in cold blood, and ignites a full fledged war because of her vengeance. This naturally put me in Ellie’s camp, because (even ignoring emotional bias) Abbey incited the conflict with a disgusting act of murder. Another thing that undermined the story is just how hard it had to work to make Abbey relatable after opening with something so grevious. For example, the whole thing with the dog didn’t really land with me cause it felt like a blatant attempt to humanize Abbey and make Ellie look evil. And of course Ellie commits many acts of evil as she becomes obsessed with revenge, but seeing Ellie devolve just made me hate Abbey more, cause she turned Ellie into a monster. And don’t even get me started with the pacing. This game had some enjoyable elements, and I think the core message that Hello Future Me points out about factionalism is a good one, but here I think the execution is so bad that no one really figured it out, and the message itself was undermined by key details in the previous game. It really feels like the writers were willing to twist the narrative to tell the message they wanted to tell, as opposed to caring for the universe and characters. Thanks for reading and please be civil 😊
I think the pacing criticism is definitely valid. I didn't really go into it except for briefly at the end there, but I do totally agree. The pacing was waaay - especially in Abby's sections. Regarding the cure - there is totally more ambiguity than the second game let on. That's totally fair. As I mentioned, that feeling of ownership is totally understandable, and I don't think it's illegitimate to say, 'hey, I don't think this was the right direction'. ~ Tim
"In the first game, if you search around for logs and pay attention to small details, it’s definitely implied that the fireflies aren’t actually that confident in their ability to pull a cure from Ellie." No, you don't. Nothing in the first game implies that. Joel himself says "They were actually going to make a cure" when he speaks to Tommy. If he had any doubts, he would have mentioned them when he spoke to Tommy or Ellie about his actions. "There are definitely a lot of moral arguments that put Joel firmly in the right (in the act of saving Ellie specifically) yet that decision is treated as a kind of original sin for the entire game." Joel explicitly states he would have murdered dozens of people and doomed humanity again, even after learning Ellie wanted to sacrifice herself for the cure (he most likely knew that beforehand). Joel is evil and selfish. "What’s especially cruel is how Abbey kills Joel after he’s shown that he’s changed quite a bit, and resolved a lot of his past flaws." He does not, he is still controlling and manipulative, trying to insert himself into Ellie's life even after she asked him to stay away. He also doesn't regret any of his actions. "Abbey incited the conflict with a disgusting act of murder." No, Joel incited the conflict by going back on the deal he cut with the Fireflies, killing dozens of them and possibly dooming humanity.
@@zenko8073 "No, you don't. Nothing in the first game implies that. Joel himself says "They were actually going to make a cure" when he speaks to Tommy. If he had any doubts, he would have mentioned them when he spoke to Tommy or Ellie about his actions." thelastofus.fandom.com/wiki/Surgeon%27s_Recorder 1. It is a vaccine, not a cure. Some zombie stories involve a cure which can convert a zombie back into a healthy human. This can save the whole world, because it can undo the damage that has been done and rebuild the ranks of humanity while simultaneously reducing the ranks of the undead. This vaccine is not that. The vaccine would not undo any damage done. 2. How would it be distributed? The world has been dealing with zombies for 20 years before Ellie was discovered to be immune. I somehow doubt the societal collapse all happened only in the 5 years between TLOU and TLOU2. So, if they did make a vaccine, they would be able to distribute it to... Their own group's members and almost nobody else; most other groups would have no reason to trust the vaccine. 3. By the time TLOU2 is in motion, most of the zombies are not even an issue compared to the 1st game. Except for plot zombie hordes that disappear once the story progresses. So in that 4 years, it's only a convenience to have the vaccine. 4. Even if they somehow magically made the vaccine, there's no way they'd be able to make enough to "save the world" like they claim especially with the lethal method they planned on going with. 5. To add to my previous point, let's say on top of all this BS, a single surgeon (not a vaccinologist who'd be better suited for this), in a run down shitty operating room, cuts Ellie's brain open and successfully makes a vaccine and replicates it to the point where everyone can get a shot; that essentially changes so little that its basically pointless at the point the world is at! In the first game it's blatantly obvious that society has collapsed; the established world shows that most of the non-infected are strays, thugs, marauders, rapists, cannibals or some mixture of all. Your life is only saved in the situation where you got bit and managed to get away. Zombies don't just leave after they bite you, they strike to kill. And honestly the people around you in most cases are a bigger threat than the zombies; that's not going to go away because of immunity. For fuck's sake Ellie's immune and she wasn't exactly living life all worry-free with no troubles whatsoever. 6. The Fireflies weren't some holier-than-thou faction like TLOU2 likes to portray them. Its wishful thinking to believe they wouldn't use this vaccine as a power play or bargaining chip to control others or trade it for resources. I highly doubt that the group of people who attacked a man trying to give his daughter figure CPR would be nice enough to just traverse dangerous environments just giving out something so valuable for free. There's no way they could mass produce a cure from one part of a child's brain especially in their current predicament. Being immune essentially changes nothing for people at this point because lawless society and all that. Should have focused on making a "Zom-Be Gone" spray that could either kill or repel zombies rather than some dumb cure/vaccine. Also, the doctor that you're forced to kill in the first game is not even named Jerry. A TH-camr name Freako did a video in which he unmasks the surgeon from the first game and apparently his model is named Bruce. "Joel explicitly states he would have murdered dozens of people and doomed humanity again, even after learning Ellie wanted to sacrifice herself for the cure (he most likely knew that beforehand). Joel is evil and selfish." Really? Did Ellie really want to be sacrificed for a "cure"? That we don't even know if it would've been possible to make? Or that it will even work? Especially give that the world is already gone to shit in this game? First, Ellie knows Joel is lying from the beginning. It would be an insult to her intelligence and intuition to assume she doesn't know what Joel tells her in the car is a complete lie. Yet, Ellie - who is also strong and willing to challenge Joel - doesn't even ask a single question or try to make sense of it. Why would she not ask something - ANYTHING - unless she knew he was lying? Then, just before they officially end their journey and enter Jackson Ellie confides in Joel by discussing her survivor's guilt. When Joel's attempt to assuage Ellie of responsibility for those deaths isn't enough, Ellie asks that Joel swears to his lie. Again, no explanation demanded or even confirmation of what the lie is - just a plea that Joel swears to it. When Joel does, Ellie considers the situation before eventually being ready to move on. "Okay". Even though you're lying to me, I won't ask what really happened, let's just see where this goes Joel. Second, Ellie knows Joel. She understands his trauma. Ellie knows how strongly Joel feels for her now and knows he would die to protect her. Ellie even begs Joel to stay with her by promising that she WON'T die. She'll be OK, she's immune. She knows Joel couldn't let her die no matter the situation because he loves her and that's one of the reasons she wants to stay with him instead of going with Tommy. Third, Ellie never expects, nor mentions any willingness or desire to die for a vaccine. She fully expects to live. She promises Joel that they will go wherever he wants after the hospital. Joel promises he won't leave without her. Ellie then excitedly tells Joel that once they're done with this whole thing, he can teach her to swim. Fourth, Ellie loves Joel and has never had anybody care about her the way Joel does. She barely knows Marlene who pawns her off on random strangers. She didn't know her parents. Riley is the only meaningful relationship we have any indication of prior to Joel and it's cut short. Point is, Ellie understands how rare and important the kind of relationship she and Joel develop is in their world. That is why she prioritizes Joel above herself and any chance of a vaccine on multiple occasions without skipping a beat (in TLOU). Yet, in the second game, Ellie suddenly acts like she didn't know (suspect) anything, and then acts all shocked and betrayed. Imagine that, saving the only person you care about instead of the whole world (that has already gone to shit and is almost irredeemable and un-savable) is seen as "evil" and "selfish" lol. Yes everyone, let's save this world full of nothing but thugs, cannibals and rapists. You're telling me if it was your daughter, you would've happily let some incompetent "doctor" cut her open in the hopes that they MIGHT make some sort of cure, to save a world that has already gone to shit? Please... "He does not, he is still controlling and manipulative, trying to insert himself into Ellie's life even after she asked him to stay away. He also doesn't regret any of his actions." "Controlling" and "manipulative", what? In what part is he controlling and/or manipulative? "Trying to insert himself into Ellie's life"? Yeah, no shit, they are practically father and daughter at this point. He wants to be with her and protect her. She is the only person that he cares about. "Doesn't regret any of his actions". Regret what actions? From the previous game? In which all of the people you kill are for his and Ellie's safety ? Name one instance from the previous game in which you aren't killing someone in self-defense. I'll wait. "No, Joel incited the conflict by going back on the deal he cut with the Fireflies, killing dozens of them and possibly dooming humanity." Okay, you either never played the first game or you really didn't pay attention to what happened. Ellie almost drowns, Joel saves her and starts giving her CPR, Fireflies cowards knock him out instead of helping, Joel wakes up in the hospital next to Marlene who tells him that they are going to cut Ellie open (without Ellie's consent, Ellie was unconscious) and they were going to throw Joel outside, to the infected without any of his gear to protect himself and cherry on top, THEY are the ones who backed out of the deal. They were not going to pay Joel for transporting Ellie to them. You know? The guns that they promised from the beginning of the game? So why would Joel give a fuck about any of them anymore? Ellie is the only one he cared about, he learns that the Fireflies are incompetent terrorists and they were about basically kill him by throwing him into danger without any way for him to protect himself. "eViL aND sELfiSH" He made a calm, rational decision to save her. Firefly likely severely impeded the ability of humanity to resist the plague because their response to immune people is not to monitor them for months and carefully work on replicating their immunity, but to cut their brains out. Abby's father was an enthusiastic murderous thug who deserved everything he got. Ellie was wrong to be annoyed at him, Joel was a great father who helped her and humanity The Fireflies were a violent, terroristic group dedicated to freeing humanity from the virus. Marlene, their leader, knocked out Joel and abducted Ellie, and within a few hours decided to do a fatal operation to remove her brain to try and cure the plague. The Fireflies are incompetent, fail to generate cures from past immune cases, and are not a reliable solution for humanity.
@@ShinRock54 What an essay. "This can save the whole world because it can undo the damage that has been done and rebuild the ranks of humanity while simultaneously reducing the ranks of the undead. This vaccine is not that. The vaccine would not undo any damage done. " It will reduce the ranks of the undead by preventing them from multiplying. It might not undo the damage, but it will prevent any further damage from being done, and save millions of lives throughout the following decades. "So, if they did make a vaccine, they would be able to distribute it to... Their own group's members and almost nobody else; most other groups would have no reason to trust the vaccine." Once they see WLF members getting bit and not turning, they will trust the vaccine. "By the time TLOU2 is in motion, most of the zombies are not even an issue compared to the 1st game. Except for plot zombie hordes that disappear once the story progresses." Zombies are a massive issue. The game takes place in locations where humans worked to exterminate them, and they are still a huge threat. Out in the wild, they are even more deadly. Ellie was nearly killed by them on her journey to Santa Barbara. Jackson has to constantly send out patrols to stop potential attacks, and if a horde ever passes close to it, it will be completely decimated. The moment Abby and her friends stray of course, they are nearly killed by infected. "Even if they somehow magically made the vaccine, there's no way they'd be able to make enough to "save the world" as they claim especially with the lethal method they planned on going with. " Why not? They have a few medical professionals and an advanced facility. Once they start spreading the vaccine, more people will join them, and they will be able to increase production. What does the method of developing the vaccine have to do with it? Once they have the formula, they won't have to hurt anyone to create doses. "To add to my previous point, let's say on top of all this BS, a single surgeon (not a vaccinologist who'd be better suited for this), in a run down shitty operating room, cuts Ellie's brain open and successfully makes a vaccine and replicates it to the point where everyone can get a shot; that essentially changes so little that it's basically pointless at the point the world is at!" Jerry spent many years trying to develop a vaccine, not one is better suited than him. His operating room was just fine. "In the first game, it's blatantly obvious that society has collapsed; the established world shows that most of the non-infected are strays, thugs, marauders, rapists, cannibals, or some mixture of all." If the infected were no longer a threat, society could return back to normal. Those people became hunters and cannibals because there weren't enough resources for them, and the lack of resources is caused by the infected, which control most of the country, and can show up at any moment. A vaccine would give people hope and a chance to take back the country. The Fireflies would have used it as leverage and formed an organization powerful enough to make the US safe again. "Your life is only saved in the situation where you got bitten and managed to escape. Zombies don't just leave after they bite you, they strike to kill." Spores are the Virus's primary means of spreading. Not everyone has gas masks. A vaccine would have stopped it. "And honestly, the people around you in most cases are a bigger threat than the zombies; that's not going to go away because of immunity. For fuck's sake Ellie's immune and she wasn't exactly living life all worry-free with no troubles whatsoever. " A vaccine would have helped the Fireflies gain more support and restore order to the US. "The Fireflies weren't some holier-than-thou faction like TLOU2 likes to portray them. It's wishful thinking to believe they wouldn't use this vaccine as a power play or bargaining chip to control others or trade it for resources. I highly doubt that the group of people who attacked a man trying to give his daughter figure CPR would be nice enough to just traverse dangerous environments just giving out something so valuable for free. " Joel tried to run over a man who was limping to him, begging for help. That Firefly obviously thought Joel was trying to trick him. The Fireflies using the vaccine to gain power is a good thing. The country would have been better of if they were in charge and not the hunters. "There's no way they could mass-produce a cure from one part of a child's brain, especially in their current predicament. " Ellie's brain would have helped them discover the formula for the vaccine, not make it. "Really? Did Ellie really want to be sacrificed for a "cure"? That we don't even know if it would've been possible to make? Or that it will even work?" Everyone, including Joel, believes it would have worked. All available evidence points in that direction. The only reason to say it wouldn't have as if you really want to defend Joel, but even he wouldn't have agreed with you, as I previously stated. "It would be an insult to her intelligence and intuition to assume she doesn't know what Joel tells her in the car is a complete lie. Yet, Ellie - who is also strong and willing to challenge Joel - doesn't even ask a single question or try to make sense of it. Why would she not ask something - ANYTHING - unless she knew he was lying? " Ellie is terrified of what Joel might have done. She doesn't want to know the truth at first because it might destroy her relationship with the only person that cares about her. "Third, Ellie never expects, nor mentions any willingness or desire to die for a vaccine. She fully expects to live. She promises Joel that they will go wherever he wants after the hospital. Joel promises he won't leave without her. Ellie then excitedly tells Joel that once they're done with this whole thing, he can teach her to swim. " She very clearly states she wanted to die in that hospital. "I was supposed to die in that hospital. My life would have fucking mattered." After she tells this to Joel, he still says he would have killed the Fireflies again, even though he knows she doesn't want that. "That is why she prioritizes Joel above herself and any chance of a vaccine on multiple occasions without skipping a beat (in TLOU). " When does she do that exactly? "Imagine that, saving the only person you care about instead of the whole world (that has already gone to shit and is almost irredeemable and un-savable) is seen as "evil" and "selfish" lol. Yes everyone, let's save this world full of nothing but thugs, cannibals, and rapists. You're telling me if it was your daughter, you would've happily let some incompetent "doctor" cut her open in the hopes that they MIGHT make some sort of cure, to save a world that has already gone to shit?" The world is very much salvable. Most of its inhabitants do terrible things because that's what they have to do to survive (Joel during his time as a hunter included). Even one of the Rattlers was only with them to get food for his family. ""Controlling" and "manipulative", what? In what part is he controlling and/or manipulative?" Trying to control her patrol routes and "save" her from Seth even though he doesn't need his help one bit. "No, Joel incited the conflict by going back on the deal he cut with the Fireflies, killing dozens of them and possibly dooming humanity." "THEY are the ones who backed out of the deal. They were not going to pay Joel for transporting Ellie to them. You know? The guns that they promised from the beginning of the game? If Joel wanted his payment, or to stay inside where it is safe, he should have asked, and they would have let him. He clearly wasn't interested in that anymore. "Ellie is the only one he cared about, he learns that the Fireflies are incompetent terrorists and they were about to basically kill him by throwing him into danger without any way for him to protect himself. "eViL aND sELfiSH" " Why are you saying they are incompetent at terrorism all of a sudden, and what does it have to do with the cure? If he was worried about his equipment, he would have asked for shelter or stole a gun and ran away. What makes Joel selfish is that he killed dozens of people directly, and millions indirectly, to save a girl he barely knew for a year. Thousands of innocent children died because Joel stopped the Fireflies from making a cure, and they died so Joel could play daddy for a few more years. No one supports his actions, not even Ellie herself. "Firefly likely severely impeded the ability of humanity to resist the plague because their response to immune people is not to monitor them for months and carefully work on replicating their immunity, but to cut their brains out." How would monitoring her help? The Fireflies ran the tests, what made Ellie immune was in her brain, and the only way to operate on it was to get it out. "The Fireflies are incompetent, fail to generate cures from past immune cases, and are not a reliable solution for humanity." There were no past immune cases.
33:46 “After Abby is saved by Lev and Yara, she is forced to question her feelings.” *Abby is literally saved by Joel & Tommy Abby: So anyways, I started blasting.
@@jasonalv7436 Both of y'all missed the point. We clearly see a reaction shot of Abby being shocked that her father's murderer saved her life. But since she's so thoroughly convinced herself that Joel is a monster (Like you've convinced yourselves Abby has no humanity!) she rushes to push this out of her mind. When Yara and Lev save her, she is confronted with this again. She doesn't want to kill Yara and Lev, so she leaves. But she has a dream confirming that letting them die is the same as killing them. When Lev asks Abby why she is helping them, she says "Guilt. I just wanted to lighten the load." She's not going to just come right out and say it because that's what subtext is for. But she feels bad that someone saved her life and she killed them for it, so now she's trying to redeem herself in her own eyes.
@@nonuvurbeeznus795 I disagree completely. She made a shocked face cuz she didn't realize that this was Joel, the person she has been hunting for years, in front of her face and she hasn't even made it to Jackson yet. There was no point where Abby was shocked that Joel saved her life and she needed to reconsider her actions. If they really wanna properly show this, Abby would've at the very least hesitated or even told Manny that she doesn't wanna kill him anymore and Manny told her about her father's death which resulted her going back to convincing herself that he is a monster. None of that happened so there is nothing supporting your claim that Abby was surprised that Joel saved her life. Abby having a dream to save Yara and Lev was very forced. There's really no real reason why she wanted to save Yara and Lev. Did they remind her of a family member the way Joel was reminded of Sarah when trying to save Ellie? no. Did she feel like she owes them for saving her life? Well maybe but she tortured someone who risk his life to save hers slowly and she enjoys it. She only hesitates because Ellie was there but before Ellie was there, she was definitely taking her time with it. You might be saying that guilt drives Abby to save Lev after what she did to Joel, the man who saved her life. But this was never communicated. Yes she still dreams about her father being killed but that is not guilt. It just shows that killing Joel was meaningless. Her feeling bad after killing Joel even after he saved her life would've been a great motivation for the character but that wasn't exactly stated, not even through subtext. Lemme ask you this, what is Abby's character trajectory or her destination and what she needed to be in the end? Tell me what she should be in the beginning and what she should become
@@jameslanier2510 The difference is that those kids came from a cult she has been told to despise and the other is the guy that killed her father. She had 0 hesitation in killing the man and even takes her fuckin time with it as if she enjoys it and the other she risk everything to save these 2 kids she just met. That's a massive gap
While I don't believe The Last of Us Part II is terrible writing, I do believe the writers shot themselves in the foot by making Joel's death so brutal even though it is clear it was also necessary for the story they were trying to tell. They essentially set themselves an impossible task further complicated by working in an interactive medium. If Abby had simply killed Joel with a gunshot to the head, Ellie's path to peace might have been possible, but the way Abby killed Joel made it impossible, which I think was their point, but I argue that's also what made it impossible for many players to accept playing as Abby, or reconcile Ellie not getting revenge with their own need for catharsis. The visceral horror of Joel's death makes it feel unjustified no matter what Abby's reasons are, and we know it is revenge she is after rather than justice because she clearly says Joel doesn't get to rush his death. Obviously the writers intentionally made Joel's death brutal, and it absolutely succeeds with getting the player on board with Ellie, but I think it also undermines the point about factionalism, particularly in the event trying to be a mirror for Tommy and Ellie's reactions to it. People recognize that killing an enemy can be justified while torturing a prisoner cannot. That's the reason we can have the terms war and war crime. There is no Geneva Convention in The Last of Us Part II, but people understand there are levels to violence, and some are more transgressive than others. Tommy's sniping is combat. Ellie approaches Abby's level of transgression (torturing a prisoner to death) when she threatens to kill Lev (murdering a noncombatant), but she doesn't go through with it. In the end, the more transgressive Abby gets her revenge and gets to walk away while Ellie gets neither of these things, and the player is left to wonder, "Did the bad guy just win?" While less interactive media like movies and books can have the antagonist win or have the protagonist achieve only a pyrrhic victory (and Ellie didn't even get that), that's a trickier proposition for a video game because it means the player ostensibly lost.
First I'd like to say this is a good point to me. If we say the purpose of the game is to teach the player about factionalism and revenge then perhaps the violence of Joel's death made the lesson too hard. Perhaps some would have appreciated the game more if there was a lower barrier to feeling empathy. I do hope that even those who reject this game might some day in the future when they find themselves in a position where they feel wronged by an outsider to their faction will think back to this game. I am sure many won't and I don't have any way to tell how many other than base instincts about what people are like. I guess my response is if you make Joel's death less impactful will the emotions we learn about in this moment compare to the genuine emotion we will feel when we want revenge in the future. I come to this game as a form of practice. Can I maintain a desire for peace and healing over violence and revenge even when I'm this angry. I would put forth that it's not trying to only teach people unfamiliar with factionalism how damaging it is but also let those of us who acknowledge it's irrationality get a chance to put that belief to the test when we have an emotional investment to those that have been lost. Thank you for your point and the tension between having any lesson be challenging to those familiar with the topic and inclusive to those who are not is always something I find very fascinating.
It does feel Abby is unjustified if you take your feelings out Abby is justified to an extent. Torturing is still taking it too far but consider this her whole life was turned upside down because of Joel and for 4 years she's been suffering nightmare she can only think about is getting revenge on the man who took everything from her for that she's even ruined her relationship. Torturing is still too Far but considering everything you can understand why she did torture him she thought causing him all that pain would take away her nightmares and fix things. It didn't like “sometimes the way we deal with trauma isn't the way out but you still don't know what the right way is” She as to deal with the consequences of this. None of Abby's actions are any more cruel than Ellie they just seem worse cause we prefer Ellie. If you justify Ellie's you justify Abby's as well otherwise it's hypocrisy. You say Abby got her revenge and gets to walk way but she lost her lover all her friends and basically her whole faction(Though she didn't agree with them anymore leaving your faction and having to kill them for your survival is definitely not easy). All she as left is Lev she definitely didn't come unscathed her revenge came with a heavy price. Just like Abby Ellie still as Dina and JJ she's going to have to work for her and Dina to go back to how they were but since it's heavily hinted at they've seen each other she still as Dina and JJ just like Abby as Lev. Both of them paid a heavy price for their actions and both are left with a small piece of their family intact. The player wins he/she can finally take solace in the fact that these two woman are finally able to move past the cycle of violence and revenge that as ruined their lives and can finally look to the future with their loved ones having finally left the past behind. The ending is far more hopeful than most realise. It's bittersweet like the first games ending.
I totally agree on this point, way too brutal and seeing their unconflicted reactions made it feel disjointed as they then tried to go 'and here's why they did it'. Another thing I think, though I could be totally wrong on this, is in the first game with David and his crew in winter, they could have easily told this same story at that point. As they tried to do, except he turned out to be batshit crazy. It's not a bad story to tell in the apocalyptic setting and it's a very real thing, but 2 just went a little too ham. Though I admit I am in the camp of 'this isn't the story I wanted', but when I think about what I would've wanted from a second game...not much. If even a second game. I was dying to see more of how Ellie would handle Joel's lie, if she thought he lied or not, but that's not what 2 focused on and I didn't care to hear anymore. 2's story just beat a dead horse/Joel for too long and too hard for me.
"They essentially set themselves an impossible task further complicated by working in an interactive medium." Based on the digging I've done, I believe that was entirely Neil Druckmann's intention: "Could we make take a character, make the player absolutely despise them, and then bring them to empathize with that character?" TLOU2 was, in every way, Naughty Dog's most ambitious title. Neil also knew that there would be people who would never be able to get on board with it. I would argue that Ellie did obtain victory: the ending is far more ambiguous than people realize, and while I found it depressing at first, I've come to see it as more hopeful than anything.
One thing would have severely helped the game. Start with Abby. Don’t even imply in a trailer that Joel or Ellie are in the game. Have our introduction to Joel be from Abby’s perspective and the trauma she experiences. Then by the time Joel dies, you feel more torn about it.
Why’s everything gotta be so linear in a story , isn’t it good when things arnt streamlined and thought provoking? I just don’t get it. Some abstraction is a good thing is it not ?
Imagine killing the friends of your father's killer, even a pregnant woman, just to spare that same killer in the end. Its like John Wick sparing the guy who killed his dog.
Judging by the way people reacted to leaks and were hating on the game pre-release, it appears direction was the problem for most people. Particularly the direction where Joel gets to face the consequences of his actions in the first game and the game featuring a muscular female lead.
@@weaverquest That was because of the lack of context. Killing Joel is an interesting idea/direction but they pulled it off in such a disheartening and illogical way. Instead of outright killing him for opening up to strangers, they could have built the relation between Joel and Abby (this way we'd have liked both character) and she internally struggles about killing him (they could have hinted at this by her acting strange) but later when they are being chased by a hoard or something, she could have left him to die and revealed what he did to her father. I think this would have been more logical and emotional. That's not even the end of the poor execution. Multiple characters died and their names weren't even mentioned. Literally, Manny's and Jessi's death were so irrelevant. We went on a whole chapter to save Yara and she dies suddenly later, like what was the point? (If it was Lev's relation, it could have been done other ways). Also, Ellie kills so so many people to realize at the very end that she shouldn't kill Abby. They should have made her question herself a bit more too. To some degree, it feels forced, because of these illogical decisions which really puts you out of it, and it's worse because we control them. It could have been a much much better game.
@@FirezAper46... Abby had prepared for years and years of her life to avenge her father and kill Joel. How the holy fuck were they gonna have some special bonding time where that makes her question her intent to kill him??? Lmao
@@Vivivofi Well,if she had time to fucking TORTURE him to death with a fuckin golf club, probably she would have time to question herself and her revenge question when he LITERALLY SAVED HER LIFE. The fact that she simply ignores the fact that Joel risked his life and saved her and,yet,she still tortures him makes her even more irredimable and it gets worse when you think that the game wanted to you to sympathize with her,again,the problem it's the execution. There were other ways of doing this scene,but they chosen the worst one possible...
@@feralves1 ahahah.. okay, let me ask you this: how many people did Ellie kill on her brutal rampage across America? How many people? You’re giving the game a shitty review because it messed with your emotions, mate. It’s not ‘the execution’ or some shite like that, you just loved Joel so much. So did I. But let’s face it- he wasn’t exactly the perfect role model. He taught Ellie to behave the way she did in the second game, going on a mad murder spree. Do you get what I’m saying here?
If I were to flawlessly make a follow up to LotR where Gandalf went around clubbing hobbits on the head with his staff, then both Brandon and Tim better not say anything about it.
Except it drops the ball on it and even if it were ment to be everything is crap the logic behind it is so poor. They showing of it is bad. Its simply frustrating and makes you not care. Iok from Gundam ibo is someone you hate with a passion. He's bad and annoying in the way you still are invested in. This game just loses you. Furthermore I think ibo season 2 has more to say and ties in better with Gundam as a series with the shift in roles that the protagonists we follow are in.
There's another Sanderson quote that talks about this: "Tastes vary, and that's OKAY." This is his sixth point in his '10 Things I Wish I had Known as a Teenage Writer' video (past the 20 minute mark). At the end of the day, there are going to be 1-star reviews posted for every story under the sun, even for cherished, non-provocative classics. There's clearly a sizable amount of people who like what TLOU2 says and does, and there is an audience somewhere who will like seeing Gandalf bashing hobbits on the head. Your taste matters a great deal when you want to critique anything
@@jacobottesen5279 I'm not saying that's not true, but there's a level to which philosophy goes beyond taste and becomes mindset, something whose value is just as subjective yet definitely nontrivial.
Dina was indeed not a part of this mess, but Abby sure didn't care about, and wouldn't mind that, she was willing to slice her neck "she has nothing to do with this..." "good." she had Lev to stop her, simply by calling her name, which felt like plot convenience. ellie didn't have that. and that's where the parallel stopped i personally find it odd and jarring, the whole story feels like it sides with abby, and destroys ellie, and it's probably done intentionally, for some reason. one of the most significant signs is that they both did smite a person's head. difference is, abby's part is done differently than ellie's part. if the game is talking about "us vs them" topic, it sure has taken a side. ellie is scarred permanently, while abby just moved on (she moved on long ago before the fight in the beach) if anything, it split the fanbase, which was pretty much "us vs them" lol
You need to take into account that WE KNOW that Ellie killed Mel without knowing she was pregnant, but Abby has no way to verify that for herself. Mel’s jacket is open, so Abby concludes that Ellie must’ve known about Mel’s pregnancy and killed her anyway.
The game is not siding with anyone, it's just portraying its characters at different points of their respective arcs. Abby has already fulfilled her revenge and realised it didn't bring her any closure, so her arc is about understanding the futility of that endeavour and finding ways of making peace with the memory of her father, which she does by helping Lev. That's why he's the one that prevents her from killing Dina, he's the key for Abby to escape the cycle of violence started by her father's murder.
I think there is something here about Lev and Abby, because in the end despite all the atrocities Ellie commited and the people she lost but physically and emotionally, she never actually finished her revenge plot. Abby is showing how her revenge against Joel didn't bring her solace and having someone help her move on, while Ellie, despite having lost the ways to heal, never actually hits the final low that Abby did at the start of the game. She doesn't have as much work to do to heal like Abby did, and neither are really justified in their actions. Abby is about to fall down the same path that she once fell down, she just has people who are no longer cheering on those actions, while Ellie is surrounded more by the people who cheer on those actions so much she loses connection the people that don't cheer her on. And if Lev had died Abby wouldn't have that voice of reason and there is a high chance she would start slipping again. Sorry that's a ramble it's just a really complex idea, because I think part of the whole video is that we are justifying terrible actions because we agree with one person more than the other or because of how recently we saw them.
Idkll, I feel like you are taking things to personally because Ellie, the character you most like (and for good reason as we have spent much more time with her as a character and she is very likeable) did not get the result you wanted. I don't at all feel like Abby was favored
That’s because we see two characters in different stages in their revenge and grief, two themes the game explores extensively. They go through inverse paths. With Abby, we begin the game seeing her commiting an atrocious act that seems like from a disturbing episode of Game of Thrones, and we start in Seattle the process to discover her humanity, how she regains it in a painful process where she loses everyone who loved her. With Ellie though, it’s how she loses her humanity and turns into a destructive force willing to make all the pain at her disposal to feed her ego. Neil has declared in many interviews that violence and revenge are like drugs for Ellie. She’s concious of how pathetic and pointless they’re, but she has to do it, she can’t stop (it’s something we can see very clear whith her expression when she forces Abby to fight her in Santa Barbara). She blames Abby as if killing her will resolve her unresolved issues with Joel. What makes her think all the kills she makes on a revenge quest is her own inmunity, ad if all those kills are plainly justified. That’s what feeds her hero complex and the game constantly challenges that assertion by forcing her to make more difficult and ruthless choices. It’s not until the very end that she gives up, forgiving herself and (I do think) Joel, starting her way on a path towards redemption. I hope she can find a way to live on her own
The reason tlou1 worked so well was because it was simple; the plot was straightforward and they basically just meet people along the way. The focus was on Joel and Ellie. Everything else existed to serve the development of those two characters. When you have very few story ideas, you can develop those few ideas very well. Tlou2 tried to do too much and I hate that the infected took a backseat; which almost always happen eventually in a lot of zombie stuff.
Indeed; the best stories are almost always simple stories with deep meaning. It's why they are so timeless, and you can talk about them for days. But I'm not sure this game tried to "do too much"; I think it just sucked at what it tried to do, contradicted itself, and ultimately said nothing.
@@arottedfruit whatever, your opinion dude. I literally don’t have time to defend mine. I already did that too much last year. All I’m gonna say is that I didn’t even necessarily say I hate Part 2’s ideas or that it didn’t have nuance. It just simply tried to tackle too much.
I don't think enough people realize the truth about that old saying "Less is More". The Last of Us Part 1 didn't need to tell this convoluted, overly bloated mess of a story about revenge with a meaningless rotation of bland characters like Part 2. It invested ALL of it's energy into Joel and Ellie, because they ARE the story, and that kept the story's pacing tight and focused, Joel and Ellie organically went through tremendous growth with each other, and the game rarely jumped from character to character (and when it did, like when you're playing as Ellie in the winter chapter, or again as her in the very end). It's extremely effective and serves a PURPOSE and makes total sense (Joel is out of commission when you're playing as Ellie the first time, so it's the chance to see just how far Ellie has come as a survivor coming into her own, furthering her development, and it gives the game more tension because she's far more vulnerable without her protector by her side, so it makes narrative sense and spices the gameplay up without being forced). I don't give a shit if someone claims the games plot was "generic". Joel and Ellie are what made the first TLOU the masterpiece it is today. I love it the same way I love The Walking Dead, and so many other simple stories that carry so much complexity and depth. If your characters are grabbing me, and I'm anxious to see what they do next, you've already won.
The infected exist as a metaphor. The story has never been about them. For instance, the Rat King fight represented Abby’s reverse heel turn (baby face turn?), and her inner battle against herself. I do wish they had better shown how Abby feels about herself during the events of Part 2.
I don't mind the game making me feel depressed for the characters. That is intentional. What I do mind is the game being so transparent about it, that it insults your intelligence.
Right?? Here is Ellie killing a dog, now she bad. Here is Abby petting the same dog, she good right? For me, the whole problem with the game isn't even the 'controversy of forgiveness' or 'oh no Joel died' or whatever. It's just the disrespect for the characters, storytelling, and messages that it lacks smacks you over the head with the message and I hate it.
Any game where a pregnant woman dies, and another one almost dies, you are trying too hard. Throw a couple babies on the grill while you're at it, because at that point you've gone too far, I've seen the wizard, and I know you're trying to make me feel bad with cheap tricks.
These are good points, but the things that the game makes us feel and the good things it does only makes the issues more glaring. Joel had to die, it made sense, the guy did so many monstruous things, justified or not, and Abby being out for revenge makes sense even after he saves her but it paints Abby on weird light. She tortures a men in front of his friends and then lets them live. It feels like the plot pulls Abby into directions in order to manipulate the player and the curtain falls, the characters feel more like tools of the story creators and less like people. Even the feeling that Ellie was more justified was tarnished by the way she acted, she decides to go after Abby and in the end she saves Abby only to then decide to duel her on a knife fight, using a fainted child as hostage to force Abby to fight her. Her revenge there feels like nonsense because then she lets Abby go. Both Abby and Ellie feel like they were done dirty in this story for no reason other than to cause the player to feel bad. Your analysis makes the game look better but it is stll a beautiful cake splattered on the pavement. Whenever the game asks us "What we would do in their place" way too many times we wouldn't do what they did, all the way from the beginning, the plot takes priority over the characters. But the game is not about us, it is about characters being being pulled by strings and the strings being way too visible to some of us to really enjoy it.
@Wackaz - Arthur Wacker I say he had to die as a storytelling device, it's not that I hate him. For the narrative to sell the idea of loss someone important had to die, and it made sense if that someone was Joel, he was important both for and for the players. Besides he was making enemies even before the Fireflies incident, something was bound to catch up to him sooner or later. Back when the trailer came out people even thought that Joel could've died between games and was only going to appear in flashbacks. We could live with that, if it was handled well, but as you put it, his death was tasteless and disresptful, tortured and murdered by a hooligan with a hormonal disorders.
@@williansnobre i would completely disagree that it was disrespectful. It was disrespectful on the part kf Abby, and deliberately so, but not disrespectful of the writers or the narrative. If it waa disrespectful, his death would have just been a meaningless and unnecessary plot device for nothing more than shock value in order to drive the plot forward. "Eh just get him out of the way so we can finally tell the story we actually want to tell." Instead, his untimely demise, Ellie's connection to him and the need for emotional and psychological closure because of his importance to her was the entire crux of Ellie's journey. You don't have this story without Joel mattering to all of the main characters akd to the audience. We have the story we got precisely because the connection that both we and the other characters had with Joel was meaningful.
