Support NeoGAF

[RJMacready73]

Joel might have done things he needs to feel remorse / seek redemption for, but killing a kidnapper in the course of rescuing Ellie isn't one of them.

Abby is right to feel remorse for murdering him for that.

been that long since i played this game, but did Abby know the reasons for why Joel murdered everyone in the hospital?, is that why she feels remorse as she now understands why he did what he did

 

[mayham2199]

Joel might have done things he needs to feel remorse / seek redemption for, but killing a kidnapper in the course of rescuing Ellie isn't one of them.

Abby is right to feel remorse for murdering him for that.

I agree. Abby's father was ready to kill Joel in order to stop him from taking Ellie. He should have stood down and let it happen.

 

[Zacfoldor]

1) It wasn't his daughter. His daughter got killed at the start of the game / infection outbreak by the army guy.

2) No, he wasn't right. Again, not his daughter, but a "delivery" that was supposed to cure the infection and save the world. He made the wrong choice and caused the infection to spread, countless people die, as well as the wars and fighting of the desperate trying to survive.

3) Of course, if I had developed a bond with a kid over the course of the journey, I can't say I would've done the right thing either, but that's the point. 1 kids life vs the world's (granted the world in real life can go to fuck) is a horrible decision, but it had to be done.

4) Her death was also going to be completely painless. She was going to be put under anaesthetic, and they were gonna operate from there. So she wouldn't have had a clue that either she was dead or that she potentionally saved the world. If his daughter was actually still alive, do you think he wouldn't save her?

5) The only way Druckmann can say Joel was right, was for allowing them to make a sequel and constant remasters / ports. No cure = more games.

Mind if I retort?

First point, it wasn't his daughter. True, however he was put in charge of the minor and was responsible for her safety. Her last responsible adult left him in charge of her and it was accepted by all parties involved. His responsibilities were nearly identical to a parent legally by Today's law. In fact, in the same situation today, he would be held responsible for neglect if he didn't care for her. More importantly, there is no law during TLOU2's time, so him being her parent or not isn't legally anything. So to your first point, there is no law here but even if there was, he is responsible for her.

Point two, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. This is a philosophy major's argument and also the same argument for the red winds of communism. Let me ask you this. Would you let your pet freeze to save two random animals? Is that the right choice? If you think the answer is yes, then you are no coward, you are showing the courage of your convictions. However, I would argue that letting your pet die to save 2 animals is actually the morally wrong choice. An alternate example might be where a doctor gets paid the same thing as a janitor because ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"." It's a childish argument designed for a black and white world.

Third point isn't super a point, so I'll let that slide.

Point four, death being painless does not make it less of a murder.

Point five is a conspiracy theory that even if true isn't relevant here.

So here's my problem with it. Ellie has a life. She should decide. Not you or someone else. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one is a perfect argument if you are sacrificing yourself. It becomes the argument of a monster when you are sacrificing others. All of the evil people in human history committed their atrocities under the guise of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" and many of them, much like you, probably believed they were making the hard and right choices for mankind. However, with or without law, each of us has the right to life. When we take life from others without permission in order to prolong our own, we have become beasts.

Remember Ellie wasn't captured by "society" she was captured by a violent paramilitary organization. Her death didn't guarantee a cure. She wasn't being offered a choice or dignity or a last meal or even a chance to say goodbye. She was being mercilessly slaughtered for the good of some perceived medical breakthrough by the bad guys. Your moral compass seems right in line with Light Yagami from death note.

I'm gonna ask you this. Was Light Yagami right or was L right? I'm thinking you're a Light guy.

 

[Muffdraul]

For me, it isn't a matter of being "right." The fact is, after going through everything he did in his life vis a vis Sarah and Ellie, Joel was pretty much literally 100% incapable of allowing Ellie to be sacrificed, no matter what it was for. There was no version of reality where he was going to just accept that in order to make a cure Ellie would have to die. "Well, it's for the good of mankind, I guess." That was never going to happen. He lost his daughter, he essentially gained a new one, and we was willing to go to hell if it meant keeping her safe. To him didn't matter if saving her life meant killing every Firefly, or dooming all of humanity, or destroying planet Earth, or literally wiping out the entire universe.

