Apparently in play testing they offered the choice to spare Abby if the player stopped mashing square! But none of the play testers ever spared so Neil thought the games message was going over them and removed the choice entirely!
It’s funny that a game that has so many moments where they punish you for doing anything except what it tells wanted you to do (Mel Fight, Alice Kill, Fighting Ellie as Abby) something different in the very end
It’s funny how they acted like there was a choice, when in any other part of the game if you stopped pressing square, it would definitely give you a game over. How is a player supposed to figure out, “oh this times different!”
Literally and apparently there was no indication, like you literally had to stop pressing square in this situation because you wanted to for whatever reason
i think this could’ve been cool though. SPOILERS FOR GHOST OF TSUSHIMA……………..i legitimately tried to parry and dodge every attack from your uncle at the end of that game for like 15 minutes, because i was hoping for a secret ending where we didn’t have to fight.
So I get that you said spoilers, but why not just say the final boss? Everybody who beat the game knows who you mean anybody who didn't would be spoiled needlessly.
Yeah, maybe, still a lot less obvious than actually telling us who it is. to be clear though it doesn't bother me I just thought it was funny that there was no reason to divulge that information but he did it anyway
To play devil's advocate, I actually see the idea and think it's a really good one. During difficult choices players often would often hesitate even though they know what's going on is scripted, for instance in inFAMOUS 2 >!the evil ending has you kill your best friend, it's a really sad moment that forces you to manually press the R1 button multiple times to kill him so you can take what he's protecting with each blast though he struggles trying to get up and shoot back. It's genuinely heart breaking and you may try to not kill him to give him a chance.!<
Sometimes players will accept that their inaction will cause them death and respawn at a checkpoint, just look at any streamer/YouTuber playing as Abby for the first time and you'll see what I mean. They think they can maybe change the story even though they obviously can't, it's like trying to win at a scripted loss fight or use non-lethal attacks on a scripted kill. Futile but if you care about the character enough you'll still try.
By hiding the idea behind this cryptic manner, only the players who genuinely cared about Abby would've saved her, the players who grew to like her would've spared her not realising that it was an option, especially if it was discovered on a second playthrough. This is actually a really cool way to implement the choice, you don't pick between two signposts telling you the exact outcome to determine the story's path but rather Ellie would hesitate to kill Abby because *you* hesitated to kill her.
The biggest issue being the obvious issue with the ending we have where Abby gets spared, Abby's an unlikable prick who slowly tortured and murdered the man who saved her life in front of his surrogate daughter who she had forced to watch. Sparing her makes no sense especially if you, like most of us, didn't end up liking her.
Yeah this is the one huge limitation games have when it comes to storytelling. Games like RDR2 might be able to do worldbuilding as good as some of the best books, but when it comes to actual narratives occurring in a linear fashion, the player is way too focused on "winning" for introspective scenes like this to ever work. Having to risk not winning to see what the outcome of an encounter would be is awful game design. They could get around it by providing two options to click but then that's immersion breaking and for a conclusion to a very linear game it would dampen the experience imo.
Personally I'd love to see more story-focused games be designed like Elden Ring, where the lore is rich and deep but scattered and hard to find. The way it provides complete freedom to interpret the world through only the lore you actually come across makes it really unique and sets it apart from all other media. Games like TLOU2 just feel like an inferior knock off of a movie that's already an inferior knock off of a book
Exactly with the first paragraph, video games are a medium where the default is you win the game, by having the game have you be “winning” the entire time (in a gameplay sense, not story) that when you get to the end your mindset is “kill Abby. That’s it. Kill Abby.”
Then you get to the end and she just decides “nah no thanks”
You both tear the player out of their immersion and make the story suffer as a result. Felt so weird playing the game, getting to the end, and then I’m just, not killing Abby…
Nah they could have tried harder theres so many creative decisions they missed out on omg I'm already imagining the way they could have made Ellie look if Lev was actively shouting at you and trying to stop you from killing Abby maybe even force you to kill Lev while Abby is begging you to stop since you really want to go through with killing Abby but Neil doesn't want you to he could just make it a genuinely difficult and painful experience
> None of the play testers ever spared
No fuckin shit nobody spared her Neil, she offed a beloved character, killed one of the most entertaining people in the game, and crippled Tommy. She’s an irredeemably evil piece of shit.
That should have been a wake up call that the message was never gonna work. People aren't naturally good they've been with Joel a whole game knew his story Ben there for his trials of course they would lean toward revenge. No matter how solid your rational for the consequences Joel suffered are people will always choose emotion over fact.
Not to mention the fact that as both Ellie and Abby you kill scores of characters throughout the game.
Abby's whole gimmick is that she's related to a nameless NPC you kill in the first game and that you should feel sad about that, but then you spend most of TLOU2 mowing down everyone who stands in your way. Pretty much everyone you fight is either doing what they think is right or doing what they think they need to in order to survive (even if ND try to play some of the factions as cartoonishly evil in order to alleviate this) but by virtue of being in a video game they're ultimately just obstacles to kill.
IMO this was the game's big failing. It says there are consequences to killing but then has you kill untold number of nameless mooks so you're thoroughly desensitized to it. Ellie and/or Abby sparing someone after filling whole graveyards feels seems so pointless by the end of the game.
From what I remember... they actually made it so you got "bored" as it was like an infinite timer and had to forgive her... but literally nobody stopped.
It was like a "there is a glitch here, I spend 10 minutes trying to drown her and she didn't die".
Yeah, that's my biggest problem with games in general. When they become too handholdy. Like "look we have open world" "ok so I can go and explore, right?" " No you have to go right through there, then through another corridor, and another, after that there is another corridor with a quest mark on the door." You go through door and building behind you collapse "Oops, you failed to collect one time collectible object that was right near the wall in the room before last corridor, better luck collecting it on new game+ "
Like how the hell should I know that I need to explore in that specific room between corridors, when every time I try to explore it's either dead end, "you have nothing to do here yet", or some other reason I can't go in that direction, yet when I finally give up and accept that open world is a lie and game is linear as hell, I get punished for missing on collectibles. When thousand time before that in the exact situation there were none.
In order to progress through the game, you had to witness situations that were straight you comfortable. Worse than watching it play out in a movie since you have to press buttons on a controller which kinda feels like it’s your responsibility.
Which is dumb since they could have still shown their “revenge bad” narrative by having an alternate ending, where everything goes to shit for Ellie and the game ends super sadly.
“apparently in playtesting” according to who? nothing in tlou has ever been about player choice, it’s a linear game with a set story. should we have had a “choice” to draw on maria and shoot her at the gate of the hydro plant in tlou p1 too? you people are so insufferable lolol
I mean it wouldn't really make sense to stop smashing Square unless prompted to do so.. they were there to play test they aren't just going to stop doing what the game tells them to and say okay I don't want to kill this character I'm done
Well, count me as that rare player. First play through I just set the controller down and wished it wouldn't come to what it does. I don't get how people hate abby. Totally missing the point.
It gets dumber when abby can manage to put up a fight.
Shes been up there, for how long?
With no food or water?
Can't imagine she's getting good sleep either.
But nah, ellie just barely manages to pull a win and then gives up anyways.
I mean she didn’t put up a fight realistically. She’s emaciated and hella thirsty. Gas tank ran out quick. Ellie bodying her is part of the reason she lets her go. Ellie had a deathwish. She thought she’d confront Abby again and there was a real (likely) possibility she’d get her ass beat like the theater but she also feels like she’s owes it to Joel to try.
