• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Those who did not like Joel’s death, why?

  • It was too brutal/excessive

    Votes: 69 14.5%
  • I thought he would die later, more important presence

    Votes: 208 43.6%
  • I thought he could maybe survive

    Votes: 10 2.1%
  • I simply did not want him to die

    Votes: 140 29.4%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 50 10.5%

  • Total voters
    477

Blindy

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,929
The criticism of it being out of character for Joel to let his guard down is one I'll never, ever understand.

For all intents and purposes, he's been living in relative peace within a thriving community for a number of years now. What reason would he have to believe that a woman he meets out in the harsh outdoors was an ex Firefly who travelled from Washington to hunt him down and harm him, let alone kill him?

Not to mention, people make mistakes. You could argue that he misjudged the situation and ultimately got himself killed. It's a human thing to do. He's not Spider-Man or Raven Baxter.
They've had bandits invade the area for how many years? David's Camp didn't just completely die off, and Tommy had intel of the WLF, they weren't the Seraphites who were absolutely unknown to the settlement. There was intel of the WLF hanging/camping around, the minute Abby began to show off that she can tackle or kill with ease clickers in their rendezvous should have been a red flag in itself. Why go to a place brand new to you where you have 8 or so people vs you two?
 

Blindy

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,929
it's the dude that murdered her father. I don't find it hard to believe at all. There really is really is no deliberation or redemption no matter what he does.
The problem is then telling the player to go on and play as her as a protagonist/main character, why? The player has been built to dislike her and view her as the enemy given most if not all are Team Ellie after TLOU1. Telling players to go play as Abby and see her backstory after what she did sort of puts her behind the 8 ball in connecting with a portion of the audience. Everything her and her crew did are portrayed as villains. Add that she cheats with Owen, is/was a lead gun for the WLF in invasions which included killing Seraphites and anyone against the WLF and she really isn't a good person outside of maybe 1-2 events.
 

Doctor_Thomas

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,654
Honestly, I still think people are struggling to disconnect the idea that a protagonist must be a good person - Joel, Abby, hell, even Ellie are all shitebags in their own ways. We only have attachment because we play as them and we just had more exposure to Joel.

Killing off a main character early is a massive narrative decision, but that's why the flashbacks were so important.

I remember when the narrative shifts to Abby being annoyed and wanting it to be a quick segment and back to Ellie, once I realised they were presenting her side of things I was in a much better frame of mind for it.
 

Ausroachman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,394
My only issue with the game is it drags on way too long on both sides. I feel like the entire island section could have been cut or reworked and it would have made a tighter experience.
 

Blindy

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,929
Honestly, I still think people are struggling to disconnect the idea that a protagonist must be a good person - Joel, Abby, hell, even Ellie are all shitebags in their own ways. We only have attachment because we play as them and we just had more exposure to Joel.

Killing off a main character early is a massive narrative decision, but that's why the flashbacks were so important.

I remember when the narrative shifts to Abby being annoyed and wanting it to be a quick segment and back to Ellie, once I realised they were presenting her side of things I was in a much better frame of mind for it.
In this world they can have flaws and do controversial decisions but we at least had a full game to know Joel and Ellie, this we barely see if at all of Abby and have no idea the meaning behind this character but are given full control of her, based off what was shown, why would players want this in the sequel to TLOU?

Everything shown up to the part of taking control of Abby is that her and her crew are bad people. The guy with the scar's(Danny?) crew blew up the horse and nearly killed Dina and Ellie as an example.
 

0ptimusPayne

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,754
Nobody was trying to prove that Abby was a "good person"...They're all horrible people that have done horrible things.
 

Deleted member 56752

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
May 15, 2019
8,699
1.) I felt it happened much too suddenly in the story
2.) I felt misled by the marketing, which was intentionally engineered to make it seem like Joel would live throughout the game
3.) I felt like it didn't make sense knowing Joel's character -- he immediately let his guard down amongst a group of strangers he had never met leading to his death, something which he would've never done in the first game
Edit: Responding to comments on my third point:
He's not Joel from the first game. He's Joel after settling. His brother has this entire town that has grown and men and women who trust one another, which we saw in the first game. It stands to reason Joel would be more trusting since he's not out being a renegade and killing innocents as was implied in the first game.

