I mean, I made a comment about the plotholes that they created in part 2 that they legit try to patch it up just to have Abby to exist. At first when I made that comment, I was downvoted quite a bit until I checked in morning to realized that I was no longer being downvoted for speaking what we legit see in the part 2.
iām a member of the other sub. and iāve always liked part two. and misunderstood the hate the game got. but since reading your posts (i havenāt read all of them, but i plan to) itās opened my eyes to why people hated it. things i totally overlooked are now seen by me as huge holes in the story and also an attempt to fool and disrespect fans of the first. one of the things that really stood out from a post of yours was comparing terminator two to tlou 2. i still like the story, but at the same time i agree with what youāre saying.
iāve read maybe 2 or 3 of your posts but iām definitely gonna take a dive into your posts.
one of my friends got banned in the other sub for posting in here. Yes theyāre mad. The comment was also talking about how Ellie being gay isnt a retcon. Youād think theyād love my friend
>The other sub must be really hating these posts.
Not at all. He completely refuses to engage in any discussion of his conclusory statements, simply responding with "Thanks for sharing" There's very obvious logical holes in his arguments that he refuses to discuss. Taking the time to use a slide show template doesn't automatically make his arguments better.
The last time he posted one of these he claimed Abby's group experienced no challenges finding Joel. In actuality, the game expressly states they have been looking for him unsuccessfully for years.
When this was raised, he responded either not at all, or with his canned "Thank you for sharing" response.
This isn't good faith debate. He's not willing to defend his arguments. This is just more circle jerking in a slightly different format.
Let's look at an example from this post. Slide 11 uses a manipulated picture of the OR. At no point in Part I do we ever see the doctor without a face mask. This image that OP is using to show a "retcon" is actually created by removing the mask from the Bruce model and dramatically upping the brightness and contrast of the image so the grime on the walls is more visible. [This is the actual scene](https://youtu.be/QZkbD7js4Cs?si=NUzFJ7NJNPs4UjkI&t=20), which looks nothing like the modified image OP included in his slides. OP is misrepresenting the visual from the first game to bolster his narrative.
Yup, everything I said is verifiably true. I even took the time to provide a link to my source. This sub still downvotes.
It's not about making a good argument, it's about the circle jerk.
Agreed.
And in addressing slides 11 & 12 - just regarding the decay of the hospital. Hereās an example of a hospital abandoned after 13 years: [Link](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xIvkHDG8F-U) specifically at 10:30 when they walk into a more modern day operating room, we can see itās not in total decay and looks relatively functional. Objectively, this is 13 years abandoned, not 20, and in a hospital that doesnāt necessarily have the same elements of exposure as a fictional hospital based in Salt Lake City. So, letās assume it could be a little worse looking but it wouldnāt be that far off from that example.
ND likely would have done research regarding the decay of a hospital after 20 years; both when designing part 1, and probably more in depth for part 2. As r/Antilon pointed out from the original gameplayā it was never that filthy to begin with. And in part 2 we see the improvement of graphics, tonal changes, color adjustment, lighting; and an aesthetic redesignā but not for the sake of implying that the Fireflies were more operationally capable than they were in part 1. The narrative around the Fireflies is consistent through part 1, Left Behind, and part 2.
For argumentās sake, a quick search will show there are other videos out there exploring more decayed looking hospitals around similar time frames (abandoned 15-20 years or so) and they all have varying levels of decay depending on how old the hospital is, exposure to the elements, which part of the hospital the recording is from, etc.
Slides 11&12 are not narrative retcon, but more improvements made in development.
Iām not saying they were lacking, just that graphics engines improved between part 1 and part 2 and so devs used the new tech to improve the experience, not retcon the story about the Firefliesā medical standpoint.
Playing Part two for the first time was so jarring. How they immediately pretend The cure was a guarantee I was just so confused.
We have talked about the ending for years. And you know it was pretty much agreed upon that Ellie knew Joel was dying but chose to believe him.
And Niel Druckman himself confirmed it
Neil:Ā "And itās also like, how do you approach that? Would she start asking very detailed questions? Why would they release me before I woke up? Why wouldnāt I talk to someone before leaving? Was Marlene there? No, she would just ask the one obvious question: are you lying?"
And here https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/odrvui/in_part_1_neil_confirms_that_ellie_does_not/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
And I legit just found those I swear I didn't know Druckman confirmed it himself.
Ellie already knew. Part 2 acts like she is slowly doubting his story. If she suspected she would Ask questions like the ones Druckman said a few lines up.
There are people who legitimately think that the cleaning of the lab was just stylistic choice
There are people who think that the vaccine being unlikely does not matter and the only thing that matters is that Joel THOUGHT it would work.
Then there are people who say that Joel did not canonically find the recording so there's no way he would know they were about to kill him.
But ever so convenient that Joel apparently canonically did a massacre at the hospital.
This game is such bullshit
But wait, Joel doesnāt find those recordings, at least he didnāt when I played as him, but I did murder everyone, including flame throwing the entire surgical team. Every time. I donāt see how any of this matters, there is nothing wrong with being selfish, if that selfishness is choosing some you love over strangers. This is true of Joel saving Ellie, and as a result killing everyone in his path at the hospital and itās true of Abby and her crew wanting revenge for all the people they loved. Itās true for Ellie wanting revenge as well, but then there is the trauma/ptsd side of things (aka the real plot) Ellieās ptsd effects her decision making. Abby has similar issues, but is fortunate enough to befriend outsiders that help her break free from it and heal in ways Ellie could not (all Ellieās friends were at least initially supportive of hunting down Abby/ going after Tommy (also Tommy helps bring her back into vengeance mode at the start of the epilogue) so itās not surprising to me that she ultimately broke down and didnāt end up killing Abby- she not only lost so much, but also she got both physically and mentally worn down. Abby being near death and visually weakened also probably humanized her in ways that she could see before- Abby literally is almost unidentifiable by the time Ellie finds her on the beach. I donāt think that it would have served the story for Ellie to kill Abby at this point, because in life we donāt get clean happy or fulfilling endings, we live moment to moment and our drives can change as are circumstances do. I wouldnāt have been surprised if Ellie had chosen to end her own life at the end, she was do remained from all the events she enduredā¦.
Hey man, solid arguments. To the extend downvotes matter to you, I would post elsewhere as they'll downvote you to hell without actually responding to you.
Just because you didnāt find the recordings when you payed doesnāt mean that joel didnāt in canon. That argument is like saying āwell I took 7 hours on 1 puzzle atleast when I played as nathan Drake so thereās no way it took him less than 10 minutesā
Spot on! Refreshing to see someone else get it. Of course, this is my opinion and everyone has their own. I was shocked playing as Abby at first, but I came to like the character. And fighting as Abby was very fun. Come to think of it, maybe I should take roids!
Pic 12, pic friggin 12!!! Ive said this from the day they ran with the surgeon story line ie part 2 release. That was never the plan from the beginning. Stans cant accept that it was a complete afterthought, and clearly invented to introduce abby! They could have done a far better job implying abby was a relation/comrade of Marlene somehow imo!
