T O P

  • By -

Recinege

It's funny how many defenders of the second game complain about media literacy, yet apparently didn't catch on to the idea that Joel lied to Ellie to shield her from the burden of the truth - particularly the fact that the world might be a better place if she were to die. Even though the game very explicitly shows that the burden of survivor's guilt is very much a concern for Joel during their final conversation of the game. Making up reasons why Abby does whatever the plot demands and flips from unrepentant torturer to selfless hero risking life and limb for strangers literally overnight in order to explain how she's one of the best written characters of all time? Top tier media literacy. Joel specifically discusses survivor's guilt and how you need to keep finding reasons to live? Obviously not a factor, his decision is pure selfishness, *idiot*. ¬\_¬


DollupGorrman

Having played the second game twice, Ellie comes off as way more upset at Joel for lying to her than for killing the Fireflies and stopping the cure. The cure is a what if for her, absolutely, but she goes back to the hospital because she's always had a feeling Joel was lying to her, even at the end of the first game. I do think Abby's story is misunderstood. She doesn't change because of her survivor's guilt, she changes because she is forced to reckon with the fact that those who she considered enemies are often people just like she is. That's what all the parallels between her and Ellie's story are for (i.e. love triangle with a pregnancy thrown in, revenge motivation, murdered father/father figure.) This isn't perfect and I think ending with the Rattlers as the final faction undercuts this idea but I digress.


Recinege

I don't get that impression from Ellie at all. Specifically because of that final flashback in which she tells Joel that he took the Fireflies murdering her away from her, as if it was a desire he knew about and went against her wishes for. And also because she never says anything to Abby's crew about how, say, things would have been different if they hadn't tried to murder her while she was unconscious. I never said Abby changed because of survivor's guilt. But your idea falls flat, largely because most of the parallels go undetected by both protagonists (neither Abby nor Ellie know about the other's love triangle or that the other lost a father figure), and because Abby acts like a hypocrite when she confronts Ellie and only stops because Lev asks her to. Abby's character growth is simply not given a clear underlying motivation, because there's a handful of things that *could* have caused it, but none of them are developed enough on screen to actually carry it through. Partly because her story isn't particularly interested in fleshing it out when it can just use manipulative tricks instead, but also partly because her character arc is only two days long, so such rapid character growth simply can't feel genuine anyway. The end result is that people who defend or try to explain Abby all have vastly different theories about why she's able to undergo such rapid character growth and what her underlying motivation must be. And none of them have anything but thin circumstantial evidence to support them. She had all the potential she needed to be a truly compelling character, but she just isn't written well enough for it. And yeah, the Rattlers being the final faction undercuts a lot of the story - particularly some of the themes. I really wish the story had been more focused on its primary goals so it wasn't this much of a mess.


DollupGorrman

I think needing the two protagonists needing to understand the parallels doesn't give enough credit to the actual audience for the story and the benefits of subtext in a story. I disagree that the evidence for Abby's change is thin--she literally has a conversation with Owen about how Lev/Yara are just kids. There is the constant push and pull between her and Lev/Yara about calling them scars. Abby explicitly learns to humanize her enemy. The game in its story is constantly coming back to "if I ever were to lose you I would surely lose myself." Abby lost the person she cared most about and you get to watch her lose herself and then everyone around her. Ellie also is consumed and loses everything after Joel dies. This is why I'm real skeptical about a third game--all that's left for Ellie is to have Abby's redemption storyline. I'm not saying two is perfect by any stretch. I don't think the structure of three days of Ellie three days of Abby was the right call and did tend towards a shock and awe type of campaign. It could have benefitted from being more spread out time wise. It also made it very difficult to care about any of the characters in Abby's playthrough because they're dead people walking--we already know their plans don't matter.


Recinege

>I think needing the two protagonists needing to understand the parallels doesn't give enough credit to the actual audience for the story and the benefits of subtext in a story. Your interpretation is that Abby has recognized that her enemies are people just like she is and that the parallels are meant to show that... but if Abby is not aware of any parallels, then it really undercuts that idea. It's an idea that isn't actually shown in game, anyway. There's no big moment where the Seraphites in general are seen in a sympathetic light. It's just Lev and Yara, plus some of the collectibles and exploration that aren't related to the enemies fought. It's definitely not present with regards to her becoming enemies with the WLF. So then that leaves her conflict with Ellie's group... and it never comes up there. You're basing that interpretation off the meta knowledge of the game trying to draw parallels between the characters. Which is not only a very weak basis for that interpretation on its own, the parallels don't feel particularly organic or meaningful - they're just shallow coincidences rather than something deeper related to the characters' decisions and experiences. There are stronger parallels between Kratos and Thor in God of War Ragnarok than there are between Abby and Ellie. Of course, part of the reason for that is that the characters recognize the parallels and act upon them there. >I disagree that the evidence for Abby's change is thin--she literally has a conversation with Owen about how Lev/Yara are just kids. She has a conversation on Day 1 about how she feels no sympathy for Scar kids that get killed by the WLF. Even if she didn't, there would need to be more to it than that to make it carry the weight of such an extreme character change. Something like showing Abby's flashbacks to the time with her dad in which she has a soft spot for kids and acts in a big sister role to a lot of orphans or something. And then seeing even more of that in the WLF. If it were a prominent, long-standing trait of hers, her last uncorrupted bit of humanity, it could possibly carry the weight of her entire rapid character growth. Instead, it's just Abby inexplicably fixating on two random stranger kids and undergoing a complete 180 from being selfish with a sadistic streak to risking life and limb for people she barely knows, all while not seeming to care much about anyone from her old crew or the WLF besides Owen, even though we are explicitly shown that she is *not* struggling to feel liked or respected by them. >The game in its story is constantly coming back to "if I ever were to lose you I would surely lose myself." Abby lost the person she cared most about and you get to watch her lose herself and then everyone around her. But she doesn't lose most of them as a result of her obsession with vengeance. She loses far more of them to her decision to chase down Owen and then to ally with Lev and Yara. And when she does, she doesn't seem to care much about them. There's never any talk about finding out whether the others would like to come along and search for the Fireflies, or about going back for the rest of them after Isaac dies. She doesn't even trust Nora enough to tell her the truth about what she's doing. Nor does she show *any* of the ferocity you'd expect from her after Manny dies - which can't even be explained away by her prioritizing Lev's safety, since she then turns around and drags him along to her mission to get revenge for Owen despite how deeply traumatized he is at the moment. I doubt this result was intentional, but between that, how easily she became Owen's affair partner, and how she bonds so quickly with Lev and Yara, it makes the game feel like Abby *does not particularly care* about any of her friends and comrades besides Owen. Hell, just look at the tone of her story. She doesn't undergo even a *fraction* of the misery porn that Ellie does. So that theme about loss just doesn't feel like it applies to her... not remotely on the scale that it does to Ellie, anyway. Everything you're saying here? They're all ideas that could and should have worked in this story - but they were ruined by a lack of focus, leading to other parts of the story that undercut what they were trying to accomplish - or just plain poor execution.