Having scenes that showed him soften wouldn't have been material to the story for TLOU2.
They also made it obvious that finding and procuring more people for town was a normal occurrence in Jackson through dialog and through collectibles
 

Doctor_Thomas

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,654
In this world they can have flaws and do controversial decisions but we at least had a full game to know Joel and Ellie, this we barely see if at all of Abby and have no idea the meaning behind this character but are given full control of her, based off what was shown, why would players want this in the sequel to TLOU?
That's exactly my point though, people can't let go of their "heroes". We only care about Joel and Ellie because we have history with them. You find the meaning through the gameplay, same as you did with Joel and Ellie.
 

Deleted member 17207

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,208
The problem is then telling the player to go on and play as her as a protagonist/main character, why? The player has been built to dislike her and view her as the enemy given most if not all are Team Ellie after TLOU1. Telling players to go play as Abby and see her backstory after what she did sort of puts her behind the 8 ball in connecting with a portion of the audience. Everything her and her crew did are portrayed as villains. Add that she cheats with Owen, is/was a lead gun for the WLF in invasions which included killing Seraphites and anyone against the WLF and she really isn't a good person outside of maybe 1-2 events.
You really missed the main, not-super-subtle-at-all theme of the game eh?

Abby's portion of the game is meant to show you that her and her friends are not the villains you think they are in the first half of the game. When the switch happens, you're not meant to immediately see her as a good guy, or as the protagonist. But when you found out that it was her father Joel killed, did you not have an "ohhhhhh" moment? Or did you just go "I don't care"? For the entire first half we think she did it because of how Joel fucked over the human race - but as soon as I found out it wasn't that reason at all, but a personal one, a revenge out of love - I couldn't help but see her side.

Finding that out and then seeing her true character unveil itself over the three days completely changed my opinion of her. By the end of the game I wasn't rooting for anyone, I just wanted these people to put this horrible ordeal behind them - and in the very end they finally did.

I feel for those who couldn't have that experience, but to say the game did something wrong or was written badly isn't really the case, because tons of gamers DID have that experience, and DID discover empathy throughout this game.
 

Blindy

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,929
Nobody was trying to prove that Abby was a "good person"...
My issue is telling the player to go play as her after she is portrayed after the intro scene as to being the enemy after you've built a connection with Ellie and Joel from TLOU1. Some people lost their care of the character as the lead up to.
 

Blindy

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,929
You really missed the main, not-super-subtle-at-all theme of the game eh?

Abby's portion of the game is meant to show you that her and her friends are not the villains you think they are in the first half of the game. When you found out that it was her father Joel killed, did you not have an "ohhhhhh" moment? Or did you just go "I don't care"?

Finding that out and then seeing her true character unveil itself over the three days completely changed my opinion of her. By the end of the game I wasn't rooting for anyone, I just wanted these people to put this horrible ordeal behind them - and in the very end they finally did.

I feel for those who couldn't have that experience, but to say the game did something wrong or was written badly isn't really the case, because tons of gamers DID have that experience, and DID discover empathy throughout this game.
I was spoiled of the event leading to so I know why she did what she did and she does have justification in that regard(I imagine I would hate her more if I didn't know who what why where how) but I played TLOU1 for as long as possible and grew to know Joel and Ellie, not Abby and her crew so I felt no care of anyone except those two as main characters. Why would I want to kill Ellie as a boss in the showdown in the theater?

I am in the minority of not liking the Abby character and really not wanting to play almost half the game as her which I think soured me on the 2nd half of the game more than anything. The Rattlers saga was just the cherry on top of everything for me, just unnecessary.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,409
it's the dude that murdered her father. I don't find it hard to believe at all. There really is really is no deliberation or redemption no matter what he does.

Even then, it's not just that he killed her Father he killed a bunch of people in her firefly group and ended their chance at a cure.

In the first game I understand why Joel does what he does, but from seeing Abby's point of view he had that coming. The cool thing about the game is they don't give you that perspective till later so it intentionally makes you angry and tries to pull you back.
 

