Support NeoGAF

[GonzoCR]

I found no moral ambiguity in the ending, given that through the game you go through a bunch of Firefly outposts and they're all abandoned; the player is given no reason to believe the Fireflies are competent at anything. The first option they take is just to kill her, reading the tapes I didn't get the impression that a lot of extensive testing was done before getting to that choice. Hell, just the way those two soldiers knocked Joel out when he was no threat to them was incredibly dumb. And exactly what was even the guarantee that killing Ellie even would work?

 

[Cerium]

This again. You realize that this is Naughty Dog's story, so they have the right to continue it as they wish, right?

lmao when did I say they don't have the right? And I have the right to hate it.

 

[PatThePassive]

The ending should have been left as it was.

I'm disappointed that Part 2 continues the same story.

Your not looking forward to battered wife( to far?) Ellie?

This is one of the endings that I disagree the most with, its successful in ruining its characters but I don't think that makes it contender for one of the best endings ever.

 

[ABOVEtheRIM]

I actually thought the ending was great, really looking forward to part 2!

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

I found no moral ambiguity in the ending, given that through the game you go through a bunch of Firefly outposts and they're all abandoned; the player is given no reason to believe the Fireflies are competent at anything. The first option they take is just to kill her, reading the tapes I didn't get the impression that a lot of extensive testing was done before getting to that choice. Hell, just the way those two soldiers knocked Joel out when he was no threat to them was incredibly dumb. And exactly what was even the guarantee that killing Ellie even would work?

There's a guarantee that she is the cure. However, whether fireflies would carry on with that mission is different. They couldn't save the world with what was left of it.

 

[Icolin]

Your not looking forward to battered wife( to far?) Ellie?

This is one of the endings that I disagree the most with, its successful in ruining its characters but I don't think that makes it contender for one of the best endings ever.

The ending makes perfect sense for how the characters acted throughout the story; it stays true to how Joel has acted for the duration of the game, so I don't think it "ruins" the characters at all.

You can disagree with Joel's choice, but it's his choice, and it's a choice that makes sense in the context of his character, and not a sudden turn of heart or anything.

 

[Cerium]

Your not looking forward to battered wife( to far?) Ellie?

This is one of the endings that I disagree the most with, its successful in ruining its characters but I don't think that makes it contender for one of the best endings ever.

After my initial revulsion I actually liked the ending precisely because the point is to make you rethink the characters and question everything you've done. You realize that Joel is a monster, and was a monster, and you've been playing as a bad guy all along. You see his relationship with Ellie in a new and horrifying light; it's purely selfish and possessive. You're not supposed to feel good about it, and I think that's bold storytelling.

But it only holds up because of that hopeless sense of finality at the end. I really think it's a mistake to reopen those wounds unless they intend to provide us with catharsis, meaning an ending where Ellie realizes what Joel did and has to fight him to reclaim control of her own life.

That's the only conclusion I'll now accept.

 

[PatThePassive]

The ending makes perfect sense for how the characters acted throughout the story; it stays true to how Joel has acted for the duration of the game, so I don't think it ruins the characters at all.

I'm talking about Ellie rolling over for Joel, after that whole bit in the winter I thought she was proven strong enough to overcome Joel when they would part ways or "hey I'm not your daughter I gotta live my own life even in this shithole of a world."

I get that they bonded along the trail with all the travel time we don't see, but I don't think that's enough for her to go "okay" .... I guess I'm his daughter now.

I also hate that they dropped the ball and the end but am impressed she is still an example of a strong female character.

After my initial revulsion I actually liked the ending precisely because the point is to make you rethink the characters and question everything you've done. You realize that Joel is a monster, and was a monster, and you've been playing as a bad guy all along. You see his relationship with Ellie in a new and horrifying light; it's purely selfish and possessive. You're not supposed to feel good about it, and I think that's bold storytelling.

But it only holds up because of that hopeless sense of finality at the end. I really think it's a mistake to reopen those wounds unless they intend to provide us with catharsis, meaning an ending where Ellie realizes what Joel did and has to fight him to reclaim control of her own life.

That's the only conclusion I'll now accept.

If it comes full circle then I'll give the second game full props, not the first tho it was still written with the idea that the first end would be the end so it wont be retroactively improved in my eyes

 

[OfTheOverflow]

The fact that a lot of people WOULDN'T have done what Joel did MAKES the ending so good. Every other game ends with the player rooting for the protagonist to achieve their ends, but I think it's brilliant that TLOU puts turns that on it's head and says no, Joel IS a broken and deeply flawed individual who couldn't bear to lose another (surrogate) daughter. You don't have to agree with him, why SHOULD you have to agree with him? Does that objectively make the ending worse if you don't agree with the character's natural motivations?

 

[Venture]

After my initial revulsion I actually liked the ending precisely because the point is to make you rethink the characters and question everything you've done. You realize that Joel is a monster, and was a monster, and you've been playing as a bad guy all along. You see his relationship with Ellie in a new and horrifying light; it's purely selfish and possessive. You're not supposed to feel good about it, and I think that's bold storytelling.

Damn. That's an incredibly dark an cynical way to interpret the ending, but I love that it's one possibility.

It's true Joel didn't give Ellie a choice but as a few people here have already pointed out neither did the Fireflies. She talked about things she would do with Joel once the Fireflies were through with her; it's clear that she did not expect to be killed.

 

[redcrayon]

The idea of letting the Fireflies get away with sedating and then murdering Ellie, without her knowing that she wouldn't survive, for the minuscule chance that their shambles of an operation could gain a viable vaccine and somehow get the resources to manufacture it and the transportation and refrigeration to distribute it, was abhorrent to me.

I'm a dad with a young daughter and the idea that that would be a selfish decision on my part, rather than just parenting, feels inhuman. Even aside from Joel's grief/need/loss in the decision.

What kind of monster do you have to be to coldly consider a child under your protection as just a gambling chip or consumable resource when she naively thinks she'll be walking away from the operation? I couldnt do that to a friend, let alone my child. It's possible to interpret it that it marks him having learned to love again, rather than damning humanity (that requires giving the Fireflies a lot more credit for their abilities than their competence and available tech level dictates) out of selfishness.