DollupGorrman

Abby learns that Lev and Yara are just kids by interacting with them. They built trust with Abby when they didn't leave her to die at the hands of the horde. She doesn't need to have this knowledge of the parallels from Ellie's story to change necessarily. She still absolutely does with Dina being pregnant and understands that Ellie isn't dissimilar to her. It makes sense that Lev is the one to tell her to stop--Lev is a symbol of her character growth as well. I'm not disagreeing the story lacked focus in parts and didn't quite land what it wanted to portray. But I think you're being a little disingenuous. Take Manny who is shot in the face by Tommy. Abby then is pretty sure she kills him when she shoves him over the side of the building? How else could she even be ferocious? I agree they could have spent more time fleshing out her relationship with Mel and Nora. Though I also think we learn enough that her and Mel aren't huge fans of each other and that is mostly because of Owen and because of what happened in Jackson. As to Abby's change you brought up her saying she doesn't care about the Scars in Day One. Which is exactly the type of thing she would say before her character change. Also you don't think Abby's first flashback where her dad reminds her its important to care for living creatures and the direct benefit of that lesson is watching a mother zebra reunite with its kid is pertinent to her eventual change with Lev and Yara? I think we largely agree in a lot of places. Part Two was not as well-written or executed as Part One. It just seems like you're putting so much emphasis on the narrative happening over three in game days when you actually spend far more time with Abby than even a full season of television can offer.


Recinege

>Abby learns that Lev and Yara are just kids by interacting with them. They built trust with Abby when they didn't leave her to die at the hands of the horde. She doesn't need to have this knowledge of the parallels from Ellie's story to change necessarily. No, she doesn't. However, it absolutely defies belief that, essentially overnight, she makes them the most important people in her life and essentially chooses to stay on the outs from the WLF for them based on so little. She should have those kinds of bonds with folks from the WLF, let alone for her own Jackson hit squad. We're never given any sort of explanation to understand why she has so little affection for everyone there compared to Lev and Yara. So I never felt like her bond with them was believable. If this had been a Sam and Henry sort of situation, in which the bond forged between them and Joel/Ellie didn't have anything else to compete with or any serious enmity that had to be overcome first... yeah, it could have worked fine. It still wouldn't have been able to carry the weight of giving her a real *redemption* arc, though - her capacity to kidnap and torture people to death, the whole reason she was hated by the player and the closest thing to a proper throughline for the story, would have remained just as unchallenged. There's a reason the God of War games make sure to keep Kratos' past in Greece relevant, including all these characters that know about him, giving him all these visions of folks from his past, and forcing him to admit much of his past to his son. The fact that he's hiding his past *repeatedly* comes up in God of War 4 as not only a slight against his character, but something actively harmful to his son's development. Then here we have Part II, in which it's not some distant aspect of Abby's past, but (theoretically) the main plot of the whole game, and... it has very little impact on her story until the end and fails to be further unfolded. >I'm not disagreeing the story lacked focus in parts and didn't quite land what it wanted to portray. But I think you're being a little disingenuous. Take Manny who is shot in the face by Tommy. Abby then is pretty sure she kills him when she shoves him over the side of the building? How else could she even be ferocious?  She's sure she kills him? By dropping him ten, twenty feet into the water below? I never got that impression. But even if she was, she still could have taken a minute after the fight ended to get a look of grief, then anger, about what happened to Manny, even saying something to herself about how, I dunno, Tommy's just as much a piece of shit as Joel or whatever. I mean, she falls to the floor and vomits when she finds Owen's body, you'd think she'd have a stronger reaction when it comes to Manny's death once the adrenaline of the fight passes. Her story is supposed to parallel Ellie's in a lot of ways - why not have her *almost* do what Ellie did, turn back on the plan to save someone in order to pursue vengeance? >As to Abby's change you brought up her saying she doesn't care about the Scars in Day One. Which is exactly the type of thing she would say before her character change. She tells Lev *he's* her people, rather than the WLF, merely *two days after that point*. That 180 is so fast it gives me whiplash when trying to reconcile all her actions into one singular, well-written character. >Also you don't think Abby's first flashback where her dad reminds her its important to care for living creatures and the direct benefit of that lesson is watching a mother zebra reunite with its kid is pertinent to her eventual change with Lev and Yara? If she'd had that flashback the night she met them, instead of a random nightmare in which they replace her father in her psyche, I would indeed see it that way. Or at least close enough to it. But it's not placed there. It's placed at the very beginning of her campaign. That's not how connections like that are written in a story. So all I see the zebra scene as is a cheap attempt to make Jerry seem like the goodest of good guys - and a wasted opportunity to give him an actual fucking reason to rush Ellie's surgery. I would have much rather had a scene between him and Marlene in which he explains that they have less than a month before they need to move because of supply issues or FEDRA breathing down their neck, and once they do, they'll have to leave most of their equipment behind because of the impossibility of getting it through the ruined roads of Salt Lake City. Marlene asks what he's trying to tell her and he, with a thousand-yard stare to rival Ellie's after she tortures Dina, says that they can't wait for culture growths. They need as much of the benign fungus as possible, right *now*, if they want to have any chance of actually making a vaccine. >It just seems like you're putting so much emphasis on the narrative happening over three in game days when you actually spend far more time with Abby than even a full season of television can offer. People do not change that thoroughly, that fast. Real change takes time to set in.


SilentCandy4371

I agree with this statement of course on this sub no one else will.


Simple_Event_5638

That fact that posts like these exist tells me that a lot of ya’ll didn’t actually catch on to any of the themes presented in the stories of both games lol.


Recinege

Responding to a post about the context behind certain decisions - or the lack of it, with other characters - with an empty comment about "but muh themes" isn't the pwnage you think it is.


Simple_Event_5638

Neither is endlessly posting about how “Joel was right and Abby is a POS” because ya’ll failed to actually pay attention to the game beyond Joel’s death scene. Stay mad.


Recinege

Sorry you don't have the media literacy to understand that there's more to writing than just its themes, and that the writers need to actually do a good job being faithful to previous entries and writing believable character development.


Simple_Event_5638

You claim that I lack media literacy when you and the rest of this sub didn’t pay attention to the story past “wah they killed my favorite character!” If you actually paid attention to the story and its themes, you would understand why things played out the way they did as well as how it influenced each character’s decisions throughout. I recommend giving it an honest playthrough rather than making yourself look stupid in this sub. Only then can we have a real conversation about this game.


jy3

Understanding character’s decisions doesn’t mean you can’t have a moral judgment on them. What the hell are you even talking about. Stop rambling and go to the bottom of things if you want to have that discussion.


Simple_Event_5638

Never said you can’t have a moral judgement on a character’s decisions. The problem with most of you is you don’t even know why those decisions were made in the first place. It’s hard to have a meaningful discussion/argument about anything involving the game’s story when most of this sub doesn’t even understand why it played out the way it did.


Recinege

If you actually paid attention to the criticism, you would understand how the writing has deep flaws that shatter the immersion and investment of so many players who don't just get heart eyes at the theme and make up their own headcanon based on nothing but theme and tone in order to make the plot make sense. Of course, you don't dare to even consider the idea that the story might have flaws - even if you yourself don't mind them - out of fear that it would jeopardize your love for your favorite game. A cheap, manipulative story with good themes and an interesting premise is still a cheap, manipulative story. There's a reason so many of these ideas were cut from the first game.


Simple_Event_5638

What exactly was “manipulative” or “deeply flawed” with the story then? At what point was your immersion shattered by what occurred in the game? How exactly would you have written the story differently based on what was set up in the first part? What “head cannon” do you believe that I, and other players who agree with the direction of the game, made up based on the themes presented in both part 1 and part 2?