Deleted member 7051

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,254
Honestly, I still think people are struggling to disconnect the idea that a protagonist must be a good person - Joel, Abby, hell, even Ellie are all shitebags in their own ways. We only have attachment because we play as them and we just had more exposure to Joel.

Killing off a main character early is a massive narrative decision, but that's why the flashbacks were so important.

I remember when the narrative shifts to Abby being annoyed and wanting it to be a quick segment and back to Ellie, once I realised they were presenting her side of things I was in a much better frame of mind for it.

I'd actually tend to argue that Joel isn't as bad as Ellie, who in turn isn't as bad as Abby.

Joel never killed because he wanted to, he killed because he had to. Even the most terrible things he did, which were undoubtedly worse than anything Ellie or Abby did, were for the sake of survival. Not just his own, either, but also his brother and the rest of their group.

Ellie and Abby, however, travelled great distances to hunt down and kill someone for revenge. Abby left Seattle not for survival but satisfaction, the satisfaction of killing the man that killed her father four years ago. Ellie left Jackson not for survival but satisfaction, the satisfaction of killing the woman that killed the closest thing she ever had to a father.

Abby learned too late how wrong that was and she was so burdened by guilt that everything went to shit because she could not give up on Lev or his sister. Ellie learned just in time how wrong that was and instead refused to take Abby's life, but that doesn't really change that she went out of her way and killed a lot of people to get to Abby.

Basically you can justify Joel's actions - it's a post-apocalyptical world where survival is the only goal and everything he did, no matter how cruel, was for that singular purpose - but you can't justify what Abby or Ellie did. They grew up in a world without morals and despite their parental figures trying to instill those morals in them, they abandoned morality itself much too easily because they believed it would feel good.
 

get2sammyb

Editor at Push Square
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
3,009
UK
I thought it was great. Made total sense to me, and I was actually genuinely shocked to see so much fallout about it.
 

Deleted member 17207

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,208
I was spoiled of the event leading to so I know why she did what she did and she does have justification in that regard(I imagine I would hate her more if I didn't know who what why where how) but I played TLOU1 for as long as possible and grew to know Joel and Ellie, not Abby and her crew so I felt no care of anyone except those two as main characters. Why would I want to kill Ellie as a boss in the showdown in the theater?

I am in the minority of not liking the Abby character and really not wanting to play almost half the game as her which I think soured me on the 2nd half of the game more than anything. The Rattlers saga was just the cherry on top of everything for me, just unnecessary.
Ahhh.

Well, I played TLOU through once and only once, and it was right before diving into TLOU2. So while sure I did have a connection to Joel after completing the first game, I also didn't necessarily love him as a person or anything. I didn't have this connection to him that needed to be maintained - if anything, a sequel immediately spelt doom for him. The only thing I was surprised by was how quickly it happened in the sequel - but I'm glad for it. If he'd stayed alive until the end it would've been anticlimactic.

However you felt about his decision in the first game aside - there had to be consequences to that decision.

IMO another Joel and Ellie adventure would've been unsatisfying. It's called The Last of Us for a reason, and neither Joel or Ellie should be invulnerable to the hazards of this world.
 

Xwing

Unshakable Resolve - One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 11, 2017
9,879
I honestly think they just jumped the shark in general in terms of melodrama. The deaths in the first Last of Us were all quick and largely meaningless deaths caused by random circumstances. It felt authentic to the post-apocalypse they painted. The only melodramatic sequence in the first game was the ending where Joel makes an inherently terrible choice.

If they wanted to continue the themes of the first game, they should have made Joel's death quick, random, and meaningless. Instead, the entire plot of the second game focuses on justifying his death in one character's mind and avenging it in another character's mind (until suddenly for seemingly no reason it doesn't matter in the end at all). It feels like they stretch the dissonant tone of the first game's ending to cover the entirety of the second game and it's exhausting and unsatisfying.
 

N64Controller

Member
Nov 2, 2017
8,345
My issue is telling the player to go play as her after she is portrayed after the intro scene as to being the enemy after you've built a connection with Ellie and Joel from TLOU1. Some people lost their care of the character as the lead up to.