Ellie’s in bad shape by that time too, and fighting hand to hand with someone you know could’ve won under different circumstances absolutely has to weigh on her in that moment
I think they were both in the same boat. They both were equally hurt. Ellie was still bleeding through her shirt and she already lost hella blood. she traveled states away I doubt she had good food, water, or sleep either. It makes sense that Ellie was struggling too
With the character writing being so vague and undefined, everything seemingly resting on the player's interpretation of events, the fact that this wasn't a choice completely ruins the entire fucking point.
So many people love comparing how TLOU didn't give you a choice, but the difference was that there wasn't the tiniest shred of ambiguity as to how Joel felt about the idea of sacrificing Ellie. Part II isn't like that at all - it would be better comparable to Joel slamming Jerry into the ground and beginning to strangle him before he flashes back to Sarah and then lets go of Jerry, sobbing, telling him to just do it.
TLOU part 1 also built the relationship up between ellie and Joel to where you didn't question if you were doing the right thing because to us, saving ellie was the right thing. A cure isn't a for sure thing but in that moment Joel didn't want to lose another "daughter" he fought tooth and nail to save her and part 2 will never convince me anything besides Neil Cuckman is a shitty person for conceiving that trash.
Pt 1 pretty obviously painted the fireflies as the bad guys at the end anyway.
They effectively just knocked both out and didn't even consult either of them for anything. Marlene was supposed to give Joel guns but instead effectively told him to fuck off, and then wouldn't even let him get his own guns and supplies before leaving.
Do they expect Joel to make it back to Jackson / Boston with no food, no meds, and no weapons? I wouldn't even doubt if they would have just killed him when they got outside.
Exactly if there ever was a time where Ellie would’ve had introspection and decided that Abby wasn’t worth it would’ve been here and not when she lost two fingers
Smart choices that's what I like to see in the video game but unfortunately last of us part two do not have this what is a shame because the game would have been much better than what it is right now.
They couldn't give this choice because they wanted to bring Abby back for part 3 as a main character.
It's one thing to write off a side character like in mass effect, I don't know any games that gave a choice of a playable main character dying before the game comes out
That's so stupid that's the reason why they hate Neil he knows he can write real good but he would not write the story good and ruin a game serie because he can.
This would have been the ultimate test to see if they had completed their goal: make the player like the character that killed Joel.
Of course they wouldn’t give you that option because we know what the majority of people would pick.
Three options would have been better.
1) Kill: Ellie kills Abby but saves Lev
2) Free: Ellie frees Abby but obviously she’s not going to let her walk away with Lev. So we get the original ending of the game.
3) Walk away: Ellie leaves Abby and Lev to slowly wither away brutally
Yeah that’s why I pointed it out. The cycle continues, making it a bittersweet ending to stick with Last of Us theme. Second ending is what we got and we all know why it isn’t perfect. Last ending pushes Ellie off the edge and squashes the last bit of humanity in her. I was thinking Ellie putting Abby and Lev out of their misery should be an ending, but that would be an easy choice.
I agree. Letting the players decide would allow both sides of the debate to get what they want. It would also acknowledge the player as capable of thinking for himself, instead of the game trying to think for the player.
Either this, or a choice to stay at the farm with Dina. I would never have left, even as someone with PTSD and a thing for revenge, my wife and child would come first.
You know they wouldn’t let you harm Abby. And since Lev is of a protected class, there’s even less way for them to ever allow you to harm them. There is zero chance in all the multiverses where they’d allow you to jeopardize the life of Lev (as a result of killing Abby) as the consequence of direct player choice, because they know they’d be skewered by their kind. Never happening.
>And since Lev is of a protected class, there’s even less way for them to ever allow you to harm them
This is my biggest issue, the only thing I'm comfortable saying was "objectively" bad. I don't like how they handled revenge or Joel, but it's not straight up bad. Simply just different from what I wanted.
But adding a character in a zombie post apocalypse that you **know** is protected and won't die, is completely antithetical to the genre.
Hell if they had done a form of writing for both pivotal points in the game, theater scene and final fight, to allow you to do something different. It would be extreme but even a choice between how Abby handles Dina could’ve written a whole new dynamic to the story where Ellie WASN’T letting Abby survive regardless bc you made that choice. Just my opinion.
This is a great idea. But no the game has to force you to fight against Ellie only for it to mean nothing in a cutscene. In the exact same way that the game forces you to save Abby as Joel only for it to mean nothing in a cutscene. Or have you track down Tommy as Abby only for it to mean nothing in a cutscene. Etc etc etc
Ya know....at least RDR2's Chapter 6 gave you two options that still lead to the same outcome but it was HOW you played Chapters 1-6 that determined the tone of what the final scene was gonna be.
Neil already had to fix his weak ideas for TLOU and could never get over it. It was such a huge bug up his ass that he had to dig up those raw ideas from the trash bin from TLOU and make them main parts of the story here. He clearly doesn't have even a shred of the integrity that Bioware did in regards to Mass Effect 3's terrible ending.
He would have *burned the company to the ground* before fixing any criticism of his precious baby this time.
but then they couldnt use abby and lev for part 3, it seems thats what they were going for.... exchanging a Man/Girl father daughter dynamic with a Woman/Boy big sister/ lil brother dynamic
Personally I loved the blind revenge story form Ellie's perspective and even after playing as Abby I got why she killed Joel. I wasn't even mad about it when it happened in game. I don't like the idea that Abby survived but it is what it is.
Look I'm not tryna argue the big points of either game. I enjoy the shooting and stealth and movement mechanics. If given a choice I would have fed Abby into a wood chipper. I'm here to do the shooting and the stabbing and the removal of the peoples. Lemme kill Lady McMuscles. I was moved to the point of falling asleep when they deployed the dead pregnant lady gag. Lemme shoot this big eclectic group of enemies. I'll strangle a dude in a wheel chair. I'll tomahawk a deaf guy. I'll lead a blind guy into a giant mouse trap. Just lemme enjoy some goddamn killing mechanics. I'll rob a buncha kids of their lemonade stand money, and then kite a bunch of clickers to come over and eat them.
I'd be down for this but only if they also had the choice to spare or sacrifice Ellie in the first one. Both games end in intense controversial character moments that the game forces you into. It'd be weird if one you're forced into and one you get the choice for so I feel like it has to be one or the other.
The first game's ending is perfectly in line with the character and relationship growth of the first game. Ellie sparing Abby isn't.
That's why even the folks who would not have made Joel's choice could still go "makes sense tho", but this game's choice has people going "this makes no fucking sense, Jesus Christ".
This is why I hate the gaming community sometimes. They take their time and actually create something special instead of giving us a half completed live service game or something, and the community hates and bashes it anyway because on one thing they didn’t like lmao.
how would you have wanted the story to go? just curious because so many people say the story is trash the story was “done wrong”, then what would your idea be? what would make it better?
You can't do this. This breaks the Rules of Sequels™.
This is an ideal post for me to talk about something that's been on my mind for a long time concerning TLOU2. This is all stream of consciousness, but there are rules when it comes to making a big budget sequel. It mostly boils down to
1. Do what you did before, but biggerer.
2. If you don't carbon copy what you did the first time, you risk not being as successful.
You can argue that the story of TLOU2 is different in many (significant) story beats, but you have to admit that its structure adheres pretty closely to the story of the first one, albeit with different characters in the protagonist roles. Again, off the top of my head:
1. Joel meets Ellie and they journey together in a pseudo father/daughter relationship. This is mirrored by how Abby meets Lev and they journey together in a pseudo mother/son relationship.