@@Tyler_W That's a fair point, but it makes Abby's decision to leave Ellie and Tommy alive feel arbitrary. She tortured and killed a guy and loved it, killing the two nobodies that happened to be there would be a natural step afterwards (or at least attempt to, they could be forced to run after reinforcements from Jackson came) but instead she lets them live and gets mad afterwards because they "ruined it" once they come hunting her down. Alternatively Abby could've realized that she did something wrong the momment Ellie called Joel "dad", then leave in a hurry, claiming that they did what they came to do while trying to hide the guilt she felt from her group. Regardless if they wanted her to be seen as a monster or not, they could make her feel more human. The characters constantly make decisions that look like they were put in place to service the plot and feel artificial. Joel's death feels disrespectful to some of us because since the rest of the plot feel artificial and meaningless his death also becomes meaningless. Anyway, that's just my opinion.
I think that Ellie at the end was acting irrationally when she started that fight on purpose. She has trauma but at that point in the game, she hasn't been on her revenge killing spree in a while and her trauma won't go away by it. She initiates it because it's a last ditch effort for closure that she's unsure about but wanted to test it knowing that it's irrational (hence threatening Lev, who she just saved).
I respectfully disagree with you. I feel like your points on player agency falls completely flat because the game never provides you with a choice to begin with. We don't get to choose to go after Abby. We don't get a choice kill her friends. If we didn't kill the dog we died. Before you bring up how it wasn't our story, you specifically say player agency in a game that gives little player agency. You could fix the statement by saying character agency instead of player agency. Themes of revenge are my bread and butter. I love that shit so much and always try to incorporate that into my writing. I bring this up because I wasn't onboard with the revenge mission whatsoever. I simply lacked the mindset for the game to actually work for me. Everything you say in the video is excellent in theory but the execution fell so flat for me. I saw what the game was trying to do but it lacked any sort of subtlety that would be crucial in making work. I saw it as purposely manipulative. I think your opening sentence in your pinned comment ironically misses the mark of the criticism. It stems from the fact that the game was trying to get you to feel something, guilt, remorse, introspection, whatever. It tried to get me to feel something and I felt absolutely nothing. It also didn't help that I didn't care about any character whatsoever. I could not get into it because the people didn't feel that real. Mel going on the mission is plain silly. I find it weird that Neil, who is a father, doesn't understand that when women are very pregnant, like Mel was, they value the safety of the baby above anything else. I also disagree with assessment of Dina. I did not care about her at all. I didn't really find her all that endearing and I struggle to understand why you that call her brilliant. Next I feel like you completely misunderstood why people dislike Joel's death so much. It wasn't that he died or fully the way he died, though admittedly that does play a part. It has to do with the fact that it felt so contrived that the emotions it produced was simple frustration. I think the biggest difference with our experiences is that the game made you feel all the right emotions and it made me feel all the wrong ones. Don't interpret this as an attack or anything or me saying your interpretation is somehow inferior to mine. Personally, I think this is the best critique of the game in favor of it I've heard, but I can't help but disagree this game did exactly the opposite to me as it did to you.
I didn't choose to not kill Marlene either in the first game. This arguments is a bit inconsistent when you take in consideration even other story driven game out there like God of War, Witcher 3 and such. I don't think Ellie's revenge was about going "on board" or not, but it certainly was understandable, specially if you have the first game's context. Actually it's the opposite, people bought Ellie's revenge so much that they all complained about silly things like hating Abbie's obviously justifiable actions or the final moments of the game.
@@UmTois I have no problem with plot driven games. I only mentioned it because he such a big deal about PLAYER agency in the video even though there is no player agency. You can't talk about choices the player made when the player wasn't given a choice.
Yes, every time Tim speaks about agency, I had to roll my eyes because the player has none whatsoever. You can only murder, because otherwise the game gives a failure state and forces you to start over. This story is made for a movie or a novel. It squanders the game medium entirely.
the major problem is that at the end of the day Abby gets more humanized for her atrocious actions than Ellie. Abby gets a happy ending and a closure for getting her revenge while Ellie doesn't, Abby didn't saw her Father Getting shot, but Ellie was forced to Watch her only father figure getting killed in the most brutal way. Yet she is the one who has to learn the lessons, lose everything, show mercy and left to suffer, but Abby gets what she wants and a chance to turn a new leaf if the main goal of the game was to show that these characters are literally the same because they commit same type of atrocities, then why is only one of them is punished for seeking out revenge but the other more or less gets rewarded? none of it makes sense
Abby did not get a happy ending, and both Ellie and Abby got closure. Abby learned the hard way too, and suffered arguably more than Ellie did, though I don't think it's really a competition. Abby didn't get what she wanted, and it took a great deal of effort, struggle, and sacrifice for her to turn a new leaf. Abby is severely punished for her revenge and only rewarded for her acts of compassion.
That's a really good point. I haven't played either game, but I never once sympathized with Abby for her actions, and not just because she killed Joel, although that was clearly the main reason. They tried so hard to make her sympathetic, but failed in every way. Yes, her dad dying was tragic, but she also brutally killed a wonderful character who just helped her prior to that. It didn't matter who he was, she could've still spared him and what made it even worse was that Ellie was forced to watch. How the hell am I supposed to sympathize with Abby after that? If she was the main antagonist after the zombies with no redeeming arc whatsoever, then it would've been better in my opinion.
Abby is further along in her story arc, she kills joel then is filled with guilt. Her story is about redemption whilst ellie’s is about her reaching the point that abby got to after her dad died
@@atharvadeshpande4749 line between discussion and a keyboard war is really thin. What for other people is discussion for you might very well be flaming.
I don’t think that’s always the case. Sometimes the audience isn’t really ready for the art. There were probably a lot of gamers who just wanted to shoot zombies and see the good guys make it to safety. In a similar vein, there were/still are loads of people who see Apocalypse Now as a film that glorifies and hypes up war. Is that the fault of the writers and directors? I don’t think so. Art isn’t consumed in a vacuum, and I don’t think we should assume that good storytelling will always be received with positive reception out of the gate.
@@jasonkonold6780 While I think you have a point, it doesn't seem to apply here. It's pretty clear that HFM really clicked with what the authors were putting down emotionally and I think that has allowed him to gloss over the many issues the plot has. I've experienced this many times, especially with David Cage's games. I think things like Ned Stark's execution and The Red Wedding show that audiences are willing to go with darker themes if they are set up properly and I think if they'd handled things just a bit differently they could have pulled this off better. As it stands, it's still a pretty good game.
@Homu Mou Haven't watched that yet, but I think Batman and Robin is a good movie, better than the Dark Knight even, which was a step down from Batman Begins, so my opinions are far from those of the majority. I believe quality is in the eyes of the beholder.
@Homu Mou Did I say that EVERY poorly received movie is only poorly received because of the audience? Of course not, that's a ridiculous claim to make. I'm saying that, in THIS case, the expectations of an unsophisticated audience was a major causal factor for widespread backlash. I'm not saying the audience is always wrong, I'm saying they sometimes are.
@@Disthron I obviously don't expect you to come up with a rebuttal of similar length and complexity to the original video, but is there anything specific that you can point to as an example of an issue with the plot?
"My internal reality wasn't matching the external truth" Going through a rough spot atm, and I cried when you highlighted that - thank you for bringing that up, put many things into context for me :) Awesome video as always!
Whenever i start to spiral i gotta do reality checks "am i on some bullshit? Ah, it appears i am" it doesnt make the feeling go away but its driftwood in a storm
She's lost everything and is empty now but I think there is still hope for her. “being empty means anything can fit inside you. if you want to be reborn, empty's the best way to be.” ― Makoto Yukimura (Vinland Saga)
It is asking you to empathize with Ellie and try to understand what she is going through. The entire TLOU franchise is all about that actually, and the reason why people are arguing about Joel's decision at the end of the first game all these years later. What games like TLOU and Red Dead 2 do so well is to create immersive worlds and gameplay mechanics that let you experience the story of its main characters in another level compared to passive mediums. That's why the story in games like TLOU and Red Dead Redemption were so effective on people. They are just on another level of immersion. It is always funny to me when people suggest all games should be RPGs where you create your own character and go on a journey where you make your own decisions along the way because this is an "interactive medium" even though 99% of actual video games are not like that at all.
@@weaverquest I wasn't saying that the game should be an RPG where you get to make all the decisions. The original video continually says things like 'the game is asking you X' but if you can't give a response then it's not really a question is it? Sure you could disagree by turning off the game but I don't count that as an option within the game itself. Also, it seems they really missed the mark with trying to get people to empathies with Elly because a LOT of people didn't. At least in TLoU1 people understood why Joel was doing what he was doing even if they weren't 100% on board.
@@Disthron That seems to be an issue over semantics. What is wrong with the statement that "the game is asking you to empathize with its characters" for example? I wouldn't say Naughty Dog missed the mark. The moral questions are harder in Part II compared to the first game and the characters arcs more complex as well as the narrative structure. That's why it is natural that not everybody will get to empathize with the characters but I do see the game resonating with a LOT of people watching various essay type videos from people like Noah Caldwell, Nathan Zed, Girlfriend Reviews, dunkey etc. and reading their comment sections.
@@weaverquest *Shrugs* I guess there is nothing wrong with that working, but that's not how it was worded by the original video. The way it was phrased made it seem like the game was giving you a choice, which it doesn't seem to be, which is why I objected. See there have been a number of games at this point who have tried to manipulate the player into feeling a certain way and then tried to shame them after the fact. Based on what I've seen, it seems this is what has happened here too. I think are quite a few people who really appreciated the LGBT representation and are willing to overlook the games other plot holes... I'd also like to reiterate that most people aren't saying the game is bad overall just that they really missed the mark on the story. It seems the Devs had to commit character assassination in order to get the plot to keep going and a lot of people didn't appreciate that. Elly should have known that something like this might happen to Joel, he has a long and bloody past.
TLOU 2 plays with your emotions usung interactivity in a painful way. When youre Abby and understand her motives to mercillesly kill Ellie and it forces you to go on that conveys a lot more than watching a movie for example. Same with that fight at the beach. What a fully constructed character feels and does bc of that is not what you feel and do. Not every fk game should be about deciding how the story turns out. Thats a reduccionist criticism
I haven't played this game because it's not a franchise I ever got into, but it sounds like this type of story would be at odds with itself, given that it's a video game. The same medium that forces you to empathize with Ellie's perspective also forces your hand and decisions. So, the story only works as long as you align emotionally with the characters you are playing, but doesn't work if you don't, given that it's not a game about choices. Essentially, I could see myself just getting frustrated with Ellie and Abbey as the game forces me to do things I don't agree with, creating points of contention and frustration with the themes they are trying to cram down my throat. That is often an issue I find myself in with these kinds of video games.
This is the biggest failure of the game IMO. Neil Druckmann himself (main writer) said that if you fail to sympathize with Abby the entire narrative falls apart, and no matter what you think about the narrative it obviously failed to do that for a large portion of the player base. I think the way this game was sequenced is absolutely awful and the biggest reason for the massive pushback from fans.
@@tehbige73 it makes me Think the issue was the medium then. If it was a movie, TV show, or book then instead of the game portions forcing you to act how you don't want you means you lose immersion. You aren't engaged with the world. You are being dragged and forced through these themes. It's Abby and Ellen acting this way, not me. I'm just being dragged along. If the game put you on a position seeking violence then question yourself and your actions thenyou will be left thinking of the cycleof violence. But they aren't asking you. They are asking Ellen, thentelling you to play her part. You are then left either agreeing with Ellen and feeling unable to act when the game forces you to play Abby and protect her, or reject Ellen's path and resent the game for making you commit them.
The message being presented this way comes across as preachy and accusatory, though I don't want to commit to saying that that was the intention. Nobody likes to be told that their way of thinking or feeling is wrong. I personally would have liked if Ellie and Abby were portrayed as tragic heroes on opposing sides, rather than mutual monsters. Their motivations for revenge are relatable. The desire to seek justice for one's own people or values can be pushed to the extreme, but it's natural and isn't inherently bad.
If you want to play a videogame where you get to empathise with the antagonist, but it's well written, play the RPG " Breath of Fire IV " (PS1, 2000). By the end I was totally, 100% on the antagonist's side! : )
If you want free will and self insert TLOU as a whole is not for you. It’s not the failure of the games, but the player’s who insist their wants should be realised in a story about individuals who’s not them. Just because you disagree with decisions characters made in part 2 doesn’t mean the writing is bad. In fact many people didn’t realise that because they agree with Joel in part one so they go along with the flow, whereas TLOU 2 constantly challenges players. This style of storytelling is both it’s greatest strength and restriction.
My fiance's one year old cat just died earlier this week. What I'm trying to say is that you chose the absolute worst and best title and I have no choice but to watch now.
Condolences. It's hard enough to lose an animal, let alone so young. Let yourself grieve. You're not silly for grieving an animal. Send pictures of them to friends, remember their life in all the golden moments. Your loss is a loss even if it's "just" a cat. Sending good wishes for your and your fiance through this.
@@GrimmDelightsDice oh I don't feel silly at all for mourning one of the loveliest shorty cats I've ever seen. Just the serendipity of that plus the title of the video just gave me a 'Oh for frak' s sake' vibe. Now, a video from happier days... Though it turned out he was a boy and not a daughter, ha! th-cam.com/video/sJCD1xhR3cI/w-d-xo.html
For me the game fails because even if Abby's cause to avenge her father was noble, she still is very wrong to torture the man who saved her and sheltered her and her friends, this while his "daughter" watched. There is no way to justify an attitude like that.
I think you're forgetting the part where Joel also stopped a vaccine from being made. Regardless of whether or not it was possible, in Abby's perspective Joel has basically fucked over humankind.
@@tieflingcorpse9817 so keeping your daughter from dying is “selfish”? Lol. Let me know how you feel if you ever have kids. See if you wouldn’t be arguing about this when you yourself would probably fuck over the world for your baby too. The Greater Good is mainly known as the politician’s dodge, the murderer’s solace, the culprits excuse and several other metaphors, because it is like a scapegoat they run to every time they make a decision that affects many in a harmful way, claiming that it will benefit many others. It is something that we all pass judgement on, but refuse to put ourselves in the decision maker’s shoes to realise what an impossible choice it is. The fireflies have already been aiding in decreasing the population when killing many others for a so-called “cure” or simply a vaccine. They’ve also committed acts of terrorism in quarantine zones against the U.S. military. The Fireflies are doing what is in “humanity's best interest”, as always. But you have to think about your new family, and humanity takes a backseat. The military was always the good guys, or rather, better than the fireflies. You see them guarding the ration stations, manning checkpoints, and pulling squatters out of buildings to check them for signs of infection. You also see them kill an infected woman and shooting some man running away. Now it is suspicious to run from the military when they check you for infection. Running from the authorities while doing a medical inspections is a sign that that person probably is infected therefore cannot allow him to risk infecting others. Especially when you know there are smugglers operating underground. So running away from a medical screening would be a sure sign that you’re infected when pulled from underground from hazardous zones. People can come and go as they please. Since the military do lethal injections on those who are infected, it shows they are being as humane as possible. They’re already sacrificing scarce medical resources to be humane. But what role do the fireflies play in this? By undermining the authorities of the military by promoting fears, and greed on the public. They ambush military convoys who may quite possibly be carrying food, ammunition, and medical supplies and engage in prolonged gunfights on otherwise harmless people which wastes ammo when they should be used to fight the real threats outside of their walls. And because they utilize smugglers for resources, that’s probably a primary reason why infected individuals make it inside of quarantined zones in the first place, thus promoting more hazardous outcome of the civilians inside said quarantined cities. They do more harm than good by weakening the militaries ability to keep the peace and keep civilians safe making their jobs of protecting the last remnants of humanity nearly impossible. And to make matters worse, they are planning to keep this supposed known hope for humanity, the vaccine, in their grasp because they are so desperate for control. Why do you think they commit acts of terrorism in the first place? To strike fear in the public which establishes dominance. Most innocent my ass. This isn’t about saving humanity, this is about dictatorship. Because if ever they have obtained a “cure” or a vaccine, they would most likely try to transport it to dangerous open terrain rather than share it with the military who would love to have a cure or vaccine just as much as they do for their people, and probably have many highly capable medical facilities to do so. And a fourteen year old girl would’ve died for that. Not to save humanity, but for the fireflies to gain control and power. Now that’s worse than what Ellie and Joel did combined. They only killed when necessary: to survive and defend. But that’s all over looked because today, we’re suppose to see rebels as the good guys. This isn’t Star Wars where joining the rebel alliance against a corrupted empire means you’re fighting the dark side to restore the republic, no, this is the other way around. It’s like saying Ultron and Thanos were the heroes while villainizing the avengers. But in reality, it’s the Fireflies, somewhere on the same levels as Thanos, are idealists with their own agenda and beliefs because they believed they could “save the world”. Kind of like how Thanos believed he was saving the universe but he wiped out half the population of the universe. But he committed infinite mass murder for his belief. So did the fireflies. What’s better? Committing mass murder for an idealism/belief or committing mass murder for survival/defense? Kind of like how the fireflies committed mass murder for their own beliefs. So the “greater good” has providing cover for great evil. That’s no one else decisions but theirs. Besides, the scientists haven’t even tried plasma or some other form of research as far as we know. They just go straight into killing. And without consent. Ellie isn’t old enough to consent. Not for this or anything else. Ellie has just as much right to live for herself as the rest of the survivors in the world and Joel had every right to live for himself and Ellie. If there were five sick individuals in a room dying, and you had a healthy child that the doctors would wish to cut open to kill her and save those five in the room, would you willingly give up your daughter for five strangers you don’t know? And what if one of those five individuals was a child molester or a serial killer? And why chance saving something like that by allowing my daughter as a sacrificial lamb? I wouldn’t and especially wouldn’t sacrifice my daughter to save a corrupted humanity full of mass murderers, cannibals, rapists, child molesters, terrorists; not at all. And if a vaccine were to be made, that would only be another reason to engage in prolonged gunfights to take the vaccine all for themselves because that’s how humans were. I mean, my god, they kill each other for energy bars and canned beans, you think they wouldn’t kill each other for an injection? The point of Joel’s character was to not only fight for survival, but to find something to live for in a world gone to hell. His daughters death from the beginning of the game was what motivated him to do just that, but he wasn’t just surviving for himself. All of that motivation for Joel to survive and to get a second chance at being a dad finds a new daughter in Ellie, thus giving her a second chance at life. When Ellie believed dying in the hospital would’ve given her life meaning, Joel told her “if the lord somehow gave me a second chance, I’d do it all over again.” Basically he’s saying that Ellie doesn’t have to sacrifice herself for her life to mean something because her life already meant the world to him and she had every right to have a second chance to find meaning to her life as well. And you’re telling me that Joel should put corrupted humans lives his top priority over his surrogate daughter? That’s not okay. That’s bullshit. Abby basically did the same as Joel did in the first game when it came to Lev. She turned on her own people, basically killing them, so that they wouldn’t kill Lev. She knew how morally flawed her own people were and couldn’t accept that was what got them killed including her father. The only hope you have in a world like that is to hold on to whoever and whatever you can while you still can. Enough with trying to see in black and white, this is morally gray which is more human and more realistic.
While we're on the topic of factionalism, something to point out is that people trapped in factionalism tend to ignore the true, bigger problems. With the WLF and Seraphites, they're more concerned about killing off the other factions than managing or wiping out the Infected. I don't need to explain to anyone about its presence in the US political climate. But regarding TLOU2 as a whole, the factionalism in the reception (masterpiece vs. steaming garbage) has resulted in many players ignoring the game's actual problems, or at least not give them the focus they deserve.
@@oneyplayes465 The pacing issues, Santa Barbara sequence (excluding the final showdown), and the sense that Naughty Dog is trying but failing to branch out into new formats.
@@galilei7748 Good summary. Pacing was the worst offender on the list. Another glaring issue for me was the forced PC narrative. It hindered the enjoyment of the game for me. This has been affecting many of our media and now it is seeping into our games. This needs to stop.
@@galilei7748 Yea political correctness. That's the issue for me. When you force an agenda in your narrative. It really hinders the story you are trying to tell. The characters do not amount to a natural motive because they must fit the limiting message you are trying to push. You imprison them in a superficial box. You then run into the issue of segregating your consumers. As an example, the first game did not aim to belittle men, did not aim to outcast those who are religious, against homosexuals or transgender-ism. It simply told an honest and believable story. Ellie and Joel counter balance each other and gave us an arc that helped defined the last of us. There existed strong female characters. There existed homosexuals but the characters were made humans first and were not hiding behind an agenda. Bill being gay had nothing to do with his motives nor was it who he was. Ellie was a lesbian and we only found out in the dlc which also was her driving factor. Tess was a strong woman but never had she belittle Joel. You run into many issues when you start to cater with your stories. An honest story doesn't aim at sides. The game was the most beautiful game I have played since. The controls and UI were intuitive. Game play was fluid and engaging but the PC narrative severely hindered the game for me and that is why I did not enjoy it. I started the game with enjoyment and by the time I got to the mid way point, I got tired of it and wanted to race to the finish line. A solid 4/10 for me. This wokeness trend need to stop. Neil Druckmann and Co. know exactly what they were doing and the last of us franchise suffered because of their ideals... Take care friend!
The ending might not be as sad as it seems. When Ellie leaves Dina to go after Abby, she doesn’t wear the bracelet that Dina gave her. However, when she returns at the end, she’s wearing the bracelet. This could have a purely symbolic meaning, like Ellie choosing to abandon her family and later wishing to return to it, or it could have a more literal meaning. The way I saw it (because I really wanted at least a little hope in the ending) is that, sometime between leaving Abby and returning to the farm, Ellie found Dina in Jackson, tried to make amends, and got the bracelet back from her. I’m aware that this is probably too hopeful for the world of The Last of Us, but the ending is left open enough that it’s within the realm of possibility.
I could see how you could interpret that. But the game is about the damage you do to yourself and others when you can't forgive those who wronged you. So I think the lack of a happy ending was a choice they made to better hit that point home.
It is proven that Ellie is supposed to wear it always. But the game was not finished properly and Ellie's model in the last section of the game is bugged.
I also think the ending has hopeful undertones. Believe what you like, but I like to think that when you see Ellie in the distance leaving the farm, she’s on her way to Jackson to look for Dina.
Fucking hell "easier to believe that the conflict could be resolved with a single bullet because otherwise the journey ahead is so long and windy and hard" that was exactly how I felt once upon a time. I was angry and depressed and terrified so I thought if I could just fire that bullet, one meant for me, everything would be better. Two years in recovery though so heres to hoping
The hardship isn't always worth the development. But the hope and rebirth of joy is. Your story has that, this game doesn't. We can all be fortunate that reality is not written by the same author as games like this, or wh40k, or typical snuff garbage.
"she cannot kill abby" but she can kill hundreds of wlf, scars, and uuuhh the whole group she unleashed a revolt on. but abby nononono that's when the idea of revenge goes too far
A really powerful moment for me was actually the fire escape outside the theater. I kept wondering if Ellie and the gang ever would use it somehow in the story, but it never happened. Later after I had played through the Abby section of the game and finally stood there outside the theater I realized; it was never meant for Ellie or Dina or Jessie, but for Abby and Lev. It filled me with this sort of dread I have never felt in a game before. I definitely agree with the majority that the story of the first game was told a lot better but this game made me feel things no game has ever made me feel.
Ever since I played the game, I was so excited to see your analysis & this entire video was astounding. So many points you brought up had crossed my mind & even more hadn't entered my thought process whatsoever. I too found it ironic how the public player-based discourse mirrored the very nature of what the game was trying to say. This is most certainly a video I will promote & watch again & again. If I had to summarise my feelings, ideas & thoughts I'd be here all day but I am so impressed continuously by your content & this is easily one of your best videos. Thank you, Tim for being such a level-headed & passionate content creator even in these trying times.
Honestly speaking i hate that Abby got to partially move on and maybe even heal while Ellie seemingly loses it all. Id prefer this circle of violence consumed both of them.
I think that Ellie will eventually get to move on, just like Abby did. When you think about it, Abby was mentally in the space Ellie is at when she travels to Santa Barbara for about 4 years. So Abby only moved on after getting her revenge/justice (however you believe she looks at it), realizing it did nothing to help her, and finally moving forward through connection with others. Ellie now has a chance to do the same - and she's going to get a start on doing so only about 2 years after what happened to Joel and without the empty act of taking her revenge/getting her justice (however you believe she looks at it). So really, Ellie probably wins out here in terms of time wasted and energy spent. But she loses much in the same way Abby did - her family, her people, her connections, and will have to rebuild.
Ellie is moving on, she left the guitar and everything behind, symbolizing her forgiving Joel and herself and admitting that she needs to "find something to fight for" as Joel said in the epilogue of TLOU. She now understands the love Joel gave for the world and perhaps will try to do the same
In every story about revenge. The characters seeking revenge lost a lot on the way to complete vengeance. When they achieved it... The characters lost everything and die or kill themselves. God of war, the revenge of the soga brothers in japanese literature. That's why this game's story is utter bullshit. They tried to subvert expectations but ended up lying to fans. Because in a game that drinks a lot from realism the "lesson" they tried to express is a lie. The human mind do not work like this. You do not have flashbacks while you are fighting for example. This game failed conceptually at profound levels.
I watched the entire video. That concept of *"Factionalism"* that you brought up... It is SO similar to what the show *"Attack on Titan"* presented to its viewers, and they did it in such a meaningful way. They even called one faction *"Island of Demons"* similar to how the Wolves call the Scars in the Last of Us 2, as they also reside in an island disconnected to the rest of the world. This realization widened my eyes, and was pleasantly surprised on how Attack on Titan did it so well that majority of its viewers enjoyed the show, unlike the Last of Us 2 which kind of separated its viewers in terms of enjoyment.
Factionalism in AoT is among the best I’ve come across in fiction, and that’s because both sides have good points. Do you side with the pacifists, who wish to open up to the world while trying to avoid killing tons of innocent people, yet may be overly idealistic in a world that is cruel and may very well try to snuff them out for their troubles? Or do you side with those who wish to protect the ones they love, many of whom you’ve come to know throughout the last 3 seasons, even if it means the murder of innocents and the genocide of quite literally everyone else on the planet? There is no easy answer, which is as it should be; if there were, we wouldn’t have factionalism where the viewer can empathize with both sides.
Exactly. If you're shocked at seeing the comments Tim showcased about Abby, you should see some of the comments that are made against several characters in the AOT world, most notably Gabi, a character we similarly view as an 'enemy' at first due to our skewed perspective but whose actions are very much understandable given the context of the story. It is amazing what our emotional state can do to our minds, both positively and negatively.
right, because ellie had murdered her friends, If the players believe in an eye for eye mentality. Then they shouldnt have a problem. Thats the point to show the biases in the players. Both abby and ellie seek to deliberately do wrong, to feel better about themselves.
No... he mentioned it? Lev being there made her stop and reconsider, not because she didn't want to traumatise Lev, but because it reminded her that Dina wasn't a part of her and Ellie's fight. (Us VS Them/Factionalism) How she would've killed Lev like it was nothing just because he was one of them, one of the Scars, before he saved Abby and made her reconsider her thoughts about the scars.
@Geralt of Trivia ellie didnt know when she killed mel, and she felt like shit when she did, abby had plesure when se knew dina was pregnant, dont belive me, rewatch that moment
@Geralt of Trivia what I was talking about is how different the protagonists react to the "same" situation, one felt sick and remorsed, yet one almost got a shot of dopamine when they said "she is pregnant"
27:20 that would be because Joe didn’t tortured the doctors. He shot “anyone on his way” (actually, I shot only people who shot back at me when playing the first game, but nvm, let’s suppose I shot everyone), but that B didn’t just killed Joe, she tortured him to death. That is objectively worse than justkilling. It is not just a gut-feeling, she DID do worse than Joe.
Joe? B? Those are not their names, but anyway: Putting aside their actions and simply focusing on the feelings that drive the characters might put things in a better perspective for you. It’s a story about how anger, trauma, and the hunger for vengeance can fester and take over a person. At a point in the game, Ellie uses Abby’s tactic for prolonged murder to get information out of one of Abby’s friends. Out of all of these characters and their actions, the point is that no one is in the right. They’re all stuck in the cycle of vengeance. And we, as the player, are encouraged to recognize that and empathize with both sides. That’s why the finale is so difficult and heart wrenching to play through. The player isn’t Ellie or Abby. We’re given the godlike power of near-omniscience by the end. We are the third perspective. We observe the “true” story. And that’s the point. If you honestly played the whole game and stuck to your surface level emotional reactionary feelings, then I hate to say that you failed as a player. If you’re under 25 years of age I can cut you some slack since your prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed, but otherwise... You lost the game 😬
Sindri Mjölnir B as in a certain word that youtube not only censors, but punish the channel if the word appears in the comment section. I disagree with his opinion, I don’t want him demonetized. I maintain my point, Ellie was right, not because of emotions, but because in the “society” she lives in, she NEEDS to kill Abby, to send a messenge to any other would-be-agressor of what happen to those who mess with her group. That’s thevery base of diplomacy, to send a messenge that he other side better try to talk with you, instead of steal from you. It is also the base of any long-term society. We are asked to simpstize with Abby (the B****), but her actions and those of Joe (I didn’t had subtitles turned on, that’s how one would write his name in my native language, though I suppose english add an “l” at the end of the name) are NOT equivalent. They are not “the same”. True, every act of violence have a tragedy behind that lead to such conflict, as a Law student I can attest that I never saw a single case in which, if you dig deep enough, you can’t find something to remove theguilty of an action from someone. This is actually one of first principles we are taughtin Penal Law, if you go back far enough, you can proof that the way the universe was created is responsible for every single crime ever and that no one is truly responsible for their actions because we are all products of our gestation+up_bringing... tell that to a society and see how long it lasts. Having a tragic backstory does NOT migates someone’s guilty over their own actions. Joe fucked up in the first game, reason why I didn’t liked it and gave the control for my friend to finish ‘cause I just didn’t relate to Joe enough to keep playing his storyline, but then Abby fucked up even more. Joe’s ations do not justify Abby’s action and give me no Simpaties toward her. Now, keep in mind, I do not say this out of anger because she killed Joe, heck, I HATED Joe as a Character, and I found his development lacking. The game “told” me that while Ellie was taking care of an inconsient man that had little to no way of realizing what was happening around him, they somehow bounded when just the previous chapter they had being fighting over every little thing, it did not “showed” me said bounding, and, as a result, I found Joe a shit character from after the prologue to the end of the game, specially when he denies Ellie her dream, her “purpose”. So no, I harbor no anger to Abby because she killed Joe, fuck Joe. I do, however, recognize that her actions are, in no remote way, equivalent to those of Joe, and that the correct action for Ellie to take was to pursue and eliminate a moron that backstabbed her fatr-figure and tortured him to death infront of her. Not from an emotionalpoint of view, but from the perspective that if suchpost-apocaliptic society wants to recover itself into a functioning society, it needs to stablish order, and consequence to one’s unprovoked attack and to treason are the very first stepsin said road... or, at least, the step that we know, for sure, to lead to such results. Ps: man, mykeyboard is fucking up, I need to replace it asap
Marcelo Silveira 1) refusing to call Abby by her name and resulting to insults instead immediately dehumanizes her and brings a spotlight to your bias. 2) Hunting down and killing Abby is not something Ellie has to do to ensure her own society’s viability. Boiling this nuanced revenge cycle down to perceived essence of diplomacy is an extremely fascist take. The game explores all of these concepts, btw. And being able to discuss it as a detached third party is the end result. Why can’t you just let go? You’re not a citizen of either of these factions, but still you’re so attached to Ellie and Joel that you result to dehumanizing the fictional character you deem the enemy. Players are allowed to dislike any character within the game, sure, no one is forcing you. But, dear lord, can you engage in a discussion about the narrative and the message like an adult, please?
@@teneleven5132 all i gotta say is if abby didn't force ellie see him dying or if abby didn't torture him just killed him and his brother after maybe then more approachable to see their prospective but to force a girl who is crying and telling you to stop, to but joel mercilessly as he doesn't defend him self as far as we are left to see just shows how abby and about half her bad of friends are, its as if they were taking pride in doing what they did. In contrast ellie for the most part swiftly killed everyone else except the one abby friend in the hospital and mist part we see it does take a toll on ellie she does wanna stop but wants abby, abby after doing what she did slept better but yes did sleep muuuch better after saving the seraphits but still didn't show she felt any different doing what she did to ellie and tommy and so did half of abbys friends the one in hospital still was saying it was right and bragged about it, now abbys love interest guy and his pregnant gf okay the were good people and abbys dog and do see that as something bad but just like with joel ellie did that to defend her self joel was getting ellie back in the first one before he killed abbys dad hell abbys dad might as well have been doing what ellie did at end of part 2 with a knife to the neck. I honestly just didn't feel like abby had actual humanity nor understanding tell end at the boat due to her having no real power/strength anymore so ultimately yes ellie did do bad things and could see her needing to pay for and especially joel doing bad things but we see their humanity and we see them nake human choices of there own accord for abby not so much.
Thanks for mentioning trauma. As a future therapist, the scene in the barn (44:04) hits hard, when it turns to black as the door closes, and I get to feel what I had known all along: that Ellie is riddled with PTSD, and her going after Abby, in spite of her loved ones and those that support her, is what she thinks she needs to do to heal. It's amazing.
To me, Abby's redemption is undeserved when the actions and motives, focusing solely on the cycle of revenge, are contextualized. In a perfect court of law Abby would be guilty of 1st degree murder all day long. She was calculating, and the murder was premeditated after several years of training and prepping. And there's the brutality of it to consider as well. Plus, it was Abby that began the cycle. Joel had no desire for vengeance. The motive was to save Ellie from those that would murder her. And it would've been murder, regardless of Ellie's feelings after the fact; their plans were to sacrifice her without giving her a decision in the matter. At most, Joel might've been guilty of 2nd degree murder in the case of the surgeon, but manslaughter fits better. It isn't clear that Joel ever intended to kill the surgeon. Provided he didn't put up a fight for Ellie, Joel likely would've let him go, taken Ellie, and been on his way. The surgeon made himself a target by standing between Joel and the only one left in the world Joel cared about, that's what decided his fate. Lastly, Marlene and the one soldier canonically killed by Joel were inconsequential to cycle itself. However, both were complicit in trying to kill Ellie and so they weren't entirely innocent.
I feel the cycle of hate and violence and trying to make you feel bad is undercut when you are forced to do these acts or you die how are you supposed to feel bad when the game doesn’t give you a choice It makes the ending choice feel empty if you’ve gone through the entire game piling bodies just for ellie to give up her revenge trip at the person who brutally beat Joel with an golf club after knowingly giving up everything she loves
You're not supposed to feel personally bad. You feel bad for Ellie and the people she's hurting. You have no agency in the story because, you know, it's a Naughty Dog game.
I think part of the problem is that this game with it's cynical and depressing message is that it was released during the time, when the world was (and is still) crazy, depressing and unpredictable. People needed a more uplifting message.
how is the message of finding redemption, recognizing factionalism, and moving on cynical or depressing? you could definitely say the game is depressing, but specifically the message being depressing and cynical is vastly incorrect.
@@quinnmarchese6313 At least for me personally I feel the ultimate message of the game is cycles of revenge need to be stopped, but ultimately humanity as a whole will fail. We end with Ellie showing mercy but also being unable to actually move on, totally ruining her life, and Abby living a half-life. Which does happen but when these are your main characters it feels like you are saying humanity overall will fail to rise to its better angels. Honestly for myself that was the biggest problem I had, I felt Joel's stuff was slightly contrived but I was actually glad they killed him, including at a point where he hadn't reconciled with Ellie, but with everything else at the story I just ended up not liking anyone and yeah feeling like the story was *too* hopeless
@@RenaDeles but how do the endings of abby sparing ellie and then ellie sparing abby suggest that "humanity as a whole will fail"? that reading doesn't make any sense unless Abby killed Ellie when she had the chance. If either of them failed to stop that cycle of revenge, then it makes sense, but since BOTH ended up sparing each other, your point doesn't make sense to me. tbf, im not trying to criticize, just wanna know how you got your conclusion, because my own experience of the game doesn't support your claim.
But I loved Joel... he was the reason I played the first game, and is also the reason why I won’t play this one. I don’t feel like watching the dude get slaughtered, then play as the person who did it. No thanks.
@@coldermusic2729 Dudes an asshole. It's fine to like his character, but he's the villain of the story. It's like being upset Darth Vader loses the fight to the rebels. Love him or not the bad guy lost.
It’s more like the mandilorian and babyoda building up all these touching scenes and charichter development and lessens about being more then just a survivor. To then in the sequel killing the core of the franchise’s emotional and lesson appeal for to instead subvert expectations by putting scarring baby yoda for life till he reverts into a feral survivor in the swamps.
@@wastelesslearning1245 that comparison is dumb as shit, Joel is a mass murderer who doomed humanity despite Ellie explicitly stating she was willing to die for that cause.