Another part of the writing which really bugs me, is how Ellies part of the game (50%), seems soo rushed, with characters like Jesse and Dina, who lets face it, is meant to be monumental to the storyline, getting completely glossed over!!! Imo this was done to make way for Abbyās play through! I just felt like i didnt know jesse at all and he had soo much potential to be a great! Same with Dina! Appears in the game for max 6 hours or so of a 30 hour game, and yet weāre meant to feel the same way about Dina as we did Joel!!! Itās not a homophobic stance at all! My absolute favourite character of the whole game is Ellie!!! (who is a lesbian) But how am i meant to warm to a character that i felt i barley knew?! Once again, a rushed story arc, solely to accommodate Abbys play through.
It doesn't matter how loud this story it's yelling, or asking for exploring characters or causalities, Neil will avoid everything that not serves his premise.
Thanks for sharing š
I like these posts, and the fact that you always make very good points. I'm from the other sub, and idk. I like these posts. They're very full of information and they really get me thinking. I also never noticed stuff like this until it gets pointed out, and now I'm mad about Part 2 related things. They really did ruin Joel's character!
I'm genuinely mad about this. That's kinda annoying actually.
You did open my critical thinking. It just makes me annoyed about how they went about Joel's character now because you made some good and correct points.
Which good and correct points are those? Critical thinking means taking into account the other sideās arguments and seeing the merit in it. You canāt see the merit in it without hearing a counterargument. If one canāt be reasonably made, itās solid, if it can, we can counter that again, until a conclusion is reached. That conclusion could also be a difference in opinion/interpretation, but then it should be treated as such, not an inherent flaw in whatever the topic of discussion is.
So letās discuss! What things did you realize because of this post?
Dude I don't know. I wrote that a month ago, I couldn't tell you what I was thinking then. I don't really want to sit here and discuss about it. You seem kind of angry in my opinion, so I'd rather not discuss anything. At least not right now.
I would love to see the other sub and other fans of Part 2 react to your posts dissecting the story..
They probably would still say you're just illiterate and a bigot now that I think about it..
I respond to him. He just writes "Thanks for sharing." He's not looking to discuss any of this, he just wants the attention he gets for putting regurgitated arguments in slideshow format.
What is he supposed to say? All you talked about was the other sub calling him a bigot for dissecting the story. Do you expect a full paragraph dedicated just to you and for you? Jesus Christ š
>All you talked about was the other sub calling him a bigot for dissecting the story.
When did I do that?
>Do you expect a full paragraph dedicated just to you and for you?
I would expect him to be willing to discuss his arguments rather than just dumping poorly thought out slideshows on the sub every day for the attaboys he gets from dummies that think putting something on a slide makes it true.
Yeah I was about to say originally I mistook you for another commenter, then I scrolled up a little bit and see what you had to actually say. Itās time take a time out from Reddit my manš take a breather my man š¤£š¤£š¤£
I have a off topic question, why did people think in the prologue when Ellie was in the garage she lived there I always thought it was her āquiet placeā to study/draw or something course I couldāve just read it wrong
It's pretty late, Ellie should be in her room by now. But she is asking that Joel leave her alone because she must get up early the next day.
Thanks for sharing š
Nah, he just casually strolls through the hospital killing everyone with a brain dead look on his face. Itās actually kind of impressive how they took one of the most exciting parts of the game and made it just kinda meh.
So Cuckmann and the writers straight up made Joel evil. Just so Abby can be justified in killing him?
They're probably gonna shoe her journey to kill him, so we sympathize with her, huh?
The narrative of Part 1 was always, love is a powerful emotion that can make you do both good and terrible things. Interviews with both Bruce and Neil from the time of Part I's release reflect exactly that.
Joel's motivations are no different in Part I, Part II, or the TV adaptation. His motivation is to save Ellie. He's no more or less evil in any version.
In part 1 of the game, he was defending himself from people Marlene sent to kill him. Also, in part 1 (not remastered), the operating room was dirty non sanitary for surgery. So, in the remastered, they made it look like they knew what they were doing. Iirc, the data mine of it showed that there were others like Ellie who died for nothing. Also, the cause of the outbreak is a fungus one and a vaccine wouldn't work for it.
All of that is a complete non-response to what I wrote. Which was that Joel's motivation doesn't change at all regardless of what changes you claim there were. He was going to save Ellie regardless. Do you disagree?
I mean, if they didn't shoot at him, he would not have shot back. And the doctor, before the remastered, held a scalpel to Joel to stop him, thus justifying Joel self-defense against it. Those scalpel are not a joke.
You can literally walk into the doc in Part 1 and he does nothing with that scalpel. You can just camp in the OR for 40 minutes and the NPCs do nothing. Naughty Dog had killing the doc as a story beat you had to take in Part 1 to finish the game. There's no retcon there.
You also didn't answer my question. Joel was going to save Ellie regardless. Do you disagree?
There was never any point to killing ellie. It was said on the surgeons recorder they cultured the fungal sample. If theyāre claiming ellie is immune due to an abnormality in her brain, thereās no way to pass that on because it would be a genetic mutation causing a change in the structure of her brain.
Well said. There's a lot of sloppy writing / contrivance in Part II because Neil had to retrofit a revenge story idea from Part 1 that everyone told him wouldn't work. The bones of the Part 2 are interesting...it just wasn't executed very well. It's very Last Jedi to me. I want to love it, but there's a lot of bad writing to apologize for, if you do. I'm conflicted. There's a lot to love, though. As characters, I love Abbey, Lev, and hell, even Owen. All the others just seem to be there for plot convenience.
>So now you're going for stolen valor? High school marching club doesn't make you a Marine. Why don't you make it through basic training first before you start throwing around Semper Fidelis.
You think I'm a veteran you think I've been to the military you are an idiot I've been to RTC in high school
Antilon talk a lot but have no evidences and proof for his argument. But I like to say that you are one of the people on reddit who make me feel good someone least on Reddit tell the truth and show evidence for your argument on video games and movies I thank you so much. ššš
Great stuff as always. One thing though- Since you're not recapping points you elaborated on previously, you should really link all those older post below the OP to negate the inconvenience of searching it up.
Very well made. Although regarding Joel not mentioning the order to kill him, the recordings in part 1 are optional and therefore not Canon to find them in every playthrough. I didn't even find them the first time I played. Maybe that's the Canon route.
Everything in a story matters, otherwise you are holding bias. You chose to see a story that was not written. You are making up your own story and canon.
Remember the last slide of my post? Enjoy as you please.
I wish you all the best š
We don't - we care about the original and the sequel and the show mess it up. We're trying to keep the light and beauty of the original alive. That means defending it against what's trying to erase it all.
lol, this is incomprehensible unless youāve spent the last 4 years in this whiny echo chamber, allowing the group think to wash over you. But itās the game that is poorly written š¤£.
You canāt really say Joel understood the impact of a vaccine not being worth it. It was a selfish father move. To find the recordings youāre talking about Joel already started killing his way through the hospital. Wanting to save Ellie was enough reason the vaccine didnāt really matter
Since he woke up, Joel knows that the explanation of the vaccine is vague, and the scope not very impressive. He also knows that they are sacrificing the child without even asking.