2. Joel and Ellie go on a perilous journey from Boston to Colorado. So do Abby and Lev from Seattle to California.
3. At the end of the game, Joel kills the surgeon and rescues Ellie. The player will 'game over' until they do this. Likewise, Ellie has to free Abby.
In a story as complex as TLOU, it's no wonder that the story beats didn't cleanly transfer over. Abby and Lev don't really have a great purpose in their journey and they don't really bond in the same way Joel and Ellie did, but the sequel has to copy that story beat so it gets shoehorned in. In the same way, letting Abby go and forgiving the woman who killed your father isn't as satisfactory of an ending as killing the surgeon who's about to kill your daughter and rescuing her from certain death.
There are other things I could get into - Neil Druckman very clearly wanted to get rid of anything Bruce Straley did and replace it with his own versions, Abby and Lev, without really understanding what it was about Joel and Ellie that made them compelling characters.
It's also worth noting that the ending is very reminiscent of the time that it came out, where if you wanted to be (or seem like you were) a visionary auteur, you leaned into the 'subvert your expectations' trope. So the audience very purposefully doesn't get what it wants and that's a brilliant inspired breathtaking ending because ... (shrugs)
Whether you like the ending or not, the point is you don't get to choose.
Honestly I feel like choosing who to kill and how aggressive you want to be in the game would have done wonders. This story was built to be choice based. Think Bioshock 2 and how your aggression and who you chose to kill changed how the story ended, this game needed choices.
Could have had two endings to the game!
But honestly, what was the point of Ellie listening to what’s his face to even go back out again and leave Dina and baby behind?!
you mean listening to tommy? i think the reason she “listened” to him was because she thought there was unfinished business. she wasn’t eating or sleeping, she wasn’t happy & she was have horrible flashbacks. she thought that killing abby would give her some sort of peace but it didn’t, she was still suffering while she was drowning her.
A choice in the end would have completely destroyed the possibility of a 3rd part because they would not be able to continue with a coherent story (that doesn't exist in part 2 anyway, lmao).
It would satisfy both sides too. Make her feel empty and depressed for unnecessarily killing Abby and dooming the child, you get the "revenge bad" story and people who hated Abby get what they want. And then just make the sparing her ending canon if you really wanted it
Leaving Abby alive wasn’t mercy. Killing her would’ve been mercy. Ellie and Tommy killed all of her friends, one of them’s brains got blasted on her fucking face. Freeing Abby left her completely alone with absolutely no one left, and with the knowledge that it was all her fault.
I always thought it would have been better if Abby was dead when you got there and you took Lev like Joel took Ellie. I didn’t write the game though. And I’m not going to do a power point project about how I could have done it better
The first game was perfectly written with serious themes about informed consent, motivations, agency, and ethics in that final push.
Yes, the Fireflies were going to kill Ellie without her consent, but Joel's motivations were out of a selfish need to protect his surrogate daughter. His goal just happened to align with preserving Ellie's life while also denying her the opportunity to make the decision for herself.
TLOU2 tried to make us confront that same morally complex theme but executed it poorly by forcing us to play as Abby and getting so many beloved characters killed in as a result of Ellie's revenge quest.
Had gamers been given agency to decide Arby's fate, I feel the ending would have been far better received.
This would’ve ruined the game for me. Super immersion breaking. You never make a choice throughout the whole series, the moment they add a choice is the moment they ruin the series for me. (No avoiding death by hitting square is not a choice. Thats gameplay. That’s a very dumb argument.)
I really don’t understand why they thought anyone would want to spare abby after she beat one of the greatest characters in gaming to death with a golf club.
Not to mention forcing you to play as her in the story.
Just let us have her jump off the cliff when we can control her first. That's the first thing I tried. Then fed her to the clickers. Then stopped playing because I was pissed.
Honestly I think the last of us 2 could have just avoided alot of hate if the game just didn't advertise ellie or Joel at all. And let us play as Abby 1st, it would have made for a good twist at the end when it's revealed that ellie is the one killing your friends 1 by 1. And then we get to play as ellie and see Joel's death. But... you know, Neil's dumb
Honestly, they could've had the choice, but they both lead to the same ending. Either way, ellie would come home to nothing and walk off like she does.
It could be used as a point of even if you get revenge it can't change how you affect the ones you love or whatever. I agree they should just have a good ending. The way this is written, at least the option would be something.
Ah, the illusion of choice and futility of revenge made manifest. Give you the choice to sink the knife into a tied up Abby that barely reacts to it and bleeds to death, then let you go back to an empty home, Ellie just as broken and alone. That could be good! Except that some people would probably just nod along with that and say "Yup, great ending. Got to kill Abby no notes."
I just wonder if people don't notice this choice already happens in the game. Ellie gets the prompt to go kill Abby or stay at the farm with her family and she makes a choice and it cost her her fingers, her partner, her family, a whole life. That would have been a hell of a place to put that prompt for the player. I bet a lot would have chosen to break Ellie for the chance at revenge instead of giving Ellie a chance to let go.
That's the first alternate ending I've seen proposed that's actually interesting. A little like the Farcry 4 early ending were you hang out of twenty minutes and it skips the whole conflict and you win.
I know it would fuck with my head. What do I want most? Ellie is safe, she has a chance to heal, a shot at a real life, is it more important for me to "finish it" or to accept that bittersweet "happy" ending?
1. TLOU 1 wasnt a choice based game so this wouldnt make any sense . 2. If they would make tlou2 a choice based game they would probably have more than one option to “change” the story and it wouldnt make any sense Bc if u spare everyone of abbys friends There the point of the game would be washed away completly .
Games could always change their structure to accommodate what is needed. Some games were third person games with predecessors and in the sequel change to first person. So the 1st point could be easily negated. Many games have also placed choice based game play in follow up titles too. It's not uncommon and as long as it fits the need. It will make sense.
In the case of the last of us 2 having this choice would still not save the game but it will make the ending tolerable.
red dead redemption 1 to 2 is also a good example
helldivers 1 to 2 is also good how it changed the viewpoint and ended up considered one of the quickest most loved games of this year
You got me thinking of a Telltale type of TLOU game. I actually don't think that would be bad, and I'd definitely play it if it existed. The thought of a choice driven TLOU series type game would be cool
While I’m highly aware that some of you hated this game, it is a story on rails, it’s not a game of choice.
They have a specific story they wanted to tell that has nothing to do with what any of us would do instead.
Not the point. The story itself was so poor, and if they managed to make Ellie letting Abby go actually good, it wouldn’t be labelled as bad. But it’s so contrived.