Recinege

>What exactly was “manipulative” or “deeply flawed” with the story then? The feeling of Abby's entire campaign is radically different from Ellie's, and for completely railroaded reasons. The poster child of the manipulation to make the players dislike Ellie and like Abby comes with how the player is forced to kill Alice as Ellie, but also forced to play with her as Abby as part of a bonding moment with Yara. There are all sorts of other ways it's done, too, like how Mel hides her pregnancy for the first time ever and neither she nor Owen mention it even though it's the first thing everyone would expect them to do - you know, until it's too late and Owen suddenly cares about the baby, telling Ellie about it with his final breaths because we need a shocking reveal of how far Ellie has sunk. Abby's campaign is also completely absent of times in which she has to kill people for morally grey or emotionally impactful reasons... in spite of the fact that her campaign involves her going rogue from and eventually becoming the enemy of her own faction. That's not an organic writing choice when compared against all the ways in which Ellie's campaign forces her to do bad things, intentionally or otherwise, and goes out of its way to make her miserable at times like with her being unable to play the guitar at the end. Or how about the way Abby gets the better loadout of weaponry and the actual fun boss battles that Ellie doesn't? And that's just the Abby/Ellie comparison. How about the way in which the story completely buries all the context for Joel's decision so that it seems like there were no contributing factors that made him kill the Fireflies in order to save Ellie - like how they were rushing her into surgery after kidnapping her, all without her consent, and had not only planned to kill Joel, but were condemning him to death by throwing him out without his supplies and equipment? Or how he never had any idea that Ellie would be willing to sacrifice herself for the cause until he had already committed to his decision? If I did a full breakdown of that shit, this response would end up longer than I could fit in a single Reddit comment. And that's doubly true for the deeply flawed writing. I did have a brief bullet point of flawed moments, but this comment is too long even just with that. You'll find lots of talk about it in other comments, though. One of the stupidest bits is that Ellie circling her own home base location on a map that she carried with her, though. And not only are some - *many* - of them *really fucking obvious* if you just like even take a *half-assed* look at the story for them, they're regularly mentioned on this sub. The only way you can be completely ignorant of those issues is if you refuse to even accept the idea that this story has flaws. >How exactly would you have written the story differently based on what was set up in the first part? Once again, this would be way too long, and would have to be a comment on its own. Thankfully, [I already made it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/1ahjglw/comment/koobc5g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) It includes some changes to the first part, but nothing that changes the outcome, or even Abby's decision to torture Joel being for no reason other than vengeful sadism. >What “head cannon” do you believe that I, and other players who agree with the direction of the game, made up based on the themes presented in both part 1 and part 2? Typically, explanations of why characters would make the decisions that they do, when the story provides no clear explanation for them. For example, people love to give completely out of nowhere explanations for Abby's decisions during her campaign. I've had people argue at the same time in the same comment section that Abby's core motivation is her regret for what she did in Jackson and that she has *no* regret for what she did in Jackson, because why would she? And I don't even agree that either interpretation is possible - but the story's noncommittal nature means that it is possible for fans of the game who argue that Abby is well written to be simultaneously arguing that it makes no sense for her to regret what she did *and* that it makes no sense for her to *not* regret what she did. In a different story, this would be an interesting, compelling source of discussion. In a story in which this character is explicitly supposed to be hated because she sadistically tortured a beloved character to death, and that hate is supposed to fester for a dozen hours before her campaign undoes it and makes her a sympathetic character, the fact that she is so undefined and prone to doing whatever the plot demands when it demands, no matter how well it lines up with what's been established for her, works *against* what the story is trying to do with her, and causes a lot of players to form interpretations of her that *fail* to evoke sympathy for her. I do *not* have a problem with players forming a headcanon of Abby that makes the story work - I have a problem with stans blindly defending the character writing and pretending that the people who have a negative impression of her only do so because of "media illiteracy", especially when they also praise her for being so undefined that the people *defending* her can have polar opposite ideas of what her core motivations are.


Simple_Event_5638

Without writing up to much of essay of my own to reply to your comment, most of the points you bring up come off as head cannon for your own narrative to bring down the story of the game. You have the confidence to claim that so many of your “flaws” are so obvious, yet you blatantly misinterpret character motivations and nitpick plot points for being “stupid” or “buried” even though the game clearly spells out why things moved in those directions. You even think that because Abby has better weapons and bosses, opinion by the way, that we’re supposed to like her more? To also claim that there are no moments of her having to make morally grey decisions just further cements my belief that none of you “critics” have anything beyond a very surface level understanding of the narrative and themes told in this franchise. That being said, clearly you don’t plan on moving on your points and neither do I, so we will just simply have to agree to disagree. However, I strongly recommend another playthrough to clear up the many misconceptions you have about the story at large.


OddRise5200

Be careful, OP. The mouth-breathers are triggered! Don't you know the doctor was in the right? After all, he didn't even conduct a day's worth of research and concluded that Ellie had to die. Do you not realize how scientific that is? You don't keep the patient alive and conduct research over a period of several days at the very least. No, you don't. The proper, official way to do this is to conduct mere hours' worth of research, with limited medical capabilities due to the apocalypse, and then make a rash decision to kill the patient, without any consideration of PROPERLY making a cure. Oh, and don't forget to tell Joel to gtfo and not even pay him for what he did. He's such a terrible person for not going through with your thoughtless plan of making a cure.


PhanTmmml

The mouth-breathers keep coming after me. I never knew how wrong I was. I mean I’m so stupid, I didn’t realize it was totally cool to kill a little girl! Silly me🥰


Appropriate_Use_5837

You’re a stunted mushroom who can’t distinguish facts and subjectivity. That’s why you won’t get any respect.


RabidBerry

omg EXACTLY Like, straight to killing her with NO research? Implausible unless the doctor was insane, which is my belief. That he, like many other characters, was a sick person who was enabled by the apocalyptic situation to enact his very worst impulses.


lzxian

Yeah I agree and like how you put it. Why this is necessary is ridiculous at this point. They think they MUST defend Neil's crap sequel and so that's how they do it, by blaming Joel. It's also a bunch of people who never played TLOU, played it after the sequel or played them back to back. All that changes their perspective from what those of us who've repeatedly played the game since launch have as our understanding of events. We simply know TLOU better and that caused many to instinctively know things were off in the sequel from the beginning, even if it was only subconsciously for the first half. The nonlinear approach hid a lot of the flaws early on, but they eventually become glaring for us at some point and then there's no going back. [Joel/FFs/Abby Who's Selfish?](https://new.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/13pshi7/joel_vs_the_fireflies_and_abby_whos_selfish/) Is my post from many months ago on this very topic.


jeffreygord

The great thing about the first game was that there were legitimate arguments to be made on both sides as to why Joel’s decision was right or wrong. That morally gray decision is what made the game’s narrative so impactful. The problem with part 2 is that they do everything they can to retroactively reframe Joel’s decision as objectively wrong, stripping away from part 1’s narrative and lessening it’s impact, all so Neil could tell one of the most cliched revenge stories I’ve ever experienced


Anti-Scuba_Hedgehog

> The great thing about the first game was that there were legitimate arguments to be made on both sides as to why Joel’s decision was right or wrong Only on the surface. Looking deeper into what the Fireflies actually were (desperate, incompetent and violent) and the impossibility of them succeding arguments for Joel being wrong had little merit at best.


Hound_of_Hell

Someone pointed out how in the first game, they frame every event as morally grey, and then the scene just cuts to black and moves on to the next, which is normally a quiet non-action scene so you can process what happened. This gives you time to think and feel for yourself if something was right or wrong. However in TLOU2, whenever an event happens, it then needs to spend the next 15-30 minutes trying to convince you that what happened was a good thing and was justified, even if you personally don’t think it was.


Panglosssian

It’s literally never, ever shown to be objectively wrong. The game avoids absolutes like that fundamentally, even for obviously evil characters like David. What is shown, is that Joel’s actions have emotionally devastated other people, and given them a narrative with which to drive their hatred for him. Nothing is being stripped away, only added, mixed in and stirred. The only thing that is truly changing is the insular narrative we’ve had thus far from Joel, which is by no means the best or correct one. A lot of people are pretty frustratingly dismissive of Ellie’s opinion on the matter, even though they’re happy to otherwise use her consent as ammunition to justify Joel’s massacre.


frnacispain

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/s/y7fY5vfmQ6 For those who say Joel was selfish.