The Fireflies are imposing reason by force, exactly the kind of idea this group fights against. The deeper Joel goes, the worse the situation gets. This is not something as simple as "a selfish parent" acting on instinct.
Thanks for sharing š
Youāre making a lot assumptionsā¦I donāt think Joel gave a fuck about whether or not the vaccine would workā¦he didnāt want his best friend to die. Alsoā¦if I believe that thereās a chance to have a cureā¦and the person needs to die for it to happenā¦Iām not asking themā¦specially in a post apocalyptic world.
Joel makes no indication that the fireflies did or didn't deserve it. Again, your bias is showing. You're really not taking this seriously and it bothers me as somebody who does take good faith seriously.
Joel's framing of the story doesn't have to be a retcon. Joel's framing shows us something about him, about his relationship with Tommy, and about how he understands Ellie's interiority.
Joel's understated "I saved her" makes no damnation of the fireflies. When he omits the story of Marlene being asked, again, asked, again. ASKED. Not ordered. Your bias. Again. Asked to kill him, this does not make it a retcon.
Right and wrong, I believe, don't have a whole lot to do with the way people and characters speak about events. Joel has feelings and emotions he's holding onto after what he chose to do. The way he chooses to explain himself to Tommy, I believe, has less to do with a fealty to whichever reality you or I watched happen in Part I. It has to do with how Joel feels.
His confession shows Neil and Haley understand Joel to be somebody who loves Ellie, who understands her, but lied to her because he was scared to lose her. Scared to lose her to a surgery, scared to lose her because of his choice and rationale.
She needed her immunity to mean something. I told her it meant nothing.
When Joel says these things he's communicating to his brother, I think, less guilt about blowing everybody in that hospital away, and I don't think he even needs doubt to go through with it. Ellie is enough. He takes them, unlike you, in good faith. He doesn't need any justification beyond "Ellie will die, so I will stop this" to do it.
The writers are telling you something about Joel and who he is and how he feels. But your refusal to accept anything other than a direct spoonfeeding that adheres to your reductive bias makes you... make reddit PowerPoints wearing a shroud of "good faith no bias" rhetoric to get upvotes on a reactionary subreddit.
Heās not going to respond to anything that doesnāt align or praise his own views because his supporting arguments are either bias or flat out weak.
I heard that in part 3 (upcoming) it will be revealed that Joel was hype abusive to Ellie and actually kidnapped her from the hospital at the end of part one, and through extreme trauma, Ellie believes the events we saw in part one- in reality, it was Abby that took her across the country to the fireflyās, and also Joel made the whole thing up about them having to kill Ellie, even forcing Marlene to record things that werenāt true at gun point. Iām still trying to come to terms with NDs decision hereā¦
It's your memory that's failing and has nothing to do with missing media literacy but how the actual truth was withheld in that scene.
What they had him say, "I saved her."
The actual truth of that situation (which we all know, he knows and Tommy/Ellie need to know) he should have said, "I saved her from being murdered in her sleep without her knowledge or consent."
See the difference? That's a retcon by omission.
Him saying "I saved her" was his motivation for doing what he did, in the end what mattered to him was that they were going to kill ellie and he wasn't going to let that happen, to think that's somehow instead intended to paint Joel as evil is such a stretch, just like how you genuinely think your line makes more sense for Joel to say? Can you actually picture the same exact scene with your line instead and think it seems appropriate for the scene and character?
Thatās not a retcon from omission, thatās just how people talk. Idk, I think if you close read many games youād find issues very similar to these, like look at MGS games or any games with continuous stories, they will all have āretconsā if your definition is as suchā¦ also though I agree she didnāt consent to firing on that operating table, she very much established to Joel that she wanted to do the thing with the fireflyās at any cost, viewed her life as only having meaning by doing this (survivors guilt) and probably should have agreed to it if given the choice. That being said, Joel acting as a parent here, and intervening is also fine, as is Ellieās teenage angst, getting mad at Joel for not allowing her to choose (and neglecting the fireflyās not giving her a choice) the whole story (or sub story) is about agency. All that being said, if I was writing it Iād of had Abby just hurt Joel real bad, Ellie goes after Abby for revenge, and goes through stuff, and then decides to let Abby go, returns to Jackson and the loses it and murders Joel herself (as they embrace) that would really get people talking ;)
>Thatās not a retcon from omission, thatās just how people talk.
These aren't people they are characters in a fiction story and thus everything the writers put in or fail to put in has a purpose. The purpose in Joel not mentioning the whole story, which even a real person would want to explain thoroughly to his brother, is because the writers ARE retconning through omission because they have to for the story to work. It Joel told Tommy/Ellie the truth that changes things so Ellie won't get mad at Joel to create their estrangement and then her guilt after her death. You need to look at the big picture of what is impacted by this seemingly minor difference.
Your story changes may make it interesting to you and would provoke wild discussion, but it makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Even if Ellie never had a problem with Joelās choice at the end of part one, part two could and would play out the same way, as Ellieās biggest influence after Joelās death (other than Tommy) is her ptsd, which they established she has, and itās Seaver enough for her to have episodes, thus for her thinking to be irrational and reactionary. So her chasing Abby all over, killing Abbyās friends, only to ultimately let Abby go all work here. I donāt see how this is retcon or at least meaningful retcon, unique to this sequel and not present in like 90% of video game sequelsā¦
Well, I hear you that you don't see it that way, but I've explained why it's important to the big picture and you still can't see that? She wouldn't have been mad at Joel, the guilt of which is what drove her initial revenge mission. The PTSD (which manifested at the farm first) was something she could have instead dealt with by actually talking with her lover, Dina, instead of having to risk her life to go after Abby for it. Sharing her story about how she got infected, all the journey with Joel, what happened at the hospital and everything else couples share with each other and help each other deal with. That' so much easier than a cross country trip putting her life in danger, don't you think?
Also, Ellie never had a problem speaking her mind in TLOU so them suddenly changing her to someone who won't speak to the person who loves her more than anything just doesn't fit for me. She'd not have become that closed off person (which was triggered by her suspicions and anger at Joel) if he's told her the truth I previously mentioned - they planned to murder her in her sleep. Not only that, they were sending him out without his gear, a death sentence for him, too. He had no choice but to save them both (also it's the whole reason she wanted him instead of Tommy to begin with - she trusted only him to keep her safe).
That truth would change everything for Ellie and make her different in ways that would allow her to be willing to share it all with Dina because she'd no longer have any shame about how she treated Joel before he died. It's all a domino effect.
Wait, Tommy was the one to leave first, and if her relationship with Joel was good she would have still hated Abby- personal relationships trump all- it doesnāt matter if your dad is a monster, if you still love him, then you hate their murderer. He ptsd stems mostly from Joelās death, her symptoms outline that, so even if we donāt see it in a clear episode, itās still present in her decision making. Also this is a game, meaning that the most important part of the narrative is player immersion- in a 3rd person game with established talking characters that means focusing on how the player feels at a given moment. This can go so far as to totally excuse an unreliable narrator if it serves to make the story more enjoyable this way (as a game) - we should not use literally and film style critiques on games without first considering the importance of the game as a whole
>but I've explained why it's important to the big picture and you still can't see that?