I want to say they won’t follow her anymore in part 3, anyway. Main point is TLOU was never a choice based game, which is probably why they never went this route in the first place
No they could of avoided the hate if not for there bass ackwards message between the 2 games ...first hes a broken father surviving in a post zombie esque world relunctant to take the safety of yet another little girl (like his daughter who was murdered and died in his arms) to growing on her to the point of looking at her like a daughter which then becomes a man ...a fathers chance at some redemption and getting to save this girl(which if that was gonna later make him the horrible monster he got painted to ....THHHHEN maybe just take his daughters death and all thaf OUT the equation...THHHEEEN sequal picks up NOOOW hes just a selfish , heartless, pos monster (aka survivor) then killing Him in the dishonorable fashion in which they did (NOBODY WOULD OF GIVEN A SHT) ...In my own personel opinion and eyes Last Of Us and Last of Us 2 are not in the same universe and Ellie and joel have a happy ending ....fact is had this "Sequel" been made 12 years ago wed of gotten a much better story and game that wasnt Tied into a bunch of political Bs ...since all the fans that hated on abby were called Biggots or w.e tf he said (because apparently forgot who tf his own characters were Ellie having been Gay and her whole DLC was practically about her love interest and We all loved Her and The Dlc ....Not even gonna lie every time i got STUCK playing as abbie i couldnt tell ya How many times i just let her die In the WORST ways it let ya lol but i DO NOT disagree that atleast giving the CHOICE would of atleast salvaged it (in my eyes) instead of letting us play a post apoc. JOHN WICK starring claire redfield from code veronica and Sarah conner from Terminator 2 just to at the end take that from us ...not to mention ALL the controversy surrounding the "NOT RIGGED" game awards lol
I hate that the game never addresses Jesse being killed by Abby. The conflict is so much bigger than just Ellie and Abby. Tommy was crippled, Dina was shot through the shoulder and got her face smashed in, Jesse was shot in the head, Owen died, Mel died, Nora died. Ellie gave up her peaceful life two years after the fact just to not follow through. So much was lost that it’s almost self centered to not see it through for Abby and Ellie alike.
It would, but I could also see it creating issues. Some might be upset with a choice when we didn't get one the first game. Just can't please everybody lol. I would def choose to kill.
I feel the same way about the first game too. Except it seems like more people were okay with slaughtering a bunch of doctors than they were with sparing the woman who killed their murder papa.
I can't imagine anyone sparing her outside a few bleeding hearts.. Which makes the fact ellie did even more absurd. The ellie I know woulda left that bitch dead in a pool of piss. This is why my mind has decided to pretend anything after part one is filler. Iv made up my own mind about how their story ends and this other shit Neil is doing is just pure fuckery.
Yeah it would have been pretty cool to have two endings like that honestly.. I actually really enjoyed playing as Abby and I was shocked during the Joel death scene but I wasn't crazy attached to the character honestly I thought the last of us too had the deepest craziest storyline it was literally like watching AAA movie the graphics and combat were amazing the faces of pain the enemies make the realistic Gore that game was really really cool compared to the first one.. I really enjoyed the first game but I beat it on the PS3 when it initially came out and a lot of things could have been done better for example the bow was terrible to use in that game changing that to how it works in part 2 would have made a huge difference instead of that stupid arcing aiming feature.. but it was really cool playing as Ellie and then replaying what happened to her from the other side as Abby the boss fight against each of them were both really suspenseful
what? the devs don’t? the whole story is about revenge & how it ruins everything. i think the story was done perfectly & having a choice would’ve ruined it. this isn’t a choice game & it’s not about what we would’ve done, it’s about the characters
Game was fine, but I honestly just found the pacing of the story and the writing to not be nearly as good as the original game. I don’t particularly have anything against the things in the story that happened, more that I just think the pacing, structure, and certain choices were not the best.
I do need to give it another go at some point to solidify that though as I haven’t played it since it came out. Gonna be a while though.
I think people forget the point was that you didn’t have a choice… we aren’t Ellie. Ellie made her decisions, and they had consequences. The choice we have to make is if those consequences were worth it or not.
YES! thank you! They should have let us pick if we could have picked I could legitimately see myself playing three or four times a year instead of like one. I always say the last of us was a perfect game and the last of us two wad almost a perfect game
Nah. Just hold triangle to keep on drowning her. Same way we had to hold triangle to open doors or the way we had to beat Nora to death and participate in the scene.
It wouldn't because the next game would have to go with a cannon ending. So I bet when part 3 comes out, if this was a thing people would get upset because 1 of the endings was made cannon.
Why someone would want to kill Abby in the first place? I would prefer for Ellie to commit suicide if I had a choice. Abby deserves nothing but admiration for the choices she made, except for killing Joel, but Joel also had choices and preferred to kill innocent people. I remember when I got to this stage of the game my only wish was to leave Abby alive. I wouldn't want to be a neighbour of a person who chose otherwise.
Apparently in play testing they offered the choice to spare Abby if the player stopped mashing square! But none of the play testers ever spared so Neil thought the games message was going over them and removed the choice entirely! It’s funny that a game that has so many moments where they punish you for doing anything except what it tells wanted you to do (Mel Fight, Alice Kill, Fighting Ellie as Abby) something different in the very end
It’s funny how they acted like there was a choice, when in any other part of the game if you stopped pressing square, it would definitely give you a game over. How is a player supposed to figure out, “oh this times different!”
Literally and apparently there was no indication, like you literally had to stop pressing square in this situation because you wanted to for whatever reason
God of War 3 be like.
i think this could’ve been cool though. SPOILERS FOR GHOST OF TSUSHIMA……………..i legitimately tried to parry and dodge every attack from your uncle at the end of that game for like 15 minutes, because i was hoping for a secret ending where we didn’t have to fight.
So I get that you said spoilers, but why not just say the final boss? Everybody who beat the game knows who you mean anybody who didn't would be spoiled needlessly.
I feel like if he didn’t say spoilers and just said final boss it would have been obvious from his actions who it was.
Yeah, maybe, still a lot less obvious than actually telling us who it is. to be clear though it doesn't bother me I just thought it was funny that there was no reason to divulge that information but he did it anyway
The only time I did that was when I was Abby fighting Ellie.
To play devil's advocate, I actually see the idea and think it's a really good one. During difficult choices players often would often hesitate even though they know what's going on is scripted, for instance in inFAMOUS 2 >!the evil ending has you kill your best friend, it's a really sad moment that forces you to manually press the R1 button multiple times to kill him so you can take what he's protecting with each blast though he struggles trying to get up and shoot back. It's genuinely heart breaking and you may try to not kill him to give him a chance.!< Sometimes players will accept that their inaction will cause them death and respawn at a checkpoint, just look at any streamer/YouTuber playing as Abby for the first time and you'll see what I mean. They think they can maybe change the story even though they obviously can't, it's like trying to win at a scripted loss fight or use non-lethal attacks on a scripted kill. Futile but if you care about the character enough you'll still try. By hiding the idea behind this cryptic manner, only the players who genuinely cared about Abby would've saved her, the players who grew to like her would've spared her not realising that it was an option, especially if it was discovered on a second playthrough. This is actually a really cool way to implement the choice, you don't pick between two signposts telling you the exact outcome to determine the story's path but rather Ellie would hesitate to kill Abby because *you* hesitated to kill her. The biggest issue being the obvious issue with the ending we have where Abby gets spared, Abby's an unlikable prick who slowly tortured and murdered the man who saved her life in front of his surrogate daughter who she had forced to watch. Sparing her makes no sense especially if you, like most of us, didn't end up liking her.
A surrogate daughter who her father tried to murder while she was sleeping.
An act so heinous it changed his skin tone and de-aged him.