If you want to understand why some people think he is as morally grey as any other of these post apocalyptic charichters and thus no more deserving or god forbid want to understand why some people think he ultimately made the right choice look at this. The choice was never taken away form her, she can sacrifice her self any point afterwards but chooses not too. Ps this is also why good Wrighting That makes narrative and rational sense is also important in story telling. Watch this m.th-cam.com/video/1sq681VsMYo/w-d-xo.html
The problem is that I believe most people found Ellie's actions so out of character for her that any point the game tries to make falls flat. I'm not excusing Ellie's actions or wondering why I care more for Ellie than Abby when I'm constantly thinking "that's absolutely not what Ellie from the first game would do". I don't even think it's a bad game or a bad story, but it does have a horrible story structure (working up to a climax, cutting it off, then spending god knows how many hours working up to that same climax), a really forced way of presenting its story and it's an absolutely horrible sequel that has almost none of the core ingredients for fans of the first game.
That sounds like the Last Jedi problem: "Well, if you take it in a vacuum you can tell that story, but I don't think that's what Luke Skywalker from the Original Trilogy would do" and all that. Come to think of it, they're kind of trying to do the same thing, explore themes of abject failure and misery, and they do that in ways that arguably warp characters heavily from their original portrayals. Personally, I don't like it when a story uses its characters merely as devices to force plot to happen. I prefer stories where events happen as a result of characters reacting to situations the way they would as individuals. If you just change the actions whenever you feel it's necessary to serve whatever message you're trying to convey, what you have is a moral fable with extra steps. Even if the message is absolutely worth sending, by treating the character's motivations as secondary, you make any nuance you try to convey on the side meaningless, as you've shown that it's an expendable resource to emotionally wring out rapport from the audience, only to spend it whenever you need the plot to move.
@@lolicongang.4974 Of course they do; Joel changed over the course of the first game, gradually, over their year-long journey. You can't just create an almost completely different character, name her after an already existing character, and expect us to buy that. @Felis Impurrator That's more than just a like or dislike; that is outright, objectively, bad writing. Characters need to be CHARACTERS--we need to believe they are real people, they need to act and talk like real people, which means they need to have consistency and identifiable characteristics, even negative ones. Having characters act in ways they absolutely would not is one of the definitions of a plot hole. What lesson can I learn from "human-shaped robot sometimes does X and sometimes does Y with no apparent distinction"? At that point, we no longer have a "story", we have "a series of things just happening." Which is all this game is; a series of emotionally-charged moments loosely tied together. The individual moments might be effective in making you have feelz, but it's all cheap, surface level stuff, outside of Joel's death, and even that is only because of all the built up feelings we have from the FIRST game, not this one. It's also why the game is so fucking long (for the genre); they just kept creating "moments" without regard to "plot" or "narrative structure", because they barely have one.
@@BWMagus Actually you can. It's easy make a time skip. And explain in very vague detail of you want. This can be done by little hints. Papers, the way they dress or look now. These are ways of saying someone has changed over the course of years. It's not hard. And why should I babysit the players.
The structure of this story just absolutely annoys me. And then after the climax, the devs made a really weird decision on the conclusion. The whole setting and enemy conflict just felt out of place.
While I appreciate this video, I do think there are a ton of actual criticisms with the games narrative that weren't mentioned. That was likely intentional since it was meant to explore theme, but I would recommend The Closer Looks video if you want to see a "review" of the story from the perspective of someone who didn't enjoy it. Figured Id recommend it for anyone curious about that perspective.
Yeah, unfortunately I couldn't cover everything. I picked my focus. I did talk with Henry about his thoughts on it all! We just disagree a bit, but that's cool. ~ Tim
Hello Future Me yeah no worries, the video is really high quality regardless. I aspire to create my own stories and eventually have them be successful when I’m older (only 16 now) and your videos across the board have really helped me learn, so thanks for that!
Some interpret Ellie leaving behind Joel's guitar at the end as her acceptance of his death. She is no longer trying to hold onto him anymore, no longer holding onto the grief and pain and everything that was left unsaid. Instead she decides to head off into an unknown future. I think there is a little hope in that, even if Ellie has lost so much she is now able to move on.
The way i saw that was Ellie would just keep walking until she get’s into a life threatening situation and let herself die because she had nothing left to live for
similarly Joel stops wearing his watch sometime after the guitar string flashback. He left behind his daughters pain and no longer harbored the pain selfishly. He stopped using it as an excuse to kill others, to distrust people, and to lie to Ellie. Ellie leaving the guitar behind perhaps isn't her moving beyond the grief but abandoning the promise that "if I were ever to lose you, I'd shearly lose myself", her grieving will never end, but her selfish means of expressing her grief is certainly over. Now like Joel she will move beyond her old ways and is left with a greater sense of her humanity. I need a 3rd game. I really need to see the wonderful person she becomes.
This was a very insightful video, and has genuinely given me a new perspective on TLOU 2, I do still have one big gripe though. Abby only has the epiphany of moving away from factionalism and protecting Lev and letting Ellie go a second time AFTER she has had her vengeance. So to say that Ellie wouldnt let go isnt entirely fair since Abby did the thing she wanted to and killed Joel, she succeeded in the ultimate end goal of her journey after she lost her father. Ellie on the other hand didnt. She didnt get the closure that Abby did. Even though Abby found that it wasnt what made her heal she found out by getting what she thought she wanted. Ellie never did. Any thoughts on this?
I'd like to talk you back to one of the core points of both this video and the game: "isn't entirely fair", you say. Fair. Just. The point is not that any of what happens or does not happen is or is not fair. Abbie got her revenge and even a happy ending in which she healed. Ellie didn't and destroyed herself even more. Yes, it wasn't fair to her, that she was supposed to let go and stay with Dina. And that's exactly how she feels. It may well be argued that it was thus more difficult for her to let go of her past, but the message of the game is exactly this: it doesn't matter. The end result is not a good one. And this is an artistic choice, not a flaw. You may not like that this is the message that the writers chose to convey, but this doesn't make it a bad one. Separate what you wanted the story to be from what the story tried to be. And what the story tried to be is: it may not be right or just or fair, you don't get anything, but that's not how you heal.
so they sacrificed everything they did and the message of the first game to tell the story the wanted, for what, what was the end goal of the game and the story, ow does it tie to the first game, to the world they created and the characters. As a story on it's own sounds interesting, I think they just so caught up on what they wanted to say that they forgot this is a videogame and a sequel. And ok, I can accept it as a sequel, sure, but the way they told the story is just silly.@@lucadelaurentiis6907
39:45 *The game was continually asking if you will stick with Elly or walk away like Abby* ... In what way was the game asking this? The game never really gives you the options to side one way or the other. You either go through the whole miserable ordeal or quit the game. There is no way to side with Elly or Abby, they are locked into their respective paths by the developers, or are there options too, say, choose to side with factionalism and murder Elly's girlfriend?
I'll admit that I'm almost certainly more harsh on this game than may be fully deserved. I think you have exactly the right read on the story that the devs intended. At the same time though, I just couldn't bring myself to like the game. Part of it is just that, while in 2014, I might have been able to enjoy stuff like this or Telltale's Walking Dead... but this year I just cannot make the brain-space for misery porn. Also the crunch controversies at Naughty Dog and weird aggro discourse around it just left the worse possible taste in my mouth. Even with my general distaste for a sequel, though, just about everything I've heard more or less tracks with what I would imagine happening to these characters anyway (at least in THIS world), so I can't really get angry about it.
Isn't that kind of his point of this video? The game is not meant to make you like it, but to make you think about factionism, revenge and justice. I totally understand not being in the relight headspace for that (especially this year), but (especially this year) more people need to think about this. Glad you're distinguishing between dislike and anger though 👍
@@Felisquoreda There's also the problem though that people paid a lot of money for what was promised to be a fun game, and instead got misery porn. If they released the game for free or had honest marketing I'd totally accept an artistic interpretation of it, but they didn't.
oooh, misery porn. That term really hits the nail on the head. I agree with you. I tried to think about it as a book: If I had been reading this story in book form, would I finish it? Yes, I probably would. I would probably still not "like" it, but would not criticize the quality. In *game* form, however, I expect to enjoy the experience of a game, and this was not enjoyable. Because I play games to _enjoy_ the experience, not "feel something", it was a big miss for me. I get plenty of "feeling" in real life.
@@MrHankHN That's my take on most media. Make a dark gritty story about anger and loss if you want, but rarely will I ever seek that out. Life is stressful and depressing enough. When I get free time, and when I have money to spend, I'm going to do something enjoyable.
@@beyaminn Video games are art. It's like being angry because a film is not comedy. You can't expect a light experience from a game that just didn't promise you that. If you want to have fun, you should play Fall Guys.
This is a really beautiful analysis of the game. I think you really artfully explained the overall experience of what playing this game inspired within a lot of players (or people like me who have never played but watched multiple play-throughs). Thank you for this video.
"A life of meaning is a life made with someone else" that part of the end line has a lot of meaning to me and where I'm at in my life right now. (Just felt like sharing that into the void)
I watched the whole video just so I could get the satisfaction of hearing your inspirational one liner at the end of it. "A life of meaning is a life made with someone else." Beautiful.
honestly this game annoyed me, and the discourse around it annoys me even more, I don't think it is a masterpiece and I don't think it is the worst thing ever made, the truth is the thing that killed the game for me was it's pacing, I legit just got bored to the point I zoned out for a lot of the experience so a lot of the big emotional bits didn't have the impact that I feel they should have, but I do love listening to people who did enjoy it talk about it because I think it did have some good ideas in there, and I also find myself comparing it to another game that I did enjoy from years ago called Spec Ops: The Line, no one else seems to be making that connection but me but I do find they have similar statements on Trauma, Violence and are both very bleak, I just think Spec Ops did it better in a much tighter experience, but still different games.
You know, I genuinely love this game but completely agree with you on it needing some editing or re-write to fix its pacing. Also always happy to see people still representing Spec Ops in 2020:)
@@josephwilliams1251 That's easy to do, because Spec Ops is still one of the best versions of this particular narrative idea in gaming. TLOU2 needs a lot of work to make it a similar narrative.
I completely love this game but can still totally get behimd what you are saying, having two climaxes at the same point of the story equally space apart is very jarring. However, tbe overall emotional impact couldnt have worked with proper pacing, like he said in the video, the reason they do this is to stir your anger and bias longer, then flipping you on your head and telling you to try to understand the other side of things is hard to accept and better yet welcome.
It's like Tim played a different game than a bunch of other TH-camrs I haven't played the game, but I think this thoughtful look in contrast to other thoughtful looks is a prime example of how important it is for the artist to set expectations.
Abby’s dad was shot dead which she finds out and travels America to kill Joel, so she hunts him down and forces Joel’s daughter to watch as she tortures him. And knowing that she put Ellie through something far more brutal than the trauma she suffered, and yet she struggles to understand why Ellie would hunt her down. Ellie sees a group who condoned torture of her Dad, and not only that but forcing her to watch.
She had no idea Ellie was anything more than someone from the city who seemed to have came looking for Joel. She doesn't have some omnipotent knowledge that the person who just broke in has a daughter-like relationship to Joel, and she less 'forced her to watch' and more detained her so she wouldn't interrupt what was already going on. I don't agree that the trauma was far more brutal, from an emotional perspective. Physically sure, it's worse to watch someone get beat to death with a golf club than to find their deceased body shot down. But as much as we love Joel and Ellie and their relationship, they've known each other for what, four years by the events of part 2? And most of that time was spent distant / estranged because of Joel's actions. Meanwhile, that was Abby's dad. You know, her biological father who raised her since she was a child. Shot down, along with the entirety of the hospital, by some smuggler. For one girl. Moreover, to say Abby 'struggles to understand' why Ellie would hunt her down seems unsubstantiated. Because she said "we let you live, and you wasted it"? From Abby's perspective, this person who yes, she personally spared during the encounter at the cabin, came to hunt her and killed her friends. And now, Abby was definitely going to kill her had Lev not been there. She's telling the truth in her statement. If you're talking about something else, then feel free to share.
@@4ty4s_ not a the entire hospital, you can choose to just shoot the doctor, and emotionally seeing someone’s head be smashed to pieces and being forced to watch is much worse. Most of your argument disregards any of my actual arguments and the gameplay itself.
@@AlyxEld I'm gonna try make this one as quick as possible since you didn't bother replying to the majority of my points (which is ironic, because its what you falsely claim I did when I addressed basically all of your statements) Joel absolutely unequivocally kills more than just the one doctor. Marlene and the guard who escorts him are two undeniable cutscene examples off the top of my head. In gameplay, most all players also kill an innumerable amount of people during the encounter up to Ellie's room in the surgery wing. The TV series supports this being the canon way that the events of the story play out, as do statements from TLOU2. eg. Nora saying there ARE no more fireflies (implying Joel killed enough of them that they were forced to scatter or disband from the Ohio location). The game isn't about player choice, and so saying "oh I chose not to kill the nurses" is frankly irrelevant to the larger narrative. It's Joel's story. Joel's story is that he goes on a violent rampage to save the girl he has grown to cherish like his own. To say otherwise is (ironically, since you also claim I'M the one doing this) ignoring the gameplay itself. You disregard my entire point in the original comment to simply restate that you think bashing someone's head in with a golf club is more brutal than seeing someone's shot-dead body. In a vacuum yeah, I already said that as well. The difference, emotionally, comes in the relationship between the two characters. As much as we personally as players love Ellie and Joel, we need to put that aside to examine them from a non-biased perspective. Ellie and Joel have known each other for something like four or five years, with much of that being spent estranged due to Joel's own actions at the end of the first game. Not only this, but after Joel's death Ellie understands that Joel essentially brought it upon himself through the choices he made in his life and the many, many people he angered through making them. So much so, that SHE is actually the one who fails to understand why someone might have killed Joel. Only, she fails to understand it because it could have been so many people for so many reasons. That's the kind of man Joel was. On the flipside, Abby and her father Jerry have presumably been together since the very beginning of her life considering he is her biological father. She had her father throughout her childhood, through more than 15 years of living in this cruel world before he dies at its hands. It's possible he was the only family she had, as her mother is not mentioned from what I remember, likely making their bond that much stronger. Not only this, but he was a doctor just trying to save people's lives, to find a cure for the world they inhabited. When that cure arrives at their door, her father and (as much as you want to deny it) many other fireflies including the leader of their unit Marlene are shot dead by the smuggler who was supposed to bring the key to ending it all. Emotionally, this is every bit as brutal as Joel's death to Abby. You can see that on her face when she breaks down into tears, sobbing uncontrollably. They are very comparable trauma, which I think is the whole point of the game. You disagree. You say I disregard your arguments, but exactly what do you think I'm disregarding? I address what you say about Abby "forcing Joel's daughter to watch", I address what you say about Abby "putting Ellie through more brutal trauma than she experienced", and I address what you say about Abby "struggling to understand why Ellie would do what she does". Exactly what part did I disregard, exactly? On the other hand, you ACTUALLY disregarded basically everything I said. Didn't even answer the one real question I posed to you, which was WHY do you think Abby 'struggles to understand' why Ellie would hunt her down? Look, I'll even try and answer it myself just in case you don't. It's possible Abby struggles to comprehend Ellie's actions of revenge for one pretty big reason. Namely, she's not omnipotent. She sees friend after friend die in front of her and only at the climax of the game does she even see the face of the person doing it. The theater encounter is literally the first time in the game she is EVER confronted with the fact that the intruders who killed her friends were the girl and the man from the cabin. Many many thoughts might be rushing through her head, enough to potentially give the impression that she's struggling to understand how this could have happened. EVEN then, she less seems confused about Ellie's or Tommy's motives and more seems upset that the two people she personally spared came back to kill her friends. It proved that her friends were RIGHT in thinking it would be best to kill them (Because some of them correctly called it a loose end) and that it was HER very own mercy in that moment which cost everyone their lives. That is to say.. "we let you both live, and you wasted it." Like I explained, I don't really believe that that line or what happens next really implies that Abby fails to understand WHY ellie was angry enough to come after her. It would be easy to assume the opposite, in fact, but this is not further explored in the game itself. Now.. why don't you give me YOUR answer?
@@4ty4s_ no the answer to your question is in the original comment. They didn’t think about it. They changed a huge chunk of the game because of an earlier leak. You make massive assumptions about Abby’s relationship with her father, it isn’t about time spent with someone. Ellie and Joel bond over significant trauma this creates an exceedingly complex and strong bond. Trauma experienced in person is more significant than trauma experienced after the fact, to indicate otherwise is simply to deny the very nature of trauma. The entire narrative is fucked and self righteous, tries to pretend it’s something more than it is whilst betraying all of the characters who make poor choices and act against their own demonstrated character. They literally did know that at least Tommy was Joel’s brother because that’s literally how they introduce themselves. You missed my entire point you’re just trying to take some greater meaning from the game than accepting it as it was, a steaming pile of crap that was so full of itself that it drowned in its own bullshit. You are looking at explosive diaria and trying to justify it as anything other than what it was, a poor diet and bad decision making hastily crapped out to undeserved acclaim, following a good not great first game.
It's really nice seeing this from another perspective versus the polarized things people have said about the game. I haven't played either of the Last of Us games. So I may not have that same bias as other players. Comment section is gonna be a mess though.
I played it until the very end without being spoiled by leaks. I gotta say the majority of polarization is indeed fanbase petty bias (seriously, people calling the game "garbage" for presumed nitpicking excuses or for the game being unconfortable with a purpose). only criticism that is indeed valid is pacing and some missed opportunities of using gameplay to reflect the cycle of violence (which isn't to say the game didn't already had some features that reflected this), the others are debatable, and most are straight up bullshit hate.
The real problem with it is the writing it could have been better and I hate that it got review bomb to a 1/10 when at worst it should’ve gotten a 4/10 or 6/10 at best
@@UmTois True there is a lot of criticism that's not criticism just what people pick to justify there hate. Even the pacing is debatable because the structure of the story kind of demands pacing to take hit or two but it is definitely a valid one. The gameplay could have been better but just like you say there are some features that already reflect this. Some things could be better here and there but honestly it's mistakes do not make it garbage.
Il'l be honest, even tough I can understand Abby's anger, I still think she is in the wrong, oh for sure having your father killed must be hell. But what I can't forget is how her father was trying to sacrifice a young girl that was part of their group, a girl that went trough a hell of a lot to get back there, convinced it was going to be safe, only to be slated for dissection. Before he died, he threatened Joel with a scalpel, witch made him, flimsy as it may be, a combatant that was then killed by an enemy. Afterwards, Joel fled, maybe sacrificing Ellie for the good of mankind would have been the right move, maybe the moral implication of killing an innocent child is too much for it. Be it as it may, two sides clashed and one managed to live, fled the area and then started life away from it all. Then we have Abby, young, hurt, 'father was just killed' Abby, she decided to embark on a vengeful journey to right the wrongs committed against her. Honestly, up to that point no real criticisms, no thing that could really say 'this is wrong' beyond a distaste for revenge and our own bias due to the fact we like the characters that she's hunting. What really makes me believe she's in the wrong is the fact that even after 4 years, she's still hunting Joel, hunting him like you would a murderer, she never let hate simmer down, never went beyond the fact 'this man hurt me and "murdered" my father'. I'm not saying its bad that she still's hate Joel, he did kill her father, but I'm saying that I am under the impression she never even acknowledged the fact he killed him for a reason just as if not more valid then her own, never considered him anything more then a rabid killer. She ignored the fact he had a whole life, that he was a member of a whole new community and even ignored the fact he saved her, she instead kneecapped him after they were safe and then immediately murdered him slowly just for her own satisfaction. I can understand wanting closure, I can understand hate and vengeance, but what I can't ignore is the fact she never confronted him, never treating him as anything more then a "murdered". My insistence on the words is due to the fact that a murder is not the same as killing somebody during combat or in self-defence, or "daughterfiguredefence" as it was. You can't just equate the two and call it a day. Both sides are doing things that are bad, don't get me wrong, but this is why I believe Abby, particularly, to be in the wrong.
but that is exactly the same thing that Ellie did. She had no idea why Abby killed Joel yet she made the same journey. Only difference is that she knew where to look...
@@magdasylburska9030 There's a difference between immediately setting of for revenge versus waiting four years and never once questioning why the guy killed your dad? Really? you wouldn't have anything to say? Not telling him why you're killing him? The way Joel died was insulting and dumb, it was out of character for a man like him. Pacing was dumb, you don't start a game brutally killing of the main character from the last game and then asking us to connect with said new protagonist after spending have the game hunting her down in anger. We've formed our biases and it's hard to change that. It would have been way better to start as abby, go through all her shit and connect with her first. So many other things that were poor design choices, story choices and out of character reactions. Also the game didn't release with online which is another reason why the game is 6/10.
@@CanadianGreekhoplite But here's the thing. This the reason why I believe Abby is a despicable character. She knew damn well why Joel killed her father. ND basically never call her out on it in the writing, but it's there clear as day. She was listening in on Jerry and Marlene's discussion about choice prior to the surgery. She knew they were about to cut open a child without her consent. Did she question her father if it was truly the right thing to do? Nope. She just tries make a half-ass justification by saying "if it were me I'd want you to do the surgery." The question of right or wrong didn't even enter her brain. That's why she never had to ask Joel why before she beat he to death. She already knows why? And we are suppose to feel sympathy for this evil bitch? She showed none of that for the innocent girl lying on the operating room table.
Ehh, you kill my father and I'll probably want you dead regardless of why you did it or what life you lived previously. As horrible as it may be abby's father didn't want to do it and only chose to because it could save humanity. In addition to that Abby could have easily killed Tommy and Ellie but chose not to despite the risk. Joel didn't give Marlene that same luxury even though he killed nearly every firefly.
@@MangakasDream Doesn't matter if he felt bad about it. He was basically playing God. At least prior patients got to choose. With Ellie he made the chose for her. And by taking away Ellie's choice he left Joel with no choice. No parent is gonna stand by and allow their child to be murdered I don't care what the justification is. Jerry is confronted with that question from Marlene and he refuses to answer because he knows damn well if it were Abby on the table he wouldn't go through with it. Were Tommy and Ellie suppose to be grateful. Thank you for butchering Joel right in front of us and then leaving us behind so that we can clean up his bloody carcass. The fireflies deserved to get murked because of what they tried to do to Ellie. Joel didn't because he was essentially a father protecting a daughter.
You give me goosebumps man. You have such an amazing mind. The way you dive deep in to the meanings in any story, show or game most people miss is amazing. I have so much respect for you and your videos, you have such an incredible understanding of the mind and you share it with the world and i feel like so many people should watch your videos. Ive never played this game but this video almost had me in tears
"Violence is indiscriminate. If you use it as a tool, it'll do more than just kill your enemies. Sometimes, it'll kill the ones you love most" - Klaes Ashford / The Expanse
The structure makes sense from this perspective; most reviews criticise the structure for not making sense, but the assumption is that it's telling a different story than what you unpacked here.
The structure is integral for what the game’s wants to evoke in the player. Naughty Dog wants you to be constantly questioning the choices the characters make and they want to make you feel conflicted emotions. Another more conventional structure would go against that purpose and would make you disconnect from both stories’, specially from Abby’s. That’s what makes this game not for everyone, because it’s very taxing from an emotional stand-point
Most reviews criticize the structure because it doesn't make sense from a practical and logical standpoint. Ellie's perspective and Abby's perspective mirroring one another makes a thematic point, sure, but practically it only serves to confuse and disorient the player. The numerous flashbacks and time-jumps are absolutely horrendously placed, and the way they handle the chronology of events is terribly paced as well. Almost none of the structuring makes sense unless you're specifically referring to the thematic point of the game, which doesn't matter if the actual medium doesn't support it. Take a film, for example, that has the thematic goal of patience. Do you think it would be reasonable and good to structure the film so that the audience has to sit through hours of nothing happening? It makes sense if you only consider the theme, and it makes a poignant observation about the human condition, but it fails to actually pull through on what a story needs to be in order to succeed.
@@ryanhall5360 The structure works well for many other reasons. It shows you different perspectives(The characters own as well), it contrast different characters doing the same thing very well, it also reveals your own bias towards the characters just like he said and makes you question characters a lot more. The structure could have been better but it's not a big problem having those four time lines run together and then intersect all works not just thematically it's can be can be confusing and hard to get into but once you do it all makes sense. The game ask for a lot some stories do need more from you then the average. All the flashbacks are put in good places and they add a lot to the story. Flashbacks never break the pace as they are always in places were the player can take a break. The time jump is badly paced and removes tension but for the scene to work the pacing had to take a hit here(This can be forgiven) and Abby section could have moved faster. It could all much better but none of these really destroy the story just things that could have been improved on. It would probably work far better for a movie but it works in a different way for an interactive medium because you experience all of it you take part of it and are on the journey not just experiencing it especially since you take part even in flashbacks. The succeeds on what it was trying to be does it do it the best no but it does succeed.
Moise Tibasima the flashbacks are placed where they must be placed. The help to balance the gameplay pacing and provide further context for the story beats, setting up Ellie’s conflict. The same goes for Abby’s (the aquarium’s for instance is placed right before going for Owen, it reveals her main flaw and sets up their relationship). Besides, this radical structure works because it’s a video game, in a passive medium I’m pretty sure they would’ve followed a more conventional structure (and we’ll see it once the HBO adaptation comes out) because you don’t have any control. A cronological order where you switch back and forth between Ellie and Abby 1) would make you disconnect from both perspectives (specially Abby’s who we start hating), 2) it would hold back the inciting incident of the story, making the overall pacing suffer, 3) wouldn’t align you with Ellie from the get-go like this set up does. If we already knew all about Abby’s backstory, would we share the same hatred and animosity toward Abby’s crew (like Ellie does) to the same degree? I don’t think so. All the elements are there and every decisions has meaning behind it.
Playing through Ellie's portion of the story, I kept being reminded of Hotline Miami. Hearing music from that game and seeing it on the PSP that the one WLF member was playing was pretty striking for me and really solidified that it wasn't just a coincidence.
I think the biggest issues with the game are that 1. The original was not made with a sequel in mind and 2. There are better stories to tell than “violence begets violence”
To be fair, the violence story can be executed incredibly well. Look at God of War, it's about that exact topic and it's one of the most beloved game franchises by fans ever.
49:40 Also when ellie is drowning abby, she sees joel (that particular night when she says I'd like to try to forgive you and then joel dies before they got to break that ice between), she was drowning her just like how a man was drowning joel in first game. 2nd game also mentions how ellie and dina got their first human kills for no reason, which can actually link up to that moment. As soon as she sees joel she releases abby, she is not only angry towards abby but she is more angry towards herself. She missed the chance to make their relationship with joel good, now that chance is gone because he is dead.
@@Hypogean7 No, because Ellie was a spoilt brat. She literally humiliated him in front half the town in that pub when he tries to defend her. I understand why she was angry with but seriously? That's the respect you show to the person who is the reason you are who you are Ellie? Seriously Ellie?
@@Hypogean7 I know! I meant to say she could have made up with him long time back before Abby or anyone else killed him. Cause let's face it, besides the Wolves and Fireflies, Joel has made a lot of enemies in first game and even during the 19 years gap of the 1st game. His death at someone else's hands was coming. Especially whenever he leaves the safety of Jackson. And he was getting really old at this point. Ellie should have made up to him earlier, if she cared about their father-daughter relationship. Anyways at least at the end of this she realizes the value of forgiveness.
Sure Ellie was hunting the WLF but almost every encounter with at least the main ones attacking you or just no cooperating, and I know someones gonna say she would have killed them anyway, but that's not a garuntee since of the main ones everyone Abby kills either attacks her or doesn't cooperate. And almost everyone you kill as the player you can bypass.
For me, Joel and Ellie’s story was done by the end of part one. And they needed to do a MGS2 with a completely different protagonist to show the differences of the fireflys breaking down and everyone becoming part of doctrine to survive. The last of Us should look a perspectives of survival and what we do to get through. Splitting the narrative in two just annoys players in having to connect with someone you’ve never met.
If they used a different cast of characters, you lose the strong emotional bond. This deflates the shared horror and need for revenge that Ellie feels, because we all loved joel too. And that's why you see the split between the characters we knew all along and the characters "we haven't met." You didn't relate as much to the other faction because they were new. They have less weight to their problems. That's the whole point.
There's actually a theory where Ellie and Dina get back together before the ultimate final scene. Everyone is focused on Ellie's missing fingers, but fail to see the bracelet on her other hand, which can be seen as her going back to the house one last time after reuniting with Dina.
Just wanted to say: I really enjoyed watching this video! I can't play either game for myself, and mostly relied on watching playthroughs. I can't say I fully agree with the things you've laid out (watching the story unfold is a different kind of immersion from being the player yourself, therefore how the game's story being effective/convincing is different depending on your degree of immersion, ig) but I really appreciated how you tied in the themes of trauma and vengeance, and the question of "How do we heal [from trauma]" into The Last of Us 2's story. In a way, it reminded me of your video essay on the ATLA episode The Southern Raiders, when Katara and Zuko seek out Yon Rha for revenge. OFC, both stories unfold for different reasons and come to their conclusions for also very different reasons-but at the heart of it is loss, and a desperation to see that loss avenged and seen justice. Both are caught up in the cycle of vengeance; both are rooted in the leads' own grief and trauma. It's interesting to see how stories on grief and trauma, the cycle of war and violence, loss and retribution turn out in our stories; sometimes it can reflect either our personal relationships with these experiences, or our cultural understanding of it. Sometimes it doesn't aim to reflect either, and just explores the possibility of even having that opportunity and goes ham with it. Your analyzing and discussing how stories get to explore these kinds of themes (both in their own context/internal logic and how we, the audience, place ourselves in it) and why it's so engaging (or not-engaging) is truly captivating and insightful every darn time. Thank you for this, Tim!
Damn, I hadn’t thought abt the parallels to TSR, but you’re right to bring that up. Perhaps like how Katara can’t forgive her mother’s killer, but did forgive Zuko; Ellie isn’t forgiving Abby, but finally forgiving Joel.
Hey and that's okay! I didn't think for a second everyone would agree with me. I think that's a really interesting connection to TSR - I've always loved how the show said it was okay for Katara to not forgive Yon Rha, and I wonder whether that fits in with TLOU2's ending. ~ Tim
The biggest problem with the story is that Abby never once mentions why she's killing Joel... In real life, that would be a raw and very emotional moment for a person finally getting revenge for their father.. Especially since it meant so much that she tortured him first. But if they did that. It would have ruined the story... In conclusion... They picked a piss poor way to present this to us. Or they could have at least given us 3 options with all the information known at the end.... Kill Abby..... Kill Ellie.... Or let them both live.
The only thing that really pissed me off about the circumstances of Joel's death was that it felt REALLY contrived. I understand that all stories are contrivances, (how the heck did the Ring JUST so happen to get to Bilbo and Frodo? :P) but for it to all come together like that, Abby only knows a direction to go and stumbles on the town, Joel just so happens to be outside the town, there ALSO just so happens to be a giant horde when all the other accounts have said there's only been tiny groups of infected, and there is ALSO a storm. But then after he's dead there's no storm and no horde so they can just slip away again. No threat to the town from the horde. They could have just had Joel invite the group into town for shelter after dealing with a small horde of the zombies with them, and they could jump him in the night. Then using the golf club has 2 uses, being quiet in the town and being brutal, and I dont have to suspend every belief I have to accept that Abby's mission succeeded.
Think people only think something is contrived when the result is something negative. The entire ending of the first game is almost exactly like this. After going through a harrowing experience with the infected and almost drowning, Joel and Ellie wash up right where a Firefly patrol is. Ellie isn't breathing and the Fireflies are able to revive her. So they just happened to escape a horde and almost drowned and conveniently ran into a Firefly patrol that could save Ellie. Starting to sound familiar. Marlene conveniently doesn't kill or restrain Joel after it's made clear he wants to save Ellie. After saving Ellie by killing the one guard guarding him, Joel gets to a car, and the one person with the authority to go after Ellie is conveniently the only one preventing him from escaping. Instead of just shooting him, Marlene conveniently lets her guard down, which Joel is able to exploit to kill her and escape. There are other examples in the game where Joel or Ellie are just insanely lucky. Joel runs into his brother in a random town. Ellie happens to run into the same cannibals that attacked her and Joel (you could argue that with Joel being severely injured, they would be in the same area, so it's reasonable to run into the same group), and she happens to run into a cannibal that would negotiate with her to get antibiotics for Joel. The point is that like you said all stories have contrivances, but I think bias is certainly a factor. In game design, developers often have to make the player's chances more favorable than it should actually be for players to think something is fair. Just my thoughts. You are perfectly free to have your opinions on whether it's too contrived for you.
@@gamingblastoise7959 They DEFINITELY could have pulled off the first. Many stories pull off the first. Heck, the intro could have been us getting to know them, some tutorials as we do missions with them and they get to know the town. Really sink in before the turn. There's better ways they could have done this. They just chose not to. And that's the critique, which is a valid one. And even beyond this, they had more choices that would have been in character, and less contrived.
@@andrewli6606 The problem with that Andrew is that Last of Us 2 is TRYING to kill Joel. So they set up this entire scenario to ensure he dies and as William said the killers can slip out which contradicts the story the writers established in that Abby's group and Joel both were surrounded by a snow storm and zombies. Suddenly those are all gone allowing Abby to slip out. Its a lot of "coincidences" (contrived) in ONE scenario compared to your comment where there are multiple coincidences over the entirety of one campaign. You do make some fair points. Though Marlene not restraining Joel really just doesn't make sense because she did not expect Joel to be upset after they knocked him out and stole Ellie to die in a surgery that MAYBE can unearth a cure. If anything the Fireflies are quite dumb. Also the writing in Tlou2 is bad. Joel dies because Ellie is being irresponsible with Dina having sex when they are supposed to be on patrol. Out of character and dumb. Joel gives a bunch of strangers his real name instead of a fake. The writers of TLoU 2 railroaded him into a death.
If Ellie managed to kill Abby, the story would have worked better. By the ending, Ellie has become a killing machine. What's one more body going to do to her now?
Not even factionalism. She had lost everyone to her and this was the last guy on her team. And i think what her most was how hard he tried for her and yet she felt distant and never had the chance to forgive him. And that we are left sometimes with so many regrets with people that we didn't act on when we should have. So in a lot of ways it highlights how we lose control and rage in grief. And to recognize the people we have who are here now and say what we need to say, and apologize and forgive. It's the tieback to the first game that ends with a distrustful okay, to now where it's ended on never getting to see that out to it's conclusion, and the repercussions from that. Love the deep dive and the game too thanks for the analysis and opinion!
So, I haven't played Last of Us 2 but the common complaint is that the story was heavily contrived and manipulative and didn't really earn what it tried to do. I like to use *The Red Wedding* and *The Burning of Kings Landing* as a good example. When the Red Wedding happened, people weren't angry at the writers, they were angry at the characters for succumbing to their established character flaws. After the burning of kings landing though, everyone was mad at the writers for being bad at their jobs, because they didn't set anything up properly. Again, haven't played the game myself but many of the complaints seem pretty reasonable... at least the ones not complaining about the LGBT representation.
It wasn't contrived and it was the only logical end to Joel's character. When he kills everyone in the hospital, he sealed his fate and began living on borrowed time. They were going to find him, I don't think it really matters how they did. Maybe you should play the game for yourself.
It was incredibly contrived. I was open to liking Abby‘s side of the story when I first played and then her like, seven-month pregnant friend Mel ‘ gets approved’ to go out into an active battle zone that is known to be dangerous and immediately I thought “Oh okay, you’re not coming because you have to be here, your coming because the writers *want* you to be here and came up with a nonsensical excuse that would never really be allowed. There’s no way any sane group would approve a pregnant woman to go out into a war zone like this” The whole game is full of actions like this. Things that don’t need to happen but the writers want them to happen, so they forced them to happen, whether it makes sense or not. Ellie’s side of the story has moments like this, but not as many as Abby’s side. Edit: Also I want to add that the Red Wedding/Burning of Kings Landing is a good comparison to this game's story flaws. One is a situation where the character's flaws got them in trouble, the other, you could feel (and because of social media) some of the audience *KNOWS* that the writers forced this upon the characters instead of justifying naturally throughout the story.
@@theoian Plenty of super awful people die warm in their beds of old age, sometimes even surrounded by loved ones. But I take your point, as I pointed out in a couple of other comments, Joel had a long and dangerous past that could come back to haunt him at any time. But it was still handled very poorly. Having a good idea doesn't mean your execution will be on point. See David Cage's games for some good examples that are still pretty fun to play despite this.