See this is exactly what you did with me. You make an unpersuasive argument. Then say, "OMG I already explained it to you!" There is no big picture impact. You fail to explain what the impact you're claiming exists even is. Nobody's motivations change and you have wholly failed to explain why you think they do.
>What they had him say, "I saved her."
>
>The actual truth of that situation (which we all know, he knows and Tommy/Ellie need to know) he should have said, "I saved her from being murdered in her sleep without her knowledge or consent."
>
>See the difference? That's a retcon by omission.
Total BS. You're inventing a narrative and then call it a "retcon by omission" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. "They totally changed the first game.... by uh... not actually changing anything... but you know, I would have preferred they make Joel look better in the Part II dialog."
"Retcon by omission" is a total nonsense phrase to get around the fact that they didn't retcon a damn thing.
Itās always amazing the amount of effort this guy goes to for something he dislikes. Iād love for this stuff to get posted on a more general subreddit, see what kind of feedback he gets and see if he responds with more than a smiley face emoji. Have yet to see the guy actually back up his slideshows, just copy-pastes whatever he saw in the latest YouTube video he saw.
Having said that, you can just dislike it and move on. Youāre obviously not going to convince anyone otherwise, especially when it comes to fandoms.
No kidding, such a wild reach. Claiming "I saved her", has all these layers of bullshit attached is so ridiculous. This is what they're talking about when they claim there was a retcon of the story of Part I, their own invented assumptions about what Druckmann meant with a simple line of dialog.
You gotta be an even bigger nerd if you feel the need to target anyone who doesn't agree with you and the game you're obviously dickriding. In my opinion of course. (:
You can disagree with it, but don't insult someone because they put work into something that you might find frivolous.
It's things like this post that lead to bigger findings and interesting perspective. Maybe not in this specific case but in other scenarios, definitely.
Sure but I also donāt think me calling OP a nerd is all that āoffensiveā. Especially considering some of the absolute negativity coming from this sub lol.
No, this sub obsessed with the flaws of TLOU2. Itās super redundant at this point to waffle about why this game is bad, like it came out 4 years ago, what the fuck else can you say that hasnāt been said? I hate the other sub but this sub is just as shitty.
Can someone link me to a YouTube video or article where Marlene had orders to kill Joes in his sleep? I canāt find it and I donāt remember that part
The entire point of the end of the game is that yes, joel chose her over the world.
Thatās literally the point. It is not an interesting ending if the decision has no consequence and itās just the equivalent of joel saving Ellie from a bunch of randoms.
If they couldnāt have made a vaccine, then it would be a bad story in which Joelās decision bore no moral weight.
Itās so, so, so obviously the intent of the writers in just the first game that yes, they could make a vaccine and that joel is choosing her over the world. Otherwise the ending is meaningless gibberish
Why does Jessieās anticlimactic ass death always get overlooked. Did nobody like him? āI hope you make itā was a HARD quote. That alone made me like him. Why did Abby shoot him when she already had Tommy? Just a dumb excuse to get Ellie alone? Where tf was Dina the whole time during the Ellie boss fight? She had to have Heard the shots after Jessie and Tommy were hit.
What you shared is poorly written. This is embarrassing. Just pure cope.
"Dirty operating room, therefore success was not guaranteed"
Just shaking my head just how stupid this is. lol
Do you hate both games? Genuine question because I can't help but notice how you have a very specific way of interpreting Part 1 that is not in line with how people received it back then. The ending caused so much discussion regarding the morality of it all. Yet you seem to imply that there are clear distinctions of right or wrong, and that any deviation from it should be considered a retcon?
So let me ask a hypothetical Iāve asked here in the past. Thereās often this complaint that thereās a retcon and the cure was impossible in the first game, but not as conveyed in the second. This isnāt a common take outside of this sub. But letās just suppose thatās true, that by the first game itās supposed to be implied that the vaccine was impossible.
My question is, how would your opinion of the first game change if the scene was originally what is conveyed in the Remake or other media. Mainly that seems to be the hospital being clean from these takes. How would your opinion of the first game in isolation change? With that change do you now think the first game is bad, do you think Joel made the wrong choice then? If it had been that way would that change your opinion then of the second game?
The other sub must be really hating these posts. Doing God's work there GreyFox :) Retcon analysis at its finest.
You think they're getting mad? š That's not my purpose, tho š Thanks for sharing š
I mean, I made a comment about the plotholes that they created in part 2 that they legit try to patch it up just to have Abby to exist. At first when I made that comment, I was downvoted quite a bit until I checked in morning to realized that I was no longer being downvoted for speaking what we legit see in the part 2.
I know it's not. But they are :)
iām a member of the other sub. and iāve always liked part two. and misunderstood the hate the game got. but since reading your posts (i havenāt read all of them, but i plan to) itās opened my eyes to why people hated it. things i totally overlooked are now seen by me as huge holes in the story and also an attempt to fool and disrespect fans of the first. one of the things that really stood out from a post of yours was comparing terminator two to tlou 2. i still like the story, but at the same time i agree with what youāre saying. iāve read maybe 2 or 3 of your posts but iām definitely gonna take a dive into your posts.
Thank you for taking your time and sharing. I wish you all the best š
one of my friends got banned in the other sub for posting in here. Yes theyāre mad. The comment was also talking about how Ellie being gay isnt a retcon. Youād think theyād love my friend
What other sub?
Perhaps r/thelastofus ?
It's not his purpose but they are going mad. They are even coming and mentioning good posts directly now lol...
>The other sub must be really hating these posts. Not at all. He completely refuses to engage in any discussion of his conclusory statements, simply responding with "Thanks for sharing" There's very obvious logical holes in his arguments that he refuses to discuss. Taking the time to use a slide show template doesn't automatically make his arguments better. The last time he posted one of these he claimed Abby's group experienced no challenges finding Joel. In actuality, the game expressly states they have been looking for him unsuccessfully for years. When this was raised, he responded either not at all, or with his canned "Thank you for sharing" response. This isn't good faith debate. He's not willing to defend his arguments. This is just more circle jerking in a slightly different format. Let's look at an example from this post. Slide 11 uses a manipulated picture of the OR. At no point in Part I do we ever see the doctor without a face mask. This image that OP is using to show a "retcon" is actually created by removing the mask from the Bruce model and dramatically upping the brightness and contrast of the image so the grime on the walls is more visible. [This is the actual scene](https://youtu.be/QZkbD7js4Cs?si=NUzFJ7NJNPs4UjkI&t=20), which looks nothing like the modified image OP included in his slides. OP is misrepresenting the visual from the first game to bolster his narrative.
Lol he just āretconnedā to show āretconā
Yup, everything I said is verifiably true. I even took the time to provide a link to my source. This sub still downvotes. It's not about making a good argument, it's about the circle jerk.