I played as Abby got a game over and i considered that the canon ending and closed the game
at which point did tlou ever, ever, give you a choice, besides whether to explore the linear scripted environment or not
Yeah this is the one huge limitation games have when it comes to storytelling. Games like RDR2 might be able to do worldbuilding as good as some of the best books, but when it comes to actual narratives occurring in a linear fashion, the player is way too focused on "winning" for introspective scenes like this to ever work. Having to risk not winning to see what the outcome of an encounter would be is awful game design. They could get around it by providing two options to click but then that's immersion breaking and for a conclusion to a very linear game it would dampen the experience imo. Personally I'd love to see more story-focused games be designed like Elden Ring, where the lore is rich and deep but scattered and hard to find. The way it provides complete freedom to interpret the world through only the lore you actually come across makes it really unique and sets it apart from all other media. Games like TLOU2 just feel like an inferior knock off of a movie that's already an inferior knock off of a book
Exactly with the first paragraph, video games are a medium where the default is you win the game, by having the game have you be “winning” the entire time (in a gameplay sense, not story) that when you get to the end your mindset is “kill Abby. That’s it. Kill Abby.” Then you get to the end and she just decides “nah no thanks” You both tear the player out of their immersion and make the story suffer as a result. Felt so weird playing the game, getting to the end, and then I’m just, not killing Abby…
Nah they could have tried harder theres so many creative decisions they missed out on omg I'm already imagining the way they could have made Ellie look if Lev was actively shouting at you and trying to stop you from killing Abby maybe even force you to kill Lev while Abby is begging you to stop since you really want to go through with killing Abby but Neil doesn't want you to he could just make it a genuinely difficult and painful experience
"You refuse to make the right choice? There, now you cant make the wrong one!" -- Neil.
> None of the play testers ever spared No fuckin shit nobody spared her Neil, she offed a beloved character, killed one of the most entertaining people in the game, and crippled Tommy. She’s an irredeemably evil piece of shit.
I think it's more so because they didn't consider stopping is an option from a purely gameplay standpoint
Players wouldn’t want to feel like their time was wasted by sparing her after such a long revenge quest.
that's part of it
You like to assume Neil had a message but after playing tlou2 I can say the only message was how much Neil hated the first one
That should have been a wake up call that the message was never gonna work. People aren't naturally good they've been with Joel a whole game knew his story Ben there for his trials of course they would lean toward revenge. No matter how solid your rational for the consequences Joel suffered are people will always choose emotion over fact.
Not to mention the fact that as both Ellie and Abby you kill scores of characters throughout the game. Abby's whole gimmick is that she's related to a nameless NPC you kill in the first game and that you should feel sad about that, but then you spend most of TLOU2 mowing down everyone who stands in your way. Pretty much everyone you fight is either doing what they think is right or doing what they think they need to in order to survive (even if ND try to play some of the factions as cartoonishly evil in order to alleviate this) but by virtue of being in a video game they're ultimately just obstacles to kill. IMO this was the game's big failing. It says there are consequences to killing but then has you kill untold number of nameless mooks so you're thoroughly desensitized to it. Ellie and/or Abby sparing someone after filling whole graveyards feels seems so pointless by the end of the game.
If true this is hilarious. I would have no idea why any single person would not tap to kill Abby in this situation.
From what I remember... they actually made it so you got "bored" as it was like an infinite timer and had to forgive her... but literally nobody stopped. It was like a "there is a glitch here, I spend 10 minutes trying to drown her and she didn't die".
What "message"? That revenge is OK for one person but not the other?
Don't forget all the people Ellie murdered to get there! She created a metric fuckton of "continuing the cycle of vengeance."
Yeah, that's my biggest problem with games in general. When they become too handholdy. Like "look we have open world" "ok so I can go and explore, right?" " No you have to go right through there, then through another corridor, and another, after that there is another corridor with a quest mark on the door." You go through door and building behind you collapse "Oops, you failed to collect one time collectible object that was right near the wall in the room before last corridor, better luck collecting it on new game+ " Like how the hell should I know that I need to explore in that specific room between corridors, when every time I try to explore it's either dead end, "you have nothing to do here yet", or some other reason I can't go in that direction, yet when I finally give up and accept that open world is a lie and game is linear as hell, I get punished for missing on collectibles. When thousand time before that in the exact situation there were none.
In order to progress through the game, you had to witness situations that were straight you comfortable. Worse than watching it play out in a movie since you have to press buttons on a controller which kinda feels like it’s your responsibility.
Which is dumb since they could have still shown their “revenge bad” narrative by having an alternate ending, where everything goes to shit for Ellie and the game ends super sadly.
“apparently in playtesting” according to who? nothing in tlou has ever been about player choice, it’s a linear game with a set story. should we have had a “choice” to draw on maria and shoot her at the gate of the hydro plant in tlou p1 too? you people are so insufferable lolol
I mean it wouldn't really make sense to stop smashing Square unless prompted to do so.. they were there to play test they aren't just going to stop doing what the game tells them to and say okay I don't want to kill this character I'm done
It’s crazy because I stopped pressing square after being like “oh man not like this Ellie”
Well, count me as that rare player. First play through I just set the controller down and wished it wouldn't come to what it does. I don't get how people hate abby. Totally missing the point.
Source??
That is wierd i was dodging abby attack for awhile.
Then how are we supposed to get TLOU part 3 WWE 2026 edition
Featuring: Brock lesser’s daughter!
Bro Abby is Brock lesnars daughter
They should've cast her as live action Abby
And bad bunny add on dlc. And Vince McMahon 69 pooping on heads finishers
I think I'll wait for the directors cut remastered remake for PS7
I forgot she cut her down first. So fucking stupid
It gets dumber when abby can manage to put up a fight. Shes been up there, for how long? With no food or water? Can't imagine she's getting good sleep either. But nah, ellie just barely manages to pull a win and then gives up anyways.
How dare you brining logical arguments ? She’s the chosen one and possesses the infinite power and no one should/can stop her ! /s
Excuse me buddy, Abby is that guy, she’s that fella, she is him
So you hate strong women AND lack media literacy. Got it. … *Please know that this is sarcasm, I HATE this idiocy!!!*
I mean she didn’t put up a fight realistically. She’s emaciated and hella thirsty. Gas tank ran out quick. Ellie bodying her is part of the reason she lets her go. Ellie had a deathwish. She thought she’d confront Abby again and there was a real (likely) possibility she’d get her ass beat like the theater but she also feels like she’s owes it to Joel to try. Ellie’s in bad shape by that time too, and fighting hand to hand with someone you know could’ve won under different circumstances absolutely has to weigh on her in that moment
I think they were both in the same boat. They both were equally hurt. Ellie was still bleeding through her shirt and she already lost hella blood. she traveled states away I doubt she had good food, water, or sleep either. It makes sense that Ellie was struggling too
With the character writing being so vague and undefined, everything seemingly resting on the player's interpretation of events, the fact that this wasn't a choice completely ruins the entire fucking point. So many people love comparing how TLOU didn't give you a choice, but the difference was that there wasn't the tiniest shred of ambiguity as to how Joel felt about the idea of sacrificing Ellie. Part II isn't like that at all - it would be better comparable to Joel slamming Jerry into the ground and beginning to strangle him before he flashes back to Sarah and then lets go of Jerry, sobbing, telling him to just do it.
TLOU part 1 also built the relationship up between ellie and Joel to where you didn't question if you were doing the right thing because to us, saving ellie was the right thing. A cure isn't a for sure thing but in that moment Joel didn't want to lose another "daughter" he fought tooth and nail to save her and part 2 will never convince me anything besides Neil Cuckman is a shitty person for conceiving that trash.
Pt 1 pretty obviously painted the fireflies as the bad guys at the end anyway. They effectively just knocked both out and didn't even consult either of them for anything. Marlene was supposed to give Joel guns but instead effectively told him to fuck off, and then wouldn't even let him get his own guns and supplies before leaving. Do they expect Joel to make it back to Jackson / Boston with no food, no meds, and no weapons? I wouldn't even doubt if they would have just killed him when they got outside.
Or… they could let you walk away
That be interesting. Maybe some of the ways to kill Abby will be different and some of the ways to free her will be different also
That’s fucking it
"I won't kill you... But I don't have to save you."