@@wholockedholmes5600 Mel needed to be in the battlezone because she and Owen was supposed to leave the Woves all together and find a better life elsewhere. I think Mel used her medic card (which are already rare in the game's world) to go to the unsafe areas so she and Owen can escape. Or at least that's what I remember. The story is not contrived, you just need to pay attention. I am not saying it's perfect. I felt the end was a bit dragged out. Like they could have endded with Dina, Ellie and the boy living peacefully. I can see why they dragged it out. Abby made her peace with Ellie but Ellie didn't. But I feel that last part could have been a DLC or idk a spin off or something. My biggest gripe is how Abby didn't tell the reason why she killed Joel to Ellie. Ellie acknowledged with Dina in one scene while at Seattle how Joel probably had it coming, since he killed so many people. And he also did some messed up shit off camera before meeting Ellie. But still I think Ellie would have probably forgiven Abby sooner if Abby gave more details to her. Idk man I love this game but it's like those movies you watch once. You appreciate the message, the character writing and it's beauty despite it's flaws. But you won't watch again despite that.
I would’ve loved it if Ellie and Abby shared more scenes with each other throughout the story. Maybe then I could buy the scene when Ellie spares Abby. That quote from Jazz Thorton was helpful.
I've never played either of the Last of Us titles and don't really intend to but I adore narrative analysis of them. Seems like the writers had a good set of marbles in those brains, even with some pitfalls they jostled themselves into.
The first one has amazing character writing. This one has terrible writing. I've seen all of the story, and Tim is creating something that the writers didn't seem to intend. It's more about his insight and creativity than anything Druckman and company did.
@@AzureKnight2 Yeah I have to be honest, I've seen quite a few videos talking about the depth of the story, and it always makes sense in the video, but seeing the game played through multiple times by different streamers I never once got the sense that the story was intended to be what people make it out to be. It feels like I'm back in high school English class and the teacher is trying to convince us that the authors meant something they totally didn't
@@beyaminn Exactly! Great point. I was having high school and college English class flashbacks too. It's more about how creative you can be about the work than about the work itself.
Given how often people miss set up for story beats, ask questions that are answered in the narrative and think they’ve spotted a plot hole when there isn’t one I’d say people more commonly under-analyse stories than overanalyse
@@ducky36F Still, you can't say that overanalysing doesn't happen. I've seen people say Jennifer's Body is an analogy for rape survivors, even though the director has stated what the movie is about, and it wasn't rape survivors. So people can definitely see something that was not intended to be there.
I think some of my biggest problems with TLOU2 is that the game didn't really bring anything new to the "revenge=bad" message and that I felt there were some really odd writing choices throughout. I expected when we switched over to Abby's POV, we were going to see how brutally killing Joel and how having Ellie begging for his life would affect Abby and her friends. But we didn't. Hardly anyone in Abby's circle of revenge-seeking friends questions how that series of events went down. And while Abby has nightmares/guilt over leaving Lev and Yara behind, I feel like she should have been having nightmares/guilt over Ellie's cries and begging. And for the writing, I feel like there were at least three or so beginnings with Ellie's story. It also just feels like the Drukmann fell into the Game of Thrones trap of subverting expectations. Then there's also the fact that it didn't feel like it expanded on the things that a lot of people loved in the first game. The interactions between Joel and Ellie, and watching that relationship grow. Ellie is alone for long stretches of time and Abby's story only really begins to feel like it takes off when Lev and Yara come in.
"I expected when we switched over to Abby's POV, we were going to see how brutally killing Joel and how having Ellie begging for his life would affect Abby and her friends. But we didn't." Whaa.....what? That's the core of Abby's side of the story. What in the world are you talking about? What you claim to expect is exactly what the story did. Abby's guilt IS about what she did to Joel. Lev and Yara were just her opportunity to do some good to make up for the atrocity she committed.
5:25 *Joel's Death* So... the major complaint seems to be that how they set it up makes no sense. For context, I did play the first one and liked it quite a bit and the circumstances of Joel's death seem super contrived to me... and apparently, a lot of other people too and I wasn't even that invested in Jole as a character. Like, Elly should have known that someday Joel's past might catch up with him, he'd done a LOT of shady stuff back in the day.
@@noteliassmith It took Abby like longer to get close to the outside of Jackson than it took for them to get back to their little hideout with Joel and Tommy (through a blizzard and infected horde). The hectic blizzard + infected leaving Joel and Tommy with no other options than to go with Abby. Joel being with Tommy (otherwise how would they know this Joel is the right Joel?) Abby and her group wearing clothes with WLF badges. Running into Joel and Tommy after a 5 year long quest and sparing her the work of having to find them in Jackson. I understand that they had to get to the inciting incident as quickly as possibly for the sake of pacing, but maaan😐👀...
@@noteliassmith The other poster goes over some of it, but the thing with the party giving Joel's identity up, Abby not giving any explanation for why she's doing what she's doing, Elly leaving to take revenge after Abby spared her life... twice.
@@simphiwe4930 It all depended on dumb luck for Abby. The writers wanted Abby to kill Joel for the shock factor, but didnt bother to come up with a good explanation. Thats contrived. Bad, lazy writing. You are right.
@@thorthewolf8801 No, they tried (they definitely tried), but it did not come out well for a ton of people😬. But they did make sure to make that scene resonate throughout the whole game there's partial redemption there for that.
That beginning brought me to tears. So beautiful. Naughty Dogs did a wonderful job on this game. The intro piece of the game reminded me of my fears of my father when he went overseas years ago. You are a wonderful content creator, and I hope you can continue for years to come.
Man it sucks being this early but at least I won't get spoiled by the comment and by the next hour I can see them Edit: finished the video it's great got good points and some I disagree with but overall great video 100% recommend watching the whole thing
I haven't played this game or heard much about the controversies, but I can see how a lot of people were mad. It seems like TLoU2 just broke every convention in the storytelling book. I can't deny I would have been left mad as hell by that ending either. You want me to reflect on how the circle of vengeance doesn't heal you but just takes you further down? Great. Let me get that vengeance and let me ponder on my still-open wounds afterwards. Show me how the circle of vengeance has led both Abby and Ellie to mutually assured destruction, how both have nothing left and end up losing their lives. Don't just deny the catharsis half the game has been building up to. EDIT the game seems to deconstruct violence as a means of getting healing but then doesn't really show you what you can do to heal. Ellie couldn't heal due to the trauma caused by Abby. Her final scene with Dina makes it look like staying is something she physiologically can't do even though at a higher level she would want to. And when you get to the point where you can find, if not healing, at least closure, it is denied and you are just left with nothing. That kind of ending doesn't look like one that can be resolved into forgiveness in the future.
“The wounds of conscience always leave a scar.” P. Syrus So how much of a conscientious act is it to go forward? Choosing to rest your conscience will only bring more unrest and destruction. It is more correct and more beneficial to try to forget and try to prevent the loss of conscience-blood rather than revenge... Unscrupulousness is one of the important factors that increase grudge and hatred. Injustice and unscrupulousness have a great role in the separation, polarization and deterioration of the ties of society. I continue with Victor Hugo. Being good is easy, what is difficult is being just. The most perfect justice is conscience... “whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster, if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” This quote by Friedrich Nietzsche is a reminder to measure yourself and be aware of your own thoughts. In other words, you should always criticize yourself when you enter into a "questioning war" because your life and your own feelings always have plans for you. And the "narrative" of "The Last Of Us Part II" handles this with great mastery. In addition, The Last Of Us Part II's script is deep, philosophical, dark, emotional and thought-provoking. A masterpiece that has taken the industry so far and set a new bar. Again, I will continue with a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche: “When we are unpreparedly (or impromptuly) questioned about a subject, the first thought that comes to our mind is often not our own thought but merely an ordinary thought belonging to our class, position, and ancestry. Self-thoughts rarely surface.” Time, patience and thinking skills are required for high-level, powerful and philosophical “things” that are actually difficult to understand, difficult to notice. In order to find the real and the essence... The Last Of Us Part II is a masterpiece on the meaning of life, moral relativism, the philosophy of empathy, self-criticism, the definition of the concept of human, narrative art, the creation of a post-apocalyptic universe (dystopia), the meaning of respect, the meaning of thinking and the transfer of feelings.The Last Of Us Part II is the ultimate masterpiece of the eighth generation. And these concepts require “extremely hard thinking”. Let me end with a final Nietzsche quote: “The life of the enemy. Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's staying alive.” Because maybe that person or that thing is not an enemy. It is only the key that will unlock your own conscience and your own feelings... I connected quite deeply with The Last Of Us Part II. I trusted it to take me to the places it was going and I was extremely glad to have gone. I like the Ellie in first game but in the second i felt like i actually understood her and actually loved her. I felt like I actually understood Abby too and actually empathized with Abby. I am no stranger to being lost in the fog myself. We cannot talk about good and evil directly, they are related and relative concepts. Formulating that existing evil was or was not done by a God does not prevent evil from existing. Evil can be tolerated, guided by the will to live. This endurance will be through art, morality and love. Albert Camus attributes his rejection of God to the existence of evil and its abundant and violent experience by humans. According to him, the question we should ask is: Is there evil in this world? Evil, if any, is incompatible with the idea of God. In a divine order, in a world created and ruled by God, the existence of evil is inconceivable. For example, death is an evil and evil inflicts punishment on us. However, “the one who is right is the one who never kills”. This means that God cannot exist. Either we are not free, and the almighty God is responsible for evil; or we are free and responsible but God is not omnipotent. According to philosophers, evil harms the bond between people and the state of being human. In my opinion, kindness builds bridges between people, develops bonds and contributes to being human. Kindness is a joy that includes honor, not arrogance. So the fools and the dead are people who do not feel their conscience, do not understand themselves and become numb with this meaninglessness, this is not true peace, Good people are actually people who have attained peace of mind and prosperity. Their difficult but constructive and strong-willed behaviors show that they trust their own worth and justice. Because “the thing" that is better than being good is conscientious justice, and this is what real goodness and real good person are. That’s why The Last Of Us Part II is the most unique and emotional roller coaster masterpiece...
26:28 - "We hope it will enthrall and challenge your own views of justice and empathy" - Nell Druckmann I would've gladly done a non-lethal run if the designers actually allowed me to do so, as I try always do in every game that has any element of stealth whatsoever. Pretty much the same problem I've had with the first game in fact. I have very little (if any) criticism of both stories in and of themselves, actually. I just believe wholeheartedly that games can and should be something besides and beyond movies, no matter how well written and acted they are.
@@martinsriber7760 You're right. This isn't a game where the player gets to try and be a pacifist. Elly made the choice to leave home and immerse herself into a world of violence. She knew she was going to kill people along the way, she didn't care. This game is partially about what happens when you become a person like Joel, you lose everything and everyone you love.
Yeah, I see your point, its hard to challenge someone's personal sense of Justice if you don't give them choice. I might as well have been seeing this all happen and then question the character's morality because really that's all it did.
Non-lethal runs are incredibly unrealistic. If you want to beat a faction like the WLF you have to kill people. Non-lethal weaponry doesn't exist. Chokeholds deal permanent brain damage or the person wakes up ten seconds later. Knockouts cause internal brain damage, or the person wakes up a minute later. If you want to do a non-lethal run, you can try to be as stealthy and evasive as you can but the truth of the matter is killing is unavoidable. It happens in cutscenes just to prove it. Non-lethal runs are pretty much a fantasy of video games, because non-lethal violence doesn't exist.
Does anyone else kind of agree with Tim, but also hate the game regardless? A lot of his arguments sound similar to the whole "subvert your expectations" and the tonal beats aren't what I hope for out of a game. Plus, authorial intent just isn't something I enjoy. That said, it did well in what it was hoping to accomplish. I just don't enjoy what it was trying to accomplish.
because it more about what the game is trying to do which is not the issue not where it fail in excecution. other of books movies...tackle the same issue more succesfully.
These games have the risk of not being for everyone. I saw a couple of videos and trailers, and I chose to ignore the game because of the realistic violence; and I mean really realistic, like it would be like that in real life and really mess up people would do that. I know that I would not enjoy the game, but I agree that the game has a point and it is really mess up. And because the game is lineal, it eventually will force you to make these awful things most people disagree that are right. I think would be a little better if it was a movie. Because if it is a game, a linear game specially, it will eventually force you to so things to move the plot instead of being a pleasure or interesting experience or even a choose of your own. And I telling this even considering if the game was made perfectly, but it is not. This game somewhat can fails from time to time to make the tone that it was designed for. For a game that have a cost, it would not be recognized as a good game if many people who purchased it won't enjoy, so it is really dificult to make a game that want to be art (and worse if their head developers pretend that are the next level artist and wants to feel like they are more than people).
There is this one tiny thing that i explored during playing "The Last of Us Part One and Two" For Backround, I am a german writer and philosopher, or at the very least i always saw myself especially as the latter, I wrote a paper a couple of years ago which i named "the value of humanity" which i never finished to this day, in it i tried to figure out my own thoughts, such as, what is the "right" or "correct" way of dealing with human lives, my focus was on the age old question which is, "When is it okay to sacrifice another Human for the so called "benefit" of everyone else?" The reason i looked into this came from a heavy depression and my own dealings with PTSD, and the Last of Us explored atleast the existence of the question, while answering with "It´s all based on sympathy" an anwser that i utterly despised while rooting for Joel while he carried her unconcious Body out of the hospital. And in turn, the second installment also failed for me to anwser that, since the Game only revolves around a "reaction" of "an action." Said action being joel killing everyone who stood in his way trying to save Ellie. Which forced Abby to react in Killing joel and thus starting the Circle of violence. Which is poethically stupid, yet very human is it not? Killing Ellie so that everyone can live = Fine since it follows the ulitarian principle of "What serves most is the ethical thing to do" Killing Abby is fine since = She has slain a beloved father figure, no matter how flawed the man ultimately was. That being said, i tried to do a thought experiment, which entailed to think myself not into the perspective of either Ellie or Abby, but into a total new Person, a father or a mother or maybe even a brother of someone who has gotten infected, i thought about the people i loved most in my very own life and asked myself, "Would i agree with sacrificing a Person, just so my loved ones would live?" I really struggled with that, and the games pull your heartstrings by making the sacrifice a child not old enough to understannd the world yet fully, a child who said "My life would have had meaning." But what is that "Meaning" supposed to be? to be mentioned in history textbooks to come? To get a Candle lit by people who kill each other every single day without end for important at times and foolish reasons even more? For a society which does not really care about a cog in the "Machine" being lost, especially since it sacrificed itself? Far more questions could be formulated and it could be argued one way or the other, it matters very little in the grand scheme of things, because in the Last of Us Part Two, we see Jackson as a lively and happy place that works as a society, we watch two more of said societies at each others throats for no good reason, even though the whole world went to shit. And i believe they would´ve been at each others throats anyway and even more so if there had beenn a cure. Now, my own anwser to it is complicated in its own right, i will admit this and not pretend to know how humans should behave, because that is the very conclusion i came to. So to anwser for myself and no one else, Killing her just to find a cure so others may life, would have been an action that devalues the worth of human civilization, having to sacrifice one or many more people willingly just so the rest may get a few more years, either developing themselves in a good way which always seems to be a part of the arguement. Or in a Bad way, so the overall cycle that rules all the other cycles may continue till the next sacrifice is due to whatever may be the reasson, Seems inherently wrong to me, we value the amount of "overall happyness" far more than overall human "quality" and "worth" which we have done in the real world so many many times that it becomes a numbing thing to look at, we always walk the path of least resistence with in this case would have meant, To Kill Ellie. Instead of walking the tough Road which the world in The Last of Us ultimately had to walk due to Joels decision. I know very well how you could argue against what i said, but keep in mind that i do not make an arguement for how things "should be done" at the Most i just try to honestly think about the things many believe to know the "right" or the "best" anwser to, and i won´t claim mine is either, Mine is Mine, yours is yours, It only matters that you think for yourself
"...this isn't Undertale" Funny, this legitimately answers a question I was about to type and pose for discussion. What do you do when a story simply (i.e. intentionally) goes a direction that you don't like? And especially in videogame form, where the link between player and protagonist (especially a tragic protagonist) is uniquely stronger than other media.
@Geralt of Trivia Indeed (and I've played Shadow of the Colossus). So why does Last of Us 2 stand out from them as feeling so distasteful? What exactly is different from other games with similar tragic player-characters?
@@Stratelier it's poorly done. If this was some random 1st game, with a 30 minutes cut screen explaining the 1st game, then nobody would give this game a second thought.
@@lesedimokgobi I can agree that if this _wasn't_ a sequel game, we wouldn't be so strongly attached to the main characters, and more flexible to whatever path they (specifically Ellie) chose to follow. Which is basically the same criticism leveled at the Luke seen in Star Wars Ep.8 -- if it was a standalone film with original characters, it would be easier to respect.
@@levipeterken4020 For starters, Undertale wasn't a sequel to a previously established canon. It was also literally marketed for your ability to CHOOSE whether or not to kill your opponents during combat. By contrast, Last of Us 2 was designed around a single canonical linear narrative with no long-term player agency; your choice was to either follow the path and story _as designed and written,_ or not play at all. And HFM's pinned comment raises a good point that Last of Us 2 isn't "your" story but "their" story to tell. And perhaps the best analogy is an actor in a movie production -- how often does that person have any creative agency over their _character's_ role in the written script? There is no denying the intimate association between actor and character, but their job is to perform (to the best of their ability) their role as written by somebody else.
I didn't touch on this in the video, but the criticism that the game continuously attempts to make us feel bad for things we did not choose is one that somewhat misses the mark for me personally, because I don't believe it's trying to do that. The game was never really *our* story. It was Ellie's story. A game does not need to be about the player; we can be the outside participants watching it unfold - and that's okay. Gameplay endeavours to give us a sense of agency and alignment with the characters, but that does not make it our story. Gameplay is not synonymous with making all the decisions in a game, and it severely limits the types of stories we can tell to insist so. When compared to the first game - we never choose for Joel to go save Ellie from the hospital, to kill all those people, but I think the reason that didn't receive so much backlash was that, on some level, the players agreed with Joel emotionally. We wanted him to do it; in that sense, the agency did not matter, but it was still Joel's story more than our own.
Even so, players do have a sense of ownership over characters that other mediums do not have, so this line is going to be crossed more often, and I think it's important to understand that for those going after the people who don't like the game. That it comes from a place of love more than hate.
~ Tim
*"The game was never really our story. It was Ellie's story."* Love you, Hello Future Me, but this is really pretentious. Truth is, a lot of us just wanted a great follow up to an excellent fictional entertainment product after 7 years and we didn't get that.
@Harry Paul yea no
The game has a lot of pandering and bad writing.
Two things.
1: It may as well be a film, at that point. I didn't feel that the gameplay added to the story in any meaningful way (and in fact, the two elements were often at odds).
2: The story taken by itself was an illogical mess, which made the emotional beats feel manipulative rather than effective.
@@TheAzureSky1
Preach!
"It's so easy to believe that everything could be solved with a single bullet when otherwise the road ahead is long and complicated."
“The cycle of violence” is a pacifist’s masterbation tool and a sociopaths wet dream. By not seeking justice you tolerate injustice in the apocalypse (there is no criminal justice system). Not foghting for yourself Or diplomatically resolving injustice invites repeated abuses. But that’s too inconvenient. Not saying there is a sunshine and rainbows option to resolve the dispute but that pacifism is not it either.
And by “pacifism“ I mean being averse to violence in some fear of it or for some reason thinking it’s never justifiable.
@@wastelesslearning1245 I am absolutely amazed at how profoundly you missed the point.
It’s amazing how people have no grasp on reality. There is no winning or “entirely good guys” in the apocalypse. No criminal justice system in the apocalypse which means to deter future transgressions you must do it yourself. Otherwise your inviting more roaming gangs of sociopaths to visit your time killing one after another of your townsfolk and leaving satisfied in that they get away with it. The game is lazy and straw-mans that inconvenient reality. But don’t bake the messenger blame the stupid wrighters for not thinking about “the cycle of violence” that invites more repeated abuses until something snaps. Should you feel bad for killing attack dogs bread and trained to throw themselves into the enemy without thought or should you blame the trainers? And who are these trainers again that all have names? Oh yeah militant factions who topple villages littler mines all over the place shoot on sight (literally you can’t not shoot them without getting a game over). Perhaps they should of explored diplomatic means of resolving issues if they really knew what they were talking about when discussing violence or maybe something like no lethal capture of Abby and bring her back to Ellie’s town to take her to A improvised court to determine fitting punishment? But no man “I don’t get it”. #fireflysdidnothing wrong!
No one gets to walk in, kill someone, and mock retribution/the victim because they are playing into “the cycle of violence”. Every villain will laugh and use that as an excuse.
“Yeah don’t retaliate. Let me abuse you. Won’t want to play into the cycle of violence now would we?”- SCARS
"In a political climate that talks about factions more than it does people, where things are Right or Wrong because of who does them and not about what it is, these are the questions we need to ask..."
This statement alone made watching this video worthwhile.
Ah yes factionalism. The ultimate excuse not to listen to the argument for truth content or to steel man your proponents views.
Everyone has bias in multiple ways. It can be bold and shockingly clear, but the worst are subtle, cloaked in logic and rationalism. People may not even recognize their bias and think they're just being practical.
But most alarming to me is that most people ARE reasonable, willing to listen and work towards a solution, and we are still experiencing the climate we're in right now.
This is what is so insidious about Factionalism run rampant: individually, a person is willing to be at least somewhat objective, but we fall in line with what the loudest voices in our Faction are telling us is Right and True, even if we have reservations, because we believe everyone else in our Faction falls in line because it *IS* Right and True.
It's easier to go with the flow of the majority you most agree with than to get bogged down by the minutia of each situation the "General Consensus" doesn't cover.
@Content Corrector I'd say literally everyone agrees, except arsonists.
Last I checked. Last of Us takes place in a post Apocalypse United States with fungi zombies. An armed group of outsiders coming into a town's territory. Torturing one of their men to death and leaving two people severely beaten. In any historical context in the real world this is an unprovoked hostile action on the town.
What's stopping the town and its allies from putting together a posse together to hunt down Abby's party? Or sending a delegation to try to establish contact this groups leaders. Asking why their people decided to come into this town's sphere of influence to kill one man. Especially after their patrol saved this group from a pack of fungi zombies. Never mind the convenience of Joel falling into the hands of Abby's party. Which the amount of plot armor Abby and Ellie are wearing for this narrative about factions playing out had me laughing.
@@IdleDrifter I mean the main characters of these games have always had hella plot armor. Joel took out MULTIPLE armed groups in his trek across the country. This isnt a story of politics and operations of governing bodies, though. It was a story about people. And how people are irrational, make bad decisions, and are emotional.
Smarter Abby: kills Ellie so she won't come for revenge
EVEN smarter Abby: checks if this is truly Joel MILLER and not Joel smith
apparently later in the game they knew Tommy was Joel’s brother. Cus tommy was with fire flies before or someshit.
Still bad game
@@weepop8291 The game is bad for explaining a potential plot hole?
@@OoXLR8oO It's not really a plot hole. It is explained, albeit much later in the game; they had a lead that Tommy Miller was somewhere in the area around Jackson. With that knowledge, when Abby is saved by two strangers around the general area they know Tommy is supposed to be, named "Joel" and "Tommy" (if I remember correctly, Joel even specifies to Abby that Tommy is his brother when they save her from the runners), she can be fairly certain that he's the Joel they're looking for.
edit: Sorry, I replied to your comment not realising at first that we're basically saying the same thing. I suppose my reply should be directed at Wee Pop.
"Sir, I'm gonna need to see some ID."
@@OoXLR8oO nah, it's the classic response of "too bleak, stopped caring". I had it in Season 5 of the walking dead so I quit. I should have quit after I got that feeling in Game of Thrones. And I got it from God of War 3. Although 4 made me care again and appreciate 3, so who knows. Maybe Last of us Part 3 will make me appreciate Part 2 but I won't know until it comes out.
Video: Everything You Love Will Die
Ad: ALL BATTERIES DIE
Those batteries were like a father to me
"My name is ____ and I switched to iPhone" or some shiz like that😂
@@X3._.n3 dang, that made me laugh a lot harder than it should have lol
I got what the game tried to do, I see the techniques used, and could spend hours telling why it didn't work for me. Instead, I want to leave a quote by Terry Pratchett:
"Let there be goblin hordes, let there be terrible environmental threats, let there be giant mutated slugs if you really must, but let there also be Hope. It may be a grim, thin hope, an Arthurian sword at sunset, but let us know that we do not live in vain."
And that's my biggest turn-off in this story. By severing her last connection to Joel (losing her ability to play the guitar) Ellie lost everything. There's nothing left, and no hope to be found. And thus the question you brought up in the beginning, the one I found most interesting - "How do we we heal from that?" - is answered with: "We don't". It's hollow, and all I'm left with are hours upon hours of brutal violence that made me sick.
100% Agreed. Emotionally and viscerally, it failed to connect with me.
If you don't see the hope at the end of the game idk what to tell you
Even if I do like the game, I understand what you mean. I haven't seen that and I thank you for bringing it up. It is a really good reason to dislike the game.
Well, I mean, if you were an objectively evil person, wouldn't you see hope in the bad guy getting away and never learning a lesson or even recognizing what they've done is wrong?
@@haydenschwab5313 Maybe why you see hope at the end of the game, instead a subtly insulting remark?
35:50 Abby ONLY hesitates because Lev stops her.
Her response to Ellie's plea that Dina is pregnant is "Good."
There is no hesitation on her behalf.
Rage
@@ravedubin3983 If by rage then you mean Raging Biceps.. then yes.
Because her friend was pregnant and yet killed by Ellie , she did not know that Ellie had no choice
@@Urcutelove-s9z still doesn’t justify what she did I don’t care what Ellie Did if your reaction to finding out your about to kill an pregnant girl and her baby is sadistic yes than you pure evil
@@therookie1142
What are you trying to say ?
"joel did die for ellie, he just got 5 more years with her" holy fuck
i dont get it
@@ninjawarrior4217 think he is trying to say Joel knew what he did was a death sentence. He knew someone would come looking to kill him and it was Abby. He had 5 years to be with her
r/im14andthisisdeep
@@BarioIDL your profile picture is a ghost with headphones on
@@AzineDzn would've recognized them if you played better games
Did anyone notice the constant references to parents and the death of parents in this game? Joel and Ellie, Jessie/Dina and JJ, Lev, and Lev's Mum. Abbie and Abbies Dad or Abbie and Issac. Mel being pregnant. even the Martyr of the Seraphites was referenced too as "the Mother" I believe. I really feel like I've struggled to work out why this theme of parental death is so prevalent in TLOUP2. Fantastic video would love to talk more about this with anyone.
It's the same reason The Walking Dead has that new mini-series coming up. Most media in the past is about people adjusting to the brutal new world of a post-apocalypse. Now, we've moved into, "But... what about the children raised in that nightmare? And how will they grow up? How will they handle the world without their parents?"
tbh it started with Lee from Telltale's The Walking Dead, one of the most powerful parental loss stories ever.
I don't think it's just in TLOU2. The whole thing in the original is Joel and Ellie. What's her name in charge of the fireflies feels responsible for Ellie like an aunt. But where as that game focused on the establishment of the relationship between father/daughter, this game focuses on the fallout of losing a paternal figure. The mother is deified, Jesse dies suddenly (before his child is even born) and Ellie (in Dina' eyes) chooses to not be part of that family. I would say the Last of Us's relationships have always been familial. Even Abby and the boy have a sister/brother dynamic.
Partly because this is a coming of age story. Specifically, being forced to grow up because your parent can't take care of you anymore.
What’s a bigger, stronger or more relatable example of a faction than a family?
@@nachgeben I made a comment referencing that but deleted it cause I rambled to much so I'm actually glad you brought up Lee and The Walking Dead Game.
"When it comes to trauma, sometimes you know that the way you're going isn't the way out. But you still don't know what the right way forward is. And that's ok." You don't have any idea how badly I needed to hear those words. Thank you. And thank you for this review. It was phenomenal and perfectly articulated how I felt about the game, and even made me consider and realize things I hadn't before.
Unfortunately my life can be summarized with that quote, I've never known the way forward but I continue onward regardless of the fires around me
Isdrakon I totally get that. Hang in there, friend.
Your an even brave person than I am. You thanked the OP while I just saw it as him pitying me when the real truth is that his words ranged too true since in order to deal with my past traumas was to harden my emotions and put every single one of them into the abyss. I must say for the first time in many years, I feel sorrow again and I thank you both for this even though my mind still feels clouded.
@@ervinpucchi6951 keep hold off every bit of emotion you can, they are worth it no matter what
@@isdrakon9802 I see, even though I feel what you say is true, I have my doubts about others and the world around me. If let my emotions loose I am open to harm and abuse but if I silence them, I become more safe and secured. Besides, why should I free my emotions when they aren't important to others and the universe as a whole? Nonetheless, I thank you for your concern however humanity will always stick with their evil schemes, this is something that neither you nor I can change.
After watching this I think the big problem I had personally was the cliff hanger we are left on for most of Abby’s story. If they had completed that scene and otherwise kept the game the same I think I would have been infinitely more receptive to playing Abby. The entire Abby portion felt like a long grind before a boss fight, because I didn’t care, I wanted to get back to the cliffhanger. But if that cliffhanger wasn’t there I could have actually enjoyed that portion of the game instead of feeling like a pointless grind I didn’t want to play.
That was probably intentional, remember that at the point we are supposed to hate Abby as much as Ellie does and if they didn’t give us incentive to continue playing most would have leave at the moment they switch and incidentally many did despite the cliffhanger by what I heard
Yes, but they intentionally didn't put it there. They didn't give Abby a cheerleading team, they only gave one to Ellie.
@Samuel Pérez Quirós Well, Abby also chose to stop what she was doing and to also no longer agreed to the actions her faction justified. Although, the story isn't about the good guy and the bad guy, it is between two people that get blinded by their emotions, how they experience a type of bias that we also experience while playing. It is to show how one gets to that point, and how it is such an easy loop to fall into. In a sense, both of them are cautionary tales rather than justice hero stories. The mind is quick to see the side it wants to be on as the better, the way we see Ellie's side as better than Abby who is an intruder in the story, but neither of them were the perfect character, and saying that one did something over the other, is exactly what keeps the loop going.
Yeah, this actually made me so disinterested in Abby that I basically sped thru her entire section of the game...if that was their intention, it was certainly an odd one.
Actually, _Ellie_ was right. Abby _did_ drag Lev into it. She tracked Ellie and everyone else back to their hideout, and instead of being reasonable or responsible, she dragged Lev along with her, so she could take revenge YET AGAIN. Remember, Lev shot Dina and saved Abby's life. If not for Lev, Abby might've died then and there. Abby dragged _all_ of her friends into it. That entire group of people circling around Joel, holding Tommy down, beating Ellie -- they were all involved _because_ of Abby. Ellie's guilty of this, too. She did drag Dina and Jesse along, but we can't overlook Abby's actions. Lev wasn't a part of it and it could've stayed that way, but she chose to drag him in.
Beautifully put
@@sashadasha5442
I said that, but now that I think about it, Ellie actually told Dina to stay behind, but Dina insisted on going.
Yeah, Abby was and is a trash character. Point blank. It's very hard to feel empathy when she comes off as blood thirsty and overall narcissistic.
@kirik - I also like to add that when Abby first met Tommy (Abby's perspective of the game). She looked shocked. My thought was, what did you expect?
Ellie didnt drag Dina, Tommy or Jesse into it. They all went to Seattle because they wanted to.
Ellie originally planned to go alone, but Tommy ended up leaving before her, and Dina said herself that she wouldnt let Ellie go by herself.
Jesse shouldnt have been there but thats another story
In the first game, I shot the doctor with an arrow to the foot and spared the other two surgeons. So I think it's absolutely hilarious that a doctor that was shot in the foot canonically died despite two doctors being right there and tons of medical supplies to help him.
This is actually a very good point.
well canonically Joel shoots him dead straight away, the nurses were not going to be able to help when Joel basically executed him.
@@Karasugou_ No, as the OP stated, he shot the doctor in the foot. We as players make this decision how to kill the doctor, are you dense?
@@seanbennett3452That’s great and all, but last of us is not a narratively flexible game. Its not mass effect or Detroit become human. Plenty of games can be broken or sidesteps its events via player action that the story or cutscenes contradict but at the end of the day the cutscenes are the story, through and through. If you did a pacifist run of last of us 2, Ellie will still kill in the cutscenes and will be held to that, even if you argue “but but but I didn’t kill anyone!”
@@Karasugou_, canonically joel kills jerry with scalpel
Honestly, this made me rethink the game. Perhaps the writers of the game tapped into factionalism TOO well and didn’t give us enough to counterbalance those emotions. Yes Ellie did more heinous actions, but nothing that knocked us out of our bloodlust. Perhaps they should have made abby more tortured over the fact her revenge got her friends killed?
You mean have Abby, of the two protagonists, actually reflect the theme of the game somehow? Congrats; you're a better writer than Druckmann.
i think just giving Abbie this single trait/charecteristic would have garnered lotta critique in favor of tlou2
now that i think of it, the game did abbie dirty. just giving this self reflection to abbie would have utilized the death of a beloved character like Joel and implented his brutal death to contribute to the game's core theme instead of what we got where his death just feels pointless plot convenience. even tho delayed, abbies self reflection on her vengeance would make his death narratively way more satisfying instead of "well joel is ded now lmao"
Honestly I cared little about Abby’s group. And I think wedging the Yara and Lev storyline in there makes it more difficult to care about the other people there. It’s a big yikes when you have people rooting for Tommy instead of having sympathy for the other side. I think the devs underestimated the audience’s attachment to familiar characters.
The big thing about Abby is that her caring relationship with Lev feels incredibly forced. She's otherwise very emotionally closed off from anyone except Owen, and arguably is more closed off from Owen than she is from Lev. It's a huge problem when Ellie ends up essentially forgiving her - it feels completely unearned, because even after seeing Abby's perspective we never see her as showing any kind of regret for even the collateral damage of her crusade.
It isn't NEEDED - but without it, seeing her side feels completely fucking pointless, and the responsibility of getting to the point of Ellie forgiving her then falls solely on the shoulders of Ellie's campaign. And THAT doesn't build it up, either. Especially when Ellie saves Abby's life, then spares her, only to lose the ability to play the guitar even though she ultimately didn't just show mercy but was Abby's savior.
It doesn't feel organic at all. It feels incredibly railroaded and frankly unbelievable, showcasing next to none of the writing skill and style that made the first game so engaging.
@@Nyzer_ i agree with this quite a lot. nice breakdown!
I think that the writers of this game definitely overestimated how much they could humanize Abby. We see Joel at the start of this game in the same way we do throughout the first, risking his life to save others. Joel was a flawed person, I'd even say a bad person, but the first game did a wonderful job of showing Joel as a person over the actions Joel took. The first we see of Abby in this game, Joel risks his life multiple times to save a stranger. This didn't even give Abby a pause, at least not one we see, before she brutally tortures and murders a fan favorite character. The game then spends half of it's time trying to retroactively humanize her, and it simply falls flat at doing so. It's difficult to build a connection to her and her faction when we see the vile actions they take before we get to really know them as people. The first game built up a hefty amount of emotional connection to Joel in the first scene of the first game. It gave him a kind of emotional capital he could use to get us to forget the bad he did. Abby doesn't get that.
The game would’ve been a lot better if we played Abby first without the knowledge that Joel and Ellie would be a part of the story. Then when it’s revealed that Ellie is gonna kill Abby, we play her part of the story. We get to see Abby and her friends go from heroes to villains (instead of the awkward reverse) and are rewarded by playing as Ellie again. We empathize with both characters that way.
I disagree, I liked Abby pretty much towards the end of the game. Abby goes from a sullen person towards a more caring person. This game is about questioning tribalism and breaking through the biases that it creates in that. Abby realizes that by making friends with her sworn enemy. That's a fact that the anti-Abby crowd doesn't seem to realize and they pretty much no different from the characters they piss on about ironically enough. They judge everything based on a fidelity towards a certain character, ie Joel. For them, Joel is the Last of Us and Last of Us is Joel. The standards that Joel set into motions and the world in The Last of Us must confirm to those standards. We keep acting like everyone in the Last of Us knows and cares about Joel's relationship with Ellie. They know that Joel is a caring father figure. But, they don't. From their point of view, they just know that Joel killed the doctor who could found a vaccine. They don't know that Joel had a loving relationship with that immune girl. For they all know, Joel stole her to use her and sell to another group because she is immune. Just as like detractors of the game have a predisposition to hating Abby and her friends for killing Joel even though he could have been right to save Ellie. Abby and her friends have a predisposition to hating Joel for killing Abby's father. Just like haters of Abby have a predisposition towards her, Abby and her friends' fidelity to Mr. Anderson clouded their vision and let their hate guide them.