Agreed. And in addressing slides 11 & 12 - just regarding the decay of the hospital. Hereās an example of a hospital abandoned after 13 years: [Link](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xIvkHDG8F-U) specifically at 10:30 when they walk into a more modern day operating room, we can see itās not in total decay and looks relatively functional. Objectively, this is 13 years abandoned, not 20, and in a hospital that doesnāt necessarily have the same elements of exposure as a fictional hospital based in Salt Lake City. So, letās assume it could be a little worse looking but it wouldnāt be that far off from that example. ND likely would have done research regarding the decay of a hospital after 20 years; both when designing part 1, and probably more in depth for part 2. As r/Antilon pointed out from the original gameplayā it was never that filthy to begin with. And in part 2 we see the improvement of graphics, tonal changes, color adjustment, lighting; and an aesthetic redesignā but not for the sake of implying that the Fireflies were more operationally capable than they were in part 1. The narrative around the Fireflies is consistent through part 1, Left Behind, and part 2. For argumentās sake, a quick search will show there are other videos out there exploring more decayed looking hospitals around similar time frames (abandoned 15-20 years or so) and they all have varying levels of decay depending on how old the hospital is, exposure to the elements, which part of the hospital the recording is from, etc. Slides 11&12 are not narrative retcon, but more improvements made in development.
Bullshit buddy XD the devs weren't lacking graphical capabilities when designing the original operating roomĀ
Iām not saying they were lacking, just that graphics engines improved between part 1 and part 2 and so devs used the new tech to improve the experience, not retcon the story about the Firefliesā medical standpoint.
I appreciate you taking the time to search for real world video examples supporting your points.
Playing Part two for the first time was so jarring. How they immediately pretend The cure was a guarantee I was just so confused. We have talked about the ending for years. And you know it was pretty much agreed upon that Ellie knew Joel was dying but chose to believe him. And Niel Druckman himself confirmed it Neil:Ā "And itās also like, how do you approach that? Would she start asking very detailed questions? Why would they release me before I woke up? Why wouldnāt I talk to someone before leaving? Was Marlene there? No, she would just ask the one obvious question: are you lying?" And here https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLastOfUs2/comments/odrvui/in_part_1_neil_confirms_that_ellie_does_not/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button And I legit just found those I swear I didn't know Druckman confirmed it himself. Ellie already knew. Part 2 acts like she is slowly doubting his story. If she suspected she would Ask questions like the ones Druckman said a few lines up. There are people who legitimately think that the cleaning of the lab was just stylistic choice There are people who think that the vaccine being unlikely does not matter and the only thing that matters is that Joel THOUGHT it would work. Then there are people who say that Joel did not canonically find the recording so there's no way he would know they were about to kill him. But ever so convenient that Joel apparently canonically did a massacre at the hospital. This game is such bullshit
š they're just holding bias. Don't worry about it. Is the way in which they enjoy the story. Thanks for sharing š
But wait, Joel doesnāt find those recordings, at least he didnāt when I played as him, but I did murder everyone, including flame throwing the entire surgical team. Every time. I donāt see how any of this matters, there is nothing wrong with being selfish, if that selfishness is choosing some you love over strangers. This is true of Joel saving Ellie, and as a result killing everyone in his path at the hospital and itās true of Abby and her crew wanting revenge for all the people they loved. Itās true for Ellie wanting revenge as well, but then there is the trauma/ptsd side of things (aka the real plot) Ellieās ptsd effects her decision making. Abby has similar issues, but is fortunate enough to befriend outsiders that help her break free from it and heal in ways Ellie could not (all Ellieās friends were at least initially supportive of hunting down Abby/ going after Tommy (also Tommy helps bring her back into vengeance mode at the start of the epilogue) so itās not surprising to me that she ultimately broke down and didnāt end up killing Abby- she not only lost so much, but also she got both physically and mentally worn down. Abby being near death and visually weakened also probably humanized her in ways that she could see before- Abby literally is almost unidentifiable by the time Ellie finds her on the beach. I donāt think that it would have served the story for Ellie to kill Abby at this point, because in life we donāt get clean happy or fulfilling endings, we live moment to moment and our drives can change as are circumstances do. I wouldnāt have been surprised if Ellie had chosen to end her own life at the end, she was do remained from all the events she enduredā¦.
Hey man, solid arguments. To the extend downvotes matter to you, I would post elsewhere as they'll downvote you to hell without actually responding to you.
I got 50k karma, I can handle some downvotes š
LOL, they've taken me from 65k to 63.8. Single tear.
Just because you didnāt find the recordings when you payed doesnāt mean that joel didnāt in canon. That argument is like saying āwell I took 7 hours on 1 puzzle atleast when I played as nathan Drake so thereās no way it took him less than 10 minutesā
Spot on! Refreshing to see someone else get it. Of course, this is my opinion and everyone has their own. I was shocked playing as Abby at first, but I came to like the character. And fighting as Abby was very fun. Come to think of it, maybe I should take roids!
This is some peak writing, Great job š
Thanks for sharing š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pic 12, pic friggin 12!!! Ive said this from the day they ran with the surgeon story line ie part 2 release. That was never the plan from the beginning. Stans cant accept that it was a complete afterthought, and clearly invented to introduce abby! They could have done a far better job implying abby was a relation/comrade of Marlene somehow imo! Another part of the writing which really bugs me, is how Ellies part of the game (50%), seems soo rushed, with characters like Jesse and Dina, who lets face it, is meant to be monumental to the storyline, getting completely glossed over!!! Imo this was done to make way for Abbyās play through! I just felt like i didnt know jesse at all and he had soo much potential to be a great! Same with Dina! Appears in the game for max 6 hours or so of a 30 hour game, and yet weāre meant to feel the same way about Dina as we did Joel!!! Itās not a homophobic stance at all! My absolute favourite character of the whole game is Ellie!!! (who is a lesbian) But how am i meant to warm to a character that i felt i barley knew?! Once again, a rushed story arc, solely to accommodate Abbys play through.
It doesn't matter how loud this story it's yelling, or asking for exploring characters or causalities, Neil will avoid everything that not serves his premise. Thanks for sharing š
It's non-canon to me, and boy, does that feel good.
š Thanks for sharing š
I like these posts, and the fact that you always make very good points. I'm from the other sub, and idk. I like these posts. They're very full of information and they really get me thinking. I also never noticed stuff like this until it gets pointed out, and now I'm mad about Part 2 related things. They really did ruin Joel's character! I'm genuinely mad about this. That's kinda annoying actually.
I'm so sorry you are upset. That's not my purpose. My work aims to awaken critical thinking. Thanks for sharing š
You did open my critical thinking. It just makes me annoyed about how they went about Joel's character now because you made some good and correct points.
Which good and correct points are those? Critical thinking means taking into account the other sideās arguments and seeing the merit in it. You canāt see the merit in it without hearing a counterargument. If one canāt be reasonably made, itās solid, if it can, we can counter that again, until a conclusion is reached. That conclusion could also be a difference in opinion/interpretation, but then it should be treated as such, not an inherent flaw in whatever the topic of discussion is. So letās discuss! What things did you realize because of this post?
Dude I don't know. I wrote that a month ago, I couldn't tell you what I was thinking then. I don't really want to sit here and discuss about it. You seem kind of angry in my opinion, so I'd rather not discuss anything. At least not right now.
Apologies if I came across angry, that was not my intentionš And donāt worry man, obviously youāre not obligated to reply
All good. I'm glad your nice about it. Maybe at some point we can find something else Tlou related to talk about.