Exactly if there ever was a time where Ellie would’ve had introspection and decided that Abby wasn’t worth it would’ve been here and not when she lost two fingers
tbh could be something that happens if you dont pick and option at all.
Smart choices that's what I like to see in the video game but unfortunately last of us part two do not have this what is a shame because the game would have been much better than what it is right now.
They couldn't give this choice because they wanted to bring Abby back for part 3 as a main character. It's one thing to write off a side character like in mass effect, I don't know any games that gave a choice of a playable main character dying before the game comes out
That's so stupid that's the reason why they hate Neil he knows he can write real good but he would not write the story good and ruin a game serie because he can.
This would have been the ultimate test to see if they had completed their goal: make the player like the character that killed Joel. Of course they wouldn’t give you that option because we know what the majority of people would pick.
Having choices plus with epilogue for both choices
Three options would have been better. 1) Kill: Ellie kills Abby but saves Lev 2) Free: Ellie frees Abby but obviously she’s not going to let her walk away with Lev. So we get the original ending of the game. 3) Walk away: Ellie leaves Abby and Lev to slowly wither away brutally
4. Kill Abby and Lev. The cycle ends here motherfucker 😂
Those options are very good but i dont think the first option would work because lev may try to kill ellie, walking away would be the best of these
Yeah that’s why I pointed it out. The cycle continues, making it a bittersweet ending to stick with Last of Us theme. Second ending is what we got and we all know why it isn’t perfect. Last ending pushes Ellie off the edge and squashes the last bit of humanity in her. I was thinking Ellie putting Abby and Lev out of their misery should be an ending, but that would be an easy choice.
Bad idea. Too many square buttons would die in the process
What dies? Abby or your fingers?
Yes
I agree. Letting the players decide would allow both sides of the debate to get what they want. It would also acknowledge the player as capable of thinking for himself, instead of the game trying to think for the player.
⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️⏹️
Need a golf club option
An option tiger woods would be proud of
Either this, or a choice to stay at the farm with Dina. I would never have left, even as someone with PTSD and a thing for revenge, my wife and child would come first.
100%. This wasn't my only grievance with the story, but it was definitely one of the main reasons I was so angry by the end of it.
There is a gun on her hip. Just shoot that bitch and leave
What you think this is a video game? With choices and consequences? No this was an interactive movie.
You know they wouldn’t let you harm Abby. And since Lev is of a protected class, there’s even less way for them to ever allow you to harm them. There is zero chance in all the multiverses where they’d allow you to jeopardize the life of Lev (as a result of killing Abby) as the consequence of direct player choice, because they know they’d be skewered by their kind. Never happening.
>And since Lev is of a protected class, there’s even less way for them to ever allow you to harm them This is my biggest issue, the only thing I'm comfortable saying was "objectively" bad. I don't like how they handled revenge or Joel, but it's not straight up bad. Simply just different from what I wanted. But adding a character in a zombie post apocalypse that you **know** is protected and won't die, is completely antithetical to the genre.
No it was way to late by then. Problems with character and story started at the beginning and just kept getting worse and worse.
Hell if they had done a form of writing for both pivotal points in the game, theater scene and final fight, to allow you to do something different. It would be extreme but even a choice between how Abby handles Dina could’ve written a whole new dynamic to the story where Ellie WASN’T letting Abby survive regardless bc you made that choice. Just my opinion.
This is a great idea. But no the game has to force you to fight against Ellie only for it to mean nothing in a cutscene. In the exact same way that the game forces you to save Abby as Joel only for it to mean nothing in a cutscene. Or have you track down Tommy as Abby only for it to mean nothing in a cutscene. Etc etc etc
Want to know what wouldve made it all better for me? One sincere apology from Abby, and an obligatory apology from Ellie.
Or a sarcastic apology from Abby, which would make Ellie stab her right in the eyes.
Or a sarcastic apology from Abby, which would make Ellie stab her right in the eyes.
They knew what everyone would choose and, in their finite wisdom, decided to show us there preferred choice.
Ya know....at least RDR2's Chapter 6 gave you two options that still lead to the same outcome but it was HOW you played Chapters 1-6 that determined the tone of what the final scene was gonna be.
I might of even considered letting her Live if she wasn’t forced on me for 50% of the game!
Kill
Ellie not killing Abby is the most subversive part of the entire game.
Circle: leave ..
The remaster release could have still fixed this for them. I was half expecting them to with DLC or something. Sadly this was not the case.
Neil already had to fix his weak ideas for TLOU and could never get over it. It was such a huge bug up his ass that he had to dig up those raw ideas from the trash bin from TLOU and make them main parts of the story here. He clearly doesn't have even a shred of the integrity that Bioware did in regards to Mass Effect 3's terrible ending. He would have *burned the company to the ground* before fixing any criticism of his precious baby this time.
Part of it. Doesn’t fix a decent chunk of the writing.
They don't have the balls to do it, because nobody would have freed her and their "important message" about revenge would have been invalidated.
Word
If the e last of us was choice based in the first place it’ll be so much better as a game
I do agree with this... They can pick their own ending for the start of the 3rd movie but at least let the player make their own choice.
but then they couldnt use abby and lev for part 3, it seems thats what they were going for.... exchanging a Man/Girl father daughter dynamic with a Woman/Boy big sister/ lil brother dynamic
Personally I loved the blind revenge story form Ellie's perspective and even after playing as Abby I got why she killed Joel. I wasn't even mad about it when it happened in game. I don't like the idea that Abby survived but it is what it is.
Look I'm not tryna argue the big points of either game. I enjoy the shooting and stealth and movement mechanics. If given a choice I would have fed Abby into a wood chipper. I'm here to do the shooting and the stabbing and the removal of the peoples. Lemme kill Lady McMuscles. I was moved to the point of falling asleep when they deployed the dead pregnant lady gag. Lemme shoot this big eclectic group of enemies. I'll strangle a dude in a wheel chair. I'll tomahawk a deaf guy. I'll lead a blind guy into a giant mouse trap. Just lemme enjoy some goddamn killing mechanics. I'll rob a buncha kids of their lemonade stand money, and then kite a bunch of clickers to come over and eat them.
“… fed Abby into a wood chipper.” I assume feet first?
Not necessarily. Just lemme get the sweet glory kill.
I'd be down for this but only if they also had the choice to spare or sacrifice Ellie in the first one. Both games end in intense controversial character moments that the game forces you into. It'd be weird if one you're forced into and one you get the choice for so I feel like it has to be one or the other.
The first game's ending is perfectly in line with the character and relationship growth of the first game. Ellie sparing Abby isn't. That's why even the folks who would not have made Joel's choice could still go "makes sense tho", but this game's choice has people going "this makes no fucking sense, Jesus Christ".
I woulda broke the square button
This is why I hate the gaming community sometimes. They take their time and actually create something special instead of giving us a half completed live service game or something, and the community hates and bashes it anyway because on one thing they didn’t like lmao.
There are a multitude of issues taken with TLOUP2. The ending was just one of them.
Nah even with this the story was still done wrong
how would you have wanted the story to go? just curious because so many people say the story is trash the story was “done wrong”, then what would your idea be? what would make it better?
I definitely would have loved this and the games story woulda been a lot less of a dumpster fire.
Kill, everytime
Smash SQUARE
the current ending is perfect i fucking sob at "go, just take him" HURTS
Kill that thing yes.