I think playing the "villain" can be fun and rewarding. My first instinct was to hate it but I continued, I even let myself die as Abby many times to see the gruesome deaths the game had to offer, and also to punish her on the side. Then I started to understand her more, but I was still on the side of the characters I've been with for a longer period of time, despite their flaws.

However, it did feel like Naughty Dog tried to go "Wink, wink, you like her now" at many points during her playthrough. The way the character is built up, the way she's presentend to you with her own flashbacks, the way she speaks, the way she acts, the way they talk about events and everything, Naughty Dog quite obviously wants you to be "Abby did what she had to do" by the end of her chapter. In my case, it didn't really work but I still liked the character for what she was.

Joel's death was very well handled in my opinion and was the highpoint of the game. It was amazing, and (maybe I was naive) took me by surprise. I knew Ellie was the main character of that game so I assumed something would happen to Joel, but not that soon and not at that point. It did set up Abby's gang as villains in my eyes (Iknow, I know, Joel can be considered a villain as well, but we've pretty much seen everything from Joel's and his side point of view from the beginning of the franchise. So even if they can be considered "villains", they're quite literally the protagonist's group.). And they did not recuperate as far as I was concerned. I didn't feel bad any time I killed one, and it felt great when Tommy killed Manny, for example. But it was still a fucking tense section that I adored.

At the end of the day, I quite liked the Abby section of the game. If only to give me another perspective on the story, I thought it kinda worked. It did make the game a bit too long in my eyes. It's about pacing to me, and even much longer games kept me enthralled and focused for a lot longer. The Abby section really suffered from that in my eyes, and in my experience. Reliving everything "through Abby's eyes" was kind of fresh at first but I didn't th ink I'd go through the whoooole game again with her.

The "story beat" where I felt the characters were unfocused was the whole Dina is pregnant storyline. It comes up at such a convenient moment, felt out of place and really silly to me. Obviously it's setup to make Ellie "feel bad" about killing another pregnant woman and having another person to protect but ... yeah. It just felt contrived.

I think overall TLOU2 treated its characters pretty well, I think they acted logically and did what I assume their characters would do. One other thing I didn't like, and I've went back and forth on this, was the ending when Ellie lets Abby go. To me, it felt really out of character considering all the suffering she caused/suffered, all the people sh ekilled in cold blood without even thinking about it (foot soldiers, big alpha monster guys/girls, countless dogs, etc), and now suddenly she lets Abby go because Lev and because Abby seems weak. It felt a lot more like a "We assume player will want to let Abby go, so we will let her go" moment and not an Ellie moment. Her killing Abby and still feel the emptiness after would have made the whole ending a lot more rewarding to me, a lot more bleak, and hammer the whole situation in a lot better.
 

LiK

Member
Oct 25, 2017
32,099
Some rando dickbag spoiled his death for me on Twitter by DMing the leaked screenshot so I knew it was coming a month before release. I didn't know it came so early tho.

I didn't mind Joel's death or how it was handled. Made sense within the story and the character's motivations. My only gripe was how Joel trusted Abby a lil too quickly considering how they were supposed to be super cautious of strangers.
 

Deleted member 17207

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,208
I honestly think they just jumped the shark in general in terms of melodrama. The deaths in the first Last of Us were all quick and largely meaningless deaths caused by random circumstances. It felt authentic to the post-apocalypse they painted. The only melodramatic sequence in the first game was the ending where Joel makes an inherently terrible choice.

If they wanted to continue the themes of the first game, they should have made Joel's death quick, random, and meaningless. Instead, the entire plot of the second game focuses on justifying his death in one character's mind and avenging it in another character's mind (until suddenly for seemingly no reason it doesn't matter in the end at all). It feels like they stretch the dissonant tone of the first game's ending to cover the entirety of the second game and it's exhausting and unsatisfying.
I mean, just because deaths can be random and quick doesn't mean that people won't feel a deep sense of remorse or anger about it. Look at how much Joel's daughter's death rippled throughout his entire arc in the first game.

Let's also not forget that yes, a lot of the deaths in the first game are random, but Joel's isn't - it's blatant, pre-mediated murder - which we never see in the first game. Joel's murder-spree is impulsive and spur of the moment, whereas Abby's revenge is thought out etc.