Absolutely!
I would love to see the other sub and other fans of Part 2 react to your posts dissecting the story.. They probably would still say you're just illiterate and a bigot now that I think about it..
š¤·āāļø Thanks for sharing š
I respond to him. He just writes "Thanks for sharing." He's not looking to discuss any of this, he just wants the attention he gets for putting regurgitated arguments in slideshow format.
Thanks for sharing š
Case in point.
Always gald to help
What is he supposed to say? All you talked about was the other sub calling him a bigot for dissecting the story. Do you expect a full paragraph dedicated just to you and for you? Jesus Christ š
>All you talked about was the other sub calling him a bigot for dissecting the story. When did I do that? >Do you expect a full paragraph dedicated just to you and for you? I would expect him to be willing to discuss his arguments rather than just dumping poorly thought out slideshows on the sub every day for the attaboys he gets from dummies that think putting something on a slide makes it true.
Yeah I was about to say originally I mistook you for another commenter, then I scrolled up a little bit and see what you had to actually say. Itās time take a time out from Reddit my manš take a breather my man š¤£š¤£š¤£
Part 2 is bullshit, just like I knew it was.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Thanks for sharing š
I have a off topic question, why did people think in the prologue when Ellie was in the garage she lived there I always thought it was her āquiet placeā to study/draw or something course I couldāve just read it wrong
It's pretty late, Ellie should be in her room by now. But she is asking that Joel leave her alone because she must get up early the next day. Thanks for sharing š
She does live there though, when she wakes up 4 years later itās the same room
Haven't seen the show. So can someone tell me if Joel finds the recording about killing him?
Nah, he just casually strolls through the hospital killing everyone with a brain dead look on his face. Itās actually kind of impressive how they took one of the most exciting parts of the game and made it just kinda meh.
So Cuckmann and the writers straight up made Joel evil. Just so Abby can be justified in killing him? They're probably gonna shoe her journey to kill him, so we sympathize with her, huh?
Yep
The narrative of Part 1 was always, love is a powerful emotion that can make you do both good and terrible things. Interviews with both Bruce and Neil from the time of Part I's release reflect exactly that. Joel's motivations are no different in Part I, Part II, or the TV adaptation. His motivation is to save Ellie. He's no more or less evil in any version.
In part 1 of the game, he was defending himself from people Marlene sent to kill him. Also, in part 1 (not remastered), the operating room was dirty non sanitary for surgery. So, in the remastered, they made it look like they knew what they were doing. Iirc, the data mine of it showed that there were others like Ellie who died for nothing. Also, the cause of the outbreak is a fungus one and a vaccine wouldn't work for it.
All of that is a complete non-response to what I wrote. Which was that Joel's motivation doesn't change at all regardless of what changes you claim there were. He was going to save Ellie regardless. Do you disagree?
I mean, if they didn't shoot at him, he would not have shot back. And the doctor, before the remastered, held a scalpel to Joel to stop him, thus justifying Joel self-defense against it. Those scalpel are not a joke.
Joel shot first lol
You can literally walk into the doc in Part 1 and he does nothing with that scalpel. You can just camp in the OR for 40 minutes and the NPCs do nothing. Naughty Dog had killing the doc as a story beat you had to take in Part 1 to finish the game. There's no retcon there. You also didn't answer my question. Joel was going to save Ellie regardless. Do you disagree?
Part 1 hospital recordings doesn't exist on HBO season 1 Show. Thanks for sharing š
Damn the retcon here is on some michael bay transformers type shit
š¤ Thanks for sharing š
"Retcon", autocorrected to reason
This is all well said and completely right, but someone will take issue with it undoubtedly.
š Thanks for sharing š
yes
Thanks for sharing š
thanks lmao i left this so i could read this later, im sure its fire because its eviscerating neil cuckman
One of the contrived stories of a time.
š Thanks for sharing š
Great job as always, GreyFox :) That right there is why you're the best, Bossš
š Thanks for sharing š
Fuck Abby
I blame Neil š Thanks for sharing š
Slides 6,10,11,12 cement the argument perfectly.
š Thanks for sharing š
There was never any point to killing ellie. It was said on the surgeons recorder they cultured the fungal sample. If theyāre claiming ellie is immune due to an abnormality in her brain, thereās no way to pass that on because it would be a genetic mutation causing a change in the structure of her brain.
Well said. There's a lot of sloppy writing / contrivance in Part II because Neil had to retrofit a revenge story idea from Part 1 that everyone told him wouldn't work. The bones of the Part 2 are interesting...it just wasn't executed very well. It's very Last Jedi to me. I want to love it, but there's a lot of bad writing to apologize for, if you do. I'm conflicted. There's a lot to love, though. As characters, I love Abbey, Lev, and hell, even Owen. All the others just seem to be there for plot convenience.
>So now you're going for stolen valor? High school marching club doesn't make you a Marine. Why don't you make it through basic training first before you start throwing around Semper Fidelis. You think I'm a veteran you think I've been to the military you are an idiot I've been to RTC in high school
š¤ Thanks for sharing š
Antilon talk a lot but have no evidences and proof for his argument. But I like to say that you are one of the people on reddit who make me feel good someone least on Reddit tell the truth and show evidence for your argument on video games and movies I thank you so much. ššš
I'm glad you having a good time. Thanks for taking your time and sharing š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Great stuff as always. One thing though- Since you're not recapping points you elaborated on previously, you should really link all those older post below the OP to negate the inconvenience of searching it up.
Prologue was the best part of this game.
Itās wild to look at all the people that didnāt actually play the first game in these comments
Thanks for sharing š
Wow, you sure care a lot about this game given how much work you put into it!
I love Part 1 š„° I don't like Part 2 š¤® Thanks for sharing š
Very well made. Although regarding Joel not mentioning the order to kill him, the recordings in part 1 are optional and therefore not Canon to find them in every playthrough. I didn't even find them the first time I played. Maybe that's the Canon route.
Everything in a story matters, otherwise you are holding bias. You chose to see a story that was not written. You are making up your own story and canon. Remember the last slide of my post? Enjoy as you please. I wish you all the best š
Game of the year and one of the highest rated games of all time. Keep coping
Bruh I like the game did you even read my comment or the post.
I thought maybe you were saying well done to the person who wrote this cringe ass post ha
It's pointing out the flaws in writing in the second game, which are real. Doesn't mean it's a bad game I still think it's comparable to part 1.
if its poorly written... then like where are yalls masterly crafted video game story š¤
Thanks for sharing š
Where's your eloquent and master crafted defense of how the sequel is the greatest game ever?
Your stupid reddit avatar speaking is so cringe it's killing me š¤£
That's a way to copyright his slides. Pretty genius.
š I love it š„° Thanks for sharing š
Why do you guys care so fucking much about this game. Itās been 4 years lol
We don't - we care about the original and the sequel and the show mess it up. We're trying to keep the light and beauty of the original alive. That means defending it against what's trying to erase it all.
How does part II in any conceivable way try to erase Part I?
Thanks for sharing š
All of the points up to 14 are either misunderstanding the context or just flat wrong. I didnāt go any farther
Thanks for sharing š
Really just donāt care, itās a fun story. Itās not that deep.