I just wonder how many people are so used to 'saving the world' in computer games that they can justify ignoring a child being murdered to facilitate it and still walk away thinking 'you selfish bastard' if Joel doesn't let it happen. That I think is good storytelling, making the 'saving' a complete gamble vs the 100% murder of a child.

As for him lying to her at the end, my take on it comes down to whether you think the parent/child relationship is completely one of equals even once the latter is shown to be equally competent and mature. Even once you have reached 'adulthood', your parents still consider you their kid and would protect you no matter what. I know mine still consider me that way even though I'm pushing 40 and responsible for executing their wills etc!

Personally I think it's slightly out of character that Joel seems so hesitant at the end. When Ellis asks if it went down as he said, I think he would have said yep with no regrets as he's clearly made his mind up seeing as the player has no other choice to find another way.

Still, it's good that people take something different from it.

 

[caliph95]

I found no moral ambiguity in the ending, given that through the game you go through a bunch of Firefly outposts and they're all abandoned; the player is given no reason to believe the Fireflies are competent at anything. The first option they take is just to kill her, reading the tapes I didn't get the impression that a lot of extensive testing was done before getting to that choice. Hell, just the way those two soldiers knocked Joel out when he was no threat to them was incredibly dumb. And exactly what was even the guarantee that killing Ellie even would work?

To be fair i don't think Joel even cares that it would work he just wanted ellie.

 

[Veelk]

If we're starting from the viewpoint that "science works differently" to that degree the conversation becomes meaningless and I'll revert to what I said on page 1, morality is irrelevant here. Joel does what he does because he loves her as a daughter and is a broken man in a broken world. That said I'll argue the point about that Joel's recovery supports your view here. He was given injections of antibiotics directly to the site of infection, and doesn't wake until the next next day (and in a clearly still injured state).

Antibiotics will prevent infection and help with healing, but that kind of damage to your muscles isn't going to let you move normally for weeks on end. I mean, I'm not a doctor, but I know wounds like that don't heal for weeks if not months. There is NO WAY that he would be able to move normally within 24 hours short of nanomachines healing his muscle tissue.

Anyway, your statement feels contradictory. You're saying morality is irrelevant while giving a moral reason for why Joel does it by being based in love and affection. I mean, usually that's a moral stance, unless you mean to say that Joel has been driven insane and can't seperate his love for ellie from rational actions.

"Bloaters" as in multiple would annihilate a riot squad IMO. And beyond that I'm basing assumptions on the fact we have a "zombie" (close enough) apocalypse scenario that's gone on 20 years. I dispute your claim that "once we get rid of that they aren't a real threat". It is more than reasonable to assume that the infected outnumber the non by a massive margin at this point. If we can't agree on that then fair enough, we can agree to disagree and there's no point speculating further. I question how you'd contact these other faction leaders, who using your same logic we have no way of knowing exist (as you put it, now you're making up solutions we don't know exist). There is no communication between whatever groups exist, and we don't know of many.

Bloaters can also be taken down by a single dude throwing a couple cheaply made molotov cocktails. Multiples of them would be hard to take down, but that's when you get multiples of riot squads.

Well, you were the one who suggested that other groups would fight over the cure in the first place. I mean, I imagined that the fireflies were fractured themselves, but even if they're united, they can still reach out to hunter societies to ask for their resources.

And as for communication, we know that exists. Because characters talk. That's communication. Need to communicate long distances but have no technology to do so? Send runners, like how they used to do it in the old days (though i don't see why telephones wouldn't work once they got power back up, which they should be able to do if they happen to get a place with a generator. We see electricity in other places, so we know it exists). I mean, communication isn't the problem, it's having a common goal and room to work together in achieving it.

As for the threat, personally, maybe this is just my opinion, but zombies are some of the least threatening fictional monsters ever. They're basically animals, really stupid, predictable animals at that, whose only threat comes from numbers and the fact that it only takes a small wound for the zombie to win, and if the survivor in question is not prepared to deal with it. You know why few zombie movies ever take place during the downfall of society? Because you'd realize how easy it is to just keep a normal human body away from you, however vicious, with the resources a fully run police or military organization has. And once you remove the ability to turn a person once bitten, they're just a bunch of normal, if vicious, animals. Humanity, with it's intelligence, can easily counter that. I feel humanity would be able to counter that even with the single bite infection, but I suspend my disbelief for that. I cannot do the same if they don't have that advantage. As Joel, you alone kill atleast 200 of them, and god knows how many off screen, as you make your progress through the game. There is no way for humanity wouldn't be able to put them down for me.

I don't actually agree. I think that society falls apart far easier than it is constructed. What might fall apart quickly isn't necessarily rebuilt as quickly. Society is not the default state of nature, even for man.

Again, I fail to see the relevance of this.

Give me a time line of how long you think it would take society to rebuilt, and I can confidently say that there is no number of years you can provide in which society will be in turmoil before finally stablizing again that is greater than "dead forever".

But we already have that, and even with a vaccine we are massively outnumbered by the infected. I think that 20 years in a point of balance seems to have been reached, and that communities like Jackson are the way going forward. I'll grant a vaccine would be helpful in the event of all the unlikely scenarios required for it to actually work came together, but I think humanity is surviving either way.

None of that is sustainable unless we find a way to eliminate the threat that's been eating away at humanity's population numbers. Again, this is a problem all zombie fiction presents, but it's virtually impossible that a zombie virus could actually spread very far before being stopped with our technology level. Therefore, the fiction of zombies relies on the idea that the swarm can overcome any barrier humanity tries to put up eventually. If present day society can fall, Jackson doesn't have a chance and it's just a matter of time before zombies overrun it's measly chain link fence.

Humanity cannot coexist with the virus. Either it has to die, or humanity will.

Again, I think humanity is already surviving, and that the cost of innocent life to chase the fairy tale of a vaccine which requires "science working differently" doesn't add up as moral to me.

I....really don't see how you can read that situation from the game. There are people who have formed defenses, but zombies attack them frequently and often get through. Bill's town, philidelphia, the sewer place, the cannibal survivors, they've all built their walls, but, again, the conceit of zombie fiction is that the zombies only have to win once, with a single bite, and there are functionally an infinite amount of them. Again, this premise isn't really realistic, but it's the conceit of zombie fiction, and every hold out humanity has eventually WILL fall, just because it's statistically impossible to NEVER once make a mistake big enough to let it happen. Bill will eventually get bitten like his partner frank, philedelphia was eventually overrun, the sewer society eventually had a zombie slip. It's only ever a matter of time as long as the virus runs free.