I agree
@@ash9280 I don't think you've been listening to the majority of people that dislike Abby. We understand the messages the story is trying to convey. What you're not understanding is that half the fanbase (I don't know the percentages but we'll go with half) didn't make that connection with Abby. We were fine with (and even expecting) Joel dying but the way his death was brought about was rushed, unbelievable, and disrespectful (meaning no respect for Joel's character). Not just his death but even scenes with him and Ellie felt artificial. I'd even go as far to say that LOU Part 2 Joel is a completely different character from LOU Joel.
If you wrote a story and your story is trying to convey a message, and only half your audience connects with the message even though everyone knows what you intended, it's not the audience's fault. It's that your story is not as well-written as you think it is. You can't just chalk it up to "Oh they just didn't understand the deeper meaning of it, but I understand it; everyone else are just haters." No, we understood it; it's just poorly written.
You want a story that deals with all of these messages and even more, and does it exponentially better, try Berserk or Attack on Titan.
@@brandonkoranda9781 I have trouble understanding the idea that Joel's character deserved more respect vis-à-vis the way he died. From Abby's perspective and frankly mine as well what he did at the end of the 1st makes him a horrible person. To have him die a more honorable death would undercut one of the game's central themes.
i cannot express enough how much this game made me appreciate my grumpy old dad, my endlessly supportive girlfriend and all the younger kids i've taken under my wing in my adult years. it reminded me of what i have to lose and that it should never be taken for granted.
For me, I feel like Druckmann miscalculated on how callous he made Abby and her friends with Ellie during Joel's death. Just a bit of mixed feelings or reservations would have probably have made me give her more of a chance.
As it is, seeing her perspective didn't do anything to endear her or her friends to me. Abby's friends watched as she beat Joel to death in front of his daughter as she begged for his life, and didn't blink an eye. The fact that I feel Joel and Ellie would have hesitated in their position didn't help.
Add to this Ellie's uncharacteristic show of mercy at the end, and I was left feeling immensely unsatisfied with the story as a whole. If this is the feeling they intended to leave me with I just don't agree with the experiment as a whole. No matter how skillfully told I need a story to be satisfying as well. Not happy. Satisfying.
I'm a sucker for redemption arcs, but Abby crossing the line so much from the start meant it would have taken a lot to redeem her in the audience's eyes. She gets a positive character arc, not fully facing the consequences for her actions. While Ellie gets a negative character arc, suffering for things that are no fault of her own until the end.
@@sanfransiscon Druckmann tried so hard to get players to reflect on humanity's faults, but he did it in a way that would have worked way better on a dispassionate, unbiased audience. Problem is he chose to do it with a franchise and characters that people are VERY passionate and biased about.
are you ignoring the fact that Owen tries to talk her out of it, multiple times? are you also ignoring the fact that a traumatized Mel now hates Abby afterwards? like quite literally the first, non-professional conversation Abby and Owen have is how Owen thinks Abbys gone too far. Not to mention that just about every one of her flashbacks features some element of how her obsession with finding Joel drives a stake between her relationship with Owen.
@@quinnmarchese6313 I'm not saying that some of them didn't show discomfort or guilt, I'm saying that the way the story and their actions were presented didn't leave me conflicted on Ellie's actions for the most part. After what they did to Joel, and the way they treated her afterward, Ellie's actions felt very human, and justified from an emotional perspective.
I'm saying the story didn't satisfy me partially because it failed to put me in a state of mind where Ellie sparing Abby felt right. Part of it is that I'm biased in that Last of Us made me love Joel and Ellie, but that's why the story failed for me: Druckmann either didn't consider how that bias would effect a lot of people playing this game... or he did, in which case well done, but I don't like it.
@@1894db thats the literal point. your not supposed to be conflicted about ellies actions until Abby meets Lev and Yara. even then, i think the point where we were /supposed/ to be conflicted only comes around the hotel sequence.
For me my problem with the game is how they treated Abby. I think of her as more of a protagonist than Ellie. It's Abby that started the cycle, Ellie is more just a force of nature due to the consequence of killing Joel. But why is all the weight of forgiveness and revenge on Ellie? Why does Abby get to go and get her Joel revenge, pet the dog, go and overpower Ellie in every situation, and never stop and think about how everything is her fault? She even, ironically, jeopardized the WLF assault mission and indirectly got Issac shot to save a kid (which parallel's Joel's actions). Does she learn anything about this? Does she grow as a character? Or did she find a new distraction in the form of Lev that let her escape her past life ignore everything she did. It seems like Ellie wasn't ever even a threat; Abby killed Joel and moved on in her life, good for her in getting her revenge. She didn't even choose to spare Ellie herself, Lev told her to stop. Abby's growth as a character was stunted in order to put all the pressure on Ellie.
Joel moves on from his past, riddled with brutal actions and decisions, by finding a new companion in Ellie.
Abby moves on from her past, riddled with brutal actions and decisions, by finding a new companion in Lev.
Ellie fails to do that, even after finding a loving family. For Ellie, forgiveness is not a burden, but her only solace. Pursuing revenge ruined every aspect of her life.
"Does [Abby] learn anything about this? Does she grow as a character? Or did she find a new distraction in the form of Lev that let her escape her past life ignore everything she did."
We can ask the same question about Joel and what he did in the hospital. The answer would be that the mere fact that this man came to care for someone other than himself, not related to him on any level other than a personal and emotional one - IS his growth.
In his time in Jackson we see that he tries to change his cold and jaded nature he adapted over the years, and start a new life with his new-found daughter. Even then - he's still flawd by lying to Ellie and stating that he'd do everything all over again. But we LOVE him still.
I think of Abby's growth as a similar one. She's done an unspeakable thing. Joel has done some as well. But we never question it. When he interrogates David's people while torturing and killing them, we cheer for him because they've wronged Ellie. When Abby excecutes a similar act of revenge on the person who's wronged her father, we don't like it becuse it is unfamiliar to us. It doen't give us a positive emotional reaction. But it's the same action.
Take time to think of the parallels and hypocricy the game crafts
@@rrainx Exactly my point, Abby mirrors Joel and Ellie so well, yet the game treats what Joel and Ellie did as something monstrous (which yes, they were) while Abby gets humanized doing exactly the same thing. Joel gets hunted down, Ellie loses everything, and Abby beats up Ellie for the trouble, sabotages the WLF (her new family) and runs away for a kid. She gets to get her revenge and move on without learning anything.
If Ellie was able to track Abby down and find her *coincidentally* outside the WLF and beat her up and killed her just like what Abby did to Joel, would Ellie still be in pain? It seems like Abby was only able to move on with her father's death after her revenge, and her father's death wasn't even as brutal nor did she witness her father slowly dying in front of her. I get what they were aiming for, I'm just saying the execution was bad and gave Abby too much lenience.
If they really wanted to end the cycle of revenge, Abby and Lev while adventuring should have been captured by some WLF forces that split to track her down for revenge because their leader Issac died from the gunshot wound (which Abby indirectly caused due to her selfishness). Then Issac's son/daughter crowbars her slowly in front of Lev (to portray the game's parallels), and Lev now needs to decide to end the cycle of revenge once and for all.
I think the point with having Abby kill Joel was to show the aftermath of revenge. Abby’s life didn’t get better after killing Joel. She didn’t get the closure she thought she would. It’s through meeting Lev and Yara and learning that the cycle of violence won’t make things better (this time by seeing how the conflict between the wlf and scars will only end in everyone losing and more and more death because no one is willing to stop the fighting) that she realizes that revenge and violence aren’t the way. That dehumanizing the people she has fought and killed was perpetuating these cycles. She dehumanized Joel which drove her to go to all the lengths she did to kill him and refuse mercy. She dehumanized the scars which allowed her to blindly follow Isaac and fight for the wlf. Her meeting and coming to care for Lev and Yara that makes her come to learn to humanize her enemies and show mercy and move beyond the violence. Abby is both a warning and a lesson.
Abby is there to show that Joel’s actions in the first game don’t exist in a vacuum. I love Joel but he did kill a lot of people and while I 100% agree that the fireflies are incompetent Joel still took any chance there was at making a serum when he killed the doctors and took Ellie. They may not have been able to make a serum but he removed any possibility that it could happen at all. That’s what I thought the game was arguing. Now all of this is my interpretation and you are free to have your own opinion :)
@@battlekidx2599 I can see that, yet Abby never showed regret for her decision to get revenge, nor did her friends. Nora even said she wouldn't hesitate to kill Joel again in front of Ellie, of all people. The game tries to show that Abby learns the cycle of revenge is bad in theory, but in practice they just showed Abby sacrificing her WLF family for two kids, and then seconds away from slitting Dina's neck (after finding out she was pregnant) before Lev tells her to stop. She never tells Ellie that she's sorry, or that she understands, or tell Ellie her side, she never has a conversation with Lev about revenge or talks about it at all. Abby shows no introspection at all, yet paints Abby in a much better light than Ellie or Tommy.
The game wants to say that Abby is a lesson and a warning, but in action the game shows Abby getting her revenge, then finding something new to live for and being able to move on. Revenge, in the game, is good. Look what they did to Ellie, without her revenge even if she found something new to live for with Dina, Joel's murder left a scar in her that couldn't heal. Maybe if Ellie copied Abby by *coincidentally* ambushing Abby outside of Seattle and bashing her head in with a crowbar, then finding something new to live for with Dina, she would be able to move on too, just like Abby did. I understand the game's motives but for me they had really poor execution.
@@christianalfonso5065 Again I think a lot of this game is up to your interpretation. If you want to interpret it the way you said in this comment that’s fine. But from my takeaway from the game Abby did learn that revenge wasn’t the answer. Even after killing Joel she still has nightmares about the night in the hospital when her father died and she even gets to see that, as I said in the previous post, she got her friends all killed because she killed Joel and set Ellie on this path. Yes she only spared Ellie and Dina because Lev asked her to. In that moment she had just learned that Owen, the person she was closest to and who was about to get away from his life of killing, had been killed by Ellie and was running off her rage. In the end on the beach she shows no desire to kill Ellie at all. She just immediately grabs Lev and even guides Ellie to the boats. This scene, at least from my reading, is meant to show you that Abby has learned that revenge is wrong. She doesn’t want to kill Ellie and she knows that killing her won’t bring her the closure she wants, so instead she guides Ellie to a way off the island. She doesn’t fight Ellie willingly. She has just as much of a reason to want revenge on Ellie as Ellie does to want revenge on her right then. But she wants to get Lev to safety because she knows now that moving on and learning to live with people you care about can ease the ache, the hole left from the loss of her father and friends in this case, while revenge can’t. She learned this lesson too late to fix things with Owen but it’s not too late now. (again this is my reading of the scene. If you don’t read it this way then this probably won’t change your mind)
This isn’t to say I think that Ellie is the villain either. I actually found Ellie’s quest for revenge understandable. I was able to relate to her decision because there are some things that you can't just leave alone, especially when it comes to trauma. When you have trauma to that extent and you have to deal with the after effects, it's really hard, and the longer it goes on the more desperate you can get for any type of closure. So when she saw a chance at closure she took it. It's a very hard thing to relate to if you've never gone through something like that and that's very understandable, but when you have it's one of those things that makes you feel understood. At least it did for me. Because, while I knew it was the wrong choice for Ellie, I also understood that desperation for closure, closure that may ease that ache deep in your chest that feels like it will consume you. Where it doesn't feel like a choice because you feel stuck in time until you get that closure or something, anything, to ease the ache.
I found this game to be steeped in shades of grey. Neither Abby or Ellie are completely irredeemable and the end of the game shows that. Both come to realize that revenge doesn’t fill the hole. Neither of them apologize to the other because, while they realize killing each other isn’t the answer, they can’t forgive each other (or also in Abby’s case Joel) and that’s okay. Forgiveness isn’t what the game is about. Some things can’t be forgiven. Abby killing Joel, Joel killing Abby’s father, and Ellie killing Abby’s friends are all things that aren’t forgivable from each person’s point of view. So I was happy that no one said sorry or that they understood why the other killed their loved ones. I don’t think that would have made sense for either character.
Ellie’s final moments in the game are actually really interesting because it can be interpreted happier than I think some people believe. If you look at the house it has clearly been a long time since Ellie has been there. And the only things left in the house are Joel’s things, not Ellie’s. I like thinking that Ellie went back as one final goodbye to Joel before finally getting on with her life back with Dina (she’s wearing Dina’s bracelet in this scene, which she didn’t have when she went to have her final confrontation with Abby, meaning she must have seen Dina after the confrontation at some point). So there is the possibility that Ellie got her happy ending too. (You can choose to ignore this. I just really like the idea and I’ve seen a lot of people talking about it too)
I understand and respect the message the writers were trying to tell, but it was definitely undermined by execution and a few key details from the previous game. One thing that really broke the story for me was how everyone assumes that Joel was in the wrong for saving Ellie. In the first game, if you search around for logs and pay attention to small details, it’s definitely implied that the fireflies aren’t actually that confident in their ability to pull a cure from Ellie. The entire operation was more of an act of desperation by people who would latch onto anything as hope. There are definitely a lot of moral arguments that put Joel firmly in the right (in the act of saving Ellie specifically) yet that decision is treated like a kind of original sin for the entire game.
What’s especially cruel is how Abbey kills Joel after he’s shown that he’s changed quite a bit, and resolved a lot of his past flaws. Abbey murders Joel in cold blood, and ignites a full fledged war because of her vengeance. This naturally put me in Ellie’s camp, because (even ignoring emotional bias) Abbey incited the conflict with a disgusting act of murder.
Another thing that undermined the story is just how hard it had to work to make Abbey relatable after opening with something so grevious. For example, the whole thing with the dog didn’t really land with me cause it felt like a blatant attempt to humanize Abbey and make Ellie look evil. And of course Ellie commits many acts of evil as she becomes obsessed with revenge, but seeing Ellie devolve just made me hate Abbey more, cause she turned Ellie into a monster.
And don’t even get me started with the pacing.
This game had some enjoyable elements, and I think the core message that Hello Future Me points out about factionalism is a good one, but here I think the execution is so bad that no one really figured it out, and the message itself was undermined by key details in the previous game. It really feels like the writers were willing to twist the narrative to tell the message they wanted to tell, as opposed to caring for the universe and characters.
Thanks for reading and please be civil 😊
I think the pacing criticism is definitely valid. I didn't really go into it except for briefly at the end there, but I do totally agree. The pacing was waaay - especially in Abby's sections. Regarding the cure - there is totally more ambiguity than the second game let on. That's totally fair. As I mentioned, that feeling of ownership is totally understandable, and I don't think it's illegitimate to say, 'hey, I don't think this was the right direction'.
~ Tim
Thanks for responding Hello Future Me!
"In the first game, if you search around for logs and pay attention to small details, it’s definitely implied that the fireflies aren’t actually that confident in their ability to pull a cure from Ellie."
No, you don't. Nothing in the first game implies that. Joel himself says "They were actually going to make a cure" when he speaks to Tommy. If he had any doubts, he would have mentioned them when he spoke to Tommy or Ellie about his actions.
"There are definitely a lot of moral arguments that put Joel firmly in the right (in the act of saving Ellie specifically) yet that decision is treated as a kind of original sin for the entire game."
Joel explicitly states he would have murdered dozens of people and doomed humanity again, even after learning Ellie wanted to sacrifice herself for the cure (he most likely knew that beforehand). Joel is evil and selfish.
"What’s especially cruel is how Abbey kills Joel after he’s shown that he’s changed quite a bit, and resolved a lot of his past flaws."
He does not, he is still controlling and manipulative, trying to insert himself into Ellie's life even after she asked him to stay away. He also doesn't regret any of his actions.
"Abbey incited the conflict with a disgusting act of murder."
No, Joel incited the conflict by going back on the deal he cut with the Fireflies, killing dozens of them and possibly dooming humanity.
@@zenko8073 "No, you don't. Nothing in the first game implies that. Joel himself says "They were actually going to make a cure" when he speaks to Tommy. If he had any doubts, he would have mentioned them when he spoke to Tommy or Ellie about his actions."
thelastofus.fandom.com/wiki/Surgeon%27s_Recorder
1. It is a vaccine, not a cure. Some zombie stories involve a cure which can convert a zombie back into a healthy human. This can save the whole world, because it can undo the damage that has been done and rebuild the ranks of humanity while simultaneously reducing the ranks of the undead. This vaccine is not that. The vaccine would not undo any damage done.
2. How would it be distributed? The world has been dealing with zombies for 20 years before Ellie was discovered to be immune. I somehow doubt the societal collapse all happened only in the 5 years between TLOU and TLOU2. So, if they did make a vaccine, they would be able to distribute it to... Their own group's members and almost nobody else; most other groups would have no reason to trust the vaccine.
3. By the time TLOU2 is in motion, most of the zombies are not even an issue compared to the 1st game. Except for plot zombie hordes that disappear once the story progresses. So in that 4 years, it's only a convenience to have the vaccine.
4. Even if they somehow magically made the vaccine, there's no way they'd be able to make enough to "save the world" like they claim especially with the lethal method they planned on going with.
5. To add to my previous point, let's say on top of all this BS, a single surgeon (not a vaccinologist who'd be better suited for this), in a run down shitty operating room, cuts Ellie's brain open and successfully makes a vaccine and replicates it to the point where everyone can get a shot; that essentially changes so little that its basically pointless at the point the world is at! In the first game it's blatantly obvious that society has collapsed; the established world shows that most of the non-infected are strays, thugs, marauders, rapists, cannibals or some mixture of all. Your life is only saved in the situation where you got bit and managed to get away. Zombies don't just leave after they bite you, they strike to kill. And honestly the people around you in most cases are a bigger threat than the zombies; that's not going to go away because of immunity. For fuck's sake Ellie's immune and she wasn't exactly living life all worry-free with no troubles whatsoever.
6. The Fireflies weren't some holier-than-thou faction like TLOU2 likes to portray them. Its wishful thinking to believe they wouldn't use this vaccine as a power play or bargaining chip to control others or trade it for resources. I highly doubt that the group of people who attacked a man trying to give his daughter figure CPR would be nice enough to just traverse dangerous environments just giving out something so valuable for free.
There's no way they could mass produce a cure from one part of a child's brain especially in their current predicament.
Being immune essentially changes nothing for people at this point because lawless society and all that.
Should have focused on making a "Zom-Be Gone" spray that could either kill or repel zombies rather than some dumb cure/vaccine.
Also, the doctor that you're forced to kill in the first game is not even named Jerry. A TH-camr name Freako did a video in which he unmasks the surgeon from the first game and apparently his model is named Bruce.
"Joel explicitly states he would have murdered dozens of people and doomed humanity again, even after learning Ellie wanted to sacrifice herself for the cure (he most likely knew that beforehand). Joel is evil and selfish."
Really? Did Ellie really want to be sacrificed for a "cure"? That we don't even know if it would've been possible to make? Or that it will even work? Especially give that the world is already gone to shit in this game?
First, Ellie knows Joel is lying from the beginning. It would be an insult to her intelligence and intuition to assume she doesn't know what Joel tells her in the car is a complete lie. Yet, Ellie - who is also strong and willing to challenge Joel - doesn't even ask a single question or try to make sense of it. Why would she not ask something - ANYTHING - unless she knew he was lying?
Then, just before they officially end their journey and enter Jackson Ellie confides in Joel by discussing her survivor's guilt. When Joel's attempt to assuage Ellie of responsibility for those deaths isn't enough, Ellie asks that Joel swears to his lie. Again, no explanation demanded or even confirmation of what the lie is - just a plea that Joel swears to it. When Joel does, Ellie considers the situation before eventually being ready to move on. "Okay". Even though you're lying to me, I won't ask what really happened, let's just see where this goes Joel.
Second, Ellie knows Joel. She understands his trauma. Ellie knows how strongly Joel feels for her now and knows he would die to protect her. Ellie even begs Joel to stay with her by promising that she WON'T die. She'll be OK, she's immune. She knows Joel couldn't let her die no matter the situation because he loves her and that's one of the reasons she wants to stay with him instead of going with Tommy.
Third, Ellie never expects, nor mentions any willingness or desire to die for a vaccine. She fully expects to live. She promises Joel that they will go wherever he wants after the hospital. Joel promises he won't leave without her. Ellie then excitedly tells Joel that once they're done with this whole thing, he can teach her to swim.
Fourth, Ellie loves Joel and has never had anybody care about her the way Joel does. She barely knows Marlene who pawns her off on random strangers. She didn't know her parents. Riley is the only meaningful relationship we have any indication of prior to Joel and it's cut short. Point is, Ellie understands how rare and important the kind of relationship she and Joel develop is in their world. That is why she prioritizes Joel above herself and any chance of a vaccine on multiple occasions without skipping a beat (in TLOU).
Yet, in the second game, Ellie suddenly acts like she didn't know (suspect) anything, and then acts all shocked and betrayed. Imagine that, saving the only person you care about instead of the whole world (that has already gone to shit and is almost irredeemable and un-savable) is seen as "evil" and "selfish" lol. Yes everyone, let's save this world full of nothing but thugs, cannibals and rapists. You're telling me if it was your daughter, you would've happily let some incompetent "doctor" cut her open in the hopes that they MIGHT make some sort of cure, to save a world that has already gone to shit? Please...
"He does not, he is still controlling and manipulative, trying to insert himself into Ellie's life even after she asked him to stay away. He also doesn't regret any of his actions."
"Controlling" and "manipulative", what? In what part is he controlling and/or manipulative? "Trying to insert himself into Ellie's life"? Yeah, no shit, they are practically father and daughter at this point. He wants to be with her and protect her. She is the only person that he cares about. "Doesn't regret any of his actions". Regret what actions? From the previous game? In which all of the people you kill are for his and Ellie's safety ? Name one instance from the previous game in which you aren't killing someone in self-defense. I'll wait.
"No, Joel incited the conflict by going back on the deal he cut with the Fireflies, killing dozens of them and possibly dooming humanity."
Okay, you either never played the first game or you really didn't pay attention to what happened. Ellie almost drowns, Joel saves her and starts giving her CPR, Fireflies cowards knock him out instead of helping, Joel wakes up in the hospital next to Marlene who tells him that they are going to cut Ellie open (without Ellie's consent, Ellie was unconscious) and they were going to throw Joel outside, to the infected without any of his gear to protect himself and cherry on top, THEY are the ones who backed out of the deal. They were not going to pay Joel for transporting Ellie to them. You know? The guns that they promised from the beginning of the game? So why would Joel give a fuck about any of them anymore? Ellie is the only one he cared about, he learns that the Fireflies are incompetent terrorists and they were about basically kill him by throwing him into danger without any way for him to protect himself. "eViL aND sELfiSH"
He made a calm, rational decision to save her. Firefly likely severely impeded the ability of humanity to resist the plague because their response to immune people is not to monitor them for months and carefully work on replicating their immunity, but to cut their brains out. Abby's father was an enthusiastic murderous thug who deserved everything he got. Ellie was wrong to be annoyed at him, Joel was a great father who helped her and humanity
The Fireflies were a violent, terroristic group dedicated to freeing humanity from the virus. Marlene, their leader, knocked out Joel and abducted Ellie, and within a few hours decided to do a fatal operation to remove her brain to try and cure the plague.
The Fireflies are incompetent, fail to generate cures from past immune cases, and are not a reliable solution for humanity.
@@ShinRock54 What an essay.
"This can save the whole world because it can undo the damage that has been done and rebuild the ranks of humanity while simultaneously reducing the ranks of the undead. This vaccine is not that. The vaccine would not undo any damage done.
"
It will reduce the ranks of the undead by preventing them from multiplying. It might not undo the damage, but it will prevent any further damage from being done, and save millions of lives throughout the following decades.
"So, if they did make a vaccine, they would be able to distribute it to... Their own group's members and almost nobody else; most other groups would have no reason to trust the vaccine."
Once they see WLF members getting bit and not turning, they will trust the vaccine.
"By the time TLOU2 is in motion, most of the zombies are not even an issue compared to the 1st game. Except for plot zombie hordes that disappear once the story progresses."
Zombies are a massive issue. The game takes place in locations where humans worked to exterminate them, and they are still a huge threat. Out in the wild, they are even more deadly. Ellie was nearly killed by them on her journey to Santa Barbara. Jackson has to constantly send out patrols to stop potential attacks, and if a horde ever passes close to it, it will be completely decimated. The moment Abby and her friends stray of course, they are nearly killed by infected.
"Even if they somehow magically made the vaccine, there's no way they'd be able to make enough to "save the world" as they claim especially with the lethal method they planned on going with.
"
Why not? They have a few medical professionals and an advanced facility. Once they start spreading the vaccine, more people will join them, and they will be able to increase production. What does the method of developing the vaccine have to do with it? Once they have the formula, they won't have to hurt anyone to create doses.
"To add to my previous point, let's say on top of all this BS, a single surgeon (not a vaccinologist who'd be better suited for this), in a run down shitty operating room, cuts Ellie's brain open and successfully makes a vaccine and replicates it to the point where everyone can get a shot; that essentially changes so little that it's basically pointless at the point the world is at!"
Jerry spent many years trying to develop a vaccine, not one is better suited than him. His operating room was just fine.
"In the first game, it's blatantly obvious that society has collapsed; the established world shows that most of the non-infected are strays, thugs, marauders, rapists, cannibals, or some mixture of all."
If the infected were no longer a threat, society could return back to normal. Those people became hunters and cannibals because there weren't enough resources for them, and the lack of resources is caused by the infected, which control most of the country, and can show up at any moment. A vaccine would give people hope and a chance to take back the country. The Fireflies would have used it as leverage and formed an organization powerful enough to make the US safe again.
"Your life is only saved in the situation where you got bitten and managed to escape. Zombies don't just leave after they bite you, they strike to kill."
Spores are the Virus's primary means of spreading. Not everyone has gas masks. A vaccine would have stopped it.
"And honestly, the people around you in most cases are a bigger threat than the zombies; that's not going to go away because of immunity. For fuck's sake Ellie's immune and she wasn't exactly living life all worry-free with no troubles whatsoever.
"
A vaccine would have helped the Fireflies gain more support and restore order to the US.
"The Fireflies weren't some holier-than-thou faction like TLOU2 likes to portray them. It's wishful thinking to believe they wouldn't use this vaccine as a power play or bargaining chip to control others or trade it for resources. I highly doubt that the group of people who attacked a man trying to give his daughter figure CPR would be nice enough to just traverse dangerous environments just giving out something so valuable for free.
"
Joel tried to run over a man who was limping to him, begging for help. That Firefly obviously thought Joel was trying to trick him. The Fireflies using the vaccine to gain power is a good thing. The country would have been better of if they were in charge and not the hunters.
"There's no way they could mass-produce a cure from one part of a child's brain, especially in their current predicament.
"
Ellie's brain would have helped them discover the formula for the vaccine, not make it.
"Really? Did Ellie really want to be sacrificed for a "cure"? That we don't even know if it would've been possible to make? Or that it will even work?"
Everyone, including Joel, believes it would have worked. All available evidence points in that direction. The only reason to say it wouldn't have as if you really want to defend Joel, but even he wouldn't have agreed with you, as I previously stated.
"It would be an insult to her intelligence and intuition to assume she doesn't know what Joel tells her in the car is a complete lie. Yet, Ellie - who is also strong and willing to challenge Joel - doesn't even ask a single question or try to make sense of it. Why would she not ask something - ANYTHING - unless she knew he was lying?
"
Ellie is terrified of what Joel might have done. She doesn't want to know the truth at first because it might destroy her relationship with the only person that cares about her.
"Third, Ellie never expects, nor mentions any willingness or desire to die for a vaccine. She fully expects to live. She promises Joel that they will go wherever he wants after the hospital. Joel promises he won't leave without her. Ellie then excitedly tells Joel that once they're done with this whole thing, he can teach her to swim.
"
She very clearly states she wanted to die in that hospital. "I was supposed to die in that hospital. My life would have fucking mattered." After she tells this to Joel, he still says he would have killed the Fireflies again, even though he knows she doesn't want that.
"That is why she prioritizes Joel above herself and any chance of a vaccine on multiple occasions without skipping a beat (in TLOU).
"
When does she do that exactly?
"Imagine that, saving the only person you care about instead of the whole world (that has already gone to shit and is almost irredeemable and un-savable) is seen as "evil" and "selfish" lol. Yes everyone, let's save this world full of nothing but thugs, cannibals, and rapists. You're telling me if it was your daughter, you would've happily let some incompetent "doctor" cut her open in the hopes that they MIGHT make some sort of cure, to save a world that has already gone to shit?"
The world is very much salvable. Most of its inhabitants do terrible things because that's what they have to do to survive (Joel during his time as a hunter included). Even one of the Rattlers was only with them to get food for his family.
""Controlling" and "manipulative", what? In what part is he controlling and/or manipulative?"
Trying to control her patrol routes and "save" her from Seth even though he doesn't need his help one bit.
"No, Joel incited the conflict by going back on the deal he cut with the Fireflies, killing dozens of them and possibly dooming humanity."
"THEY are the ones who backed out of the deal. They were not going to pay Joel for transporting Ellie to them. You know? The guns that they promised from the beginning of the game?
If Joel wanted his payment, or to stay inside where it is safe, he should have asked, and they would have let him. He clearly wasn't interested in that anymore.
"Ellie is the only one he cared about, he learns that the Fireflies are incompetent terrorists and they were about to basically kill him by throwing him into danger without any way for him to protect himself. "eViL aND sELfiSH"
"
Why are you saying they are incompetent at terrorism all of a sudden, and what does it have to do with the cure? If he was worried about his equipment, he would have asked for shelter or stole a gun and ran away. What makes Joel selfish is that he killed dozens of people directly, and millions indirectly, to save a girl he barely knew for a year. Thousands of innocent children died because Joel stopped the Fireflies from making a cure, and they died so Joel could play daddy for a few more years. No one supports his actions, not even Ellie herself.
"Firefly likely severely impeded the ability of humanity to resist the plague because their response to immune people is not to monitor them for months and carefully work on replicating their immunity, but to cut their brains out."
How would monitoring her help? The Fireflies ran the tests, what made Ellie immune was in her brain, and the only way to operate on it was to get it out.
"The Fireflies are incompetent, fail to generate cures from past immune cases, and are not a reliable solution for humanity."
There were no past immune cases.
33:46 “After Abby is saved by Lev and Yara, she is forced to question her feelings.”
*Abby is literally saved by Joel & Tommy
Abby: So anyways, I started blasting.
Ikr. She felt nothing when Joel saved her life but when Lev and Yara saved her life she starts questioning? Really?
@@jasonalv7436 Both of y'all missed the point. We clearly see a reaction shot of Abby being shocked that her father's murderer saved her life. But since she's so thoroughly convinced herself that Joel is a monster (Like you've convinced yourselves Abby has no humanity!) she rushes to push this out of her mind.
When Yara and Lev save her, she is confronted with this again. She doesn't want to kill Yara and Lev, so she leaves. But she has a dream confirming that letting them die is the same as killing them. When Lev asks Abby why she is helping them, she says "Guilt. I just wanted to lighten the load." She's not going to just come right out and say it because that's what subtext is for. But she feels bad that someone saved her life and she killed them for it, so now she's trying to redeem herself in her own eyes.
@@nonuvurbeeznus795 I disagree completely. She made a shocked face cuz she didn't realize that this was Joel, the person she has been hunting for years, in front of her face and she hasn't even made it to Jackson yet. There was no point where Abby was shocked that Joel saved her life and she needed to reconsider her actions. If they really wanna properly show this, Abby would've at the very least hesitated or even told Manny that she doesn't wanna kill him anymore and Manny told her about her father's death which resulted her going back to convincing herself that he is a monster. None of that happened so there is nothing supporting your claim that Abby was surprised that Joel saved her life.
Abby having a dream to save Yara and Lev was very forced. There's really no real reason why she wanted to save Yara and Lev. Did they remind her of a family member the way Joel was reminded of Sarah when trying to save Ellie? no. Did she feel like she owes them for saving her life? Well maybe but she tortured someone who risk his life to save hers slowly and she enjoys it. She only hesitates because Ellie was there but before Ellie was there, she was definitely taking her time with it. You might be saying that guilt drives Abby to save Lev after what she did to Joel, the man who saved her life. But this was never communicated. Yes she still dreams about her father being killed but that is not guilt. It just shows that killing Joel was meaningless. Her feeling bad after killing Joel even after he saved her life would've been a great motivation for the character but that wasn't exactly stated, not even through subtext.
Lemme ask you this, what is Abby's character trajectory or her destination and what she needed to be in the end? Tell me what she should be in the beginning and what she should become
And you really don't understand the difference there?
@@jameslanier2510 The difference is that those kids came from a cult she has been told to despise and the other is the guy that killed her father. She had 0 hesitation in killing the man and even takes her fuckin time with it as if she enjoys it and the other she risk everything to save these 2 kids she just met. That's a massive gap
While I don't believe The Last of Us Part II is terrible writing, I do believe the writers shot themselves in the foot by making Joel's death so brutal even though it is clear it was also necessary for the story they were trying to tell. They essentially set themselves an impossible task further complicated by working in an interactive medium.
If Abby had simply killed Joel with a gunshot to the head, Ellie's path to peace might have been possible, but the way Abby killed Joel made it impossible, which I think was their point, but I argue that's also what made it impossible for many players to accept playing as Abby, or reconcile Ellie not getting revenge with their own need for catharsis. The visceral horror of Joel's death makes it feel unjustified no matter what Abby's reasons are, and we know it is revenge she is after rather than justice because she clearly says Joel doesn't get to rush his death. Obviously the writers intentionally made Joel's death brutal, and it absolutely succeeds with getting the player on board with Ellie, but I think it also undermines the point about factionalism, particularly in the event trying to be a mirror for Tommy and Ellie's reactions to it. People recognize that killing an enemy can be justified while torturing a prisoner cannot. That's the reason we can have the terms war and war crime. There is no Geneva Convention in The Last of Us Part II, but people understand there are levels to violence, and some are more transgressive than others. Tommy's sniping is combat. Ellie approaches Abby's level of transgression (torturing a prisoner to death) when she threatens to kill Lev (murdering a noncombatant), but she doesn't go through with it. In the end, the more transgressive Abby gets her revenge and gets to walk away while Ellie gets neither of these things, and the player is left to wonder, "Did the bad guy just win?" While less interactive media like movies and books can have the antagonist win or have the protagonist achieve only a pyrrhic victory (and Ellie didn't even get that), that's a trickier proposition for a video game because it means the player ostensibly lost.
First I'd like to say this is a good point to me. If we say the purpose of the game is to teach the player about factionalism and revenge then perhaps the violence of Joel's death made the lesson too hard.
Perhaps some would have appreciated the game more if there was a lower barrier to feeling empathy. I do hope that even those who reject this game might some day in the future when they find themselves in a position where they feel wronged by an outsider to their faction will think back to this game. I am sure many won't and I don't have any way to tell how many other than base instincts about what people are like. I guess my response is if you make Joel's death less impactful will the emotions we learn about in this moment compare to the genuine emotion we will feel when we want revenge in the future.
I come to this game as a form of practice. Can I maintain a desire for peace and healing over violence and revenge even when I'm this angry. I would put forth that it's not trying to only teach people unfamiliar with factionalism how damaging it is but also let those of us who acknowledge it's irrationality get a chance to put that belief to the test when we have an emotional investment to those that have been lost.
Thank you for your point and the tension between having any lesson be challenging to those familiar with the topic and inclusive to those who are not is always something I find very fascinating.
It does feel Abby is unjustified if you take your feelings out Abby is justified to an extent. Torturing is still taking it too far but consider this her whole life was turned upside down because of Joel and for 4 years she's been suffering nightmare she can only think about is getting revenge on the man who took everything from her for that she's even ruined her relationship. Torturing is still too Far but considering everything you can understand why she did torture him she thought causing him all that pain would take away her nightmares and fix things. It didn't like “sometimes the way we deal with trauma isn't the way out but you still don't know what the right way is” She as to deal with the consequences of this. None of Abby's actions are any more cruel than Ellie they just seem worse cause we prefer Ellie. If you justify Ellie's you justify Abby's as well otherwise it's hypocrisy.
You say Abby got her revenge and gets to walk way but she lost her lover all her friends and basically her whole faction(Though she didn't agree with them anymore leaving your faction and having to kill them for your survival is definitely not easy). All she as left is Lev she definitely didn't come unscathed her revenge came with a heavy price.
Just like Abby Ellie still as Dina and JJ she's going to have to work for her and Dina to go back to how they were but since it's heavily hinted at they've seen each other she still as Dina and JJ just like Abby as Lev. Both of them paid a heavy price for their actions and both are left with a small piece of their family intact.
The player wins he/she can finally take solace in the fact that these two woman are finally able to move past the cycle of violence and revenge that as ruined their lives and can finally look to the future with their loved ones having finally left the past behind. The ending is far more hopeful than most realise. It's bittersweet like the first games ending.