Ellie doesn't give up her revenge for no reason at all lol - she realizes that it won't bring Joel back, and will only make things in her own life worse.

I agree the game is emotionally exhausting, but IMO that works to its advantage.
 

Xwing

Unshakable Resolve - One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 11, 2017
9,879
I mean, just because deaths can be random and quick doesn't mean that people won't feel a deep sense of remorse or anger about it. Look at how much Joel's daughter's death rippled throughout his entire arc in the first game.

Let's also not forget that yes, a lot of the deaths in the first game are random, but Joel's isn't - it's blatant, pre-mediated murder - which we never see in the first game. Joel's murder-spree is impulsive and spur of the moment, whereas Abby's revenge is thought out etc.

Ellie doesn't give up her revenge for no reason at all lol - she realizes that it won't bring Joel back, and will only make things in her own life worse.

I agree the game is emotionally exhausting, but IMO that works to its advantage.

It's too dramatically convenient that Ellie realizes it won't bring Joel back after killing a small country's worth of people. Like I said, it's melodrama of the highest possible order and it just doesn't fit the tone of the world set up by the first game.

I can appreciate wanting to explore different themes than the first game, but to me it felt like they let that take them too far over the shark.

The tone of the game probably also didn't sit well with me given the timing of its release. I guess it was just a perfect storm for me specifically to not enjoy it.
 

Sanguine

Member
Jun 10, 2018
1,276
I didn't give a shit about Joel so what was I supposed to feel about his death? It ended up being a stupid plot device for me. Maybe if they spent more time developing his relationship with Ellie during the game instead of the glimpses in flashbacks, I would've actually cared.
 

Dever

Member
Dec 25, 2019
5,349
They've had bandits invade the area for how many years? David's Camp didn't just completely die off, and Tommy had intel of the WLF, they weren't the Seraphites who were absolutely unknown to the settlement. There was intel of the WLF hanging/camping around, the minute Abby began to show off that she can tackle or kill with ease clickers in their rendezvous should have been a red flag in itself. Why go to a place brand new to you where you have 8 or so people vs you two?

Well what was Joel supposed to do, stay put and get torn apart by a zombie horde??
 

SoloTerran

Member
Jun 29, 2018
339
Joel's death didn't bother me (other than I felt he let his guard down too much which seemed out of character), it was the way they chose to order the story that I was upset with.

TLOU 2 would have been way better if you played Abby's backstory and got to know her first, interchanging these scenes with Joel and Ellie playing out life around their fort.

The way that the game played out, we had an unknown (mostly) girl kill joel, the man that we LOU 1 players loved, and then you have to play as her and care about her? I sure as hell didn't. Which created a break in my mind, where while playing the game I just wanted Abby to die, which made her gameplay sections unfun imo.

If we played all of her scenes before and learned about how Joel killed her father and about how she was setting out for revenge before killing Joel, it would have made a lot more sense to the player and you wouldn't have disliked her as much for doing it. It would have been much better imo.
 

Dever

Member
Dec 25, 2019
5,349
I didn't give a shit about Joel so what was I supposed to feel about his death? It ended up being a stupid plot device for me. Maybe if they spent more time developing his relationship with Ellie during the game instead of the glimpses in flashbacks, I would've actually cared.

The Last of Us Part 2 is a sequel to a PS3 game titled The Last of Us, you may want to check it out sometime.

If they wanted to continue the themes of the first game, they should have made Joel's death quick, random, and meaningless. I

Yep let's have Joel die by slipping randomly on a banana peel, that will make for some strong themes and character drama. Freaking storytelling geniuses in this thread, I tell you what.
 

Xwing

Unshakable Resolve - One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 11, 2017
9,879
Yep let's have Joel die by slipping randomly on a banana peel, that will make for some strong themes and character drama. Freaking storytelling geniuses in this thread, I tell you what.

You know Joel's daughter's death was quick, random, and meaningless right? Just shot down by a random ass soldier for basically no reason? And it had more dramatic impact than any other death in the series because of framing and pacing?

You don't have to be an asshole to random people who didn't enjoy your game.
 

Bucéfalo

Banned
May 29, 2020
1,566
My only problem is how stupid the death is. Random ass encounter and Joel proceeds to forget all his persona and just decides to not only help, but follow a stranger to the hideout where her friends are waiting.