There will still be zombies, and they still massively outnumber us. You have no evidence that your conditions which are so favorable exist either, its speculation for fun and I think my scenario makes more sense and is better supported by the limited evidence presented in the game..

There will still be zombies, but they will die. They will no longer have a way of replenishing their numbers. After that, humanity just has to outlast them, which is much, much easier once you remove their ability to kill you in a single bite. That is an incredibly favorable situation for humanity, one which makes victory a virtual inevitability.

Bloaters can rip your head off, and riot gear wouldn't save you from even a clicker if it got its hands on you. The numbers game is too late to play here, there is no way they don't have it. Roaming squads would still take casualties very, very frequently and even if they aren't reproducing numbers won't go in your favor for generations upon generations to come.

If Joel can take armies of zombies, including bloaters, by himself with a little girl protecting his back, then riot squads won't have much trouble. Infact, bloaters are almost easier to deal with in some ways. They're more vulnerable to fire than any other form of zombie. I once killed one with a flamethrow and he couldn't do anything to me. I'm not saying they'll have a 100% chance of success, but their casualities would be minimal. Clickers CANNOT bite through armor. And even a two man person team makes survival extremely likely because if a clicker does get a hold of you, your partner knocks him off, as is evidence by how gameplay works.

This isn't even a unique thing that Joel can do because he's the main character. Bill works by himself in an entire town filled with zombies and David holds off an entire horde with Ellie. I'm telling you, zombies aren't that tough in general and every fighting character is able to hold off multiples of them Their main threat is their numbers and their ability to kill you in one shallow bite. You take that away, they're just dumb animals.

You keep repeating I have no evidence of the situation, but frankly neither do you and the general tone of the world is somewhat more bleak than you are arguing in my opinion.

Proof of what? You're the one making the claim that there is 'something' preventing people from retaking the land besides zombies. You don't need anything much to rebuild society that on an infrastructural level that we aren't shown that they have. They have electricity and gas (The military can run their cars), they have functional electrical plants (Jackson, all you need is people who know how to work them)...the only problems that I see is food supply, something people complained about at the beginning. But if the only reason that's a problem is zombies, and you remove that, then you suddenly have all this land you can farm again. You need to find ways of setting up walls to protect the enclosure, but, again, that should be easy if the military has access to old tech now.

I'm saying there isn't anything preventing people from rebuilding society once you remove the zombies. That's a negative statement, and it's not possible to prove a negative. That's why the burden of proof is on you. The problems you brought up are perfectly plausible that they could exist, but there is no evidence they do.

My statement only is that zombies are not a threat to an intelligent group of armed and armored humans. For the premise of a zombie apocalypse to work, we have to suspend our disbelief and pretend that zombies can overcome this by growing their numbers with their bites. If we remove that, zombies are just dumb animals. And I just find it absurd to believe that humanity wouldn't be able to take them once they removed that advantage, especially when we have singular characters who we're shown to be able to take down entire hordes of them.

As an aside what a fun thing to debate, thanks for the interesting counter points. I stand by my interpretation of the moral right in the situation but it does make for an enjoyable discussion!

It's definitely an interesting thing to discuss. I disagree with your view of the state of the world in LoU because it relies on too many hypothetical problems that may very well be plausible, but have no real proof it exists. But a lot of the problem is just the inherent weakness of zombie fiction too. I can't think of any situation where I thought it was plausible for a zombie epidemic to break out.

For me, I don't think I ever concluded that killing Ellie would be the moral choice, but it would be the pragmatic one, if the doctors aren't just pulling shit out their asses with the science of making a vaccine. But even if you think saving Ellie is the moral choice, Joel didn't do it for that reason. He did it because Ellie is his reason to survive. I like the guy, but he commits to selfish choices day in and out and has since his very introduction scene. He didn't save Ellie because 'it's right', he saved her because she was his excuse, which is why the final lie to her is significant. Telling Ellie the truth would mean putting risking her pushing him away in some way. So instead he lies, which ironically pushed her away harder than telling her the truth would, because her knowing that he doesn't consider her worthy of the making her own choices, after spending the entire game struggling to get her to view her as an independent worthy of respect, she only became his replacement daughter. You can say that you'd save Ellie, or even that you can understand or relate to Joel's selfishness, but it's not the same thing as it being the moral choice just because the actions would be identical.

 

[PatThePassive]

Damn. That's an incredibly dark an cynical way to interpret the ending, but I love that it's one possibility.

It's true Joel didn't give Ellie a choice but as a few people here have already pointed out neither did the Fireflies. She talked about things she would do with Joel once the Fireflies were through with her; it's clear that she did not expect to be killed.

It was apparent and built up that and some point that Joel and Ellie would eventually part ways and Joels actions show its clearly gonna have to be some level of confrontation.

Ellie Killing that rapist in the winter shows she doesn't want to be a possession and will kill with her bare hands to prevent it (not the same level of possession Joel wants but still)

I don't like the ending because its not anticlimactic on purpose (like No Country for Old Men) its an ambiguous ending to satisfy the most people possible (like inception)

Both are great movies but I like one a lot more than the other because of the ending, and TLOU went for the far weaker ending and is a bad ending in my eyes because of its choice.

I haven't participated in any discussions about this so I wasn't aware there was any other. I thought they made it quite clear what they intended when Joel lied to Ellie and denied her the right to choose her own fate.

Its ambiguous to a fault because people can think OK they are living happily ever after, hopefully TLOU2 grows a pair and doesn't leave another shitty open ending

 

[Cerium]

Damn. That's an incredibly dark an cynical way to interpret the ending, but I love that it's one possibility.

I haven't participated in any discussions about this so I wasn't aware there was any other. I thought they made it quite clear what they intended when Joel lied to Ellie and denied her the right to choose her own fate, and here's the clincher; they made it explicit what Ellie would have chosen. Joel lies to her to keep her against her own will.

 

[squidyj]

It took just 2 minutes for TLOU to go from 9.5/10 -> 8/10 game for me.