I totally agree on this point, way too brutal and seeing their unconflicted reactions made it feel disjointed as they then tried to go 'and here's why they did it'. Another thing I think, though I could be totally wrong on this, is in the first game with David and his crew in winter, they could have easily told this same story at that point. As they tried to do, except he turned out to be batshit crazy. It's not a bad story to tell in the apocalyptic setting and it's a very real thing, but 2 just went a little too ham.
Though I admit I am in the camp of 'this isn't the story I wanted', but when I think about what I would've wanted from a second game...not much. If even a second game. I was dying to see more of how Ellie would handle Joel's lie, if she thought he lied or not, but that's not what 2 focused on and I didn't care to hear anymore. 2's story just beat a dead horse/Joel for too long and too hard for me.
"They essentially set themselves an impossible task further complicated by working in an interactive medium."
Based on the digging I've done, I believe that was entirely Neil Druckmann's intention: "Could we make take a character, make the player absolutely despise them, and then bring them to empathize with that character?" TLOU2 was, in every way, Naughty Dog's most ambitious title. Neil also knew that there would be people who would never be able to get on board with it.
I would argue that Ellie did obtain victory: the ending is far more ambiguous than people realize, and while I found it depressing at first, I've come to see it as more hopeful than anything.
Just stupid why making these things? Game is about fun and not about being angry omg
I deeply appreciate how Tim always tries to be understanding, positive and excepting.
me too! it made this review a breath of fresh air
Accepting
@@kentuckyfriedchildren5385 how did I miss that and not correct it lol
@@micaiahborchers8914 haha I don't know, I have poor reading comprehension
@@kentuckyfriedchildren5385 oops 😅
One thing would have severely helped the game. Start with Abby. Don’t even imply in a trailer that Joel or Ellie are in the game. Have our introduction to Joel be from Abby’s perspective and the trauma she experiences. Then by the time Joel dies, you feel more torn about it.
100% agreed! 🙌
hell no
Why’s everything gotta be so linear in a story , isn’t it good when things arnt streamlined and thought provoking? I just don’t get it. Some abstraction is a good thing is it not ?
But realistically though would that not effect sales?
I remember how surprised people were when the first trailer dropped, and the story was still about Joel and Ellie. I thought their story was over.
Imagine killing the friends of your father's killer, even a pregnant woman, just to spare that same killer in the end. Its like John Wick sparing the guy who killed his dog.
Simply put, from someone who did not like the game as much: it's the execution, not the direction that is problematic.
Judging by the way people reacted to leaks and were hating on the game pre-release, it appears direction was the problem for most people. Particularly the direction where Joel gets to face the consequences of his actions in the first game and the game featuring a muscular female lead.
@@weaverquest That was because of the lack of context. Killing Joel is an interesting idea/direction but they pulled it off in such a disheartening and illogical way. Instead of outright killing him for opening up to strangers, they could have built the relation between Joel and Abby (this way we'd have liked both character) and she internally struggles about killing him (they could have hinted at this by her acting strange) but later when they are being chased by a hoard or something, she could have left him to die and revealed what he did to her father. I think this would have been more logical and emotional.
That's not even the end of the poor execution. Multiple characters died and their names weren't even mentioned. Literally, Manny's and Jessi's death were so irrelevant.
We went on a whole chapter to save Yara and she dies suddenly later, like what was the point? (If it was Lev's relation, it could have been done other ways).
Also, Ellie kills so so many people to realize at the very end that she shouldn't kill Abby. They should have made her question herself a bit more too.
To some degree, it feels forced, because of these illogical decisions which really puts you out of it, and it's worse because we control them.
It could have been a much much better game.
@@FirezAper46... Abby had prepared for years and years of her life to avenge her father and kill Joel. How the holy fuck were they gonna have some special bonding time where that makes her question her intent to kill him??? Lmao
@@Vivivofi Well,if she had time to fucking TORTURE him to death with a fuckin golf club, probably she would have time to question herself and her revenge question when he LITERALLY SAVED HER LIFE.
The fact that she simply ignores the fact that Joel risked his life and saved her and,yet,she still tortures him makes her even more irredimable and it gets worse when you think that the game wanted to you to sympathize with her,again,the problem it's the execution.
There were other ways of doing this scene,but they chosen the worst one possible...
@@feralves1 ahahah.. okay, let me ask you this: how many people did Ellie kill on her brutal rampage across America? How many people? You’re giving the game a shitty review because it messed with your emotions, mate. It’s not ‘the execution’ or some shite like that, you just loved Joel so much. So did I. But let’s face it- he wasn’t exactly the perfect role model. He taught Ellie to behave the way she did in the second game, going on a mad murder spree. Do you get what I’m saying here?
There's one problem with that Brandon Sanderson quote: Sometimes, what you take issue with *is* the intentions of the work.
If I were to flawlessly make a follow up to LotR where Gandalf went around clubbing hobbits on the head with his staff, then both Brandon and Tim better not say anything about it.
Agree
Except it drops the ball on it and even if it were ment to be everything is crap the logic behind it is so poor. They showing of it is bad. Its simply frustrating and makes you not care. Iok from Gundam ibo is someone you hate with a passion. He's bad and annoying in the way you still are invested in. This game just loses you. Furthermore I think ibo season 2 has more to say and ties in better with Gundam as a series with the shift in roles that the protagonists we follow are in.
There's another Sanderson quote that talks about this:
"Tastes vary, and that's OKAY."
This is his sixth point in his '10 Things I Wish I had Known as a Teenage Writer' video (past the 20 minute mark). At the end of the day, there are going to be 1-star reviews posted for every story under the sun, even for cherished, non-provocative classics. There's clearly a sizable amount of people who like what TLOU2 says and does, and there is an audience somewhere who will like seeing Gandalf bashing hobbits on the head.
Your taste matters a great deal when you want to critique anything
@@jacobottesen5279 I'm not saying that's not true, but there's a level to which philosophy goes beyond taste and becomes mindset, something whose value is just as subjective yet definitely nontrivial.
Dina was indeed not a part of this mess, but Abby sure didn't care about, and wouldn't mind that, she was willing to slice her neck
"she has nothing to do with this..."
"good."
she had Lev to stop her, simply by calling her name, which felt like plot convenience. ellie didn't have that. and that's where the parallel stopped
i personally find it odd and jarring, the whole story feels like it sides with abby, and destroys ellie, and it's probably done intentionally, for some reason. one of the most significant signs is that they both did smite a person's head. difference is, abby's part is done differently than ellie's part. if the game is talking about "us vs them" topic, it sure has taken a side. ellie is scarred permanently, while abby just moved on (she moved on long ago before the fight in the beach)
if anything, it split the fanbase, which was pretty much "us vs them" lol
You need to take into account that WE KNOW that Ellie killed Mel without knowing she was pregnant, but Abby has no way to verify that for herself. Mel’s jacket is open, so Abby concludes that Ellie must’ve known about Mel’s pregnancy and killed her anyway.
The game is not siding with anyone, it's just portraying its characters at different points of their respective arcs. Abby has already fulfilled her revenge and realised it didn't bring her any closure, so her arc is about understanding the futility of that endeavour and finding ways of making peace with the memory of her father, which she does by helping Lev. That's why he's the one that prevents her from killing Dina, he's the key for Abby to escape the cycle of violence started by her father's murder.
I think there is something here about Lev and Abby, because in the end despite all the atrocities Ellie commited and the people she lost but physically and emotionally, she never actually finished her revenge plot. Abby is showing how her revenge against Joel didn't bring her solace and having someone help her move on, while Ellie, despite having lost the ways to heal, never actually hits the final low that Abby did at the start of the game. She doesn't have as much work to do to heal like Abby did, and neither are really justified in their actions.
Abby is about to fall down the same path that she once fell down, she just has people who are no longer cheering on those actions, while Ellie is surrounded more by the people who cheer on those actions so much she loses connection the people that don't cheer her on. And if Lev had died Abby wouldn't have that voice of reason and there is a high chance she would start slipping again.
Sorry that's a ramble it's just a really complex idea, because I think part of the whole video is that we are justifying terrible actions because we agree with one person more than the other or because of how recently we saw them.
Idkll, I feel like you are taking things to personally because Ellie, the character you most like (and for good reason as we have spent much more time with her as a character and she is very likeable) did not get the result you wanted. I don't at all feel like Abby was favored
That’s because we see two characters in different stages in their revenge and grief, two themes the game explores extensively. They go through inverse paths. With Abby, we begin the game seeing her commiting an atrocious act that seems like from a disturbing episode of Game of Thrones, and we start in Seattle the process to discover her humanity, how she regains it in a painful process where she loses everyone who loved her. With Ellie though, it’s how she loses her humanity and turns into a destructive force willing to make all the pain at her disposal to feed her ego. Neil has declared in many interviews that violence and revenge are like drugs for Ellie. She’s concious of how pathetic and pointless they’re, but she has to do it, she can’t stop (it’s something we can see very clear whith her expression when she forces Abby to fight her in Santa Barbara). She blames Abby as if killing her will resolve her unresolved issues with Joel. What makes her think all the kills she makes on a revenge quest is her own inmunity, ad if all those kills are plainly justified. That’s what feeds her hero complex and the game constantly challenges that assertion by forcing her to make more difficult and ruthless choices. It’s not until the very end that she gives up, forgiving herself and (I do think) Joel, starting her way on a path towards redemption. I hope she can find a way to live on her own
The reason tlou1 worked so well was because it was simple; the plot was straightforward and they basically just meet people along the way. The focus was on Joel and Ellie. Everything else existed to serve the development of those two characters. When you have very few story ideas, you can develop those few ideas very well. Tlou2 tried to do too much and I hate that the infected took a backseat; which almost always happen eventually in a lot of zombie stuff.
Indeed; the best stories are almost always simple stories with deep meaning. It's why they are so timeless, and you can talk about them for days. But I'm not sure this game tried to "do too much"; I think it just sucked at what it tried to do, contradicted itself, and ultimately said nothing.
@@arottedfruit whatever, your opinion dude. I literally don’t have time to defend mine. I already did that too much last year. All I’m gonna say is that I didn’t even necessarily say I hate Part 2’s ideas or that it didn’t have nuance. It just simply tried to tackle too much.
I don't think enough people realize the truth about that old saying "Less is More".
The Last of Us Part 1 didn't need to tell this convoluted, overly bloated mess of a story about revenge with a meaningless rotation of bland characters like Part 2.
It invested ALL of it's energy into Joel and Ellie, because they ARE the story, and that kept the story's pacing tight and focused, Joel and Ellie organically went through tremendous growth with each other, and the game rarely jumped from character to character (and when it did, like when you're playing as Ellie in the winter chapter, or again as her in the very end). It's extremely effective and serves a PURPOSE and makes total sense (Joel is out of commission when you're playing as Ellie the first time, so it's the chance to see just how far Ellie has come as a survivor coming into her own, furthering her development, and it gives the game more tension because she's far more vulnerable without her protector by her side, so it makes narrative sense and spices the gameplay up without being forced).
I don't give a shit if someone claims the games plot was "generic". Joel and Ellie are what made the first TLOU the masterpiece it is today. I love it the same way I love The Walking Dead, and so many other simple stories that carry so much complexity and depth. If your characters are grabbing me, and I'm anxious to see what they do next, you've already won.
The infected exist as a metaphor. The story has never been about them. For instance, the Rat King fight represented Abby’s reverse heel turn (baby face turn?), and her inner battle against herself. I do wish they had better shown how Abby feels about herself during the events of Part 2.
Also, in most combats if not all of them, Joel and Ellie are attacked by larger groups who wants them dead.
I don't mind the game making me feel depressed for the characters. That is intentional. What I do mind is the game being so transparent about it, that it insults your intelligence.
Right?? Here is Ellie killing a dog, now she bad. Here is Abby petting the same dog, she good right?
For me, the whole problem with the game isn't even the 'controversy of forgiveness' or 'oh no Joel died' or whatever. It's just the disrespect for the characters, storytelling, and messages that it lacks smacks you over the head with the message and I hate it.
Any game where a pregnant woman dies, and another one almost dies, you are trying too hard.
Throw a couple babies on the grill while you're at it, because at that point you've gone too far, I've seen the wizard, and I know you're trying to make me feel bad with cheap tricks.
@@cherrypopscile3385I agree completely.
A dog and a pregnant lady. Like cmon
These are good points, but the things that the game makes us feel and the good things it does only makes the issues more glaring.
Joel had to die, it made sense, the guy did so many monstruous things, justified or not, and Abby being out for revenge makes sense even after he saves her but it paints Abby on weird light. She tortures a men in front of his friends and then lets them live. It feels like the plot pulls Abby into directions in order to manipulate the player and the curtain falls, the characters feel more like tools of the story creators and less like people.
Even the feeling that Ellie was more justified was tarnished by the way she acted, she decides to go after Abby and in the end she saves Abby only to then decide to duel her on a knife fight, using a fainted child as hostage to force Abby to fight her. Her revenge there feels like nonsense because then she lets Abby go.
Both Abby and Ellie feel like they were done dirty in this story for no reason other than to cause the player to feel bad.
Your analysis makes the game look better but it is stll a beautiful cake splattered on the pavement.
Whenever the game asks us "What we would do in their place" way too many times we wouldn't do what they did, all the way from the beginning, the plot takes priority over the characters.
But the game is not about us, it is about characters being being pulled by strings and the strings being way too visible to some of us to really enjoy it.
I agree with this. Well put
@Wackaz - Arthur Wacker I say he had to die as a storytelling device, it's not that I hate him.
For the narrative to sell the idea of loss someone important had to die, and it made sense if that someone was Joel, he was important both for and for the players. Besides he was making enemies even before the Fireflies incident, something was bound to catch up to him sooner or later.
Back when the trailer came out people even thought that Joel could've died between games and was only going to appear in flashbacks.
We could live with that, if it was handled well, but as you put it, his death was tasteless and disresptful, tortured and murdered by a hooligan with a hormonal disorders.
@@williansnobre i would completely disagree that it was disrespectful. It was disrespectful on the part kf Abby, and deliberately so, but not disrespectful of the writers or the narrative. If it waa disrespectful, his death would have just been a meaningless and unnecessary plot device for nothing more than shock value in order to drive the plot forward. "Eh just get him out of the way so we can finally tell the story we actually want to tell." Instead, his untimely demise, Ellie's connection to him and the need for emotional and psychological closure because of his importance to her was the entire crux of Ellie's journey. You don't have this story without Joel mattering to all of the main characters akd to the audience. We have the story we got precisely because the connection that both we and the other characters had with Joel was meaningful.
@@Tyler_W That's a fair point, but it makes Abby's decision to leave Ellie and Tommy alive feel arbitrary.
She tortured and killed a guy and loved it, killing the two nobodies that happened to be there would be a natural step afterwards (or at least attempt to, they could be forced to run after reinforcements from Jackson came) but instead she lets them live and gets mad afterwards because they "ruined it" once they come hunting her down.
Alternatively Abby could've realized that she did something wrong the momment Ellie called Joel "dad", then leave in a hurry, claiming that they did what they came to do while trying to hide the guilt she felt from her group. Regardless if they wanted her to be seen as a monster or not, they could make her feel more human.
The characters constantly make decisions that look like they were put in place to service the plot and feel artificial. Joel's death feels disrespectful to some of us because since the rest of the plot feel artificial and meaningless his death also becomes meaningless.
Anyway, that's just my opinion.
I think that Ellie at the end was acting irrationally when she started that fight on purpose. She has trauma but at that point in the game, she hasn't been on her revenge killing spree in a while and her trauma won't go away by it. She initiates it because it's a last ditch effort for closure that she's unsure about but wanted to test it knowing that it's irrational (hence threatening Lev, who she just saved).
I respectfully disagree with you. I feel like your points on player agency falls completely flat because the game never provides you with a choice to begin with. We don't get to choose to go after Abby. We don't get a choice kill her friends. If we didn't kill the dog we died. Before you bring up how it wasn't our story, you specifically say player agency in a game that gives little player agency. You could fix the statement by saying character agency instead of player agency.
Themes of revenge are my bread and butter. I love that shit so much and always try to incorporate that into my writing. I bring this up because I wasn't onboard with the revenge mission whatsoever. I simply lacked the mindset for the game to actually work for me. Everything you say in the video is excellent in theory but the execution fell so flat for me. I saw what the game was trying to do but it lacked any sort of subtlety that would be crucial in making work. I saw it as purposely manipulative. I think your opening sentence in your pinned comment ironically misses the mark of the criticism. It stems from the fact that the game was trying to get you to feel something, guilt, remorse, introspection, whatever. It tried to get me to feel something and I felt absolutely nothing.
It also didn't help that I didn't care about any character whatsoever. I could not get into it because the people didn't feel that real. Mel going on the mission is plain silly. I find it weird that Neil, who is a father, doesn't understand that when women are very pregnant, like Mel was, they value the safety of the baby above anything else. I also disagree with assessment of Dina. I did not care about her at all. I didn't really find her all that endearing and I struggle to understand why you that call her brilliant.
Next I feel like you completely misunderstood why people dislike Joel's death so much. It wasn't that he died or fully the way he died, though admittedly that does play a part. It has to do with the fact that it felt so contrived that the emotions it produced was simple frustration. I think the biggest difference with our experiences is that the game made you feel all the right emotions and it made me feel all the wrong ones.
Don't interpret this as an attack or anything or me saying your interpretation is somehow inferior to mine. Personally, I think this is the best critique of the game in favor of it I've heard, but I can't help but disagree this game did exactly the opposite to me as it did to you.
Well said
Dammit I wish this comment had more likes. It deserves them.
I didn't choose to not kill Marlene either in the first game. This arguments is a bit inconsistent when you take in consideration even other story driven game out there like God of War, Witcher 3 and such. I don't think Ellie's revenge was about going "on board" or not, but it certainly was understandable, specially if you have the first game's context.
Actually it's the opposite, people bought Ellie's revenge so much that they all complained about silly things like hating Abbie's obviously justifiable actions or the final moments of the game.
@@UmTois I have no problem with plot driven games. I only mentioned it because he such a big deal about PLAYER agency in the video even though there is no player agency. You can't talk about choices the player made when the player wasn't given a choice.
Yes, every time Tim speaks about agency, I had to roll my eyes because the player has none whatsoever. You can only murder, because otherwise the game gives a failure state and forces you to start over. This story is made for a movie or a novel. It squanders the game medium entirely.
the major problem is that at the end of the day Abby gets more humanized for her atrocious actions than Ellie. Abby gets a happy ending and a closure for getting her revenge while Ellie doesn't, Abby didn't saw her Father Getting shot, but Ellie was forced to Watch her only father figure getting killed in the most brutal way. Yet she is the one who has to learn the lessons, lose everything, show mercy and left to suffer, but Abby gets what she wants and a chance to turn a new leaf
if the main goal of the game was to show that these characters are literally the same because they commit same type of atrocities, then why is only one of them is punished for seeking out revenge but the other more or less gets rewarded? none of it makes sense
Abby did not get a happy ending, and both Ellie and Abby got closure. Abby learned the hard way too, and suffered arguably more than Ellie did, though I don't think it's really a competition. Abby didn't get what she wanted, and it took a great deal of effort, struggle, and sacrifice for her to turn a new leaf.
Abby is severely punished for her revenge and only rewarded for her acts of compassion.
That's a really good point. I haven't played either game, but I never once sympathized with Abby for her actions, and not just because she killed Joel, although that was clearly the main reason. They tried so hard to make her sympathetic, but failed in every way. Yes, her dad dying was tragic, but she also brutally killed a wonderful character who just helped her prior to that. It didn't matter who he was, she could've still spared him and what made it even worse was that Ellie was forced to watch. How the hell am I supposed to sympathize with Abby after that? If she was the main antagonist after the zombies with no redeeming arc whatsoever, then it would've been better in my opinion.
Abby is further along in her story arc, she kills joel then is filled with guilt. Her story is about redemption whilst ellie’s is about her reaching the point that abby got to after her dad died
I would like for the 3rd tlou to be that the kid Abby is taking care of is also inmune
I think you’ll get you Ellie ending in part 3. I don’t think we’ll see Abby again in the next game.
I patiently wait for the respectful and thoughtful discussion in the comments.
(This literally created a angry discussion in the replies hahahaha)
Hah, that’s a funny joke
Funfact: Still waiting in 2030 [Prediction]
Me too bud, me too
Never gonna happen Cuz people Don't Like to Have Discussions, it always has to be a War for the Keyboard Warriors.
@@atharvadeshpande4749 line between discussion and a keyboard war is really thin. What for other people is discussion for you might very well be flaming.
38:51 This is one of the main reasons I think the whole theme fell flat. If most people aren't getting your message, it probably wasn't very clear.
I don’t think that’s always the case. Sometimes the audience isn’t really ready for the art. There were probably a lot of gamers who just wanted to shoot zombies and see the good guys make it to safety.
In a similar vein, there were/still are loads of people who see Apocalypse Now as a film that glorifies and hypes up war. Is that the fault of the writers and directors? I don’t think so. Art isn’t consumed in a vacuum, and I don’t think we should assume that good storytelling will always be received with positive reception out of the gate.
@@jasonkonold6780 While I think you have a point, it doesn't seem to apply here. It's pretty clear that HFM really clicked with what the authors were putting down emotionally and I think that has allowed him to gloss over the many issues the plot has. I've experienced this many times, especially with David Cage's games. I think things like Ned Stark's execution and The Red Wedding show that audiences are willing to go with darker themes if they are set up properly and I think if they'd handled things just a bit differently they could have pulled this off better. As it stands, it's still a pretty good game.
@Homu Mou Haven't watched that yet, but I think Batman and Robin is a good movie, better than the Dark Knight even, which was a step down from Batman Begins, so my opinions are far from those of the majority. I believe quality is in the eyes of the beholder.
@Homu Mou Did I say that EVERY poorly received movie is only poorly received because of the audience? Of course not, that's a ridiculous claim to make. I'm saying that, in THIS case, the expectations of an unsophisticated audience was a major causal factor for widespread backlash. I'm not saying the audience is always wrong, I'm saying they sometimes are.
@@Disthron I obviously don't expect you to come up with a rebuttal of similar length and complexity to the original video, but is there anything specific that you can point to as an example of an issue with the plot?
"My internal reality wasn't matching the external truth"
Going through a rough spot atm, and I cried when you highlighted that - thank you for bringing that up, put many things into context for me :) Awesome video as always!
Whenever i start to spiral i gotta do reality checks "am i on some bullshit? Ah, it appears i am" it doesnt make the feeling go away but its driftwood in a storm
thats the problem. only people with some sort of trauma can make sense of this mess of a game
She's lost everything and is empty now but I think there is still hope for her.
“being empty means anything can fit inside you. if you want to be reborn, empty's the best way to be.” ― Makoto Yukimura (Vinland Saga)
giggity
41:37 I'm sorry, but this is an interactive medium. If you don't have any options then it's not asking you... it's telling you.
It is asking you to empathize with Ellie and try to understand what she is going through. The entire TLOU franchise is all about that actually, and the reason why people are arguing about Joel's decision at the end of the first game all these years later.
What games like TLOU and Red Dead 2 do so well is to create immersive worlds and gameplay mechanics that let you experience the story of its main characters in another level compared to passive mediums. That's why the story in games like TLOU and Red Dead Redemption were so effective on people. They are just on another level of immersion.
It is always funny to me when people suggest all games should be RPGs where you create your own character and go on a journey where you make your own decisions along the way because this is an "interactive medium" even though 99% of actual video games are not like that at all.
@@weaverquest I wasn't saying that the game should be an RPG where you get to make all the decisions. The original video continually says things like 'the game is asking you X' but if you can't give a response then it's not really a question is it? Sure you could disagree by turning off the game but I don't count that as an option within the game itself.
Also, it seems they really missed the mark with trying to get people to empathies with Elly because a LOT of people didn't. At least in TLoU1 people understood why Joel was doing what he was doing even if they weren't 100% on board.
@@Disthron That seems to be an issue over semantics. What is wrong with the statement that "the game is asking you to empathize with its characters" for example?
I wouldn't say Naughty Dog missed the mark. The moral questions are harder in Part II compared to the first game and the characters arcs more complex as well as the narrative structure. That's why it is natural that not everybody will get to empathize with the characters but I do see the game resonating with a LOT of people watching various essay type videos from people like Noah Caldwell, Nathan Zed, Girlfriend Reviews, dunkey etc. and reading their comment sections.
@@weaverquest *Shrugs* I guess there is nothing wrong with that working, but that's not how it was worded by the original video. The way it was phrased made it seem like the game was giving you a choice, which it doesn't seem to be, which is why I objected. See there have been a number of games at this point who have tried to manipulate the player into feeling a certain way and then tried to shame them after the fact. Based on what I've seen, it seems this is what has happened here too.
I think are quite a few people who really appreciated the LGBT representation and are willing to overlook the games other plot holes... I'd also like to reiterate that most people aren't saying the game is bad overall just that they really missed the mark on the story. It seems the Devs had to commit character assassination in order to get the plot to keep going and a lot of people didn't appreciate that. Elly should have known that something like this might happen to Joel, he has a long and bloody past.
TLOU 2 plays with your emotions usung interactivity in a painful way. When youre Abby and understand her motives to mercillesly kill Ellie and it forces you to go on that conveys a lot more than watching a movie for example. Same with that fight at the beach. What a fully constructed character feels and does bc of that is not what you feel and do. Not every fk game should be about deciding how the story turns out. Thats a reduccionist criticism
I haven't played this game because it's not a franchise I ever got into, but it sounds like this type of story would be at odds with itself, given that it's a video game. The same medium that forces you to empathize with Ellie's perspective also forces your hand and decisions. So, the story only works as long as you align emotionally with the characters you are playing, but doesn't work if you don't, given that it's not a game about choices. Essentially, I could see myself just getting frustrated with Ellie and Abbey as the game forces me to do things I don't agree with, creating points of contention and frustration with the themes they are trying to cram down my throat. That is often an issue I find myself in with these kinds of video games.
This is the biggest failure of the game IMO. Neil Druckmann himself (main writer) said that if you fail to sympathize with Abby the entire narrative falls apart, and no matter what you think about the narrative it obviously failed to do that for a large portion of the player base. I think the way this game was sequenced is absolutely awful and the biggest reason for the massive pushback from fans.
@@tehbige73 it makes me Think the issue was the medium then. If it was a movie, TV show, or book then instead of the game portions forcing you to act how you don't want you means you lose immersion. You aren't engaged with the world. You are being dragged and forced through these themes.
It's Abby and Ellen acting this way, not me. I'm just being dragged along.
If the game put you on a position seeking violence then question yourself and your actions thenyou will be left thinking of the cycleof violence.
But they aren't asking you. They are asking Ellen, thentelling you to play her part.
You are then left either agreeing with Ellen and feeling unable to act when the game forces you to play Abby and protect her, or reject Ellen's path and resent the game for making you commit them.
The message being presented this way comes across as preachy and accusatory, though I don't want to commit to saying that that was the intention.
Nobody likes to be told that their way of thinking or feeling is wrong. I personally would have liked if Ellie and Abby were portrayed as tragic heroes on opposing sides, rather than mutual monsters. Their motivations for revenge are relatable. The desire to seek justice for one's own people or values can be pushed to the extreme, but it's natural and isn't inherently bad.
If you want to play a videogame where you get to empathise with the antagonist, but it's well written, play the RPG " Breath of Fire IV " (PS1, 2000).
By the end I was totally, 100% on the antagonist's side! : )
If you want free will and self insert TLOU as a whole is not for you. It’s not the failure of the games, but the player’s who insist their wants should be realised in a story about individuals who’s not them. Just because you disagree with decisions characters made in part 2 doesn’t mean the writing is bad. In fact many people didn’t realise that because they agree with Joel in part one so they go along with the flow, whereas TLOU 2 constantly challenges players. This style of storytelling is both it’s greatest strength and restriction.
My fiance's one year old cat just died earlier this week.
What I'm trying to say is that you chose the absolute worst and best title and I have no choice but to watch now.
Condolences. It's hard enough to lose an animal, let alone so young. Let yourself grieve. You're not silly for grieving an animal. Send pictures of them to friends, remember their life in all the golden moments. Your loss is a loss even if it's "just" a cat. Sending good wishes for your and your fiance through this.
@@GrimmDelightsDice oh I don't feel silly at all for mourning one of the loveliest shorty cats I've ever seen. Just the serendipity of that plus the title of the video just gave me a 'Oh for frak' s sake' vibe.
Now, a video from happier days... Though it turned out he was a boy and not a daughter, ha!
th-cam.com/video/sJCD1xhR3cI/w-d-xo.html
I'm sorry for your loss. I have 2 cats that are both 1.5 yo and I can't even imagine the pain of loosing them.
For me the game fails because even if Abby's cause to avenge her father was noble, she still is very wrong to torture the man who saved her and sheltered her and her friends, this while his "daughter" watched. There is no way to justify an attitude like that.
I think you're forgetting the part where Joel also stopped a vaccine from being made. Regardless of whether or not it was possible, in Abby's perspective Joel has basically fucked over humankind.
@Cwavy_619 you know that most vaccines were given away for free right? Doctors arent that selfish dude
@Cwavy_619 even still. Like no one in the game is innocent but firefly is by far the closest
@@tieflingcorpse9817 so keeping your daughter from dying is “selfish”? Lol. Let me know how you feel if you ever have kids. See if you wouldn’t be arguing about this when you yourself would probably fuck over the world for your baby too. The Greater Good is mainly known as the politician’s dodge, the murderer’s solace, the culprits excuse and several other metaphors, because it is like a scapegoat they run to every time they make a decision that affects many in a harmful way, claiming that it will benefit many others. It is something that we all pass judgement on, but refuse to put ourselves in the decision maker’s shoes to realise what an impossible choice it is. The fireflies have already been aiding in decreasing the population when killing many others for a so-called “cure” or simply a vaccine. They’ve also committed acts of terrorism in quarantine zones against the U.S. military. The Fireflies are doing what is in “humanity's best interest”, as always. But you have to think about your new family, and humanity takes a backseat. The military was always the good guys, or rather, better than the fireflies. You see them guarding the ration stations, manning checkpoints, and pulling squatters out of buildings to check them for signs of infection. You also see them kill an infected woman and shooting some man running away. Now it is suspicious to run from the military when they check you for infection. Running from the authorities while doing a medical inspections is a sign that that person probably is infected therefore cannot allow him to risk infecting others. Especially when you know there are smugglers operating underground. So running away from a medical screening would be a sure sign that you’re infected when pulled from underground from hazardous zones. People can come and go as they please. Since the military do lethal injections on those who are infected, it shows they are being as humane as possible. They’re already sacrificing scarce medical resources to be humane. But what role do the fireflies play in this? By undermining the authorities of the military by promoting fears, and greed on the public. They ambush military convoys who may quite possibly be carrying food, ammunition, and medical supplies and engage in prolonged gunfights on otherwise harmless people which wastes ammo when they should be used to fight the real threats outside of their walls. And because they utilize smugglers for resources, that’s probably a primary reason why infected individuals make it inside of quarantined zones in the first place, thus promoting more hazardous outcome of the civilians inside said quarantined cities. They do more harm than good by weakening the militaries ability to keep the peace and keep civilians safe making their jobs of protecting the last remnants of humanity nearly impossible. And to make matters worse, they are planning to keep this supposed known hope for humanity, the vaccine, in their grasp because they are so desperate for control. Why do you think they commit acts of terrorism in the first place? To strike fear in the public which establishes dominance. Most innocent my ass. This isn’t about saving humanity, this is about dictatorship. Because if ever they have obtained a “cure” or a vaccine, they would most likely try to transport it to dangerous open terrain rather than share it with the military who would love to have a cure or vaccine just as much as they do for their people, and probably have many highly capable medical facilities to do so. And a fourteen year old girl would’ve died for that. Not to save humanity, but for the fireflies to gain control and power. Now that’s worse than what Ellie and Joel did combined. They only killed when necessary: to survive and defend. But that’s all over looked because today, we’re suppose to see rebels as the good guys. This isn’t Star Wars where joining the rebel alliance against a corrupted empire means you’re fighting the dark side to restore the republic, no, this is the other way around. It’s like saying Ultron and Thanos were the heroes while villainizing the avengers. But in reality, it’s the Fireflies, somewhere on the same levels as Thanos, are idealists with their own agenda and beliefs because they believed they could “save the world”. Kind of like how Thanos believed he was saving the universe but he wiped out half the population of the universe. But he committed infinite mass murder for his belief. So did the fireflies. What’s better? Committing mass murder for an idealism/belief or committing mass murder for survival/defense? Kind of like how the fireflies committed mass murder for their own beliefs. So the “greater good” has providing cover for great evil. That’s no one else decisions but theirs. Besides, the scientists haven’t even tried plasma or some other form of research as far as we know. They just go straight into killing. And without consent. Ellie isn’t old enough to consent. Not for this or anything else. Ellie has just as much right to live for herself as the rest of the survivors in the world and Joel had every right to live for himself and Ellie. If there were five sick individuals in a room dying, and you had a healthy child that the doctors would wish to cut open to kill her and save those five in the room, would you willingly give up your daughter for five strangers you don’t know? And what if one of those five individuals was a child molester or a serial killer? And why chance saving something like that by allowing my daughter as a sacrificial lamb? I wouldn’t and especially wouldn’t sacrifice my daughter to save a corrupted humanity full of mass murderers, cannibals, rapists, child molesters, terrorists; not at all. And if a vaccine were to be made, that would only be another reason to engage in prolonged gunfights to take the vaccine all for themselves because that’s how humans were. I mean, my god, they kill each other for energy bars and canned beans, you think they wouldn’t kill each other for an injection? The point of Joel’s character was to not only fight for survival, but to find something to live for in a world gone to hell. His daughters death from the beginning of the game was what motivated him to do just that, but he wasn’t just surviving for himself. All of that motivation for Joel to survive and to get a second chance at being a dad finds a new daughter in Ellie, thus giving her a second chance at life. When Ellie believed dying in the hospital would’ve given her life meaning, Joel told her “if the lord somehow gave me a second chance, I’d do it all over again.” Basically he’s saying that Ellie doesn’t have to sacrifice herself for her life to mean something because her life already meant the world to him and she had every right to have a second chance to find meaning to her life as well. And you’re telling me that Joel should put corrupted humans lives his top priority over his surrogate daughter? That’s not okay. That’s bullshit. Abby basically did the same as Joel did in the first game when it came to Lev. She turned on her own people, basically killing them, so that they wouldn’t kill Lev. She knew how morally flawed her own people were and couldn’t accept that was what got them killed including her father. The only hope you have in a world like that is to hold on to whoever and whatever you can while you still can. Enough with trying to see in black and white, this is morally gray which is more human and more realistic.
@Cwavy_619 it was stated once and even then ambiguous enough for us to not even be certain it was saying that. you’re lying.
While we're on the topic of factionalism, something to point out is that people trapped in factionalism tend to ignore the true, bigger problems.
With the WLF and Seraphites, they're more concerned about killing off the other factions than managing or wiping out the Infected. I don't need to explain to anyone about its presence in the US political climate. But regarding TLOU2 as a whole, the factionalism in the reception (masterpiece vs. steaming garbage) has resulted in many players ignoring the game's actual problems, or at least not give them the focus they deserve.
Hey great comment! Would you mind stating some of the games actual problems? I def want to hear your take on things!
take care
@@oneyplayes465 The pacing issues, Santa Barbara sequence (excluding the final showdown), and the sense that Naughty Dog is trying but failing to branch out into new formats.
@@galilei7748 Good summary. Pacing was the worst offender on the list. Another glaring issue for me was the forced PC narrative. It hindered the enjoyment of the game for me.
This has been affecting many of our media and now it is seeping into our games. This needs to stop.
@@oneyplayes465 As in political correctness? Aside from Lev's arc being a bit heavy-handed, I didn't have a problem with that.
@@galilei7748 Yea political correctness. That's the issue for me. When you force an agenda in your narrative. It really hinders the story you are trying to tell. The characters do not amount to a natural motive because they must fit the limiting message you are trying to push. You imprison them in a superficial box. You then run into the issue of segregating your consumers.
As an example, the first game did not aim to belittle men, did not aim to outcast those who are religious, against homosexuals or transgender-ism. It simply told an honest and believable story. Ellie and Joel counter balance each other and gave us an arc that helped defined the last of us. There existed strong female characters. There existed homosexuals but the characters were made humans first and were not hiding behind an agenda. Bill being gay had nothing to do with his motives nor was it who he was. Ellie was a lesbian and we only found out in the dlc which also was her driving factor. Tess was a strong woman but never had she belittle Joel.
You run into many issues when you start to cater with your stories. An honest story doesn't aim at sides.