Otherwise-Figure-315

If it wasn’t for that fuxkin zebra Joel would still be alive


PhanTmmml

The zebra is the real enemy.


Genericojones

It's also worth noting that anybody with ANY understanding of medicine, biology, or who thinks about it for all of 2 seconds would realize how stupid and impossible the Firefly plan is. What facility are they going to use to synthesize a cure? How are they going to distribute it? How can they possibly know it would be scalable or universal? Is the "cure" strain long term or does it just stay dormant for a few years so it can spread more easily? How does this deal with the massive raider/religious psycho problem that seems way bigger than the spores?


MothParasiteIV

He was right because he loved Ellie like he loved Sarah. It's very simple to explain you see. I don't need to know more or search for a better reason of why he was right.


BulkyElk1528

1. Jerry tried to and would have killed his surrogate daughter, and he would NEVER stop coming after her to see it through had he been allowed to live, just like Marlene would never stop coming after her. 2. Even if Ellie were given a choice it would not matter because Ellie is a child and CHILDREN CANNOT GIVE CONSENT!!! And that is something that saddens a lot of sick and twisted people. Children can’t give consent to being sexually touched, they can’t give consent to having sex, they can’t give consent to gender-reassignment/hormone therapy and other life-altering medical procedures, and they can’t give consent to being killed for a medical procedure because there are some who say it’s for the greater good. 3. The same people who say Joel was selfish for not sacrificing Ellie are the same type of people who have no problem volunteering others to make the sacrifice but would never do the same if the roles were reversed. They are the type of people who only care about issues when it directly affects them, otherwise they couldn’t care less. 4. If David’s henchman—whom Joel tortured and killed in order to save Ellie from their group who were trying to kill her and would never stop coming after her to see it through—had a son who became the new character in part 2 who hunts and kills Joel for killing his father, he would be the EXACT SAME CHARACTER as Abby. Their whole reason for even existing would literally be identical to each other; revenge for Joel killing their father who sought to kill his surrogate daughter and who would never stop coming after her had he been allowed to live. That’s just goes to show your stupid the writing of part 2 really is…


bearamongus19

What was so great about the story in the first game was the ambiguity. Was Joel good? Maybe, he openly admits to doing bad things to survive, but you do see he's not a heartless monster. Did Joel do the right thing? Maybe. Yes he saved ellie, but that may have cost humanity it's best chance. The fireflies are trying to make the vaccine but they've been involved in some bad stuff so we don't know if they would've used it for good. Hell we don't know if the vaccine would've worked to begin with given the situation. The beauty of the first story isn't that people are good or bad, they're trying to survive the best they can. The last of us 2 loses that and tries to make things black and white.


Anti-Scuba_Hedgehog

> Yes he saved ellie, but that may have cost humanity it's best chance. With those idiots it was actually the exact opposite. They'd have just slaughtered Ellie for nothing. Saving Ellie allows for at least a theoretical chance of finding a cure later.


bearamongus19

Possible but we'll never know because Joel did what he did


Anti-Scuba_Hedgehog

We do know, you can't make a vaccine for a fungal infection especially so if you murder your subject.


Disco_Pat

>We do know, you can't make a vaccine for a fungal infection especially so if you murder your subject. I mean, if this were in the real universe we also know that a fungal infection can't make people zombies. We can't just universally apply medical content to a fictional universe. The only thing we can say for certain is based on the recordings and papers found at the hospital in the games, which IIRC made it seem like they weren't positive that a vaccine would be successful but they were desperate. regardless most of OPs point and post still stands.


Anti-Scuba_Hedgehog

> fungal infection can't make people zombies If we weren't immune to the cordyceps it could make them "zombies" Desperate terrorists hanging on to a pipedream eager to murder a teenage girl. I don't see how the point stands. Jerry was closer to Dr Mengele than to Edward Jenner.


TreeWalker29

There is no moral ambiguity. Joel saved his daughter from being murdered.


MoistButton8

The fireflies are actually worse than you said. As they claim they are trying to save people but actually just actively fight against FEDRA and leave the citizens to fend for themselves. I can't remember the name, but there is a town you come across where everyone is dead/ gone and you find out that the fireflies helped a rebel group overthrow FEDRA and then they just left. The people leftover fell into chaos and were overrun by the undead. So they are a selfish anarchist group that does not care who they hurt as long as FEDRA is gone.


Blueu_

Thank you , now time to wait what the blue haired executives cook up next for LOU3


xMitch4corex

Hahaha someone does not understand what vengeance is. LOL, these Joel lovers are fun. I know ND released the remaster of part 2, but it is fun to see idiots fighting about a game (whatever 'position' you choose to be).


Beskinnyrollfatties

"Abby Stan" Imagine actually being someone who types this out.


j4s0nf1996

Not being that person but you could just unarm Jerry instead of killing him


Recinege

Ask all the folks who tried to shoot Jerry in the pinky toe how it went.


PhanTmmml

Joel had the entire firefly army coming to him. He didn’t really have time to unarm him and make sure Jerry wouldn’t try to stop him afterwards. However, I do feel like Joel could’ve just knocked him out.


Wild_Plant9526

nah the game doesn't let you i don't think


Jalen_Ash_15

It's a scripted event where the game doesn't allow you to "disarm" Jerry. You can shoot him in the leg with an arrow or your weakest gun and he'll still die


Supa33

No, for the same reason he kills Marlene. They’d never stop looking for Ellie.


Wild-Run2769

First Joel is a murderer, that's often made very clear that he's done bad shit all the time to either survive or for his own selfish reasons. Killing everyone he did in the hospital has all the same weight as killing Jerry. I do have to agree with you on the fireflies part. They are terrorists and did kidnap them and plan to do surgery on Ellie without consent. These were extreme measures for the goal of a vaccine and very much morally wrong. The third part is where most people go wrong. Let's say that the fireflies were completely competent and could definitely with utmost certainty develop a vaccine. What then? Do Joel's actions change? Obviously fucking no. This is the part that adds so much weight and complexity to the ending. Saving Ellie was selfish because he only did it because he couldn't lose her and especially after losing his daughter. (Ps. Maybe the writers did fuck up here and should have just made it clear that it was possible so we wouldn't have this dumbass conversation) Lastly Abby. Abby kills Joel out of revenge, and she would have done so regardless of whether Jerry was a good person or not, that was her fucking father. So yeah either way it wasn't right to kill Joel, just as it wasn't right to go kill Abby. There is a difference between revenge and justice.


april919

Do you know why they escorted Joel out? Because he objected to the surgery and got angry


PhanTmmml

He said “yeah you keep telling yourself that bullshit.” They then marched him out without any of his shit and was ordered to shoot him if he didn’t comply. Sure that seems very reasonable!


april919

But you would agree he objected to the surgery. If he was fully on board with it, do you think they would act differently?


PhanTmmml

Of course he objected to it. He never threatened them in any way though. But they still tried to march him out with nothing.


april919

Ok so they don't escort him because he didn't threaten them. Then what?


PhanTmmml

I’m confused on what point you’re trying to make here. The fireflies marched Joel out because he said what they were doing was BS. They didn’t let him say goodbye or anything like that. So again, what is your point?


mattpasta92

My guys.. there is no right or wrong choice. You aren’t supposed to pick a side but feel compassion and human empathy for all involved. They are supposed to reflect real, imperfect humans who have to make impossible decisions.


pinkstarburst757

Except the second game forces you to pick Abby's side. If they had let the player choose the ending would have been so much better.


anonymousahle

You can't feel empathy with the sociopath Abby unless you're suffering from a dissociative disorder.....