Putting me in the room full of the doctors that are the most brilliant minds in the world for that setting who are the pioneers in preserving humanity and forcing me to kill them was stupid. I spent 2-3 minutes trying to get out of the room or bypass the sequence without hurting them. The fact that the game gives you control but still doesn't provide any agency to affect the outcome was so unfortunate. Ruined what would have been a very powerful final hour of the game. If they just kept it a cutscene then I never would have been given hope of invoking a different ending.

Spoiler

I shot one doctor on the toe and it was still instant death....

you weren't in the room. Joel was. That's the whole fucking point.

The idea of letting the Fireflies get away with sedating and then murdering Ellie, without her knowing that she wouldn't survive, for the minuscule chance that their shambles of an operation could gain a viable vaccine and somehow get the resources to manufacture it and the transportation and refrigeration to distribute it, was abhorrent to me.

I'm a dad with a young daughter and the idea that that would be a selfish decision on my part, rather than just parenting, feels inhuman.

The rationalization you provide for your choice in the first paragraph is just that, a rationalization. There is a chance for failure, to be sure, but you interpret the chance for success to be remote based on issues not represented in the text. Remember that this is a fictional world and many of the issues you bring up aren't even hinted at.
Someone else could equally go to great pains to describe the risk of failure as minimal, to point to Ellie's past mentioned resolve to save others even at her own expense, to point to the social decay and prolonged suffering seen throughout the game brought on by these zombies to say that the sacrifice is sad but justifiable and arguably in the spirit of Ellie's own will.

 

[Nickle]

I was actually just going to make a thread about how dull the final act of the game is. The fireflies wanting to harvest Ellie was a mediocre twist, I expected that something much more interesting would happen. After that, nothing particularly interesting happens, you just escape the facility with Ellie and she shows disappointment at Joel for lying about the fireflies. I don't know if it was sequel bait or the devs trying to be profound, but the final conversation was a really boring way to end the game.

 

[Cerium]

you weren't in the room. Joel was. That's the whole fucking point.

Some stories are just meant to make you feel like shit. That doesn't make it a bad story. In fact, it's rather courageous.

 

[Shambalakan]

Last minutes of this game was outstanding (like other parts of it), specially the last seconds and that amazing music!

 

[Cerium]

Also throughout the story many characters reference Joel's history as a bad guy; his own brother abandoned him because of the terrible things he's done. The brilliance of the narrative is that we never see him do anything truly monstrous until the end. We're allowed to think that, okay, maybe he's just misunderstood! Then finally you realize that no, the other characters had it right all along, and Joel really is a monster.

That's what was so powerful to me about the ending. The revelation and the stunning moment of comprehension. It's beautifully twisted.

 

[TheDangerMan]

.

Using Joel as an example of what man can do in a fight against infected is somewhat similar to using what Rambo can do as an example of what a normal soldier can do in a fight, or any action movie hero. It's outside the norm, he is an insane badass in a world of average folk.

As for his wound he suffered it in fall, and the infection took over in winter. I don't have the impression he fell, got an infection, and was cured in 2 days.

The argument about zombie sustainability is a little off track to the main point, as my point is centered on the fact I don't believe making a cure is remotely likely in this world. It's more like a desperate person grasping the last blades of grass as they hang over a precipice. I will say that whether they did come up with vaccine, or if they didn't, the best plan is to just not rock the boat and wait things out. Time will cure the problem of the infected in either case, attacking it is a bad idea no matter your vaccination status.

I think runners would die every time. I think infected, hunters, and people who just don't trust them would kill them on sight. Bill certainly would.

The people who have hunkered down and built defenses are already safe enough. Man isn't in danger to my mind (the fundamental reason I think we disagree, if I thought man was doomed on this path I'd likely change my tune)

The point about Joel was more that I don't think morality has anything to do with what he did, he did what he wanted. I just coincidentally think it was the morally right path.

I don't claim anything other than infected is preventing "retaking the land" (Why do we want to retake the land ? We have enough land for the survivors as is and time will kill the infected). I just think they are a much bigger obstacle than you. Well, them and other men.

The bottom line is neither of us knows how it would play out, but I know that your way involves killing an innocent girl, and mine only involves killing those who meant to. The morality of killing one to save many is shady at the best of times, let alone these circumstances.

 

[redcrayon]

you weren't in the room. Joel was. That's the whole fucking point.



The rationalization you provide for your choice in the first paragraph is just that, a rationalization. There is a chance for failure, to be sure, but you interpret the chance for success to be remote based on issues not represented in the text. Remember that this is a fictional world and many of the issues you bring up aren't even hinted at.
Someone else could equally go to great pains to describe the risk of failure as minimal, to point to Ellie's past mentioned resolve to save others even at her own expense, to point to the social decay and prolonged suffering seen throughout the game brought on by these zombies to say that the sacrifice is sad but justifiable and arguably in the spirit of Ellie's own will.

Yes, and their rationalisation would be far worse in my book as 'resolution to save others at her own expense' presumably didn't mean being agreeable to being kidnapped, sedated and slaughtered on an operating table without having the facts calmly explained one last time in a quiet room, with the opportunity to say goodbye.

We have no idea whether the fireflies can/can't manufacture, refrigerate and distribute enough of this vaccine to make a difference before what's left of society collapses. I think it's doubtful, and arguing the other way is equally full of optimistic assumptions that aren't backed up by what we see on the journey. We do have an idea of whether they are willing to kidnap and murder people to make it happen, and so we discuss whether a) that's justifiable in a broken world and b) what the odds of success are, and whether they justify murder.

Even if someone is suicidal it isn't in any way 'arguably justifiable' to murder them at any point in the future without their express final consent, and it isn't a bad thing, whether someone is your friend or your child, to not want to see them randomly attacked, sedated and slaughtered rather than have some agency in it.

Their actions are brutal, it's just a nice way to justify her murder as 'it's what she would have wanted'.

If it was likely to work, I don't see why they didn't wait a few days, wait for Ellie to calm down (sorry we had to kidnap you, but Joel etc) show her the research, confirm she will definitely die but it will almost definitely help, ask her what she thinks, ask if she wants to leave any final messages. There's no immediate time pressure, it's been 20 years. It's a distasteful but understandable situation. But no, they go straight for sedation/slaughter instead.