But Joel doesn't exist in a bubble. His love for Ellie doesn't outweigh all of humanity. Personally, I'm not one to do the olympian mental gymnastics required to see Joel as a 100% unimpeachable good guy and the Fireflies as evil. Yes, the Fireflies WERE going to create a cure. Yes, they WERE going to distribute it as much as possible. Yes, their main goal WAS to restore human civilization. That Joel chose Ellie over enabling the Fireflies to cure humanity is what makes his choice meaningful. If the Fireflies are just a bunch of incompetent megalomaniacs, then who gives a fuck?

Joel made a choice at the end of TLOU1, and it was the same choice many parents in this world would probably make. But his choice came with a very large cost to humanity, so it didn't shock or embitter me when his toll came due TLOU2. It was tragic, it was gut wrenching, it was heart rending. That's what made it such an affecting story.

 

[captainnapalm]

The dumbest thing about TLOU2 is how Ellie loses her shit for not being allowed to die - she's basically Jesus, but a really mean one. She's the most selfless angry young lesbian the world has ever known.

 

[RJMacready73]

The dumbest thing about TLOU2 is how Ellie loses her shit for not being allowed to die - she's basically Jesus, but a really mean one. She's the most selfless angry young lesbian the world has ever known.

Eh? She's angry cause her life sucks and her sacrifice could've meant something plus Joel lied

 

[calico]

it was the same choice many parents in this world would probably make

True, but I don't think that element is required for his action to be morally justified. It is effectively the action our current society would expect and demand to be taken on our collective behalf to rescue anyone in the event they have been kidnapped for the purposes of medical experimentation. If one of the kidnappers sought to use violence to resist that rescue attempt, they would -if necessary- be killed to carry out that rescue.

 

[Roman Empire]

Last of Us Part 2 was the most unnecessary sequel in gaming hisotry. It brought nothing of value and divided the whole fanbase due to politics. The Last of Us should have remained a single game, or, if a series, it should have feature a whole different cast and storyline far away removed from anything with the original cast.

 

[Kataploom]

There's no winning here, it is just an opinion, IMO I'd do whatever she wanted me to do, if she wanted to survive, so be it, if she wanted to sacrifice herself, I wouldn't feel compeled to tell her otherwise since the world they're living fucked up anyway

 

[Dr. Samuel Hayden]

If only he had come to this extremely obvious conclusion before making a sequel that completely shat all over the first game

 

[semiconscious]

Last of Us Part 2 was the most unnecessary sequel in gaming hisotry. It brought nothing of value and divided the whole fanbase due to politics. The Last of Us should have remained a single game, or, if a series, it should have feature a whole different cast and storyline far away removed from anything with the original cast.

correct. druckmann came up with last of us as a recently successful newcomer with an interesting idea he'd spent time developing. he came up with last of us 2 after he'd been officially declared a certified genius who could do no wrong. & he proceeded to immediately disprove that, & here we are...

 

[bitbydeath]

There's no winning here, it is just an opinion, IMO I'd do whatever she wanted me to do, if she wanted to survive, so be it, if she wanted to sacrifice herself, I wouldn't feel compeled to tell her otherwise since the world they're living fucked up anyway

She wasn’t intending to die.
She never knew they were planning on killing her.

 

[San Dan Glokta]

Last of Us Part 2 was the most unnecessary sequel in gaming hisotry. It brought nothing of value and divided the whole fanbase due to politics. The Last of Us should have remained a single game, or, if a series, it should have feature a whole different cast and storyline far away removed from anything with the original cast.

It is a single game. Part 2 isn't canon

 

[EverydayBeast]

That’s cute