It was so stupid that when Abby smashed his head I started laughin about how ridiculous and rushed it was.

Rest of the game was good, though. I would actually have preferred a structure more like Day 1 of both, day 2 of both... Instead of 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, becuase that midgame cliffhanger was so cheap, like a TV show.
 

Ramsay

Member
Jul 2, 2019
3,623
Australia
tvtropes.org

Establishing Character Moment - TV Tropes

First impressions count, and in TV and film, even more so; there's no point in hiring an actor to give us a Deadpan Snarker if people think theyre seriously being a total ditz until the third act. So when the character comes into the plot …

At the end of the day, Part 2's storytelling hinged almost entirely on whether Abby could have be empathised with by a player given her presentation at the start of the game.

Whilst I understand the emotional reactions that Naughty Dog was trying to elicit with Abby, I thought that Joel's death was overly gratuitous and presented Abby in far too negative of a light in the start of the game. This, as such, also made me feel that Naughty Dog wrote themselves into a corner, as I felt that this forced Naughty Dog to try "redeem" her characterisation in such a heavy-handed manner, which given that Abby clearly crossed the moral event horizon to me with how brutal her murder of Joel was - made me hate her even more.

Simply shooting Joel in the head would have made it far easier to emphasise with Abby in the second half of the game.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
They've had bandits invade the area for how many years? David's Camp didn't just completely die off, and Tommy had intel of the WLF, they weren't the Seraphites who were absolutely unknown to the settlement. There was intel of the WLF hanging/camping around, the minute Abby began to show off that she can tackle or kill with ease clickers in their rendezvous should have been a red flag in itself. Why go to a place brand new to you where you have 8 or so people vs you two?
The game is silent on how much of a Bandit problem Jackson has anymore now that it's an established trading hub. They don't live in fear of David's camp because as far as they know, either no one from that group wants revenge or else they don't have the resources or knowledge to go on a cross country hike for revenge when they, last we heard, can barely feed themselves. Tommy didn't have WLF intel, he said he just heard them call themselves that and knew that the WLF was based in Washington. The idea that Abby is suspicious for being able to handle clickers is the second dumbest thing because they are 45 years deep into the infection, the only people likely to survive are the ones who know how to handle them. Lastly, the absolute dumbest is the most obvious that the reason they went to a brand new place (where they didn't know how big her group was by the by, they just knew it was 'a group') was that the alternative was staying in the log cabin and having brunch with about 50 infected.

I swear, the dumb gotchas that people pull for this game are even worse than the ones for Last Jedi. Other than one single aspect, the reasons why Joel goes with Abby couldn't be more well-established.
 

Blindy

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,929
Ahhh.

Well, I played TLOU through once and only once, and it was right before diving into TLOU2. So while sure I did have a connection to Joel after completing the first game, I also didn't necessarily love him as a person or anything. I didn't have this connection to him that needed to be maintained - if anything, a sequel immediately spelt doom for him. The only thing I was surprised by was how quickly it happened in the sequel - but I'm glad for it. If he'd stayed alive until the end it would've been anticlimactic.

However you felt about his decision in the first game aside - there had to be consequences to that decision.

IMO another Joel and Ellie adventure would've been unsatisfying. It's called The Last of Us for a reason, and neither Joel or Ellie should be invulnerable to the hazards of this world.
And I am cool with Joel dying, he isn't Nathan Drake and should not be invincible but my main issue with this game was forcing me upon this Abby character and trying to connect me with her after what she did in the intro off the get go. Either it was done in poor execution for me or I just really wanted a game primarily focused on Ellie's ordeal which was what was marketed.

It's why I think Bruce Straley meant so much more to Naughty Dog then what I ever thought was the case. He was probably the guy who countered Druckmann's thinking and gave him a true 2nd opinion on the matter if not challenged him which is what made the 1st so good.
 