 

[brickarts295]

It's definitely one of those ending that leaves you speechless. Took me a while to conclude that Joel took a selfish decision. But honestly after thinking back on the whole journey, I asked myself "Who in the hell is there left to save in that world that's not a psychopath, rapist, cannibal or a killer?'. I'd say fuck it, that world didn't deserve that cure so I think Joel made the right call.

But I still think this whole conundrum could have been avoided if the fireflies (specially Marlene) could have been handle the situation a lot better, I think Joel would have accepted Ellie's fate had they given her the chance to talk to him.

OH WELL you reap what you sow

 

[LotusHD]

I asked myself "Who in the hell is there left to save in that world that's not a psychopath, rapist, cannibal or a killer?

Children? ;D

I had no issues with Joel's decision to save Ellie's life, but it always sort of weirded me out when people say that world is not worth saving at all under any circumstance.

 

[Wozzer]

As someone wth kids; Joel was absolutely me. To hell to the world.

One of the most powerful and memorable endings in video games. I felt it was absolutely perfect, and was in awe at the last moments.

The thread seems to express a difficulty with the two not being treated equally, with emphasis around not following her wishes or lying to her. As a daughter father figure there is no equality, and as a protective figure Joel considers what is best (even if that decision is ultimately selfish).

 

[Venture]

It was apparent and built up that and some point that Joel and Ellie would eventually part ways and Joels actions show its clearly gonna have to be some level of confrontation.

Ellie Killing that rapist in the winter shows she doesn't want to be a possession and will kill with her bare hands to prevent it (not the same level of possession Joel wants but still)

I don't like the ending because its not anticlimactic on purpose (like No Country for Old Men) its an ambiguous ending to satisfy the most people possible (like inception)

Both are great movies but I like one a lot more than the other because of the ending, and TLOU went for the far weaker ending and is a bad ending in my eyes because of its choice.



Its ambiguous to a fault because people can think OK they are living happily ever after, hopefully TLOU2 grows a pair and doesn't leave another shitty open ending

I haven't participated in any discussions about this so I wasn't aware there was any other. I thought they made it quite clear what they intended when Joel lied to Ellie and denied her the right to choose her own fate, and here's the clincher; they made it explicit what Ellie would have chosen. Joel lies to her to keep her against her own will.

The whole possessive angle with Joel is not a feeling I ever had at all. It always felt like a completely two-way, loving relationship to me. I do agree that Joel's one real act of selfishness was lying to Ellie.

 

[bitbydeath]

I think Joel did the right thing, Ellie literally had the world on her shoulders, she couldn't say no and live with herself full well knowing she may be damning the world.

Joel gave her an out and while I don't think she 100% believed him she took it.

 

[brickarts295]

Children? ;D

I had no issues with Joel's decision to save Ellie's life, but it always sort of weirded me out when people say that world is not worth saving at all under any circumstance.

Ah well you got me there. I always forget about children in video games. I do remember that Ellie used to go to school from that prequel comic.

 

[Veelk]

Using Joel as an example of what man can do in a fight against infected is somewhat similar to using what Rambo can do as an example of what a normal soldier can do in a fight, or any action movie hero. It's outside the norm, he is an insane badass in a world of average folk.

No he isn't. He is against human characters, but multiple NPC characters take out huge numbers of zombies.

As for his wound he suffered it in fall, and the infection took over in winter. I don't have the impression he fell, got an infection, and was cured in 2 days.

No, but there's no amount of time he could take where in, after waking up, he can just get up and act normal withing that amount of time. At the very least, his muscles there would be stiff enough that he'd require a long period of adjustment before he could move normally again.

The argument about zombie sustainability is a little off track to the main point, as my point is centered on the fact I don't believe making a cure is remotely likely in this world. It's more like a desperate person grasping the last blades of grass as they hang over a precipice. I will say that whether they did come up with vaccine, or if they didn't, the best plan is to just not rock the boat and wait things out. Time will cure the problem of the infected in either case, attacking it is a bad idea no matter your vaccination status.

Um....no, that's not the impression I got at all. The Infected don't seem to need to eat or anything, so they aren't dying of starvation. If that were true, the infected would never last for 20 years. The vast majority of them would die off after a couple months since they'll eventually run out of humans to infect and replenish. My guess is that they are partially photosynthetic, since they are often just content to just sit in place until they're aggro'd. But no, if they were going to die off, they'd have done so long before the game took place.

I think runners would die every time. I think infected, hunters, and people who just don't trust them would kill them on sight. Bill certainly would.

Well, that's wrong. Joel survives just fine, and while he's a tough son of a bitch, he's not the only one who travels the roads. Henry and Sam do the same thing you do. And the fact that David doesn't immediately shoot you is proof that hunters don't just murder on sight. Worst case scenerio, you'd have to pair runners up so they don't go alone. There will be the risk of bandits, but "every time" Give me a break. Especially if the runner declares his intentions to parley with the hunter leader for something they could actually use.

I know the game as a theme of "Survival of the vicious", but the truth is there is a reason humans band together. You make alliances with the people who could use your help to do something and can give you something in return. That's literally the operation that Joel and Tess were running at the start of the game, not friends with others, but a system of people who make deals to benefit each other. That's how survival works.

The people who have hunkered down and built defenses are already safe enough. Man isn't in danger to my mind (the fundamental reason I think we disagree, if I thought man was doomed on this path I'd likely change my tune)

That is a fundamental disagreement, because to me, it's pretty obvious man's day's are numbered with the situation as is presented.

The point about Joel was more that I don't think morality has anything to do with what he did, he did what he wanted. I just coincidentally think it was the morally right path.

Morality is generally defined by intent (distinct from but often confused with motivation), not action, but otherwise sure.

I don't claim anything other than infected is preventing "retaking the land" (Why do we want to retake the land ? We have enough land for the survivors as is and time will kill the infected). I just think they are a much bigger obstacle than you. Well, them and other men.

...why do we want to re....

What kind of question is that? Land is the ultimate resource. Barring really extreneous and recently developed things like solar energy, it's where we get our everything. If there is a reason why we can't get food, it's because we can't farm the lands we have, if we can't restock on supplies, we don't have the land we need to make them.

It's all land. It's the only reason humanity is suffering from lack of resources of any kind at all. Otherwise, the zombie's existing on the other side of the fence wouldn't be an inconvenience to humanity.