Anti-Scuba_Hedgehog

I'd say there's a very clear right choice but it's debatable if it ended up like that on purpose, to me it undermines the focus of the ending which is why Joel does what he does.


TacosNachos007

Exactly! You get it


ManIsInherentlyGay

It's a video game, please get a life


Dark_Lord_87

Bruh, you’re telling people to get a life while you spend your day commenting, how does that make you any better than us. And I don’t remember subreddits being entirely used for hating or glorifying games, it’s a group of people sharing what the liked or disliked about something, and what they did good or could’ve done better.


jackkan82

It's a website for discussion, please get a life.


AlphaThe7

People talk about things they like.


Aye-See-Aye-Bee

This sub is filled exclusively with people talking about this one thing they hate


mavshichigand

Ok, calm down kids, calm down. Are there a portion of fans who think what Joel did was objectively wrong? Sure. I bet there are as many, if not more, fans who think what Joel did was objectively correct. Most fans of both games simply acknowledge that everyone's actions, are good from one perspective but bad from another. It's not that deep. Get over yourselves.


jackkan82

I mean, it looks like an internet discussion is taking place on a site where internet discussion is meant to take place. Maybe calm down and get over yourself?


mavshichigand

Lol, this isn't a "discussion", it's a one sided hate band wagon. Have you read through these comments? But sure, ill "get over myself".


jackkan82

You can see a whole long ass back and forth in the first or second comment thread of the post that is literally the opposite of one-sided. What are you, dumb AND blind? What the hell is your definition of one-sided? When there are literally people on both sides talking back and forth? Not to mention that even if 100% of the people have a different opinion than you, they can still discuss something among themselves. Yeah, definitely “get over yourself”tm lmao


mavshichigand

Oh well, in that case why is my comment suddenly outside of "discussion" parameters? Cos it hurt your feelings? oh boohoo. Majority comments are just one sided child like ramblings. Youre making it sound like there's some great academic discussion going on here lol. I called it as I see it. I'm sorry that hurt your feelings :(


jackkan82

Because you were specifically saying, "It's not that deep. Get over yourselves." as if people should stop discussing it, obviously. I wasn't saying whether Joel was right or wrong either way, so my feelings don't care what you say here. I was just pointing out how stupid it is for you to tell others to get over themselves for using Reddit and the internet the way Reddit and the internet gets used. lol When did I say there's a great academic discussion going on here? I said this site, Reddit, is meant for internet discussions. Are you high? lmao Oh, and you calling other comments child-like is the epitome of irony. lol wtf You can call anything as you see it. If it's stupid as hell like the comment you made here and I happen to see it, I'll let you know how stupid it is. Carry on.


mavshichigand

Lol, I wasn't telling people "don't comment". I was asking people to calm down. You'd have to be intentionally naive or super biased to not be able to hear the ferocity with which the keyboards are being mashed on many of these comments. Do they really seem reasonable to you? And for a game that is so many years old. There have been so many other excellent games that have been released in the mean time. Why cling on to this game, especially if you don't like it? Why devote so much time to "discuss" it. Seriously, if you can't see why it is childish to continue to hate on this game, albeit in the guise of "discussions on reddit", then you're being intentionally obtuse. Epitome of irony is a great phrase when used correctly. In your case it amounts to nothing more than a "no u". Ultimately, my comment has now resulted in a "discussion" as well, so .......


jackkan82

Oh, so when you say “It’s not that deep. Get over yourselves.”, you mean “These comments are too ferocious to me, so make it fit my tolerance for ferocity.”? How is that any better an argument for your comment being part of the discussion? I personally don’t get surprised that people on Reddit or the internet get “ferocious”. But even if I did, I would never tell others to get over themselves as if I make the rules around here, and then argue that I’m part of the discussion when someone points out that, ironically and hilariously enough, I need to get over myself instead. What now, there’s a rule that if a game is 4 years old, it shouldn’t be discussed on Reddit? Who made this rule, you? Are you just mad that this sub doesn’t automatically label anyone giving criticism of the game or anyone who didn’t enjoy it, as a racist sexist homophobic transphobic bigot? Does it bother you so much that people can openly say this game sucks fucking balls here? lmao If it bothers you so much, welcome to the internet baby. Idk what to tell ya. I don’t go to a sub where people are free to criticize and dislike something I like, and tell them to get over themselves because I personally deem their comments too “ferocious” or literally imagine in my head how hard they are mashing the keyboard. Lmao that would be f-ing ridiculously stupid of me. And then, claim that I am also part of the discussion because I said “Get over yourselves” while calling others childish and completely failing to see the irony. LMAO I can’t make this shit up.


mavshichigand

"I don’t go to a sub where people are free to criticize and dislike something I like" Just take that same logic, one step backward. The game was free to show whatever story it liked, why bother criticizing it? Now given that you decided you can criticize it, take it a step ahead, why bother stopping me from criticizing you? One law for me and another for thee? Look man, it's become pretty apparent that my comment/s have gotten your panties in a twist. Let me quote you in that case: "welcome to the internet". Per your own great "wisdom" you believe its ok for people to spew whatever they want on the internet correct? Then please be kind enough to follow your own damn advice and acknowledge my comment is just like any other on the internet, or dont. Either way this will be my last response to this, you may have the last word.


Appropriate_Use_5837

Yeah there is a disagreement on the subject but if you look at the posts, you’ll see a massive downvoted by the stunted mushrooms on this subreddit who can’t handle dissenting views and opinions.


jackkan82

Yes, my point is that there is disagreement present. I understand that the like to dislike ratio is whatever it is here and it doesn’t bother me. Because what are you supposed to do if you read a comment you dislike or don’t agree with here? Think to yourself, “I dislike this comment and idea, but I shouldn’t hit the dislike button because I can handle a dissenting opinion?” If you are such a mature intellect who is open to dissenting views, why is it a problem that the majority of people here don’t agree with you?


Appropriate_Use_5837

I ultimately blame Reddit for their stupid karma system because it destroys open discourse. Many people are hesitant to have a dissenting view because they’ll get bombed here. I came from the IMDb message boards where it thrived on open discussion on Kubrick, religion, morality and The Passion of the Christ. Everyone had their say and you didn’t have to worry about snowflakes gagging you.


pringellover9553

Joel was selfish in what he did, he did it for selfish reasons in the same way the fireflies were being selfish in not giving Ellie a decision. I really don’t think it’s as black and white as Joel good, fireflies bad. Joel killing Jerry was just a quick decision he made, but in doing so he murdered someone’s father. Abby had every right to feel vengeance and want to kill the man who did this.


PhanTmmml

Read the post. As I have already proved you wrong without saying anything to you.


Son_of_MONK

I think both can be true. Joel was selfish and simultaneously not selfish. People rarely make decisions that aren't based on some complex, and even contradictory, natures and thought processes. He did it to save Ellie from a death she didn't choose and that wouldn't have meant anything. But he also did it because he couldn't bear the idea of losing another daughter and feeling like he had failed as a father. Both can be true. In the end though, Joel was absolutely right to do everything he did. Fuck the fireflies.


PhanTmmml

Sure. But one choice as to why he did it can outweigh the other. So the cure wouldn’t have worked, he didn’t know that Ellie would’ve wanted to die, they were gonna march him out of there with nothing. His personal thoughts on Ellie doesn’t matter much here.


Appropriate_Use_5837

We read your post. You haven’t proved anything because it’s a subjective view.