Lobster Roll

signature-less, now and forever
Member
Sep 24, 2019
34,380
My issue is telling the player to go play as her after she is portrayed after the intro scene as to being the enemy after you've built a connection with Ellie and Joel from TLOU1. Some people lost their care of the character as the lead up to.
What you're describing is the entire point of the game. We grew attached to Joel in TLOU1, even while he was killing several dozen people throughout the game. He's the monster to many, many people. Joel is the villain. We were able to see his motivations in TLOU1 and why he made his decisions, so there's an understanding for why he did what he did. And now we play as another villain - Abby. That's the point. Every one of these soldiers in the TLOU universe is causing grief, pain, heartache, and loss with every enemy they kill. We saw the human side of the prolific killer that is Joel. Why can't we give Abby the same benefit of the doubt?
 

Blindy

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,929
The game is silent on how much of a Bandit problem Jackson has anymore now that it's an established trading hub. They don't live in fear of David's camp because as far as they know, either no one from that group wants revenge or else they don't have the resources or knowledge to go on a cross country hike for revenge when they, last we heard, can barely feed themselves. Tommy didn't have WLF intel, he said he just heard them call themselves that and knew that the WLF was based in Washington. The idea that Abby is suspicious for being able to handle clickers is the second dumbest thing because they are 45 years deep into the infection, the only people likely to survive are the ones who know how to handle them. Lastly, the absolute dumbest is the most obvious that the reason they went to a brand new place (where they didn't know how big her group was by the by, they just knew it was 'a group') was that the alternative was staying in the log cabin and having brunch with about 50 infected.

I swear, the dumb gotchas that people pull for this game are even worse than the ones for Last Jedi. Other than one single aspect, the reasons why Joel goes with Abby couldn't be more well-established.
The 1st game certainly wasn't silent on the bandits terrorizing the town, so they just get up and vanish? You had people DEFECT from the camp over time as evident by the teen couple that ultimately died trying to get away from the town. Why is is implied that they aren't a threat to the town? A stationed town is always going to come under fire. WLF was scouring through the area and had a pickup on Tommy's town, I find it hard to believe that the town didn't likewise know there is a threat outside, especially if they are making runs how many times a week? They let their guard down and EVEN TOLD THESE PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR CAMP NEARBY! People they've never met before, basically told them where and when in the hopes of recruiting them to the town, not knowing who the heck they are. Put loved ones in danger, that is absolutely uncharacteristic of the two. And yes Abby suplexing or doing whatever to these runners with no real fear is a red flag in my book, doesn't matter how many years it is into the outbreak. This isn't some gee golly teen who left town and got killed, this is someone who was equipped and knew how to fend for themselves and then some.

People have different opinions, it's not stupid or dumb because people don't agree with every thing you say.
 

Doctor_Thomas

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,654
The fact we're still discussing it 6 months later tells me ND did a good job in building a narrative that can be discussed, even if it's a polarising one.
 

Blindy

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,929
Their options:
Die in a blizzard
Die to a horde of infected
Hope that these new people aren't out to kill them
Didn't Joel and Bill share a similar sentiment in TLOU1 that people are far more deadlier than the infected? They've made runs borderline daily if not weekly, I trust they can handle a horde of infected over a random group hanging in a log cabin this far removed from the outbreak. Good point about the Blizzard though they probably know how to get home though.
 
Oct 30, 2017
15,278
You know Joel's daughter's death was quick, random, and meaningless right? Just shot down by a random ass soldier for basically no reason? And it had more dramatic impact than any other death in the series because of framing and pacing?

You don't have to be an asshole to random people who didn't enjoy your game.
It mainly had more impact because you witness an innocent child being gunned down while you the player aren't wholly aware of the circumstances. Children dying in video games, or in any media for that matter, have a more visceral impact than seeing an adult getting killed. Why do you think the Dead Island trailer is so widely regarded as one of the best game trailers ever? It's because it subverts expectations and deals with the death of a child. It's disingenuous to compare the characters to one another in that regard.
 

Dever

Member
Dec 25, 2019
5,349
Not just carelessly walk into a group of 8 people they've never met before and let their guard down and give them the red carpet to their town practically.

Well, the red carpet treatment implies Joel and Tommy have regular friendly interactions with strangers, probably far more than hostile ones. This is also implied in the last conversation between Joel and Ellie, where he talks about buying coffee from friendly visitors. So from all we know, they've had barely any hostile humans on the outskirts of Jackson for a long time.
 