And we don't have enough land because it's established at the very beginning that people aren't getting their rations and that supplies are low on every front. The only place that is doing well seems to be Jackson, but that's only a matter of time before the population grows. It will be a generation or two at longest before they need to expand to mantain homeostasis, but I'm pretty sure they'll be attacked by either bandits or zombies before them.

The bottom line is neither of us knows how it would play out, but I know that your way involves killing an innocent girl, and mine only involves killing those who meant to. The morality of killing one to save many is shady at the best of times, let alone these circumstances.

True, but don't pretend that's consistent with wanting to save the homocidal doctor because 'it's pragmatic' or marlene whose no longer posed a threat. Avoidable deaths could have been prevented if merely trying to save as many lives as possible was Joel's goal.

But again, I don't think we are in equal positions. You have to speculate on problems that would possibly occur, while maintaining despite all evidence to the contrary that humanity is not on borrowed time when it's established again and again that it takes just one, small mistake for the entire society to fall to the zombie epidemic because of their ability to replenish their numbers. You're argument is that humanity can survive perpetually with the zombie horde, but re-establishing society on smaller levels, something so easy that even groups like David's Cannibal Happy Funtime Entourage have already done (there is a piece of dialogue that establishes their group is a democracy, of all things) is just too much? You view just doesn't have much basis in basic anthropology. Societies are easy. Existential threats are the real problem here.

My view speculates on very minor problems they'd have deal with in relation to surviving as a species at best. The only issue is "Can humanity kill off the zombies if they don't have the ability to infect". And yes, there is no reason to believe they can't when Joel AND Bill AND Henry AND David and even freaking Ellie have a considerable zombie kill count. It's not just Joel who can massacre these things, it's everyone. Without the threat of infection...there's just nothing preventing humanity from dealing with them. They're just dumb animals....and I mean that. They have no survival instinct at all, just pure aggression. Do you have any idea how easy that would be to exploit?

Any potential problems that come after can't possibly be anything but human problems. Nothing that threatens our extinction.

The problem is that this isn't what you've actually been arguing. In fact, in this very post, you wrote this:

"(the fundamental reason I think we disagree, if I thought man was doomed on this path I'd likely change my tune)"

So, it's not that you wouldn't sacrifice one life to save a thousand, it's more that your not convinced there is a thousand lives to be saved AND that if there were, you aren't convinced the sacrifice in question would save them. It doesn't seem you're as convinced about it if Ellie dying would have genuinely saved all of humanity from eventually dying.

So you're not Captain Picard here, you're more....which ever character is the skeptic and doubts the authenticity of the sitaution. Idk, I never watched star trek. Edit: also, didn't you say you were comfortable killing soldiers just because it was the pragmatic thing to do, even if you could have snuck around them?

 

[Metal B]

The ending in itself is okay. Joel chouse himself over the world. He is an ass, but this is the point of it.

But there still two big problems.
One is that the game forces a not agreeing to Joel's choice player, through the hardest part of the game. It was really frustrating and too long. Making somebody feel bad, while playing is great, if you have a point. But you really have to pace it right.
Second there is one document, which hints at the possibility, that the Fireflyes wouldn't be able to create an antidote anyway. This completely destroies the dilemma and makes Joel's actons seen right by accident.

For me those points make the ending worse. The only reason I didn't stop playing, was the possibility, that I was allowed to kill Joel at the end, and I was almost over with the game anyway.

 

[bwakh]

I, for one, am glad that Joel didn't end up giving a heroic sacrifice act as in most narratives. His decision felt more real. That's what most people would do for any loved one in their lives. All Joel had was Marlene's word on the surgery. No expert opinion. Nobody would let their precious die because of a vague potential of a vaccine without any proper plan of execution being relayed to them.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

The selfish asshole who had lost everything acted like a selfish asshole who had lost everything and people complain.

 

[maomaoIYP]

Conversely it's weird because Joel did exactly what I wanted him to so I liked the ending.

Same here. I would have done the same thing as Joel. In fact I hated the doctors so much I reloaded the checkpoint just so I could kill the doctors again in the most painful way possible. To me the ending is perfect and I cannot understand the people who hated it.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Same here. I would have done the same thing as Joel. In fact I hated the doctors so much I reloaded the checkpoint just so I could kill the doctors again in the most painful way possible. To me the ending is perfect and I cannot understand the people who hated it.

Agreed. After all the shit he's gone through and seen, it's not hard to imagine that Joel views humanity as not worth saving. In his shoes I'd probably choose a pet over humanity, let alone a daughter figure.

 

[Shai-Tan]

The ending makes perfect sense for how the characters acted throughout the story; it stays true to how Joel has acted for the duration of the game, so I don't think it "ruins" the characters at all.

You can disagree with Joel's choice, but it's his choice, and it's a choice that makes sense in the context of his character, and not a sudden turn of heart or anything.

Where I think it's well done is you could imagine that it's something even he doesn't know how much she's a surrogate for regret and loss he felt about not saving his daughter, saving her where his daughter could not be saved, or was it a self deception that the emotional shell he was hiding in protected that hole in his heart which she came to occupy before the moment that triggered the parallel with his daughter that couldn't be felt until the connection was severed

 

[geordiemp]

You don't have to kill them. Also, where did you get the idea they are the most brilliant minds? Their whole operation looks like total mess and if you read and listen to the audio recordings you can find in the hospital, it's just one failed attempt after another. Thy sound like they have no clue how to proceed in making a cure, really.

This so much, I felt as if they were like back street self proclaimed doctors, nice caring doctor would sit here down and talk about risks and probabilities of a cure and why here sacrifice was worth it. To kill Ellie with 0.01 % chance of success it could have been, or for them to have a poke around in here head, hell no, thats not what I went there for.

The tapes describing the many botched sacrifices did it for me. No way.

 

[TheDangerMan]

The problem is that this isn't what you've actually been arguing. In fact, in this very post, you wrote this:

"(the fundamental reason I think we disagree, if I thought man was doomed on this path I'd likely change my tune)"

So, it's not that you wouldn't sacrifice one life to save a thousand, it's more that your not convinced there is a thousand lives to be saved AND that if there were, you aren't convinced the sacrifice in question would save them. It doesn't seem you're as convinced about it if Ellie dying would have genuinely saved all of humanity from eventually dying.