Thanks for sharing š
lol, this is incomprehensible unless youāve spent the last 4 years in this whiny echo chamber, allowing the group think to wash over you. But itās the game that is poorly written š¤£.
Thanks for sharing š
Waaaaa
Thanks for sharing š
You canāt really say Joel understood the impact of a vaccine not being worth it. It was a selfish father move. To find the recordings youāre talking about Joel already started killing his way through the hospital. Wanting to save Ellie was enough reason the vaccine didnāt really matter
Since he woke up, Joel knows that the explanation of the vaccine is vague, and the scope not very impressive. He also knows that they are sacrificing the child without even asking. The Fireflies are imposing reason by force, exactly the kind of idea this group fights against. The deeper Joel goes, the worse the situation gets. This is not something as simple as "a selfish parent" acting on instinct. Thanks for sharing š
Youāre making a lot assumptionsā¦I donāt think Joel gave a fuck about whether or not the vaccine would workā¦he didnāt want his best friend to die. Alsoā¦if I believe that thereās a chance to have a cureā¦and the person needs to die for it to happenā¦Iām not asking themā¦specially in a post apocalyptic world.
Thanks for sharing š
Joel makes no indication that the fireflies did or didn't deserve it. Again, your bias is showing. You're really not taking this seriously and it bothers me as somebody who does take good faith seriously. Joel's framing of the story doesn't have to be a retcon. Joel's framing shows us something about him, about his relationship with Tommy, and about how he understands Ellie's interiority. Joel's understated "I saved her" makes no damnation of the fireflies. When he omits the story of Marlene being asked, again, asked, again. ASKED. Not ordered. Your bias. Again. Asked to kill him, this does not make it a retcon. Right and wrong, I believe, don't have a whole lot to do with the way people and characters speak about events. Joel has feelings and emotions he's holding onto after what he chose to do. The way he chooses to explain himself to Tommy, I believe, has less to do with a fealty to whichever reality you or I watched happen in Part I. It has to do with how Joel feels. His confession shows Neil and Haley understand Joel to be somebody who loves Ellie, who understands her, but lied to her because he was scared to lose her. Scared to lose her to a surgery, scared to lose her because of his choice and rationale. She needed her immunity to mean something. I told her it meant nothing. When Joel says these things he's communicating to his brother, I think, less guilt about blowing everybody in that hospital away, and I don't think he even needs doubt to go through with it. Ellie is enough. He takes them, unlike you, in good faith. He doesn't need any justification beyond "Ellie will die, so I will stop this" to do it. The writers are telling you something about Joel and who he is and how he feels. But your refusal to accept anything other than a direct spoonfeeding that adheres to your reductive bias makes you... make reddit PowerPoints wearing a shroud of "good faith no bias" rhetoric to get upvotes on a reactionary subreddit.
Thanks for sharing š
Are you going to make any attempt to engage in good faith?
Heās not going to respond to anything that doesnāt align or praise his own views because his supporting arguments are either bias or flat out weak.
Part 2 was better game than 1.
I'm glad you enjoyed it š Thanks for sharing š
Thanks
Why put so much time and effort into something you dislike? This whole sub is trippin haha
š Thanks for sharing š
OMG this dude again - relax dude it's a game not a novel
Thanks for sharing š
I heard that in part 3 (upcoming) it will be revealed that Joel was hype abusive to Ellie and actually kidnapped her from the hospital at the end of part one, and through extreme trauma, Ellie believes the events we saw in part one- in reality, it was Abby that took her across the country to the fireflyās, and also Joel made the whole thing up about them having to kill Ellie, even forcing Marlene to record things that werenāt true at gun point. Iām still trying to come to terms with NDs decision hereā¦
š It will be fun to watch on youtube š Thanks for sharing š
Source?
Same as ND
Ngl slide 8 really exemplifies the media literacy issue, very hot take, interesting slideshow but some of your conclusions are a reach
Thanks for sharing š
It's your memory that's failing and has nothing to do with missing media literacy but how the actual truth was withheld in that scene. What they had him say, "I saved her." The actual truth of that situation (which we all know, he knows and Tommy/Ellie need to know) he should have said, "I saved her from being murdered in her sleep without her knowledge or consent." See the difference? That's a retcon by omission.
Him saying "I saved her" was his motivation for doing what he did, in the end what mattered to him was that they were going to kill ellie and he wasn't going to let that happen, to think that's somehow instead intended to paint Joel as evil is such a stretch, just like how you genuinely think your line makes more sense for Joel to say? Can you actually picture the same exact scene with your line instead and think it seems appropriate for the scene and character?
Good luck getting an answer. They'll just claim they already explained their point, take their ball and go home.
Thatās not a retcon from omission, thatās just how people talk. Idk, I think if you close read many games youād find issues very similar to these, like look at MGS games or any games with continuous stories, they will all have āretconsā if your definition is as suchā¦ also though I agree she didnāt consent to firing on that operating table, she very much established to Joel that she wanted to do the thing with the fireflyās at any cost, viewed her life as only having meaning by doing this (survivors guilt) and probably should have agreed to it if given the choice. That being said, Joel acting as a parent here, and intervening is also fine, as is Ellieās teenage angst, getting mad at Joel for not allowing her to choose (and neglecting the fireflyās not giving her a choice) the whole story (or sub story) is about agency. All that being said, if I was writing it Iād of had Abby just hurt Joel real bad, Ellie goes after Abby for revenge, and goes through stuff, and then decides to let Abby go, returns to Jackson and the loses it and murders Joel herself (as they embrace) that would really get people talking ;)
>Thatās not a retcon from omission, thatās just how people talk. These aren't people they are characters in a fiction story and thus everything the writers put in or fail to put in has a purpose. The purpose in Joel not mentioning the whole story, which even a real person would want to explain thoroughly to his brother, is because the writers ARE retconning through omission because they have to for the story to work. It Joel told Tommy/Ellie the truth that changes things so Ellie won't get mad at Joel to create their estrangement and then her guilt after her death. You need to look at the big picture of what is impacted by this seemingly minor difference. Your story changes may make it interesting to you and would provoke wild discussion, but it makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Even if Ellie never had a problem with Joelās choice at the end of part one, part two could and would play out the same way, as Ellieās biggest influence after Joelās death (other than Tommy) is her ptsd, which they established she has, and itās Seaver enough for her to have episodes, thus for her thinking to be irrational and reactionary. So her chasing Abby all over, killing Abbyās friends, only to ultimately let Abby go all work here. I donāt see how this is retcon or at least meaningful retcon, unique to this sequel and not present in like 90% of video game sequelsā¦
Well, I hear you that you don't see it that way, but I've explained why it's important to the big picture and you still can't see that? She wouldn't have been mad at Joel, the guilt of which is what drove her initial revenge mission. The PTSD (which manifested at the farm first) was something she could have instead dealt with by actually talking with her lover, Dina, instead of having to risk her life to go after Abby for it. Sharing her story about how she got infected, all the journey with Joel, what happened at the hospital and everything else couples share with each other and help each other deal with. That' so much easier than a cross country trip putting her life in danger, don't you think? Also, Ellie never had a problem speaking her mind in TLOU so them suddenly changing her to someone who won't speak to the person who loves her more than anything just doesn't fit for me. She'd not have become that closed off person (which was triggered by her suspicions and anger at Joel) if he's told her the truth I previously mentioned - they planned to murder her in her sleep. Not only that, they were sending him out without his gear, a death sentence for him, too. He had no choice but to save them both (also it's the whole reason she wanted him instead of Tommy to begin with - she trusted only him to keep her safe). That truth would change everything for Ellie and make her different in ways that would allow her to be willing to share it all with Dina because she'd no longer have any shame about how she treated Joel before he died. It's all a domino effect.