The game was the most beautiful game I have played since. The controls and UI were intuitive. Game play was fluid and engaging but the PC narrative severely hindered the game for me and that is why I did not enjoy it. I started the game with enjoyment and by the time I got to the mid way point, I got tired of it and wanted to race to the finish line. A solid 4/10 for me. This wokeness trend need to stop. Neil Druckmann and Co. know exactly what they were doing and the last of us franchise suffered because of their ideals...
Take care friend!
The ending might not be as sad as it seems. When Ellie leaves Dina to go after Abby, she doesn’t wear the bracelet that Dina gave her. However, when she returns at the end, she’s wearing the bracelet. This could have a purely symbolic meaning, like Ellie choosing to abandon her family and later wishing to return to it, or it could have a more literal meaning. The way I saw it (because I really wanted at least a little hope in the ending) is that, sometime between leaving Abby and returning to the farm, Ellie found Dina in Jackson, tried to make amends, and got the bracelet back from her. I’m aware that this is probably too hopeful for the world of The Last of Us, but the ending is left open enough that it’s within the realm of possibility.
I could see how you could interpret that. But the game is about the damage you do to yourself and others when you can't forgive those who wronged you. So I think the lack of a happy ending was a choice they made to better hit that point home.
It is proven that Ellie is supposed to wear it always. But the game was not finished properly and Ellie's model in the last section of the game is bugged.
Play it again she is wearing it now.
I also think the ending has hopeful undertones. Believe what you like, but I like to think that when you see Ellie in the distance leaving the farm, she’s on her way to Jackson to look for Dina.
SerHoneyBadger what’s your source for that? That would suck if it’s true
Fucking hell "easier to believe that the conflict could be resolved with a single bullet because otherwise the journey ahead is so long and windy and hard" that was exactly how I felt once upon a time. I was angry and depressed and terrified so I thought if I could just fire that bullet, one meant for me, everything would be better. Two years in recovery though so heres to hoping
Hope you're doing well my guy :)
The hardship isn't always worth the development. But the hope and rebirth of joy is. Your story has that, this game doesn't. We can all be fortunate that reality is not written by the same author as games like this, or wh40k, or typical snuff garbage.
"she cannot kill abby" but she can kill hundreds of wlf, scars, and uuuhh the whole group she unleashed a revolt on. but abby nononono that's when the idea of revenge goes too far
A really powerful moment for me was actually the fire escape outside the theater. I kept wondering if Ellie and the gang ever would use it somehow in the story, but it never happened. Later after I had played through the Abby section of the game and finally stood there outside the theater I realized; it was never meant for Ellie or Dina or Jessie, but for Abby and Lev. It filled me with this sort of dread I have never felt in a game before. I definitely agree with the majority that the story of the first game was told a lot better but this game made me feel things no game has ever made me feel.
Ever since I played the game, I was so excited to see your analysis & this entire video was astounding. So many points you brought up had crossed my mind & even more hadn't entered my thought process whatsoever.
I too found it ironic how the public player-based discourse mirrored the very nature of what the game was trying to say.
This is most certainly a video I will promote & watch again & again. If I had to summarise my feelings, ideas & thoughts I'd be here all day but I am so impressed continuously by your content & this is easily one of your best videos. Thank you, Tim for being such a level-headed & passionate content creator even in these trying times.
Honestly speaking i hate that Abby got to partially move on and maybe even heal while Ellie seemingly loses it all. Id prefer this circle of violence consumed both of them.
ellie moved on, it’s taking longer but she’s moving on
I think that Ellie will eventually get to move on, just like Abby did. When you think about it, Abby was mentally in the space Ellie is at when she travels to Santa Barbara for about 4 years. So Abby only moved on after getting her revenge/justice (however you believe she looks at it), realizing it did nothing to help her, and finally moving forward through connection with others. Ellie now has a chance to do the same - and she's going to get a start on doing so only about 2 years after what happened to Joel and without the empty act of taking her revenge/getting her justice (however you believe she looks at it). So really, Ellie probably wins out here in terms of time wasted and energy spent. But she loses much in the same way Abby did - her family, her people, her connections, and will have to rebuild.
Ellie is moving on, she left the guitar and everything behind, symbolizing her forgiving Joel and herself and admitting that she needs to "find something to fight for" as Joel said in the epilogue of TLOU. She now understands the love Joel gave for the world and perhaps will try to do the same
Abby starts the game after getting her revenge. Starts the game looking for revenge. Of course they will end at different points lol
In every story about revenge. The characters seeking revenge lost a lot on the way to complete vengeance. When they achieved it... The characters lost everything and die or kill themselves. God of war, the revenge of the soga brothers in japanese literature. That's why this game's story is utter bullshit. They tried to subvert expectations but ended up lying to fans. Because in a game that drinks a lot from realism the "lesson" they tried to express is a lie. The human mind do not work like this. You do not have flashbacks while you are fighting for example. This game failed conceptually at profound levels.
I watched the entire video.
That concept of *"Factionalism"* that you brought up...
It is SO similar to what the show *"Attack on Titan"* presented to its viewers, and they did it in such a meaningful way.
They even called one faction *"Island of Demons"* similar to how the Wolves call the Scars in the Last of Us 2, as they also reside in an island disconnected to the rest of the world.
This realization widened my eyes, and was pleasantly surprised on how Attack on Titan did it so well that majority of its viewers enjoyed the show, unlike the Last of Us 2 which kind of separated its viewers in terms of enjoyment.
True, especially in the Final Season.
The concept of Factionalism is clearest in the Final Season.
Factionalism in AoT is among the best I’ve come across in fiction, and that’s because both sides have good points. Do you side with the pacifists, who wish to open up to the world while trying to avoid killing tons of innocent people, yet may be overly idealistic in a world that is cruel and may very well try to snuff them out for their troubles? Or do you side with those who wish to protect the ones they love, many of whom you’ve come to know throughout the last 3 seasons, even if it means the murder of innocents and the genocide of quite literally everyone else on the planet? There is no easy answer, which is as it should be; if there were, we wouldn’t have factionalism where the viewer can empathize with both sides.
That's cause Isayama is a genius
because AOT was well written, , with good characters and planned out from the begining, TLOU2 was just, well, bullshit.
Exactly. If you're shocked at seeing the comments Tim showcased about Abby, you should see some of the comments that are made against several characters in the AOT world, most notably Gabi, a character we similarly view as an 'enemy' at first due to our skewed perspective but whose actions are very much understandable given the context of the story. It is amazing what our emotional state can do to our minds, both positively and negatively.
You forgot to mention that Abby deliberately wanted to kill Dina and would do that if Lev wasn't there
right, because ellie had murdered her friends, If the players believe in an eye for eye mentality. Then they shouldnt have a problem. Thats the point to show the biases in the players. Both abby and ellie seek to deliberately do wrong, to feel better about themselves.
No... he mentioned it? Lev being there made her stop and reconsider, not because she didn't want to traumatise Lev, but because it reminded her that Dina wasn't a part of her and Ellie's fight. (Us VS Them/Factionalism) How she would've killed Lev like it was nothing just because he was one of them, one of the Scars, before he saved Abby and made her reconsider her thoughts about the scars.
@Geralt of Trivia ellie didnt know when she killed mel, and she felt like shit when she did, abby had plesure when se knew dina was pregnant, dont belive me, rewatch that moment
@Geralt of Trivia I get what you mean, but im talking about how we relate to this characters, not how they relate to each other
@Geralt of Trivia what I was talking about is how different the protagonists react to the "same" situation, one felt sick and remorsed, yet one almost got a shot of dopamine when they said "she is pregnant"
27:20 that would be because Joe didn’t tortured the doctors. He shot “anyone on his way” (actually, I shot only people who shot back at me when playing the first game, but nvm, let’s suppose I shot everyone), but that B didn’t just killed Joe, she tortured him to death. That is objectively worse than justkilling. It is not just a gut-feeling, she DID do worse than Joe.
Joe? B?
Those are not their names, but anyway:
Putting aside their actions and simply focusing on the feelings that drive the characters might put things in a better perspective for you. It’s a story about how anger, trauma, and the hunger for vengeance can fester and take over a person. At a point in the game, Ellie uses Abby’s tactic for prolonged murder to get information out of one of Abby’s friends. Out of all of these characters and their actions, the point is that no one is in the right. They’re all stuck in the cycle of vengeance.
And we, as the player, are encouraged to recognize that and empathize with both sides. That’s why the finale is so difficult and heart wrenching to play through. The player isn’t Ellie or Abby. We’re given the godlike power of near-omniscience by the end. We are the third perspective. We observe the “true” story. And that’s the point.
If you honestly played the whole game and stuck to your surface level emotional reactionary feelings, then I hate to say that you failed as a player. If you’re under 25 years of age I can cut you some slack since your prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed, but otherwise... You lost the game 😬
Sindri Mjölnir B as in a certain word that youtube not only censors, but punish the channel if the word appears in the comment section. I disagree with his opinion, I don’t want him demonetized.
I maintain my point, Ellie was right, not because of emotions, but because in the “society” she lives in, she NEEDS to kill Abby, to send a messenge to any other would-be-agressor of what happen to those who mess with her group. That’s thevery base of diplomacy, to send a messenge that he other side better try to talk with you, instead of steal from you. It is also the base of any long-term society. We are asked to simpstize with Abby (the B****), but her actions and those of Joe (I didn’t had subtitles turned on, that’s how one would write his name in my native language, though I suppose english add an “l” at the end of the name) are NOT equivalent. They are not “the same”. True, every act of violence have a tragedy behind that lead to such conflict, as a Law student I can attest that I never saw a single case in which, if you dig deep enough, you can’t find something to remove theguilty of an action from someone. This is actually one of first principles we are taughtin Penal Law, if you go back far enough, you can proof that the way the universe was created is responsible for every single crime ever and that no one is truly responsible for their actions because we are all products of our gestation+up_bringing... tell that to a society and see how long it lasts. Having a tragic backstory does NOT migates someone’s guilty over their own actions. Joe fucked up in the first game, reason why I didn’t liked it and gave the control for my friend to finish ‘cause I just didn’t relate to Joe enough to keep playing his storyline, but then Abby fucked up even more. Joe’s ations do not justify Abby’s action and give me no Simpaties toward her.
Now, keep in mind, I do not say this out of anger because she killed Joe, heck, I HATED Joe as a Character, and I found his development lacking. The game “told” me that while Ellie was taking care of an inconsient man that had little to no way of realizing what was happening around him, they somehow bounded when just the previous chapter they had being fighting over every little thing, it did not “showed” me said bounding, and, as a result, I found Joe a shit character from after the prologue to the end of the game, specially when he denies Ellie her dream, her “purpose”. So no, I harbor no anger to Abby because she killed Joe, fuck Joe. I do, however, recognize that her actions are, in no remote way, equivalent to those of Joe, and that the correct action for Ellie to take was to pursue and eliminate a moron that backstabbed her fatr-figure and tortured him to death infront of her. Not from an emotionalpoint of view, but from the perspective that if suchpost-apocaliptic society wants to recover itself into a functioning society, it needs to stablish order, and consequence to one’s unprovoked attack and to treason are the very first stepsin said road... or, at least, the step that we know, for sure, to lead to such results.
Ps: man, mykeyboard is fucking up, I need to replace it asap
Marcelo Silveira 1) refusing to call Abby by her name and resulting to insults instead immediately dehumanizes her and brings a spotlight to your bias.
2) Hunting down and killing Abby is not something Ellie has to do to ensure her own society’s viability. Boiling this nuanced revenge cycle down to perceived essence of diplomacy is an extremely fascist take.
The game explores all of these concepts, btw. And being able to discuss it as a detached third party is the end result. Why can’t you just let go? You’re not a citizen of either of these factions, but still you’re so attached to Ellie and Joel that you result to dehumanizing the fictional character you deem the enemy.
Players are allowed to dislike any character within the game, sure, no one is forcing you. But, dear lord, can you engage in a discussion about the narrative and the message like an adult, please?
@@marcelosilveira2276 what would you say the correct action Abby ought to have taken would've been, in response to Joel's actions at the hospital?
@@teneleven5132 all i gotta say is if abby didn't force ellie see him dying or if abby didn't torture him just killed him and his brother after maybe then more approachable to see their prospective but to force a girl who is crying and telling you to stop, to but joel mercilessly as he doesn't defend him self as far as we are left to see just shows how abby and about half her bad of friends are, its as if they were taking pride in doing what they did.
In contrast ellie for the most part swiftly killed everyone else except the one abby friend in the hospital and mist part we see it does take a toll on ellie she does wanna stop but wants abby, abby after doing what she did slept better but yes did sleep muuuch better after saving the seraphits but still didn't show she felt any different doing what she did to ellie and tommy and so did half of abbys friends the one in hospital still was saying it was right and bragged about it, now abbys love interest guy and his pregnant gf okay the were good people and abbys dog and do see that as something bad but just like with joel ellie did that to defend her self joel was getting ellie back in the first one before he killed abbys dad hell abbys dad might as well have been doing what ellie did at end of part 2 with a knife to the neck.
I honestly just didn't feel like abby had actual humanity nor understanding tell end at the boat due to her having no real power/strength anymore so ultimately yes ellie did do bad things and could see her needing to pay for and especially joel doing bad things but we see their humanity and we see them nake human choices of there own accord for abby not so much.
Thanks for mentioning trauma. As a future therapist, the scene in the barn (44:04) hits hard, when it turns to black as the door closes, and I get to feel what I had known all along: that Ellie is riddled with PTSD, and her going after Abby, in spite of her loved ones and those that support her, is what she thinks she needs to do to heal. It's amazing.
To me, Abby's redemption is undeserved when the actions and motives, focusing solely on the cycle of revenge, are contextualized. In a perfect court of law Abby would be guilty of 1st degree murder all day long. She was calculating, and the murder was premeditated after several years of training and prepping. And there's the brutality of it to consider as well. Plus, it was Abby that began the cycle. Joel had no desire for vengeance. The motive was to save Ellie from those that would murder her. And it would've been murder, regardless of Ellie's feelings after the fact; their plans were to sacrifice her without giving her a decision in the matter. At most, Joel might've been guilty of 2nd degree murder in the case of the surgeon, but manslaughter fits better. It isn't clear that Joel ever intended to kill the surgeon. Provided he didn't put up a fight for Ellie, Joel likely would've let him go, taken Ellie, and been on his way. The surgeon made himself a target by standing between Joel and the only one left in the world Joel cared about, that's what decided his fate. Lastly, Marlene and the one soldier canonically killed by Joel were inconsequential to cycle itself. However, both were complicit in trying to kill Ellie and so they weren't entirely innocent.
I feel the cycle of hate and violence and trying to make you feel bad is undercut when you are forced to do these acts or you die how are you supposed to feel bad when the game doesn’t give you a choice It makes the ending choice feel empty if you’ve gone through the entire game piling bodies just for ellie to give up her revenge trip at the person who brutally beat Joel with an golf club after knowingly giving up everything she loves
You're not supposed to feel personally bad. You feel bad for Ellie and the people she's hurting. You have no agency in the story because, you know, it's a Naughty Dog game.
Killing people is literally part of the narrative, killing people was half the point of the game.
I think part of the problem is that this game with it's cynical and depressing message is that it was released during the time, when the world was (and is still) crazy, depressing and unpredictable. People needed a more uplifting message.
how is the message of finding redemption, recognizing factionalism, and moving on cynical or depressing? you could definitely say the game is depressing, but specifically the message being depressing and cynical is vastly incorrect.
@@quinnmarchese6313 At least for me personally I feel the ultimate message of the game is cycles of revenge need to be stopped, but ultimately humanity as a whole will fail. We end with Ellie showing mercy but also being unable to actually move on, totally ruining her life, and Abby living a half-life. Which does happen but when these are your main characters it feels like you are saying humanity overall will fail to rise to its better angels.
Honestly for myself that was the biggest problem I had, I felt Joel's stuff was slightly contrived but I was actually glad they killed him, including at a point where he hadn't reconciled with Ellie, but with everything else at the story I just ended up not liking anyone and yeah feeling like the story was *too* hopeless
Wow, this is actually a really good point. Thanks for pointing that out.
@@RenaDeles but how do the endings of abby sparing ellie and then ellie sparing abby suggest that "humanity as a whole will fail"? that reading doesn't make any sense unless Abby killed Ellie when she had the chance. If either of them failed to stop that cycle of revenge, then it makes sense, but since BOTH ended up sparing each other, your point doesn't make sense to me. tbf, im not trying to criticize, just wanna know how you got your conclusion, because my own experience of the game doesn't support your claim.
I dont think this was a problem. Believe me the events that transpired would've been pretty similar if everything was normal.
The Last of Us part 1: I kind of hate Joel, but his story was weirdly touching
The Last of Us part 2: I kind of hate everyone, even that damned dog
But I loved Joel... he was the reason I played the first game, and is also the reason why I won’t play this one. I don’t feel like watching the dude get slaughtered, then play as the person who did it. No thanks.
@@coldermusic2729 Dudes an asshole. It's fine to like his character, but he's the villain of the story. It's like being upset Darth Vader loses the fight to the rebels. Love him or not the bad guy lost.
It’s more like the mandilorian and babyoda building up all these touching scenes and charichter development and lessens about being more then just a survivor. To then in the sequel killing the core of the franchise’s emotional and lesson appeal for to instead subvert expectations by putting scarring baby yoda for life till he reverts into a feral survivor in the swamps.
@@wastelesslearning1245 that comparison is dumb as shit, Joel is a mass murderer who doomed humanity despite Ellie explicitly stating she was willing to die for that cause.
If you want to understand why some people think he is as morally grey as any other of these post apocalyptic charichters and thus no more deserving or god forbid want to understand why some people think he ultimately made the right choice look at this. The choice was never taken away form her, she can sacrifice her self any point afterwards but chooses not too. Ps this is also why good Wrighting That makes narrative and rational sense is also important in story telling.
Watch this m.th-cam.com/video/1sq681VsMYo/w-d-xo.html
The problem is that I believe most people found Ellie's actions so out of character for her that any point the game tries to make falls flat.
I'm not excusing Ellie's actions or wondering why I care more for Ellie than Abby when I'm constantly thinking "that's absolutely not what Ellie from the first game would do".
I don't even think it's a bad game or a bad story, but it does have a horrible story structure (working up to a climax, cutting it off, then spending god knows how many hours working up to that same climax), a really forced way of presenting its story and it's an absolutely horrible sequel that has almost none of the core ingredients for fans of the first game.
That sounds like the Last Jedi problem: "Well, if you take it in a vacuum you can tell that story, but I don't think that's what Luke Skywalker from the Original Trilogy would do" and all that.
Come to think of it, they're kind of trying to do the same thing, explore themes of abject failure and misery, and they do that in ways that arguably warp characters heavily from their original portrayals.
Personally, I don't like it when a story uses its characters merely as devices to force plot to happen. I prefer stories where events happen as a result of characters reacting to situations the way they would as individuals. If you just change the actions whenever you feel it's necessary to serve whatever message you're trying to convey, what you have is a moral fable with extra steps. Even if the message is absolutely worth sending, by treating the character's motivations as secondary, you make any nuance you try to convey on the side meaningless, as you've shown that it's an expendable resource to emotionally wring out rapport from the audience, only to spend it whenever you need the plot to move.
Yeah cause people don't change right ok got it
@@lolicongang.4974 Of course they do; Joel changed over the course of the first game, gradually, over their year-long journey. You can't just create an almost completely different character, name her after an already existing character, and expect us to buy that.
@Felis Impurrator That's more than just a like or dislike; that is outright, objectively, bad writing. Characters need to be CHARACTERS--we need to believe they are real people, they need to act and talk like real people, which means they need to have consistency and identifiable characteristics, even negative ones. Having characters act in ways they absolutely would not is one of the definitions of a plot hole. What lesson can I learn from "human-shaped robot sometimes does X and sometimes does Y with no apparent distinction"? At that point, we no longer have a "story", we have "a series of things just happening." Which is all this game is; a series of emotionally-charged moments loosely tied together. The individual moments might be effective in making you have feelz, but it's all cheap, surface level stuff, outside of Joel's death, and even that is only because of all the built up feelings we have from the FIRST game, not this one. It's also why the game is so fucking long (for the genre); they just kept creating "moments" without regard to "plot" or "narrative structure", because they barely have one.
@@BWMagus
Actually you can.
It's easy make a time skip.
And explain in very vague detail of you want.
This can be done by little hints.
Papers, the way they dress or look now.
These are ways of saying someone has changed over the course of years.
It's not hard.
And why should I babysit the players.
The structure of this story just absolutely annoys me. And then after the climax, the devs made a really weird decision on the conclusion. The whole setting and enemy conflict just felt out of place.
While I appreciate this video, I do think there are a ton of actual criticisms with the games narrative that weren't mentioned. That was likely intentional since it was meant to explore theme, but I would recommend The Closer Looks video if you want to see a "review" of the story from the perspective of someone who didn't enjoy it. Figured Id recommend it for anyone curious about that perspective.
Yeah, unfortunately I couldn't cover everything. I picked my focus. I did talk with Henry about his thoughts on it all! We just disagree a bit, but that's cool.
~ Tim
Hello Future Me yeah no worries, the video is really high quality regardless. I aspire to create my own stories and eventually have them be successful when I’m older (only 16 now) and your videos across the board have really helped me learn, so thanks for that!
@@HelloFutureMe Signing off on comments with your name is dumb btw
@@ThwipThwipBoom So is being a jerk.
@@monsterhanna6691 True
" Fake happiness isn't happiness it's just torture "
Some interpret Ellie leaving behind Joel's guitar at the end as her acceptance of his death. She is no longer trying to hold onto him anymore, no longer holding onto the grief and pain and everything that was left unsaid. Instead she decides to head off into an unknown future. I think there is a little hope in that, even if Ellie has lost so much she is now able to move on.
I think she’s just so broken she can’t deal with it anymore
The way i saw that was Ellie would just keep walking until she get’s into a life threatening situation and let herself die because she had nothing left to live for
I think it's a symbolic first step toward healing and redemption.
Not really. She lost two of her fingers and can't play it anymore. Y'all are reading too much into this. The game's not that deep.
similarly Joel stops wearing his watch sometime after the guitar string flashback. He left behind his daughters pain and no longer harbored the pain selfishly. He stopped using it as an excuse to kill others, to distrust people, and to lie to Ellie.
Ellie leaving the guitar behind perhaps isn't her moving beyond the grief but abandoning the promise that "if I were ever to lose you, I'd shearly lose myself", her grieving will never end, but her selfish means of expressing her grief is certainly over. Now like Joel she will move beyond her old ways and is left with a greater sense of her humanity. I need a 3rd game. I really need to see the wonderful person she becomes.
This was a very insightful video, and has genuinely given me a new perspective on TLOU 2, I do still have one big gripe though. Abby only has the epiphany of moving away from factionalism and protecting Lev and letting Ellie go a second time AFTER she has had her vengeance. So to say that Ellie wouldnt let go isnt entirely fair since Abby did the thing she wanted to and killed Joel, she succeeded in the ultimate end goal of her journey after she lost her father. Ellie on the other hand didnt. She didnt get the closure that Abby did. Even though Abby found that it wasnt what made her heal she found out by getting what she thought she wanted. Ellie never did. Any thoughts on this?
I'd like to talk you back to one of the core points of both this video and the game: "isn't entirely fair", you say. Fair. Just. The point is not that any of what happens or does not happen is or is not fair. Abbie got her revenge and even a happy ending in which she healed. Ellie didn't and destroyed herself even more. Yes, it wasn't fair to her, that she was supposed to let go and stay with Dina. And that's exactly how she feels. It may well be argued that it was thus more difficult for her to let go of her past, but the message of the game is exactly this: it doesn't matter. The end result is not a good one. And this is an artistic choice, not a flaw. You may not like that this is the message that the writers chose to convey, but this doesn't make it a bad one. Separate what you wanted the story to be from what the story tried to be. And what the story tried to be is: it may not be right or just or fair, you don't get anything, but that's not how you heal.
so they sacrificed everything they did and the message of the first game to tell the story the wanted, for what, what was the end goal of the game and the story, ow does it tie to the first game, to the world they created and the characters. As a story on it's own sounds interesting, I think they just so caught up on what they wanted to say that they forgot this is a videogame and a sequel. And ok, I can accept it as a sequel, sure, but the way they told the story is just silly.@@lucadelaurentiis6907
39:45 *The game was continually asking if you will stick with Elly or walk away like Abby*
... In what way was the game asking this? The game never really gives you the options to side one way or the other. You either go through the whole miserable ordeal or quit the game. There is no way to side with Elly or Abby, they are locked into their respective paths by the developers, or are there options too, say, choose to side with factionalism and murder Elly's girlfriend?
He specifically clarifies in the video that he meant "do you choose to stick with Ellie emotionally".
I'll admit that I'm almost certainly more harsh on this game than may be fully deserved. I think you have exactly the right read on the story that the devs intended.
At the same time though, I just couldn't bring myself to like the game. Part of it is just that, while in 2014, I might have been able to enjoy stuff like this or Telltale's Walking Dead... but this year I just cannot make the brain-space for misery porn. Also the crunch controversies at Naughty Dog and weird aggro discourse around it just left the worse possible taste in my mouth.
Even with my general distaste for a sequel, though, just about everything I've heard more or less tracks with what I would imagine happening to these characters anyway (at least in THIS world), so I can't really get angry about it.
Isn't that kind of his point of this video? The game is not meant to make you like it, but to make you think about factionism, revenge and justice.
I totally understand not being in the relight headspace for that (especially this year), but (especially this year) more people need to think about this.
Glad you're distinguishing between dislike and anger though 👍
@@Felisquoreda There's also the problem though that people paid a lot of money for what was promised to be a fun game, and instead got misery porn. If they released the game for free or had honest marketing I'd totally accept an artistic interpretation of it, but they didn't.
oooh, misery porn. That term really hits the nail on the head. I agree with you. I tried to think about it as a book: If I had been reading this story in book form, would I finish it? Yes, I probably would. I would probably still not "like" it, but would not criticize the quality. In *game* form, however, I expect to enjoy the experience of a game, and this was not enjoyable. Because I play games to _enjoy_ the experience, not "feel something", it was a big miss for me. I get plenty of "feeling" in real life.
@@MrHankHN That's my take on most media. Make a dark gritty story about anger and loss if you want, but rarely will I ever seek that out. Life is stressful and depressing enough. When I get free time, and when I have money to spend, I'm going to do something enjoyable.
@@beyaminn Video games are art. It's like being angry because a film is not comedy. You can't expect a light experience from a game that just didn't promise you that. If you want to have fun, you should play Fall Guys.
This is a really beautiful analysis of the game. I think you really artfully explained the overall experience of what playing this game inspired within a lot of players (or people like me who have never played but watched multiple play-throughs). Thank you for this video.
"A life of meaning is a life made with someone else" that part of the end line has a lot of meaning to me and where I'm at in my life right now.
(Just felt like sharing that into the void)
I watched the whole video just so I could get the satisfaction of hearing your inspirational one liner at the end of it.
"A life of meaning is a life made with someone else."
Beautiful.
honestly this game annoyed me, and the discourse around it annoys me even more, I don't think it is a masterpiece and I don't think it is the worst thing ever made, the truth is the thing that killed the game for me was it's pacing, I legit just got bored to the point I zoned out for a lot of the experience so a lot of the big emotional bits didn't have the impact that I feel they should have, but I do love listening to people who did enjoy it talk about it because I think it did have some good ideas in there, and I also find myself comparing it to another game that I did enjoy from years ago called Spec Ops: The Line, no one else seems to be making that connection but me but I do find they have similar statements on Trauma, Violence and are both very bleak, I just think Spec Ops did it better in a much tighter experience, but still different games.
You know, I genuinely love this game but completely agree with you on it needing some editing or re-write to fix its pacing.
Also always happy to see people still representing Spec Ops in 2020:)
@@josephwilliams1251 That's easy to do, because Spec Ops is still one of the best versions of this particular narrative idea in gaming. TLOU2 needs a lot of work to make it a similar narrative.
It’s not really the “worst ever” game in existence but considering we waited 7 years for this pos, it was just really disappointing
I completely love this game but can still totally get behimd what you are saying, having two climaxes at the same point of the story equally space apart is very jarring. However, tbe overall emotional impact couldnt have worked with proper pacing, like he said in the video, the reason they do this is to stir your anger and bias longer, then flipping you on your head and telling you to try to understand the other side of things is hard to accept and better yet welcome.
You’re making me remember the magnificent game that is spec ops
It's like Tim played a different game than a bunch of other TH-camrs
I haven't played the game, but I think this thoughtful look in contrast to other thoughtful looks is a prime example of how important it is for the artist to set expectations.
Abby’s dad was shot dead which she finds out and travels America to kill Joel, so she hunts him down and forces Joel’s daughter to watch as she tortures him.
And knowing that she put Ellie through something far more brutal than the trauma she suffered, and yet she struggles to understand why Ellie would hunt her down.
Ellie sees a group who condoned torture of her Dad, and not only that but forcing her to watch.
She had no idea Ellie was anything more than someone from the city who seemed to have came looking for Joel. She doesn't have some omnipotent knowledge that the person who just broke in has a daughter-like relationship to Joel, and she less 'forced her to watch' and more detained her so she wouldn't interrupt what was already going on.
I don't agree that the trauma was far more brutal, from an emotional perspective. Physically sure, it's worse to watch someone get beat to death with a golf club than to find their deceased body shot down. But as much as we love Joel and Ellie and their relationship, they've known each other for what, four years by the events of part 2? And most of that time was spent distant / estranged because of Joel's actions. Meanwhile, that was Abby's dad. You know, her biological father who raised her since she was a child. Shot down, along with the entirety of the hospital, by some smuggler. For one girl.
Moreover, to say Abby 'struggles to understand' why Ellie would hunt her down seems unsubstantiated. Because she said "we let you live, and you wasted it"? From Abby's perspective, this person who yes, she personally spared during the encounter at the cabin, came to hunt her and killed her friends. And now, Abby was definitely going to kill her had Lev not been there. She's telling the truth in her statement. If you're talking about something else, then feel free to share.
@@4ty4s_ not a the entire hospital, you can choose to just shoot the doctor, and emotionally seeing someone’s head be smashed to pieces and being forced to watch is much worse.
Most of your argument disregards any of my actual arguments and the gameplay itself.
@@AlyxEld I'm gonna try make this one as quick as possible since you didn't bother replying to the majority of my points (which is ironic, because its what you falsely claim I did when I addressed basically all of your statements)
Joel absolutely unequivocally kills more than just the one doctor. Marlene and the guard who escorts him are two undeniable cutscene examples off the top of my head. In gameplay, most all players also kill an innumerable amount of people during the encounter up to Ellie's room in the surgery wing. The TV series supports this being the canon way that the events of the story play out, as do statements from TLOU2. eg. Nora saying there ARE no more fireflies (implying Joel killed enough of them that they were forced to scatter or disband from the Ohio location). The game isn't about player choice, and so saying "oh I chose not to kill the nurses" is frankly irrelevant to the larger narrative. It's Joel's story. Joel's story is that he goes on a violent rampage to save the girl he has grown to cherish like his own. To say otherwise is (ironically, since you also claim I'M the one doing this) ignoring the gameplay itself.
You disregard my entire point in the original comment to simply restate that you think bashing someone's head in with a golf club is more brutal than seeing someone's shot-dead body. In a vacuum yeah, I already said that as well. The difference, emotionally, comes in the relationship between the two characters. As much as we personally as players love Ellie and Joel, we need to put that aside to examine them from a non-biased perspective. Ellie and Joel have known each other for something like four or five years, with much of that being spent estranged due to Joel's own actions at the end of the first game. Not only this, but after Joel's death Ellie understands that Joel essentially brought it upon himself through the choices he made in his life and the many, many people he angered through making them. So much so, that SHE is actually the one who fails to understand why someone might have killed Joel. Only, she fails to understand it because it could have been so many people for so many reasons. That's the kind of man Joel was. On the flipside, Abby and her father Jerry have presumably been together since the very beginning of her life considering he is her biological father. She had her father throughout her childhood, through more than 15 years of living in this cruel world before he dies at its hands. It's possible he was the only family she had, as her mother is not mentioned from what I remember, likely making their bond that much stronger. Not only this, but he was a doctor just trying to save people's lives, to find a cure for the world they inhabited. When that cure arrives at their door, her father and (as much as you want to deny it) many other fireflies including the leader of their unit Marlene are shot dead by the smuggler who was supposed to bring the key to ending it all. Emotionally, this is every bit as brutal as Joel's death to Abby. You can see that on her face when she breaks down into tears, sobbing uncontrollably. They are very comparable trauma, which I think is the whole point of the game. You disagree.
You say I disregard your arguments, but exactly what do you think I'm disregarding? I address what you say about Abby "forcing Joel's daughter to watch", I address what you say about Abby "putting Ellie through more brutal trauma than she experienced", and I address what you say about Abby "struggling to understand why Ellie would do what she does". Exactly what part did I disregard, exactly?
On the other hand, you ACTUALLY disregarded basically everything I said. Didn't even answer the one real question I posed to you, which was WHY do you think Abby 'struggles to understand' why Ellie would hunt her down? Look, I'll even try and answer it myself just in case you don't.
It's possible Abby struggles to comprehend Ellie's actions of revenge for one pretty big reason. Namely, she's not omnipotent. She sees friend after friend die in front of her and only at the climax of the game does she even see the face of the person doing it. The theater encounter is literally the first time in the game she is EVER confronted with the fact that the intruders who killed her friends were the girl and the man from the cabin. Many many thoughts might be rushing through her head, enough to potentially give the impression that she's struggling to understand how this could have happened. EVEN then, she less seems confused about Ellie's or Tommy's motives and more seems upset that the two people she personally spared came back to kill her friends. It proved that her friends were RIGHT in thinking it would be best to kill them (Because some of them correctly called it a loose end) and that it was HER very own mercy in that moment which cost everyone their lives. That is to say.. "we let you both live, and you wasted it." Like I explained, I don't really believe that that line or what happens next really implies that Abby fails to understand WHY ellie was angry enough to come after her. It would be easy to assume the opposite, in fact, but this is not further explored in the game itself. Now.. why don't you give me YOUR answer?
@@4ty4s_ no the answer to your question is in the original comment. They didn’t think about it.
They changed a huge chunk of the game because of an earlier leak.
You make massive assumptions about Abby’s relationship with her father, it isn’t about time spent with someone.
Ellie and Joel bond over significant trauma this creates an exceedingly complex and strong bond.
Trauma experienced in person is more significant than trauma experienced after the fact, to indicate otherwise is simply to deny the very nature of trauma.
The entire narrative is fucked and self righteous, tries to pretend it’s something more than it is whilst betraying all of the characters who make poor choices and act against their own demonstrated character.
They literally did know that at least Tommy was Joel’s brother because that’s literally how they introduce themselves.
You missed my entire point you’re just trying to take some greater meaning from the game than accepting it as it was, a steaming pile of crap that was so full of itself that it drowned in its own bullshit.
You are looking at explosive diaria and trying to justify it as anything other than what it was, a poor diet and bad decision making hastily crapped out to undeserved acclaim, following a good not great first game.
It's really nice seeing this from another perspective versus the polarized things people have said about the game. I haven't played either of the Last of Us games. So I may not have that same bias as other players. Comment section is gonna be a mess though.
I played it until the very end without being spoiled by leaks. I gotta say the majority of polarization is indeed fanbase petty bias (seriously, people calling the game "garbage" for presumed nitpicking excuses or for the game being unconfortable with a purpose).
only criticism that is indeed valid is pacing and some missed opportunities of using gameplay to reflect the cycle of violence (which isn't to say the game didn't already had some features that reflected this), the others are debatable, and most are straight up bullshit hate.
@@UmTois I whole heatedly agree. I find a lot of unsubstantial reasoning for hating on the perceived garbage that this game is.
The real problem with it is the writing it could have been better and I hate that it got review bomb to a 1/10 when at worst it should’ve gotten a 4/10 or 6/10 at best
@@UmTois True there is a lot of criticism that's not criticism just what people pick to justify there hate. Even the pacing is debatable because the structure of the story kind of demands pacing to take hit or two but it is definitely a valid one. The gameplay could have been better but just like you say there are some features that already reflect this. Some things could be better here and there but honestly it's mistakes do not make it garbage.
Il'l be honest, even tough I can understand Abby's anger, I still think she is in the wrong, oh for sure having your father killed must be hell. But what I can't forget is how her father was trying to sacrifice a young girl that was part of their group, a girl that went trough a hell of a lot to get back there, convinced it was going to be safe, only to be slated for dissection.
Before he died, he threatened Joel with a scalpel, witch made him, flimsy as it may be, a combatant that was then killed by an enemy. Afterwards, Joel fled, maybe sacrificing Ellie for the good of mankind would have been the right move, maybe the moral implication of killing an innocent child is too much for it. Be it as it may, two sides clashed and one managed to live, fled the area and then started life away from it all.