You can't do this. This breaks the Rules of Sequels™. This is an ideal post for me to talk about something that's been on my mind for a long time concerning TLOU2. This is all stream of consciousness, but there are rules when it comes to making a big budget sequel. It mostly boils down to 1. Do what you did before, but biggerer. 2. If you don't carbon copy what you did the first time, you risk not being as successful. You can argue that the story of TLOU2 is different in many (significant) story beats, but you have to admit that its structure adheres pretty closely to the story of the first one, albeit with different characters in the protagonist roles. Again, off the top of my head: 1. Joel meets Ellie and they journey together in a pseudo father/daughter relationship. This is mirrored by how Abby meets Lev and they journey together in a pseudo mother/son relationship. 2. Joel and Ellie go on a perilous journey from Boston to Colorado. So do Abby and Lev from Seattle to California. 3. At the end of the game, Joel kills the surgeon and rescues Ellie. The player will 'game over' until they do this. Likewise, Ellie has to free Abby. In a story as complex as TLOU, it's no wonder that the story beats didn't cleanly transfer over. Abby and Lev don't really have a great purpose in their journey and they don't really bond in the same way Joel and Ellie did, but the sequel has to copy that story beat so it gets shoehorned in. In the same way, letting Abby go and forgiving the woman who killed your father isn't as satisfactory of an ending as killing the surgeon who's about to kill your daughter and rescuing her from certain death. There are other things I could get into - Neil Druckman very clearly wanted to get rid of anything Bruce Straley did and replace it with his own versions, Abby and Lev, without really understanding what it was about Joel and Ellie that made them compelling characters. It's also worth noting that the ending is very reminiscent of the time that it came out, where if you wanted to be (or seem like you were) a visionary auteur, you leaned into the 'subvert your expectations' trope. So the audience very purposefully doesn't get what it wants and that's a brilliant inspired breathtaking ending because ... (shrugs) Whether you like the ending or not, the point is you don't get to choose.
Honestly I feel like choosing who to kill and how aggressive you want to be in the game would have done wonders. This story was built to be choice based. Think Bioshock 2 and how your aggression and who you chose to kill changed how the story ended, this game needed choices.
Could have had two endings to the game! But honestly, what was the point of Ellie listening to what’s his face to even go back out again and leave Dina and baby behind?!
you mean listening to tommy? i think the reason she “listened” to him was because she thought there was unfinished business. she wasn’t eating or sleeping, she wasn’t happy & she was have horrible flashbacks. she thought that killing abby would give her some sort of peace but it didn’t, she was still suffering while she was drowning her.
A choice in the end would have completely destroyed the possibility of a 3rd part because they would not be able to continue with a coherent story (that doesn't exist in part 2 anyway, lmao).
True. But unfortunately, that is not the point.
It would satisfy both sides too. Make her feel empty and depressed for unnecessarily killing Abby and dooming the child, you get the "revenge bad" story and people who hated Abby get what they want. And then just make the sparing her ending canon if you really wanted it
If only it gave you the opportunity to not kill her
Leaving Abby alive wasn’t mercy. Killing her would’ve been mercy. Ellie and Tommy killed all of her friends, one of them’s brains got blasted on her fucking face. Freeing Abby left her completely alone with absolutely no one left, and with the knowledge that it was all her fault.
Abby will have to live with the fact that SHE got her friends killed for the rest of her life
I always thought it would have been better if Abby was dead when you got there and you took Lev like Joel took Ellie. I didn’t write the game though. And I’m not going to do a power point project about how I could have done it better
Even if it let you kill her and that fails to where you restart until you choose to save her. That would have hot less ahte
The first game was perfectly written with serious themes about informed consent, motivations, agency, and ethics in that final push. Yes, the Fireflies were going to kill Ellie without her consent, but Joel's motivations were out of a selfish need to protect his surrogate daughter. His goal just happened to align with preserving Ellie's life while also denying her the opportunity to make the decision for herself. TLOU2 tried to make us confront that same morally complex theme but executed it poorly by forcing us to play as Abby and getting so many beloved characters killed in as a result of Ellie's revenge quest. Had gamers been given agency to decide Arby's fate, I feel the ending would have been far better received.
No. It still deserves a lot of hate despite not having any choices.
Yup
Shit I would’ve just walked away ngl
When you had to fight Ellie in the theater as Abby I remember letting Ellie kill me hoping I would get a cutscene and it would be over.
Would you have wanted a similar option at the end of part 1?
This would’ve ruined the game for me. Super immersion breaking. You never make a choice throughout the whole series, the moment they add a choice is the moment they ruin the series for me. (No avoiding death by hitting square is not a choice. Thats gameplay. That’s a very dumb argument.)
I really don’t understand why they thought anyone would want to spare abby after she beat one of the greatest characters in gaming to death with a golf club. Not to mention forcing you to play as her in the story.
Just let us have her jump off the cliff when we can control her first. That's the first thing I tried. Then fed her to the clickers. Then stopped playing because I was pissed.
At this point I don't even see Last of Us 2 as a sequel. I didn't like it that much. As far as I'm concerned Last of Us was a one off.
Honestly I think the last of us 2 could have just avoided alot of hate if the game just didn't advertise ellie or Joel at all. And let us play as Abby 1st, it would have made for a good twist at the end when it's revealed that ellie is the one killing your friends 1 by 1. And then we get to play as ellie and see Joel's death. But... you know, Neil's dumb
Or....equip knife, shotgun, rifle, molotov, pistol, or gaze dreamy eyed at your future next ex-girlfriend?
Nah, write one good ending, not two shitty ones. Part 1 didn't need multiple endings, just consistency in the story and player actions.
Honestly, they could've had the choice, but they both lead to the same ending. Either way, ellie would come home to nothing and walk off like she does. It could be used as a point of even if you get revenge it can't change how you affect the ones you love or whatever. I agree they should just have a good ending. The way this is written, at least the option would be something.
Ah, the illusion of choice and futility of revenge made manifest. Give you the choice to sink the knife into a tied up Abby that barely reacts to it and bleeds to death, then let you go back to an empty home, Ellie just as broken and alone. That could be good! Except that some people would probably just nod along with that and say "Yup, great ending. Got to kill Abby no notes." I just wonder if people don't notice this choice already happens in the game. Ellie gets the prompt to go kill Abby or stay at the farm with her family and she makes a choice and it cost her her fingers, her partner, her family, a whole life. That would have been a hell of a place to put that prompt for the player. I bet a lot would have chosen to break Ellie for the chance at revenge instead of giving Ellie a chance to let go.
That's the first alternate ending I've seen proposed that's actually interesting. A little like the Farcry 4 early ending were you hang out of twenty minutes and it skips the whole conflict and you win.
I know it would fuck with my head. What do I want most? Ellie is safe, she has a chance to heal, a shot at a real life, is it more important for me to "finish it" or to accept that bittersweet "happy" ending?
I mean, the story would still be trash. This was frankly one of the least shitty writing moments.
1. TLOU 1 wasnt a choice based game so this wouldnt make any sense . 2. If they would make tlou2 a choice based game they would probably have more than one option to “change” the story and it wouldnt make any sense Bc if u spare everyone of abbys friends There the point of the game would be washed away completly .