That's looking at it from your point of view. Mine is that humanity isn't in real danger of extinction here, that we've learned, adapted and are coping with the new world. Thus it literally to my point of view is this exact case. For someone who says I take liberties with available information I'd challenge you to give me one canon example that this isn't the case, and that total doom is neigh.

IF they can make a ridiculously unrealistic vaccine in the least conductive situation possible, then I think you are killing her to potentially save a thousand others, not mankind itself. Even if I truly believed humanity was doomed and she was the only chance we had I'd wake her up and tell her. Marlene seems awfully sure it's what she'd want (and I know it!) for a lady who isn't even willing to give her time to make peace.

I'd also like to disagree on the strongest possible terms with "morality is generally defined by intent". From religious wars, to misguided dictators, to zealots, history is full of evil men who believed their intentions righteous. To argue otherwise is absurd.

 

[Conciliator]

It's the perfect and only ending. Also the message the game is intending to deliver to the player is that the vaccine would work. Perhaps the game fails to communicate that clearly, I don't know, it was clear to me, but that's 100% the intended message. It doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, but neither does zombies(infected, whatever you want to call them). We suspend our disbelief for the narrative in context of the given universe and message it's communicating to the viewer/player. I hope part 2 makes a point to clarify that briefly.

I think Joel did the right thing, Ellie literally had the world on her shoulders, she couldn't say no and live with herself full well knowing she may be damning the world.

Joel gave her an out and while I don't think she 100% believed him she took it.

I don't really agree with this, but I do think it's an interesting, thoughtful read on the ending I haven't heard or considered before.

 

[jadedm17]

You... what? Life isnt happy, Joel is selfish and human.

The ending was perfect and you are crazy for thinking otherwise.

The ending is one of my absolute favorites. Perfect ambiguity.

One and done.

 

[Vilam]

It ruins Ellie as a character! It shows a total lack of disrespect for Ellie as a person from Joel! There's no pay off!

...what? Ellie knows at the end. She accepts what Joel did. The Fireflies had no right to carry out what they had planned for her. The only part of that sequence I would have changed would have been the option to take Ellie and leave without harming the doctor. Overall though, probably my favorite ending to a game ever.

 

[jviggy43]

Youre crazy Op. The ending is probably the best part of the game (or at least on par with that opening). While Joel might have been selfish in his own reasoning, the world that currently exists in this universe, makes it difficult to even argue its worth saving; let alone saving at the expense of a little girl.

Probably one of if not the best endings in gaming for me. The fact that you and I have such different feelings about it solidifies how wonderfully thought out it was.

 

[Veelk]

That's looking at it from your point of view. Mine is that humanity isn't in real danger of extinction here, that we've learned, adapted and are coping with the new world. Thus it literally to my point of view is this exact case. For someone who says I take liberties with available information I'd challenge you to give me one canon example that this isn't the case, and that total doom is neigh.

I don't believe I said that humanity hasn't adapted. But there's adapted isn't mastered, resolved, or eliminated the problem. It just means that they have a higher chance of survival than they would if they continued life as normal, which is obvious, but that doesn't mean their effective at dealing with it.

Bill is probably the most adapted out of anyone, but he's in constant danger of being bitten. It's not that he can't handle himself 9.999 times out of 10, but all it takes a single slip, a single bite, and he's dead. Henry and Sam are from hartford, a place with a military instillation, and which then became overrun. In Pittsburgh, the town is fine, until the destruction of Joel and Ellie's activities creates an opening for the zombies to overrun the town and suddenly Pittsburgh is overrun and uninhabitable. The sewage place that the group came across had notes that literally say "Everything was fine...until one slipped in, then instantly, we're fucked." The mall Ellie and Riley hung out at, until they played music too loud, and suddenly it was overrun.

Listen, what you are suggesting there is that, in the face of a neverending horde trying to get in, nobody ever makes a single mistake ever. That's impossible, and the game illustrates this with many instances of places we personally see that tried to stay as safe as they could, until someone fucked up somehow and it resulted in everyone dying. The introduction after the time skip has someone pointing out that someone fucked up and got infected and snuck in, endangering the entire town, and that's consistently portrayed to be a serious threat through the game. Any place that is not yet over run is in danger of being so at any given moment.

And you're asking for proof that people will fuck up? That is like asking for proof that Ellie would grow taller as she grew older. It's human nature to fuck up. It's going to happen. It's a matter of when, not if. And that would be fine, because life gives you wide margins of errors for the most part. The zombies, however, narrow that down to nothing.

The only way for humanity to survive is to find a truly impenetrable, non-fuck-up-able place. And that does not exist.

IF they can make a ridiculously unrealistic vaccine in the least conductive situation possible, then I think you are killing her to potentially save a thousand others, not mankind itself. Even if I truly believed humanity was doomed and she was the only chance we had I'd wake her up and tell her. Marlene seems awfully sure it's what she'd want (and I know it!) for a lady who isn't even willing to give her time to make peace.

Well, just so you know, that's backtracking completely to what you just said in literally the last post. But again, if you want to play the 'it's unrealistic that this would be that easy angle' (which is a perfectly legitimate angle to take), then the argument is more defendable. But it's unrealistic because we know that vaccines would take a long time to make and they'd need more samples than what Ellie could give, not the made up problems you speculate about like resources we don't know the fireflies are lacking or the inability for the world to stabilize itself.

Also, Marlene doesn't seem sure it's what she'd want. The recording implies she does it out of exhaustion and resignation, and it's implied that it's something the fireflies would have gone ahead with regardless of her consent, so it's hard to get a real read on what her true beliefs were. Me personally, I think she'd have gone with it eventually, but it's not like she's 'sure' of anything here and the recording makes that clear. It's a chance that she's desperate for.

Similarly, people have brought up that the scientists come off as incompetent, but that's not hte case at all. It's established taht they're stuck and haven't made progress in 5 years (though the fact that they made progress 5 years ago by itself implies that there is some merit to their research) and Ellie is specifically said to be different from any other test subject they had. The jump to killing her immediately is pretty drastic and the desperation of the situation may be skewing their judgement, but I see no concrete reason to believe they've lost all semblance of competency as doctors. There's no reason to believe they're advice is wrong except for how we know real world medicine to work, and we know the game takes liberties when it comes to that.