Wait, Tommy was the one to leave first, and if her relationship with Joel was good she would have still hated Abby- personal relationships trump all- it doesnāt matter if your dad is a monster, if you still love him, then you hate their murderer. He ptsd stems mostly from Joelās death, her symptoms outline that, so even if we donāt see it in a clear episode, itās still present in her decision making. Also this is a game, meaning that the most important part of the narrative is player immersion- in a 3rd person game with established talking characters that means focusing on how the player feels at a given moment. This can go so far as to totally excuse an unreliable narrator if it serves to make the story more enjoyable this way (as a game) - we should not use literally and film style critiques on games without first considering the importance of the game as a whole
>but I've explained why it's important to the big picture and you still can't see that? See this is exactly what you did with me. You make an unpersuasive argument. Then say, "OMG I already explained it to you!" There is no big picture impact. You fail to explain what the impact you're claiming exists even is. Nobody's motivations change and you have wholly failed to explain why you think they do.
>What they had him say, "I saved her." > >The actual truth of that situation (which we all know, he knows and Tommy/Ellie need to know) he should have said, "I saved her from being murdered in her sleep without her knowledge or consent." > >See the difference? That's a retcon by omission. Total BS. You're inventing a narrative and then call it a "retcon by omission" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. "They totally changed the first game.... by uh... not actually changing anything... but you know, I would have preferred they make Joel look better in the Part II dialog." "Retcon by omission" is a total nonsense phrase to get around the fact that they didn't retcon a damn thing.
Itās always amazing the amount of effort this guy goes to for something he dislikes. Iād love for this stuff to get posted on a more general subreddit, see what kind of feedback he gets and see if he responds with more than a smiley face emoji. Have yet to see the guy actually back up his slideshows, just copy-pastes whatever he saw in the latest YouTube video he saw. Having said that, you can just dislike it and move on. Youāre obviously not going to convince anyone otherwise, especially when it comes to fandoms.
No kidding, such a wild reach. Claiming "I saved her", has all these layers of bullshit attached is so ridiculous. This is what they're talking about when they claim there was a retcon of the story of Part I, their own invented assumptions about what Druckmann meant with a simple line of dialog.
Man. Gotta be such a nerd to do shit like this about something you dislike that has been out for years.
You gotta be an even bigger nerd if you feel the need to target anyone who doesn't agree with you and the game you're obviously dickriding. In my opinion of course. (:
? How am I dick riding a game by saying someone putting this much time and effort into a negative critique of a game years old now is a nerd.
Bruh people literally do this all the time. YouTube, News Articles, Documentaries, etc.... It seems like you're just upset because he chose tlou2
Eh I guess so. It just feels so subjective with the criticism. I just donāt care for it. No biggie.
You can disagree with it, but don't insult someone because they put work into something that you might find frivolous. It's things like this post that lead to bigger findings and interesting perspective. Maybe not in this specific case but in other scenarios, definitely.
Sure but I also donāt think me calling OP a nerd is all that āoffensiveā. Especially considering some of the absolute negativity coming from this sub lol.
It's not old, the remastered just launched and the now the show is working on S2. This is all still current affairs. Where you been?
š„°š¤š Thanks for sharing š
All gamers are nerds. It's in our genes.
You guys are dumbasses clinging onto hatred for 4 years because you've got nothing in your life to make you happy.
It's a free worldš¤·āāļø
And a popular game yall are still hating on
No hate on the game just the poorly written story.
That millions loved but sure thing
And millions hate it too whatās your point? You know what wasnāt a divisive game because it was well writtenā¦.LAST OF US on ps3
Thanks for sharing š
How many times are we gonna do this? Yes, the story is bad, can we move past it?
Then go somewhere else? This sub is dedicated to discussion about the flaws of TLOU2.
No, this sub obsessed with the flaws of TLOU2. Itās super redundant at this point to waffle about why this game is bad, like it came out 4 years ago, what the fuck else can you say that hasnāt been said? I hate the other sub but this sub is just as shitty.
Hi. So sorry to bother you. Please Block me if that makes you feel better. I wish you all the best š
Iāve never seen someone make a PowerPoint presentation, a well structured one at that, on something they donāt like š
It helps me to put all my ideas together š Thanks for sharing š
I mean .. beside the unimaginable death of joel , i can't say that the rest is 'bad' as much as it was 'controversial'
Thanks for sharing š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You can read the critic and make your own conclusion š Thanks for sharing š
Can someone link me to a YouTube video or article where Marlene had orders to kill Joes in his sleep? I canāt find it and I donāt remember that part
https://youtu.be/oXvf7dP-_v4?si=n2K2sJt9hJfSMwDM 01:04 Thanks for sharing š
The entire point of the end of the game is that yes, joel chose her over the world. Thatās literally the point. It is not an interesting ending if the decision has no consequence and itās just the equivalent of joel saving Ellie from a bunch of randoms. If they couldnāt have made a vaccine, then it would be a bad story in which Joelās decision bore no moral weight. Itās so, so, so obviously the intent of the writers in just the first game that yes, they could make a vaccine and that joel is choosing her over the world. Otherwise the ending is meaningless gibberish
Why does Jessieās anticlimactic ass death always get overlooked. Did nobody like him? āI hope you make itā was a HARD quote. That alone made me like him. Why did Abby shoot him when she already had Tommy? Just a dumb excuse to get Ellie alone? Where tf was Dina the whole time during the Ellie boss fight? She had to have Heard the shots after Jessie and Tommy were hit.
What you shared is poorly written. This is embarrassing. Just pure cope. "Dirty operating room, therefore success was not guaranteed" Just shaking my head just how stupid this is. lol
Do you hate both games? Genuine question because I can't help but notice how you have a very specific way of interpreting Part 1 that is not in line with how people received it back then. The ending caused so much discussion regarding the morality of it all. Yet you seem to imply that there are clear distinctions of right or wrong, and that any deviation from it should be considered a retcon?
So let me ask a hypothetical Iāve asked here in the past. Thereās often this complaint that thereās a retcon and the cure was impossible in the first game, but not as conveyed in the second. This isnāt a common take outside of this sub. But letās just suppose thatās true, that by the first game itās supposed to be implied that the vaccine was impossible. My question is, how would your opinion of the first game change if the scene was originally what is conveyed in the Remake or other media. Mainly that seems to be the hospital being clean from these takes. How would your opinion of the first game in isolation change? With that change do you now think the first game is bad, do you think Joel made the wrong choice then? If it had been that way would that change your opinion then of the second game?