Then we have Abby, young, hurt, 'father was just killed' Abby, she decided to embark on a vengeful journey to right the wrongs committed against her. Honestly, up to that point no real criticisms, no thing that could really say 'this is wrong' beyond a distaste for revenge and our own bias due to the fact we like the characters that she's hunting. What really makes me believe she's in the wrong is the fact that even after 4 years, she's still hunting Joel, hunting him like you would a murderer, she never let hate simmer down, never went beyond the fact 'this man hurt me and "murdered" my father'.
I'm not saying its bad that she still's hate Joel, he did kill her father, but I'm saying that I am under the impression she never even acknowledged the fact he killed him for a reason just as if not more valid then her own, never considered him anything more then a rabid killer. She ignored the fact he had a whole life, that he was a member of a whole new community and even ignored the fact he saved her, she instead kneecapped him after they were safe and then immediately murdered him slowly just for her own satisfaction.
I can understand wanting closure, I can understand hate and vengeance, but what I can't ignore is the fact she never confronted him, never treating him as anything more then a "murdered". My insistence on the words is due to the fact that a murder is not the same as killing somebody during combat or in self-defence, or "daughterfiguredefence" as it was. You can't just equate the two and call it a day.
Both sides are doing things that are bad, don't get me wrong, but this is why I believe Abby, particularly, to be in the wrong.
but that is exactly the same thing that Ellie did. She had no idea why Abby killed Joel yet she made the same journey. Only difference is that she knew where to look...
@@magdasylburska9030 There's a difference between immediately setting of for revenge versus waiting four years and never once questioning why the guy killed your dad? Really? you wouldn't have anything to say? Not telling him why you're killing him? The way Joel died was insulting and dumb, it was out of character for a man like him. Pacing was dumb, you don't start a game brutally killing of the main character from the last game and then asking us to connect with said new protagonist after spending have the game hunting her down in anger. We've formed our biases and it's hard to change that. It would have been way better to start as abby, go through all her shit and connect with her first. So many other things that were poor design choices, story choices and out of character reactions. Also the game didn't release with online which is another reason why the game is 6/10.
@@CanadianGreekhoplite But here's the thing. This the reason why I believe Abby is a despicable character. She knew damn well why Joel killed her father. ND basically never call her out on it in the writing, but it's there clear as day. She was listening in on Jerry and Marlene's discussion about choice prior to the surgery. She knew they were about to cut open a child without her consent. Did she question her father if it was truly the right thing to do? Nope. She just tries make a half-ass justification by saying "if it were me I'd want you to do the surgery." The question of right or wrong didn't even enter her brain. That's why she never had to ask Joel why before she beat he to death. She already knows why? And we are suppose to feel sympathy for this evil bitch? She showed none of that for the innocent girl lying on the operating room table.
Ehh, you kill my father and I'll probably want you dead regardless of why you did it or what life you lived previously. As horrible as it may be abby's father didn't want to do it and only chose to because it could save humanity. In addition to that Abby could have easily killed Tommy and Ellie but chose not to despite the risk. Joel didn't give Marlene that same luxury even though he killed nearly every firefly.
@@MangakasDream Doesn't matter if he felt bad about it. He was basically playing God. At least prior patients got to choose. With Ellie he made the chose for her. And by taking away Ellie's choice he left Joel with no choice. No parent is gonna stand by and allow their child to be murdered I don't care what the justification is. Jerry is confronted with that question from Marlene and he refuses to answer because he knows damn well if it were Abby on the table he wouldn't go through with it.
Were Tommy and Ellie suppose to be grateful. Thank you for butchering Joel right in front of us and then leaving us behind so that we can clean up his bloody carcass. The fireflies deserved to get murked because of what they tried to do to Ellie. Joel didn't because he was essentially a father protecting a daughter.
You give me goosebumps man. You have such an amazing mind. The way you dive deep in to the meanings in any story, show or game most people miss is amazing. I have so much respect for you and your videos, you have such an incredible understanding of the mind and you share it with the world and i feel like so many people should watch your videos. Ive never played this game but this video almost had me in tears
"Violence is indiscriminate. If you use it as a tool, it'll do more than just kill your enemies. Sometimes, it'll kill the ones you love most"
- Klaes Ashford / The Expanse
The structure makes sense from this perspective; most reviews criticise the structure for not making sense, but the assumption is that it's telling a different story than what you unpacked here.
The structure is integral for what the game’s wants to evoke in the player. Naughty Dog wants you to be constantly questioning the choices the characters make and they want to make you feel conflicted emotions. Another more conventional structure would go against that purpose and would make you disconnect from both stories’, specially from Abby’s. That’s what makes this game not for everyone, because it’s very taxing from an emotional stand-point
Most reviews criticize the structure because it doesn't make sense from a practical and logical standpoint. Ellie's perspective and Abby's perspective mirroring one another makes a thematic point, sure, but practically it only serves to confuse and disorient the player. The numerous flashbacks and time-jumps are absolutely horrendously placed, and the way they handle the chronology of events is terribly paced as well. Almost none of the structuring makes sense unless you're specifically referring to the thematic point of the game, which doesn't matter if the actual medium doesn't support it. Take a film, for example, that has the thematic goal of patience. Do you think it would be reasonable and good to structure the film so that the audience has to sit through hours of nothing happening? It makes sense if you only consider the theme, and it makes a poignant observation about the human condition, but it fails to actually pull through on what a story needs to be in order to succeed.
@@ryanhall5360 So this game could be called Fuck Logic: The Game.
@@ryanhall5360 The structure works well for many other reasons. It shows you different perspectives(The characters own as well), it contrast different characters doing the same thing very well, it also reveals your own bias towards the characters just like he said and makes you question characters a lot more. The structure could have been better but it's not a big problem having those four time lines run together and then intersect all works not just thematically it's can be can be confusing and hard to get into but once you do it all makes sense.
The game ask for a lot some stories do need more from you then the average.
All the flashbacks are put in good places and they add a lot to the story. Flashbacks never break the pace as they are always in places were the player can take a break.
The time jump is badly paced and removes tension but for the scene to work the pacing had to take a hit here(This can be forgiven) and Abby section could have moved faster. It could all much better but none of these really destroy the story just things that could have been improved on.
It would probably work far better for a movie but it works in a different way for an interactive medium because you experience all of it you take part of it and are on the journey not just experiencing it especially since you take part even in flashbacks.
The succeeds on what it was trying to be does it do it the best no but it does succeed.
Moise Tibasima the flashbacks are placed where they must be placed. The help to balance the gameplay pacing and provide further context for the story beats, setting up Ellie’s conflict. The same goes for Abby’s (the aquarium’s for instance is placed right before going for Owen, it reveals her main flaw and sets up their relationship). Besides, this radical structure works because it’s a video game, in a passive medium I’m pretty sure they would’ve followed a more conventional structure (and we’ll see it once the HBO adaptation comes out) because you don’t have any control. A cronological order where you switch back and forth between Ellie and Abby 1) would make you disconnect from both perspectives (specially Abby’s who we start hating), 2) it would hold back the inciting incident of the story, making the overall pacing suffer, 3) wouldn’t align you with Ellie from the get-go like this set up does. If we already knew all about Abby’s backstory, would we share the same hatred and animosity toward Abby’s crew (like Ellie does) to the same degree? I don’t think so. All the elements are there and every decisions has meaning behind it.
Playing through Ellie's portion of the story, I kept being reminded of Hotline Miami. Hearing music from that game and seeing it on the PSP that the one WLF member was playing was pretty striking for me and really solidified that it wasn't just a coincidence.
i remember using a scope to zoom in on that girls ps vita to see what level she was on, loved that little easter egg
“When one has been angry for a very long time, one gets used to it. And it becomes comfortable, like... like old leather.”- Captain Picard.
I think the biggest issues with the game are that 1. The original was not made with a sequel in mind and 2. There are better stories to tell than “violence begets violence”
To be fair, the violence story can be executed incredibly well. Look at God of War, it's about that exact topic and it's one of the most beloved game franchises by fans ever.
49:40 Also when ellie is drowning abby, she sees joel (that particular night when she says I'd like to try to forgive you and then joel dies before they got to break that ice between), she was drowning her just like how a man was drowning joel in first game. 2nd game also mentions how ellie and dina got their first human kills for no reason, which can actually link up to that moment. As soon as she sees joel she releases abby, she is not only angry towards abby but she is more angry towards herself. She missed the chance to make their relationship with joel good, now that chance is gone because he is dead.
Because of *Abby*. Directly.
@@Hypogean7 No, because Ellie was a spoilt brat. She literally humiliated him in front half the town in that pub when he tries to defend her. I understand why she was angry with but seriously? That's the respect you show to the person who is the reason you are who you are Ellie? Seriously Ellie?
@@EspeonMistress00 I was talking about the golf club.
@Espeon Mistress wow, lol
@@Hypogean7 I know! I meant to say she could have made up with him long time back before Abby or anyone else killed him.
Cause let's face it, besides the Wolves and Fireflies, Joel has made a lot of enemies in first game and even during the 19 years gap of the 1st game. His death at someone else's hands was coming. Especially whenever he leaves the safety of Jackson. And he was getting really old at this point.
Ellie should have made up to him earlier, if she cared about their father-daughter relationship. Anyways at least at the end of this she realizes the value of forgiveness.
Sure Ellie was hunting the WLF but almost every encounter with at least the main ones attacking you or just no cooperating, and I know someones gonna say she would have killed them anyway, but that's not a garuntee since of the main ones everyone Abby kills either attacks her or doesn't cooperate. And almost everyone you kill as the player you can bypass.
For me, Joel and Ellie’s story was done by the end of part one. And they needed to do a MGS2 with a completely different protagonist to show the differences of the fireflys breaking down and everyone becoming part of doctrine to survive.
The last of Us should look a perspectives of survival and what we do to get through. Splitting the narrative in two just annoys players in having to connect with someone you’ve never met.
If they used a different cast of characters, you lose the strong emotional bond. This deflates the shared horror and need for revenge that Ellie feels, because we all loved joel too. And that's why you see the split between the characters we knew all along and the characters "we haven't met." You didn't relate as much to the other faction because they were new. They have less weight to their problems. That's the whole point.
There's actually a theory where Ellie and Dina get back together before the ultimate final scene. Everyone is focused on Ellie's missing fingers, but fail to see the bracelet on her other hand, which can be seen as her going back to the house one last time after reuniting with Dina.
Doesn't sound like a story bit they wanted the player to notice.
Maybe that was the point.
@V Money bruh that comment is entirely unnecessary
@V Money the fact that you chose this comment thread to say that in speaks volumes as to how you talk to people in real life.
@Arian msn I didn't say there was?
Just wanted to say: I really enjoyed watching this video! I can't play either game for myself, and mostly relied on watching playthroughs. I can't say I fully agree with the things you've laid out (watching the story unfold is a different kind of immersion from being the player yourself, therefore how the game's story being effective/convincing is different depending on your degree of immersion, ig) but I really appreciated how you tied in the themes of trauma and vengeance, and the question of "How do we heal [from trauma]" into The Last of Us 2's story.
In a way, it reminded me of your video essay on the ATLA episode The Southern Raiders, when Katara and Zuko seek out Yon Rha for revenge. OFC, both stories unfold for different reasons and come to their conclusions for also very different reasons-but at the heart of it is loss, and a desperation to see that loss avenged and seen justice. Both are caught up in the cycle of vengeance; both are rooted in the leads' own grief and trauma.
It's interesting to see how stories on grief and trauma, the cycle of war and violence, loss and retribution turn out in our stories; sometimes it can reflect either our personal relationships with these experiences, or our cultural understanding of it. Sometimes it doesn't aim to reflect either, and just explores the possibility of even having that opportunity and goes ham with it.
Your analyzing and discussing how stories get to explore these kinds of themes (both in their own context/internal logic and how we, the audience, place ourselves in it) and why it's so engaging (or not-engaging) is truly captivating and insightful every darn time. Thank you for this, Tim!
Damn, I hadn’t thought abt the parallels to TSR, but you’re right to bring that up. Perhaps like how Katara can’t forgive her mother’s killer, but did forgive Zuko; Ellie isn’t forgiving Abby, but finally forgiving Joel.
Hey and that's okay! I didn't think for a second everyone would agree with me. I think that's a really interesting connection to TSR - I've always loved how the show said it was okay for Katara to not forgive Yon Rha, and I wonder whether that fits in with TLOU2's ending.
~ Tim
The biggest problem with the story is that Abby never once mentions why she's killing Joel... In real life, that would be a raw and very emotional moment for a person finally getting revenge for their father.. Especially since it meant so much that she tortured him first.
But if they did that. It would have ruined the story...
In conclusion... They picked a piss poor way to present this to us.
Or they could have at least given us 3 options with all the information known at the end.... Kill Abby..... Kill Ellie.... Or let them both live.
The only thing that really pissed me off about the circumstances of Joel's death was that it felt REALLY contrived. I understand that all stories are contrivances, (how the heck did the Ring JUST so happen to get to Bilbo and Frodo? :P) but for it to all come together like that, Abby only knows a direction to go and stumbles on the town, Joel just so happens to be outside the town, there ALSO just so happens to be a giant horde when all the other accounts have said there's only been tiny groups of infected, and there is ALSO a storm. But then after he's dead there's no storm and no horde so they can just slip away again. No threat to the town from the horde. They could have just had Joel invite the group into town for shelter after dealing with a small horde of the zombies with them, and they could jump him in the night. Then using the golf club has 2 uses, being quiet in the town and being brutal, and I dont have to suspend every belief I have to accept that Abby's mission succeeded.
Think people only think something is contrived when the result is something negative. The entire ending of the first game is almost exactly like this. After going through a harrowing experience with the infected and almost drowning, Joel and Ellie wash up right where a Firefly patrol is. Ellie isn't breathing and the Fireflies are able to revive her. So they just happened to escape a horde and almost drowned and conveniently ran into a Firefly patrol that could save Ellie. Starting to sound familiar. Marlene conveniently doesn't kill or restrain Joel after it's made clear he wants to save Ellie. After saving Ellie by killing the one guard guarding him, Joel gets to a car, and the one person with the authority to go after Ellie is conveniently the only one preventing him from escaping. Instead of just shooting him, Marlene conveniently lets her guard down, which Joel is able to exploit to kill her and escape.
There are other examples in the game where Joel or Ellie are just insanely lucky. Joel runs into his brother in a random town. Ellie happens to run into the same cannibals that attacked her and Joel (you could argue that with Joel being severely injured, they would be in the same area, so it's reasonable to run into the same group), and she happens to run into a cannibal that would negotiate with her to get antibiotics for Joel.
The point is that like you said all stories have contrivances, but I think bias is certainly a factor. In game design, developers often have to make the player's chances more favorable than it should actually be for players to think something is fair. Just my thoughts. You are perfectly free to have your opinions on whether it's too contrived for you.
@@gamingblastoise7959 They DEFINITELY could have pulled off the first. Many stories pull off the first. Heck, the intro could have been us getting to know them, some tutorials as we do missions with them and they get to know the town. Really sink in before the turn.
There's better ways they could have done this. They just chose not to. And that's the critique, which is a valid one. And even beyond this, they had more choices that would have been in character, and less contrived.
@@andrewli6606 The problem with that Andrew is that Last of Us 2 is TRYING to kill Joel. So they set up this entire scenario to ensure he dies and as William said the killers can slip out which contradicts the story the writers established in that Abby's group and Joel both were surrounded by a snow storm and zombies. Suddenly those are all gone allowing Abby to slip out.
Its a lot of "coincidences" (contrived) in ONE scenario compared to your comment where there are multiple coincidences over the entirety of one campaign. You do make some fair points. Though Marlene not restraining Joel really just doesn't make sense because she did not expect Joel to be upset after they knocked him out and stole Ellie to die in a surgery that MAYBE can unearth a cure. If anything the Fireflies are quite dumb.
Also the writing in Tlou2 is bad. Joel dies because Ellie is being irresponsible with Dina having sex when they are supposed to be on patrol. Out of character and dumb.
Joel gives a bunch of strangers his real name instead of a fake. The writers of TLoU 2 railroaded him into a death.
If Ellie managed to kill Abby, the story would have worked better. By the ending, Ellie has become a killing machine. What's one more body going to do to her now?
Not killing Abby is ending a cycle that Joel started by killing the only surgeon that could possibly save mankind.
Not even factionalism. She had lost everyone to her and this was the last guy on her team. And i think what her most was how hard he tried for her and yet she felt distant and never had the chance to forgive him. And that we are left sometimes with so many regrets with people that we didn't act on when we should have. So in a lot of ways it highlights how we lose control and rage in grief. And to recognize the people we have who are here now and say what we need to say, and apologize and forgive. It's the tieback to the first game that ends with a distrustful okay, to now where it's ended on never getting to see that out to it's conclusion, and the repercussions from that. Love the deep dive and the game too thanks for the analysis and opinion!
So, I haven't played Last of Us 2 but the common complaint is that the story was heavily contrived and manipulative and didn't really earn what it tried to do. I like to use *The Red Wedding* and *The Burning of Kings Landing* as a good example. When the Red Wedding happened, people weren't angry at the writers, they were angry at the characters for succumbing to their established character flaws. After the burning of kings landing though, everyone was mad at the writers for being bad at their jobs, because they didn't set anything up properly. Again, haven't played the game myself but many of the complaints seem pretty reasonable... at least the ones not complaining about the LGBT representation.
It wasn't contrived and it was the only logical end to Joel's character. When he kills everyone in the hospital, he sealed his fate and began living on borrowed time. They were going to find him, I don't think it really matters how they did. Maybe you should play the game for yourself.
It was incredibly contrived. I was open to liking Abby‘s side of the story when I first played and then her like, seven-month pregnant friend Mel ‘ gets approved’ to go out into an active battle zone that is known to be dangerous and immediately I thought “Oh okay, you’re not coming because you have to be here, your coming because the writers *want* you to be here and came up with a nonsensical excuse that would never really be allowed. There’s no way any sane group would approve a pregnant woman to go out into a war zone like this” The whole game is full of actions like this. Things that don’t need to happen but the writers want them to happen, so they forced them to happen, whether it makes sense or not. Ellie’s side of the story has moments like this, but not as many as Abby’s side.
Edit: Also I want to add that the Red Wedding/Burning of Kings Landing is a good comparison to this game's story flaws. One is a situation where the character's flaws got them in trouble, the other, you could feel (and because of social media) some of the audience *KNOWS* that the writers forced this upon the characters instead of justifying naturally throughout the story.
Honestly you should at least watch the gameplay and then decide.
@@theoian Plenty of super awful people die warm in their beds of old age, sometimes even surrounded by loved ones. But I take your point, as I pointed out in a couple of other comments, Joel had a long and dangerous past that could come back to haunt him at any time. But it was still handled very poorly. Having a good idea doesn't mean your execution will be on point. See David Cage's games for some good examples that are still pretty fun to play despite this.
@@wholockedholmes5600 Mel needed to be in the battlezone because she and Owen was supposed to leave the Woves all together and find a better life elsewhere. I think Mel used her medic card (which are already rare in the game's world) to go to the unsafe areas so she and Owen can escape. Or at least that's what I remember.
The story is not contrived, you just need to pay attention.
I am not saying it's perfect. I felt the end was a bit dragged out. Like they could have endded with Dina, Ellie and the boy living peacefully.
I can see why they dragged it out. Abby made her peace with Ellie but Ellie didn't. But I feel that last part could have been a DLC or idk a spin off or something.
My biggest gripe is how Abby didn't tell the reason why she killed Joel to Ellie. Ellie acknowledged with Dina in one scene while at Seattle how Joel probably had it coming, since he killed so many people. And he also did some messed up shit off camera before meeting Ellie.
But still I think Ellie would have probably forgiven Abby sooner if Abby gave more details to her.
Idk man I love this game but it's like those movies you watch once. You appreciate the message, the character writing and it's beauty despite it's flaws. But you won't watch again despite that.
I would’ve loved it if Ellie and Abby shared more scenes with each other throughout the story. Maybe then I could buy the scene when Ellie spares Abby.
That quote from Jazz Thorton was helpful.
I've never played either of the Last of Us titles and don't really intend to but I adore narrative analysis of them. Seems like the writers had a good set of marbles in those brains, even with some pitfalls they jostled themselves into.
The first one has amazing character writing. This one has terrible writing. I've seen all of the story, and Tim is creating something that the writers didn't seem to intend. It's more about his insight and creativity than anything Druckman and company did.
@@AzureKnight2 Yeah I have to be honest, I've seen quite a few videos talking about the depth of the story, and it always makes sense in the video, but seeing the game played through multiple times by different streamers I never once got the sense that the story was intended to be what people make it out to be. It feels like I'm back in high school English class and the teacher is trying to convince us that the authors meant something they totally didn't
@@beyaminn Exactly! Great point. I was having high school and college English class flashbacks too. It's more about how creative you can be about the work than about the work itself.
Given how often people miss set up for story beats, ask questions that are answered in the narrative and think they’ve spotted a plot hole when there isn’t one I’d say people more commonly under-analyse stories than overanalyse
@@ducky36F Still, you can't say that overanalysing doesn't happen.
I've seen people say Jennifer's Body is an analogy for rape survivors, even though the director has stated what the movie is about, and it wasn't rape survivors.
So people can definitely see something that was not intended to be there.
I think some of my biggest problems with TLOU2 is that the game didn't really bring anything new to the "revenge=bad" message and that I felt there were some really odd writing choices throughout.
I expected when we switched over to Abby's POV, we were going to see how brutally killing Joel and how having Ellie begging for his life would affect Abby and her friends. But we didn't. Hardly anyone in Abby's circle of revenge-seeking friends questions how that series of events went down. And while Abby has nightmares/guilt over leaving Lev and Yara behind, I feel like she should have been having nightmares/guilt over Ellie's cries and begging.
And for the writing, I feel like there were at least three or so beginnings with Ellie's story. It also just feels like the Drukmann fell into the Game of Thrones trap of subverting expectations. Then there's also the fact that it didn't feel like it expanded on the things that a lot of people loved in the first game. The interactions between Joel and Ellie, and watching that relationship grow. Ellie is alone for long stretches of time and Abby's story only really begins to feel like it takes off when Lev and Yara come in.
"I expected when we switched over to Abby's POV, we were going to see how brutally killing Joel and how having Ellie begging for his life would affect Abby and her friends. But we didn't."
Whaa.....what? That's the core of Abby's side of the story. What in the world are you talking about? What you claim to expect is exactly what the story did. Abby's guilt IS about what she did to Joel. Lev and Yara were just her opportunity to do some good to make up for the atrocity she committed.
5:25 *Joel's Death*
So... the major complaint seems to be that how they set it up makes no sense. For context, I did play the first one and liked it quite a bit and the circumstances of Joel's death seem super contrived to me... and apparently, a lot of other people too and I wasn't even that invested in Jole as a character. Like, Elly should have known that someday Joel's past might catch up with him, he'd done a LOT of shady stuff back in the day.
How does it feel super contrived to you?
@@noteliassmith
It took Abby like longer to get close to the outside of Jackson than it took for them to get back to their little hideout with Joel and Tommy (through a blizzard and infected horde).
The hectic blizzard + infected leaving Joel and Tommy with no other options than to go with Abby.
Joel being with Tommy (otherwise how would they know this Joel is the right Joel?)
Abby and her group wearing clothes with WLF badges.
Running into Joel and Tommy after a 5 year long quest and sparing her the work of having to find them in Jackson.
I understand that they had to get to the inciting incident as quickly as possibly for the sake of pacing, but maaan😐👀...
@@noteliassmith The other poster goes over some of it, but the thing with the party giving Joel's identity up, Abby not giving any explanation for why she's doing what she's doing, Elly leaving to take revenge after Abby spared her life... twice.
@@simphiwe4930 It all depended on dumb luck for Abby. The writers wanted Abby to kill Joel for the shock factor, but didnt bother to come up with a good explanation. Thats contrived. Bad, lazy writing. You are right.
@@thorthewolf8801 No, they tried (they definitely tried), but it did not come out well for a ton of people😬. But they did make sure to make that scene resonate throughout the whole game there's partial redemption there for that.
That's a well done video. Probably the best one I heard in a while.
That beginning brought me to tears. So beautiful. Naughty Dogs did a wonderful job on this game. The intro piece of the game reminded me of my fears of my father when he went overseas years ago. You are a wonderful content creator, and I hope you can continue for years to come.
Man it sucks being this early but at least I won't get spoiled by the comment and by the next hour I can see them
Edit: finished the video it's great got good points and some I disagree with but overall great video 100% recommend watching the whole thing
I'd be interested to know what you didn't agree with
Out of curiosity, what parts did you disagree with?
I haven't played this game or heard much about the controversies, but I can see how a lot of people were mad.
It seems like TLoU2 just broke every convention in the storytelling book. I can't deny I would have been left mad as hell by that ending either. You want me to reflect on how the circle of vengeance doesn't heal you but just takes you further down? Great. Let me get that vengeance and let me ponder on my still-open wounds afterwards. Show me how the circle of vengeance has led both Abby and Ellie to mutually assured destruction, how both have nothing left and end up losing their lives. Don't just deny the catharsis half the game has been building up to.
EDIT the game seems to deconstruct violence as a means of getting healing but then doesn't really show you what you can do to heal. Ellie couldn't heal due to the trauma caused by Abby. Her final scene with Dina makes it look like staying is something she physiologically can't do even though at a higher level she would want to. And when you get to the point where you can find, if not healing, at least closure, it is denied and you are just left with nothing. That kind of ending doesn't look like one that can be resolved into forgiveness in the future.
wow, not a gamer but this hits home so hard
“The wounds of conscience always leave a scar.”
P. Syrus
So how much of a conscientious act is it to go forward? Choosing to rest your conscience will only bring more unrest and destruction. It is more correct and more beneficial to try to forget and try to prevent the loss of conscience-blood rather than revenge...
Unscrupulousness is one of the important factors that increase grudge and hatred. Injustice and unscrupulousness have a great role in the separation, polarization and deterioration of the ties of society.
I continue with Victor Hugo.
Being good is easy, what is difficult is being just. The most perfect justice is conscience...
“whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster, if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
This quote by Friedrich Nietzsche is a reminder to measure yourself and be aware of your own thoughts.
In other words, you should always criticize yourself when you enter into a "questioning war" because your life and your own feelings always have plans for you. And the "narrative" of "The Last Of Us Part II" handles this with great mastery.
In addition, The Last Of Us Part II's script is deep, philosophical, dark, emotional and thought-provoking.
A masterpiece that has taken the industry so far and set a new bar.
Again, I will continue with a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche:
“When we are unpreparedly (or impromptuly) questioned about a subject, the first thought that comes to our mind is often not our own thought but merely an ordinary thought belonging to our class, position, and ancestry. Self-thoughts rarely surface.”
Time, patience and thinking skills are required for high-level, powerful and philosophical “things” that are actually difficult to understand, difficult to notice. In order to find the real and the essence...
The Last Of Us Part II is a masterpiece on the meaning of life, moral relativism, the philosophy of empathy, self-criticism, the definition of the concept of human, narrative art, the creation of a post-apocalyptic universe (dystopia), the meaning of respect, the meaning of thinking and the transfer of feelings.The Last Of Us Part II is the ultimate masterpiece of the eighth generation. And these concepts require “extremely hard thinking”.
Let me end with a final Nietzsche quote:
“The life of the enemy. Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's staying alive.”
Because maybe that person or that thing is not an enemy. It is only the key that will unlock your own conscience and your own feelings...
I connected quite deeply with The Last Of Us Part II. I trusted it to take me to the places it was going and I was extremely glad to have gone. I like the Ellie in first game but in the second i felt like i actually understood her and actually loved her. I felt like I actually understood Abby too and actually empathized with Abby. I am no stranger to being lost in the fog myself.
We cannot talk about good and evil directly, they are related and relative concepts.
Formulating that existing evil was or was not done by a God does not prevent evil from existing. Evil can be tolerated, guided by the will to live. This endurance will be through art, morality and love. Albert Camus attributes his rejection of God to the existence of evil and its abundant and violent experience by humans. According to him, the question we should ask is: Is there evil in this world? Evil, if any, is incompatible with the idea of God. In a divine order, in a world created and ruled by God, the existence of evil is inconceivable. For example, death is an evil and evil inflicts punishment on us. However, “the one who is right is the one who never kills”. This means that God cannot exist. Either we are not free, and the almighty God is responsible for evil; or we are free and responsible but God is not omnipotent.
According to philosophers, evil harms the bond between people and the state of being human. In my opinion, kindness builds bridges between people, develops bonds and contributes to being human. Kindness is a joy that includes honor, not arrogance. So the fools and the dead are people who do not feel their conscience, do not understand themselves and become numb with this meaninglessness, this is not true peace,
Good people are actually people who have attained peace of mind and prosperity. Their difficult but constructive and strong-willed behaviors show that they trust their own worth and justice. Because “the thing" that is better than being good is conscientious justice, and this is what real goodness and real good person are.
That’s why The Last Of Us Part II is the most unique and emotional roller coaster masterpiece...
26:28 - "We hope it will enthrall and challenge your own views of justice and empathy"
- Nell Druckmann
I would've gladly done a non-lethal run if the designers actually allowed me to do so, as I try always do in every game that has any element of stealth whatsoever. Pretty much the same problem I've had with the first game in fact.
I have very little (if any) criticism of both stories in and of themselves, actually. I just believe wholeheartedly that games can and should be something besides and beyond movies, no matter how well written and acted they are.
Completely non-lethal run wouldn't make sense for this game.
There are actually no-hit, no-damage runs. It is just really hard
@@martinsriber7760 You're right. This isn't a game where the player gets to try and be a pacifist. Elly made the choice to leave home and immerse herself into a world of violence. She knew she was going to kill people along the way, she didn't care. This game is partially about what happens when you become a person like Joel, you lose everything and everyone you love.
Yeah, I see your point, its hard to challenge someone's personal sense of Justice if you don't give them choice. I might as well have been seeing this all happen and then question the character's morality because really that's all it did.
Non-lethal runs are incredibly unrealistic. If you want to beat a faction like the WLF you have to kill people. Non-lethal weaponry doesn't exist. Chokeholds deal permanent brain damage or the person wakes up ten seconds later. Knockouts cause internal brain damage, or the person wakes up a minute later. If you want to do a non-lethal run, you can try to be as stealthy and evasive as you can but the truth of the matter is killing is unavoidable. It happens in cutscenes just to prove it. Non-lethal runs are pretty much a fantasy of video games, because non-lethal violence doesn't exist.
Does anyone else kind of agree with Tim, but also hate the game regardless? A lot of his arguments sound similar to the whole "subvert your expectations" and the tonal beats aren't what I hope for out of a game. Plus, authorial intent just isn't something I enjoy.
That said, it did well in what it was hoping to accomplish. I just don't enjoy what it was trying to accomplish.
because it more about what the game is trying to do which is not the issue not where it fail in excecution.
other of books movies...tackle the same issue more succesfully.
These games have the risk of not being for everyone. I saw a couple of videos and trailers, and I chose to ignore the game because of the realistic violence; and I mean really realistic, like it would be like that in real life and really mess up people would do that. I know that I would not enjoy the game, but I agree that the game has a point and it is really mess up. And because the game is lineal, it eventually will force you to make these awful things most people disagree that are right.
I think would be a little better if it was a movie. Because if it is a game, a linear game specially, it will eventually force you to so things to move the plot instead of being a pleasure or interesting experience or even a choose of your own. And I telling this even considering if the game was made perfectly, but it is not. This game somewhat can fails from time to time to make the tone that it was designed for. For a game that have a cost, it would not be recognized as a good game if many people who purchased it won't enjoy, so it is really dificult to make a game that want to be art (and worse if their head developers pretend that are the next level artist and wants to feel like they are more than people).
14:58 - "Good, Good. Let the hate flow thru you."
There is this one tiny thing that i explored during playing "The Last of Us Part One and Two"
For Backround, I am a german writer and philosopher, or at the very least i always saw myself especially as the latter,
I wrote a paper a couple of years ago which i named "the value of humanity" which i never finished to this day, in it i tried to figure out my own thoughts,
such as, what is the "right" or "correct" way of dealing with human lives, my focus was on the age old question which is,
"When is it okay to sacrifice another Human for the so called "benefit" of everyone else?"
The reason i looked into this came from a heavy depression and my own dealings with PTSD, and the Last of Us explored atleast the existence of the question,
while answering with "It´s all based on sympathy" an anwser that i utterly despised while rooting for Joel while he carried her unconcious Body out of the hospital.
And in turn, the second installment also failed for me to anwser that, since the Game only revolves around a "reaction" of "an action."
Said action being joel killing everyone who stood in his way trying to save Ellie.
Which forced Abby to react in Killing joel and thus starting the Circle of violence.
Which is poethically stupid, yet very human is it not?
Killing Ellie so that everyone can live = Fine since it follows the ulitarian principle of "What serves most is the ethical thing to do"
Killing Abby is fine since = She has slain a beloved father figure, no matter how flawed the man ultimately was.
That being said, i tried to do a thought experiment, which entailed to think myself not into the perspective of either Ellie or Abby, but into a total new Person, a father or a mother or maybe even a brother of someone who has gotten infected, i thought about the people i loved most in my very own life and asked myself,
"Would i agree with sacrificing a Person, just so my loved ones would live?"
I really struggled with that, and the games pull your heartstrings by making the sacrifice a child not old enough to understannd the world yet fully, a child who said "My life would have had meaning." But what is that "Meaning" supposed to be? to be mentioned in history textbooks to come? To get a Candle lit by people who kill each other every single day without end for important at times and foolish reasons even more? For a society which does not really care about a cog in the "Machine" being lost, especially since it sacrificed itself?
Far more questions could be formulated and it could be argued one way or the other, it matters very little in the grand scheme of things, because in the Last of Us Part Two, we see Jackson as a lively and happy place that works as a society, we watch two more of said societies at each others throats for no good reason, even though the whole world went to shit.
And i believe they would´ve been at each others throats anyway and even more so if there had beenn a cure.
Now, my own anwser to it is complicated in its own right, i will admit this and not pretend to know how humans should behave, because that is the very conclusion i came to.
So to anwser for myself and no one else, Killing her just to find a cure so others may life, would have been an action that devalues the worth of human civilization, having to sacrifice one or many more people willingly just so the rest may get a few more years, either developing themselves in a good way which always seems to be a part of the arguement.
Or in a Bad way, so the overall cycle that rules all the other cycles may continue till the next sacrifice is due to whatever may be the reasson,
Seems inherently wrong to me, we value the amount of "overall happyness" far more than overall human "quality" and "worth" which we have done in the real world so many many times that it becomes a numbing thing to look at, we always walk the path of least resistence with in this case would have meant,
To Kill Ellie.
Instead of walking the tough Road which the world in The Last of Us ultimately had to walk due to Joels decision.
I know very well how you could argue against what i said, but keep in mind that i do not make an arguement for how things "should be done"
at the Most i just try to honestly think about the things many believe to know the "right" or the "best" anwser to, and i won´t claim mine is either,
Mine is Mine, yours is yours,
It only matters that you think for yourself
"...this isn't Undertale"
Funny, this legitimately answers a question I was about to type and pose for discussion.
What do you do when a story simply (i.e. intentionally) goes a direction that you don't like? And especially in videogame form, where the link between player and protagonist (especially a tragic protagonist) is uniquely stronger than other media.
@Geralt of Trivia Indeed (and I've played Shadow of the Colossus). So why does Last of Us 2 stand out from them as feeling so distasteful? What exactly is different from other games with similar tragic player-characters?
@@Stratelier it's poorly done. If this was some random 1st game, with a 30 minutes cut screen explaining the 1st game, then nobody would give this game a second thought.
@@lesedimokgobi I can agree that if this _wasn't_ a sequel game, we wouldn't be so strongly attached to the main characters, and more flexible to whatever path they (specifically Ellie) chose to follow.
Which is basically the same criticism leveled at the Luke seen in Star Wars Ep.8 -- if it was a standalone film with original characters, it would be easier to respect.
@@Stratelier Everyone loves Undertale's genocide run. So why don't people love TLOU2
@@levipeterken4020 For starters, Undertale wasn't a sequel to a previously established canon. It was also literally marketed for your ability to CHOOSE whether or not to kill your opponents during combat.
By contrast, Last of Us 2 was designed around a single canonical linear narrative with no long-term player agency; your choice was to either follow the path and story _as designed and written,_ or not play at all.
And HFM's pinned comment raises a good point that Last of Us 2 isn't "your" story but "their" story to tell. And perhaps the best analogy is an actor in a movie production -- how often does that person have any creative agency over their _character's_ role in the written script? There is no denying the intimate association between actor and character, but their job is to perform (to the best of their ability) their role as written by somebody else.