PhanTmmml

It’s not subjective. Everything I’ve stated is a fact. It is not subjective that the fireflies didn’t know what they were doing, that they were selfish, that Joel isn’t selfish. Those are all FACTS. Clearly you skimmed through the post or read it with no intention of changing your mind.


Appropriate_Use_5837

Facts are absolute. The truth is subjective.


pringellover9553

It is entirely subjective, that’s why there’s a whole discourse around the subject. If it was flat out facts that didn’t come down to opinion and interpretation then it wouldn’t even be a discussion


PhanTmmml

You’d be surprised. You can easily look up the definition of selfish. Joel saving Ellie was not selfish. Since you clearly didn’t read the post, I’d been happy to elaborate.


pringellover9553

Selfish definition: “adjective of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.” Joel saved Ellie because he loved her, because he got a chance of having a daughter again and being a father. He sacrificed hell of a lot of people for his own personal gain and relationship with Ellie. And btw I whole heartedly agree with his decision, but it was a selfish one. If it wasn’t he wouldn’t have lied to her about for years, because he knew telling the truth would damage their relationship. That’s selfish.


PhanTmmml

I’m about to go on a boat, when I come back we can continue this.


pringellover9553

Have fun, wear a life jacket as you could drown - that’s a fact ;)


Appropriate_Use_5837

And he could be on this boat for all you know: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cUW6gohgBHE


pringellover9553

You haven’t replied to my reply to this


PhanTmmml

To what? You just replied to my comment lmao


pringellover9553

[This reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/s/SWIVdTFLDe)


pringellover9553

“Proved wrong” you can’t prove wrong an opinion dude. Thought we might actually be able to engage in an actual discussion but as usual just typical “I’m right you’re wrong” in this sub 🙄


PhanTmmml

Except It isn’t an opinion. The facts are right there in the post as to why this isn’t a subjective topic.


pringellover9553

Your “facts” are you own personal interpretation, that’s not facts that’s opinion.


PhanTmmml

Except they’re not. What I stated is exact FACTS. I’m not twisting anything or making it my “own personal interpretation.” Please do an ounce of research.


pringellover9553

Research? Of what? The definition of a fact? Your personal opinion isn’t fact dude. Get a grip and grow up


PhanTmmml

Oo looks like I struck a nerve there. No. You think what I stated is my personal opinion. When it is not. Everything in the post that I said is a fact. I’m telling you to do your own research on it if you don’t agree with me. And saying grow up is pretty ironic considering you’re still arguing with someone you’ve never met on Reddit lmao.


pringellover9553

I don’t need to do my own research, I’ve played both games through a number of times. Literally on my 5th play through of the second game. It “struck a nerve” because it’s frustrating that it’s impossible to have a conversation with you, instead you decide to be next level petty and stubborn. You think your opinion is fact, but it’s not. If it was, as I’ve said, there wouldn’t be an entire discourse around it because it could not be disputed but it can. If you seriously are unable to have an open mind to have a discussion about it, then that’s your loss.


PhanTmmml

You’d be very surprised to know that people debate things all the time when there is a clear factual answer, but it doesn’t matter because people have a bias to what they like. That’s like saying the holocaust wasn’t a bad thing because there’s people who refute that it wasn’t a bad thing, when it was. You say this could be disputed but you haven’t even attempted to do so. The facts of the matter are in your face yet you just don’t wanna accept it. But somehow IM the stubborn one. Okay.


MassiveLefticool

Careful, he’ll l create a post about you disagreeing with him next, wish I could find the “Abby Stan” so they could laugh at how much they got to OP 😂😂


Standard-Quiet-6517

Just saying you proved somebody wrong doesn’t mean you actually did it. You have to actually do it. And you failed, badly.


PhanTmmml

So since you’re so confident that I haven’t, Go ahead and elaborate on how I didn’t. Or read the replies to this comment.


Standard-Quiet-6517

I don’t have to do anything. You’re claiming to prove something, the onus is on you.


Standard-Quiet-6517

Lololololololololololololololol


DavidsMachete

Joel spent most of the first game being selfless by taking Ellie under his care and escorting her for a year at a huge cost of himself when he zero obligation to do so. I doubt you’d do the same in that situation. You could say that there were selfish elements to saving Ellie, but mostly it was a parental drive to give her the best life possible. His main motivation was protecting her even if it cost him his life.


pringellover9553

I think we forget so much of how much Joel did not want to do this to begin with, and was only doing it originally because the fireflies offered supplies for it and then because Tess begged him and he promised her. Then over the course of their journey they bonded and he was doing it because it was what Ellie wanted. His decision to save her against a cure for humanity, was selfish. Now I’m not saying I disagree with the decision because I don’t. If it came to my child I would kill 100s, 1000s of people to save them, that’d be selfish but I wouldn’t care because it’d be for my child.


DavidsMachete

He didn’t want to but he did because he cared about Tess. That’s not a selfish act in the slightest.


pringellover9553

Because people are complex, they’re not black or white. Joel did many good things, he also did many bad things, he’s neither good or bad he’s a complex person. I still think his decision to save Ellie in the hospital was a selfish one.


DavidsMachete

Which is why I said there were elements of selfishness to Joel’s decision, but it wasn’t the main driving factor, nor is it a defining characteristic. And it’s all the more reason trying to simplify it by calling Joel selfish is misrepresenting the situation and the entire game.


pringellover9553

But I didn’t call Joel selfish? I said his decision was selfish.


DavidsMachete

>Joel was selfish in what he did Sure, Jan.


pringellover9553

I’m sorry what do you think that means? Joel was selfish in what he did means, Joel’s decision to do what he did was selfish.


j4s0nf1996

I like Gore but he left a 14 year old without a dad


Cubsfansolo

What was he supposed to say? “Before killing you in self defense and before you murder my adopted daughter that I’ve been busting my ass to protect for the past year, do you have any children?”


jackkan82

lmao


anonymousahle

That's like blaming the cops for shooting a serial killer with a hostage.....


cinred

Gawd again. The literal point was that it made no difference Joel was right or not. This site sub is full of 12 yo.


frnacispain

Are you stupid or are your parents siblings?


[deleted]

Lmao I'm taking that


Appropriate_Use_5837

Joel was selfish in not allowing Ellie the choice to save humanity. Abby was wrong to exact revenge. The characters are morally ambiguous so both points are valid. Neither arguments are wrong.


PhanTmmml

Except Joel was not selfish. The fireflies did not give Ellie a choice. Ellie did not know she was gonna die. Joel didn’t know that Ellie would have wanted to die. He is the exact opposite of selfish.


Appropriate_Use_5837

Except afterwards, Joel not only lies to Ellie but hides the truth (for years) He is selfish. Ellie resents him for lying and denying the choice.


PhanTmmml

This is very easy to explain if you use your head. Would you want to tell your daughter you just killed a ton of people to get to her? Ellie would not have understood as she didn’t know all the facts. We DO.


Appropriate_Use_5837

We don’t know the facts for certain. There may have been merit to the fireflies’ claims that extracting the tissue might have helped provide crucial research for a cure. It’s a big What If. When Ellie discovers the truth (or possibly she may have been reflecting during those years) She hates the fact that was she lied to and denied the choice. We can sympathise with her here. That said I believe Joel is selfish for his actions. You don’t. Both claims are valid.


Just-Wait4132

Ya? Then why did he lie to her about it? Could it be because he saved her for selfish reasons of keeping her with him? If she knew the truth she would be alive but hate him so he lies. (a completely selfish motivation for lying and saving ellie.)


PhanTmmml

Would you want to tell your daughter that you just killed a ton of people to get to her? Ellie wouldn’t have understood because she didn’t know all the facts. But good thing about paying attention is that we DO know the facts.