Lobster Roll

signature-less, now and forever
Member
Sep 24, 2019
34,380
Didn't Joel and Bill share a similar sentiment in TLOU1 that people are far more deadlier than the infected? They've made runs borderline daily if not weekly, I trust they can handle a horde of infected over a random group hanging in a log cabin this far removed from the outbreak. Good point about the Blizzard though they probably know how to get home though.
Joel trusted Henry & Sam within a minute of meeting them in TLOU1. And Joel, Tommy, and Abby were just running for their lives from that same horde because it's not something they could have fought off indefinitely.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
The 1st game certainly wasn't silent on the bandits terrorizing the town, so they just get up and vanish?
No, they had people raid the power plant that is near the town, but the town itself is heavily fortified.

You had people DEFECT from the camp over time as evident by the teen couple that ultimately died trying to get away from the town.
What does that have to do with anything? The teens died in a hotel. To infected, not bandits. And 'defect' is a very strange word to use for it. Jackson isn't some military organization you have to swear alliegance to. You can leave when you want. And they left with good intentions, they wanted to go help people out in the world.

WLF was scouring through the area and had a pickup on Tommy's town, I find it hard to believe that the town didn't likewise know there is a threat outside, especially if they are making runs how many times a week? They let their guard down and EVEN TOLD THESE PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR CAMP NEARBY! People they've never met before, basically told them where and when in the hopes of recruiting them to the town, not knowing who the heck they are. Put loved ones in danger, that is absolutely uncharacteristic of the two.
Jackson is a fucking trading hub. It's not a secret. It's become big enough that hiding is impractical and they are an established power such that it's simply more practical to open up it's doors to travelers because, spoilers for real life btw, that is actually more practical than trying to hide and scrounge away your resources. They obviously take sensible precautions, but they are basically pretty open with strangers.

And yes Abby suplexing or doing whatever to these runners with no real fear is a red flag in my book, doesn't matter how many years it is into the outbreak. This isn't some gee golly teen who left town and got killed, this is someone who was equipped and knew how to fend for themselves and then some.

1. Abby wasn't suplexing them, she just knows how to throw a punch. Everyone in this universe does, from Henry to Bill and the like because that's the only way to survive in this world and 2. even if she does have military training and that is unusual, that is not evidence of anything except that she knows how to fight. It just means she has a past where she learned combat.

People have different opinions, it's not stupid or dumb because people don't agree with every thing you say.
Sure, I never said otherwise, but this? This is suuuuuuuuuuper dumb. These are bad arguments that simply refuse to accept the circumstances that are established by the game. The only way your objections make sense is if I pretend there that Jackson isn't being a trading hub would create a culture of being friendly with strangers or that someone who knows how to fight is common in this world, or that people leaving the camp is the same as 'defecting' when jackson is just not that kind of town.
 
Last edited:

dglavimans

Member
Nov 13, 2019
7,658
To my surprise people were shocked Naughty Dog killed Joel off, even though Joel dying was like the most obvious thing to ever happen in my mind in the sequel. Not the circumstances maybe, but he had to go. I've seen a lot backlash to this specific plot point, even from people I know personally.

My question is, why did you not like the handling of Joel's death? If my options are not enough, please state your own.

I did not have issues with it, especially from Abby's perspective. I thought he would have been killed later from I started the game, but that's it.
Naive from me I just wanted a Ellie and Joel simulator.. I liked those characters and Ellie her DLC in the first time really moved me. I think I did like their handling of Joels dead now after some time.. It made Ellie her story more. But the story was also really really grim

I think I also liked Abby and her story.. There is just something in the pacing for that part where it is wrong with me. You are at a climax point in the story and I want it to continue but instead you basically play the whole story again from a different POV. It took me out because first I thought it would be quick but when I realised it took some time I just was out of it I think
 

Dsezer

Member
Sep 22, 2020
353
I thought it made sense? The marketing of the game seemed to point us that way (in an obvious manner tbh). What else would have made TLOU 2 "a revenge story"? As for his actual death, I also thought it was very much deserved...I am confused, does no one else think he was an absolute monster and completely deserved some form of punishment for all he did?