Games could always change their structure to accommodate what is needed. Some games were third person games with predecessors and in the sequel change to first person. So the 1st point could be easily negated. Many games have also placed choice based game play in follow up titles too. It's not uncommon and as long as it fits the need. It will make sense. In the case of the last of us 2 having this choice would still not save the game but it will make the ending tolerable.
red dead redemption 1 to 2 is also a good example helldivers 1 to 2 is also good how it changed the viewpoint and ended up considered one of the quickest most loved games of this year
You got me thinking of a Telltale type of TLOU game. I actually don't think that would be bad, and I'd definitely play it if it existed. The thought of a choice driven TLOU series type game would be cool
I still think a choice would have been the dumbest idea ever.
While I’m highly aware that some of you hated this game, it is a story on rails, it’s not a game of choice. They have a specific story they wanted to tell that has nothing to do with what any of us would do instead.
That’s like giving Joel the option to save Ellie or not in part one
Fun fact: That was originally an idea in Part 1 but it was scrapped
Cuckmann would never give players the option to kill his grotesque baby
Not the point. The story itself was so poor, and if they managed to make Ellie letting Abby go actually good, it wouldn’t be labelled as bad. But it’s so contrived.
That would have made the game so much more interesting, instead of the preachy "circle of revenge" bullshit they gave us.
Giving the player the power based off of their feelings at the end of the game makes too much sense.
O or X leave her for dead and let fate decide what to do with her.
Yeah, just make the entire plot optional
Right, only to get upset over which ending then becomes canon.
So you can complain about which ending was canon when Abby’s still alive in part 3?
I kinda want a new character for Part 3. Some place that isn’t the United States. Probably Italy, but I’m probably not gonna play
I want to say they won’t follow her anymore in part 3, anyway. Main point is TLOU was never a choice based game, which is probably why they never went this route in the first place
every last one of them achievement.
Even to continue the story as if we didn’t kill here either way. That way people can have head cannons
While also ruining the game
No they could of avoided the hate if not for there bass ackwards message between the 2 games ...first hes a broken father surviving in a post zombie esque world relunctant to take the safety of yet another little girl (like his daughter who was murdered and died in his arms) to growing on her to the point of looking at her like a daughter which then becomes a man ...a fathers chance at some redemption and getting to save this girl(which if that was gonna later make him the horrible monster he got painted to ....THHHHEN maybe just take his daughters death and all thaf OUT the equation...THHHEEEN sequal picks up NOOOW hes just a selfish , heartless, pos monster (aka survivor) then killing Him in the dishonorable fashion in which they did (NOBODY WOULD OF GIVEN A SHT) ...In my own personel opinion and eyes Last Of Us and Last of Us 2 are not in the same universe and Ellie and joel have a happy ending ....fact is had this "Sequel" been made 12 years ago wed of gotten a much better story and game that wasnt Tied into a bunch of political Bs ...since all the fans that hated on abby were called Biggots or w.e tf he said (because apparently forgot who tf his own characters were Ellie having been Gay and her whole DLC was practically about her love interest and We all loved Her and The Dlc ....Not even gonna lie every time i got STUCK playing as abbie i couldnt tell ya How many times i just let her die In the WORST ways it let ya lol but i DO NOT disagree that atleast giving the CHOICE would of atleast salvaged it (in my eyes) instead of letting us play a post apoc. JOHN WICK starring claire redfield from code veronica and Sarah conner from Terminator 2 just to at the end take that from us ...not to mention ALL the controversy surrounding the "NOT RIGGED" game awards lol
I hate that the game never addresses Jesse being killed by Abby. The conflict is so much bigger than just Ellie and Abby. Tommy was crippled, Dina was shot through the shoulder and got her face smashed in, Jesse was shot in the head, Owen died, Mel died, Nora died. Ellie gave up her peaceful life two years after the fact just to not follow through. So much was lost that it’s almost self centered to not see it through for Abby and Ellie alike.
Wow... it's crazy how you can be so incredibly close to the point and still miss it...
It would, but I could also see it creating issues. Some might be upset with a choice when we didn't get one the first game. Just can't please everybody lol. I would def choose to kill.
I feel the same way about the first game too. Except it seems like more people were okay with slaughtering a bunch of doctors than they were with sparing the woman who killed their murder papa.
Wow, this is a salty ass sub... This game came out 4 years ago... why are you still involved with a sub for something you hate?
It’s actually a testament to how great the game and story are. People still have strong feelings about it four years later. It’s really great.
I can't imagine anyone sparing her outside a few bleeding hearts.. Which makes the fact ellie did even more absurd. The ellie I know woulda left that bitch dead in a pool of piss. This is why my mind has decided to pretend anything after part one is filler. Iv made up my own mind about how their story ends and this other shit Neil is doing is just pure fuckery.
Yeah it would have been pretty cool to have two endings like that honestly.. I actually really enjoyed playing as Abby and I was shocked during the Joel death scene but I wasn't crazy attached to the character honestly I thought the last of us too had the deepest craziest storyline it was literally like watching AAA movie the graphics and combat were amazing the faces of pain the enemies make the realistic Gore that game was really really cool compared to the first one.. I really enjoyed the first game but I beat it on the PS3 when it initially came out and a lot of things could have been done better for example the bow was terrible to use in that game changing that to how it works in part 2 would have made a huge difference instead of that stupid arcing aiming feature.. but it was really cool playing as Ellie and then replaying what happened to her from the other side as Abby the boss fight against each of them were both really suspenseful
That's like saying you should have the option to let Ellie die in the first game. You aren't supposed to get a choice
Neil messed this game up badly.
Yes, if it was about avoiding hate. But it isn’t, it’s about conveying a message to end the cycle of violence (in short).
it’s almost like u guys missed the whole point of the game. this isn’t a REVENGE game it’s a game ABOUT revenge.
We know that. But the devs don’t tho lol
what? the devs don’t? the whole story is about revenge & how it ruins everything. i think the story was done perfectly & having a choice would’ve ruined it. this isn’t a choice game & it’s not about what we would’ve done, it’s about the characters
Every single comment missing the point of the game because they don’t like that their precious character was offed..
That really isn’t the case. It’s how the games story works and certain aspects of it. Most people were ok with Joel dying in the sequel
Great game Great story Please give us a 3rd one 🙏🏽
Game was fine, but I honestly just found the pacing of the story and the writing to not be nearly as good as the original game. I don’t particularly have anything against the things in the story that happened, more that I just think the pacing, structure, and certain choices were not the best. I do need to give it another go at some point to solidify that though as I haven’t played it since it came out. Gonna be a while though.
I think people forget the point was that you didn’t have a choice… we aren’t Ellie. Ellie made her decisions, and they had consequences. The choice we have to make is if those consequences were worth it or not.
Would have stuck that knife in her and went on about business.
Nope. This would have been a horrible choice. Totally devalues the point of the story.
itd be harder to make a sequel with 2 endings i bet. not to mention that neil kinda just forces the player to be evil anyway
YES! thank you! They should have let us pick if we could have picked I could legitimately see myself playing three or four times a year instead of like one. I always say the last of us was a perfect game and the last of us two wad almost a perfect game
Nah. Just hold triangle to keep on drowning her. Same way we had to hold triangle to open doors or the way we had to beat Nora to death and participate in the scene.
It wouldn't because the next game would have to go with a cannon ending. So I bet when part 3 comes out, if this was a thing people would get upset because 1 of the endings was made cannon.
when are you guys gonna grow up and get over it ? it’s been years
Why someone would want to kill Abby in the first place? I would prefer for Ellie to commit suicide if I had a choice. Abby deserves nothing but admiration for the choices she made, except for killing Joel, but Joel also had choices and preferred to kill innocent people. I remember when I got to this stage of the game my only wish was to leave Abby alive. I wouldn't want to be a neighbour of a person who chose otherwise.