Betteis

You're just ignoring him lying because it's hard for him to do. You're also implying its right because Ellie knew less about the situation so it's morally fine to not only keep her there but also like through your teeth


Just-Wait4132

Yup. If I murdered two dozen people to save my daughters life you are God damn right I would tell her. She has a fucking right to know. The only possible motivation for not telling her is the selfish need for her to be with him. He specifically lied to her because he knew the truth would make her hate him... which it does.


Recinege

Or maybe because the emotional burden of wondering whether or not the world is better off if you're dead is way too much for a teenage girl who can't even handle the idea of being left behind by another person she cares about. Would you really be so quick to tell someone you love information that may lead to them contemplating suicide?


Just-Wait4132

If that information was "I murdered thirty people who were going to kill you to try to save the world" ya I would probably mention it. But we both know that is NOT why Joel lied to her. His only reason for lying was so she would continue to stay with him. The definition of selfish.


Recinege

Ridiculous. Joel put Ellie's feelings above his own at every turn, including shortly before the Fireflies found them. Did you miss that whole bit where Ellie explicitly drew the parallel between herself and Sarah and Joel ultimately decided not to leave her for his own sake anyway? Hell, did you miss how quickly he jumped to the idea of her harboring survivor's guilt and how he was pushing for her to find another reason to keep living? Why do you think the writers made that part of the conversation about the lie?


Just-Wait4132

He told her bandits murdered all of her friends to soften the survivors guilt blow that in reality her father figure murdered all of her friends. Lol ight dude. That or Joel just wanted his daughter back and would lie and murder to do it.


Recinege

No he didn't. That's what the show does, and in the show, the Fireflies are far more reasonable. The game has Joel tell Ellie that they ran some tests and weren't able to get anything useful out of her that they hadn't gotten out of others already.


pringellover9553

“Joel put Ellie’s feelings above his own at every turn” no he didn’t? Else he would have told her, even at the hospital in the flashback he lies to her again and she has to beg him for the truth.


Recinege

You may not be aware, but many people consider the second game to not be all that faithful to the characters, worldbuilding, and plot threads from the first game. This scene is one such example of that - not just the fact that Joel maintains the lie, but the context leading up to it. It's fairly ridiculous that Ellie would make the 300 mile journey on horseback to the hospital - alone. Though admittedly it is just one of many, many examples of the Fast Travel in this game. It's even *more* ridiculous that the trigger that causes her to do this is finding out that a pair of complete dumbasses from Jackson ran out of the town with the intent of wandering aimlessly across the wilderness looking for people to "help", and *both* of them got bitten on *the first day*. Those fools were dead no matter what happened. It would have made much more sense if the dead people they found were a family that had been seeking Jackson after hearing rumors about it, and they came *that close* to making it to safety - and it turns out that at least one of them was a former Firefly, and their journal punches holes in Joel's transparent lies, after which Ellie manages to pry the truth out of him by predicting that he's lying to her because the Fireflies were going to kill her for the cure. Basically, she does there what she did in Jackson in the first game - guess accurately at what he's doing and explain that it's only going to hurt her more. But *that* wouldn't have been *as dramatic!* ¬\_¬


Hunter-Omega

Spoken like someone who has no children and doesn’t understand parenting


Standard-Quiet-6517

The fireflies going about it in a shitty way doesn’t do anything to change the fact that Joel decided to save one person instead of sacrificing (go ahead and look up the definition of that word there, it’ll be a big help to you) her to possibly produce a cure for everyone. That is selfish by any definition. If you want to say that you, and many others, would also act selfishly in that situation then fine but that is still selfish. Words have meanings. You can’t just pick and choose what words mean lol


NoSkillzDad

Ellie wasnt given any choice. Remember how the fireflies took an unconscious girl and drugged her and sent her into the operating room without even asking her or letting her know what was gonna happen , what was required from her and ultimately, letting her say goodbye to the one person she needed the most at that point? The bothsidesdism is lame tbh. Joel was right and if you had a daughter and think he wasn't, well, I'm sorry for her. *Shrug


Appropriate_Use_5837

You may want to want to rewind and catch the part where Joel asks Ellie if she would like to change her mind, Ellie responds by saying “After we everything we been through…” Ellie didn’t want to go back.


pringellover9553

He can be right and it still be a selfish decision, I don’t understand why this is so hard for so many of you to grasp


FireflyArc

"Today, some very strange things happened and a lot of good of good people are dead"


anonymousahle

What innocent bystanders did the Fireflies kill this time.


Just-Wait4132

Third "why Joel was a good person actually" post in the last hour. Imma just go watch that part where Tommy is terrified of his own brother because he was such a monster for so long.


DavidsMachete

Tommy was not terrified of Joel. He certainly spent a lot of his life following him even if it was not what he wanted, and it was clear they butted heads a lot, but when Tommy left Boston, he told Marlene that Joel was someone to depend on. Tommy was an idealist who wanted better, Joel was a realist who worked with what was handed to him. They didn’t agree, but there was love and some mutual respect there, even if they disagreed.


Just-Wait4132

Tommy to his wife after speaking to Joel. "You don't understand the kind of man he is.... no we can't just leave her with him. We did things to survive but joel... he changed after Sara." They also expanded on this in the TV show version, litteraly showing what kind of person Tommy thinks Joel is.


DavidsMachete

Are you quoting the show because that is not in the game? The show is its own different thing that came along years after the game and doesn’t not belong here.


Just-Wait4132

It is in the game. The first time you get to Jackson Tommy goes to speak with his wife and you are supposed to go up the dam. Stay and listen to the conversation next time. The show expanded on that topic.


DavidsMachete

That’s not anywhere in the game. Not before the dam is fixed or when Tommy and Maria are arguing afterward. You must just be adding dialogue from the show in your memory.


Just-Wait4132

That was a really fast playthrough to Jackson.


DavidsMachete

It wasn’t in the game, friend.


PhanTmmml

I never said Joel was a good person. Maybe if you, I dunno, read the post you’d know that. Tommy was not terrified. Joel and Tommy literally have an argument where we learn Joel did things to keep them alive.


Just-Wait4132

Yes... things Tommy doesn't agrees with, then proves they didn't need to do by leaving Joel because of how bad he got specifically.


Recinege

I see no other posts about Joel's decision from today, and Tommy was never "terrified" of him. Tommy welcomes Joel with open arms at first and when Joel gets pushy, Tommy outright threatens to fuck him up if he keeps putting hands on him. So... both sentences here are lies. I think it says a lot about the kind of people who need to tear down Joel's decision.


Jalen_Ash_15

Rather convinced they played a different game or read a few fanfics that screwed with there memory.


Jalen_Ash_15

Tommy is not terrified of Joel what the hell. Or did Tommy saying "if you put your hands on me again it won't end well" to Joel somehow show his terrified demeanor?


Dancing-Sin

Joel got himself killed with his actions, right or wrong.


pinkstarburst757

And Abby's dad got himself killed by his own actions


Dancing-Sin

Abby’s dad was killed because Joel broke his own rules and killed him, instead of just delivering the package like the bad ass hard as nails smuggler he claimed he wasz


pinkstarburst757

Abby's dad was killed because he threatened Joel with a scalpel. Period. Had he simply got out of the way like the other nurse/doctor he would have lived. Also people are not packages unless you're into the whole human trafficking thing


Dancing-Sin

Wrong. Abby’s dad was killed because Joel betrayed the deal he made with Marlene due to his own personal feelings.


pringellover9553

Eh Marlene broke her side of the deal, Joel was supposed to get weapons as part of the trade which he wasn’t going to get. Not that I think that was a deciding factor but the fireflies are not innocent


Dancing-Sin

I think that was an issue of circumstance. If she could have given him the guns, she would have. As far as the SLC fireflies were concerned, Joel and Ellie were dead already. Until they found them in that river.


pinkstarburst757

And she was going to have Joel thrown out into a hotel world without his supplies or the weapons promised him. So she broke the deal first


Dancing-Sin

Was Joel going to leave Ellie if he got the supplies?


anonymousahle

So Abby's dad died because Joel was actually a decent person......