I'd also like to disagree on the strongest possible terms with "morality is generally defined by intent". From religious wars, to misguided dictators, to zealots, history is full of evil men who believed their intentions righteous. To argue otherwise is absurd.

fake edit: I wrote out a response to this, but it's getting way too tangential for the topic of TLoU, entering in general ethics talk, so you can PM me if you want to talk further about this if you want.

 

[StrategyFan]

it should have been a cutscene, but that could be said of any chapter in the game so idk

i don't know if that exact scene needed to be a choice, but i did finish the game and go "that's it?"

 

[AudioEppa]

I absolutely loved the ending of this game. Along with Uncharted 4. Neil is 2/2.


If this game had multiple ways to go about dealing with the news that she will die from surgery. I would always pick killing them all and let the world go fuck itself even more than it already has to save her, my now daughter. I got no problem with games that let us try different ways, I love Telltale. But Naughty Dog Is just one of those studios I hope never goes that route. I 1000% will trust their writing going forward.

Also I'm sure they view people's dislike of the end as a plus. Because either way, be it positive or negative. You're talking about it. A lot of video games get forgotten about easily. TLOU and I'm sure part ll will be talked about for generations to come. Naughty Dogs brand of cinematic storytelling within AAA gaming has set them up nicely as a household name of high quality entertainment.

 

[mrklaw]

Uh... What Ellie's choice? You mean the choice the Fireflies gave her? Oh wait, they didn't give her any. They were so fearful that she would say no, they kept her under. All she remembered was falling in the water and then walking up in Joel's car. Yeah, he totally ignored her non-existent choice.

Ellie is young and idealistic and believes the idea of a cure more than the practicalities of what that means. At no point was her sacrifice mentioned and so she never made a decision on that.

Joel is experienced and world weary. He sees beyond the propaganda and veneer of their promises and sees their desperation overcoming any logic or empathy with Ellie - happy to kill her on the unlikely hope they might get a cure (which has never worked before)

Joel isn't doing this purely selfishly. If it was a guarantee of a cure; if there was a more organised medical team than simply a few docs in a firefly stronghold then he might have behaved differently. Yes I'm sure he was being selfish but I also believe he was acting in the best interests for Ellie too

 

[Metal B]

Also I'm sure they view people's dislike of the end as a plus. Because either way, be it positive or negative. You're talking about it. A lot of video games get forgotten about easily. TLOU and I'm sure part ll will be talked about for generations to come. Naughty Dogs brand of cinematic storytelling within AAA gaming has set them up nicely as a household name of high quality entertainment.

Okay, let's be responsible here. The idea of the ending is okay, but the execution is problematic. The best part is the last scene, where you play as Ellie, since it is a twist in perception.

The actually last level is bad, especially if you don't agree with Joel and have to play through a long hard section to get a crazy, selfish men to his goal.

Actually brilliant would have been a way, where all people could play through this section in a similar mindset, since both parties a tricked into it. For example all the Firefly Soldiers could turn into bandits from the perception of Joel and only in the end we notice, that it just was in Joel's head to justify his actions.

The ending itself wasn't very deep. There isn't much of a complexity other than some people refuse to change. Even after facing the tragedy of others and a possible hope.
The whole story misses this subtle spark and zeitgeist, which could it actually made deep and meaningful. It's overall very on the nose. Still above average for an action story plot.

 

[Cyborg]

I waited what felt like an eternity. I got put the controller down and started texting my friends asking if this was really how it ended. I paced around my house for a few minutes, contemplating just turning off the game.

Dude, its just a game!

 

[*Splinter]

It's a fantastic ending, and intentionally jarring I think.

When gaming, we often take for granted how much control we have over our characters, and having that control suddenly ripped away demonstrated how, as OP described, we were never in control to begin with. It's something that couldn't have been done in any other medium, and probably one of the best endings I've ever experienced.

I often see the sentiment that it's not what Joel should or would have done, but I have to disagree. As a player, we're considering sacrificing an avatar of a character we've known for a few hours, Joel is being forced to sacrifice someone he's known for months and grown to love as a surrogate daughter (after losing his own daughter, no less). It's very easy to say the "right" choice was to sacrifice Ellie for the good of humankind, but I think very very few people would be strong enough to make that choice, and Joel clearly wasn't one of them (which only serves to make him more human, imo).

So then we get to the contentious scene in the operating theatre, in control of our character but no longer in control of our actions (or rather, no longer under the illusion of being in control). A lot of people in this thread expressed frustration at this point, explaining how they had tried desperately to find another way out, and again I think this discomfort was entirely intentional, your struggle to escape or avoid this situation mirroring the struggle within Joel's own thoughts. Surely he would know, as we all did, the "right" answer is to sacrifice Ellie, but he found himself unable to do so. He had lost control of the situation and his actions, as much as the player had.

Eventually you, and Joel, do what you don't want to do. You shoot the doctor that might have saved the world (even though he didn't pose a threat), and run away. You feel betrayed by Naughty Dog, Joel feels betrayed by himself.

You probably felt that this character you had been so in sync with throughout the game has suddenly become distant, that you were no longer able to match their thoughts. I think Joel felt the same.

This ending will probably never be topped for me.

 

[HCgamer]

Beat the game for the first time a couple days ago playing through it again already spotted things I missed first play through. Was Joel lying when he told Ellie there were more people like her?

 

[*Splinter]

A less ambitious writer would simply have given the player the choice.

Most players would choose to sacrifice Ellie since it's "right" and, though she's been important to Joel, she's really just a character we chaperoned via another character for a handful of hours. Ellie V humanity is easy for us. The ending would be a bit sad, Joel obviously a bit down, maybe commits suicide for Impact or whatever, but ultimately it would be a standard sad "noble sacrifice" ending that we've all seen a thousand times.

Or maybe you would choose to save Ellie. Fuck it, it's a fake world. Save humanity, save the girl, whatever. We might try to be invested in the story but ultimately there's always going to be a lack of gravitas behind a decision we're forced to make.

The lack of a choice, the sudden realisation that we aren't in control of the situation, that we aren't "strong enough" to beat this is precisely what made this ending special.