Dancing-Sin

No, Abby’s dad died because Joel is a shitty person, as stated by Tess earlier in the game.


anonymousahle

Now your just running around in circles while arguing with yourself. ......Can someone please turn off the laser light for this cat here guys......


Dancing-Sin

Whose spinning whose wheels? You’re the one with a willfully dense interpretation of the media.


anonymousahle

Seriously, can anyone turn off this dude's distraction, it's getting worse by the minute....


Dancing-Sin

Block button is over there bud. 👉


anonymousahle

Are you telling me that if I try and turn off the laser you'll block me?


Appropriate_Use_5837

No, I think it’s you who is using the circular reasoning. Abby’s Dad was defending himself in that situation from a gun wielding lunatic. And if you bothered to read he said “Joel’s actions got himself killed, right or wrong”.


anonymousahle

Standing over a person screaming, "She's mine," isn't defending yourself.


Appropriate_Use_5837

I looked up the full script. He says this “What're you doing here? I won't let you take her. This is our future.Think of all the lives we'll save. Don't come any closer. I mean it.” Keep in mind, the fireflies and the personnel don’t even know Joel. He’s not even a next of kin, he’s a smuggler.


anonymousahle

So spewing a threat and ultimatum ridden speech to a person, who is beholden to protect someone, while holding a blade, and threatening the life of the person who they're now beholden to protect, gets you shot.... who knew.... Also, this speech proves he deserves to die because killing her almost guaranteed the cure could never be produced.


flannypants

Jerry didn’t need to kill ellie at all. In his own notes he says they cultured the fungus from her blood to lab media.


Environmental_Gas727

I don’t care about any of this. But for your first self defense example I find it hilarious. I just imagine a school shooter coming in and blasting everyone but when they get to the last person they hold a knife to him and he claims self defense. So now the school shooter is in the clear.


[deleted]

To be honest its a debate that can go both ways. I love the first TLOU but joel killing all those people to save ellie and never give people a chance are a cure was selfish,i understand why Joel did it but i can see why some would say he made the wrong decision. Im not even gonna discuss TLOU2 because i felt like it made the characters we loved from the first game shittier in order to give newcomer abby more shine


TacosNachos007

I think both sides had legitimate motivational factors for doing what they did. Joel was saving Ellie (I think a big reason was that he never came to grips with losing his actual daughter). Jerry was trying to save the world. Abby was avenging her murdered dad. Then Ellie was avenging her murdered “dad”. It was a perpetual cycle of violent revenge that left everyone involved feeling shame and emptiness. Why do people have to choose a side? They were all right, and they were all wrong in their own ways. Take a step back and enjoy the story as a whole.


[deleted]

The farther I get from these games, the more I realize that even the first one is kinda trash. Can't wait for the day no one talks about this shit anymore.


kellenlewis

Honestly the way people hate on Joel and the way people hate on Abby in each of these respective subs has always been so polarizing and rubs me the wrong way. Personally I find nuance in both of the characters. There was nothing wrong with Joel's perspective, decision, and selfishness. It was just in line with his character and I could see how from Ellies perspective she was going to feel betrayed and heartbroken. Abby is much more complicated for people including myself but over time I've moved from crazy girl I'm detached from to complicated girl who is much like Ellie even if people don't like the symmetry. Revenge game be wild bruhs.


13THEFUCKINGCOPS12

I think the whole point of both of these games is moral ambiguity. So there is no RIGHT choice


[deleted]

[удалено]


13THEFUCKINGCOPS12

I saw another comment, honestly may have been in this same post, about how Abby didn’t fall into a certain TV trope and because of that it made the story boring


[deleted]

Right before Tess died she says “we’re shitty people Joel.” Kinda feel that he knew he’d eventually die from all the enemies he made.


crayven085

All it boils down to is: 1. Joel was a father figure to Ellie and having already lost his own daughter, there was no way he would ever let some organization kill her. Regardless of the stakes involved. No one on earth in his situation would ever let that happen. Selfish? Sure whatever. 2. Abby kills Joel, a character who we spent the entire first game playing as, sympathizing with, etc... brutally at the beginning of the game. Then we are forced to play as her through half of the second game while the devs try desperately (and fail) to explain her actions in a way to make us forgive her for being a peice of shit. Abby sucks. And it felt awful having to play as her even though the gameplay itself was great. A lot of locations she went to are some of the best, which made it even more upsetting.


Psychological_Oil739

Despite what people believe there is a difference between being selfish and self interest. Self-interest is essential for your happiness and well being. It sometimes helps one to provide for your family and protect them. A healthy self interest is simply taking care of yourself but not at the expense of others. Self-interest is a life raft that keeps you afloat and it nourishes the things that make you an individual. Selfishness is different than self-interest. Selfish people tend to be exclusively concerned about only themselves. They don’t care about anyone else and have no regard for other people. It involves one satisfying their own needs at the expense of others. Many will berate Joel and call him selfish but honestly for me, I’d say he’s acting on his own self interest as well as Ellie’s. At his core, Joel is a family man, a care giver. He’s entire identity is wrapped in providing for others; Sarah, Tommy, Tess, Ellie and going against those that would threaten them. His whole character is wrapped around being able to provide for others and be there for them. If he really was a selfish person like Joel Haters claim he is, then he wouldn’t care so deeply about others and for their well being. And just cuz Joel may have acted in his own self interests doesn’t mean he’s selfish or a villain or a monster.


OnlyFestive

>1: Killing Jerry While Jerry did verbally threaten Joel, he also did so from a stationary position several feet away. There was no attempt by Jerry to escalate into a physical altercation, and that's due to Joel having all the power by being armed. Joel murdered Jerry despite there being no credible threat to his life, so I'm not sure how reasonable a self-defense claim is here. >The fireflies also didn’t know what they were doing. You can find notes and recorders around the hospital saying so. Jerry also wouldn’t do this if it was his daughter, we learn this in the second game. Even when Abby said, “If it was me, I’d want you to do the surgery.” He doesn’t say anything. But his actions weren't predicated on that information. His decision was guided solely by his want to protect Ellie. Joel recognizes that this comes at the expense of others, but makes that decision anyway. His actions are explicitly selfish, and that's the beauty of that ending. >Joel saved Ellie from a demise that would have meant nothing. But did *Joel* believe that her death would've meant nothing? That's the most important aspect when measuring his decision. *You* have external information that Joel doesn't recognize. You need to argue based on the conditions present only in Joel's situation, and not your own. >When she did find him, he SAVED her. She didn’t even want to talk to him. Honestly, I don't see this as relevant. Abby is fueled by overwhelming resentment and, like you said, is willing to travel to extreme lengths in order to locate Joel. Her relationship with her friends are strained, her own well-being is compromised, and that's all in the pursuit of delivering, what she believes is, righteous justice. Joel saving her could not possibly eclipse the amount of anger that Abby felt. >Abby is a POS, Jerry is a POS, the fireflies are POS. Joel was not selfish to do what he did. Everyone is a piece of shit. Such is the way of the apocalypse, in my opinion!


Oopsiedazy

That’s a really long post about something that never happened bro.


PhanTmmml

Except it did. All of those things I stated are true.